Jesus: Democrat or Republican?

[Bio-logical]

I was having a discussion with a friend specifically about why Christians (devout ones) always seem to vote republican. Both parties pander to them during election time but no matter what they are almost exclusively single issue voters, and that issue is of course abortion. This lead to the following question:

Would Jesus be a Democrat or a Republican if alive in America today?

Of course the logical statement would be neither, he would be independent because neither party follows his word exactly, but the question really is designed to weed out if Christians are doing the right thing by voting Republican, if that party more closely resembles what Jesus taught or not.

I will get the ball rolling by offering the dissenting opinion, I think he would be a Democrat. Jesus was, according to the bible stories, sort of a bleeding heart liberal. He gave food and healthcare to even the most downtrodden in the society, He did not believe in making personal wealth more important than the welfare of others and he was very much against violence in favor of talking it out instead.

What do you think?

[McCulloch]

Huh?

Sorry, Cathar, but I'm having trouble understanding you on this one.

I think I can explain.

In Communism one often reap what others sow.

Unlike your abortion salvation by grace would be reaping what someone else sowed.

I think that Cathar is trying to point out the hypocrisy of a Christian who rails against Communism because it practices reaping what other sow. Isn't the doctrine of salvation by grace and the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus, a form of reaping what someone else sowed?

[Elvis Trout]

Jesus wouldn't support either wholeheartedly. He wasn't about politics. When he was asked about Romans and such he tended to keep his nose clean.

[Easyrider]

Huh?

Sorry, Cathar, but I'm having trouble understanding you on this one.

I think I can explain.

In Communism one often reaps what others sow.

Unlike your abortion salvation by grace would be reaping what someone else sowed.

I think that Cathar is trying to point out the hypocrisy of a Christian who rails against Communism because it practices reaping what other sow. Isn't the doctrine of salvation by grace and the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus, a form of reaping what someone else sowed?

I don't see any hypocrisy there, McCulloch, considering God allowed free will and evil to enter Creation in the first place. I'm of the opinion he had to offer up a measure of salvation to offset the loss of fellowship.

So Cathar's argument fails on that point.

[Easyrider]

Christian giving and living is VOLUNTARY.

I suppose it was the voluntary nature of the sharing that inspired Luke to put the story of Ananias and Sapphira into Acts.

Tsk tsk...

That was an example of Ananias and Sapphira lying, and God's justice.

By the way, speaking of giving:

"Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... l_giv.html

Seems to me the message from that article, and Obama's administration, is that liberals love to give, but mostly WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.

[Cathar1950]

Huh?

Sorry, Cathar, but I'm having trouble understanding you on this one.

I think I can explain.

In Communism one often reaps what others sow.

Unlike your abortion salvation by grace would be reaping what someone else sowed.

I think that Cathar is trying to point out the hypocrisy of a Christian who rails against Communism because it practices reaping what other sow. Isn't the doctrine of salvation by grace and the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus, a form of reaping what someone else sowed?

I don't see any hypocrisy there, McCulloch, considering God allowed free will and evil to enter Creation in the first place. I'm of the opinion he had to offer up a measure of salvation to offset the loss of fellowship.

So Cathar's argument fails on that point.

No, your argument, or should I say your cut and paste job made a poor argument or bumper sticker. I you read Acts where hey all shared in common you wil also see you are now complaining about them too. Free-will, relationship and all that are not the subject, it was about distribution.
Do you claim God gives you something you don't deserve or not?
Now to back out you claim it is all God's fault with free-will and such so he offered an "offset". What kind of double talk is that ?

[MagusYanam]

"Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... l_giv.html

Seems to me the message from that article, and Obama's administration, is that liberals love to give, but mostly WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.

Sorry, but there are lies, damned lies and statistics, and there's no getting around the fact the Brooks-Kristoff hypothesis is biased in peculiar ways. Their measure of 'generosity' seems to be only tax-deductable individual monetary donations to organised charities. It discounts a.) time spent actually working with charities and volunteer NGOs and b.) any charitable contributions made that are not tax-deductible. It also biases in favour of the rich (who have more money to give in the first place, and tend to be more heavily apolitical or conservative), a bias which Jesus certainly did not share.

[Goat]

"Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... l_giv.html

Seems to me the message from that article, and Obama's administration, is that liberals love to give, but mostly WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.

Sorry, but there are lies, damned lies and statistics, and there's no getting around the fact the Brooks-Kristoff hypothesis is biased in peculiar ways. Their measure of 'generosity' seems to be only tax-deductable individual monetary donations to organised charities. It discounts a.) time spent actually working with charities and volunteer NGOs and b.) any charitable contributions made that are not tax-deductible. It also biases in favour of the rich (who have more money to give in the first place, and tend to be more heavily apolitical or conservative), a bias which Jesus certainly did not share.

I wonder if it also takes into account 'tithing' to the church, which seems to be promoted, expected, and a lot of it goes to running the church, and paying the pastor.

[East of Eden]

Christian giving and living is VOLUNTARY.

I suppose it was the voluntary nature of the sharing that inspired Luke to put the story of Ananias and Sapphira into Acts.

Tsk tsk...

That was an example of Ananias and Sapphira lying, and God's justice.

By the way, speaking of giving:

"Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... l_giv.html

Seems to me the message from that article, and Obama's administration, is that liberals love to give, but mostly WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.

You nailed it. Obama, Gore, & Clinton gave next to nothing to charity, although I do recall Clinton deducting used underwear given away.

[East of Eden]

He seemed to think that charity should be an individual matter, and never made any indication that the poor ought to be cared for by the State; that would make him a Republican. He did not advocate violence; that would make him a Democrat. He seemed to believe in the equality of all races; that would have made him a Republican in Lincoln's day and up till the 60s, and a Democrat today. He advised his followers to carry swords, which would make him a Second Amendment advocate and a Republican (and there are a lot of single-issue voters on that issue too); he did not actively oppose slavery, which is not characteristic of either party today, though when it WAS an issue in American history, that would have made him a Democrat.

I believe the Republicans were the anti-slavery party in Lincoln's day.

[East of Eden]

"Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... l_giv.html

Seems to me the message from that article, and Obama's administration, is that liberals love to give, but mostly WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.

Sorry, but there are lies, damned lies and statistics, and there's no getting around the fact the Brooks-Kristoff hypothesis is biased in peculiar ways. Their measure of 'generosity' seems to be only tax-deductable individual monetary donations to organised charities. It discounts a.) time spent actually working with charities and volunteer NGOs and b.) any charitable contributions made that are not tax-deductible. It also biases in favour of the rich (who have more money to give in the first place, and tend to be more heavily apolitical or conservative), a bias which Jesus certainly did not share.

Lots of Christians do donate significant time to charitable causes. The book in question is about charitable financial giving, which Christians do more of.