Christianity is now useful to Dems

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

I listen to a fair amount of NPR and what I've noticed recently is that the station seems to be trying to hang Christians with their own beliefs. Somehow it is un-Christian to be for border and immigration control. Many of the recent interviews on the station are of Christians that support Trump's immigration policies. NPR goes out of their way to highlight their Christianity while delivering the interview in a style and tone that depicts "hypocrisy". They intimate that the 'Christian choice' is to allow any and all immigration.

It is not hypocritical to be a Christian and want the border and immigration controlled.

MSM seem to want to employ the same tactic against ACA. If you're a Christian, you should want to make sure everyone has health care. Your faith implores you to take care of everyone.

They don't seem to want to highlight these same Christian values when it comes to abortion and gay marriage. They want to keep the conversation oh so secular when discussing these topics.

They also seem to go out of their way to paint the crowd of immigration control supporters as a bunch of bible thumping rural hicks. Seems like they try very hard to stay away from any urban supporters of immigration control.

It's this sort of selective reporting that get's them labeled as 'fake news'. While I take issue with the catchy labeling of 'fake news' there certainly is a point when your coverage becomes so stilted and obviously crafted to influence rather than inform....that 'fake' may be the only label left.

 

[Seattle Husker]

NPR is Christian?

I'm not a practicing Christian so I'd love to hear your viewpoints on how you reconcile an anti-immigration and anti-ACA stance with your Christian beliefs. I see quotes from the Pope where he infers you can't be Christian and be anti-immigration. Can you enlighten us on your viewpoint?

 

[iatrogenic]

To be a Christian, you have to believe that Jesus Christ is your savior. The rest is all background noise.

 

[Horn6721]

Husker
Even you know the issue is Not immigration but ILLEGAL immigration.
Abd it is not anti health care but anti the Obama care system
You didn't fool anyone phrasing it that way.

 

[Joe Fan]

I listen to a fair amount of NPR and what I've noticed recently is that the station seems to be trying to hang Christians with their own beliefs. S.....

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

I think they hate Christians. Deeply
I think it partially explains their misguided but consistent defense of Islam. They see it as another form of sticking it to Christians.

Sometimes it is hard to tell who is more filled with hate. American lefties or hardened jihadis.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Husker
Even you know the issue is Not immigration but ILLEGAL immigration.
Abd it is not anti health care but anti the Obama care system
You didn't fool anyone phrasing it that way.

Uh...didn't y'all just try to put a stop to the legal immigration for refugees? I must have been debating with someone else about vetting procedures.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

I think they hate Christians. Deeply
I think it partially explains their misguided but consistent defense of Islam. They see it as another form of sticking it to Christians.

Sometimes it is hard to tell who is more filled with hate. American lefties or hardened jihadis.

It's a "war of civilizations", right?

 

[Joe Fan]

It's a "war of civilizations", right?

I dont know what you guys are calling things now
You guys change the meanings of words so often, it is too much work to keep up

 

[Seattle Husker]

I dont know what you guys are calling things now
You guys change the meanings of words so often, it is too much work to keep up

That's Steve Bannon's quote. I assumed you subscribed to his world view.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

I'd love to hear your viewpoints on how you reconcile an anti-immigration and anti-ACA stance with your Christian beliefs.

Pretty simple, personally. People follow Christ. Governments do what governments do. We don't have a "Christian" nation, as we've been told over and over again. The government can't do my charity. Christians are called to do good deeds and help those in need. None of that requires abandoning the concept of being a sovereign nation with laws, borders and limits on allowing anyone who wants to become a citizen to do so.

The problem is that ideologues claim that if you aren't for basically unlimited immigration from any and every country, that means you don't think we should help refugees. It's dishonest, but hey, that's how people talk about politics now, right?

 

[horninchicago]

Uh...didn't y'all just try to put a stop to the legal immigration for refugees? I must have been debating with someone else about vetting procedures.

Temporary halt to get a handle on and improve the vetting process, but you knew that. No one, including the president, in his or her right mind, has advocated a stop of legal immigration.

 

[Horn6721]

Thank you hinchicago
Husker thinks he/she is being cute pretending to be confused.
The pretense crap has gotten old.

 

[old65horn]

Your faith implores you to take care of everyone.

Correct me if I'm wrong, which I am confident you will. Wasn't part of Jesus's message to take care of the children, the sick and the poor? Maybe you can point out the part of your platform that address these issues. I love it when you say you have a corner on Christianity. There is a reason the founders separated church and state. You love to quote the founders, you are just selective.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Correct me if I'm wrong, which I am confident you will. Wasn't part of Jesus's message to take care of the children, the sick and the poor?

Absolutely. With all due respect to iatrogenic, I don't buy the premise that if you believe in Jesus Christ as your savior, you're a Christian and that everything else is background noise. A true follower of Christ is known by his fruits. Accordingly, if you claim to be a Christian and act like a heathen or have a heart of stone for children, the sick, and the poor, I'm going to be skeptical of your claim to be a follower of Christ.

However, where the Left goes wrong is when they presume that you can't help the poor, the sick, and children other than through a secular government. Keep in mind that helping others is a spiritual matter as well as a financial and material matter, and that really can't be done by the government when a separation of church and state is required. (BTW, the concept of keeping church and state separate is a good thing - both for the state and the church.)

In addition, the biblical charge to aid others isn't unconditional and does impose a biblical lifestyle on those helped. If they are lazy or exploiting generosity, then they should not receive help. See 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12. The government can't hash that out very well, because it doesn't actually know the people it tries to help. The church does know them and can hash that out.

I dream of the day when there is adequate funding for schools and healthcare and the air force has a bake sale to buy a new bomber.

I've always been curious about this slogan, so I decided to look to see if whether education or the military receives higher financial priority. In 2016, we spent 3.22 percent of GDP on national defense. We spent 3.58 percent on primary and secondary education. Obviously, one can always argue that we should spend more on education. I'm sure that the education system's appetite for money is pretty much insatiable. They'll take and spend whatever the taxpayer is willing to give them. However, just looking at the numbers, the education system would not want to be prioritized as low as the military is. Just sayin'.

 

[Horn6721]

MrD
That 3.22 billion is for only fed dollars ?Wonder how much it is when you ad in State and local?
These points you made addressed areas rarely addressed;
1However, where the Left goes wrong is when they presume that you can't help the poor, the sick, and children other than through a secular government.

And this one may be the most important.
2.In addition, the biblical charge to aid others isn't unconditional and does impose a biblical lifestyle on those helped. If they are lazy or exploiting generosity, then they should not receive help.

That is a difficult requirement for many to accept. There will be those who insist aid should be given without conditions. I am not particularly religious but I think if one receives taxpayer money one should make some progress toward bettering themselves with the goal of not getting benefits. Obviously there will be some people for which this will not be possible but the number of those people is small and manageable compared to the able bodied who have a life supported by other taxpayers.

 

[Mr. Deez]

That 3.22 billion is for only fed dollars ?Wonder how much it is when you ad in State and local?

It's 3.22 percent of GDP (not billions of dollars), which includes federal, state, and local money.

What it doesn't include is higher education money.

 

[Horn6721]

Ah reading comprehension must be a wonderful thing.
thanks

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

NPR is Christian?

I'm not a practicing Christian so I'd love to hear your viewpoints on how you reconcile an anti-immigration and anti-ACA stance with your Christian beliefs. I see quotes from the Pope where he infers you can't be Christian and be anti-immigration. Can you enlighten us on your viewpoint?

First, I would say that I'm not anti-immigration nor anti-healthcare. My issues with the dems practices with both is that they let their mouths write checks that they couldn't cash. ACA is not flawed in its intent but in its execution. When I write on immigration, it is not to criticize all immigration but the uncontrolled immigration we have now. It is on the utter failure to structure policy and enforcement to prioritize American citizens first and the international community second.

My initial post was as much about NPR's biased use of Christians as foils in their influence campaign as anything else.

In my personal deliberations I can use an analogy of Thanksgiving dinner. If my kids call me from college a week ahead of time and ask to bring two lonely classmates to Thanksgiving with them, I would happily agree and I would consider it not only friendly but Christian to have done so. If my kids rolled up the day of Thanksgiving with a dozen people that strolled into my house, helped themselves to my refrigerator, helped themselves to the head of the line, pissed on the toilet seat and didn't clean it up, and then demanded that we switch the Cowboys game to a cricket match...I'd tell them to get out and don't come back. And I wouldn't consider it un-Christian to have done so.

Even my charity with my own children will have it's limits. If my kids get out of school and pursue a course where they are regularly calling dad to bail them out of a financial jam, there will be a point where the charity ends.

I'm not theologian but in my "faith-brain", I will give what I can, after I've taken care of my family. In my "secular-brain", I want it to be me who decides what, when and to whom I give...not the government.

Our immigration system not only allows, but encourages uninvited guests that show up and then demand we give them our portions. I'm not anti-immigration, I'm simply for a system of rules that we actually enforce that first ensure our safety and economic well-being.

 

[iatrogenic]

Absolutely. With all due respect to iatrogenic, I don't buy the premise that if you believe in Jesus Christ as your savior, you're a Christian and that everything else is background noise. A true follower of Christ is known by his fruits. Accordingly, if you claim to be a Christian and act like a heathen or have a heart of stone for children, the sick, and the poor, I'm going to be skeptical of your claim to be a follower of Christ.

Not that I want to get in a big discussion about this, but fortunately for you, me, and everyone else that wants to believe, to be a Christian is to repent and to believe in Christ. Even murderers will be saved if they turn away from sin and have faith that Christ is the only savior. Good works, no matter how many you perform, will not result in everlasting life.

 

[iatrogenic]

First, I would say that I'm not anti-immigration nor anti-healthcare. My issues with the dems practices with both is that they let their mouths write checks that they couldn't cash. ACA is not flawed in its intent but in its execution. When I write on immigration, it is not to criticize all immigration but the uncontrolled immigration we have now. It is on the utter failure to structure policy and enforcement to prioritize American citizens first and the international community second.

My initial post was as much about NPR's biased use of Christians as foils in their influence campaign as anything else.

In my personal deliberations I can use an analogy of Thanksgiving dinner. If my kids call me from college a week ahead of time and ask to bring two lonely classmates to Thanksgiving with them, I would happily agree and I would consider it not only friendly but Christian to have done so. If my kids rolled up the day of Thanksgiving with a dozen people that strolled into my house, helped themselves to my refrigerator, helped themselves to the head of the line, pissed on the toilet seat and didn't clean it up, and then demanded that we switch the Cowboys game to a cricket match...I'd tell them to get out and don't come back. And I wouldn't consider it un-Christian to have done so.

Even my charity with my own children will have it's limits. If my kids get out of school and pursue a course where they are regularly calling dad to bail them out of a financial jam, there will be a point where the charity ends.

I'm not theologian but in my "faith-brain", I will give what I can, after I've taken care of my family. In my "secular-brain", I want it to be me who decides what, when and to whom I give...not the government.

Our immigration system not only allows, but encourages uninvited guests that show up and then demand we give them our portions. I'm not anti-immigration, I'm simply for a system of rules that we actually enforce that first ensure our safety and economic well-being.

In your analogy, your varying sympathy is understandable. First, we all have stronger sympathy for our family members than for strangers. Also, our sympathy is governed by the "cost" of carrying out that sympathy in the form of benevolence. As your children begin to cost more, your sympathy for their plight decreases as does your benevolence. Your sympathy toward strangers such as your children's college friends is much more limited, and your benevolence disappears much quicker. That is human nature.

Our sympathy toward immigrants (strangers) is much more limited than it is for our families, ethnic group, religious group, and even people in our community and country. Some liberals, as exhibited by posters on this board, repeatedly and correctly state that the possibility that they will be the victim of a terrorist act is low. Therefore, they are okay with the possibility of a terrorist act occurring and harming others if we act in a benevolent manner and let immigrants, some of whom may be terrorists, enter the U.S.A. In other words, the personal cost they may have to pay for letting immigrants into the country from terrorist hotbeds is low.

Their pro-immigrant position is probably due to a number of reasons in addition to the low probability that their personal safety will be violated. Helping someone in need has psychological benefits such as avoiding guilt and shame and reducing stress. Appearing to others to be a good person (praiseworthy) is a factor. Another reason is that the monetary cost of caring for these immigrants will be dispersed among the current and future citizens of our country, and not be borne by them to any material extent; Their tax rate won't increase any time soon, and they won't be individually required to donate funds to help the immigrants.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Not that I want to get in a big discussion about this, but fortunately for you, me, and everyone else that wants to believe, to be a Christian is to repent and to believe in Christ. Even murderers will be saved if they turn away from sin and have faith that Christ is the only savior. Good works, no matter how many you perform, will not result in everlasting life.

You are correct, but I didn't say that good works save anybody or that a person who has performed bad acts can't be saved. You can be a murderer and be saved. However, a true repentance is going to mean turning away from sin and at least making a good faith effort to live according to God's word. I don't believe a defiant sinner is saved, because I don't believe he has actually repented. For example, you can be a murderer and be saved, but can you be saved if just keep on murdering people with total disregard for the biblical charge against murder? I don't think so, because I don't think your repentance is likely sincere.

 

[iatrogenic]

You are correct, but I didn't say that good works save anybody or that a person who has performed bad acts can't be saved. You can be a murderer and be saved. However, a true repentance is going to mean turning away from sin and at least making a good faith effort to live according to God's word. I don't believe a defiant sinner is saved, because I don't believe he has actually repented. For example, you can be a murderer and be saved, but can you be saved if just keep on murdering people with total disregard for the biblical charge against murder? I don't think so, because I don't think your repentance is likely sincere.

Agreed.

I also agree that Christians are recognized by their good works.

 

[Crockett]

I will say that the public face of Christianity ... the part that makes the news ... comes across a judgemental, self-righteous and angry -- a lot more Phairasee-like than Christ-like . That's hardly a fair way to characterize the church. I've been attending regularly for five decades and the people with whom I worship are seldom as dour as "Christian right" leaders I see on the talking head shows.
If your read the New Testament and what Christ preached about ... caring for the sick and hungry was emphasized. Gay sex, never mentioned. Divorce was adressed unambiguously, but the church today is much more tolerant over divorcees (hey I'm one) than gays.

People pick up on different messages in Christ's teaching and are inspired in different ways. That's not bad. Christianity has played a big role in fighting poverty and injustice, slavery, exploitation, women forced into prostitution. I think we should be careful when we talk about how genuine somebody's beliefs are. We should test it against scripture rather than our own sensibilities.

 

[Horn6721]

Croc
You make a good point that Christianity as portrayed by the media is has been distorted for the Media's agenda.
And your point about Christians helping others versus media and others who think only government can help others is well taken.

 

[Mr. Deez]

If your read the New Testament and what Christ preached about ... caring for the sick and hungry was emphasized. Gay sex, never mentioned. Divorce was adressed unambiguously, but the church today is much more tolerant over divorcees (hey I'm one) than gays.

To be fair, all three are discussed in the New Testament.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

If your read the New Testament and what Christ preached about ... caring for the sick and hungry was emphasized. Gay sex, never mentioned. Divorce was adressed unambiguously, but the church today is much more tolerant over divorcees (hey I'm one) than gays.

I won't argue that many Christians have completely abdicated the scriptural position on divorce. But this argument that Jesus never addressed gay sex or other types of immorality (you didn't say that, but I've heard many that argue it), is just wrong, because it takes a lot of things out of context.

1. The law of Moses was VERY clear on how it viewed sexual sin. There would have been no need for Jesus to come into that culture and say "Hey guys, I know it's been said that gay sex is OK so long as you really love each other, but I SAY unto you..." because there was no misunderstanding about that. As far as I know, there were no theological schools of thought in that day that believed that. That's like me going to Catholic mass with the aim of convincing people God exists.
2. Jesus consistently upheld the law... all of it. He said in so many words, "Think not that I have come to destroy the law..." and he consistently expected his disciples and the people he helped to submit to all the ordinances that were found in the law (not traditions that the leaders had created such as handwashing.)
3. Considering the fact that the Jews would have believed homosexuality to be a sin guilty of stoning, it seems like that's something a "loving Jesus" would have addressed. And yet he never said a word - see how silence actually works against the argument that Jesus thought gay sex was fine?
4. Jesus did in fact mention sexual immorality:
Mat 15:18-20 "But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person."
Again, how much does he have to emphasize it? They all knew those things were sinful, and Jesus himself said he came to seek and save that which is lost. You don't consider people lost and try to save them if you think the way they're living is just fine.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Correct me if I'm wrong, which I am confident you will. Wasn't part of Jesus's message to take care of the children, the sick and the poor? Maybe you can point out the part of your platform that address these issues. I love it when you say you have a corner on Christianity. There is a reason the founders separated church and state. You love to quote the founders, you are just selective.

Do you know why God gave us Jesus in the first place? It's because human beings are not pefect. In fact, suffering and poverty would not even exist in a world where humans are perfect and without sin. Coming to grips and accepting your own imperfect humanity is THE point of Christianity. That point always seem to fly over the heads of liberal anti-Christians who try to make a point about the Faithful.

Do you know the best way to take care of the sick and the poor in an imperfect world? Capitalism, security, and freedom. That is also what millions of immigrants seek when they come to the USA.

 

[I35]

Their pro-immigrant position is probably due to a number of reasons in addition to the low probability that their personal safety will be violated. Helping someone in need has psychological benefits such as avoiding guilt and shame and reducing stress. Appearing to others to be a good person (praiseworthy) is a factor

I agree with you that it's a good explanation how self gratifying it is for the liberal voters to help the unfortunate when they can. The problem is outside of the dangers we risk is their party leaders have only one thing that's on their mind and it's how can they get more for their voting block (even if it puts us all in danger.) In a way the sheep are being led by the wolves.

 

[bystander]

NPR is Christian?

I'm not a practicing Christian so I'd love to hear your viewpoints on how you reconcile an anti-immigration and anti-ACA stance with your Christian beliefs. I see quotes from the Pope where he infers you can't be Christian and be anti-immigration. Can you enlighten us on your viewpoint?

They are not Christian; they are reading the Bible back to Christians and asking them how their politics square with Jesus' teachings.

I have to admit it is a difficult argument. The problem is that many Christians are far too vocal for their own good. My son told me that he saw a young man on the Texas State campus today yelling that you can pray the gay out of you to a young woman. That is exactly why Christians find themselves in the crosshairs of media outlets such as NPR. Just shut-up and check the plank in your own eye.

On the other hand, I would ask Liberals why they love uneducated, macho, Catholic laborers from Mexico so much when we know that Liberals (contrasted with Democrats) are "educated," feminists and secular/atheist. I believe they are as hypocritical as they believe Christians to be. Liberals are Machiavellians who do not wish to live among uneducated illegal Mexican nationals; they only want to support them from afar in return for their vote. They are building a patronage system that features a low ceiling for advancement and the psychological cover of racism as the reason for their plight. Imagine the Northeast white elitist tenured professor actually moving to South Texas to live in the culture he/she apparently values so much. Well, you can only imagine it because reality is quite different.

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

"Is it unchristian to not support Medicare" the jackass from CNN just asked that question of kasich. I don't remember CNN giving a dang about whether abortion or gay marriage are consistent with Christianity. Frigging two faced media.