Magi Mike's Blog

Another WordPress blog about politics and religion

Satanic Republican Christians Reject God

with 5 comments

Commie Jesus

Commie Jesus

The New Statesman has an item which asks, “Was Jesus Christ a lefty?”. Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, thought he was. The article even cites the right wing Daily Mail journalist, Quentin Letts, as admitting that “Jesus preached fairness—you could almost call him a lefty”.

The author cites several bits of evidence that any Christian ought to be able to recognize. Christ in his earthly incarnation makes it clear according to the synoptic gospels particularly that the poor were blessed and the rich would have a hard time to get into heaven unless they gave their wealth to the poor. In short, salvation of the Christian’s soul depended on them being poor or giving their wealth to the poor to alleviate their poverty and suffering. It is called by modern politicians redistribution of wealth, and is central to socialist policies from communists to social democrats, albeit with different levels of determination. Today, it is meant to be achieved by progressive personal taxation, but conservatives, rich and poor call it the “politics of envy”, and the control of the media by the mega rich like Rupert Murdock ensure that plenty of poor people unable to think for themselves agree.

By the same token, anyone intelligent enough to comprehend current affairs knows that the bankers have organized a coup to rob the treasuries of the leading capitalist countries to redistribute the wealth of these rich nations grossly in the opposite direction—from the poor to the rich. Consequently, people are increasingly showing their anger as they slowly catch on to the reality. They are beginning to riot in the streets, throw bricks through the windows of rich bankers and their political puppets, and will doubtless begin to clear out the bankers when they feel strong enough to do it. Isn’t this just what Jesus did when he took a whip to scourge the money changers dealing in the temple forecourts? The question is rhetorical. The answer is that it is indeed what he did!

The president of the USA, Barack Obama, tried to get a rudimentary bill accepted to allow health care for the poor. He succeeded but the child is itself sick. The UK has a successful National health Service and has enjoyed it for over fifty years, but neoconservative governments under Thatcher, Blair, Brown and now Cameron have deliberately chopped and changed its funding and organization so that it is gradually sinking into despair and helplessness. The modern right wing is utterly opposed to health care for the poor and sick unless they are willing to sell everything they have to the predatory rich to finance it.

What of Jesus? He is remembered as much as anything for his acts of healing, freely healing the blind the deaf, the lame, the mute, the mad, and the leprous. He required no payment for it and did not confine it to the rich. Christians are supposed to believe Christ was God incarnate, and so God Himself acted to cure sick people free, gratis and for nothing! No Christian can think poor people devoid of the money to pay a doctor should be left to die, and Jesus had a parable, the Good Samaritan, that showed a despised figure acting as the Christian should, when the supposedly good men had left the wounded stranger for dead. Today, the story would be the Good Communist, to convey its full significance to smug self-saved pharisees. Christ instructed Christians to do the same as he did, to go into each town and “heal the sick who are in it” (Luke 10:9), not to deny them health and healing unless they had paid fat insurances for half a lifetime.

What would Jesus do over the constant wars our leaders pick with strangers elsewhere, often thousands of miles away? Would he have supported Bush and Blair, or would he have organized a protest? In his famous sermon on the mount, effectively a demonstration because the Romans and their Herodian puppets got anxious when people assembled as the gospels indicate, Christ blessed “the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God” (Matthew 5:9). He adds that no one should carry arms, “for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Those great Christians Bush and Blair had obviously not registered that Christ explained:

You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.

Matthew 5:38-39

The two great Christian leaders had agreed that because some Saudi Moslems had blown up the iconic twin towers in New York, God meant them to kill a million Iraqis in some sort of distorted principle of “an eye for an eye”, while remaining chums with the relatives of the man actually responsible, another Saudi prince.

The response to the posting of this perfectly valid item on a right wing blog was as expected—a large right wing and US Christian response! The politest was simply, “Christ, a leftist. I think not.”, and many mimicked Moslem jihadist talk but aimed at the Moslems and the New Statesman. Even the magazine’s editorial pages were reprinted so that the Republican Christian jihadists could wreak their revenge, if they wished. Few thought it worth trying to find some way of rebutting the supposed misrepresentation of their faith. One did claim that what Jesus taught as God incarnated into history was irrelevant because his nature changed completely—from commie to nazi, presumably—when he arose from the dead! Everything then that Christ took the trouble to teach by relinquishing his nature as a God and appearing on earth is totally refuted by his rising as a spirit! Why then did God bother incarnating and suffering?

Needless to say, although God Himself appearing on earth, teaching and making speeches was irrelevant, the mere man called Paul who set himself the task, and evidently succeeded, of refuting everything the Christians’ God had done and said, is quoted often in those who did attempt some sort of reply.

What is astonishing is that these people believe that they can be disciples of Christ with the rancid views they have. But they have, indeed, since the very beginning of their own religion, found their own God’s actual teaching far too difficult, and they quickly adopted the anti-Christ, Paul, in preference—its much easier to believe that you need not be kind, loving and compassionate to your fellow human beings because Christ has done it all for you, so all you have to do is believe in his body, and Lo! you are saved, by pure magic! So you can carry on being as obnoxious as you like in real life.

These poor people make no bones about redefining what Christ said while he lived. They are supposed to think he was God, but happily say it is impossible to be peaceful when evil abounds, and so impossible to do as God taught, thereby utterly rejecting God’s own inerrant word! God on earth is irrelevant but some unstable character is treated for all the world as if he is God instead.

They cite descriptions of the apocalypse in Revelation, and are so convinced it cannot apply to them that they pray for it to happen soon! The Jewish tradition of the apocalypse was as the day of God’s vengeance, and the vengeance is against all sinners! But because they ignore what Christ told them in favour of Paul’s blandishments, they cannot see any of it as applying to them. Christ repeatedly explained how hard it was to be sufficiently free of sin to get into heaven—it was by a narrow gate, whereas the gate to hell was broad. His explanation was graphic—your hand is sinning? then cut it off rather than go to hell on its behalf. Yet these smug idiots think their reading is necessarily the right one, even though people on the left, some of whom remain atheists, can read it all prerfectly well themselves, without a Republican Pastor telling them what he want them to think it means.

Still, there is no chance they will learn. Their Christ is Satan, and they are so drunk with their faith in him, they cannot see it.

Written by mikemagee

17 December, 2010 at 8:14 pm

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. While as an atheist I obviously don’t believe in God or Jesus, I do agree with the point you are trying to make. The Bible clearly states that when Jesus was supposed to have been alive, he spent his time hanging out with the people that were often despised by most, and spent his time helping out the unfortunate.

    Now fast forward to the present day, and try to tell a conservative Christian that people who are more fortunate then others, should pay their share in taxes and help them out. They will no doubt immediately pale at the thought, and tell you all that anyone who wants the rich to pay more taxes is obviously jealous of rich peoples success, and just wants to take their money.

    Excuse me? Here I thought they were supposed to be people of a faith that practices helping out the less fortunate, and when asked to do just that, we receive lectures about being jealous of other peoples success? I don’t think that is what their God would want, but they will of course come up with a plethora of reasons why their position of justified, none of which I am buying.

    And to think that Christians often call atheists immoral because they don’t believe in God, yet as an atheist, I have absolutely no problem paying some more in taxes, and helping people whenever I can.

    Misterioso Adversario

    17 December, 2010 at 8:28 pm

  2. […] Satanic Republican Christians Reject God | Magi Mike’s Blog […]

  3. I guess they finally became Ebionites (and I guess Matthew wasn’t an Alexandrine propagandist softening a seditionist), but I thought Jesus was a holier-than-everyone-else Jewish ethnonationalist and fierce moral particularist building an army to defeat the hated Kittim, and that he longed for a fiery apocalypse that would consume all non-Jews along with Jews he didn’t think were up to snuff, thereby allowing him and his special fellows (and Old Yahweh, too) to inherit the Earth.

    A whip of cords for Wall Street? How can the devil drive out the devil?

    As for my non-Republican President (whose largest private campaign contributor was Goldman Sachs), it’s worth remembering that he had a majority Democrat Congress, which meant he could pass virtually any bill he wanted short of making himself emperor for life. The bill that passed, which required Americans to purchase health insurance, was typical of postmodern America. (I almost typed postmortem, and that would work as well, I think.)

    It was Neo-Marxist in spirit and corporatist in praxis, anymore a thing not at all surprising or unusual, unfortunately.


    26 December, 2010 at 11:11 pm

  4. The distinction, accepted and used by many discerning Christians, is between the Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith. The Jesus of History is as you describe, and as I explain in some detail in the “christianity” folder of Christians have a different Jesus, the Christ of Faith, so it is possible to argue with Christians either from a purely historical viewpoint, or by accepting their own Christ of Faith, and showing them that they are hypocrites and do not actually believe in that themselves.

    So, accepting their contention that God appeared on earth for some purpose, taught it, demonstrated it by his own actions, and eventually died by torture in defence of it all, one cannot escape the fact that his incarnate words and deeds must have shown what his purpose was, and not the opposite of it. Christians found it too hard to do what the first of their kind believed, that they should love one another. That came directly from the Jesus of History, because he wanted to unite Jews together in lovingkindness. He had no thoughts himself of asking the enemy, the Romans, into the loving fellowship. Paul did that, but did it by diluting the imperatives that God the Christ had laid down for the Christian to obey in favour of a mystical Faith that the dead body of Christ automatically saved those who believed it.

    The cleansing of the temple could not have been done with a whip of cords. It is obviously a dilution of a much more violent scene which, given honestly, would have stopped any Roman from ever joining the embryonic new religion. The myth of the Christ of Faith was that Jesus was essentially pacific, and the whipping with a few bits of string is meant to limit notions of the extent of God’s anger. The anger of the people who are suffering in a terminally greedy society can justifiably be greater, as history shows, including the real history of Jesus.

    I agree with what you say about Obama. The US has two parties and they are both capitalist ones. The UK is now the same, led by people who hope to benefit from being poodles to the US leadership, like the odious Blair who is lining his pockets mainly with US dollars to reward his rimming of Bush. But I do not write off all human beings or all leaders. They have varying degrees of principle, and are subject to varying degrees of vulnerability to pressure. Any society that gets too unbalanced in terms of personal wealth and wellbeing will be subject to social instability, and even the right has to respond to it eventually. They can do it by yielding a little of their wealth, or by turning the police and military against the people with the danger of civil war. The latter is not conducive to consistently rising stock markets.


    27 December, 2010 at 12:08 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: