In Defense of W

[lyonspotter]

I found this IMDb review of "George W Bush Battles Jesus Christ" (Which is a short Political Remix that can be watched in full here: http://www.imdb.com/video/wab/vi866386457/).

I'm going to excuse myself to the bathroom to vomit now....... Here is the review in defense of W:

(Sigh!) OK, so we all hate W, right? Well, half of us, anyway. I'm sure the director and those behind him think this little piece is very profound and clever, but it actually shows a very shallow, self-refuting perspective on faith and Christianity. The issues that this piece tries to catch W on are ones that have been practical problems for every person who seeks to seriously follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, including the director and screenwriter of this film. It is easy to poke fun at anyone who has been entrusted with the safety and protection of not only his fellow countrymen, but of the downcast and tyrannized throughout the world, as the cases arise. A careful study of the Bible and words of Jesus will place W in at least as positive a light as any other president who has claimed the name Christian throughout USA history, including Barrack Hussein Obama. Remember, He who taught, "Love thine enemies" also said, "Think not that I have come to bring peace on earth, but a sword; for every man's hand shall be against his brother, and those of a man's own household shall be considered his enemies." There is just more to "Peace on Earth" than the simplistic liberal ideal of "Live and let live"; especially if the well-being of others is your responsibility and they are in danger of attack from deadly forces. If you think that "an eye for an eye" leaves the whole world blind, then consider that the easiest place in which to rob and kill people is the one where all weapons have been banned. That's how 3 guys with box cutters get to take over an aircraft and use it as a WMD!

[lyonspotter]

1. I'm curious...

How does a post that bemoans a positive review of W get unrec'ed?

[EmeraldCityGrl]

2. maybe they've formed their own opinion on

Bush and his relationship with Jesus based of his slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people.
Maybe they think the post is pushing religious right propaganda or revisionist history. Just guessing.

[lyonspotter]

3. Well, for the record...

My hope in posting this thread is that people would elaborate on things like the first point of your comment, and my aim is certainly not the latter possibility!

[EmeraldCityGrl]

4. I'm sure you genuinely hoped for that.

Just offering a suggestion to your question.

I watched the video. It was poorly conceived and filmed. That probably has more to do with it than anything. :-)

[rzemanfl]

5. I had hoped this was a defense of the letter between "v" and

"x" not that jug-eared prick.

[Quantess]

6. Me too. I was hoping for a Sesame Street song with Ernie & Bert

;)

[lyonspotter]

7. It's not a defense of W. It's a mocking of a review that tried to. NT

[rzemanfl]

10. My jokes don't run that deep. n/t

[quaker bill]

8. The usual covenant mash up

These folks do love mixing the new and old testaments and pulling quotes out of context.

The "eye for an eye", as ugly as it sounds was actually not an advice for punishment that did not exist, but an argument to reduce punishment to fit the crime. An "eye for an eye" was considered more just than simply executing someone over the issue. Fair punishment was the standard under the first covenant.

However if you follow the story, Christ came along and announced the "second covenant" which went more like "turn the other cheek" and "if someone steals your cloak, offer him the shirt off your back as well". This faith, when followed, was considered radical enough to set brother against brother, and it has on occasion. Consider the pacifist walk across that bridge in Selma as an example.

[lyonspotter]

9. I don't find this to be the usual covenant mashup...

...as much as a video that exposes the problematic nature of the biblical literature itself.

Most people that I talk with who don't have a Christian faith... and who don't find it worth their time to study the "Old covenent" versus "New covenent" nuances... in some way or another these individuals make mention that the bible has such internal conflicting notions within it that (no matter what one argues for or against belief in Christianity) any presented argument will invariably take things out of context because a single argument must rest on some set of premises that neglects certain other biblical precepts.

In other words, to argue for one side of an issue is to take things out of context, but to argue from a totalized biblical perspective runs directly into contradictory conceptual chaos. Christ is referred to in the biblical literature as the Prince of Peace, yet he says do not think I came to bring peace on earth, but rather a sword.

Feel free to feel whatever you may about what I have transcribed above, but you have to set all of this discussion against the background of Hebrews 13:8, which states: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." To speak irreverently, this biblical proposition is untrue, by virtue of the bible's own teachings. I see this verse's untruth as axiomatic, but will take the time to sketch a couple sentences dealing with what this verse entails. If Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, that means he is eternally "the same." Being eternally the same would entail that Christ's opinions on morality could not have changed. (What good is it to say that Christ is "the same" eternally if Christ's opinions on morality are flexible?). Given that those opinions on morality cannot change, it makes little sense for Christ to have taught his followers throughout the ages several diametrically opposed ideas on ethics (we must remember that Christ taught that he and his father are one and the same in John 14:6-10 and John 17:20-22, etc., and that John starts off his gospel by asserting that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."). Ultimately, since Jesus purported himself to be God, by inference these verses require that God is unchanging.

Quaker Bill, you write that "The 'eye for an eye', as ugly as it sounds was actually not an advice for punishment that did not exist, but an argument to reduce punishment to fit the crime. An 'eye for an eye' was considered more just than simply executing someone over the issue. Fair punishment was the standard under the first covenant." But if God is unchanging, how can he treat some eras with one standard, and other eras with a different ethic/justice? Why did God tell his people that a man and woman caught in adultery should be put to death by stoning? Yet Christ said, with the woman brought to him that was caught in adultery, "He who has not sinned may throw the first stone." How is killing someone appropriate to the level of this sin in one ancient time, yet inappropriate just 1500 years hence?