Can you be liberal and Christian at the same time?

It is in reality, by non partisans, like yourself, revealed by researchers from Princeton and Northwestern and peer reviewed. I trust that over you non researched partisanship. ha ha

Facts matter, serious research matters especially given they used nothing but congressional record to evidence you are not represented in DC, nor any average american, and some have concluded it looks like an oligarchy in operation, not a republic, and that is fascism. And the DP and GOP are both complicit.

 

In this oilgarchy's survival of the fittest fascists only liberal Islam Christiananality pedophile mentalities with money talks while all else walk.

 

I only perceive wordy nonsense in what you wrote. But the last part was coherent and true. Money talks, and our political system has been deeply corrupted to the point that it murdered the Republic. Our elites have the best gov't that their money can buy. Big money, great wealth, is tremendous power when your politicians serve it. And ours do.

 

The cognitive dissonance is usually only from those elite liberally enforcing Christianity with two faced Islam super ego megalomaniacal fascist power where the cross is always higher than the flag in that business sense of the Republic.

 

Sir, please take a writing course. You are not writing anything comprehensible. Don't you want others to understand your posts? Or are you here just to destroy the sand castles others create in this big sand box? ha ha

Perhaps you should dance your incoherence on out of here? ha ha And let the adults play here.

 

One might actually believe in seeing the future clairvoyance as this statistical probability expected lynching enforcement of suicidal homicidal sociopsychopathic human farming techniques from a more perfect union of liberal Islam-Christiananality pedophile mentalities is little more than being cross conditioned way beyond therapy in that pedophilia slave trade business.

 

Look, you need to get off this IMF money printing thing. Again, if some international group started printing dollars the US military would end that in a heartbeat.

Plus, you are searching for a way to buy stuff with our money without congress having a say in it. That is NOT something you should want. Having some other entity, inside or outside the USA, having control of what we buy is essentially a revolution or conquest.

Historically speaking, conservatives are conservative. So, yes they need serious convincing before they will invest tax dollars in something. That part is a good thing.

Right now, the right wing is enamoured with this idea that we can breathe life back into the businesses of a bygone era. We can try to make steel again. We can go back to coal for power. We can pretend there is no cost to the earth warming. We can pretend our economy can be separate from the world economy and that there is no international competition.

In other words, we're not being conservative right now. We're just being stupid.

At some point when the American people insist on rationality, a sufficient argument can be made that educating Americans not only has sufficient value but is critically important and thus warrants investment.

 

The reason they hate God is they hate the thought that anyone could be smarter than they are.

 

There is obviously some reason.

Almost time for their yearly war on Christmas now by the way.

 

I got a good Christmas sweater to wear to the office this year.

 

Hahahahaha

I love it!

 

I don't see that there needs to be any conflict between "liberal doctrine" and Christianity when it comes to how one leads their life.

In fact, the principles related to helping those in need are clearly more present in progressive politics.

I like what Catholic Charities does, but there is no chance that they are growing or can grow to be enough to maintain the promise of equal opportunity to all even just with respect to aid.

What I don't understand is how one can claim to be a Christian and NOT work as the shepherd who is not satisfied until each sheep is found.

We still have millions in America living in abject poverty such that they can't even get health care. Who is it that wants health care for all Americans, and is ready to do something about that?

Obviously, it is a struggle. The Clinton administration fought the first war waged purely for altruistic purpose - the war in the Balkans. That was a reasonable success, even as it ended the slaughter. Then, we tried that again in Libya, but that failed in spectacular fashion.

This idea that there is a conflict between being progressive and being Christian is purely political nonsense.

What we're seeing today is a right wing that searches for and drives wedge issues in order to capture Christian votes - a craven direction that nobody should fall for, a direction that is not even slightly oriented to living a Christian life in America.

If you are a Christian, your beliefs are close to those of progressives.

 

We can help them by teaching them how to be self reliant, that is the conservative way.

Better to teach a man to fish then to simply give him fish.

He then becomes reliant on you.

 

Was Jesus worried about that?

Did he refuse help on the grounds that people might rely on Jesus?

 

Did he continue to help them for the rest of their lives?

However if you would like to set up our system according to his example I have no issue with helping someone once then cutting them off.

When can we start that?

 

You can NOT tell me that if Jesus came back on the same road, he would have refused help.

 

Jesus is always here.

There are plenty of people he doesn't heal or help.

Are you claiming that when He was alive that nobody died or suffered?

Of course they did.

Jesus performed miracles to show an example of God's power, not to simply make people better.

Remember, its not about making life while we are here necessarily better, its about what happens when you die. We are only here for a brief moment, its meaningless.

Jesus could have easily saved everyone on the planet if He had wanted to but He didn't. Hell, He didn't even bother saving the man on the cross next to Him, although he did accept him into Heaven.

So I guess He did save him in the end.

Jesus Himself allowed his body to be wrecked by torture so why do you think He exists to "save" people while they live on earth?

 

The life of Jesus is presented as a model for us to follow.

You're desperately attempting to justify allowing people to starve on the street.

In no way is that anything like what Jesus would have done.

Pointing out that Jesus didn't save everyone isn't a satisfactory excuse. We DO have it within our power as humans to support those in the USA. In fact, with health care we know how we could do it at a lower cost than we pay today, since there are examples.

We just choose not to. There isn't any Jesus in that.

 

Except He did allow people to starve on the street.

Going by your logic that is what we should follow.

Like I said, Jesus only saved a select few, everyone else continued on their way.

So if you want to get technical and follow the example of Jesus we should pick out maybe 5 people a year from our society and completely help them and leave the rest to fend for themselves.

Is that what you would like to do?

 

Obama and the democrats already promised us that and it turned out to be a lie, sorry, but we won't fall for it again.

 

It's LMAO dancin' since yet another Islam Christiananality pedophile mentality liberally expressing compulsive-obsessive literary standards to comply with some self avoidance-acceptance cross conditioning reinforcement comprehension in lynching enforcement for super egos beyond the pleasure principle.

 

Republicans have consistently blocked attempts to cause more people to get healthcare.

Would Jesus do that?

 

Haha, that's impressive!

I'm almost tempted to ask you for permission to use that as my sig!

 

I have a feeling that Jesus has more important things to do other than be a politician.

 

Give me an example from the bible where Jesus allowed people to starve when he (as a human) could have helped.

If every person of middle income and above picked 5 people who needed help, the job would be done.

The reason that doesn't work is that those with wealth are nowhere near enough to identify and help those who need it.