Would American Christians vote for Jesus?

[MCWAY]

how am I turning this into a religious board

I didn't start the thread nor am I the one posting excerpts from the bible

All I said is Americans would never vote for a hippie jew who tells them to sell all their stuff and give the money to the poor and I base that on the current electorate who equates a 3% increase in the marginal tax rate to communism

Jesus only told that to one man. And, He did so, because that guy seems to think he had all the answers but wasn't really ready to follow Jesus.

[Straw Man]

Yes, American Christians would vote for Jesus

2 Thessalonians 3:10-12
 
10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”
11 We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies.
12 Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat.



But Judas was a Democrat and he would vote for Obama:



John 12:4-8

4 But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected,
5 “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages."
6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.
7 “Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial.
8 You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”

Notice Jesus said "You will always have the poor among you"

notice also that he was speaking contemporaneously to his disciples saying he would soon be gone.   it was not a lesson that the poor would always be there or that they shouldn't help the poor but that he would not be there much longer so in this instance it was ok to not sell the perfume and give the money to the poor.   Also, if you're a true believer then you probably also believe that he knew that  Judas Iscariot was disingenous and didn't atually give a rats ass about the poor

[Straw Man]

Jesus only told that to one man. And, He did so, because that guy seems to think he had all the answers but wasn't really ready to follow Jesus.

yep, it had nothing to do with whether to help the poor or not

[tonymctones]

i think it extremely obvious that jesus would sit back and let people get slaughtered. he obviously allowed the holocaust to happen, and has allowed every single atrocity that has ever occurred.

the idea that god would stop violence is absolutely absurd because every single case we have available at our hands to examine tells us otherwise.

If youre going to attribute every evil thing to God are you also willing to attribute every good thing to God?

The scenario was in the event that Jesus was here physically, you may have missed that....

If youd like to have an idealogical discussion drizzle Id be more then happy to educate you.

[tbombz]

If youre going to attribute every evil thing to God are you also willing to attribute every good thing to God?

The scenario was in the event that Jesus was here physically, you may have missed that....

If youd like to have an idealogical discussion drizzle Id be more then happy to educate you.

jesus WAS here physically (supposedly).. and what did he do? he allowed his own self to be tortured and murdered.. he never stopped a single killing, not once..     and being that he had(has) the power to live forever here on earth in physical form and the power to prevent any and every singly act of violence and evil from ever happening.. its obvious he has chosen not to.

i never attributed anything evil to god. i said, he has let evil things happen. get it?    god is absolutely, most obviously, "hands off" and a pacifist.

[Dos Equis]

jesus WAS here physically (supposedly).. and what did he do? he allowed his own self to be tortured and murdered.. he never stopped a single killing, not once..   

Didn't he stop a woman from being stoned?  Isn't that where the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" line comes from? 

[loco]

Americans would never vote for a hippie jew who tells them to sell all their stuff and give the money to the poor

Why are you and garebear arguing whether or not American Christians would vote for Jesus when neither one of you believes what the Bible says about him is true, or that he even existed at all?

And btw, conservative, American Christians give more of their money and time to help the poor, domestic and abroad, than liberals do.  And they give more to the poor as individuals than people in other developed countries.  That's right, the ones who cry the most about government forcing citizens to help the poor are the very same people who give little to nothing to help the poor.

[Agnostic007]

Why are you and garebear arguing whether or not American Christians would vote for Jesus when neither one of you believes what the Bible says about him is true, or that he even existed at all?

And btw, conservative, American Christians give more of their money and time to help the poor, domestic and abroad, than liberals do.  And they give more to the poor as individuals than people in other developed countries.  That's right, the ones who cry the most about government forcing citizens to help the poor are the very same people who give little to nothing to help the poor.

how do you know this to be true? Most of the "soup kitchens" we have in Austin are run and staffed with liberals

[loco]

Welcome back El Profeta.   

Gracias, amigo!  

[loco]

how do you know this to be true? Most of the "soup kitchens" we have in Austin are run and staffed with liberals

Hey Agnostic007!  The references have been posted many times by myself and by others on the board, but I will dig them up again for you.   

[loco]

how do you know this to be true? Most of the "soup kitchens" we have in Austin are run and staffed with liberals

Who gives the most to charity?

"Americans give more to charity, per capita and as a percentage of gross domestic product, than the citizens of other nations"

"The most charitable people in America today are the working poor."

"it's in fact low-income employed Americans who give the highest portion of their income, or 4.5%."

"low-income people give almost 30 percent more as a share of their income."

"When you look at the data," says Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, "it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

"But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states in the last presidential election."

"The people who give one thing tend to be the people who give everything in America. You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away."

"Conservatives are even 18 percent more likely to donate blood."

"Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money -- four times as much."

"Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street."



Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism
by Arthur C. Brooks
# ISBN-10: 0465008232
# ISBN-13: 978-0465008230

Who Gives The Most?
http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/24/america-philanthropy-income-oped-cx_ee_1226eaves.html

Who Gives and Who Doesn't?
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2682730

[loco]

"We atheists have to accept that most believers are better human beings"

Roy Hattersley
The Guardian, Monday 12 September 2005

Hurricane Katrina did not stay on the front pages for long. Yesterday's Red Cross appeal for an extra 40,000 volunteer workers was virtually ignored.

The disaster will return to the headlines when one sort of newspaper reports a particularly gruesome discovery or another finds additional evidence of President Bush's negligence. But month after month of unremitting suffering is not news. Nor is the monotonous performance of the unpleasant tasks that relieve the pain and anguish of the old, the sick and the homeless - the tasks in which the Salvation Army specialise.

The Salvation Army has been given a special status as provider-in-chief of American disaster relief. But its work is being augmented by all sorts of other groups. Almost all of them have a religious origin and character.

Notable by their absence are teams from rationalist societies, free thinkers' clubs and atheists' associations - the sort of people who not only scoff at religion's intellectual absurdity but also regard it as a positive force for evil.

The arguments against religion are well known and persuasive. Faith schools, as they are now called, have left sectarian scars on Northern Ireland. Stem-cell research is forbidden because an imaginary God - who is not enough of a philosopher to realise that the ingenuity of a scientist is just as natural as the instinct of Rousseau's noble savage - condemns what he does not understand and the churches that follow his teaching forbid their members to pursue cures for lethal diseases.

Yet men and women who believe that the Pope is the devil incarnate, or (conversely) regard his ex cathedra pronouncements as holy writ, are the people most likely to take the risks and make the sacrifices involved in helping others. Last week a middle-ranking officer of the Salvation Army, who gave up a well-paid job to devote his life to the poor, attempted to convince me that homosexuality is a mortal sin.

Late at night, on the streets of one of our great cities, that man offers friendship as well as help to the most degraded and (to those of a censorious turn of mind) degenerate human beings who exist just outside the boundaries of our society. And he does what he believes to be his Christian duty without the slightest suggestion of disapproval. Yet, for much of his time, he is meeting needs that result from conduct he regards as intrinsically wicked.

Civilised people do not believe that drug addiction and male prostitution offend against divine ordinance. But those who do are the men and women most willing to change the fetid bandages, replace the sodden sleeping bags and - probably most difficult of all - argue, without a trace of impatience, that the time has come for some serious medical treatment. Good works, John Wesley insisted, are no guarantee of a place in heaven. But they are most likely to be performed by people who believe that heaven exists.

The correlation is so clear that it is impossible to doubt that faith and charity go hand in hand. The close relationship may have something to do with the belief that we are all God's children, or it may be the result of a primitive conviction that, although helping others is no guarantee of salvation, it is prudent to be recorded in a book of gold, like James Leigh Hunt's Abu Ben Adam, as "one who loves his fellow men". Whatever the reason, believers answer the call, and not just the Salvation Army. When I was a local councillor, the Little Sisters of the Poor - right at the other end of the theological spectrum - did the weekly washing for women in back-to-back houses who were too ill to scrub for themselves.

It ought to be possible to live a Christian life without being a Christian or, better still, to take Christianity à la carte. The Bible is so full of contradictions that we can accept or reject its moral advice according to taste. Yet men and women who, like me, cannot accept the mysteries and the miracles do not go out with the Salvation Army at night.

The only possible conclusion is that faith comes with a packet of moral imperatives that, while they do not condition the attitude of all believers, influence enough of them to make them morally superior to atheists like me. The truth may make us free. But it has not made us as admirable as the average captain in the Salvation Army.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/12/religion.uk/print

[Agnostic007]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/conservatives-charitable-giving_b_1835201.html

Liberals are the least likely to help the poor. That's the inescapable conclusion of this new study: states where people participate in religion at a high rate are also the most generous; conversely, the least generous states are also the least religious.
The report does say religion plays a role:

Religion has a big influence on giving patterns. Regions of the country that are deeply religious are more generous than those that are not. Two of the top nine states -- Utah and Idaho -- have high numbers of Mormon residents, who have a tradition of tithing at least 10 percent of their income to the church. The remaining states in the top nine are all in the Bible Belt.
But conservatives are ignoring the obvious. Something to notice is in the mention of "tithing... to the church." All the survey did was take IRS data "showing the value of charitable deductions claimed by Americans taxpayers." What the IRS may mean by charitable, and what most people think of as charitable, may not be the same thing.For instance, a local fundamentalist church may spend the bulk of its resources degrading and attacking other faiths, insulting gay people and leading crusades to strip people of their civil liberties. They may never feed the hungry, clothe the naked, or comfort the afflicted. Yet in IRS terms they are a charity no matter how uncharitable they may be.

The report states that the IRS "does not provide data about the specific charities people supported." In other words, there is no data about who is feeding the poor, as Donahue claims.

Since donations to religious groups, even uncharitable ones, count as "charitable giving," then it is no surprise that religious people give more to charity. Simply put, the study shows that non-religious people don't donate to religion. This is neither earth shattering nor particularly informative. Nor is it surprising that those states populated by sects that push their members to tithe report higher "charitable" giving.

Donations to churches may get reused in a manner that would not be tax-deductible itself, as it would not be considered charitable. For instance, donations to the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization, are tax-deductible. Yet the organization gave almost $2 million to fund anti-gay campaigns by the National Organization for Marriage. If the "charitable" Catholics who gave that money had directly donated it to NOM, they would never have received a tax write-off.



However, if you donated to the Human Rights Campaign to counter campaigns funded by the Knights, that donation "can not be classified as tax deductible." Only one funds given to the churches in this political campaign were counted as charitable.

It is not surprising that the most "giving" state is Utah, with a heavy population of Mormons who are required to give 10% of their income to the sect. Their total charitable giving is 10.6% of discretionary income -- a substantial portion of which has to be going to the church as opposed to purely charitable purposes.

But neither Jacoby nor Donahue mentioned West Hollywood, a heavily Democratic city and one of the "gayest." The survey shows residents there give 9% of their discretionary income to charity. I would think most of that went to purely charitable purposes as opposed to religious ones.

The Chronicle of Philanthrophy also made a point that conservatives ignored:

When religious giving isn't counted, the geography of giving is very different. Some states in the Northeast would jump into the top 10 when secular gifts alone are counted. New York would vault from No. 18 to No. 2 in the rankings, and Pennsylvania would climb from No. 40 to No. 4.
They also noted:

A study by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University found that the residents of New Hampshire -- which ranked dead last in both surveys by The Chronicle -- weren't stingy; they were simply nonbelievers.

"New Hampshire gives next to nothing to religious organizations," says Patrick Rooney, the center's leader, "but their secular giving is identical to the rest of country."


Sometimes it helps to read the whole report, not just the sections that make you feel superior.

[Straw Man]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Correctomundo

Giving to charity includes donations to their churches so of course the #'s are skewed

[tu_holmes]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/conservatives-charitable-giving_b_1835201.html

Sometimes it helps to read the whole report, not just the sections that make you feel superior.

[loco]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/conservatives-charitable-giving_b_1835201.html

Liberals are the least likely to help the poor. That's the inescapable conclusion of this new study: states where people participate in religion at a high rate are also the most generous; conversely, the least generous states are also the least religious.
The report does say religion plays a role:

Religion has a big influence on giving patterns. Regions of the country that are deeply religious are more generous than those that are not. Two of the top nine states -- Utah and Idaho -- have high numbers of Mormon residents, who have a tradition of tithing at least 10 percent of their income to the church. The remaining states in the top nine are all in the Bible Belt.
But conservatives are ignoring the obvious. Something to notice is in the mention of "tithing... to the church." All the survey did was take IRS data "showing the value of charitable deductions claimed by Americans taxpayers." What the IRS may mean by charitable, and what most people think of as charitable, may not be the same thing.For instance, a local fundamentalist church may spend the bulk of its resources degrading and attacking other faiths, insulting gay people and leading crusades to strip people of their civil liberties. They may never feed the hungry, clothe the naked, or comfort the afflicted. Yet in IRS terms they are a charity no matter how uncharitable they may be.

The report states that the IRS "does not provide data about the specific charities people supported." In other words, there is no data about who is feeding the poor, as Donahue claims.

Since donations to religious groups, even uncharitable ones, count as "charitable giving," then it is no surprise that religious people give more to charity. Simply put, the study shows that non-religious people don't donate to religion. This is neither earth shattering nor particularly informative. Nor is it surprising that those states populated by sects that push their members to tithe report higher "charitable" giving.

Donations to churches may get reused in a manner that would not be tax-deductible itself, as it would not be considered charitable. For instance, donations to the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization, are tax-deductible. Yet the organization gave almost $2 million to fund anti-gay campaigns by the National Organization for Marriage. If the "charitable" Catholics who gave that money had directly donated it to NOM, they would never have received a tax write-off.



However, if you donated to the Human Rights Campaign to counter campaigns funded by the Knights, that donation "can not be classified as tax deductible." Only one funds given to the churches in this political campaign were counted as charitable.

It is not surprising that the most "giving" state is Utah, with a heavy population of Mormons who are required to give 10% of their income to the sect. Their total charitable giving is 10.6% of discretionary income -- a substantial portion of which has to be going to the church as opposed to purely charitable purposes.

But neither Jacoby nor Donahue mentioned West Hollywood, a heavily Democratic city and one of the "gayest." The survey shows residents there give 9% of their discretionary income to charity. I would think most of that went to purely charitable purposes as opposed to religious ones.

The Chronicle of Philanthrophy also made a point that conservatives ignored:

When religious giving isn't counted, the geography of giving is very different. Some states in the Northeast would jump into the top 10 when secular gifts alone are counted. New York would vault from No. 18 to No. 2 in the rankings, and Pennsylvania would climb from No. 40 to No. 4.
They also noted:

A study by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University found that the residents of New Hampshire -- which ranked dead last in both surveys by The Chronicle -- weren't stingy; they were simply nonbelievers.

"New Hampshire gives next to nothing to religious organizations," says Patrick Rooney, the center's leader, "but their secular giving is identical to the rest of country."


Sometimes it helps to read the whole report, not just the sections that make you feel superior.

This has nothing to do with what I posted above.  Why did you leave this out?

"Conservatives are doing their own Superior Dance over an article by The Chronicle of Philanthropy, which claims individuals in religious states are more charitable than those in less religious states.  At the Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby did his Superior Dance under the title "Stingy liberals:" "

Why don't you address what I posted above, which has nothing to do with this study?

[loco]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Correctomundo

Giving to charity includes donations to their churches so of course the #'s are skewed

My two posts above about who gives the most to the poor have nothing to do with the study Agnostic posted, and they have nothing to do with donations to their churches.   However, most Christian churches do spend the bulk of their donations on helping the poor, both domestic and foreign.  

Mormons are not Christians, even by their own definition.

[Straw Man]

My two posts above about who gives the most to the poor have nothing to do with the study Agnostic posted, and they have nothing to do with donations to their churches.   However, most Christian churches do spend the bulk of their donations on helping the poor, both domestic and foreign.  

Mormons are not Christians, even by their own definition.

You seem like a pretty strident christian
How much do you give to your church every year and hoe much do you give to other charities
How much volunteer work do you do (not including proselytizing)

[tu_holmes]

My two posts above about who gives the most to the poor have nothing to do with the study Agnostic posted, and they have nothing to do with donations to their churches.   However, most Christian churches do spend the bulk of their donations on helping the poor, both domestic and foreign. 

Mormons are not Christians, even by their own definition.

Most churches spend their money improving their church... New Roofs... New worship space... Paying for the church taxes... The Pastoral housing.

[loco]

Most churches spend their money improving their church... New Roofs... New worship space... Paying for the church taxes... The Pastoral housing.

Most?  Most churches?  And where did you get this misinformation from?

[loco]

You seem like a pretty strident christian
How much do you give to your church every year and hoe much do you give to other charities
How much volunteer work do you do (not including proselytizing)

Like most Christians I know, I do tithe.  And I do give both time and money to other charities, in addition to the tithe.  How much is not something I share with anyone.

[tu_holmes]

Most?  Most churches?  And where did you get this misinformation from?

Nothing misinforming about it.

The Catholic Church sends all of it's money up the chain towards the vatican... The Mormon churches do the same.

The smaller churches bring less revenue and have no upward path for the money flow and therefore have to spend it in different ways... such as church maintenance and upkeep.

While of course some of it goes out to aid people, you can not ignore that much of it goes to 'outreach' programs which send other people out to convert people in other parts of the world.

“When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said, 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.” - Bishop Desmond TuTu

[Straw Man]

Like most Christians I know, I do tithe.  And I do give both time and money to other charities, in addition to the tithe.  How much is not something I share with anyone.

so you give 10% of your income to your church in addition to other (religious ?) charities 

[loco]

so you give 10% of your income to your church in addition to other (religious ?) charities  

That's what tithe means, 10%.  Yes, I donate time and money to religious charities and to secular charities too, in addition to the tithe.  So do most Christians I know, especially American Christians.  That's what the stuff I posted about who gives the most to charity is about.  Why are you so surprised?

To Straw and to tu_holmes, what I posted about who gives the most to charity has nothing to do with giving to the church, though Christians do give to their church too.  

There are hundreds of Christian charities in the US and around the world that help not only the poor, but also people who have other needs too like victims of disaster and victims of human trafficking.

Top Ten Christian Charities

Whether you'd like to sponsor a child to provide him with basic needs, help health workers distribute care to AIDS victims, or donate funds for disaster relief, there is a Christian charity with the infrastructure to help. And, in contrast to many secular philanthropic organizations, Christian charities help address the spiritual needs of the people they serve.

World Vision
This charity's arms are wide; reaching over 100 countries and influencing many different social causes, from hunger to health. World Vision's infrastructure is able to serve, in particular, "earthquake and hurricane survivors, abandoned and exploited children, survivors of famine and civil war, refugees, and children and families in communities devastated by AIDS in Africa, Asia, and Latin America." One of World Vision's calling cards is child sponsorship. In sponsoring a child, a donor sends a given amount of money every month, and with those funds World Vision provides the child with basic needs like food, healthcare, and education. If a more hands-on approach is your style, there are many local and international ways to volunteer with World Vision. Additionally, World Vision employs over 30,000 employees in varying fields of expertise.

Salvation Army
We all know them as the bell ringers outside the grocery store during the Christmas season. The Salvation Army, however, does much more than bell ringing. It began in 19th century England under the leadership of William Booth as an evangelistic effort and has now has grown to include many areas of social service, like community care, disaster relief, adult rehabilitation, combating human trafficking, and elderly services. The main focus of the Salvation Army remains evangelistic, but it calls itself a "total ministry for the total person." The toughest philanthropic grading institution, the American Institute of Philanthropy, grades the Salvation Army with A's and A-'s depending on the territory. This means the Salvation Army's financials are some of the most reliable among philanthropic entities.
    
Other Organizations of Note
Church World Service is a popular international relief organization, serving the needs of people plagued by poverty, disease, injustice, natural disasters, and other forms of suffering. Bread for the World, on the other hand, is focused on serving those who suffer from hunger. Both of these organizations are rated highly by the American Institute of Philanthropy (A and B+, respectively). Christian Foundation for Children and Aging, United Methodist Committee on Relief, ChildFund International, Catholic Relief Services, Lutheran World Relief, and Habitat for Humanity each address different social issues, and are all highly ranked Christian charities according to the American Institute of Philanthropy. There is generally a Christian charity organization serving nearly every kind of human need.

http://www.ehow.com/list_6026651_top-ten-christian-charities.html

[Agnostic007]

•As of 2010, Marsha J. Evans, was no longer employed by the American Red Cross. According to United Press International, Gail McGovern took over as CEO of the American Red Cross in 2008 at an annual salary of $500,000 plus a signing bonus of $65,000.

•Brian Gallagher is still President and CEO of United Way, and currently earns $1,037,140 a year, according to a December 2010 report from the American Institute of Philanthropy.


•W. Todd Bassett is no longer National Commander of the Salvation Army. The current National Commander, Israel L. Gaither, is paid somewhere between $79,389 and $243,248 annually for his services. (Since the Salvation Army, as a religious organization, doesn't report its expenses to the IRS, the only available figures for executive salaries are estimates, which vary greatly from source to source.)


•UNICEF's Executive Director, Anthony Lake, earns $201,351 a year, according to a 2010 communique from the organization