Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Why Republicans aren't Christian

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
godhatesrepublicans Donating Member (343 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-22-06 05:57 PM
Original message
Why Republicans aren't Christian
Republicans, the Fundamentalist Christian Republicans in particular,
dont like to quote Jesus very often. Oh they talk ABOUT Jesus a lot,
but the actual words that Jesus spoke make them uncomfortable.

Part of that is because a lot of what Jesus said directly contradicts their
personal prejudices and hatreds. After all, how can a person believe
John 15:12 This is my commandment, that ye love one another,
as I have loved you. and still treat their workers worse than
indentured servants, and shrug off hundreds of thousands of dead
innocent bystanders to a war as collateral damage?

If youre going to thump the Bible, you really should read it first, not just
listen to selected highlights picked by people to suit their agenda.
Republicans are particularly adept at this, earning them the label of
modern day Pharisees.

I find its helpful to define words occasionally, to clarify my point. What
is a Pharisee exactly? I borrow from the Wikipedia, one of my favorite
on line encyclopedias.

"An important binary in the New Testament is the opposition between
law and love. Accordingly, the New Testament presents the Pharisees
as obsessed with man-made rules (especially concerning purity)
whereas Jesus is more concerned with Gods love; the Pharisees scorn
sinners whereas Jesus seeks them out. Because of the New
Testament's frequent depictions of Pharisees as self-righteous rule-
followers, and because most scholars agree that the gospels place the
blame for Jesus' crucifixion on a large faction of Pharisees, the word
"pharisee" (and its derivatives: "pharisaical", etc.) has come into semi-
common usage in English to describe a hypocritical and arrogant
person who places the letter of the law above its spirit.

I would like to thank whoever wrote that bit, its an excellent definition.
It helps make my point that Republicans are the modern Pharisees
quite well.

People have used the Scriptures to justify all sorts of sins. For
example, Southern slave-owners in the 19th Century justified owning
humans by declaring that Africans were the Children of Ham and
according to Genesis 9:25 they were Cursed; a servant of
servants shall he be unto his brethren. Thats a pretty convenient
way to justify kidnapping people and forcing them to do manual labor.
And in the New Testament we have bits such as Colossians 3:22
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according
to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart,
as unto Christ. There are still people who try to roll back the Civil
Rights movement based on these bits of Scripture.

Currently, Republicans choose to claim Biblical authority to ban
abortion. Lets set aside the point that God says so is a bad source
for civil law for now. Lets see what the Bible actually has to say on the

Exodus 21:22-23 "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so
that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follows: he
shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will
lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if
any mischief follows, then thou shalt give life for life."

Leviticus 27:6 "And if it be from a month old even unto five years
old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of
silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of
silver." month old.]

Numbers 3:15-16 "Number the children of Levi after the house of
their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and
upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them
according to the word of the LORD." one month old are not counted as persons by God.]

So in Scripture, a baby doesn't exist as a person until they are born,
and one month old. So a fetus doesn't count. But what does the Bible
say about abortion itself?

2 Kings.15:16 "Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were
therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they
opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women
therein that were with child he ripped up."

Hosea 9:14 "Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? Give them
a miscarrying womb and dry breasts."

Hosea 9:16 "Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the
beloved fruit of their womb."

Hosea 13:16 "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath
rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their
infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child
shall be ripped up."

So Id say that the Old Testament God would not only not condemn
abortion, he seems very enthusiastic about it on occasion.

So what, you may ask. Maybe Republicans just want to "save the
children." Not a chance! The Republican record for doing anything to
"protect children" is weak to say the least. Here's a recent but typical

In September of 2005, By a 51-47 vote, the Republican controlled
Senate rejected a resolution that would have repealed mercury
regulations adopted that March by the U.S. Environmental Protection

The White House had warned that President Bush would veto any
attempt to reverse the rules.

Mercury pollution - some 48 tons a year of the toxic substance, spewing
from 1,100 or so coal-burning power plants around the country - is a
documented health danger to Americans.

According to studies released by several groups in recent years,
climbing mercury levels pose an imminent danger to small children and
unborn fetuses. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that impacts the
neurological development of children who are exposed in the womb.

The EPA's response, rammed through by the White House appointees
who run it, has been to give the utilities many years - to 2018 and
beyond - to reduce mercury emissions to 15 tons.

Moreover, the plan includes a so-called "cap and trade" system that
allows the operators of particularly dirty plants to buy their way out of
trouble, while increasing the likelihood of dangerous mercury "hot
spots" around such plants.

The Bush administration could have continued to enforce the federal
Clean Air Act, which would have reduced mercury emissions more in
less than half the time, but it chose to side with the polluters, which
include many of their major campaign contributors.

In scuttling tighter regulations, the administration, in the words of the
National Environmental Trust, "ignored its own scientists, two
government reports, and hundreds of thousands of public comments, to
say nothing of the one in six women of childbearing age whose blood
mercury levels are unsafe for developing children."

So in essence, the Republican policy is to prevent medical abortions of
fetuses, in order to assist industry in poisoning their developing brains
and afflict the resulting children with life long mental and physical
problems. So much for their last shred of credibility. These people
truly deserve God's vengeance!

Republicans also like to quote bits of scripture to justify their lust for
vengeance by using the death penalty. True, murder is punished with
death in the Old Testament. Genesis 9:6 "Whoso sheddeth man's
blood, by man shall his blood be shed."

Republicans do however make the deliberate choice to ignore that the
Bible also says disobedient children should be executed as well.
Exodus 21:17 "He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall
surely be put to death." Or for that matter, having a different religion
warrants death by Old Testament standards. Exodus 22:20 "He that
sacrificeth unto any god save unto the LORD only, he shall be
utterly destroyed."

Rounding up lawbreakers and executing them, (or people who look like
lawbreakers, or people who are easy to catch) is a pretty simple
minded theology. Its easy, not much is required of you except to be
comfortable taking a human life or at least giving it your approval.

But what code of behavior did Christ ask of us? Isn't that what
Christians should be asking?

MATTHEW 5 :1 11
And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and
when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness:
for they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the
children of God.
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake:
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you,
and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

That is a much harder code to live up to than the Kill em all, and too
bad if theyre proved innocent later theology that the Republicans
preach. And that is the biggest reason Republicans hate the teachings
of Christ. Theyll plaster his name all over the place, but theyll always
choose to ignore what he had to say.

And that is why GOD HATES REPUBLICANS!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
IsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-22-06 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. I have some bible knowlege and I see it like you do, modern day Pharisees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
fearthem Donating Member (573 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-22-06 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
2. Have thought the same for a long time; Republicans . . .
Edited on Wed Mar-22-06 06:11 PM by fearthem
actually fit the mode of "anti-Christ" and it is a contradiction, if not a sin, to use the name of Jesus for political, monetary gain as in "incorporating" the name of Jesus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Ben Ceremos Donating Member (387 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 02:46 AM
Response to Original message
3. How does one...
quote a being who never existed? Even Christians aren't Christians. All of you fell for the old solar myth from the oral tradition; the tradition that anthropomorphizes and personifies in order to convey metaphorically. Jesus is a version of the "sun-god", the Sun. Jesus never said anything, he wasn't. As in, "...this parrot is no more"...only with Jesus-parrot you can say "...this parrot never was."

I hate Republicans because I hate hypocrites. Hate isn't only useful as poison. Like anger, it is a fuel and a power for good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. I'm not a believer either ...
...but someone wrote down the words which have been attributed to Jesus. Someone, roughly 2000 years ago, was thinking on the big questions of life and wrote down the the blessed are stuff, the love your neighbor stuff, etc. And someone else managed to get that all included in the bible.

Whether there's any basis in history for the events portrayed in that book, we still have these ideas about tolerance, helping, and giving ... and the faithful think that those are the words of their god. Nevertheless, they ignore those teachings and look elsewhere in their book for the fun stuff about hating and stoning and so on.

Pointing out the rampant hypocrisy of these people is perfectly valid with or without an actual Jesus.

Hypocrites are never right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Left Below Donating Member (171 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 10:33 PM
Response to Original message
4. Nice post - I have never read the Beatitudes before (Question)
What does "poor in spirit" mean and why are they rewarded with the "kingdom of heaven"....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
godhatesrepublicans Donating Member (343 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. what is meant by "poor in spirit" - good question BTW
You've given me a great idea for my next essay. The short version of what is commonly understood by "poor in spirit" is a mix of humility before others and not being motivated by materialism. Obviously the "Now how the heck do I do THAT?!?" issue is a big topic for debate. Does that mean taking a vow of poverty, or just keeping things in perspective and not being obsessed with petty indulgences? Or did He mean something else entirely?

I'm going to take a couple days to come up with a more thorough answer than that, because while EVERY preacher eventually weighs in on the Beatitudes, I really haven't yet. And one thing I've learned reading ideas from ANY great teacher, be it Jesus, Buddha, Lao-Tzu or that drunk guy at the bar that seems to have the occasional brilliant observation is that the immediate and obvious interpretation isn't necessarily what the teacher means. Parables and poetic language are tricky.

But on a whim, I just googled "poor in spirit" and found a couple of fairly interesting points of view on the subject. Thought I'd pass them along if anyone's interested. As you'll see, no one seems to exactly agree on exactly what's meant by "poor in spirit."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Left Below Donating Member (171 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. It would seem that one who has renounced the material
would be rich in "spirit" - so as a laymen I can't agree with your read.

I suspect that something is awry in translation - can you find the original Greek version of this passage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
godhatesrepublicans Donating Member (343 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. still working on my comments on this, so I cribbed some notes.
Matthew 5:3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Matthew 5:3 is the third verse of the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament. It is the opening verse of the Sermon on the Mount, and the section of the sermon known as the Beatitudes.

In the King James Version of the Bible the text reads:

Blessed are the poor in spirit:
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

The World English Bible translates the passage as:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven

This verse opens the first of nine statements of who is blessed. Each, except for the last, follows the same pattern of naming a group of people and the reward they will receive. Albright and Mann prefer to word fortunate to blessed they argue that the term has none of the religious implications that the word blessed today has in the English language.

Betz notes that in Jesus' time blessed was a common way of describing someone who is wealthy. In Solon's discussion of Croesus in Herodotus, for instance, the link between being blessed and being wealthy is assumed. Kodjak believes that this opening of the sermon was meant to shock the audience, it was a deliberate inversion of standard values. Today he feels that the text is so common that its shock value has been lost. While not a mainstream view, Betz feels this Beatitude has important pre-Christian precedents. He traces it back to Socrates' notion of enkrateia, which explained that the philosopher was one who had no interest in wealth. This idea was adopted by the Cynics, who rejected wealth and saw poverty as the only route to freedom. This group, while small, had a wide influence and some of their ideas were embraced by some Jewish communities at the time of Christ.

Luke 6:20 simply has "blessed are the poor," that Matthew adds "in spirit" is seen to be of great import. The phrase "poor in spirit" also occurs in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and seems to have been an important notion to the Qumran community. Scholars agree that "poor in spirit" does not mean lacking in spirit, be it courage, the Holy Spirit, or religious awareness. Rather it is that poverty is not only a physical condition, but also a spiritual one. Schweizer feels the extra note asserts that simply being poor is not a ticket into heaven, but rather only those who understand the nature of real poverty are blessed. To this group blessing is promised without qualification. Schweizer also feels that the addendum makes clear that the poor are not to be envied. He also notes that nowhere in this section is there any mention of a need or obligation to help the poor.

The important phrase Kingdom of Heaven, generally understood as referring to the Messianic age after the Second Coming. For a full discussion of Matthew's use of this phrase see Matthew 3:2.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Left Below Donating Member (171 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I like what you're doing - but there is still a gaping hole here
my gut tells me that "poor in spirit" is equivalent to the "dis-spirited" (sp?)....

The downtrodden, the lost....

This is the humanist in me speaking. I want the hopeless to have hope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
megatherium Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Actually, one gospel reads simply "Blessed are the poor."
(This is in chapter 8 of Luke, while chapter 5 of Matthew softens it to read "blessed are the poor in spirit.") The message was that contrary to assumptions in Jesus's time, being rich was not a sign that God had blessed you. Indeed the verse in Luke reads, "Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Starfury Donating Member (615 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 05:06 AM
Response to Original message
11. Christian or Conservative - it's impossible to be both n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jan 18th 2018, 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC