Jesus vs. McCain/Palin

By Daniel Miessler on November 1st, 2008: Tagged as Humor | Religion

jesus_vs_gop

So, Christian McCain supporters, the excercise for you is to figure out what’s wrong with this argument. In other words, why is this an unfair comparison?

I actually think I know the common Republican-Christian response to this:

Jesus taught those things in a different time and place. We are dealing with reality out here on the ground. These aren’t teachings that are meant to be followed day-to-day in a literal sense…

So basically the teachings of Jesus are way too liberal and socialist for them to apply in today’s world? So your reality is that of the GOP, and since it conflicts with that of Jesus, Jesus is “out of touch”?

Do you have any idea how lame that sounds?

Either abandon the GOP’s “let people fend for themselves” and “keep the military strong” or abandon Jesus’s “judge not that you be judged” and “turn the other cheek”. You can’t embrace the former all week and the latter on Sunday. Well, actually you can, but not without being an asshole.

This is the ultimate manifestation of cognitive dissonance in Christian Republicans: Jesus was the ultimate socialist, and yet they vote for George Bush and John McCain.

Ask yourself this–and I’m not even joking (even though it is humorous): Who do you think Jesus would vote for if McCain and Obama were to get up there and do their thing in front of him for 30 minutes? Would it be Obama with the whole “middle class” pitch, or McCain with the “that guy’s a socialist” pitch?

No, stop laughing. Stop sneering. Answer me. Seriously. And no, I’m not saying you should vote for Obama because Jesus would. I’m a fucking atheist. My point is that with all three (Jesus, McCain, and Obama) on stage–one of them is not like the other. And it’s probably the guy who said, “I’ll always hate the Gooks”, and “Bomb, bomb, Iran” who won’t get the pass. Plus McCain would be the only white guy on stage (Jesus was very dark).

That’s the funny part. If John McCain, Obama, and Jesus were all on stage. Who would Jesus look the most like? Yep, not McCain. Just imagine the looks on the faces of McCain/Palin supporters as they watch Jesus, with dark skin, while he goes on about “giving away your possessions” and stopping war, and ending famine.

Suddenly a good Christian white man jumps on stage:

I don’t know who this dark-ass, socialist a-rab is, but if he say’s he’s Jesus one more time I swear to God I’ll kill him myself. Nobody blasphemes **my** religion.

(cheering from the crowd) (especially the Palin-ites)

So, yes, I’m being provocative again. Sorry. But the question is a valid and serious one:

Why is this a bad argument? What mistake am I making in my logic? In other words, show me how a giant crowd of McCain/Palin supporters would embrace Jesus’s socialist teachings if they were coming right out of his mouth today. Am I wrong in saying they wouldn’t? Am I wrong in saying that, unless he performed miracles, the majority of the GOP would reject Jesus based on the fact that he doesn’t look like them and doesn’t share their “good conservative values”?

  • CarlM

    Some of the Christians will say that the abortion issue outweighs everything else. They may then vote for McCain/Palin in spite of the other things. But, actually, I think that even before Obama entered the race, many Christian groups made a split from the far right .. and decided that Bush’s promise of Compassionate Conservatives had fallen short and that compassion needed to get back in the equation somehow. Additionally, many who are anti-abortion recognize that Obama’s social policies may help reduce the number of abortions (in part by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies).

    That said, I think that you’re right that the rabid McCain/Palin supporters (a group that does NOT include all devoutly religious people) would find it difficult to embrace the teachings of Jesus. I’m not convinced that they’d answer your argument in the way you suggest .. so .. I’d not put words in their mouths. I’d be curious to hear what they had to say.

  • CarlM

    Some of the Christians will say that the abortion issue outweighs everything else. They may then vote for McCain/Palin in spite of the other things. But, actually, I think that even before Obama entered the race, many Christian groups made a split from the far right .. and decided that Bush’s promise of Compassionate Conservatives had fallen short and that compassion needed to get back in the equation somehow. Additionally, many who are anti-abortion recognize that Obama’s social policies may help reduce the number of abortions (in part by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies).

    That said, I think that you’re right that the rabid McCain/Palin supporters (a group that does NOT include all devoutly religious people) would find it difficult to embrace the teachings of Jesus. I’m not convinced that they’d answer your argument in the way you suggest .. so .. I’d not put words in their mouths. I’d be curious to hear what they had to say.

  • Carl M

    Some of the Christians will say that the abortion issue outweighs everything else. They may then vote for McCain/Palin in spite of the other things. But, actually, I think that even before Obama entered the race, many Christian groups made a split from the far right .. and decided that Bush’s promise of Compassionate Conservatives had fallen short and that compassion needed to get back in the equation somehow. Additionally, many who are anti-abortion recognize that Obama’s social policies may help reduce the number of abortions (in part by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies).

    That said, I think that you’re right that the rabid McCain/Palin supporters (a group that does NOT include all devoutly religious people) would find it difficult to embrace the teachings of Jesus. I’m not convinced that they’d answer your argument in the way you suggest .. so .. I’d not put words in their mouths. I’d be curious to hear what they had to say.

  • Pingback: Jesus vs. McCain/Palin | PaulSpoerry.com

  • Steve C

    There is a major flaw in your “logic” here–as you from the left so often like to point out–the is a difference between the church and the government.

    Jesus told the wealthy they should sell their possessions and GIVE it to the poor. He never advocated some government bureaucrat coming in using the power of taxation to forcibly TAKE it from them.

    The difference is that Republicans believe that charity should be a voluntary thing. We believe that WE (meaning ALL of us) should decide individually where to donate our money (and many studies have shown that Republicans are FAR more generous in terms of charitable donations). Democrats seem to think it is the job of the government to decide where to “spread the wealth”.

    Taxes are meant to fund the vital functions of the government–not for bogus social engineering projects. The funny thing is, although I am by far not a constitutional scholar, I have read the document a time or two. Nowhere in that document or in the Declaration of Independence have I found any mention of granting the government the authority to take money from one population and distribute it to another. In the LAW, I have never seen a “right” to health care, a “living wage” or adequate housing.

    I HAVE seen the protection against unlawful seizure and private property rights in our founding documents. And of course, let us not forget the opening of the Declaration of Independence that states that among the most fundamental of rights is LIFE (along with liberty and the pursuit of happiness)…….

    It’s funny how that gets ignored by the liberals…..

  • Steve C

    There is a major flaw in your “logic” here–as you from the left so often like to point out–the is a difference between the church and the government.

    Jesus told the wealthy they should sell their possessions and GIVE it to the poor. He never advocated some government bureaucrat coming in using the power of taxation to forcibly TAKE it from them.

    The difference is that Republicans believe that charity should be a voluntary thing. We believe that WE (meaning ALL of us) should decide individually where to donate our money (and many studies have shown that Republicans are FAR more generous in terms of charitable donations). Democrats seem to think it is the job of the government to decide where to “spread the wealth”.

    Taxes are meant to fund the vital functions of the government–not for bogus social engineering projects. The funny thing is, although I am by far not a constitutional scholar, I have read the document a time or two. Nowhere in that document or in the Declaration of Independence have I found any mention of granting the government the authority to take money from one population and distribute it to another. In the LAW, I have never seen a “right” to health care, a “living wage” or adequate housing.

    I HAVE seen the protection against unlawful seizure and private property rights in our founding documents. And of course, let us not forget the opening of the Declaration of Independence that states that among the most fundamental of rights is LIFE (along with liberty and the pursuit of happiness)…….

    It’s funny how that gets ignored by the liberals…..

  • Steve C

    There is a major flaw in your “logic” here–as you from the left so often like to point out–the is a difference between the church and the government.

    Jesus told the wealthy they should sell their possessions and GIVE it to the poor. He never advocated some government bureaucrat coming in using the power of taxation to forcibly TAKE it from them.

    The difference is that Republicans believe that charity should be a voluntary thing. We believe that WE (meaning ALL of us) should decide individually where to donate our money (and many studies have shown that Republicans are FAR more generous in terms of charitable donations). Democrats seem to think it is the job of the government to decide where to “spread the wealth”.

    Taxes are meant to fund the vital functions of the government–not for bogus social engineering projects. The funny thing is, although I am by far not a constitutional scholar, I have read the document a time or two. Nowhere in that document or in the Declaration of Independence have I found any mention of granting the government the authority to take money from one population and distribute it to another. In the LAW, I have never seen a “right” to health care, a “living wage” or adequate housing.

    I HAVE seen the protection against unlawful seizure and private property rights in our founding documents. And of course, let us not forget the opening of the Declaration of Independence that states that among the most fundamental of rights is LIFE (along with liberty and the pursuit of happiness)…….

    It’s funny how that gets ignored by the liberals…..

  • Steve C

    There is a major flaw in your “logic” here–as you from the left so often like to point out–the is a difference between the church and the government.

    Jesus told the wealthy they should sell their possessions and GIVE it to the poor. He never advocated some government bureaucrat coming in using the power of taxation to forcibly TAKE it from them.

    The difference is that Republicans believe that charity should be a voluntary thing. We believe that WE (meaning ALL of us) should decide individually where to donate our money (and many studies have shown that Republicans are FAR more generous in terms of charitable donations). Democrats seem to think it is the job of the government to decide where to “spread the wealth”.

    Taxes are meant to fund the vital functions of the government–not for bogus social engineering projects. The funny thing is, although I am by far not a constitutional scholar, I have read the document a time or two. Nowhere in that document or in the Declaration of Independence have I found any mention of granting the government the authority to take money from one population and distribute it to another. In the LAW, I have never seen a “right” to health care, a “living wage” or adequate housing.

    I HAVE seen the protection against unlawful seizure and private property rights in our founding documents. And of course, let us not forget the opening of the Declaration of Independence that states that among the most fundamental of rights is LIFE (along with liberty and the pursuit of happiness)…….

    It’s funny how that gets ignored by the liberals…..

  • Steve C

    There is a major flaw in your “logic” here–as you from the left so often like to point out–the is a difference between the church and the government.

    Jesus told the wealthy they should sell their possessions and GIVE it to the poor. He never advocated some government bureaucrat coming in using the power of taxation to forcibly TAKE it from them.

    The difference is that Republicans believe that charity should be a voluntary thing. We believe that WE (meaning ALL of us) should decide individually where to donate our money (and many studies have shown that Republicans are FAR more generous in terms of charitable donations). Democrats seem to think it is the job of the government to decide where to “spread the wealth”.

    Taxes are meant to fund the vital functions of the government–not for bogus social engineering projects. The funny thing is, although I am by far not a constitutional scholar, I have read the document a time or two. Nowhere in that document or in the Declaration of Independence have I found any mention of granting the government the authority to take money from one population and distribute it to another. In the LAW, I have never seen a “right” to health care, a “living wage” or adequate housing.

    I HAVE seen the protection against unlawful seizure and private property rights in our founding documents. And of course, let us not forget the opening of the Declaration of Independence that states that among the most fundamental of rights is LIFE (along with liberty and the pursuit of happiness)…….

    It’s funny how that gets ignored by the liberals…..

  • Steve C

    There is a major flaw in your “logic” here–as you from the left so often like to point out–the is a difference between the church and the government.

    Jesus told the wealthy they should sell their possessions and GIVE it to the poor. He never advocated some government bureaucrat coming in using the power of taxation to forcibly TAKE it from them.

    The difference is that Republicans believe that charity should be a voluntary thing. We believe that WE (meaning ALL of us) should decide individually where to donate our money (and many studies have shown that Republicans are FAR more generous in terms of charitable donations). Democrats seem to think it is the job of the government to decide where to “spread the wealth”.

    Taxes are meant to fund the vital functions of the government–not for bogus social engineering projects. The funny thing is, although I am by far not a constitutional scholar, I have read the document a time or two. Nowhere in that document or in the Declaration of Independence have I found any mention of granting the government the authority to take money from one population and distribute it to another. In the LAW, I have never seen a “right” to health care, a “living wage” or adequate housing.

    I HAVE seen the protection against unlawful seizure and private property rights in our founding documents. And of course, let us not forget the opening of the Declaration of Independence that states that among the most fundamental of rights is LIFE (along with liberty and the pursuit of happiness)…….

    It’s funny how that gets ignored by the liberals…..

  • The other Steve C

    Did you miss the part about “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s”?

    If you finish the verse it continues to make a clear distinction between money to the church and money to the government “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

    Its not like you get to decide where your church sends your money, which is the Religulous’s greatest argument against using taxes through government to help people.

    BTW:

    Romans 13:1-7 makes it clear that we are to submit ourselves to the government. The only instance in which we are allowed to disobey the government is when it tells us to do something the Bible forbids. The Bible does not forbid paying taxes. In fact, the Bible encourages us to pay taxes. Therefore, we must submit to God and His Word – and pay our taxes.

    Romans 13:2 “Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”

    In full agreement, the Apostle Paul taught, “This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor” (Romans 13:6-7).

  • The other Steve C

    Did you miss the part about “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s”?

    If you finish the verse it continues to make a clear distinction between money to the church and money to the government “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

    Its not like you get to decide where your church sends your money, which is the Religulous’s greatest argument against using taxes through government to help people.

    BTW:

    Romans 13:1-7 makes it clear that we are to submit ourselves to the government. The only instance in which we are allowed to disobey the government is when it tells us to do something the Bible forbids. The Bible does not forbid paying taxes. In fact, the Bible encourages us to pay taxes. Therefore, we must submit to God and His Word – and pay our taxes.

    Romans 13:2 “Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”

    In full agreement, the Apostle Paul taught, “This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor” (Romans 13:6-7).

  • The other Steve C

    Did you miss the part about “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s”?

    If you finish the verse it continues to make a clear distinction between money to the church and money to the government “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

    Its not like you get to decide where your church sends your money, which is the Religulous’s greatest argument against using taxes through government to help people.

    BTW:

    Romans 13:1-7 makes it clear that we are to submit ourselves to the government. The only instance in which we are allowed to disobey the government is when it tells us to do something the Bible forbids. The Bible does not forbid paying taxes. In fact, the Bible encourages us to pay taxes. Therefore, we must submit to God and His Word – and pay our taxes.

    Romans 13:2 “Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”

    In full agreement, the Apostle Paul taught, “This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor” (Romans 13:6-7).

  • The other Steve C

    Did you miss the part about “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s”?

    If you finish the verse it continues to make a clear distinction between money to the church and money to the government “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

    Its not like you get to decide where your church sends your money, which is the Religulous’s greatest argument against using taxes through government to help people.

    BTW:

    Romans 13:1-7 makes it clear that we are to submit ourselves to the government. The only instance in which we are allowed to disobey the government is when it tells us to do something the Bible forbids. The Bible does not forbid paying taxes. In fact, the Bible encourages us to pay taxes. Therefore, we must submit to God and His Word – and pay our taxes.

    Romans 13:2 “Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”

    In full agreement, the Apostle Paul taught, “This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor” (Romans 13:6-7).

  • The other Steve C

    Did you miss the part about “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s”?

    If you finish the verse it continues to make a clear distinction between money to the church and money to the government “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

    Its not like you get to decide where your church sends your money, which is the Religulous’s greatest argument against using taxes through government to help people.

    BTW:

    Romans 13:1-7 makes it clear that we are to submit ourselves to the government. The only instance in which we are allowed to disobey the government is when it tells us to do something the Bible forbids. The Bible does not forbid paying taxes. In fact, the Bible encourages us to pay taxes. Therefore, we must submit to God and His Word – and pay our taxes.

    Romans 13:2 “Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”

    In full agreement, the Apostle Paul taught, “This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor” (Romans 13:6-7).

  • The other Steve C

    Did you miss the part about “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s”?

    If you finish the verse it continues to make a clear distinction between money to the church and money to the government “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

    Its not like you get to decide where your church sends your money, which is the Religulous’s greatest argument against using taxes through government to help people.

    BTW:

    Romans 13:1-7 makes it clear that we are to submit ourselves to the government. The only instance in which we are allowed to disobey the government is when it tells us to do something the Bible forbids. The Bible does not forbid paying taxes. In fact, the Bible encourages us to pay taxes. Therefore, we must submit to God and His Word – and pay our taxes.

    Romans 13:2 “Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”

    In full agreement, the Apostle Paul taught, “This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor” (Romans 13:6-7).

  • The other Steve C

    PS: I am not conservative or liberal, just tired of rule by the religious of the right which drove me from the republican party to going independent.

    I have read the document a time or two, and I recall one of the FIRST things about “separation of church and state”, not the theocracy that the religious right wants to corrupt the republican party into.

    If I have to choose, (apparently I do, by Tuesday) between a quasi-socialism and full blown theocracy and holier than thou morality police (SEE: “mutaween”), then I will not stand by and let the religious extremist hijack the country.

  • The other Steve C

    PS: I am not conservative or liberal, just tired of rule by the religious of the right which drove me from the republican party to going independent.

    I have read the document a time or two, and I recall one of the FIRST things about “separation of church and state”, not the theocracy that the religious right wants to corrupt the republican party into.

    If I have to choose, (apparently I do, by Tuesday) between a quasi-socialism and full blown theocracy and holier than thou morality police (SEE: “mutaween”), then I will not stand by and let the religious extremist hijack the country.

  • The other Steve C

    PS: I am not conservative or liberal, just tired of rule by the religious of the right which drove me from the republican party to going independent.

    I have read the document a time or two, and I recall one of the FIRST things about “separation of church and state”, not the theocracy that the religious right wants to corrupt the republican party into.

    If I have to choose, (apparently I do, by Tuesday) between a quasi-socialism and full blown theocracy and holier than thou morality police (SEE: “mutaween”), then I will not stand by and let the religious extremist hijack the country.

  • The other Steve C

    PS: I am not conservative or liberal, just tired of rule by the religious of the right which drove me from the republican party to going independent.

    I have read the document a time or two, and I recall one of the FIRST things about “separation of church and state”, not the theocracy that the religious right wants to corrupt the republican party into.

    If I have to choose, (apparently I do, by Tuesday) between a quasi-socialism and full blown theocracy and holier than thou morality police (SEE: “mutaween”), then I will not stand by and let the religious extremist hijack the country.

  • The other Steve C

    PS: I am not conservative or liberal, just tired of rule by the religious of the right which drove me from the republican party to going independent.

    I have read the document a time or two, and I recall one of the FIRST things about “separation of church and state”, not the theocracy that the religious right wants to corrupt the republican party into.

    If I have to choose, (apparently I do, by Tuesday) between a quasi-socialism and full blown theocracy and holier than thou morality police (SEE: “mutaween”), then I will not stand by and let the religious extremist hijack the country.

  • http://infosecplace.com/blog Michael R. Farnum

    Daniel (and the other Steve C),

    • You are making a logical jump to suit your taxes argument. Jesus doesn’t say you should give all your money to the government, and neither does Paul. Neither one of them said that it is good if the government raises taxes. They simply say you should submit yourself to the government and whoever is in charge because God is sovereign and decides who should be in power. If that person in power decides to raise taxes, then we should pay those taxes. I don’t like it, but I will simply protest with my vote the next time around if whoever is in charge raises taxes.

    • The first Steve C is completely correct in his argument that Jesus wanted the church to help the poor, not the government. He told the rich man to sell his possessions and give the money to the poor. He didn’t say “sell your possessions and give them to Caesar because he has this great social welfare program”. And more government spending does not equal charity.

    • The very argument you make about government nullifies the “soft on crime” argument. If we should submit to the government, then we should submit to the judgment of those over us (like judges in courts. Jesus was talking about me criticizing and condemning someone for their actions (they are sinning in some manner) while I am ignoring my own sin. Read it in context.

    • I honestly struggle on the war issue because I don’t think any war is inherently a good thing and that Jesus did preach against war. I was never on board with the invasion of Iraq, though I can’t say I wasn’t happy when Saddam’s regime was taken down (some people in this world are just evil, and it is hard for me to say they shouldn’t be stamped out). That being said, taking Jesus’ preaching out of context of the entire Bible is the same as taking a single verse out of context and twisting it to meet your needs. There are multiple instances of justified wars in the Bible, but that is an argument all on its own. :) I will just say that I struggle with the war issue on all fronts because I hate to see anyone suffer and die.

    Thanks for the provocative post (though I would love it if you could calm down the tone and the assumption that we conservative Christians are a bunch of slack-brained idiots who immediately ignore your arguments as worthless – you make me think).

    Michael

  • http://infosecplace.com/blog Michael R. Farnum

    Daniel (and the other Steve C),

    • You are making a logical jump to suit your taxes argument. Jesus doesn’t say you should give all your money to the government, and neither does Paul. Neither one of them said that it is good if the government raises taxes. They simply say you should submit yourself to the government and whoever is in charge because God is sovereign and decides who should be in power. If that person in power decides to raise taxes, then we should pay those taxes. I don’t like it, but I will simply protest with my vote the next time around if whoever is in charge raises taxes.

    • The first Steve C is completely correct in his argument that Jesus wanted the church to help the poor, not the government. He told the rich man to sell his possessions and give the money to the poor. He didn’t say “sell your possessions and give them to Caesar because he has this great social welfare program”. And more government spending does not equal charity.

    • The very argument you make about government nullifies the “soft on crime” argument. If we should submit to the government, then we should submit to the judgment of those over us (like judges in courts. Jesus was talking about me criticizing and condemning someone for their actions (they are sinning in some manner) while I am ignoring my own sin. Read it in context.

    • I honestly struggle on the war issue because I don’t think any war is inherently a good thing and that Jesus did preach against war. I was never on board with the invasion of Iraq, though I can’t say I wasn’t happy when Saddam’s regime was taken down (some people in this world are just evil, and it is hard for me to say they shouldn’t be stamped out). That being said, taking Jesus’ preaching out of context of the entire Bible is the same as taking a single verse out of context and twisting it to meet your needs. There are multiple instances of justified wars in the Bible, but that is an argument all on its own. :) I will just say that I struggle with the war issue on all fronts because I hate to see anyone suffer and die.

    Thanks for the provocative post (though I would love it if you could calm down the tone and the assumption that we conservative Christians are a bunch of slack-brained idiots who immediately ignore your arguments as worthless – you make me think).

    Michael

  • http://infosecplace.com/blog Michael R. Farnum

    Daniel (and the other Steve C),

    • You are making a logical jump to suit your taxes argument. Jesus doesn’t say you should give all your money to the government, and neither does Paul. Neither one of them said that it is good if the government raises taxes. They simply say you should submit yourself to the government and whoever is in charge because God is sovereign and decides who should be in power. If that person in power decides to raise taxes, then we should pay those taxes. I don’t like it, but I will simply protest with my vote the next time around if whoever is in charge raises taxes.

    • The first Steve C is completely correct in his argument that Jesus wanted the church to help the poor, not the government. He told the rich man to sell his possessions and give the money to the poor. He didn’t say “sell your possessions and give them to Caesar because he has this great social welfare program”. And more government spending does not equal charity.

    • The very argument you make about government nullifies the “soft on crime” argument. If we should submit to the government, then we should submit to the judgment of those over us (like judges in courts. Jesus was talking about me criticizing and condemning someone for their actions (they are sinning in some manner) while I am ignoring my own sin. Read it in context.

    • I honestly struggle on the war issue because I don’t think any war is inherently a good thing and that Jesus did preach against war. I was never on board with the invasion of Iraq, though I can’t say I wasn’t happy when Saddam’s regime was taken down (some people in this world are just evil, and it is hard for me to say they shouldn’t be stamped out). That being said, taking Jesus’ preaching out of context of the entire Bible is the same as taking a single verse out of context and twisting it to meet your needs. There are multiple instances of justified wars in the Bible, but that is an argument all on its own. :) I will just say that I struggle with the war issue on all fronts because I hate to see anyone suffer and die.

    Thanks for the provocative post (though I would love it if you could calm down the tone and the assumption that we conservative Christians are a bunch of slack-brained idiots who immediately ignore your arguments as worthless – you make me think).

    Michael

  • http://infosecplace.com/blog Michael R. Farnum

    Daniel (and the other Steve C),

    • You are making a logical jump to suit your taxes argument. Jesus doesn’t say you should give all your money to the government, and neither does Paul. Neither one of them said that it is good if the government raises taxes. They simply say you should submit yourself to the government and whoever is in charge because God is sovereign and decides who should be in power. If that person in power decides to raise taxes, then we should pay those taxes. I don’t like it, but I will simply protest with my vote the next time around if whoever is in charge raises taxes.

    • The first Steve C is completely correct in his argument that Jesus wanted the church to help the poor, not the government. He told the rich man to sell his possessions and give the money to the poor. He didn’t say “sell your possessions and give them to Caesar because he has this great social welfare program”. And more government spending does not equal charity.

    • The very argument you make about government nullifies the “soft on crime” argument. If we should submit to the government, then we should submit to the judgment of those over us (like judges in courts. Jesus was talking about me criticizing and condemning someone for their actions (they are sinning in some manner) while I am ignoring my own sin. Read it in context.

    • I honestly struggle on the war issue because I don’t think any war is inherently a good thing and that Jesus did preach against war. I was never on board with the invasion of Iraq, though I can’t say I wasn’t happy when Saddam’s regime was taken down (some people in this world are just evil, and it is hard for me to say they shouldn’t be stamped out). That being said, taking Jesus’ preaching out of context of the entire Bible is the same as taking a single verse out of context and twisting it to meet your needs. There are multiple instances of justified wars in the Bible, but that is an argument all on its own. :) I will just say that I struggle with the war issue on all fronts because I hate to see anyone suffer and die.

    Thanks for the provocative post (though I would love it if you could calm down the tone and the assumption that we conservative Christians are a bunch of slack-brained idiots who immediately ignore your arguments as worthless – you make me think).

    Michael

  • http://slashback.org/ Zealot

    Too bad Jesus isn’t eligible to run for president since he was born in Bethlehem.

  • http://slashback.org/ Zealot

    Too bad Jesus isn’t eligible to run for president since he was born in Bethlehem.


Top

Popular

Information Security / Technology

Politics

Philosophy & Religion

Technology & Science

Culture & Society

Miscellaneous

Arguments

Projects

Collections

Twitter

What I'm Reading

Favorite Books and Essays

Top Blog Categories

Inputs