Jesus - the bleeding heart liberal

The point I was trying to make was that Bush may have been guided by God to invade Iraq. I do not know that for sure but I do know that he seeks God's guidance. HB said that Clinton and Carter were said to have done the same thing but I discount that. Clinton was not a man whose prayers could have went anywhere and if Carter was praying God was not answering because Carter made some terrible decisions.

I am not trying to compare and contrast the various good works of Carter vs Bush. Carter has been out of office for almost twenty five years so he has had more time for good works while Bush is still busy being president.

 

Bush was also being "guided by God" when he was snorting lines of cocaine.

Here's another episode of Bush seeking God's advice

You're an unintentional riot TheIt. Everyone who is not an ultra conservative, fundamentalist republican who drops God's name frequently in his political speeches, is a heathen idiot to you.

You must live in a hell on earth, viewing everything in only two colors.

 

Bush has done some bad things. He attributes his giving up alcohol to his acceptance of Christ. When people accept Christ they change. The fact that Bush may have used cocaine in the past is just more affirmation of this fact.

I did not start this thread trying to tie Jesus to politics. But to answer your accusation, no it is not hard being able to see right and wrong. I think it is actually easier to live knowing where the boundaries are.

 

You are talking about absolute right and wrong. Absolute right and wrong are extremes that we rarely reach in society TheIt. My problem with your line of thinking is that you seem to believe that one segment of the population or even more to the point, one alternative solution to a question or a problem lies so clearly in one of those extremes. Everything is not as black and white as you see life. There are two sides to every coin - even your hot button, will-never-change-your-stance-issue - abortion. Sure, there is a well disucssed issue of the baby's right to live, but when is it an independent life, and more importantly, what about the parents' right to decide whether or not they want the obligation of raising a child with the attention and support it does deserve once it is brought into this world? Better yet, what if the birth of a child is likely to kill or severely incapacitate the mother? Who then has the right to live?

These may not be compelling arguments to change your stance, and I'm not suggesting that they should be. However, even that issue is not absolute, and yet you talk entirely in absolutes and use your religion as a sword, when Christ used it as a shield for the weak, poor & disadvantaged. That attitude rankles me. It also rankles me how the Republicans tend to use religion in the same manner, emphasizing their hot button issues and "moral right", as the article discusses.

Winding this up, I think ecilam made the best post yet in this thread about religion & politics, followed by Fred's question, which no one has sufficiently answered. In addition to all the concerns we discuss about the war, the center of Iraq is the valley between the Tigris & Euphrates rivers, one of the birthplaces of civilization as we know it. It is historically, and I believe Biblicly, significant. I wonder how Jesus would feel about the war...?

 

That is just it Harry, there are absolutes. It is an absolute that killing an unborn baby is wrong. Sure you can come up with some rare scenerios where you choose between one life an another life but the vast majority of abortion do not fall into that catagory. Pro Choicers always want to talk about the small percentage of abortions that have some other moral issues attached to them such as incest, rape and danger to the mother. We can discuss those situations seperately if you wish but the issue you avoid is the common abortion used for birth control. That is absolutely wrong and evil. Whether you or anyone else choose to agree with that or not does not change the fact that it is the truth.

Maybe I do sometimes fail to see the subtlety in some issues but it is better to have a moral compass and believe in some absolutes than to believe in nothing.

 

The war has brought freedom to millions of people and ended the rule of a tyrannical dictator who was guilty of murder and torture a thousand times over.

I think Jesus would be glad of those things happening. In essence the war has helped our fellow man.

If you are going to ask this question you should also ask what did Jesus think of the revolutionary war, civil war, world war 2, etc.

 

Quite the opposite. Jesus would want people to do this voluntarily not due to government regulation. Republicans aren't opposed to charity they just don't want it to be law.

 

Jesus on liberalism:

John 12:1 ¶ Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.
John 12:2 There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.
John 12:3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.
John 12:4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him,
John 12:5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
John 12:6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.
John 12:7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.
John 12:8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

 

Predictably, you argued your absolutism and your stance on abortion.

Forget it then. Your mind is a sealed silo of fundamentalism and your world is two colored. Your moral compass is therefore misguided. There is more to life than absolutes. There are a lot of tough choices to make. The fact that you choose to make them for everyone with your very limited understanding, inability to grasp subtlety and your zealous absolutism is an insult to the free willed, moral individual trying to steer through a multihued world, and your aggressive oppression is a mockery of this and any discussion like it.

 

I think you see shades of gray everywhere because if you had to take a stance you would then feel guilty about your own actions.