I have come to the conclusion that republicans

[gopiscrap]

can't be Christians. They're all a bunch greedy fucking, self centered, judgemental, ignorant bunch of fuckers!!!!

[quinnox]

1. yes

republicans seem to, in general, have a remarkable lack of empathy for other humans. They are all about themselves, and greed. You summed it up nicely.

[gopiscrap]

2. thank you!!!

[arely staircase]

3. ironic isn't it

they are the type of people Jesus warned us about.

[gopiscrap]

5. Yup no kidding

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven"

[arely staircase]

12. Jesus little brother James was of similar mind.

he was the Bishop of Jerusalem (leader of the Church) after his brother was executed. He is an unfortunately sort of forgotten character in modern Christianity an was really overshadowed by Paul from almost the beginning.


James 5

New International Version (NIV)

Warning to Rich Oppressors

5 Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. 2 Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. 4 Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. 5 You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.[a] 6 You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you.

[elleng]

102. The more things change,

the more they remain the same.

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

[quinnox]

6. Indeed, they cloak themselves in Christianity without understanding

what it really means. Looking out for your fellow man. Compassion for others. Loving your fellow man, as if it was yourself.

[RKP5637]

14. Thanks for saying that! I've often thought that ... I'm not a religious person, but

I went through church / sunday school in my youth and took away with me the good parts ... and one thing that always stands out to me ... when I hear republican spew ... is these are the types we were warned of ... at least in my church.

[CJCRANE]

44. Same here. I'm not religious but I remember the sayings from my childhood.

But strangely, I've never heard a conservative Christian quote Jesus's most famous sayings.

[RKP5637]

74. Quite true, there's always silence from many of the conservative Christians ... n/t

[calimary]

56. And they revere the kinds of people Jesus drove OUT of the Temple.

They side with the proverbial money-changers. They prefer the only people Jesus ever got mad at and against whom He got His dander up. The only temper fit described in the Bible as something Jesus did - was that. Oh yeah, and at one point He also got pissed off at a fig tree. But as far as people were concerned - that was the ONLY account.

This needs to be said, read, and SPREAD. They can't accurately or legitimately call themselves "Christians." Because the Jesus Christ they claim they worship and adore - was all about THE POOR. Whom He described as "the least of these." He was talking about THE POOR. The same group of people these latter-day assholes despise and, in fact, wish and hope to hurt, neglect, and abuse.

So if they do indeed feel that way, then they CANNOT by all rights call themselves Christians. If someone truly wants to follow Christ, he or she MUST put the poor first, and indeed, BECOME one of the poor. Jesus also said you should renounce all your worldly goods and give all of it up and follow Him. The Bible has that one too. What He told the rich young man who came inquiring how to join the club. And the story describes how the rich young man was unhappy with the instructions Christ gave him, and went away dejected, now that he understood what he was required to do. And as far as I can recall, we never heard anymore about that rich young man coming back, having decided to go ahead and do what Christ told him to do in order to follow Him.

THAT needs to be shoved in the face of EVERY republi-CON and republi-CON sympathizer and self-anointed religioso in America - especially those with the big, expensive, lavish empires. (I'm talkin' to YOU, pat robertson, and all your little "Supply-Side Jesus" pals!!!!)

[arely staircase]

58. and they hate gays

something Jesus spent so much time talking about that there is zero mention of it in any of the gospels.

oh, edited to say: I never got the fig tree thing. I need to ask my priest what he thinks that is all about.

[calimary]

87. I never did either, arely staircase! Poor fig tree! YIKES! If I remember correctly,

the story tells us Jesus had the proverbial shit-fit at that fig tree. We asked our priest that once-upon-a-time in religion class. He didn't have much in the way of an answer. But that Bible passage just didn't make sense. On the other hand, the shit-fit Our Lord is described as throwing in the Temple against the money-changers - that one is ENTIRELY sensible!

And doesn't it make you wonder - just by the law of averages - if perhaps one or even two of the apostles might have been gay? I mean, just statistically. If, on average, it works out that one out of every ten people is gay, which is the statistic I've heard repeatedly, well - you have twelve apostles, and ...

[arely staircase]

91. I did some superficial research on the fig tree. Found nothing satisfactory except this:

[HardTimes99]

94. Not to be sacriligious or anything, but the Nazarene supposedly spent an enormous

amount of time in the company of all-male disciples.

I don't know about you but something in that figurative picture just doesn't add up to perfect heterosexuality.

[Enthusiast]

71. That's a fact..........nt

[arely staircase]

4. sure they can

but they will have to repent.

[PowerToThePeople]

7. Actions do not matter, only belief that Jeebus is Savior.

[unblock]

10. i've always been told, it's actually based on acceptance of jesus into your heart.

not mere proclamation of belief.

the difference being if you truly accept jesus in your heart you won't, for the most part, do all those rotten things.

[arely staircase]

16. faith without good works is dead

at least that is what my church teaches.

[HardTimes99]

95. Faith, not works, justifies God's will to man (mainstream Protestant

thought, dating from Luther and Calvin forward).

Your position seems more closely aligned with the Roman Catholic faith (dating from Paul, IIRC).

[arely staircase]

97. I'm Episcopalian, so close.

My church does teach justification comes from faith but without works it is dead. Now you will find Episcopalians who put more emphasis on one than the other and others who see it the other way. As a sort of middle way between Catholicism and Protestantism we have people with very disperate beliefs sitting in the same pews. I think James Brother of the Lord sums up my personal belief on the subject.

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

[HardTimes99]

98. It's been quite awhile since I have studied the theological points of dispute behind the

Reformation and its legacies. IIRC, the Episcopal denomination is the Americanized version of the Church of England, Henry VIII's successful attempt to yank primacy from Rome and place it with the British throne. As such, Henry VIII left much in Roman Catholic theology, episcopacy and liturgy untouched. So Episcopalianism, while a Reformation denomination properly speaking, does trod a theological middle ground between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism of the Lutheran\Calvinist variety, at least as I understand it. (Apologize if I'm mis-representing or eliding crucial parts of church history.)

On a personal note, I've always found the Episcopalian Christmas services to be among the most beautiful of the ones I've experienced, almost like in trodding that middle ground the Episcopalians manage to capture the best of both worlds

[arely staircase]

101. that sums it up pretty well

Reformed theology with Catholic liturgy, in a nutshell. Edited to say (closer to Luther than Calvin.)

[Squinch]

57. I've never been able to figure out what that means. Neither, it appears, have most other people.

[unblock]

59. i think the idea is that you have to actually be sincere.

mere proclamation of belief isn't good enough; self-delusion of belief isn't good enough.

if you can't lead a largely moral life, you couldn't have really accepted jesus into your heart.


of course, i'm a jewish atheist and don't believe morality comes from religion anyway, so what do i know.

[bravenak]

8. I agree.

But I'm an atheist. But I classify Christians into groups. Christians- the ones who will help you and be kind, and conservative Christians - antichristians who do the opposite so as to help themselves and their group. I'm sorry. I really am. One messed with me this weekend and I knew right away he was a repub.

[goatmilker]

9. Bad eggs

There are sadly so many unkind people in this world. But your post seems highly judge mental in a post about condemning being judge mental?

[William769]

13. republicans give Christian's a bad name.

After all Jesus was a Liberal.

[gopiscrap]

49. Right on!!!

[progressoid]

19. Here's a nicer version for you.

[Aerows]

22. Bad eggs are bad eggs

An entire bad brood, because they can't sit on the eggs that they supposedly want to raise?

Bad eggs are the result.

Welcome to DU. We don't dislike religion, we just dislike bullshitters.

[ZombieHorde]

11. Seems to me that most Christians are anti-Christ, including those on the left.

By "anti-Christ" I mean holding positions are the direct opposite of Christ's teachings.

For example, defending yourself in a court of law is anti-Christ. Physical self defense is anti-Christ. Taking oaths is anti-Christ.

[arely staircase]

18. wait, what? nt

[ZombieHorde]

24. Jesus Christ specifically forbade people from doing the things I listed.

However, most Christians I know from both sides of the US political spectrum hold opposite views.

[arely staircase]

26. they didn't even have courts of law as we know them today

in 1st C. Roman Judea.

[ZombieHorde]

30. Matthew 5:40 nt

[arely staircase]

34. again, that was said at a specific place and time

it has several interpretations within its historical context. I have put the one I agree with in bold.

The word coat here can also be translated as shirt, and it refers to the basic garment one would wear on one's upper body. The cloak was a more important piece of clothing used both for warmth during the day and as a blanket during the night. In the sometimes quite cold climate of the region, a cloak was a necessity for survival. Jewish law thus states that one's cloak is not distrainable, it cannot be lost in a lawsuit or seized to pay debts because of its importance. This rule is laid out in Exodus 22:25-26.[1] Nolland notes that the end result of such a policy would be nudity, which Jesus never condemns, but which was also something unacceptable to the society of the time.[2]

This is often interpreted as an example of the non-resistance Jesus advocated in the previous verse. France, however, disagrees with this view. He sees this verse as far more closely linked to Jesus renunciation of property and the material. If one has faith in God one should not be afraid to lose all materials possessions, for even if it leads to great hardship on Earth, they will be properly rewarded by God.[3]

Nolland interprets this verse as referring to a specific case of someone extremely poor, who has nothing but his clothing to be sued for. The demand of the creditor is thus unreasonable and is a possible violation of Jewish law. To Nolland the surrendering of the cloak and the last vestiges of decency will serve to shame the creditor, and show his immorality.[4]

This verse closely parallels a section in Luke, but with some significant changes. In Luke the situation involves highway robbers who demand the more valuable outer cloak, and in Luke Jesus states that the proper path is to then also offer the robbers your shirt. It may also be linked to a tale about the Greek philosopher Diogenes, who is said to have given robbers his shirt as well when they demanded his cloak.[5]

The legend of Saint Martin of Tours has him cutting his cloak in two and giving one half to a beggar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:40

[ZombieHorde]

38. I don't see how that contradicts what I said, but lets say that it does, and is true.

The other points I made still demonstrate how both conservative and liberal Christians in the US hold views that are anti-Christ.

[arely staircase]

42. I don't interpret that scripture the same way you do.

Though I have no problem with you believing that is what I mean. I assume you interpret Matthew 5:38 (turn the other cheek) as meaning one should not defend themselves if attacked. There are several interpretations of that as well. I agree with this one. You are of course free to disagree:

"At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance.[3] If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed.[4] The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_the_other_cheek

[ZombieHorde]

46. I have heard that interpration before, but

Jesus Christ never defended himself against violence or accusations. My interpretation fits the story. Of course, I also believe all interpretations are equally valid since writing is an art, and art is subjective.

How do you interpret the command to not take oaths?

[arely staircase]

51. I think the oath thing is in Matthew too

and I believe it has something specific to do with talmudic oaths. Christians have taken oaths for centuries so this hasn't been very controversial or debated. The sacraments of matrimony as well as confirmation and baptism contain oaths. I haven't done much reading on this. The turn the other cheek is obviously a biggie and I've read a great deal about that. The lawsuit thing follows right after it in Matthew so I think the interpretation that both are Jesus telling the opporessed how to demand equality or shame their oppressors is correct. The oath thing gets into some dense Hebrew Temple law that I'm just not up to speed on.

Sorry.

[kestrel91316]

75. Yep. Just ask the Amish. They refuse to do any of those things because Jesus forbade them.

[arely staircase]

76. clearly the Amish and Episcoplians interpret all that quite differently nt

[kestrel91316]

80. As is their Constitutional right.

[arely staircase]

81. +1 nt

[CJCRANE]

23. Religion is just window dressing IMO. People are conservative, moderate or liberal.

Pretty much everywhere in the world, those same groupings apply regardless of religion.

[ZombieHorde]

27. Seems to me that some people worship their own politics.

Conservatives worship a conservative god while liberals worship a liberal god. If someone switches political ideologies, then their god switches as well.

[Aerows]

32. And pretend to open a Bible

but know nothing of what it contains. I'm a lesbian, and even I know what the Bible contains.

[immoderate]

15. Indeed! Christians are perfect, especially "true" Christians!

--imm

[Flo Mingo]

21. Because if you're a "legitimate Christian"

Your soul has ways of shutting all that hate down.

[Aerows]

17. I don't disagree

with you in the slightest .

[Phillyindy]

20. I went to catholic school for 12 years...

...there is NOTHING, NOTHING about Republican philosophy or belief that doesn't contradict the teachings of Christianty and especially Jesus Christ. How they've co-opted that false brand is one of greatest tricks ever pulled off in history. It's like Hitler still being known as pro-Jew in 1945.

[quinnox]

25. +1000

[Peacetrain]

28. +1000

[Aerows]

29. +1

So did I.

[totodeinhere]

48. Well most Republicans are pro-life and the official teaching of the Catholic Church

condemns abortion. And most polls have shown that Republicans are more likely to oppose gay marriage. And of course the Catholic Church does not allow gay marriage. The Pope said he does not judge gays but yet he adheres to the idea that gay sex is a sin.

It is true that in other areas church teachings oppose what many Republicans believe such as on the issues of immigration and caring for the poor.

But a blanket statement that Republicans always contradict Christianity is not consistent with the Catholic version of Christianity. Of course other more liberal denominations disagree with the Catholics on some social issues so the issue is a complex one.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

54. Yeah, pro-life

[totodeinhere]

61. I would be happy to change the term to "anti-abortion" if you would prefer.

I was merely referring to the commonly used term "pro-life" as opposed to "pro-choice." I was making no representation about the accuracy or appropriateness of the term one way or the other.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

82. "pro-life" is their term. They own it & can wear it, especially when they are hypocritical about it.

[think_critically]

68. So spot on

This is why I will always view the republican party with nothing but contempt.

[Phillyindy]

86. Yep...it's especially personal for us.

[HardTimes99]

96. Correction: Most Republicans favor 'forced birth'. I would hardly dignify them with the

label 'pro-life'. The Catholic Church comes off a bit better in that regard, as their care for life extends post-partum.

[totodeinhere]

106. It looks like I got busted by the word police. The term

"pro-life" is used by mainstream media outlets, it's used in academia, and it's well understood what it means. Using the term to describe those who oppose abortion is hardly an endorsement. But be that as it may it looks like the DU word police do not approve.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/tp/Pro-Life-vs-Pro-Choice.htm

[gopiscrap]

84. Not bad

I think I'll have to use that!

[Phillyindy]

85. amen

[Initech]

31. Nope. They're the exact opposite of what Jesus would have wanted

[AgingAmerican]

33. They are Satanists

They are a money worship cult. They are repulsed by empathy, compassion...you know, Jesus things.

[goatmilker]

35. money is everywhere

The cash is flowing into both political parties at a horrifying rate my friend. Tis the milk of politics I'm afraid.

[cyberswede]

39. So, who's left to vote for?

[goatmilker]

47. good question

I've come around to term limits. I use to back the "but we lose the good ones" argument. Now I see that both parties are entrenched in power and I am willing to risk losing a few "good ones" vs keeping alot of bad eggs. Of course who would vote for such a thing but those in power

[FiveGoodMen]

70. That will limit the terms of those who say Yea and Nay

but not the terms of those who supply the money and tell them how to vote.

[Bearheim]

36. I don't need any

religious document to know from right and wrong. Hurting others through words or deeds is wrong, as is, hurting others through non action. Period.

[CJCRANE]

37. Love thy neighbor. Turn the other cheek. Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

Whatever you do to the least of these you do to me.

[another_liberal]

40. Why . . .?

Why are you being so kind? I seriously doubt if they are even warm-blooded mammals.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

41. yes, as we all know good christians are none of the above. all 5 of them are very altruistic

[Iliyah]

43. So true gopiscrap!

And they would destroy Jesus if he/she appeared before them calling him/her the devil.

[spin]

45. The main problem with Christianity is Christians. (n/t)

[mindwalker_i]

50. Then it's up to the "real" christians to denounce them

But instead, the "real" christians follow them around like lost puppies.

Own it, beeotches!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

52. When do we start?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

53. Hippy!

[gopiscrap]

62. Love it!!!

[Squinch]

55. The explanation is simple. Jesus Christ and Jesus H. Christ were two different people.

Republicans who insist on their Christianity are not wrong when they say they are following Christ. It's just that they are following the teachings of that rat bastard identity thief Jesus H. Christ.

Jesus Christ's credit rating has taken a hit, and it's going to take a long time for him to fix it.

[Shibainu]

60. With apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan

Bigoted,
Misogynistic,
Xenophobic,
Homophobes.
( the very model of a modern major general).

[Angelonthesidelines]

63. AKA

Philistines and Pharisees

[Shibainu]

66. Nice

It has a W.C. Fields texture to it

[adieu]

64. They talk the talk

but they are nowhere close to walking the walk.

[lame54]

65. Dr. Gupta is that you?...

Thanks for finally joining us

[Auntie Bush]

67. Couldn't agree with you more.

[chuckstevens]

69. What took you so long?

1868-1872 = Grant Administration = Corruption
1872-1901 = Robber Barron Era = Gilded Age
1920-1932 = Laissez-faire Government = Great Depression
1968-1974 = Nixonian Abuse of Power = Watergate
1980-1992 = Reaganomic = Laissez-faire and the beginning of outsourcing American jobs + Iran/Contra
2000-2008 = Major Security failure on 9/11, immoral, illegal war based on a lie, electronic vote fraud and much abuse of power
2008-the present = racist obstructionism, even if it means ruining the American economy

Other than Lincoln and Eisenhower, the entire Republican Party has SUCKED historically. But that's OK white Southern male making $35,000 a year without any health insurance: listening to Rush and Hannity and keep voting Republican! It has worked out so well for middle class Americans thought out our nation's history, don"t you think?

[gopiscrap]

73. No I've known it since I was quite young

having been born and raised in Europe, I have often wondered at how the US can call itself "a Christian" nation

[Jokerman]

72. Obviously being "christian" does not correlate to being a good person.

I thought most people figured that out a long, long time ago.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

77. I wouldn't call a bunch of lousy lays "fuckers".....

"Minutemen" is more like it.

[lark]

78. Let me add to the list

Hypocritical is one of the main words that comes to mind. Some others are:
Traitors
Misogynistic
hateful
hate filled

[jasond54231]

79. The GOP has always been the party of hypocrisy, corruption, and ignorance

They've only gotten more extreme in their views as of late. If they keep on acting like this, they'll eventually go the way of the Whig Party.

[YarnAddict]

83. Blanket statements like that

can get you in trouble.

I'm a bank teller. One of my co-workers is a die-hard tea party conservative Republican. She is also incredibly generous. One day a young woman came in to our bank, obviously distraught. She told us that her dad had just been seriously injured in an accident and was being airlifted to a hospital two hours away. She wanted to take money out of his account to buy gas to go to be with him. Of course, we can't even give any account info, let alone give an unauthorized person access to someone's fund. My co-worker reached into her own purse and pulled out a $50 bill and gave it to her, told her not to worry about paying it back.

She's done similar things at other times. She calls herself a Christian, and she really does live Christian values, but still votes Republican.

[gopiscrap]

88. she could also be

doing out guilt

[HardTimes99]

99. If you truly are a yarnaddict, you will live up to your screen name and pull

at that skein of empathy your co-worker has revealed. Her empathy clearly disqualifies her from full membership in today's Republican Party and the Democratic Party is always eagerly seeking out new empathetic converts.

[Coyotl]

89. Don't you have family and friends who are Republicans?

Or don't you know any Christians?

[gopiscrap]

90. Don't know any Republicans

who are Christians

[Coyotl]

92. I suggest you withhold your conclusions until after you gather a little evidence

like actually knowing of which you try to write.

[HardTimes99]

93. They also cannot be Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Unitarian, for the

Last edited Thu Aug 15, 2013, 12:06 PM - Edit history (1)

same reason.

Come to think of it, I can't think of a single living religion that would have anything to do with those sociopathic pricks.

[Zorra]

100. Here's an example of ignorant and judgmental ~

Bryan Fischer Praises Russian Repression Of Gays

It will be so much fun to find out how much Bryan Fischer loves Russia when he realizes that Vladimir Putin is going full Fascist on everyone and repressing even those who are not Eastern Orthodox. Russia has been engaging in the repression of Catholics and Evangelicals for the last decade, according to a variety of sources including, oddly enough, World Net Daily.

Bryan Fischer, of course, is one of those Evangelicals who is busy heaping praise on Russia for their anti-gay laws while remaining blissfully ignorant about how the Kremlin is busy cutting into the freedoms of the non-Orthodox.

Fischer talked to The Voice of Russia where he stated that “Russia is not being homophobic, it’s homorealistic – the Russian government is trying to take the issue into consideration and establish public policy to contribute to public health, as this lifestyle is not be promoted, endorsed or granted special legal protection.”
snip--
Fischer is just one of the many anti-gay activists and people out there who are praising Russia for what they are doing to attack LGBT people. Unfortunately, they remain ignorant of the fact that religious freedom is being heavily curtailed across Russia and that his brand of evangelicalism is on the Kremlin’s hit list.

[gopiscrap]

103. No kidding fundy fucking assholes!

[OnionPatch]

104. It's the thing that puzzles me about them the most.

How can they reconcile their dog eat dog philosophy with the teachings of Jesus? It makes no sense at all. Jesus was all about giving, acceptance and forgiveness but the GOP focuses only on the most punative parts of the Bible, most of which are found in the Old Testament. I don't think they should even call themselves Christians since they seem to be against everything Jesus taught. Maybe call themselves "Old Testamentors" or something. They should leave Jesus out of their narrow, selfish beliefs.

[gopiscrap]

105. I agree