224 Comments
User's avatar
NOGODZ20's avatar

Pastor Jerkface shows it is he that doesn't understand the bible. He certainly doesn't follow Jesus' teachings.

Joe King's avatar

He's a professional cherry-picker. He understands the bits that confirm his bloodlust and bigotry. The rest? Not so much.

XJC's avatar

"I guess we shouldn’t be surprised at this point that MAGA Christians would easily choose Trump over the Bible."

From the opening monologue, 'Jesus vs. God,' in Dictator for a Day, the off-Broadway musical comedy hit from 2024 now streaming on YouTube, Tubi (free with ads), Apple TV, Google TV, YouTube TV, and Xumo (free with ads):

"...But then God became Christian, which we love. But not a gun loving, pro-death penalty God, but a weak radical left God. And that’s because he had a son named Jesus, not a lot of people know that, but it’s true. And Jesus was a real nepo baby."

Watch today! Let's Make America Guffaw Again!(TM)

Kathlyn's avatar

Sure he does - he follows Republican Jesus: the blonde-haired, blue-eyed, gun-toting, retribution-giver of the Christian Nationalists.

Now the Pope, he follows Canonical Jesus: the brown-skinned, Jewish, son of a carpenter, who preached peace, and pissed off Romans.

As to whether either of these characters ever existed, well, that’s a different matter entirely…

Lynn Veit's avatar

...something something Isaiah 2:4 something something mumble mumble beat their swords into plowshares mumble mumble spears into pruning hooks mumble mumble neither shall they learn war anymore....

Greg Aydt's avatar

Who knew that Jesus was actually the Prince of War and that the other title was actually woke bullshit.

Troublesh00ter's avatar

𝐴𝑛𝑑 𝑙𝑒𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑤ℎ𝑜 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑜 𝑠𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑑 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑙 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑘 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑏𝑢𝑦 𝑜𝑛𝑒.

-- Luke 22:36

Some "prince of peace," eh?

Old Man Shadow's avatar

Yet in the same narratives, when his disciple uses one of the two swords they have, he rebukes him and heals the victim of violence, so that particular verse is either contradictory or Jesus was still debating whether or not he was going to kill them all to save himself or surrender peacefully or it was written in response to a claim that Jesus wasn't so peaceful because some of his followers were armed or some other reason entirely.

Who knows? Overall though, the narrative presents a guy who is generally non-violent.

Unless you're a fig tree.

Then fuck you.

ericc's avatar

Cherry picking, blah. Jesus is clearly telling the disciples to get ready to travel, not to go out and murder people. And literally two verses later, when the disciples figure out they have two swords between the 12 of them, Jesus tells them that's sufficient.

Airlane1979's avatar

It's possible to glean pretty much any political position imaginable from the Bible, including the four gospels. Everyone chooses the bits that support their viewpint.

ericc's avatar

That is why you don't choose one-verse bits.

There is plenty of contradictory material in the bible, but there's never been much dispute about Jesus preaching a generalized earthly nonviolence. Heck that's why the early church spent a thousand years developing Just War theory - because even in the 300s, they confronted the problem of justifying the violence they wanted to do when Jesus was so obviously against it.

Airlane1979's avatar

Fair dos, that's true.

Vanity Unfair's avatar

I cannot remember having come across any definite exposition of Roman weapons law which would have changed over time anyway but private possession of armaments in occupied territory seems to me to be unlikely to have been permitted in any case. Two discussions that come to no great conclusions are at:

https://historum.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms-in-the-roman-empire.81702/ and

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1kvi0f/open_carry_in_roman_times/

Even taking that into consideration, swords were expensive and mistranslations are possible. And it might have been more of a parable than an instruction.

Daggers are a different matter, being treated as much as cutlery as weapons: a state of affairs that was common in western Europe (and probably elsewhere) until late Mediaeval or early Modern times. And was Judas an assassin? The name given as Iscariot might be a corruption (accidental or intended) of sicarius, knifeman or murderer.

https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4692

Troublesh00ter's avatar

Cool beans! Thanks for the input!

Old Man Shadow's avatar

Robert Jeffries would have been defending slaveholders 160 years ago.

Joe King's avatar

It wouldn't surprise me if he wanted slavery to return.

Lynn Veit's avatar

Of course they do, they're just not calling it slavery.

Yet.

Joe King's avatar

Of course Trump understands the bible better than the pope. Leo hasn't met the two Corinthians!

Boreal's avatar

Trump is a functionally illiterate sack of shit. 💩

Laughable.

Troublesh00ter's avatar

I can't laugh at it. Not certain I ever COULD laugh at it, because I see nothing funny and a whole lot tragic and dangerous about this whole business.

Crowscage's avatar

Laughing at that SOB is like laughing at a disease.

Troublesh00ter's avatar

What. You. Said. 👍

Troublesh00ter's avatar

Saying that Trump understands the bible better than Pope Leo is pretty much like saying a five-year-old knows more about Saturn than Neil deGrasse Tyson. To this day, I doubt Trump could cite a single bible verse, regardless of context, and while I don't know exactly how conversant Leo is with that tome, there can be little doubt but that his familiarity with it is considerable. Once again, Jeffries is smooching up to Trump, mostly because that's what he and too many other of his ilk do: associate with power and hope that some of it rubs off.

And the show goes on...

NOGODZ20's avatar

Jeffress should ask how people in both Trump’s admins fared by hitching their wagons to the Bronzer Blob.

Joan the Dork's avatar

Of all the ways a new sect of Christianity could've started... and MAGA will become one. Just watch. Cheetolini has 𝘸𝘢𝘺 more pull than Smith and Young did, in their day. All that's missing is a pile of hooey sufficiently verbose and pretentious to serve as scripture, and I guaranfuckingtee there's someone out there working on it. Dear Leader hasn't got the capacity to do it himself, and I seriously doubt he ever really did, but the moment he kicks off another jackass will creep out of his corpse's shadow claiming to be his prophet and bearing a gilded Book of Donald. Juuuuust watch.

Maltnothops's avatar

The agenda 2025 can be the scripture.

oraxx's avatar

Robert Jeffress is a profoundly stupid little man who pledged his unconditional love to the most corrupt, incompetent and grotesquely immoral President in American history. No matter how wrong he gets it, he expects his putrid religiosity to be deferred to at all times. Jeffress demonstrates the disconnect between religion and morality about as well as it can be done.

Holytape's avatar

There iate only two slight problem with assuming that Trump's reading comprehension is greater than Pope Leo's. Firstly, Trump can't read. Secondly, Trump doesn't comprehend anything.

larry parker's avatar

Does the pope read in the woods?

Len Koz's avatar

The bear reads to him.

Val Uptuous NotAgain's avatar

Usually it’s just the back of the tampon box, though.

Len Koz's avatar

Late at night I've read the toothpaste tube because I forgot to bring reading material.

Zizzer-Zazzer-Zuzz's avatar

I'm waiting for the movie.

Val Uptuous NotAgain's avatar

“and he told us that Iran was within weeks of getting a powerful weapon that would destroy Israel, much of the Middle East, it could bring great harm to America, and he had no choice but to act.”

I call Bullshit. Trump said no such thing. He was probably dozing off at his desk, like he always does, some cabinet member, Kegsbreath likely, told you the spin, and then when he did speak, Trump rambled on about how beautiful the totally real, seriously, 24 karat real, gold painted filigree (probably doesn’t even know that word, so just called them decorations) in the Oval Office looked for thirty minutes before he closed his eyes again.

No one is buying the propaganda that Iran was building nukes and about to blow Israel up. Netanyahu is just using his puppet as much as possible before he stops opening his eyes forever. Get his money’s worth, as it were.

ericc's avatar

𝐵𝑢𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑔𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑛𝑠 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑟𝑠, 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 𝑅𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑠 13

Romans 13 is manifestly not about nations going to war; it's telling citizens to pay their taxes. The evildoers thing is about a ruler punishing their countrymen for doing evil. The Iranian government, being neither US citizens nor US residents, doesn't fall under POTUS' authority.

avis piscivorus's avatar

According to Trump, everything falls under His authority.

NOGODZ20's avatar

Let’s see him tell that to Vlad Putin and Xi Jinping.

User's avatar
Comment removed
May 13Edited
Comment removed
Val Uptuous NotAgain's avatar

They wont let Trump into the bunker. Even Putin doesn’t trust him anymore. And Putin isn’t leaving the bunker for anything.

NOGODZ20's avatar

The Bulbous One had better reconsider attacking Cuba. Russia and China are allies of that island nation.

Either Trump ignites WW3 or he goes the TACO route. Let's see if he goes with the latter.

NOGODZ20's avatar

Yep. That’s Verses 6-7. Verses 1-5 teaches that believers are to obey all secular laws and authorities and why they are not supposed to cause strife.

ericc's avatar

But there's no secular international law that people agree on in an analogous way that the vast majority of, say, Americans, would agree the constitution governs the US. Even if the Trump administration were absolutely right about responding to an imminent threat of attack, it is still absurd to claim that POTUS has a Romans 13 right to bomb Iranian sites for building up forces for an attack on Israel. He isn't their ruler, and another country gathering forces isn't violating any law we all recognize.

Zorginipsoundsor's avatar

Then why didn't jebus do that? 🤔

NOGODZ20's avatar

Jesus doesn't seem capable of doing anything, him being imaginary and all.

wreck's avatar

"MAGA pastor Robert Jeffress insisted that Donald Trump understands the Bible better than Pope Leo"

He's not wrong. Nobody understands pure bullshit better than tRump. His entire miserable life is unmitigated bullshit. He deserves the Nobel Prize in Bullshit.

NOGODZ20's avatar

He points out Romans 13? Maybe he should read Verses 6-7. The ones about believers paying taxes and why. Why are xtians churches not taxed?

foofaraw & Chiquita(ARF!)'s avatar

I guess because they signed various official organizational forms agreeing to NEVER be political....

Lynn Veit's avatar

All of which means that if we dig ourselves out of this mess, there should be no more such "agreements" between religion and government. Churches have proven time and time again that they will not play by the rules when allowed to participate in public programs. Cut all of them out of any public money programs, especially the school vouchers programs and tax them to hell and back. Churches should have no legal standing whatsoever.

Val Uptuous NotAgain's avatar

I mean, Trump was in the running for Pope after he had Shady Vance off him. So, if he did have a better understanding of the Bible , why wasn’t he chosen to be Pope? Hmmmm, Jeffress?

When was the last time Vance was alone with Trump? Perhaps we should, uh, facilitate a private meeting.

Val Uptuous NotAgain's avatar

Sorry Jeffress, you can’t understand a book that you refuse to open, let alone read. Trump barely understands day and night lately anyway, demented as he is. You people are so fucking pathetic, fellating the Addlepated Twitler as you do. When this is all over, there will be a reckoning, and Christianity will lose. There’s no respect anymore already, and the evangelicals aren’t engendering any trust, that’s for sure.