Republicans Insistent On Rewriting History & Now The Bible As Well

I don't think it's any surprise that the republican/tea party are in a constant state of attempting to rewriting history in order to more perfectly fit their skewed version of the truth. Glenn Beck has made a career out of spewing this garbage to the public and he even started a "university" in an attempt to establish some credibility to their "Alice In Wonderland" version of history. www.glennbeck.com...

The good news is that anyone with an IQ less than 04, (just a guess on my part, hope it's not too high) are openly admitted to his university, (IMO, an IQ level of 04 should be more than high enough to qualify all of his audience for admittance) and that there is no need to utilize affirmative action legislation to gain admittance.

Being the self proclaimed party of christianity, they even try to rewrite biblical history in an attempt to justify their social agenda. Their favorite religious historian is David Barton who has a habit of propagating more lies than Pinocchio himself. here's an article from Mother Jones regarding David Barton and his revised version of U.S. history;

motherjones.com...

Here's a couple of quotes from the article;

Among other things, he claims that Jesus would oppose the capital gains tax and the minimum wage; that global warming is "self-correcting"; and that the nation's homeland security apparatus has been infiltrated by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. He also contends that the separation of church and state is a perversion of the Founding Fathers' intention to create a Christian nation.

"Bureaucracy treats everybody like they're a brick. And that's the problem with socialism, is you're a brick, when you need to be a living stone that's unique, like a snowflake, like a DNA cell, like an iris in an eye; every one of them is different. And that's what got God ticked off." This is typical Barton: encoding a conventional conservative talking point in evangispeak, distorting the Bible to justify the Republican Party's agenda.

Well, now dear old Rush Limbaugh has decided to wade into this debate and as usual, it's just another of his "Open Mouth, Insert Foot" rants where Rush, enlightens us with some of his irrefutable religious knowledge and insight. What a load of garbage!

Well thanks to Lawrence O"Donnell and "The Last Word," Rush is being called out on his despicable interpretation of scripture. Check out this video from two nights ago;



The fact that we hear nothing from the republican/tea party disputing Rush's biblical interpretations leads me to believe that maybe there are no true christians left in their party. The only thing I see are CINOs, christian in name only. Where is the outrage from the religious right? Don't you realize that these people are defaming and distorting the very meaning of christianity? If those of you who are devout christians are willing to sit back and tolerate these rants without speaking out, one can only assume that you agree with him.

IMO, the term "Antichrist" is actually a verb and not a noun. Antichrist is not an individual who will come forth to lead an army of evil doers against all who believe in Christ. Antichrist is the "act" of not recognizing the Christ in others and Rush is hard at it. Hell, at this point, I doubt that Rush would even recognize Christ himself.

These people are driving the republican/tea party and the religious right wing off a cliff into a bottomless pit of no return and if those who value their religion don't stand up and remove them as the voice of their party then they deserve what they get. You know the old saying; "You Reap What You Sow."

First I agree. I get upset when people mix religion with their politics, and Beck is a nimrod when it comes to religion. If he spent half the time researching Mormonism he would realize in fact he wasn’t a Christian, so he is definitely no authority because he can’t even recognize a cult. However, O’Donnell doesn’t know what he is talking about either. Jesus places an emphasis between giving to the state and the kingdom of God. Two different beasts completely. The “treasury” O’Donnell quotes is not the State treasury it’s the Temple Treasury. It’s a tithe. Jesus would never equate paying taxes to Caesar as tithing to the church. I mean honestly you think paying your taxes is tithing to God. Jesus also says to only tithe what you CHOOSE to give out of your heart, and NOT to give out of obligation or impulse because it’s repulsive to God. Aside from this though NEVER equate paying taxes to Tithing it is not the same thing.

If I understand the posting, there are a few things that can be stated. The ultimate problem is that both sides are wrong and correct in their view point. Like anything, it is open to interpretation, as we all can read the same thing, and come away with different things, to including of any holy text. While what Glenn and those he gets to support his point, are correct, the founding fathers were very religious, questioning their beliefs at that time frame, to my belief would be tantamount to insulting them, if not physically assaulting them. It is a shame that such is more and more left out of the history books, or that in the past that the use of religion in the areas of moral guidelines, is either removed or taught from a negative point of view. Like all who are deeply religious, there is a fine line between being religious and being fanatical, and walking that tightrope is equally precarious. Knowing who the founding fathers were, and what they believed, is very much important as to try to understand why they made the decisions they did and how they were guided in their efforts to try to come up with a better life for themselves and those, who charged them with governing wisely. If anything, both sides need to take a step back, and ask another question, from a different kind of experts, and that being what would they do or even think of the country that they helped found.
History is often stated as being written by the victors, and when you look around more and more, we find that parts of that history and culture are being eroded away or removed, due to those who find such offensive. It can not be denied that the country was at one time deeply religious and that religion played a key role in the shaping and motivation of the people who came before us, nor should that be ignored. Many references to who these people were, and what they were are being written erased, and that in the long run is the real tragedy at hand. If one side decides to take up the cause, let them, as it gives a broader picture for all of us to decide what is correct and what is not.
In some cases, we can not know the private thoughts of those who made history, yet at the same time, we should not be forbidden from trying to guess based off of their actions and what information we do know.

reply to post by Snorkelbacon


Maybe you could explain to me just where the word "Tithing" appeared in the text that Lawrence O'Donnell read from the book of Mark. It has always been my understanding that tithing was defined as giving 10% of ones earnings to the church. If I'm not mistaken, Jesus instructed them to give "ALL" to the poor. Hardly seems like tithing to me.

Soorytoburst your bubblebut Beck allways warns his audience to go tothe original sources to read history for the simple reason that all the Pods like you have been fed a version of history, specifically rewritten to instill progressive beliefs in you.

Find that hard to believe!? - Edward G Griifin documents how it was done here:

.......................

must control education in the United States.” They realized that was a pretty big order, so they teamed up with the Rockefeller Foundation and the Guggenheim Foundation to pool their financial resources to control education in America – in particular, to control the teaching of history.

They assigned those areas of responsibility that involved issues relating to domestic affairs to the Rockefeller Foundation, and those issues relating to international affairs were taken on as the responsibility of the Carnegie Endowment. Their first goal was to rewrite the history books, and they discussed at great length how to do that. They approached some of the more prominent historians of the time and presented to them the proposal that they rewrite history to favor the concept of collectivism, but they were turned down flat. Then they decided – and, again, these are their own words, “We must create our own stable of historians.”

They selected twenty candidates at the university level who were seeking doctorates in American History. Then they went to the Guggenheim Foundation and said, “Would you grant fellowships to candidates selected by us, who are of the right frame of mind, those who see the value of collectivism as we do? Would you help them to obtain their doctorates so we can then propel them into positions of prominence and leadership in the academic world?” And the answer was “Yes.” So they gathered a list of young men who were seeking their doctorate degrees.

They interviewed them, analyzed their attitudes, and chose the twenty they thought were best suited for their purpose. They sent them to London for a briefing. (In a moment I will explain why London is so significant.) At this meeting, they were told what would be expected if and when they win the doctorates they were seeking. They were told they would have to view history, write history, and teach history from the perspective that collectivism was a positive force in the world and was the wave of the future. In other words, in the guise

www.freedomforceinternational.org...

reply to post by sdcigarpig


The people who came to and founded this country did so because they were tired of being told which religion they must believe in and not because they were intent of forming a "Christian" nation. You do know that it was Thomas Jefferson's Koran that was used to swear in the only muslim member of the House of Representatives, don't you. What would a devout christian be doing with a Koran?

Here are a few quotes from one of our founding fathers;

"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
— Thomas Jefferson

"Religions are all alike- founded upon fables and mythologies."
— Thomas Jefferson

"Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."
— Thomas Jefferson

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature."
— Thomas Jefferson

Sounds like a real bible thumper if you ask me. The fact of the matter is that this nation was founded on the principle that everyone should be free to choose and practice the religion of their choosing and not be forced into any particular religious belief by our government. If anything, they were running from a religious state and not to form one.

reply to post by Flatfish


It’s understood that giving money to the Temple Treasury is a tithe, if you can’t understand that I can’t help you, but they were not giving to the Government AKA The Roman Empire. Second the tithe based on the Torah was 10% but it’s not enforced by law, it was up to the individual to give and you could give more or less it was not like Zakat. Secondly, you’re just being plain dishonest and so is O’Donnell when he says Jesus said to give “All” to the poor. He never said that, he said God demands everything, even your very life. Let me ask you, is paying your Taxes the same as Tithing?

Originally posted by Snorkelbacon
reply to post by Flatfish

 

It’s understood that giving money to the Temple Treasury is a tithe, if you can’t understand that I can’t help you, but they were not giving to the Government AKA The Roman Empire. Second the tithe based on the Torah was 10% but it’s not enforced by law, it was up to the individual to give and you could give more or less it was not like Zakat. Secondly, you’re just being plain dishonest and so is O’Donnell when he says Jesus said to give “All” to the poor. He never said that, he said God demands everything, even your very life. Let me ask you, is paying your Taxes the same as Tithing?

I never said they were one in the same and no, I don't think they are. It was you that brought tithing into the discussion. IMO, tithing is given in support of your church and your god whereas taxes are to support your government and it's ability to provide the necessary infrastructure, defense and social services required to sustain our existence as a nation.

Furthermore, just how was O'Donnell dishonest when he says Jesus said to give "All" to the poor? If I'm not mistaken, he was reading it directly from the bible. Oh wait, let me guess, his bible is a "layered" document and it was faked with the use of Adobe or Photoshop, right?

reply to post by Flatfish


It’s dishonest, because the point of the scripture wasn’t, “you have to sell all your goods and give to the poor to inherit eternal life, thus more taxes.” If it is, we are all screwed!!!!!!!! The Point of the Scripture is God has to come first. The rich young boy chose his wealth over God. Which is proved further because Jesus first told the Man to follow the Ten Commandments? The man claimed he had, which was a lie, and was pointed out by Jesus by saying “well sell everything, give to the poor and follow me.” An Offer to follow God, and walk with him. And he said NO. First commandment Have no other gods before me, which he clearly just broke after claiming to never break any commandments. Worship of money is well documented in scripture.
My point is O’Donnell and Rush are both scripture illiterates that don’t know what they are talking about. Why? Because Jesus is never addressing governments on this Earth, he only addresses himself and his Kingdom that he rules. It’s dishonest to Use Christ to justify your political opinions on taxes because he never addresses that. He addresses giving to the kingdom of God which is 100% including your very life, and given freely, everything else is opinion and conjecture.
What I would like to know from you is what IS the true meaning of Christianity?

reply to post by Flatfish


As you have mentioned Thomas Jefferson, what is not mentioned that often was his personal belief. Thomas Jefferson, judged a man on how well he was read, believing such to be the mark of someone who was educated and intelligent. Like many of the other founding fathers, he often had to bite his tongue to reach a compromise with the other representatives, even on issues that they would find abhorrent to them. One such issue was slavery, where those in the north, found such to be wrong, using religion as a justification for their morals, and those in the south found such to be correct, here again using religion as a justification for their morals. But they all knew, or had a sense that for the greater to achieve, they had to step back. Where one side would take us back to a time where some topics would get a person thrown in jail, the other side would eradicate it, and right now it is the other side, the ones who bring up lawsuits against city, counties and states cause they find the reference to some religion an affront to them, failing to see, that those who founding the country, the states and very cities that they live in, they had faith in what they believed, and wanted to leave a legacy to those would come after them. There has to be balance in history, fair and without bias on either side. So we can not let the fact that the founding fathers were religious be a primary focus, but it would explain their arguments, and deeds, and some of the decisions that they made.
But the founding fathers, many of whom had to study and looked at Europe, and saw how a precious resource like the colonies were misused and stupidly mismanaged, they saw something else, and it was not being told what to worship, though many came here for religious freedom, they saw the different wars and squabbles that had occurred in their history all based on religion. England especially, went through years of civil war, where people were tried and executed all cause they believe or followed what the state doctrine of faith was, where catholic would persecute protestant, and even the tales of the inquisition would have reached and been known by the founding fathers, as well as, how the churches would influence the government and vice versa. The very idea of the Freedom of Religion, was to keep the government out of the pulpit, to prevent the abuses that was seen in England and abroad, to allow for people to have the freedom to worship what they wanted. But it was never intended to keep religion out of government. Many of the laws, and even the court decisions from that time and after, all at one time had reference to god in one form or another. They even saw first hand how religion influenced the very freedom for a person to travel from one place to another, witnessing it from France. In France, those who were not catholic in faith, were forbidden by law to travel to any of the French colonies, or even at times live in certain places, often being persecuted for their belief. That and many of the countries, where the church and government were in bed together, people would have been taxed twice, as they would have to give not only a yearly tax, but a tithing as well. The church would influence laws, and often be put in charge over a town, acting a judge, jury and executioner. The founding fathers, knowing that there was a lot of different faith, also foresaw that by allowing the government to get involved in the pulpit, the very problems that they did not want to have, would have arisen. And it was Thomas Jefferson, who further expounded on what the separation of Church and State was in his letter to the Danbury Baptist, which reiterated about how the government could not get involved in church affairs. It did not say at any time that the church should not be forgotten, or even guide those who govern. That came much later, with the rise of the Atheist groups, and several notable trials, the more famous being the Scopes Monkey trial. And ever since then, there are those who have been trying to get rid of all reference to religion in all aspects of the government, which ultimately is a mistake in itself.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by Flatfish

 

The very idea of the Freedom of Religion, was to keep the government out of the pulpit, to prevent the abuses that was seen in England and abroad, to allow for people to have the freedom to worship what they wanted. But it was never intended to keep religion out of government.

So when a particular religion, say Islam, enters government and gains a majority, then goes on to pass legislation outlawing all other religions, that's OK?

Hard to believe that I would find the above statement included in a post that went to such depths to demonstrate just how the opposite was actually closer to the truth. It was religious incursions into government that led to the "religious laws" which you so clearly demonstrate and that the American settlers so clearly ran from. Thanks for making the argument against your own position, saved me some time.

By the way, Moral values are not something that is exclusive to religious people. They have no patent or monopoly on them either. IMO, more often than not, moral values are instilled in religious people through the use of fear as opposed to just knowing in one's heart what is the right thing to do. Some, if not most, of the most immoral people I know claim to be devout church going Christians. Go figure.

Originally posted by Snorkelbacon
reply to post by Flatfish

 

What I would like to know from you is what IS the true meaning of Christianity?

Wow, that's a pretty big question. I would love to debate the merits of my version of christianity with that of yours but I'm afraid the debate would turn out to be quite lengthy and I doubt that this thread is the place to do it.

I am by no means, an orthodox christian although I do agree with and adhere to Christ principles, the most important of which is to love thy neighbor as you love thy self. With the realization that we are all one, (like the billions of cells that make up one body) all other moral principles seem to come naturally. Who would harm another when they knew that do so was actually harming themselves? Who would ignore the plight of another when knowing that doing so is actually ignoring one's own plight? (plight is not always monetary, one can have a plight of compassion as well)

My religious interpretations of the bible are much more metaphysical than that of the orthodox christians as well. Both, my mother and step father, were ordained ministers at the Unity School Of Christianity located in Lee's Summit, Mo. for well over 20 yrs.. My mother still ministers today but in a different location and at this point in my life, I doubt that my religious views and interpretations will be swayed by someone like Rush Limbaugh.

reply to post by Flatfish


Based on your post your probably right, props to you for not being swayed by Rush. I'm not either. It seems to me though you hold to a new age view of not just christianity, but all religions based on quantum mechanics, and certain metaphysical priciples, and disregrad some of scripture and hold on to others based on personal feelings and experience, this is known as universalism.

reply to post by Flatfish


I don't see it as any different from how Democrats, feminist's, progressives and other marxist types have already rewritten History, Social Studies and other courses text books.

biased much? Both parties have distorted scripture or used scripture in such a way. Considering the majority of America is Christian. I believe in separation of church and state although I'm christian. However if a judge desires the 10 commandments at his courthouse I believe he should Be able to do so. I also believe you shouldn't take Christian history out of schools though considering we were founded by Christian ideology. Also people need to learn that protestants arnt religious like the Catholics we believe in personal relationship and choice. Also Christian ideals should be something everyone follows even if you arnt a Christian because they are basic morals all humans should have (10 commandmemts) .

But alas the bible warns persecution comes to Christians..not that we don't deserve it entirely from what the early Christians did

reply to post by Snorkelbacon


The true meaning of Christianity is that through complete surrender to god, without worldly possesions and earthly worries humans can evolve spiritually. Jesus, were he alive today would probably be ashamed of how religious organisations tarnish his name, millionaires and billionaires were NOT Jesus' target audience. Jesus was a revolutionary, if you don't believe he was the messiah or a prophet then his message can easily be interpreted as one of peaceful, social revolution. Jesus was the Karl Marx of his generation.

My mother always said that "Arguing with a fool is like wrestling with a pig. You get real dirty, don't accomplish much, and after a while you realize the pig likes it." This topic kinda reminds me of that.

reply to post by Flatfish

Republicans Insistent On Rewriting History & Now The Bible As Well

You know, the thing here is that there are no good guys. There are no political parties of any kind that are really worthy of our trust or admiration. To single out the Republicans is like wading into a cesspool, ignoring the fecal matter ('turds' for those under 30) and only complaining about the smell.

Our government, all of it, as well as most of western civilization, is busy rewriting history; biblical and otherwise.

Why not just call them all out on this?

reply to post by lifeissacred


Really "Evolve" spiritually? What exactley are we evolving into spirtually, and back it up? And how does one surrender to god? Second who was the Messiah according to the torah, and the prophets, and who did Jesus (who you even admit was Messiah), claim he was? I buy Jesus was the first Karl Marx if you will. When he talked about the Kingdom of heaven he definitely talked about a utopian society with no need or want, HOWEVER, he also made it very clear that while we could strive for it (ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS!) we could never complete it, because it takes a Perfect Eternal Holy KING in order to implement it. And also You claim Millionare and Billionare were not his target audience. WHO DID THE MESSIAH CLAIM HIS AUDIENCE WAS HINT JOHN 3:16 even though that is soooooooooooo clique and I hate to use it........ Boom Winning!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by Snorkelbacon


Props to you! You really sound like you know your stuff....not some new age metaphysical crap like the OP....