The origins of the GOP’s Gospel of Wealth.

Sadducees believed that their wealth was a blessing in reward for pleasing God. They rejected the Pharisees plan to earn God’s favor because the Sadducees believed they already had it

http://www.curlyfarm.com/edu/Four%20Major%20Sects%20of%20First%20Century%20Judais

m.html

 

The Sadducean party was generally the party of the wealthy aristocrats. This is not actually stated in the sources; but it is a reasonable conclusion given the fact that they lived near the Temple and saw more of their needs fully satisfied by having their lives intertwine with the nobility.8 Josephus says they were able to persuade none but the rich,9 meaning among other things that they had a small following of their peers, whereas the Pharisees were backed by the masses. The party may have originally developed out of the conservative members of the aristocracy, the supporters of Onias III.10 And while it certainly had the confidence of the rich, not all the Sadducees were rich.

 

http://bible.org/seriespage/sadducees

 

 

the Sadducees were forced to observe the Pharisees’ oral tradition. This they did not wish to do; they preferred to be unconstrained by customs and deal with the written law only. Written laws left uninterpreted were vague, which would mean that they were free to decide what they meant.13

http://bible.org/seriespage/sadducees

 

This sounds much like the GOP’s current hate of government regulation, trial lawyers, laws against torture, warcrimes etc.

 

Scripture and Tradition. The Sadducees had what has been called a conservative attitude toward Scripture–they restricted authority to the written law interpreted literally, and were not open to change.

They objected to unwritten traditions, because they preferred to have the freedom to interpret the Scriptures as they wished.

http://bible.org/seriespage/sadducees

What we call Fundies are in fact Sadducees the Gospel of Wealth seems to be older than Christ. But make no mistake the GOP Fundies are not Christian

I wonder if the excuse for wealth because rich people create jobs and the richer people get the more jobs there will be Reagan’s a rising tide lifts all boats was also used by the Sadducees did they have their own Ayn Rand?

I wonder if Rome fell in part because their economy fell prey to the same unprofitable speculation that ours had? If the grain boats from Egypt were late the rich grain ship owners made a fortune off of starvation. Is this any different than Credit Default Swaps and bank bailouts?

Were Samaritans hated because they were an outgroup scapegoat?

Off topic but hey I’m doing a bunch of bible research today.

JC said that the bible said that divorce was allowed because

 

Mark 10:2-12:

2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away.” 5 But Jesus said to them, “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/divorce.html

 

I tell you now that just like we changed our minds about divorce and slavery the bible’s position on Gays is wrong. Ask yourself this what harm to you or society does it if two people of age fall in love? I cannot control heck can anyone control who they fall in love with? I cannot expect others to control who they fall in love with nor would I want them too.

Laws should be made to prevent harm to others lacking evidence of such a harm the law should stay silent.

Comments are closed.