Lefty view of the Bible
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (29)
sorted by:
You mean like outlawing usury right? Or is that anti semitic?
With magic. No Christian is expected to feed thousands with two loaves of bread. The impossible stupidity of liberals aside, Christ preached personal charity and despised hypocrites, so the kind of people who demand that others be heavily taxed and then call themselves righteous would be the first people he casts into the fire.
Tell me you've never read the Bible without telling me you never read it. Because that's not what happened.
The Good Samaritan put up the travelers in a hotel, not his own damn house. He would have been a failure as head of household had he done so, because exposing your own to unnecessary risk is a sin.
And just in case you were talking about Mary and Joseph during their travels... they weren't so called refugees. They were traveling to register for a census for taxation. Yet another condemnation of taxists.
I'm summary, liberals don't know the first fuckin thing about Christianity, and every time they open their filthy mouths they only spew more heresy and damn themselves further.
As someone who hasn't read his bible in close to 20 years, what's the theological origin of this? Because it sounds like an excellent principle to encourage and is applicable to a large number of issues we're facing today.
The near constant allegory to shepherds, in numerous verses.
Woe unto the worthless shepherd who deserts his flock.
Jesus in the secular sense was a rhetorical masterpiece, and it's not a mistake that he called on his followers to be shepherds of men.
Disregard modernity. Think back to two thousand years ago. What did it mean to be a shepherd?
You protected your flock. Your livelihood. You lived and died by the resources under your command, your responsibility. You fought against and actively looked out for predators. You guarded said livelihood against thieves and potential murderers.
This was not a job for weak, cowardly men. The word 'passive' did not enter into your vocabulary, and you were anything but harmless. Gentle, maybe. But not harmless.
I admit a little bit of frustration that it's never taught that way, though. Certainly not when I was growing up.
Hardiness and will to violence were never really presented in any part of what I was taught back in my youth. It's a problem with society more generally too, but there's this notion that violence is universally malicious and protecting your interests makes you a bad person.
The Shepard archetype is a warrior as well. He fights the lion, the bear, the wolf. He lays his life on the line for the sheep, and in the case of the perfect Shepard dies to protect them eternally.
David as the Shepard King's first act is to slaughter the threat to his family by beheading.
The Good Shepard for his part, forgave and welcomed all with the caveat to "sin no more" and he STILL enacted violence when it came to protecting the purity of worship.
It's one of those things. There's a level of unaffected, zen, monk type attitude in Christianity, but it is backed up strongly with "hate that which is evil"
Hate is a strong word. And "to hate" is commanded by God.
I mean, it goes even beyond that. The modern "hippie Jesus" meme is an utter heresy. Christianity of the first three centuries was an utterly feared faith (Acts 17:6). One of the few peopl to be praised by Jesus was a centurion (Matthew 8:5-13). The first Gentile Christian was a centurion (Acts 10).
I agree with your point but just to clarify, hospitality to travelers (even in your house) was almost a sacred norm in those days and still lingers in the Middle East. The Good Samaritan was also a traveler, so that's why he used a hotel. However, these norms made sense because anyone taking advantage of that hospitality or breaching the norms would also be dealt with very seriously. You could also turn people out with due cause like Abraham kicked out Hagar and Ishmael.
Also the person at risk would usually be the traveler, not the host.
See Abraham and Lot receiving divine visitors, the widow of Zarephath receiving Elisha, people receiving Jesus and his disciples, people receiving apostles, the witch of Endor's treatment of Saul, and on the flipside the poor conduct of the Sodomites and the gang rape of the traveler's concubine in Judges.
The thing these types twist about the Bible is that those things are how you're supposed to live your life personally not necessarily how you're supposed to set national policy. The idea of "embracing foreigners" doesn't mean you invite the entire world to come live in your country, it just means that you're nice to them when you meet them.
Remember, the Bible also has passages about obeying authority because God put them over you, which these liars clearly don't take literally.
These heretics will he dealt with by a higher judge.
Exactly. One begins at the personal level, not the macro political.
Where's that meme of the smug atheist saying something along the lines of 'well no of course my supremely enlightened self don't believe in any of that hokey magical BS about a sky daddy, but you do, so maybe if I throw quotes from your precious scripture at you it'll get you to do what I want'? Because that's what I think of every time I hear or see a leftist try to lecture others about Christianity.
posted below
You can't have just the "niceness package" of the bible. You have to take the whole thing. I'm not really that Christian but the bible is a great guide on how to live life.
You want these nice things? Fine. You must accept the parts on sexual morality too. You must work. It's really clear, not willing to work, you can't eat.
Debt is not to be taken lightly. Forgiving debts is one thing, but a Christian would never seek debts and not want to repay them. Even if the debt is unfair, it's not their job to judge the creditor. It is their job to fulfill the commitment they made.
Which parts of the Bible do these Anti-theist Leftists like that aren't just convenient to their politics? Which ones do they emulate and use to better their lives?
That thing about being nice to foreigners was written in a time when travel was rare and difficult enough for people from the next town to be a novel sight, and inns and public houses weren't a thing yet.
Same goes for the Greek myth of Philemon and Baucis, the point of which is to also remind people to take wanderers in.
I don't think the societies that wrote either of these would tolerate a total invasion by foreigners, armed or not.
I think it's also a misreading of the word "foreigner". Anyone who wasn't part of your village or immediate surroundings could be a "foreigner".
To encounter a traveller from a different country would be exceedingly rare. Furthermore, the "foreigners" of today are indeed better described as invaders- most looking to extract resources and leave like a plague of locusts instead of put down roots and integrate.
Just like their view of equality: all the benefits, none of the responsibilities.
Time for my favorite smuggie.
"Welcoming foreigners" has indeed transformed people's actual lives in Europe a great deal... for the worse.
Welcoming foreigners is a double-edged sword if you observe Isaiah 1. I would go so far as the say that God absolutely hates the whoredom of multiculturalism.
Wait which one as if we're going old testament these guys are getting purged by either drowning or heaven's wrath.
To be honest I struggle with this. Helping others to the point that you allow millions of foreigners inside the country seems extreme. You are basically allowing your population to be replaced with horrible results so far. On the other-hand you are helping people that don't have a good life.
I'd say there's a difference between helping people, and "you HAVE to let in every single person into the country, even if they are a criminal, so they can get free money from the government"
I would be lying if I said I was ok with millions of people getting in the country even if we could vet them to be good. Getting replace both ethnically and culturally and watching identity politics in action has not been the best experience.
Not sure if that is against the Bible :(
Most passages in the Bible on this topic which refer to "[your] neighbor", refer to people(s) that you share at least some commonality with, such as nationality, cultural history, ethnicity, profession, etc. In context with Scripture, this translates to Jew helping Jew.
The Muslims and Central/Western Africans coming in by the millions not only have 0 in common with us, the Muslims in particular actively seek to destroy us as demanded by their holy book, The Quran, whether it be by the sword, or by outbreeding us with their polygamy practices (up to 4 wives per man starting VERY young).
Not a Christian or Biblical scholar myself, but I'm pretty sure charity doesn't extend to helping others at the expense of the safety of those you should be protecting such as your family and community. Allowing millions of immigrants a year into western countries is having severely detrimental effects on those who least deserve it.
get thee behind me, satan.
Carlos Rodriguezstein