(no message)
I don't think your view of social justice and unregulated open borders is required by the teachings of Christ, but it is allowed for the most part, so I'm willing to accept that if you support a constitutional amendment to define legal personhood to begin at conception, support for which is, I think, required by the teachings of Christ.
What say you?
I think your policies will eventually destroy the viability of the United States as a power for good in the world, which is why I generally oppose them. I think we have a duty not only to the current generation, but to future generations, and I think your economic policy ignores that, and will lead to the bankruptcy and failure of the US as a viable state. But, I am willing to risk that to save lives now, and deal with that problem later.
As you say, Jesus rocks. Do you really want Christ to be the controlling factor in American politics? Or, are you cynically trying to use Jesus to win a political point?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
I'm just asking if you want to embrace all of his teachings, and not just the half that you like.
(no message)
like it, but it’s a necessary evil”. That argument can be used to rationalize violating every teaching of Christ.
People advocating the wall can say the same thing.
You are not representing yourself well when you imply that you want Jesus’ teaching dictate policy because you don’t. You are simply using Christ’s teachings when it is convenient for your political viewpoint.
(no message)
(no message)
1) Accuse others of that which you yourself do.....
-you link a preachy, judgmental religious post while at the same time you rip evangelicals for doing the same
2) Claim noble traits in others for yourself without actually qualifying for them.
- you claim to believe in life while actively marching and voting (and perhaps contributing money?) in support of allowing people to kill an unborn baby for reasons of preference or quality of life.
(no message)
You can’t earn God’s grace by reciting doctrine? Crazy. That just may be Good News (Gospel)
Seriously, this NYT shit of use & abuse of Christianity has been in Democrat playbook for as long as I can remember.
less likely that Jesus would kick you square in the balls for your support of Diaper Don. Better yet, do you think he'd kick Little Hands in his nut sack given his hypocritical life choices?
Fake news of the bible.
I'm not an evangelical, but I'm just curious what you might be talking about.
When liberals criticize believers for not following Jesus, it is usually because liberals think Jesus was preaching about the use of government power, when really he was preaching about how to convert an individual's soul through, among other things, personal charity. Personal charity (and helping the poor) is the tool, not the goal.
He wasn't saying what governments should do with the power they have. He wasn't saying what individuals should do with other people's wealth. He was saying what individuals should do with their own wealth...again, as a means to an end.
If he was interested in feeding the poor, he would have spent more time discussing government social justice policy. But, his only comment on that was to acquiesce to government, not use it actively: "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's."
Instead, he was interested in using the act of private charity for the poor (among other tools) to convert the souls of both the giver and the receiver of the charity.
Using government force to take money from one group of people and give it another group of people is not an act of charity which converts (i) the soul of the voter (because they are actually taking from others), (ii) the soul of the receiver (because they are entitled to the entitlement), nor (iii) the soul of the person actually providing the wealth (since the wealth is being taken from them as a legal obligation, at the point of a gun by the government).
(no message)
....since all people today are sinners, they are hypocrites if they mention God’s teachings. But instead of understanding that the truth of Christ’s teachings are true regardless of this fact, and that we all need to keep striving toward them, Christian critics wrongly criticize any for advocating those teachings. Instead, the want those teachings to never be mentioned, and the hypocrisy fallacy offers a convenient argument - as long as they don’t think too much about it.
Praise Jesus and stab your neighbor in the back. Keep up the good work Baron.
(no message)
(no message)
Link: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/hypocrite-meaning-origin
Fit in your pocket. Lord have mercy.
Trust me, it's a awesome burden always being right.
(no message)
(no message)
A hypocrite is usually a sinner, but a sinner is often not a hypocrite.
Can’t see him being in favor of the border wall. Also, he said, feed my lambs. That’s not directed to govt or private charity, but to society in general.
You really want to keep him out? If you listen to his teachings that’s what we are doing.
I’m not advocating open borders, and honestly if we followed all of the man’s ways, we wouldn’t have a functioning society. But the evangelicals make me sick with their selective version of Christianity.
To the extent we want to find out how evangelicals formally deviate from Christ's teachings, we have to find a teaching he espouses, and then find a formal teaching of the evangelicals that contradicts that.
ND1IRISH probably knows that is a major challenge for several reasons (one being the lack of formal evangelical doctrine), but he is nonetheless comfortable making a sweeping accusation because it suits him politically.
It is possible that many evangelicals support Trump because of the border wall because they don't really want to engage in private charity as they are called to do. Is that hypocrisy? Or is it sin? Hypocrisy can be sin, but sin is not always hypocrisy.
It is also possible that many Catholics support abortion rights because they don't want to step up and live a Catholic life, and they don't want the burden of living with a child they created. Is that hypocrisy? Or is that sin?
In my experience, it is usually sin...that is, an inability to live up to a standard that one knows is valid in their heart of hearts, because it is too difficult for them. Or, it could be ignorance of their own value system. I think hypocrisy is actually very rare.
What if a majority of those evangelicals support missions to Mexico to help people there with health services and sanitation and food and religious training?...and host migrant families in their community? Are the evangelicals still xenophobic racists for supporting the rule of law in the United States? There is a lot at play here.
challenge their hypocrisy would in itself be an act of hypocrisy. I just have a problem with people praising Jesus and simultaneously fucking their neighbor up the ass. Kind of silly, huh?
that. Some do, but many more don’t IMHE.
Nor are they obligated to do so by their doctrine.
Again if they follow the teaching of their lord and savior, by keeping out the illegal poor, they are keeping Jesus out.
That's a lot of work...going every Sunday...just to wrap yourself in the mantle of something you don't believe in. What an awful life that would be.
They wouldn’t recognize their lord and savior if they tripped over his homeless body outside the Church.