Sunday, May 1, 2011

Response to “Christians Cannot Be Republicans” (by Stoicao)

Oh my head…the rant that was written regarding Christians only being able to be Democrats gave me a huge headache. I don’t even know where to start to explain the hypocrisy of what was said in it, but I will give it a try. First of all, let’s point out the obvious. Democrats are “pro-choice” for the most part. That right there is enough to combat the ridiculous argument brought about by SuSieQ. There are reasons Christians vote Republican at an astounding rate, and this is one of the biggest ones. Another reason is that they believe in Capitalism and people earning what they work for. Traditional families of the past went to church and worked hard, just overall living by the books and not taking advantage of “the system”, so to say. Although this is a generalization, it is the truth. Look at the records of religious Protestants in the 1800s and compare it to today. It saddens me what has happened to this tradition, but nevertheless I digress. You have greatly misinterpreted everything you learned in the Bible because you applied it word for word to today’s life. First of all, every Pharisee mentioned in the Bible hated Jesus, and they blasphemed about him and tried to do everything to corner him into doing something wrong. They failed obviously. Just because the Pharisees were better off and owned more money than the average person at that time doesn’t mean that they were bad people for that mere fact. Being rich just meant there was a higher probability of being anti-Christian, because of them putting money and themselves first in their lives.
This is why people like you get blinded into thinking rich equals anti-Jesus. It just so happens that today the rich side with the same party as most Christians. Political parties change their platforms rapidly over the years, and they will continue to do so. Just look at the early 1900s and the parties that were participating in U.S. politics then. In the same sense that rich doesn’t equal anti-Christian, poor doesn’t equal Christian. In the age of the Bible, the poor of Jesus’ day were often ordinary Jews like himself. They were also his followers. Therefore, it makes sense that he would view those poor people with more spiritual regard than the rich Pharisees, and attempt to help them. You call yourself a Christian, but it doesn’t look like it from what you wrote. No Christian would support a “women’s right for carrying a baby” when it comes to abortion. Period. Women had a choice when they had SEX. They lose that choice and gain RESPONSIBILITY for their OWN actions after conception.
I didn’t know Baptists were pro-gay marriage, so you taught me something new there. But I’m not writing to talk about gay marriage, because that is obviously an area where new denominations of people that call themselves “Christians” are supporting. You aren’t Christian if you support homosexual activity. You just aren’t. Get that through your head and read that Bible of yours again. It is referred to as “sexual immorality” in it. Jesus does love homosexuals. He loves all people. However, he hates homosexuality, and wants those homosexuals to change their ways. I’m not attacking you, I’m simply laying out what is wrong with your logic, and especially what is wrong with you thinking Christians can’t be Republicans. Jesus isn’t a politician, and would definitely find a lot wrong with every political party. But by your logic he would be against the U.S. going to war with other countries, for example. This is directly rebuked in the Bible. God put people in power of countries for a reason, and everything that happens is according to his plan. Moreover, don’t try to be bigger than him. You don’t see the big picture like he does. Don’t assume he would or wouldn’t support something that is going on in this world politically right now. That is all I have for now. I just had to respond to something so blatantly wrong by someone that calls herself a Christian. 

13 comments:

  1. It is comforting to learn that God put Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Pol Pot, Baby Doc, Idi Amin, the Apartheid thugs, and Pinochet, in power in order to implement his master plan.

    Thanks for reminding us!

    ReplyDelete
  2. That was one of the most brainwashed comments I have ever read. First, if you are so pro-life then you must believe that whenever some guy masturbates or some girl menstruates that there's a whole lot of killing going on. Or is it only when that egg and that sperm link up that it is considered killing? But that would be arbitrary. I'd also love to slap you for saying that the woman is already consenting to a baby if she has sex. You must be a man because that is an incredibly disrespecting comment. Second, where in the Bible does it say that first and foremost you must work hard by yourself to get ahead in life? Isn't it love God and love others? But I guess you don't see that you are putting your own ideas into the Bible and interpreting it as you would like. Third, where did Jesus say that he hates homosexuality? Apostle Paul makes some motions towards saying that, but why do you make his words speak for Jesus? Paul was an intolerant man that Jesus would not have wanted speaking for him. Go back and read Jesus' words. Fourth, by thinking that you have the "right and only" interpretation of the Bible, you are making yourself bigger than God. Do you really not see that? Fifth, ditto the last comment about God putting people in power.

    If Christians are supposed to be about loving, giving, compassion, and caring, you come off as the anti-christ. Be a little more self-reflective about who you claim to be and what you say. Take a philosophy or religious studies class or something and get some perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  3. To the first comment, yes he did. Evil happens regardless.

    ReplyDelete
  4. To the long comment, how is conception arbitrary? Are you serious with that comment? Get real. That's not even an argument. Next, "I'd also love to slap you for saying that the woman is already consenting to a baby if she has sex." I'll forget the first stupid attack on me, but to argue rationally I will discuss the second part of your quote. What is the point of sex? Tell me. Is it not to have a kid? Take away contraceptives and it makes a kid. Does it not? Oh it does? Yeah, that's consent. I am a man, but that makes no difference, and it isn't disrespect.

    It doesn't say in the Bible that you must work hard by yourself to get ahead in life. I should have stated what I meant better, my bad. What I meant was a generalization of traditional families of the past, which I suppose I shouldn't have used. I was just trying to bridge the Republican idea with Christianity, which I still believe works.

    I am not interpreting the Bible as I would like. That would be wrong. Also, you are EXTREMELY wrong with this quote, "Paul was an intolerant man that Jesus would not have wanted speaking for him." Paul was one of the greatest Christians that ever lived once he changed from "Saul" to "Paul". Jesus praised him numerous times for his faith. Get your facts straight.

    Lastly, I'm not going to comment on God putting people in power, because I've written papers on that subject and I'm not going to waste more energy explaining it to you...especially during finals. Just research the "Problem of Evil" and notice how it is rebutted.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I was going to use the "God put Hitler in charge" argument, but it has already been said.

    I'm not even going to touch abortion right now, but I would like to comment on the Bible and homosexuality. The following is a quote from an opinion piece written by Andy, and he sums up the argument well:

    "And the truth is… yes, the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a disgusting thing in the eyes of God. It says this in the book of Leviticus, the chapter in which the laws passed from God to Moses are listed. This would appear to be pretty damning evidence at first sight, until you consider that the following laws are also specified:

    - The punishment for adultery is death.
    - Anyone consulting a medium is to be stoned to death.
    - Anyone so much as lighting a fire in their house on the Sabbath is to be put to death.
    - It is forbidden to cut your hair, or to wear clothing made out of more than one fabric.
    - It is, however, perfectly acceptable to sell your children into slavery should you choose to do so.

    So anybody who cites the Bible as the reason to denounce homosexuality, but who has ever had a haircut or worn a polyester and cotton shirt, actually has a moral obligation to have themselves stoned to death at the earliest opportunity."

    You can find the rest of that article here: http://www.mibba.com/journals/read/61599/

    I also have to cite the Bible, just for kicks.

    "(28) One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

    (29) “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. (30) Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ (31) The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

    Mark 12:28-31

    My interpretation of this is that one should use one's available resources to help those who are less fortunate. I think that SuSieQ was saying that people with money should be using it to help others via charitable giving or governmental social programs, which Republicans are notoriously less supportive of than Democrats.

    You say, "But by your logic [God] would be against the U.S. going to war with other countries, for example. This is directly rebuked in the Bible." Is it? I would love to see a Biblical passage where Jesus condones violence. As far as I was taught, Jesus was all about turning the other cheek and loving enemies. Not bombing them.

    You also say, "...everything that happens is according to [God's] plan. Moreover, don’t try to be bigger than him [sic]. You don’t see the big picture like he does. Don’t assume he would or wouldn’t support something that is going on in this world politically right now."

    So SuSieQ can't assume what God would think about a political situation, but ~you~ can? You say that God hates homosexuality and abortion, which are both political issues.

    Also, you berate SuSieQ for her lack of logic, but your last paragraph is almost completely nonsensical. No true philosopher or debater would take the statement "[D]on’t try to be bigger than him. You don’t see the big picture like he does." as evidence for a logical argument. In fact, what that statement implies is that all human logic is null and void and so should not even be attempted.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Point of fact: Jesus and Paul never met when Jesus was alive. The closest thing where you can say they met was when Paul was blinded by a brilliant light. It is plain bullshit to say that Jesus praised Paul many times. I think *you* need to get your facts straight.

    ReplyDelete
  7. God/Jesus/Holy Spirit=God

    I used them interchangeably with that statement. It won't make sense to people that don't understand the Trinity, however.

    ReplyDelete
  8. How does the Trinity explain away this, "Jesus praised him numerous times for his faith. Get your facts straight"?

    What I don't get is why people like yourself take the Bible so literally as if God wrote the Bible himself. God did not write the Bible. It never says that anywhere. So stop using God to feed your intolerance of other people.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Bible was God-inspired. I believe it doesn't have errors that a man would make. Why would I be "tolerant" of something God doesn't like? It makes no sense.

    Also, what do you not understand when I mentioned the Trinity? Let me help you: God praised Paul numerous times for his faith. The Holy Spirit praised Paul numerous times for his faith. There you go. Now you can clearly see how the Trinity explains what I said.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Stoicao, I like that you're feisty, but your crashing hard. Your second paragraph is just wrong. You're grasping at straws. You can say trinity all you want, but neither God nor the holy spirit nor Jesus ever gives Paul praise in the Bible. I've read the Bible through countless times and it isn't there. You saying that it is there doesn't make it so. You need to concede that point.

    But that isn't really a big deal. The big deal is your first paragraph. The whole "God-inspired," "all scripture is inerrant" stuff is a great exercise is bad logic that you have been fed. No doubt you are part of some fundamentalist Christian group where this stuff is served up daily.

    Here's the scoop. People argue that the Bible is inerrant because of 2 Timothy 3:16 which says, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." The important word there is "God-breathed." The first problem is that word is used so rarely in ancient Greece when Koine Greek was spoken that no one really has a good handle on what that term really means. Modern day Evangelicals certainly think that it means inerrancy, but there is no proof for such a strong interpretation.

    But for the sake of argument, let's say that it does mean inerrancy. What does that get us? Well, for the second problem, that gets us a big dose of circular reasoning. You cannot say that the Bible is inerrant because the Bible says that it is inerrant. That would mean that ~any~ book that says its inerrant is inerrant, which is crazy. For us to say that the Bible is inerrant, there needs to be some outside proof that it is. And that proof isn't forthcoming - not that I understand why anyone needs the Bible to be inerrant anyway.

    But for the sake of argument let's just say that one can use circular reasoning and we allow 2 Timothy 3:16. What then is precisely inerrant? The verse says all scripture. But what is scripture? That is where people turn to 2 Peter 3:16 which says, "as also in all his [Paul's] letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." People use this verse to say that Peter lumps all of Paul's writing in with the "Scriptures," which back then meant the Old Testament. But now here is the third problem: many New Testament writing are then left out of being classified as scripture. For instance, none of the four gospels, Acts, Peter's letters (which causes a conundrum itself), John's letters, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation can be classified as scripture. This should be considered a big problem.

    So even after I give you a dubious meaning of "God-breathed," allow for circular reasoning, and allow for Peter to define what "scripture" is, a big bunch of New Testament books cannot be considered inerrant because they cannot be classified as scripture. I am perplexed as to why this goes unnoticed in fundamentalist circles, but who am I.

    In the end, maybe you should start becoming a little more tolerant since there is a lot you need to learn about your own faith and the book that is supposed to be at the center of your faith.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You're entitled to your own opinion, while I have mine. I don't really feel like typing out a response because it is useless, but the whole point of my original rant was that "Christians can't be Republicans" is pretty much the dumbest thing I've heard this year. That is all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you partly.

      Delete
  12. You're one judgmental son of a bitch.

    ReplyDelete