The bodies aren't even cold yet....

Today's liberal positions are yesterday's radical positions which will be tomorrow's conservative positions.

The people who are conservative today would, with the same positions, have been considered quite liberal years ago.

 

God is not conservative. He is radical. Conserving resources and reducing waste may be part of His way. </font>[/QUOTE]Ah...semantics. and we thought love made the world go round.

JamesJ was simply comparing two (2) idealogies, one based in socialism, the other in freedom of individuality, and did a fine job of it.

God obviously loves conservatism and hates liberalism. But that's just me.

 

A case can be made for that, but as I reflect on my own history, I have remained a stedfast Christian conservative for over 40 years, even though your observations do reflect upon my chosen party, the GOP. (tongue only partly in cheek.)

 

I agree. God said in Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not;

Liberals want constant change, even in the way God is to be worshipped. They want to change His Word, they want to change the means of salvation, they deny the Virgin Birth, they deny the diety of Jesus Christ, and eventually they get around to denying God.

But this is nothing new. God was constantly chastizing the Israelites for introducing pagan practices into the designated true worship. God speaking through the prophet Jeremiah tells us [Jeremiah 6:16 ]:

Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

How far Baptists have departed from the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. [Jude 1:3]

 

I'd say it's a lukewarm idea.

 

absolutely great post! </font>[/QUOTE]Will only conservative Republicans enter the kingdom of Heaven? Chapter and verse please.

 

I have to add to that, only conservative Republicans who support all of the U.S. wars and are against any government funded to feed, clothe, provide medical care and house poor people. Interesting that these last four are mentioned by Christ as the criteria for the Judgement in MA 25 but they don't seem to make it into Republican "family values."

Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
Mat 25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
Mat 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Mat 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Mat 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me.

Are Republicans missing the real moral values? Read the Bible.

 

Yes. Jesus clearly states we are to feed the poor and nurse the sick. Which is what the Christian community does, and I believe the largest contributors of humanitarian aid are Conservative Christians. Jesus said nothing about taking money from the Romans (who were rulers at the time) and dispersing it among the poor and sick. To use His words as a basis for national policy is a liberal concept and even blurs the "line" liberals have placed between Church and State. So there.

 

But if the churches were supported by their members as they should be, and spending money on the poor and sick were more of a priority than building new churches and fellowship buildings, then the government wouldn't have to provide a safety net for the poor and the sick.

 

Of course, I agree with your statement to a degree, Rock Rambler. And if the church took care of the widows and orphans, there would be no need for social security and orphanages.

But even, for the sake of argument, EVEN if the Church did all of the above, the liberals would say that it is unconstitutional because of the "wall" between church and state. See? Even in humanitarian efforts made by religious organizations abroad, it is the liberals who cry foul and accuse the religious organizations of having strings attached (like presentation of the Gospel) in order for the aid to be given out.

My argument to that is that when Jesus fed the multitude with the loaves and fishes, He was preaching the Gospel.

So, having come full circle, when one looks at the various pros and cons, one can reasonably conclude that Jesus is a conservative and that feeding the poor and healing the sick are conservative ideas, quite different from redistribution of wealth, a liberal concept.

 

That would depend on why it was being done...

If for the good of the people who pay the taxes then perhaps. If for the good of the poor in those countries perhaps.

To prop up an illegitimate gov't or garner power for our own "political" class which we shouldn't have anyway, then no.

 

I am conservative only in the sense that you have to apply the breaks before making a U-turn. I would much rather see us return to our libertarian roots with real reductions in the size, scope, and power of the federal government over the lives of the sovereign individuals of this nation.

 

I said that exact same thing once, and got called a liberal religionist for it. Go figure.

The difference between real (not political) conservatism and liberalism is that real conservatism does not force righteousness through legislation. True conservatism does not mandate the populus (via legislation or taxation) to combat things like poverty, homelessness, etc. Neither does it mandate the populus (via legislation or taxation) to attend worship regularly, to donate a percentate of their time and income, to be a good smaritan, to refrain from taking the name of God in vain, to refrain from coveting, etc. True conservatism leaves the compelling of righteousness to the individual, and does not try to accomplish it through legislation.

 

Please cite the scripture that indicates the virtue of forcing someone else to provide food, clothing, medical care, or housing to the poor. Plenty of text that make it the responsibility of individuals to give of their own... but I don't know of a single one that empowers us to use OPM.

No. They aren't. Stealing is never condoned by scripture regardless of the purpose. And it is just as much stealing to use a vote to empower the guns of the IRS to redistribute the wealth of the unwilling to the unworthy as if you went to your well to do area and visited each home with a gun to demand 50% of their income so you could give it to the poor. In fact, you doing so directly would be less immoral since you would probably show more discernment over who gets the money than the government is.

This text says nothing to the effect that one should steal by proxy the wealth of others and give it to the poor. If speaks to individuals. The fact that you see one group that you think has too much and another that you think has too little and believe that the wealthy should give to the poor doesn't give you a moral right to force them to do so.

And in case you were wondering, conservatives give more to charity than liberals.

So yes, in as much as the Republicans are a conservative leaning party, they represent "real moral values" by emphasizing personal responsibility and personal generosity.

 

I said that exact same thing once, and got called a liberal religionist for it. Go figure.

The difference between real (not political) conservatism and liberalism is that real conservatism does not force righteousness through legislation. True conservatism does not mandate the populus (via legislation or taxation) to combat things like poverty, homelessness, etc. Neither does it mandate the populus (via legislation or taxation) to attend worship regularly, to donate a percentate of their time and income, to be a good smaritan, to refrain from taking the name of God in vain, to refrain from coveting, etc. True conservatism leaves the compelling of righteousness to the individual, and does not try to accomplish it through legislation. </font>[/QUOTE]Woooooohooooooo!!!! John nailed it.

 

When a need is communicated to "the church", Christians pour funds into relief, ie. Katrina and the Tsunami.

If the government didn't do it and the press actually did its constitutionally consistent job of communicating the need then I believe there would be considerably more funding to poverty relief in our nation and it would be wisely spent rather than wasted as it often is now.

Further, those who received it would be receiving charity (active love) and not an "entitlement". It is ungodly in the extreme to teach people that they are "entitled" to something they didn't earn. Many poor have learned this lesson and when gov't refuses to steal for them... it is a pretty easy conclusion to go steal it for themselves... they are entitled to the wealth of those who have too much anyway, aren't they.

There should be no shame in receiving charity with thanks... certainly less shame than receiving stolen goods.

Further, depending on charities for poverty relief will almost certainly come with the type of moral, spiritual, and educational training needed to get the person permanently out of poverty. It will also come with the discernment to see when someone is attempting to scam their way through and give them the "tough love answer NO" that they need.

 

Lady Eagle and Scott J...I see where both of you are coming from and agree completely. Yes...ideally the churches would support the poor, sick, homeless, etc but even if that day comes...some will still want more.

Its like when two of my children call home asking for money because "they need to pay the bills". I always ask first, "Have you still got cable tv and a cell phone"??? When they say yes, I let them know to make it on their own.

 

That is exactly why government should not be in the business of redistributing wealth. The government cannot use the wisdom you expressed.

As far as some wanting more, that's where they must learn to earn their living by the sweat of their own brow. You are correct in the notion that the relatively objective biblical term "poor" has been perverted in our society to mean those who don't have all they want.

Poverty is a state of neediness... not unfulfilled desire.

 

absolutely great post! </font>[/QUOTE]Will only conservative Republicans enter the kingdom of Heaven? Chapter and verse please. </font>[/QUOTE]Hazzeria 1:1 Thou shalt not enter nirvana if thou be a liberal.

 

Here's one:

Isaiah 32:[5] The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful.
[6] For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.