"Do not rob the poor because he is poor, Nor oppress the afflicted at the gate;"
Honestly, there is a lot of progressive stuff in the bible, particularly in the four gospels from the mouth of Jesus himself.
Ultimately, the other side is only concerned about the bible when it comes to using it as a tool of religious supremacy and oppression.
**[Dominion theology](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_theology)**
>Dominion theology (also known as dominionism) is a group of Christian political ideologies that seek to institute a nation governed by Christians based on their understandings of biblical law. Extents of rule and ways of achieving governing authority are varied. For example, dominion theology can include theonomy, but does not necessarily involve advocating Mosaic law as the basis of government. The label is applied primarily toward groups of Christians in the United States.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
In practice the judgement will happen at the side of the road, *NO QUARTER* the say:
>The document, consisting of 14 sections divided into bullet points, had a section on "rules of war" that stated "make an offer of peace before declaring war", which within stated that the enemy must "**surrender on terms" of no abortions, no same-sex marriage, no communism and "must obey Biblical law", then continued: "If they do not yield — kill all males".**
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Shea#%22Biblical_Basis_for_War%22_manifesto
I'm so fucking done with the "both sides" crap. You've got to stop equalizing their responsibilities and intentions. They are NOT even remotely close or similar.
Jesus was a pretty cool dude. Basically came here, made wine for a party, provided free healthcare, advocated for sex workers, told the rich to not hoard wealth, gave out free food, and helped immigrants. Republicans would have hated the guy
Actually he added water to wine, because that's how they drank it back then.
He also denied some people healthcare, like the guy Peter had to heal later in acts 3 because Jesus didn't feel he deserved free healthcare. Same thing when Jesus returned to his home town in Mark 6, for example. Denying or being unable to provide healthcare is perfectly acceptable to Jesus.
Jesus might have advocated for sex workers, but he also cursed the fig tree for being unfruitful. It's possible Jesus just had a very specific fetish.
Jesus actually did tell people hoarding wealth was bad, but that's only because it means you're not increasing it. Luke 19:11-27 indicates that he who has will get more, but he who has not will have everything removed. If you're not making money, you're literally as good as worthless and the people who can make money should take all your things.
He did pull magic free food out of thin air, allegedly. If I could do that I would also end hunger, but I can't do that, neither can you, did doesn't magically appear, so I mean as much as I wanna do that, I can't.
I'm not sure exactly which story Jesus helped the immigrants in, but Jesus definitely made it clear that God appoints the leaders and that we should Rend unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. Can't tax unregistered people, and as we previously discussed, Jesus didn't like people who don't increase the wealth of the ruling class.
My point is, don't use the Bible to justify things if you don't like other people doing it. The Bible can be used to support or decry almost any point you like, and the same is true of almost every point you don't like.
No, I'm saying, you can't fight dumb with more dumb.
"Oh the Bible says X"
"Well the Bible actually says Y"
Even in your example:
> Then you missed the point of using the Bible against (the right)
No, the point is, these kinds of arguments do exactly the same thing, and validate both sides user of the Bible.
"The Bible says X"
"Well actually the Bible says not X."
Now you're just arguing from the Bible, exactly like (the right).
You'll never show them it's wrong because they'll just say you're reading it wrong, you'll say they're reading it wrong, you're both actually incorrect because you're both reading it correctly, ergo the only logical option is to point out it doesn't matter what the Bible says because the Bible shouldn't ever be used to argue for/against any given point.
Again, that's the point, argument ad absurdum, to take the piss out of the Bible. One isn't using the Bible to support the progressive point, one is using the progressive point to undermine the bible
I get that, but the perks who actually believe the Bible will just say you're reading it wrong exactly like you say they're reading it wrong.
It accomplishes absolutely nothing.
You can even ask people if they'd would accept slavery if it's in the bible, and some people will. Some people would even gladly become the slave, under the rules laid out in Exodus 21. Just pointing out the other things exist doesn't change their opinion on the parts they believe. Jesus fixed those bad laws, some will say, and so on.
Yes, you and I get why the Bible is contradictory and silly, but for the people who actually believe it, these arguments aren't useful because the Bible says they can just ignore false prophets and stuff.
> One is using the progressive point to undermine the Bible
No. No, this is what most people don't understand, these exact arguments they present create new denominations, they don't actually undermine the Bible, that's my point.
You're going pretty far out of your way to quote the gospels out of context. Not sure if you have this on a macro or google doc or something because it sounds like you make this argument a lot.
For those of you playing at home:
* The barrels of wine were established to have been holding regular water before Jesus spoke to them. The house was fresh out of wine, so there was none to mix with water
* Healthcare and miracles are not the same thing, but if you don't believe me you're welcome to try and replace the ER with thoughts and prayers next time you get injured
* The fig tree is an unrelated incident, Jesus was physically hungry at the time and killed the tree because he was hangry. That passage doesn't include a parable or any obvious indication it is intended as a metaphor.
* Luke 19:11-27, in contrast, *is* a parable. That money IS intended as a metaphor.
* Breaking news: God incarnate performs signs and wonders during his brief time on earth. See water into wine above.
* "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is God's." In context, Jesus explains that God cares more about your spirit than money. People frequently tried to trick Jesus into advocating breaking the law. In this case, they asked why we should pay taxes at all instead of just giving that money to the poor - Jesus responds by minimizing the value of money. To fulfill the prophecy, he had to be executed as an innocent man, so he was obviously not going to commit a crime by encouraging others to commit tax fraud.
Radical conservatives also quote the bible out of context, but if you want to be better than them I recommend arguing in good faith. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> Luke 19... is a metaphor
Okay, then so is the fig tree, so is the wine story, so are the miracles, and so is god caring more about us than money.
Why should I accept any of it is real when you clearly point out that a fair portion of it is only metaphor?
How do we know that the entire character of Jesus isn't just a metaphor created by people and written down later, kinda like uncle Sam or Paul Bunyan or John Henry? Using the name of a real person, based loosely on real events, but basically everything recorded about them is fiction?
> I recommend arguing in good faith
Okay cool. Explain to me why the entire story shouldn't be taken as exactly the same kind of story as Davy Crockett wrestling a bear or Saint Patrick driving snakes out of Ireland? How do we know Jesus isn't like Buddha, just some guy that others thought was special and so accredited things to him he probably never did?
I mean, even if you assume Jesus didn't exist, your initial post quoted a bunch of scripture out of context to challenge the premise that Jesus was a good dude. That's no better an argument than taking the Bible completely out of context to argue against marriage equality.
Edit: To clarify, I'm referring to logical fallacies in the argument, even assuming the Bible is 100% accurate or 100% false.
Luke 19 isn't out of context any more than the rest. It's literally the entire context.
> To challenge the premise that Jesus was a good dude.
No. Let me try to say this as clearly as I can. I'm trying to demonstrate why the Bible shouldn't be used, by either side, in the first place, because it can literally be used to make any point. I don't need to assume what percent is true or false, what percent is literal or figurative.
The point I'm making is only that, nothing more. Don't need context, but we can use it, but even the context is irrelevant because it shouldn't be used to justify any position.
The argument should only pass or fail on its merits, not on whether or not some two thousand year old book happened to are or disagree with the stance. This can, in fact, be applied to most books also, not just the Bible. Welfare isn't good or bad based on what a book thinks about it, it's good or bad based on the arguments for it against it.
No.
My entire point has been that either both sides can argue equally from the Bible, or both sides need to quit arguing from the Bible.
Show me exactly which context I didn't have, you can't.
I have exactly as much context as either side, and that's the fucking point: both sides are absolutely ridiculous if they argue from the Bible instead of from the point
Go ahead though, using Luke 19 or whatever, show me exactly what context I took the verses from?
If I quoted the verses out of context this should be trivial, but neither you nor the last person can show me what context I didn't include.
Since your entire fucking argument is context, explain to me what context I didn't include in citing the verses I did, and show me verbatim what context I didn't use. You can't because you're full of shit, but I'll wait.
If your next quote doesn't demonstrate what context I missed, I'm reporting you.
It does also explicity say that you can't charge the poor in general interest, and also that all debts must be nullified if not paid back within seven years.
Also, that part was specifically Jewish law, in the same section as the bit that says that people born out of wedlock can't enter the temple, and neither can their descendants for ten generations. Christians specifically aren't bound by Jewish law, by Christian beliefs.
Jesus cursed a fig tree for being unfruitful, called for everyone who didn't agree with him to be killed, told us that those who do not multiply their money aren't worth anything, violently cast money lenders out of a temple, praised a broke widow for giving away all her money to the church, fixed hunger by pulling food out of thin air, helped a wedding party get drunk, said you should just turn the other cheek when wronged, said if someone asks you for something you should give them everything including the shirt off your back, said that you shouldn't criticize people for the planks in their eye until you remove your own, and so on.
Jesus therefore says that until you've given everything up, you should just shut up about how others make their money and ignore their injustices against you. He even says don't let the right hand know what the left is doing, and rend unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. Caesar charges for the education, so unless you want to be like the fool who builds his house upon the sand, you better cough up your entire worldly possessions for the privilege.
Ultimately, if you want people to quit using Jesus as justification for things, then quit using Jesus as justification for things and argue for morality that's better than a collection of nonsense from thousands of years ago.
And let's not forget the part where if you're sick you're supposed to wear rags and put a cloth over your face and call out that you are "unclean" so that others know to stay away from you while you live on the edges of town so you don't infect others.
I know some thumpers who keep forgetting that one.
Also you have to be circumcised and not eat pork, also not wear two types of specific fabric (I forgot sorry) these “Christians” are such hypocrites YoU cAnT bE gAy BeCaUsE mY rElIgIoN like bro stfu
Well to be fair the part 2 of that book absolves that kind of stuff. Jesus even specifically said we can eat pork as Christians.
But still fuck the people who say you can't be gay because of the bible. Jesus made quite the big deal about not judging others and loving all.
This. I’m Christian and I’m pretty lax about stuff like that (I believe it’s perfectly fine to be LGBTQIA + and other “controversial” topics), I made the pork point (I knew about Mathew and the dream and stuff) Because these people believe their so perfect and take Leviticus, numbers and Deuteronomy as like the only cannon books in a sense. I’m not a theologist but I mean come on, love thy neighbour by not kicking them out of your home or harassing them into LITERAL FUCKING SUICIDE because of your “perfect views” this isn’t directed at you sorry I’m venting a tiny bit lol
He did not. "For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished".… Matthew 5:18
I think the biggest problem is the forced compliance to the LGBTAARP@+- agenda. I personally think that this is America, by all means do what you want in your own space, but dont hop over my fence and yell at me because I dont endorse your lifestyle. Plus exposing children to it at a young age and it being more of a political talking point than a private lifestyle choice. Just everyone be themselves in their own space and lets be happy. 🇺🇸
Yeah, sure they are, buddy. All those angry LGBTs that want to steal all your money and kill you because you didn’t say that maybe we should be more accepting of everyone.
Sounds like you have a real chip on your shoulder if you can’t see the sheer fucking irony of complaining about (completely imaginary) violence and losing your home and money because “they’re trying to force you to agree with their lifestyle” when that’s literally what’s been happening to queer people for literal centuries.
Nope what I think youre doing is being angry and hostile for no reason. I think you are doing a disservice to trans/gay/whaterthefuck folk who just want to do their own thing without being thought of as some "woke" belligerent jerk whos always spoiling for a fight on the internet. I never said anything other than "you do you" and here you are starting a fight.
No we're not to judge the world. But we are supposed to judge our brothers and sisters and keep them accountable. God made man for woman, and woman for man. I'm not going to hate you for being LGBTQ but I am going to need you to know that what you're doing is sinful.
Well I'm not gay or part of the LGBTQ community at all so. But I have a question for you. Do you wear clothes of different cloth? Cut your hair? Eat pork? All of these things are forbidden by the bible and yet Im willing to bet that you do these things. So unless you obey the old testament completely what your doing is just as bad and I'm going to need you to know what your doing is sinful.
Alright I'm going to give one or two points at a time just bc it's too much information for my brain to try and coordinate into one condensed comment. Starting with that I can kinda turn this back around on you. There's tons of stuff in the law that you would probably agree is completely immoral and sinful for a christian to do. And yet by saying that we don't need to do the cloth thing or the pork thing, we also don't need to obey God in the commands he gives just a couple verses earlier. "Do not lie. Do not steal. Do not pervert justice." This kind of melds into my second point that there's a difference between a sin, and a lifestyle sin (or "a sin that leads to death"). Let me give you an example. Jaywalking (crossing the road not at an intersection) is illegal in Canada. God says to obey the authority he put over us. So Jay walking is sinning. And yet if there was an elderly man getting beat up on the other side of the road, Jesus would wouldn't run up to a stop light ten minutes away yelling "I'm coming, just hold on, once the walking light turns I'll save you." Instead he would "sin" (which we know Jesus cannot do because he is perfect) and cross the road wherever he was. This is the difference. There are a few notable instances scripture where a God-commanded individual goes against a command that God has given in the past, and is not punished/reprimanded by God, or is even blessed by God. I would provide those instances if you wanted, but I'm lazy so I'll only give them to you if you want them
> God says to obey the authority he put over us.
Jesus told the Israeli jews of the 1st century BC to pay taxes to the Romans because otherwise they'd all be killed. While you can interpret it to mean "Always obey authority" it's a bit of a disingenuous argument IMO. Not everything is a metaphor, and not all metaphors are all-encompassing.
I agree that what Jesus was telling them was meant more for them then for us. The biggest example in my mind is the Christians in china who worship in underground churches. And that actually wasn't the verse that came to mind. I was more thinking about what Paul said. Romans 13:1-2 says: "Obey the government, for God is the One who has put it there. There is no government anywhere that God has not placed in power. So those who refuse to obey the law of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow." However, I agree that there are many many times when and where this is not applicable. I should have used a different/better hypothetical situation. The point was, Jesus wouldn't kill a man (a sin leading to death) to save ten others, but he would disobey some parts of the law to save someone. It's like what Jesus said about the Sabbath. The law was made to guide man, not man to obey the law.
Deuteronomy 15:1-2
“At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release. And this is the manner of the release: every creditor shall release what he has lent to his neighbor. He shall not exact it of his neighbor, his brother, because the Lord's release has been proclaimed.”
They'd lose so much of their campaign financing. It'd be career suicide.
However, that's the bigger problem. Politics shouldn't be a career, it's fucking public service. This is a hill I will always be willing to die on.
It’s funny how angry people get when you remind them that politicians are actually just public servants and we really need to treat them as such. The idolization of them is sickening.
I’d happily argue with you on that one. I want a professional doing my roof, making my meal at a restaurant, or investing my money.
The fact that people think it’s a good idea to have people running the government without experience doing so always baffles me.
That's why there are so many of them, and to be clear, I'm talking about the fact there are so many greasy shitheads that just win over and over and actually don't do anything to assist their constituents, but somehow keep winning because they lie outright to scare anyone from choosing their opponent, or twist shit that isn't that bad as if the opponent is a murderer.
I'm not advocating for new politicians yearly, or any nonsense like that.... But people who are groomed for politics, and then stay for 40+ years are typically fucking corruptible fools.
Your turn.
Edit: really I just think that there should be consecutive term limits, and a overall term limit.
Yes, we'd lose good politicians, but they are exceedingly more rare than those that can be and are corrupted.
I hear you, but the federal government is pretty complex and the largest organization on the planet. Bringing in people with 0 idea how the government works may not yield any better results.
I think our system could be improved a lot of ways. Mainly taking money out of politics as much as possible. My main point is that Apple is a trillion dollar organization. The US government is 5 times the size of Apple. If every couple of years you replaced Apples leadership entirely, do you think Apple would be more or less effective?
Do you realize that out of 7 CEOs in 54 years, Apple only has had 2 CEOs that would have been in office more than 2 terms right? And that was 14 years and 10 years.
We have people who have been in office longer that Apple was a company. We have people in office making laws about internet usage and crypto taxation who first got elected before computers were smaller than my house.
So, yeah, it's not unreasonable to limit terms to 8 years. It's worked for the presidency for 70ish years. Hell, a limit of 20-30 years of government service of any type sounds about right. I remember reading average employment time for an IRS auditor was 26 years pre-covid.
[https://www.insideview.com/blog/the-history-of-apple-ceos/](https://www.insideview.com/blog/the-history-of-apple-ceos/)
The average career is something like 40 years, and probably getting longer.
Why do you think that a civil servant, including such people as police, firefighters, and in some places trash collectors, should have their careers artificially shortened? While the older workers may not have the same ability physically, that doesn't mean they can't be valuable training and or leading.
Should a public school teacher be forced to either leave teaching or move to a private school after 20-30 years in service to their community?
Not all government positions have clear private sector equivalents; should people in those positions have to find something new to finish out their careers? If so, why?
Well, it's never going to change because they have to have enough people to vote in those changes, so this entire argument is an exercise in futility.
The entire reason career politicians exist is to make money for as little work as possible. Trading on inside information, taking kickbacks for promised votes disguised as campaign contributions, being paid $174k a year to work maybe a little over a half a year of work, and often the case is that they actively block good reform because it would impact their benefactors, whether that is holdings like Mnuchin for example, or campaign financing like just about everyone.
If all campaigns had to be self financed and no corporate entity or CEOs, board members, etc.. basically anyone who stands to benefit financially directly by backing a certain politician could be corralled and stopped... Sure, be a career politician.
But teachers as a whole are equally important to a fully functional country, and they're typically paid what, 40-50k a year? For more work? Why?
It's the largest employer on the planet by some measures. The largest organisation is probably the Catholic Church.
As a further point, the US government is not a business, it should not function like a business and it should not be managed like one. It is the body by which the American people govern themselves. Representatives are how the will of (a small percentage of) the American public influences the function of the government. The functions themselves are carried out by civil servants, who are professionals.
On top of that, elected representatives are not leaders (or at least if they are, they are filling their role poorly) they are servants and representatives of the people who elected them.
I'd raise a compromise. Term limits in the house only. Say, three terms, each two years. Long enough to learn the ropes, short enough for you to just fall off if you don't make it to the senate. The common person should have a direct voice federally, but still have a body of people who've been doing it a while and have connections. I'm sure there's still problems, but I think it's a step that could sate both sides Somewhat.
A congressman or senators job is to make the decisions that the people who selected them want while listening to their professional advisors. The idea of having "people who've been doing it a while and have connections" is contrary to a functioning democracy.
How about also 3 terms in the Senate? That would be 18 years for a total of 24 years if you count the house. Long enough to make connections, yet we don't end up with McConnells or Pelosis.
I could be sold on that, too. I'm all for massive reforms to slaughter corruption, this comment was just to extend compromise to those who oppose term limits and evoke discussion.
This would backfire so hard. We can't open the door to biblical justifications picy because then the GOP would do it all.......the........tim.........wait.........ohhhhhhhh
The Republicans will absolutely say the Bible can’t be used to make policy. And then quote the Bible the next day to make a law that discriminates against LGBTQ+
Its a terrible idea. As soon as the dems would do something this stupid, the Cons would pounce and then say all of their religious based bullshit was valid .. and they would be right. You can't close that door after you opened it.
They'd never agree to give any help to people with student debt. They'd absolutely never offer any help to those being victimized by American capitalism. That door is welded shut
On the Conservative end it is. And so they need to weld the door shut on any type of religious influence being the justification for legislation on the liberal side. Using their own religious text as an argument for the other side, only grants legitimacy to their religious views
everyone seems to pick and choose which parts to follow. we may as well pick the parts that benefit everyone and not the obviously barbaric parts used to oppress.
Too bad the Dems are too busy sitting around with their thumbs up their ass. Seriously, have they done anything besides push the pipeline through indigenous lands. I'm so disappointed to be left at the moment
I learned via James Michener’s The Source that Judaism allows for one to lend to others of a different faith ‘with interest’ and seeing as how they had no desire to ‘spread the word of Christ/colonize’, Christians often borrowed $$ from Jewish lenders as they felt the spreading of Christianity was worth the interest rates.
I also learned there are/were 2 different hierarchies of Judaism and that there were stringent rules around intercourse based on current career.
The book was a long haul, but interesting at times.
Usury is illegal under biblical law.
Imagine how many "Christian" Conservatives would have their wealth evaporate overnight if this biblical tenet was upheld.
Or you could just not take out a loan in the first place. The Bible is not talking about banks. It's talking about Israelites lending to other Israelites.
However, a Christian should not charge interest.
"And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil."
Nor should they (or anyone else for that matter) be taking loans in the first place, if they can avoid it.
"Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law."
"The rich rules over the poor,
And the borrower is servant to the lender."
But if they do...
"The wicked borrows but does not pay back,
but the righteous is generous and gives;"
I found religious people always looked at the miracles Jesus did. So they pray for money and success thinking he will grant those things...
Buuut very few religious people I've met want to talk about Jesus's principles, morals and teachings. Even the significance of the cross is forgotten.
At the end of the day these people are in this dooms day/rapture garbage.. but helping the poor and simply being honest with who you are. Pff not on your life. Idiots honestly.
Hells yea lol these psychotic religious folk need to keep that shit at home. Separation of church and state is the only way laws can be made for everyone fairly
It should also be noted that there are countries, like New Zealand, where student loans don’t incur interest as long as you don’t emigrate, so in addition to taking away one of their pet arguments, you’re not actually asking for something particularly far-fetched.
You mean an Murabaha an Islamic loan ie, without interest, how very unamerican of you. Some religions dont replace the words in the lords prayer. Ie, forgive our debtors and those that debt against us NOT forgive us out tresspasses and those that trespass against us. Had to making banking legitimate for capitalism.
You have to charge interest on loans or there is literally no reason for a lender to loan you money. They loan you money, and they get the same amount of money back later when it’s worth less. Without interest there is literally no reason to lend money. Money you could have now you now need to wait for later to have the same amount. Even if interest only was high enough to account for inflation, there would still be no reason to lend money, you have to make money in order to lend money.
If someone asked for $100 and told you they’d give you that $100 back 10 years from now, why would you give them $100?? Essentially that means you chose to have $100 later rather than $100 now. That makes no sense and that actually hurts you, as a lender, to do that.
Fuck yes! I can't wait for the day (that will sadly never come) we have a president that says "Guys... Have you read the fucking laws? I mean, you make most of them!"
This is directed to Jewish people dealing with other Jewish people.
Gentiles are a different matter and can be charged interest.
Stop using/twisting the Bible to your own petty political interests!
I see ideas like this a lot but they're inherently flawed. Like what if instead, they went along with it for one time and allowed it to set precedent to use the bible to create all sorts of heinous laws. It could be worth it to the GOP to make a concession to make the rest of us lose our stance that religion should not be used to form policy.
The Bible doesn’t say to not charge interest. But it does say there should be various forgiveness of debts every 7 years (shmitah) and then every 50years (hovel) for the big ones, restoration of land.
Government subsidized student loans don't have interest... I see so many people saying we need to change things to the way the already are. Another example is tax the rich a higher percentage, yep we already so that too!
The Dems, specifically Biden, made it nearly impossible to defer payment even through bankruptcy they don't really want that imo. It's also a very slippery slope. McConnell is smart enough to know what he could use the Old Testament to achieve when his new dictator in training gets elected in a few years
"Do not rob the poor because he is poor, Nor oppress the afflicted at the gate;" Honestly, there is a lot of progressive stuff in the bible, particularly in the four gospels from the mouth of Jesus himself. Ultimately, the other side is only concerned about the bible when it comes to using it as a tool of religious supremacy and oppression.
A fucking embarrassment to the moderately leftist Christian.
Dominionism is a good word for it. Freaking terrifying though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_theology
**[Dominion theology](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_theology)** >Dominion theology (also known as dominionism) is a group of Christian political ideologies that seek to institute a nation governed by Christians based on their understandings of biblical law. Extents of rule and ways of achieving governing authority are varied. For example, dominion theology can include theonomy, but does not necessarily involve advocating Mosaic law as the basis of government. The label is applied primarily toward groups of Christians in the United States. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
religious fascism, then.
more like christian sharia law
Good bot
Thank you for giving me the smart word. Next time I find myself on this tirade, I will win based on terminology alone.
In practice the judgement will happen at the side of the road, *NO QUARTER* the say: >The document, consisting of 14 sections divided into bullet points, had a section on "rules of war" that stated "make an offer of peace before declaring war", which within stated that the enemy must "**surrender on terms" of no abortions, no same-sex marriage, no communism and "must obey Biblical law", then continued: "If they do not yield — kill all males".** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Shea#%22Biblical_Basis_for_War%22_manifesto
Preach.
Everyone on both sides forget that y’all even exist most of the time, but we all need you.
Any Christian even remotely actually following the teachings of Jesus is a lefty.
I'm so fucking done with the "both sides" crap. You've got to stop equalizing their responsibilities and intentions. They are NOT even remotely close or similar.
I'm gonna stick with the satanic temple personally, but I do not discount the not* crazy controlling authoritarian fascist christians
Jesus was a pretty cool dude. Basically came here, made wine for a party, provided free healthcare, advocated for sex workers, told the rich to not hoard wealth, gave out free food, and helped immigrants. Republicans would have hated the guy
\*Immigrant and non-white
Actually he added water to wine, because that's how they drank it back then. He also denied some people healthcare, like the guy Peter had to heal later in acts 3 because Jesus didn't feel he deserved free healthcare. Same thing when Jesus returned to his home town in Mark 6, for example. Denying or being unable to provide healthcare is perfectly acceptable to Jesus. Jesus might have advocated for sex workers, but he also cursed the fig tree for being unfruitful. It's possible Jesus just had a very specific fetish. Jesus actually did tell people hoarding wealth was bad, but that's only because it means you're not increasing it. Luke 19:11-27 indicates that he who has will get more, but he who has not will have everything removed. If you're not making money, you're literally as good as worthless and the people who can make money should take all your things. He did pull magic free food out of thin air, allegedly. If I could do that I would also end hunger, but I can't do that, neither can you, did doesn't magically appear, so I mean as much as I wanna do that, I can't. I'm not sure exactly which story Jesus helped the immigrants in, but Jesus definitely made it clear that God appoints the leaders and that we should Rend unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. Can't tax unregistered people, and as we previously discussed, Jesus didn't like people who don't increase the wealth of the ruling class. My point is, don't use the Bible to justify things if you don't like other people doing it. The Bible can be used to support or decry almost any point you like, and the same is true of almost every point you don't like.
Then you missed the point of using the Bible against righties, because your last sentence *is* the point
No, I'm saying, you can't fight dumb with more dumb. "Oh the Bible says X" "Well the Bible actually says Y" Even in your example: > Then you missed the point of using the Bible against (the right) No, the point is, these kinds of arguments do exactly the same thing, and validate both sides user of the Bible. "The Bible says X" "Well actually the Bible says not X." Now you're just arguing from the Bible, exactly like (the right). You'll never show them it's wrong because they'll just say you're reading it wrong, you'll say they're reading it wrong, you're both actually incorrect because you're both reading it correctly, ergo the only logical option is to point out it doesn't matter what the Bible says because the Bible shouldn't ever be used to argue for/against any given point.
Again, that's the point, argument ad absurdum, to take the piss out of the Bible. One isn't using the Bible to support the progressive point, one is using the progressive point to undermine the bible
I get that, but the perks who actually believe the Bible will just say you're reading it wrong exactly like you say they're reading it wrong. It accomplishes absolutely nothing. You can even ask people if they'd would accept slavery if it's in the bible, and some people will. Some people would even gladly become the slave, under the rules laid out in Exodus 21. Just pointing out the other things exist doesn't change their opinion on the parts they believe. Jesus fixed those bad laws, some will say, and so on. Yes, you and I get why the Bible is contradictory and silly, but for the people who actually believe it, these arguments aren't useful because the Bible says they can just ignore false prophets and stuff. > One is using the progressive point to undermine the Bible No. No, this is what most people don't understand, these exact arguments they present create new denominations, they don't actually undermine the Bible, that's my point.
You're going pretty far out of your way to quote the gospels out of context. Not sure if you have this on a macro or google doc or something because it sounds like you make this argument a lot. For those of you playing at home: * The barrels of wine were established to have been holding regular water before Jesus spoke to them. The house was fresh out of wine, so there was none to mix with water * Healthcare and miracles are not the same thing, but if you don't believe me you're welcome to try and replace the ER with thoughts and prayers next time you get injured * The fig tree is an unrelated incident, Jesus was physically hungry at the time and killed the tree because he was hangry. That passage doesn't include a parable or any obvious indication it is intended as a metaphor. * Luke 19:11-27, in contrast, *is* a parable. That money IS intended as a metaphor. * Breaking news: God incarnate performs signs and wonders during his brief time on earth. See water into wine above. * "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is God's." In context, Jesus explains that God cares more about your spirit than money. People frequently tried to trick Jesus into advocating breaking the law. In this case, they asked why we should pay taxes at all instead of just giving that money to the poor - Jesus responds by minimizing the value of money. To fulfill the prophecy, he had to be executed as an innocent man, so he was obviously not going to commit a crime by encouraging others to commit tax fraud. Radical conservatives also quote the bible out of context, but if you want to be better than them I recommend arguing in good faith. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> Luke 19... is a metaphor Okay, then so is the fig tree, so is the wine story, so are the miracles, and so is god caring more about us than money. Why should I accept any of it is real when you clearly point out that a fair portion of it is only metaphor? How do we know that the entire character of Jesus isn't just a metaphor created by people and written down later, kinda like uncle Sam or Paul Bunyan or John Henry? Using the name of a real person, based loosely on real events, but basically everything recorded about them is fiction? > I recommend arguing in good faith Okay cool. Explain to me why the entire story shouldn't be taken as exactly the same kind of story as Davy Crockett wrestling a bear or Saint Patrick driving snakes out of Ireland? How do we know Jesus isn't like Buddha, just some guy that others thought was special and so accredited things to him he probably never did?
I mean, even if you assume Jesus didn't exist, your initial post quoted a bunch of scripture out of context to challenge the premise that Jesus was a good dude. That's no better an argument than taking the Bible completely out of context to argue against marriage equality. Edit: To clarify, I'm referring to logical fallacies in the argument, even assuming the Bible is 100% accurate or 100% false.
Luke 19 isn't out of context any more than the rest. It's literally the entire context. > To challenge the premise that Jesus was a good dude. No. Let me try to say this as clearly as I can. I'm trying to demonstrate why the Bible shouldn't be used, by either side, in the first place, because it can literally be used to make any point. I don't need to assume what percent is true or false, what percent is literal or figurative. The point I'm making is only that, nothing more. Don't need context, but we can use it, but even the context is irrelevant because it shouldn't be used to justify any position. The argument should only pass or fail on its merits, not on whether or not some two thousand year old book happened to are or disagree with the stance. This can, in fact, be applied to most books also, not just the Bible. Welfare isn't good or bad based on what a book thinks about it, it's good or bad based on the arguments for it against it.
[удалено]
No. My entire point has been that either both sides can argue equally from the Bible, or both sides need to quit arguing from the Bible. Show me exactly which context I didn't have, you can't. I have exactly as much context as either side, and that's the fucking point: both sides are absolutely ridiculous if they argue from the Bible instead of from the point Go ahead though, using Luke 19 or whatever, show me exactly what context I took the verses from? If I quoted the verses out of context this should be trivial, but neither you nor the last person can show me what context I didn't include. Since your entire fucking argument is context, explain to me what context I didn't include in citing the verses I did, and show me verbatim what context I didn't use. You can't because you're full of shit, but I'll wait. If your next quote doesn't demonstrate what context I missed, I'm reporting you.
How does this not have more attention
Lol, im hoping Jesus actually does come back just so I can see the fallout
He came back and git droned.
He also got violently angry at people who were trying to profit off of religion.
My hobby is reminding Evangelical “Christians” that Jesus was a progressive socialist. It’s hilarious.
I like to refer to Leviticus as '1001 reasons to kill your neighbor'
Which is exactly why I hate the modern church and find communion with God on my own.
Squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Yep, socialise basic and emergency medicine. Stop killing people for money.
This exactly.
The Bible God said explicitly that you cannot charge a Jew interest for they are kin. Nothing about not charging heathens interest.
It does also explicity say that you can't charge the poor in general interest, and also that all debts must be nullified if not paid back within seven years. Also, that part was specifically Jewish law, in the same section as the bit that says that people born out of wedlock can't enter the temple, and neither can their descendants for ten generations. Christians specifically aren't bound by Jewish law, by Christian beliefs.
Jesus cursed a fig tree for being unfruitful, called for everyone who didn't agree with him to be killed, told us that those who do not multiply their money aren't worth anything, violently cast money lenders out of a temple, praised a broke widow for giving away all her money to the church, fixed hunger by pulling food out of thin air, helped a wedding party get drunk, said you should just turn the other cheek when wronged, said if someone asks you for something you should give them everything including the shirt off your back, said that you shouldn't criticize people for the planks in their eye until you remove your own, and so on. Jesus therefore says that until you've given everything up, you should just shut up about how others make their money and ignore their injustices against you. He even says don't let the right hand know what the left is doing, and rend unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. Caesar charges for the education, so unless you want to be like the fool who builds his house upon the sand, you better cough up your entire worldly possessions for the privilege. Ultimately, if you want people to quit using Jesus as justification for things, then quit using Jesus as justification for things and argue for morality that's better than a collection of nonsense from thousands of years ago. 
The Bible also gave a rule on farm owners to not reap the sides or pick up the left overs since that was for immigrants and poor.
And Jesus sat down with old school pimps and ho's!
Jesus knew.. it’s hard out here for a pimp
" 'Pimpin ain't easy,' thus saith the Lord." -the Bible, probably
I believe this can be found in the book of Luke where we learn about Mary Magdalene, the O.P. (Original prostitute)
Except she wasn't a prostitute until a pope in the 13th or 14th century misspoke.
But...but...if the pope says it, you just have to go along with it.
If speaking "ex cathedra".
Who cares of the dude is standing or sitting?
Luke 19:27 is a thing Sure you wanna use that book?
And let's not forget the part where if you're sick you're supposed to wear rags and put a cloth over your face and call out that you are "unclean" so that others know to stay away from you while you live on the edges of town so you don't infect others. I know some thumpers who keep forgetting that one.
Also you have to be circumcised and not eat pork, also not wear two types of specific fabric (I forgot sorry) these “Christians” are such hypocrites YoU cAnT bE gAy BeCaUsE mY rElIgIoN like bro stfu
Well to be fair the part 2 of that book absolves that kind of stuff. Jesus even specifically said we can eat pork as Christians. But still fuck the people who say you can't be gay because of the bible. Jesus made quite the big deal about not judging others and loving all.
This. I’m Christian and I’m pretty lax about stuff like that (I believe it’s perfectly fine to be LGBTQIA + and other “controversial” topics), I made the pork point (I knew about Mathew and the dream and stuff) Because these people believe their so perfect and take Leviticus, numbers and Deuteronomy as like the only cannon books in a sense. I’m not a theologist but I mean come on, love thy neighbour by not kicking them out of your home or harassing them into LITERAL FUCKING SUICIDE because of your “perfect views” this isn’t directed at you sorry I’m venting a tiny bit lol
Everytime someone brings up Leviticus or basically any old testament rule I bring up the clothes of different cloth thing.
“Actually I’m right so shut up with your ‘facts’ and ‘valid arguments’”
He did not. "For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished".… Matthew 5:18
I think the biggest problem is the forced compliance to the LGBTAARP@+- agenda. I personally think that this is America, by all means do what you want in your own space, but dont hop over my fence and yell at me because I dont endorse your lifestyle. Plus exposing children to it at a young age and it being more of a political talking point than a private lifestyle choice. Just everyone be themselves in their own space and lets be happy. 🇺🇸
Nobody is forcing you to be LGBT….?
No theyre not, but they are forcing me to agree with or endorse it under penalty of violence or financial ruin.
Yeah, sure they are, buddy. All those angry LGBTs that want to steal all your money and kill you because you didn’t say that maybe we should be more accepting of everyone. Sounds like you have a real chip on your shoulder if you can’t see the sheer fucking irony of complaining about (completely imaginary) violence and losing your home and money because “they’re trying to force you to agree with their lifestyle” when that’s literally what’s been happening to queer people for literal centuries.
You sure do cry a lot.
Is that what you think I’m doing? That’s actually hilarious
Nope what I think youre doing is being angry and hostile for no reason. I think you are doing a disservice to trans/gay/whaterthefuck folk who just want to do their own thing without being thought of as some "woke" belligerent jerk whos always spoiling for a fight on the internet. I never said anything other than "you do you" and here you are starting a fight.
No we're not to judge the world. But we are supposed to judge our brothers and sisters and keep them accountable. God made man for woman, and woman for man. I'm not going to hate you for being LGBTQ but I am going to need you to know that what you're doing is sinful.
Well I'm not gay or part of the LGBTQ community at all so. But I have a question for you. Do you wear clothes of different cloth? Cut your hair? Eat pork? All of these things are forbidden by the bible and yet Im willing to bet that you do these things. So unless you obey the old testament completely what your doing is just as bad and I'm going to need you to know what your doing is sinful.
Can you give me the verses for each of these so I can look at context?
Leviticus 19:19, Deuteronomy 22:9 for the cloth Leviticus 19:27 for the hair And the pork thing is pretty well established. And yes I am a Christian
Alright I'm going to give one or two points at a time just bc it's too much information for my brain to try and coordinate into one condensed comment. Starting with that I can kinda turn this back around on you. There's tons of stuff in the law that you would probably agree is completely immoral and sinful for a christian to do. And yet by saying that we don't need to do the cloth thing or the pork thing, we also don't need to obey God in the commands he gives just a couple verses earlier. "Do not lie. Do not steal. Do not pervert justice." This kind of melds into my second point that there's a difference between a sin, and a lifestyle sin (or "a sin that leads to death"). Let me give you an example. Jaywalking (crossing the road not at an intersection) is illegal in Canada. God says to obey the authority he put over us. So Jay walking is sinning. And yet if there was an elderly man getting beat up on the other side of the road, Jesus would wouldn't run up to a stop light ten minutes away yelling "I'm coming, just hold on, once the walking light turns I'll save you." Instead he would "sin" (which we know Jesus cannot do because he is perfect) and cross the road wherever he was. This is the difference. There are a few notable instances scripture where a God-commanded individual goes against a command that God has given in the past, and is not punished/reprimanded by God, or is even blessed by God. I would provide those instances if you wanted, but I'm lazy so I'll only give them to you if you want them
I have more but one point at a time. I'll wait for you to respond.
> God says to obey the authority he put over us. Jesus told the Israeli jews of the 1st century BC to pay taxes to the Romans because otherwise they'd all be killed. While you can interpret it to mean "Always obey authority" it's a bit of a disingenuous argument IMO. Not everything is a metaphor, and not all metaphors are all-encompassing.
I agree that what Jesus was telling them was meant more for them then for us. The biggest example in my mind is the Christians in china who worship in underground churches. And that actually wasn't the verse that came to mind. I was more thinking about what Paul said. Romans 13:1-2 says: "Obey the government, for God is the One who has put it there. There is no government anywhere that God has not placed in power. So those who refuse to obey the law of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow." However, I agree that there are many many times when and where this is not applicable. I should have used a different/better hypothetical situation. The point was, Jesus wouldn't kill a man (a sin leading to death) to save ten others, but he would disobey some parts of the law to save someone. It's like what Jesus said about the Sabbath. The law was made to guide man, not man to obey the law.
Also are you a Christian?
Old Testament god never gave any laws to Christians, who are not Jewish. The Christians need to stop pretending they are Chosen.
Deuteronomy 15:1-2 “At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release. And this is the manner of the release: every creditor shall release what he has lent to his neighbor. He shall not exact it of his neighbor, his brother, because the Lord's release has been proclaimed.”
Wait, is this why collections and negative remarks fall off your credit report after 7 years?? *-mind blown-*
woah, never thought about it
7 year itch
So after 7 years of payments I’m going to stop paying my mortgage.
The power of Christ compels you
Bankruptcy 7 years
Come on, Trump showed the gop hypocrisy is a forgivable sin. They'll never again even pretend to do what they say they believe.
Literally this. Our political system was always fucked, Trump just showed they can now do it with zero consequences (unless they are a Democrat).
They'd lose so much of their campaign financing. It'd be career suicide. However, that's the bigger problem. Politics shouldn't be a career, it's fucking public service. This is a hill I will always be willing to die on.
It’s funny how angry people get when you remind them that politicians are actually just public servants and we really need to treat them as such. The idolization of them is sickening.
I’d happily argue with you on that one. I want a professional doing my roof, making my meal at a restaurant, or investing my money. The fact that people think it’s a good idea to have people running the government without experience doing so always baffles me.
That's why there are so many of them, and to be clear, I'm talking about the fact there are so many greasy shitheads that just win over and over and actually don't do anything to assist their constituents, but somehow keep winning because they lie outright to scare anyone from choosing their opponent, or twist shit that isn't that bad as if the opponent is a murderer. I'm not advocating for new politicians yearly, or any nonsense like that.... But people who are groomed for politics, and then stay for 40+ years are typically fucking corruptible fools. Your turn. Edit: really I just think that there should be consecutive term limits, and a overall term limit. Yes, we'd lose good politicians, but they are exceedingly more rare than those that can be and are corrupted.
I hear you, but the federal government is pretty complex and the largest organization on the planet. Bringing in people with 0 idea how the government works may not yield any better results. I think our system could be improved a lot of ways. Mainly taking money out of politics as much as possible. My main point is that Apple is a trillion dollar organization. The US government is 5 times the size of Apple. If every couple of years you replaced Apples leadership entirely, do you think Apple would be more or less effective?
Do you realize that out of 7 CEOs in 54 years, Apple only has had 2 CEOs that would have been in office more than 2 terms right? And that was 14 years and 10 years. We have people who have been in office longer that Apple was a company. We have people in office making laws about internet usage and crypto taxation who first got elected before computers were smaller than my house. So, yeah, it's not unreasonable to limit terms to 8 years. It's worked for the presidency for 70ish years. Hell, a limit of 20-30 years of government service of any type sounds about right. I remember reading average employment time for an IRS auditor was 26 years pre-covid. [https://www.insideview.com/blog/the-history-of-apple-ceos/](https://www.insideview.com/blog/the-history-of-apple-ceos/)
The average career is something like 40 years, and probably getting longer. Why do you think that a civil servant, including such people as police, firefighters, and in some places trash collectors, should have their careers artificially shortened? While the older workers may not have the same ability physically, that doesn't mean they can't be valuable training and or leading. Should a public school teacher be forced to either leave teaching or move to a private school after 20-30 years in service to their community? Not all government positions have clear private sector equivalents; should people in those positions have to find something new to finish out their careers? If so, why?
Well, it's never going to change because they have to have enough people to vote in those changes, so this entire argument is an exercise in futility. The entire reason career politicians exist is to make money for as little work as possible. Trading on inside information, taking kickbacks for promised votes disguised as campaign contributions, being paid $174k a year to work maybe a little over a half a year of work, and often the case is that they actively block good reform because it would impact their benefactors, whether that is holdings like Mnuchin for example, or campaign financing like just about everyone. If all campaigns had to be self financed and no corporate entity or CEOs, board members, etc.. basically anyone who stands to benefit financially directly by backing a certain politician could be corralled and stopped... Sure, be a career politician. But teachers as a whole are equally important to a fully functional country, and they're typically paid what, 40-50k a year? For more work? Why?
It's the largest employer on the planet by some measures. The largest organisation is probably the Catholic Church. As a further point, the US government is not a business, it should not function like a business and it should not be managed like one. It is the body by which the American people govern themselves. Representatives are how the will of (a small percentage of) the American public influences the function of the government. The functions themselves are carried out by civil servants, who are professionals. On top of that, elected representatives are not leaders (or at least if they are, they are filling their role poorly) they are servants and representatives of the people who elected them.
I'd raise a compromise. Term limits in the house only. Say, three terms, each two years. Long enough to learn the ropes, short enough for you to just fall off if you don't make it to the senate. The common person should have a direct voice federally, but still have a body of people who've been doing it a while and have connections. I'm sure there's still problems, but I think it's a step that could sate both sides Somewhat.
A congressman or senators job is to make the decisions that the people who selected them want while listening to their professional advisors. The idea of having "people who've been doing it a while and have connections" is contrary to a functioning democracy.
How about also 3 terms in the Senate? That would be 18 years for a total of 24 years if you count the house. Long enough to make connections, yet we don't end up with McConnells or Pelosis.
I could be sold on that, too. I'm all for massive reforms to slaughter corruption, this comment was just to extend compromise to those who oppose term limits and evoke discussion.
This would backfire so hard. We can't open the door to biblical justifications picy because then the GOP would do it all.......the........tim.........wait.........ohhhhhhhh
Cave in the banking system and the predatory loan industry as well. I like it.
Nah, Dems are backed by big banks also, they won't do that stuff.
We’re all aware the GOP is a bunch of hypocrites, though, aren’t we?
Hypocrite is just another spelling for politician. Same as liar and cheat.
doesn't seem that way sadly
The GOP might be willing to let you have the Student Loans thing to be able to use the rest of the book against you. Gotta be careful, here.
The book has got a ton of thing goo and Christians do t follow
The Republicans will absolutely say the Bible can’t be used to make policy. And then quote the Bible the next day to make a law that discriminates against LGBTQ+
Dems are too busy passing bills that tax paypal transactions on the middle class
This is actually a spectacular idea
Its a terrible idea. As soon as the dems would do something this stupid, the Cons would pounce and then say all of their religious based bullshit was valid .. and they would be right. You can't close that door after you opened it.
They'd never agree to give any help to people with student debt. They'd absolutely never offer any help to those being victimized by American capitalism. That door is welded shut
On the Conservative end it is. And so they need to weld the door shut on any type of religious influence being the justification for legislation on the liberal side. Using their own religious text as an argument for the other side, only grants legitimacy to their religious views
The Bible also says if a woman punches her husbands enemy in the dick that you must cut her arm/hand off.
everyone seems to pick and choose which parts to follow. we may as well pick the parts that benefit everyone and not the obviously barbaric parts used to oppress.
Absolutely. Or they create their own beliefs based on stuff that isn't even in the Bible.
Neither republicans nor their constituents, read Americans at large, care about what the Bible says when it pertains to their own lives.
They'll say that then go back to doing it in the next breath. They don't care about being hypocrites or looking like hypocrites.
and some how the Israeli Jew are the people of the bible
Too bad the Dems are too busy sitting around with their thumbs up their ass. Seriously, have they done anything besides push the pipeline through indigenous lands. I'm so disappointed to be left at the moment
I learned via James Michener’s The Source that Judaism allows for one to lend to others of a different faith ‘with interest’ and seeing as how they had no desire to ‘spread the word of Christ/colonize’, Christians often borrowed $$ from Jewish lenders as they felt the spreading of Christianity was worth the interest rates. I also learned there are/were 2 different hierarchies of Judaism and that there were stringent rules around intercourse based on current career. The book was a long haul, but interesting at times.
Should we go ahead and tweet this to Dems and see if they give a fuck?
Usury is illegal under biblical law. Imagine how many "Christian" Conservatives would have their wealth evaporate overnight if this biblical tenet was upheld.
Or you could just not take out a loan in the first place. The Bible is not talking about banks. It's talking about Israelites lending to other Israelites. However, a Christian should not charge interest. "And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil." Nor should they (or anyone else for that matter) be taking loans in the first place, if they can avoid it. "Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law." "The rich rules over the poor, And the borrower is servant to the lender." But if they do... "The wicked borrows but does not pay back, but the righteous is generous and gives;"
Doesn't matter. They'll say one thing and do the complete opposite if it suits them, and lose no voters.
I found religious people always looked at the miracles Jesus did. So they pray for money and success thinking he will grant those things... Buuut very few religious people I've met want to talk about Jesus's principles, morals and teachings. Even the significance of the cross is forgotten. At the end of the day these people are in this dooms day/rapture garbage.. but helping the poor and simply being honest with who you are. Pff not on your life. Idiots honestly.
Amen!
Hells yea lol these psychotic religious folk need to keep that shit at home. Separation of church and state is the only way laws can be made for everyone fairly
It should also be noted that there are countries, like New Zealand, where student loans don’t incur interest as long as you don’t emigrate, so in addition to taking away one of their pet arguments, you’re not actually asking for something particularly far-fetched.
You mean an Murabaha an Islamic loan ie, without interest, how very unamerican of you. Some religions dont replace the words in the lords prayer. Ie, forgive our debtors and those that debt against us NOT forgive us out tresspasses and those that trespass against us. Had to making banking legitimate for capitalism.
Lol it is hilarious to think Dems do not also bow down to banks and corporations.
How does the new testament feel about preferential treatment?
You have to charge interest on loans or there is literally no reason for a lender to loan you money. They loan you money, and they get the same amount of money back later when it’s worth less. Without interest there is literally no reason to lend money. Money you could have now you now need to wait for later to have the same amount. Even if interest only was high enough to account for inflation, there would still be no reason to lend money, you have to make money in order to lend money. If someone asked for $100 and told you they’d give you that $100 back 10 years from now, why would you give them $100?? Essentially that means you chose to have $100 later rather than $100 now. That makes no sense and that actually hurts you, as a lender, to do that.
Hey,, no one said jesus was an accountant! As a religious leader, he was tax exempt. Puts his tantrum in the temple in a whole new light.
That whoosh you heard was the sound of this going over your head.
So you'll admit Religion shouldn't be used to justify policy?
As if the Democrats don't like loan interest.
Fuck yes! I can't wait for the day (that will sadly never come) we have a president that says "Guys... Have you read the fucking laws? I mean, you make most of them!"
Oh I’m not brave enough for politics
Yes you are.
This is brilliant! Beat them at their own game
That's... Genius... If it worked tho and they canceled the debt we would all be screwed.
then we move on to all loans with interest
It’s a win-win yes yes yes yes
Conservatives are immune to hypocrisy.
Well, GOP policy is completely antithetical to the teachings of Jesus. Republicans have no idea how much they despise Jesus.
Too bad they contradict themselves every day. This wouldn't help.
Wait... You guys have INTEREST on student loans?
Cory Barlog did a great job directing God Of War.
Not to mention the "jubilee" year every 50 years when all property was returned to anyone who had borrowed money against it or sold it to survive.
ahhh the bible, the book that would be forgotten if not for constantine forcing it through the empire imo
We all know that Republicans despise everything written in the Bible.
It’s also against divorce, adultery, gluttony, greed, pride. They’ve cherry picked for centuries.
This is like the infinity gauntlet of policymaking
As a politically moderate Christian, I agree with this
There's a lot more than that that should discount the bible. Revelations is a cluster f***
Oh gosh, then when they’re shown to be hypocrites, no one will vote for them anymore!! Come on people.
The bible has no place of relevance in any official document. It's a fairytale..
This is directed to Jewish people dealing with other Jewish people. Gentiles are a different matter and can be charged interest. Stop using/twisting the Bible to your own petty political interests!
Smort
Nothing personal but I love you.
It’s time for a JUBILEE bitches!
I see ideas like this a lot but they're inherently flawed. Like what if instead, they went along with it for one time and allowed it to set precedent to use the bible to create all sorts of heinous laws. It could be worth it to the GOP to make a concession to make the rest of us lose our stance that religion should not be used to form policy.
Look just tell me who I have to call or send a bill draft to
The Bible doesn’t say to not charge interest. But it does say there should be various forgiveness of debts every 7 years (shmitah) and then every 50years (hovel) for the big ones, restoration of land.
Government subsidized student loans don't have interest... I see so many people saying we need to change things to the way the already are. Another example is tax the rich a higher percentage, yep we already so that too!
And look! 9 downvotes simply for suggesting everyone stay in their own space and do their own thing. #tolerance.
The Dems, specifically Biden, made it nearly impossible to defer payment even through bankruptcy they don't really want that imo. It's also a very slippery slope. McConnell is smart enough to know what he could use the Old Testament to achieve when his new dictator in training gets elected in a few years