Right-wing biblical illiterates would be shocked by Jesus’ teachings …if they ever picked up a Bible

[dinar_stud]

Right-wing biblical illiterates would be shocked by Jesus’ teachings …if they ever picked up a Bible

 

 

Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly defended the Republican Party’s spending cuts for SNAP by effectively declaring Jesus would not support food stamps for the poor because most them are drug addicts. If his insensitive remark is inconsistent with Scripture, which it is, then the question becomes why do talking heads on the right get away with proclaiming what Jesus would or wouldn’t support?

 

 

The answer is simple: Conservatives have not read the Bible.

 

 

The Right has successfully rebranded the brown-skinned liberal Jew, who gave away free healthcare and was pro-redistributing wealth, into a white-skinned, trickledown, union-busting conservative, for the very fact that an overwhelming number of Americans are astonishingly illiterate when it comes to understanding the Bible. On hot-button social issues, from same-sex marriage to abortion, biblical passages are invoked without any real understanding of the context or true meaning. It’s surprising how little Christians know of what is still the most popular book to ever grace the American continent.

 

 

More than 95 percent of U.S. households own at least one copy of the Bible. So how much do Americans know of the book that one-third of the country believes to be literally true? Apparently, very little, according to data from the Barna Research group. Surveys show that 60 percent can’t name more than five of the Ten Commandments; 12 percent of adults think Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife; and nearly 50 percent of high school seniors think Sodom and Gomorrah were a married couple. A Gallup poll shows 50 percent of Americans can’t name the first book of the Bible, while roughly 82 percent believe “God helps those who help themselves” is a biblical verse.

 

 

So, if Americans get an F in the basic fundamentals of the Bible, what hope do they have in knowing what Jesus would say about labor unions, taxes on the rich, universal healthcare, and food stamps? It becomes easy to spread a lie when no one knows what the truth is.

 

 

The truth, whether Republicans like it or not, is not only that Jesus a meek and mild liberal Jew who spoke softly in parables and metaphors, but conservatives were the ones who had him killed. American conservatives, however, have morphed Jesus into a muscular masculine warrior, in much the same way the Nazis did, as a means of combating what they see as the modernization of society.

 

 

Author Thom Hartmann writes, “A significant impetus behind the assault on women and modernity was the feeling that women had encroached upon traditional male spheres like the workplace and colleges. Furthermore, women’s leadership in the churches had harmed Christianity by creating an effeminate clergy and a weak sense of self. All of this was associated with liberalism, feminism, women, and modernity.”

 

 

It’s almost absurd to speculate what Jesus’ positions would be on any single issue, given we know so little about who Jesus was. Knowing the New Testament is not simply a matter of reading the Bible cover to cover, or memorizing a handful of verses. Knowing the Bible requires a scholarly contextual understanding of authorship, history and interpretation.

 

 

For instance, when Republicans were justifying their cuts to the food stamp program, they quoted 2 Thessalonians: “Anyone unwilling to work should not eat.” One poll showed that more than 90 percent of Christians believe this New Testament quote is attributed to Jesus. It’s not. This was taken from a letter written by Paul to his church in Thessalonica. Paul wrote to this specific congregation to remind them that if they didn’t help build the church in Thessalonica, they wouldn’t be paid. The letter also happens to be a fraud. Surprise! Biblical scholars agree it’s a forgery written by someone pretending to be Paul.

 

 

What often comes as a surprise to your average Sunday wine-and-cracker Christian is the New Testament did not fall from the sky the day Jesus’ ghost is said to have ascended to Heaven. The New Testament is a collection of writings, 27 in total, of which 12 are credited to the authorship of Paul, five to the Gospels (whomever wrote Luke also wrote Acts), and the balance remain open for debate i.e. authorship unknown. Jesus himself wrote not a single word of the New Testament. Not a single poem, much less an op-ed article on why, upon reflection, killing your daughter for backchat is probably not sound parenting.

 

 

The best argument against a historical Jesus is the fact that none of his disciples left us with a single record or document regarding Jesus or his teachings. So, who were the gospel writers? The short answer is we don’t know. What we do know is that not only had none of them met Jesus, but also they never met the people who had allegedly met Jesus. All we have is a bunch of campfire stories from people who were born generations after Jesus’ supposed crucifixion. In other words, numerous unidentified authors, each with his own theological and ideological motives for writing what they wrote. Thus we have not a single independently verifiable eyewitness account of Jesus—but this doesn’t stop Republicans from speaking on his behalf.

 

 

What we do know about Jesus, at least according to the respective gospels, is that Jesus’ sentiments closely echoed the social and economic policies of the political left. The Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount read like the mission statement of the ACLU: “Blessed are the poor, for theirs is kingdom of heaven,” “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth,” and “Blessed are the peacemakers.” Jesus also said, “Judge not he who shall not be judged,” and “Sell what you have and give it to the poor.”

 

 

So, when Republicans accuse Obama of being a brown-skinned socialist who wants to redistribute the wealth, they’re thinking of Jesus. Stephen Colbert joked, “Jesus was always flapping his gums about the poor but never once did he call for a tax cut for the wealthiest 2 percent of Romans.”

 

 

Biblical illiteracy is what has allowed the Republican Party to get away with shaping Jesus into their image. That’s why politicians on the right can get away with saying the Lord commands that our healthcare, prisons, schools, retirement, transport, and all the rest should be run by corporations for profit. Ironically, the Republican Jesus was actually a devout atheist—Ayn Rand—who called the Christian religion “monstrous.” Rand advocated selfishness over charity, and she divided the world into makers versus takers. She also stated that followers of her philosophy had to chose between Jesus and her teachings. When the Christian Right believes it’s channeling Jesus when they say it’s immoral for government to tax billionaires to help pay for healthcare, education and the poor, they’re actually channeling Ayn Rand. When Bill O’Reilly claims the poor are immoral and lazy, that’s not Jesus, it’s Ayn Rand.

 

 

The price this country has paid for biblical illiteracy is measured by how far we’ve moved toward Ayn Rand’s utopia. In the past three decades, we’ve slashed taxes on corporations and the wealthy, destroyed labor unions, deregulated financial markets, eroded public safety nets, and committed to one globalist corporate free-trade agreement after another. Rand would be smiling down from the heaven she didn’t believe in.

 

 

With the far-right, Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Koch brothers’ Citizens United, the flow of billions of dollars from anonymous donors to the most reliable voting bloc of the Republican Party—the Christian Right—will continue to perpetuate the biblically incompatible, anti-government, pro-deregulation-of-business, anti-healthcare-for-all, Tea Party American version of Christianity.

Edited December 30, 2013 by dinar_stud

[Indraman]

I don't think stealing from one person to give to another world be sanctioned by the teachings of Jesus, just saying.

Indy

[dog53]

Stud muffin 

Thats the stupidest 

Shat I have ever read in my life.

1/2 the liberals could care less about the bible . 

Let alone understand it. 

Hell about a 3rd of them cant read period.

hahahahahahahahahah

[Djorgie]

Indraman,

 

Exactly!  Personally, I don't believe that Jesus would go for any kind of political anything! and FYI, if you do some deeper research on Ayn Rand you will discover that she was really a satanist disguised as an "atheist"... not that there is a WHOLE lot of difference between the two because separating yourself from GOD is just that. It doesn't make two dinar to satan HOW he accomplishes this just as long as he does.

[MyLadiesDaddy]

PATHETIC. Here we go again with 100 posts throwing pearls before swine whose

only intention is to stir up aggravation and draw attention to himself. Must have a

very lonely life.

What should be done is ignore him until such time as he can sincerely ask for help.

[Lutie]

What ?  Dinardud

[Markinsa]

Who's the illiterate? The Liberal that wrote it, or the one posting it?

 

 

2 Thessalonians 3:9-11 (NLT)

⁹ We certainly had the right to ask you to feed us, but we wanted to give you an example to follow. ¹⁰ Even while we were with you, we gave you this command: “Those unwilling to work will not get to eat.”

¹¹ Yet we hear that some of you are living idle lives, refusing to work and meddling in other people’s business.  ßThe liberal voter

 

 

What Jesus has to say.

 

Matthew 25:24-30 (NLT)

 

²⁴ “Then the servant with the one bag of silver came and said, ‘Master, I knew you were a harsh man, harvesting crops you didn’t plant and gathering crops you didn’t cultivate. ²⁵ I was afraid I would lose your money, so I hid it in the earth. Look, here is your money back.’

²⁶ “But the master replied, ‘You wicked and lazy servant! If you knew I harvested crops I didn’t plant and gathered crops I didn’t cultivate, ²⁷ why didn’t you deposit my money in the bank? At least I could have gotten some interest on it.’

²⁸ “Then he ordered, ‘Take the money from this servant, and give it to the one with the ten bags of silver. ²⁹ To those who use well what they are given, even more will be given, and they will have an abundance. But from those who do nothing, even what little they have will be taken away. ³⁰ Now throw this useless servant into outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

[Rayzur]

Unfortunately there are so many very different points being made, it seems to dilute what appears to be the original intention: Identifying the theoretical underpinnings of Christ's teachings most closely resembled in contemporary society.... It would be pretty hard to argue that the teachings of Christ are not significantly closer to the democrat centrist than the republican centerist approach to society.... I'd never use the word liberal as it has lost the theoretical context of what it means in these discussions (e.g., the world considers the US to be liberal consistent with how the word is theoretically defined)..... And in this case wouldn't use the word conservative either... as that is becoming almost as meaningless as to whom it actually refers....

Also too bad it was not written as objectively as it could have been in discussing what seems to be the original intention, and regrettably, is highly emotionally provocative... likewise diluting the original intention, which I think are interesting and perhaps important points to consider.... and will not be considered, as people will likely jump to an emotionally reactive place for the most part....

 

Tossing in the assertion that historical Jesus did not exist, was kind of off the wall: on one hand the author says the teachings of Jesus are more left than right from a philosophically political standpoint, and in the middle of the mix, tosses out that Jesus did not exist, which is an entirely different point and discussion.... entirely... and unfortunately dilutes the authors points to essentially non-existent, were one to accept this assertion.... or, on the other hand, would dilute the authors points to insignificant, relative to the assertion Jesus did not exist, and in either case, seems to invalidate the whole point of making some good points for consideration regarding His teachings (e.g., beatitudes)

 

And in any case, I for one thank you Dinar Stud for challenging me to dig deeper and more completely in contribution to  my resolve to stand fast in the comfort of knowing ..... thanks for challenging me to better understand what I know, that I know that I know

[dog53]

Unfortunately there are so many very different points being made, it seems to dilute what appears to be the original intention: Identifying the theoretical underpinnings of Christ's teachings most closely resembled in contemporary society.... It would be pretty hard to argue that the teachings of Christ are not significantly closer to the democrat centrist than the republican centerist approach to society.... I'd never use the word liberal as it has lost the theoretical context of what it means in these discussions (e.g., the world considers the US to be liberal consistent with how the word is theoretically defined)..... And in this case wouldn't use the word conservative either... as that is becoming almost as meaningless as to whom it actually refers....

Also too bad it was not written as objectively as it could have been in discussing what seems to be the original intention, and regrettably, is highly emotionally provocative... likewise diluting the original intention, which I think are interesting and perhaps important points to consider.... and will not be considered, as people will likely jump to an emotionally reactive place for the most part....

 

Tossing in the assertion that historical Jesus did not exist, was kind of off the wall: on one hand the author says the teachings of Jesus are more left than right from a philosophically political standpoint, and in the middle of the mix, tosses out that Jesus did not exist, which is an entirely different point and discussion.... entirely... and unfortunately dilutes the authors points to essentially non-existent, were one to accept this assertion.... or, on the other hand, would dilute the authors points to insignificant, relative to the assertion Jesus did not exist, and in either case, seems to invalidate the whole point of making some good points for consideration regarding His teachings (e.g., beatitudes)

 

And in any case, I for one thank you Dinar Stud for challenging me to dig deeper and more completely in contribution to  my resolve to stand fast in the comfort of knowing ..... thanks for challenging me to better understand what I know, that I know that I know

 

Say  wa ?    

[nstoolman1]

I get upset when someone tells me what I have read or not read.

[sportfisher]

stud_muffin  it must be miserable being you.             

[Catalina]

PATHETIC. Here we go again with 100 posts throwing pearls before swine whose

only intention is to stir up aggravation and draw attention to himself. Must have a

very lonely life.

What should be done is ignore him until such time as he can sincerely ask for help.

Grandpapy always said

Do not argue with a fool because others might not be able to tell you apart!

[Rayzur]

Say  wa ?    

 

Oh mah Dog dear.... you know me, I get carried away and next thing ya know, I'm in Cincinnati.....  

 

 

Okay let me try to nutshell it... (Lordie)....

 

The author is all over the map, contradicts the logic of his own assertions and loses any hope of discussing what might be good points to consider (e.g., are beatitudes more philosophically left or right)....

And in any case, I appreciate information that challenges my beliefs as it causes me to dig deeper in research, or understanding why it is I believe what I believe and that I know that I know that I know (that I am THAT certain).

 

It dawned on me I was being a hypocrite in my silence by not at least acknowledging that I genuinely appreciate the challenge as an actual opportunity to grow deeper or more completely in my personal walk/relationship..... Why would I not want to examine from every angle,  the most critical and important reality of all that is....   

[Rayzur]

BTW, in response to one teeny tiny point made by the author, as far as when the Gospels were written, the author apparently is unaware of the written Word that preceded that which was actually included in the Bible. Just as the author claims the Bible did not fall from the sky, neither did it fall in English..... Indeed, there is a complete text of Matthew in Hebrew, that is NOT based on either the Vulgate or Byzantine Greek. In addition to the Hebrew, Latin and Greek Matthew; there is also a Coptic text of Matthew as well as a Syriac text of Matthew.

Coptic Matthew was written in the northern style of the Middle Egyptian dialect of Coptic, which was translated from Greek however; a Semitic/Jewish context underlying the Coptic text was well preserved. The Syriac gospels preserve /reflect the early Aramaic ---a Semitic language used by Christ's early Jewish followers-- the early Aramiac gospels which were likely written within 10 to 20 years of the events they describe.

 

A lot of people try to go back to early Christian history to discover and understand the lineage of the written Word, completely forgetting apparently, that the early followers of Christ were Jewish. As in literally Jewish. And the early followers of Christ, were likely predominately Jewish for a good hundred years. Apparently still others forget we did not have internet or rapid communication of any kind, and it took time for the Jewish followers of Christ (Messasianic) to be joined by Gentile converts to the extent there arose a large enough body of followers who thereafter became distinctly known as Christian (the point is NOT to trace exact history of this, as much as to say, the early followers of Christ as a body of distinct people were Jewish). So those interested in tracing it, might want to for example, go back to the Hebrew within the Babylonian Talmud , to read the teachings of Christ's contemporary Hillel (10 AD). Note that number is a 10, it is not 100...... And I'm not going to take the time to go through multiple translations, and texts in connecting the dots, but at the end of the day, we find that Syriac Matthew was meticulously copied down, not handed down in oral tradition. And for those interested, the Greek Matthew was likely translated from the Syriac Matthew, and yes semantic information was lost in translating the idioms into another language.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Rayzur

[EagleEye]

Grandpapy always said

Do not argue with a fool because others might not be able to tell you apart!

hmmm Proverbs says it this way....

 

"

Pr 26: 4-5 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him...Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

 

[Catalina]

Backwoods free translation by GrandPappy!

Thanks for the original word Eagle Eye.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Catalina

[divemaster5734]

Say  wa ?    

It is.. but it isnt...

Oh mah Dog dear.... you know me, I get carried away and next thing ya know, I'm in Cincinnati.....

 

 

Okay let me try to nutshell it... (Lordie)....

 

The author is all over the map, contradicts the logic of his own assertions and loses any hope of discussing what might be good points to consider (e.g., are beatitudes more philosophically left or right)....

And in any case, I appreciate information that challenges my beliefs as it causes me to dig deeper in research, or understanding why it is I believe what I believe and that I know that I know that I know (that I am THAT certain).

 

It dawned on me I was being a hypocrite in my silence by not at least acknowledging that I genuinely appreciate the challenge as an actual opportunity to grow deeper or more completely in my personal walk/relationship..... Why would I not want to examine from every angle,  the most critical and important reality of all that is....   

The bottom line is the idiot that wrote the article was on a feckless rant.. their only objective seemingly to create even more divisiveness and division, while desperately attempting to establish an unimpeachable position.. a legend, in their own mind anyway.

...

Edited December 30, 2013 by divemaster5734

[flatdawg]

Well done DS.

[Sentinel7]

Isn’t it amazing the amount of time Dip Sticks spend trying to convince people

that they are wrong about Jesus.

 

First they yell that God and Jesus do not exist and when that don’t work they jump on the you have not read or you are misinterpreting bandwagon.

 

Your nights must be filled with nightmares for you to spend so much time fighting against what in your mind is a book of fantasies and a man that didn’t exist.

 

DS  it’s called an obsession and maybe it is time you went to a doctor to resolve these issues and get a good nights sleep

 

But a better way of getting rid of these nightmares is just except Jesus as your lord and savior and get a good nights sleep every night.

Until you do the nightmare of your life will continue.

 

 

            No Surrender No Retreat and No Compromise

[DinarDavo]

When ever I try to have an honest discussion with an O-bot these days I usually just resort to quoting the contemporary prophet, Sir Robert Zimmerman, "time will tell just who has fell and who's been left behind, when you go your way and I go mine".

[Bunk]

   Bill O'Reilly Is An Independent...     What Is Your Point Hear?? The Mean Republicans Want To Take Food From

 

   Hungry People??  Typical Demoncratic Fear Mongering... Next It Will Be Republicans Do Not Want Clean Drinking Water..

 

   Democrats Are The Party of Hate...

[Shabibilicious]

   Bill O'Reilly Is An Independent...     What Is Your Point Hear?? The Mean Republicans Want To Take Food From

 

   Hungry People??  Typical Demoncratic Fear Mongering... Next It Will Be Republicans Do Not Want Clean Drinking Water..

 

   Democrats Are The Party of Hate...

 

That's an interesting last line.........you write that?    

 

GO RV, then BV

[AmericaInc]

   Bill O'Reilly Is An Independent...     What Is Your Point Hear?? The Mean Republicans Want To Take Food From

 

   Hungry People??  Typical Demoncratic Fear Mongering... Next It Will Be Republicans Do Not Want Clean Drinking Water..

 

   Democrats Are The Party of Hate...

No, they don't want clean drinking water. How do I know? I worked for Clean Water Action a group protecting drinking water in Miami. Big business wanted no part in cleaning up water - just profits. Republicans Party of Business. You get the drift...Of course most righties want clean water - but the ones making it dirty are making too much money to stop...

 

And your other point - if .01% of Americans own 46% of the wealth in our great country...yes there are those going hungry who deserve better in a free, caring society. You can't say you don't want a middle class - that will lead to trouble.

 

So you are wrong on both points, and your attitude suggests further division between left and right - and hypocrisy.

Edited December 30, 2013 by AmericaInc

[Bunk]

No, they don't want clean drinking water. How do I know? I worked for Clean Water Action a group protecting drinking water in Miami. Big business wanted no part in cleaning up water - just profits. Republicans Party of Business. You get the drift...Of course most righties want clean water - but the ones making it dirty are making too much money to stop...

 

And your other point - if .01% of Americans own 46% of the wealth in our great country...yes there are those going hungry who deserve better in a free, caring society. You can't say you don't want a middle class - that will lead to trouble.

 

So you are wrong on both points, and your attitude suggests further division between left and right - and hypocrisy.

 

 

 

  Like I Said,Typical Democratic Fear Mongering.. And Are You Saying Miami Big Business Is All Republican?? So Its Just The Republicans

 

  Who Dirty Up The Water..Also,Being Between The Left And Right Is Called Being Independent,Not A Hypocrit...

  Like I Said,Typical Democratic Fear Mongering.. And Are You Saying Miami Big Business Is All Republican?? So Its Just The Republicans

 

  Who Dirty Up The Water..Also,Being Between The Left And Right Is Called Being Independent,Not A Hypocrit...

 

 

  I Didnt Neg You...

[darwinatridge]

Wow Stud, you sure do like twisting things around. You really should have a hard look at Proverbs 1 but here is something for you.

Matt 18:1-9

18:1At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”2 Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, 3 and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me. 6 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes! 8 “If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire.