Some Great Art Depicting Disparity between Jesus and Republicans

reply to post by korathin

The teachings are clear to those whose eye's can see, heart that can feel, and mind that can reason. I may be a sinner, but I try to follow the God of Abraham and the Messiah Jesus. This Paul I know not of, nor wish to know of, as any so cruel, are simply devoid of wisdom and know only folly. I am enough of a fool as is, I don't need anymore foolishness.

So you are a self-described authority on Paul then. Why does every single Bible have all his letters to the Galations and Corinthians ? hmmm ?

What is more cruel about Paul than anything else in the bible including God telling Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac? Maybe the problem is in how you see things and not in how they are.

Mostly, all you are doing is regurgitating scripture which you feel supports your vision for a big govt nanny state to take care of all of society's needs. It is a mistake to treat any of Jesus' teachings to promote such a thing. How can you even consider the bringing of money to a government which promotes institutionalized abortion? Would Jesus really say go ahead and kill all of the unborn babies and force taxpayers to pay for it? I think NOT! And when did "turn the other check" become look the other way on aborting God's children aborning in the womb?
People should be ashamed at such shoddy interpretations of scripture.

Originally posted by Nicks87



You, like most liberals, are missing the point.

It's not that we don't want to help people. It's that we don't want to be forced to help people that don't need it.

In the past, people did the right thing and helped out the poor families in the neighborhood by leaving a box of food on their doorstep or buying the kids ice cream when the truck came around or they would give money to the church so they could help out the poor.

Nowdays working people cant afford to do that kind of stuff anymore because the govt takes all of our extra money in taxes. Also, no one wants to help the "poor" families in the neighborhood because the poor family is driving a nicer car than you are, has a better cell phone than you do, doesn't pay taxes or a house payment and is responsible for most of the criminal activity in the neighborhood.

Over 10% of Americans STARVED to death during the first great depression. Even though America's fields, cow's and chickens produced enough food to feed the country, millions upon millions of American's starved to death. That is something Economic Libertarians/conservatives everyone tend to forget when talking about reliance on charitable aid and the Great Depression.

If that "poor" person has a better car then you, then you should see if you qualify for food stamps. Also, you should see if there is fraud going on, people taking advantage of the program when there is no need for them.

It is not shameful to ask for help when needed, but it is shameful out of arrogance and pride to starve.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by korathin

 

The teachings are clear to those whose eye's can see, heart that can feel, and mind that can reason. I may be a sinner, but I try to follow the God of Abraham and the Messiah Jesus. This Paul I know not of, nor wish to know of, as any so cruel, are simply devoid of wisdom and know only folly. I am enough of a fool as is, I don't need anymore foolishness.

So you are a self-described authority on Paul then. Why does every single Bible have all his letters to the Galations and Corinthians ? hmmm ?

What is more cruel about Paul than anything else in the bible including God telling Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac? Maybe the problem is in how you see things and not in how they are.

Mostly, all you are doing is regurgitating scripture which you feel supports your vision for a big govt nanny state to take care of all of society's needs. It is a mistake to treat any of Jesus' teachings to promote such a thing. How can you even consider the bringing of money to a government which promotes institutionalized abortion? Would Jesus really say go ahead and kill all of the unborn babies and force taxpayers to pay for it? I think NOT!

edit on 24-5-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

I talk of feeding the poor while you talk of abortions. Really, you lose the point this is all about so you have to wander waaay into left field to maintain with a straight face that you have no problem with millions starving. Find any words that are not of Paul's that support your statements and I will listen to them. The Bible, is more or less consistent(until you get to Paul's handy work and the Revelation of John, Revelation of Peter though seems consistent).

Last I checked, God stopped Abraham, meaning Issac's life was never in harms way. To justify and defend Paul you would slander the Creator? I showed you scripture in the hopes it would open your eyes on this singular matter.

Big Government, Small Government, I don't really care in so far as it gets the job done in a humane and reasonable fashion(hence my love of Constitutional Republics for political sorting, most reasonable form of government).

reply to post by korathin

Over 10% of Americans STARVED to death during the first great depression. Even though America's fields, cow's and chickens produced enough food to feed the country, millions upon millions of American's starved to death.

This is still not a justification for misinterpretation of scripture. Where were the govt farm subsidies in Jesus' time? Do you know that farm subsidies are taxpayer funded donations to farms to supply everyone at govt mandated LOWER prices due to govt MEDDLING via PRICE CEILINGS? I have never seen scriptural support for such a mandate.

Oh yah and organic farms are getting taxpayer subsidies too.

Or maybe you are sporting for something even more drastic, such as govt confiscating ALL the spoils of all farms and distributing the goods as they see fit??? hmmm are we sporting for direct communism? I don't remember seeing any scriptural references to that either.

Are you of this persuasion? en.wikipedia.org...

talk of feeding the poor while you talk of abortions.

Either way involves misinterpretation of scripture when it comes to Christian Socialism and Marxism in the Church.
Christians can choose for themselves how to give to and feed the poor, and they do, and they can give to charitable organizations and fund raisers, which they do. Instititutionalizing such through government confiscation is neither charity nor supported by scripture.

Big Government, Small Government, I don't really care in so far as it gets the job done in a humane and reasonable fashion(hence my love of Constitutional Republics

Again, it is not the job of government to provide meals for everyone. There is no redistribution theory in our Constitution or Founding documents. Again, you are mixing up your Marxist socialist ideals with government and trying to use scripture to back it up.
In the words of Lost in Space robot....That does not compute! Further, if you were truly for a Constitutional Republic and smaller government you would never sign on to any theology or legislation which institutionalizes govt confiscation of our moneys for arbitrary causes, and no government at this time is not getting the job done. Jesus Im certain would never support State support of abortion or the use of our money for such a cause. I'm not certain whether Caesar himself levied taxes for things like abortion.

Originally posted by korathin

If that "poor" person has a better car then you, then you should see if you qualify for food stamps. Also, you should see if there is fraud going on, people taking advantage of the program when there is no need for them.

It is not shameful to ask for help when needed, but it is shameful out of arrogance and pride to starve.

No s**t there's fraud going on. That's the point and they have a nicer car because they sell drugs on the side to pay for luxury items and live off of the food stamps (or sell them) and welfare.

It's not that hard to figure out. Republicans aren't less Christian than anybody else, they are just sick of the corrupt system that takes their hard earned money and gives it to bureaucrats and criminals.

reply to post by korathin


Perhaps this writer explains things better than I do.

The relationship between Jesus and the rich man was entirely consensual and free. Christ offered the man a voluntary contract, a quid pro quo: you give away your earthly all, and I’ll give you everlasting life. The rich man was completely free to accept or reject the deal and its terms. When he elected to decline the offer, Jesus let him depart in peace. If he had said to his disciples, “Let’s go to the governor and petition him to redistribute the young man’s wealth to the poor,” then the Christian redistributionists could cite this incident to substantiate their position. That is not, however, what the Scriptures record.

In Luke 12, a man asked Jesus to command his brother to share his inheritance with him. The Lord emphatically declined, pointedly asking, “Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?” (v. 14). If he whom Christians accept as the only begotten Son of God and the Savior of mankind did not feel qualified or justified to command the redistribution of one person’s property to another, then how can those who profess to be his followers believe that they have the right, the wisdom, or the moral authority to endorse government’s massive, complex, forced redistribution of trillions of dollars among millions of people?

It is erroneous for us to suppose that we are doing God’s will by compelling or trying to compel others to do good deeds. We are accountable to God and we receive our heavenly reward for what we do, not for what we make others do. Paul teaches each of us to “work out [our] own salvation” (Phil. 2:12).

Eventually, we (meaning all Americans, not just Christians) need to dismantle the welfare state that is bankrupting our country. We should not, however, begin to balance the budget on the backs of the poor. Let us first eliminate the myriad federal programs that redistribute money to the rich and powerful. Using government force to redistribute wealth is never justifiable on biblical grounds, but the greater moral outrage is the obscene practice of what we economists call “rent-seeking,” whereby well-connected and well-funded special interests use the power of government to divert money into their own pockets.

catholiclane.com...

Originally posted by darkbake

I was mentioning this earlier today, how it is so strange that Republicans are Christians. I have no idea how they justify that. Check out this painting.

Look at how Jesus is holding that large bowl of gold and keeping it away from the poor man! This pretty much sums it up. I'm sure Jesus wouldn't do that, but Republicans do! Just in the past day they said the poor shouldn't be given food stamps.

Stephen Fincher, a deranged Republican congressman from Tennessee, is very angry that the federal government is committed to preventing poor people from starving to death: Republican Congressman Stephen Fincher of Tennessee, who supports cuts to the program, had his own Bible verse from the Book of Thessalonians to quote back to Vargas: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat,” he said.

It's that pesky old testament again. Why can't Christians get with the times, you know, the one that started 2,000 years ago?

Source

Artist Michael D’Antuono is certainly no stranger to controversy. His latest painting, “The Conservative Christ,” will likely frustrate conservative Christians, particularly because of how it depicts their views on issues like guns and poverty.

Source of Painting

Oh, I am not done criticizing yet. Check out this screen clip from Samurai Champloo to see what the Japanese think of Christians. These Christians are meeting in an underground cave, where their leader is using them to manufacture guns. Check out the extravagant statues.

edit on 23-5-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

Note: Youtube Link is owned by Funimation.

edit on 23-5-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

I noticed that Jesus is holding an AK-47, which is the international symbol of communism. Just go to Mexico and one can tell which way a particular policeman politics leans to by the arms he carries. If he carries a M16 he leans pro western, and/or democratic style of government, if he carries an AK-47 then he leans to a socialist, and/or communist style of government. Thus, the symbology of Jesus holding an AK-47 clearly shows he is NOT a conservative, or a right winger, but a communist. It seems the artist did not do his homework and assumed, as most "low-information-voters" do, that republicans are uncharitable, mean, greedy, etc.; or perhaps, he meant for this painting to depict the current socialist in Washington DC.

reply to post by yig21


Well you are right about that! It is an AK-47, which was mass-produced by the Soviets and often used by enemies of the west, good call! Now it could be interpreted as socialists impersonating Jesus and taking all the money for themselves haha.

reply to post by darkbake

Some Great Art Depicting Disparity between Jesus and Republicans

An excellent example of why I so dislike our species' most shallow achievement; politics.

Right, left, red, blue... doesn't matter. How in the hell can anyone so embrace such a useless concept as judging their fellow humans using partisan, polarizing politics, is beyond me.

reply to post by darkbake


I've waited a while before commenting, but after thinking it over, my response is this artwork is crap.
first, it relies on ideas not in the bible, or distortions of what is, and displays an even worse understanding in its content than even I have.
second, it shows a complete ignorance to the ridiculous hegalian scam of dems verses gop. also known as team red vs team blue; same owners working to push the same basic agenda. nearly any mud you sling at republicans lands equally well on democrats.
lets just talk about the money angle. at the time depicted in Jesus' life, the temple priests for all intents and purposes were the puppet front government for the romans. a similar modern parallel would be the Vichy regime, or cynically, the US government on behalf of international bankers.
the money changers were agents of the priests, who paid for the right to set up shop on the temple grounds. in essence, the fraudulent, collaborator, government passed laws requiring the population, most of who were poor, to pay for the privilege of honoring god, money collected at exorbitant rates by agents of the government, in return for kickbacks to the priests making the laws requiring payment in the first place. and when someone(that would be jesus to the less informed) protested the iniquity of the system, the violations of legitimate law, and that people shouldn't be forced into spending their money to prove their devotion or to support things they did not believe in, the government responded as all oppressive regimes do when you mess with their income stream, with force, and killed him.
lets see, who believes in having the government extort money out of the population? who believes the government knows best on how to distribute the peoples wealth, and how to spend it? not conservatives. not libertarians.
and all that welfare money you seem to think equates to compassion? those are called self preservation bribes. handing crumbs out to serfs to keep them from rebelling while all of the real wealth and freedom is stolen right out from under them.

darkbake, I thank you for making this thread.

We've shared ideas so you know where I am coming from and this was very thought provoking.

korathin, I also thank you for your contributions as well.

Matthew 22:35-40 New International Version (NIV)
35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Jesus tried to make it really, really easy for us, and yet we struggle.

Hatred. Bigotry. Violence. Anger. Resentment. Fear. Distrust. Pride. Greed. Deceit.

I could go on.

None of these things do these two commandments any honor.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I know as hard as I try to be the best person I can be I still find myself struggling with the basics every single day.

Am I alone?

reply to post by KyrieEleison


No, you are not alone on that. There is a lot of societal pressure to do otherwise in many different circles. Strangely enough, I find it easier to be a good person when around liberals than when around conservatives. I've lived in both situations.

I honestly don't know why this is, but it happens.

I have long said that Republicans use religion, mostly Christianity, as a tool to convince mindless voters. If you actually look at the Republican policies, many of them are completely at odds, against, what Christianity teaches. The stereotype is that the right are businessmen, who wish to keep the government out of business so that they can screw people without intervention. The right wing politicians and believers as a whole do not seem to want to help those who are less fortunate. That is not what Jesus taught. So how can they claim to be Christians?

This, among other things, show that they use Christianity as a tool, and nothing more. They just hope that simple-minded people will see that they claim to be religious, and hope that will influence them to vote for them. There are actually very few issues that align with Christianity which Republicans hold.

reply to post by darkbake


Let's see what Jesus has to say about self defense...

Luke 22:36-38

New International Version (NIV)

36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[a]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied.

www.biblegateway.com...

Here is the King James' version...

Luke 22:35-38

King James Version (KJV)


35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

Anyway, let's look at other "pacifists" and see what they have to say about "people being armed"...

The following are SOME quotes made by no other than Gandhi...

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” ~ Gandhi’s “Autobiography,” Part V, Chapter XXVII
...
“I do believe that where there is a choice between cowardice and non-violence I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence.” ~ CWMG, Vol. XXI, p. 132.
...
“It is indeed necessary to be physically strong. If the Indians want to learn the use of fire-arms and swords, by all means let them do so. ?” ~ The Indian Opinion, June 18, 1908
...

There are MANY more in the following link...
www.gandhism.net...

BTW, to those that do not know, in his own autobiography after explaining his experiences he mentions the ones that he regrets having done, but NEVER does he mention that he regrets his views on firearms...

Let's see what the Dalai Lama has to say about firearms, shall we?...

...
During his talk, the Dalai Lama largely steered clear of religious themes. At one point, he said that practicing religious beliefs can help develop a warm-hearted, compassionate person who can help change the world. But he also said it was possible to develop those traits without religious beliefs.

Students, in a question-and-answer period, asked some hard questions.

One girl wanted to know how to react to a shooter who takes aim at a classmate.

The Dalai Lama said acts of violence should be remembered, and then forgiveness should be extended to the perpetrators.

But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, he said, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg.
...

community.seattletimes.nwsource.com...

BTW, in case you didn't know shooting at a leg is difficult, so when someone Is pointing a weapon at you, or is physically bigger, or has a knife, it is safer to point at the torso, than at a leg... So when you, or someone you love is being threatened, it is safer to point at the torso of the criminal/would be criminal, as it would be nearing impossible for most people to hit someone's leg.

I can't excerpt from the following site, but it mentions that this is a real, and true response made by the Dalai Lama, when a girl asked him what should she do if a friend was being threatened with a gun...

www.snopes.com...

And last, but not least, what the founding fathers had to say about firearms...
I will post just some, there are too many...

...
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
– Thomas Jefferson, 1764

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.
– Thomas Jefferson

Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn’t.
– Ben Franklin

Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
–Thomas Paine

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.
– George Washington

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.
–Patrick Henry.

Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
– Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
...

www.washingtonsblog.com...

Capiche, or no capiche?...

reply to post by FlyersFan


Flyers fan, you say that democrats are taking money from those who produce, and giving it to those who do nothing. Are you aware that the vast majority of people getting government assistance are actually employed? Did you know that most of them work thirteen hour shifts six or seven days a week, for pay which amounts to nothing. Are you aware that poor folks who work, work harder than any CEO or trust fund baby you ever heard of in your life?

Think about it.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Awesome use of quotes there. I wasn't as interested in the AK-47 as I was in the pot of gold. At any rate, my interpretation was more about the religious people who don't use guns as self-defense - but who use guns oppressively.

Your quotes are quite impressive, especially from Ghandi, and I'm glad because I think that citizens owning firearms is a necessary deterrent to a tyrannical government ran by either party.

In the end, I'm glad you brought up the firearm issue as a separate issue from the money issue.

This thread reminds me of the conflict between the Shiites and the Sunnis. A conflict that has destroyed a great society. A society that gave the world advanced mathematics and many other elevated ideas.

It's sad to see the West follow the same path that leads to such eternal destructive conflict over a matter of opinion.

Originally posted by elfrog
This thread reminds me of the conflict between the Shiites and the Sunnis. A conflict that has destroyed a great society. A society that gave the world advanced mathematics and many other elevated ideas.

Actually, if you knew the history of the region you would know that Mulims did not invent math, nor science. The Middle East was a region with many different cultures and races of people. Before Mohammed united the tribes and forced most of them to become Muslim, they were mostly nomads. Once united they started conquering all the lands in the Middle East by force of arms, taking the knowledge of these more ancient cultures, and people, and re-writing history to "claim" it was the muslims who invented these sciences when in truth it wasn't them...

You should learn the history of people such as the Assyrian Christians.

...
By the sixth century A.D., Assyrians had begun exporting back to Byzantia their own works on science, philosophy and medicine. In the field of medicine, the Bakhteesho Assyrian family produced nine generations of physicians, and founded the great medical school at Gundeshapur. Also in the area of medicine, Hunayn ibn-Ishaq*s textbook on ophthalmology, written in 950 A.D., remained the authoritative source on the subject until 1800 A.D.

In the area of philosophy, the Assyrian philosopher Job of Edessa developed a physical theory of the universe, in the Assyrian language, that rivaled Aristotle*s theory, and that sought to replace matter with forces.

One of the greatest Assyrian achievements of the fourth century was the founding of the first university in the world. The School of Nisibis had three departments: theology, philosophy and medicine, and became a magnet and center of intellectual development in the Middle East. The statutes of the School of Nisibis, which have been preserved, later became the model upon which the first Italian university was based.

When Arabs and Islam swept through the Middle East in 630 A.D., they encountered 600 years of Assyrian Christian civilization, with a rich heritage, a highly developed culture, and advanced learning institutions. It is this civilization which became the foundation of the Arab civilization.
...

www.aina.org...

Remember that the victors are always the ones who "re-write history".

Originally posted by elfrog
It's sad to see the West follow the same path that leads to such eternal destructive conflict over a matter of opinion.

It is not a "matter of opinion"... It is a matter of "freedom and individual rights"...
Not to mention that the Shiites and Sunnis have been fighting, and killing each other over a different view of Islam... So you are completely wrong...