I've noticed this trend with conservative republicans which seems to be that they want to make absolutely sure that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. They also want to say that they believe in Christian values and teaching what Christ would have wanted.

These seem contradictory.

Is there some well formulated argument that aptly justifies this cognitive dissonance? I'd love to hear it.

The conservatives really say they do what Jesus would of wanted that is just wrong

Shaedo K : where in the bible does it say to steal from the rich and give to the poor?

Neither system is Biblical as far as I'm concerned.... however, capitalism is based more on the freedom to choose to do with your money as you see fit which is what I think is a more Christian principle than forced "charity".

geeogree : I am 100% satisfied with this.

Well, republicans aren't for keeping rich people rich and poor people poor. They want to see everyone succeed. And as to how they can align themselves with Christ, Jesus wouldn't have been for things like abortion and homosexual marriage. And I don't think I ever read about Jesus supporting socialism.

Shaedo K : i find four parts leave little doubt.
1:christ supposedly had many visit and donate to him to show faith,he was impressed only by the woman who gave 3 pennys,all that she had.
2:it is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven.
3about death)the last will come first and the first will come last
4:the story of christ sharin his fish with many people,no matter the number equally sharing all.
I realise the thread was evidence for but really i dont think there is any

Hoochman : That's a load of crap, dude. The repubs are about protecting the upper class and that top ten percent.

Bobbynibbles : Not really they wish to give everyone economic freedom and tax cuts.

Hoochman : Have you researched this yourself or are you spouting what your parents say?

Bobbynibbles : Dude, go harass someone else if you're gonna start getting emotional on me again. Its a waste of my time. And no, I did research it, the argument that republicans are all for the rich is baseless, and it was started to cause class warfare.

Republicans (or democrates)  who use Christianity as part of their party platform contradicts what the Constitution says.  America is supposed to be a secular nation with no bias for one particular religion, at least in the government and publicly funded organizations or systems. It is my belief that politicians use Christianity to get more votes, as Christianity is the majority religion in America.

As far as the bible saying Capitalism is good, there is absolutely no mention of anything related to Capitalistic philosophy.  Capitalism is a recent ideology , and there would be no way for people in Jesus' era to understand things such as a free market. There is very little talk about politics in the bible, especially about economic systems. 

When asked if paying taxes to Caesar was right or not, Jesus replied by saying "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" as seen in Matthew 22. So Jesus, in my opinion, is  saying religion and politics are separate entities, which in that time, was a very bold statement being that both heavily influenced each other. There was a movement of the Jewish population (and other Roman controlled countries) that  despised paying taxes to the Romans.

What Jesus said is somewhat contradicted in other parts of the bible. Look at what Paul wrote in Romans 13 "Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing." (NIV) This quote portrays the political systems of the time, there were no elections and the leaders were thought to have been chosen by God. If you look at most Monarchies it is this way. 

It is my understanding that during the time of Jesus (basically until christianity became the enforced religion) Roman Emperors would go to the Temple of Jupitar at Capitoline Hill and ask the priests for money/funding as they controlled the money and basically acted as the treasury. This is where we get the english word for money, Capital as seen in Capitalism, aswell as the use of the word Capital for describing main cities.

The power that religious institutions had can also be seen in early Christianity when the Clergy owned the majority of the land. This can also be seen during Jesus' time when money changers / tax collectors are found in temples and synagauges.

I apologize if this post seems off topic, I just wanted to show how interwoven politics and religion were during biblical times.

I'm pretty sure the constitution says whatever I want it to say.

I'm good, the constitution is good, therefore, the constitution says everything I think and nothing more.

smotpoker86 : Quick corrections from the historian.

The Roman Empire had no notion of this "chosen by god" thing for the Emperor. Augustus, the first Emperor, gained his power by convincing the Roman Senate to give it to him. The term "Emperor" came from Imperator, a title given a victorious Roman general during his triumph (big parade basically). The role of the Emperor was that of Princeps, aka First Man of the Senate, above yet equal. Normally the Senate was headed by two Consuls (highest civil and military job... like having two presidents). The Emperor basically had the power of a Consul, even when he wasn't officially one, as well as the power of a Tribune (kinda like Speaker of the House) without the title, and he was also Pontifex Maximus, head of the Roman religion. So, basically, the Roman Emperor was the President, the Speaker of the House, and the Pope all in one person. He didn't have to ask for money, he controlled it all. Money was kept on Capitoline Hill, as that was where all the big government things were (and temples were part of government because it was the State Religion), but the money was kept in the Temple of Saturn, not of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. The treasury itself was called the Aerarium, and the temple was located in the Forum next to the archives. Also, the money was not controlled by the priests, it was controlled by lesser elected officials (originally quaestors, later prefects, then back to quaestors). The treasury was placed in the temple because it was well-protected... I mean, if you were a random Roman would you want to break into the temple of Saturn to steal?

Oh... and they believed that the emperors became gods after death and thus remained part of the state religion. You see references to Divine Augustus, Divine Trajan, Divine Julius (because Augustus declared he was a god)... but they seemed to exclude the bad ones... there is no Divine Nero or Caligula for instance.

But yeah, the statement of Matthew 22 I think is in relation to the fact that paying taxes to Caesar (which is the title they used instead of Emperor) is paying taxes to the Roman state religion in addition to running the empire, and the Jews had problems with that in particular. None of the provinces liked paying Roman taxes or being under Roman rule for the most part, but Judea was always a particular problem.

... I'm gonna stop the ramble now.

I would also like to add that you are not going to hear Jesus endorse Capitalism or Socialism because neither was in existence at the time as we define them now.

Shaedo K : The best response I can give is that the do what gets them votes. I second what smotpoker said in his first paragraph. Also they do what benefits them only when it benefits them... like how they are opposed to universal health care and social security but are totally fine accepting the life-long high-end healthcare and retirement deal they get for being congressmen.

warmaker : You have zero dollars. Most things cost more than 1 dollar. You are free to choose to do whatever you want. I don't believe in the government helping you.

Shaedo K: I'm not sure exactly what you're referencing when you say I have zero dollars but okay, let's say I have zero dollars. 

Dollars are a measure of value.  If I am a doctor, an engineer, an accountant, or a lawyer and I have zero dollars, this will not be a problem.  My society has allowed me to exploit my talents as far as they will go.  I can go find work as a hired hand somewhere.  I can ask others who have more than what they need to help bouy me into society.  I can name countless institutions of charity and help in the U.S.  I can't name very many charities in, say, China or Cuba.  From that little help I develop my skills and my abilities and go on to be of assistance to the world around me.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by saying what you did.  Can you be a little more specific, please?