Was Jesus the First Democrat ?

[pittbulll]

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]dk44 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]dk44 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I personally feel if Jesus were alive today he would approve of the almost %50 of the population (Democrats) and wonder why his people the Moral Majority would stand against his principles .

If you would add the percentage points of the Moral Majority to that of the Democrats you would surely break the majority
[/quote]

Yeah Jesus seems like he would be a big fan of abortion.
[/quote]

I agree, but I believe the Moral Majority could influence the Democrats the same way they influenced the Republicans [/quote]

What? Influence shouldn’t play a part here. You either agree with something or you don’t right? The republicans didn’t influence me to believe abortion is bad, nor that big gov. is bad, nor that Pelosi/Reid/Obama are idiots. Not sure if that was your point and if so my bad.[/quote]

The point is the Republicans cater to the voting block of the moral Majority, The Democrats would do the same , and IMO it would be a better fit because The Democrats are more Christ like in their treatment of the poor , sick ,young and old not just the unborn[/quote]

Actually they are not, because Republicans give more of their own time and money to charity than Democrats.

Not that being generous with othe peoples money can be in any way construed as being Christ like.

[/quote]

I do not know the figures , but I would guess the income level is higher in the Republican party than the Democratic party

I know alot of people think the wealthy get a spanking on their taxes , I do not. The poor pay all the fees and taxes that the wealthy pay except INCOME tax. If you figure the percentage a person pays that makes a thousand dollars as aposed to a person that makes ten thousand a month I would bet the person that makes a thousand a month pays a higher percentage[/quote]

You would guess wrong, Democrats make more money.

[/quote]

Which is why its absolutely hilarious that the uneducated and the working classes tend to vote for Republicans who tend to focus on protecting the interests of the wealthy. A better example of people fucking themselves in the ass is hard to find.[/quote]

You assume that people would vote solely based on their materialistic desires. But at any rate, the Democrat party is the one that enslaves the poor and minorities as a voting block by locking them into social assistance programs which prevent them from ever becoming self reliant.[/quote]

I may agree to the point of enabling the poor to remain so , but enslave sounds so much like Republican propaganda

[mertdawg]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]dk44 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]dk44 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I personally feel if Jesus were alive today he would approve of the almost %50 of the population (Democrats) and wonder why his people the Moral Majority would stand against his principles .

If you would add the percentage points of the Moral Majority to that of the Democrats you would surely break the majority
[/quote]

Yeah Jesus seems like he would be a big fan of abortion.
[/quote]

I agree, but I believe the Moral Majority could influence the Democrats the same way they influenced the Republicans [/quote]

What? Influence shouldn’t play a part here. You either agree with something or you don’t right? The republicans didn’t influence me to believe abortion is bad, nor that big gov. is bad, nor that Pelosi/Reid/Obama are idiots. Not sure if that was your point and if so my bad.[/quote]

The point is the Republicans cater to the voting block of the moral Majority, The Democrats would do the same , and IMO it would be a better fit because The Democrats are more Christ like in their treatment of the poor , sick ,young and old not just the unborn[/quote]

Actually they are not, because Republicans give more of their own time and money to charity than Democrats.

Not that being generous with othe peoples money can be in any way construed as being Christ like.

[/quote]

I do not know the figures , but I would guess the income level is higher in the Republican party than the Democratic party

I know alot of people think the wealthy get a spanking on their taxes , I do not. The poor pay all the fees and taxes that the wealthy pay except INCOME tax. If you figure the percentage a person pays that makes a thousand dollars as aposed to a person that makes ten thousand a month I would bet the person that makes a thousand a month pays a higher percentage[/quote]

You would guess wrong, Democrats make more money.

[/quote]

Which is why its absolutely hilarious that the uneducated and the working classes tend to vote for Republicans who tend to focus on protecting the interests of the wealthy. A better example of people fucking themselves in the ass is hard to find.[/quote]

You assume that people would vote solely based on their materialistic desires. But at any rate, the Democrat party is the one that enslaves the poor and minorities as a voting block by locking them into social assistance programs which prevent them from ever becoming self reliant.[/quote]

I may agree to the point of enabling the poor to remain so , but enslave sounds so much like Republican propaganda[/quote]

You are right, enslaved is a propogandizing term, though its used by the Democrats to describe the Republicans too, and may also be used by say Libertarian thinkers to describe people who are not self reliant.

[koffea]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]koffea wrote:
<<< Satan wanted to take away free will >>>[/quote]Actually it was Satan that introduced them to what we now call free will.
[/quote]

yeah thats right! ill have to ask some christians about that.

[koffea]

[quote]koffea wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]koffea wrote:
<<< Satan wanted to take away free will >>>[/quote]Actually it was Satan that introduced them to what we now call free will.
[/quote]

yeah thats right! ill have to ask some christians about that.[/quote]

so just a question - if eve and adam did not have free will, why could they choose to disobey god and eat the apple?

[pittbulll]

[quote]koffea wrote:

[quote]koffea wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]koffea wrote:
<<< Satan wanted to take away free will >>>[/quote]Actually it was Satan that introduced them to what we now call free will.
[/quote]

yeah thats right! ill have to ask some christians about that.[/quote]

so just a question - if eve and adam did not have free will, why could they choose to disobey god and eat the apple?[/quote]

The fruit was knowledge

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]koffea wrote:

[quote]koffea wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]koffea wrote:
<<< Satan wanted to take away free will >>>[/quote]Actually it was Satan that introduced them to what we now call free will.
[/quote]

yeah thats right! ill have to ask some christians about that.[/quote]

so just a question - if eve and adam did not have free will, why could they choose to disobey god and eat the apple?[/quote]

Illogical argument found to be illogical. John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.”

Sounds like you have to make the choice to believeth in him.

[Oleena]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]koffea wrote:

[quote]koffea wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]koffea wrote:
<<< Satan wanted to take away free will >>>[/quote]Actually it was Satan that introduced them to what we now call free will.
[/quote]

yeah thats right! ill have to ask some christians about that.[/quote]

so just a question - if eve and adam did not have free will, why could they choose to disobey god and eat the apple?[/quote]

Illogical argument found to be illogical. John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.”

Sounds like you have to make the choice to believeth in him. [/quote]

Sounds like that god is a bit of a gambler with his children for no reason. It’s like a woman getting one of her friends to tempt her husband in the worst way possible, refusing him sex, and then getting mad at him if he cheats in any way, saying to him “If you really loved me, you wouldn’t have. Now I’m going to leave you, take all your money, throw you in a burning pit, and keep you alive for eternity to experience it’s flames. Oh you don’t want that? Well, you could have chosen me.”

[mertdawg]

[quote]koffea wrote:

[quote]koffea wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]koffea wrote:
<<< Satan wanted to take away free will >>>[/quote]Actually it was Satan that introduced them to what we now call free will.
[/quote]

yeah thats right! ill have to ask some christians about that.[/quote]

so just a question - if eve and adam did not have free will, why could they choose to disobey god and eat the apple?[/quote]

They had free will. I think it would be more appropriate had the writer put down that Satan introduced them to the choice of self willfulness, rather than having their will to be to do the will of God.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]koffea wrote:

[quote]koffea wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]koffea wrote:
<<< Satan wanted to take away free will >>>[/quote]Actually it was Satan that introduced them to what we now call free will.
[/quote]

yeah thats right! ill have to ask some christians about that.[/quote]

so just a question - if eve and adam did not have free will, why could they choose to disobey god and eat the apple?[/quote]

Illogical argument found to be illogical. John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.”

Sounds like you have to make the choice to believeth in him. [/quote]

Sounds like that god is a bit of a gambler with his children for no reason. It’s like a woman getting one of her friends to tempt her husband in the worst way possible, refusing him sex, and then getting mad at him if he cheats in any way, saying to him “If you really loved me, you wouldn’t have. Now I’m going to leave you, take all your money, throw you in a burning pit, and keep you alive for eternity to experience it’s flames. Oh you don’t want that? Well, you could have chosen me.”
[/quote]

Except the wife didn’t create the husband. G-d created Adam and Eve. Big difference.

[Kanada]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Kanada wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]koffea wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Jesus didn’t do it on someone else’s dime.[/quote]

i cant believe this thread continued past this post.

jesus never advocated stealing from the rich to give to the poor. this is essentially what democrats advocate.
[/quote]

So this is the Republicans justification of un Christ like policies , because they are protecting the wealthy from the poor ?

I think taxes were mentioned in the Bible "Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s "[/quote]

Shithead, jesus told the rich son, who asked jesus what was required for a wealthy man to accend to heaven. Jesus told him to give away all he owned.[/quote]

Yeah…it’s called following G-d’s will. Some people are called to the priesthood, some people are called to own businesses.[/quote]

and judas was called to set jesus up, most badass disciple right there. G-d (cn we really not say God or something?) was too much of a pussy to kill his son, I mean abraham woulda done it but nooo, G=d made judas do it. Thank g-d he did.

I mean, really. Called to do business. Yeesh, thats a blank excuse, I’mma rapist cause G-d told me to smite our lewd society. Fucking moronic arguement.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Kanada wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Kanada wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]koffea wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Jesus didn’t do it on someone else’s dime.[/quote]

i cant believe this thread continued past this post.

jesus never advocated stealing from the rich to give to the poor. this is essentially what democrats advocate.
[/quote]

So this is the Republicans justification of un Christ like policies , because they are protecting the wealthy from the poor ?

I think taxes were mentioned in the Bible "Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s "[/quote]

Shithead, jesus told the rich son, who asked jesus what was required for a wealthy man to accend to heaven. Jesus told him to give away all he owned.[/quote]

Yeah…it’s called following G-d’s will. Some people are called to the priesthood, some people are called to own businesses.[/quote]

and judas was called to set jesus up, most badass disciple right there. G-d (cn we really not say God or something?) was too much of a pussy to kill his son, I mean abraham woulda done it but nooo, G=d made judas do it. Thank g-d he did.

I mean, really. Called to do business. Yeesh, thats a blank excuse, I’mma rapist cause G-d told me to smite our lewd society. Fucking moronic arguement. [/quote]

What is your problem, do you not have any respect for yourself or anyone else? Or are you just to high to figure out when to not talk?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]orion wrote:

You are basically arguing that they do not vote their class consciessness, blinded by bourgeous propaganda.

If they only voted Democrat they would get more money.

Not only that they would not in the long run because redistribution makes everyone poorer, that is also not the society they want.

If they saw the world the way you do, they would probably vote for Democrats.

I think they want to keep the money they make and if someone else makes more, good for him.[/quote]

Well stated, Orion (I know, you are shocked to hear me say that) - this Marxism inspired line is utter nonsense.

And, in any event, it simply isn’t true. If you look at the exit polls in 2008 for the presidency as a snapshot, you’d see that voters with incomes $50,000 or less voted Democrat by a significant margin. Voters with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000 were basically split fairly evenly but broke for the Republican vote, and voters with more than $200,000 broke for Democrats.

The Democratic Party gets the votes of really two large economic constituencies - low-income voters and the upper class, urban liberal gentry voters. The middle class trend toward Republicans.

Voters vote principle in addition to self-interest. Most middle class types are fond of their tax deductions and a modest social safety net, but are not in the mood of voting for people to go to Washington and “get 'em as much as they can”.