ADVERTISEMENT

Why must every Republican campaign ad start with the declaration

joelefty

Sophomore
Oct 8, 2001
971
21
18
That they are a conservative Christian? Then they go on to state their opposition to many things that I think Jesus would support. Just curious? Can one be a liberal Christian? Does ones faith really matter in a secular society?
This post was edited on 4/14 2:19 PM by joelefty
 
Using religion to sell cars, oil and soap

I'd heard of Fifield before, but had forgotten about him.

That was depressing as hell.
 
Because it's politics and that means appealing to your most reliable base first and often.

Question becomes, when does it get to a point they turn off more people than they placate? You'd think after the Pence debacle it may change
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
I've got liberals in my church. Of course both parties have believers.We

have our faith despite the secular society. We love each other despite our political differences. I would disagree that we have a secular society to a large degree. The percentage of atheists in America is quite low. People don't always believe in the same things,but they believe in something supernatural/religious.
 
for the same reason that you don't see politicians with....

pony tails, or earrings, etc. While Republicans tend to wear religion on their sleeve more than Democrats, both parties effectively have faith as a prerequisite to being electable. How many elected atheists in the U.S. can you name? Dis you know that it wasn't until 2007 that we had an openly atheist member of Congress (Pete Stark)? And Barney Frank came out as an atheist 25 years after he came out of the closet--and even then it was only after he had left politics. Same with Jesse Ventura--he did not admit to being an atheist until 2011, 8 years after he left office.

The fact is, a person's faith and religious practices should have little or no bearing on their suitability for elected office. Yet, it does.

On a related note, have you every listened to the Tim Ferriss podcast? He had a fascinating interview of Glenn Beck last week. It was really good. One of the things they talked about was Beck's close friendship with Penn Jillette--a well-known and outspoken atheist. Beck essentially said that he trusted Jillette to the point that if something were to happen to him he would not hesitate to entrust Jillette with the care and safety of his children. Yet, their friendship got off to a rocky start, with Jillette refusing to even have dinner with Beck due to his religious views.



http://fourhourworkweek.com/2015/04/06/glenn-beck/
 
That's a nice slogan

Can you put a little meat on those bones please, and then we can kick the idea around a bit. I don't necessarily disagree with your statement, but would like to know the thought process behind the slogan.
 
Honestly???

Thinking today's Christians would crucify Jesus is an extremely cruel thing to think. Saying it is even worse. It's also ridiculously stupid. No one is getting crucified by today's Christians, why in the heck would they start with Jesus? Come on, meridian.
This post was edited on 4/14 8:24 PM by Aloha Hoosier
 
Dare I step in?

I don't want to necessarily defend meridian's statement, but I took it entirely different than you. I think what he meant was that many modern Christians would be more natural allies of the Pharisees and the Romans if transported back to Jesus' time.

I don't think he's right, but I think that's the kind of comparison he was drawing, and it makes a hell of a lot more sense than suggesting that modern Christians would be crucifying people in the modern world.
 
Feel free.

That's not what he said, and exactly what Christians would he be talking about?
 
I dunno.

I would assume he's talking about people who wrap conservatism and reactionary thought in the Bible. The idea, of course, being that Jesus was a radical, which he was, and that people who are conservatives today would have aligned with conservatives back then, which I don't think is a fair assumption.

goat
 
Well that there's your problem

'merica is as much a secular society (where the law is not concerned) as we are a post-racial society. This is Jesusland, and one can argue that it's holding us back. Nevertheless, the answer to your question is an emphatic No. They must start all campaigns as such, else they have no chance.



This post was edited on 4/14 9:53 PM by INRanger27
 
Umm, No

I know you're kidding, but they don't.
And they LOVE to take things "literally" to use it against their enemies.

Jesus didn't give a hang about taxes or government.
He never once said "c'mon - we're going down to the courthouse and tell the gubmint what the rules oughta be."

He said "give the gubmint what they want - we ain't about that - we're about loving God and our fellow man."
 
LOL.

I wanted to respond, but said to myself, "I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume he's just joking."

But I wanted to respond, just in case he wasn't joking.

You had an out. "I'm only responding for the benefit of the other side of the aisle, who won't know you're joking."

I didn't have that option available to me.

Thanks for taking one for the team.
 
No, Jesus separated "church" and "state" (God and Caesar).

And so should you, at least in your "professional" duties, namely when speaking from the pulpit.

The problem is, you like to advertise yourself as a "pastor man", so that discolors all of your political comments. Change your forum name to something secular and you will be seen as just another right-winger ... no problem.


This post was edited on 4/15 3:09 AM by Collett_Park
 
Or ...

he's using "crucify" to mean "verbally attack and criticize unfairly" or perhaps "ostracise". In other words, metaphorically. Like how George W. Bush used "crusade".
 
Jesus certainly was a liberal....

If you define a liberal as someone who bucks the current system, and a conservative as someone who is heavily vested in the current system. As an aside, as our social paradigms change the liberals of yesterday are becoming the conservatives of today, but that is a thread in its own right.

Jesus certainly upset the apple cart, challenging the religious practices of the day and pissing off the establishment in the process. If being a liberal means caring about the poor then he was a liberal. If being a liberal meant forgiving instead of taking revenge, he was a liberal. If being a liberal meant endorsing gay sex and marriage, open marriage, and the abandonment of traditional marriage, he was certainly not a liberal. If being a liberal meant being dependent upon the government instead of getting in and doing the work oneself he was certainly not a liberal. If being a conservative means taking personal responsibility for oneself he was certainly a conservative.

You can't put Jesus in a box and say he was a liberal or a conservative. He was a mix of both (as are most of us). For either side to try to label him as one or the other is silly to the point of stupidity.
 
His statement was

very direct and of a single meaning.

Today's Christians - I guess he means every single Christian as he listed no exception, would crucify - crucify means nailing to fastening a person onto a cross until they die - Jesus - we know who that is.

If he means something different, he might consider saying so. As of right now, his statement stands for what he said - ludicrous as it is. He has to know better and made that statement out of shear cruelty.
 
Haven't seen any

Republican or Democrat campaign ads during this cycle yet, have you?

But I've seen thousands, been the voice on a couple (in a pinch) and written scripts/outlines for some for TV and radio over the years.

And, you are dead wrong. You said "every" and nothing close to that is the truth.

Some, occasionally, a few, but not every - never has been never will be - but maybe you just hate that kind of an opening so much that it overwhelms your capacity to think. Something set you off in this non-campaign season.

Whose TV ads have you seen since November 2014 that starts that way? Name the candidate, office, location. OH, maybe no one.
This post was edited on 4/15 8:08 AM by Ladoga
 
"To crucify" has become a figure of speech

It is entirely reasonable to assume he was speaking figuratively.
 
Um . . . excuse me?

Show me one biblical passage, just one, where Jesus said anything opposing, in favor of, or even merely regarding gay sex and/or gay marriage.

We've been over this haven't we? And we concluded jointly that there are no such texts in scripture, right?

Where is THAT post coming from?

BTW, I agree with you that Jesus placed heavy emphasis on a message regarding monogamous marriage and the sanctity of marital commitments once made. But I don't see anywhere any commentary from Jesus regarding whether monogamous gay relationships are or are not OK. Would you agree that those comments are gloss you're reading into the scripture, and not sourced from what historical record we have of Jesus's own statements?
 
I knew that would get your attention

And. - btw - I sent you an email about next week - waiting for a response...

It is an arguement from si,ence, to be sure. Meh did very explicitly endorse the 1 man 1 woman model, while saying nothing about the othe models. My inclination is to interpret that to mean that that was the correct model. I know we disagree on this and I really have tried to come around on this topic, but I have been unable to do so.
 
Without facts it's impossible to say . . .

even concluding that it wasn't important enough for him to talk about is a pretty good leap.

But putting words in his mouth when he didn't say anything . . . tut tut tut.
 
it obviously means.....

That he agrees with me! (Grin).

I think that in that day and age.the issue was settled. Jesus spoke out against things, or for things, that needed to change. The conservative response would be that the morality of the issue was settled. How you deal with the person, however, was a different matter. Stoning to death were out. Forgiveness and compassion were in. What that encompasses is a big part of today's debate.
 
Sure, and that was in the context . . .

of men and/or women who were married to opposite sex spouses committing adultery.

What does that say about gay sex/gay marriage again? And you conclude that how?

I got the email . . . we're in the re-entry phase of coming back to work from spring break/vacation. Wednesday, 7 pm . . . if you can get through the traffic.
devil.r191677.gif
 
Not necessarily.

He might have been opposed, or he might not have cared, but I think we can say he didn't actively endorse same-sex marriage, because in the context of time and place, that would have made the record books. The Biblical authors would have either defended his support or explained it away, but they wouldn't have simply ignored it.
 
I think it's safe to say that the thought of gay marriage . . .

never even crossed his mind. It didn't exist. No one was advocating it. No one was opposing it because no one was advocating it.
 
OK

I will review the older email and we will do our best.

As to the topic at hand - The fact that the hetero-monogamous relationship is the only one ever endorsed throughout the scriptures provides the basis for the arguement as to what the correct model is. That was not the only model practiced, to be sure. I think if Jesus had wanted to change that model he would have said so - he wasn't shy about shocking people. Still, it is an arguement from silence, and I readily acknowledge that. How would you come to the conclusion that he thought differently?
 
Of course he didn't . . .

but then all of his teachings regarding sex were contextual, too . . . kind of like the Supreme Court won't take a hypothetical case, Jesus dealt with real-life issues of real people when talking about sex and marriage.

Unless doing otherwise served a larger purpose, Jesus was highly considerate of others, like at the wedding where he turned water into wine so the wedding party/family could save face. It's just as likely as not - perhaps more so - that if he were to encounter homosexuals he would deal with their issues with a significant degree of discretion - perhaps even total discretion - so as not to interrupt or damage their other relationships in and to the community.
 
OK . . .

I can agree with that, but does that mean that he never encountered homosexuals at all?
 
Regarding context...

I was actually thinking about. Matthew chapter 19, which deals directly with marriage and divorce, and not adultery. There is also an interesting section about eunuchs at the end of the discussion.
 
Of course not

We don't know, of course. I would expect him to say "neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more"
 
ADVERTISEMENT