Colbert nails it. What else is new.

[Biggs3535]

Actually, Jesus said that the rich should redistribute their wealth, or else.

No he didn't.

Jesus basically viewed the accumulation of wealth as a sin, and that the wealthy would get their comeuppance if they did not choose to redistribute their wealth.

No he didn't.

There's a bit of a spiritual ultimatum to the wealthy that permeates throughout the Bible. And I believe based on scripture, Jesus would be more in favor of a social safety net than he would be opposed to it.

I believe your efforts to bastardize the message of voluntary servitude into forced servitude through government intervention has failed miserably, although the Social Justice camp would most definitely approve.

[CBWx2]

Actually, Jesus said that the rich should redistribute their wealth, or else.

No he didn't.

What are you basing this on?

Jesus basically viewed the accumulation of wealth as a sin, and that the wealthy would get their comeuppance if they did not choose to redistribute their wealth.

No he didn't.

What are you basing this on?

There's a bit of a spiritual ultimatum to the wealthy that permeates throughout the Bible. And I believe based on scripture, Jesus would be more in favor of a social safety net than he would be opposed to it.

I believe your efforts to bastardize the message of voluntary servitude into forced servitude through government intervention has failed miserably, although the Social Justice camp would most definitely approve.

Well, since you provided such compelling arguments, such as "No he didn't," and "No he didn't," I suppose I should consider myself schooled. Well done, my good man. Thought provoking, as always.

[Biggs3535]

What are you basing this on?

The Bible.  Of course, I'm basing it on his words in context and what they actually mean.  It helps that I don't have bastardize someone's position in order for it to fit mine.

Well, since you provided such compelling arguments, such as "No he didn't," and "No he didn't," I suppose I should consider myself schooled. Well done, my good man. Thought provoking, as always.

Since your view of compelling arguments consists of Colbert clips and taking Bible Verses completely out of context, you should consider foolish.  But your "sky is purple" routine is fairly commonplace around here.

[CBWx2]

What are you basing this on?

The Bible.  Of course, I'm basing it on his words in context and what they actually mean.  It helps that I don't have bastardize someone's position in order for it to fit mine.

Well, since you provided such compelling arguments, such as "No he didn't," and "No he didn't," I suppose I should consider myself schooled. Well done, my good man. Thought provoking, as always.

Since your view of compelling arguments consists of Colbert clips and taking Bible Verses completely out of context, you should consider foolish.  But your "sky is purple" routine is fairly commonplace around here.

So enlighten me to the proper context, if you will. Indulge me.

[John Galt?]

What are you basing this on?

The Bible.  Of course, I'm basing it on his words in context and what they actually mean.  It helps that I don't have bastardize someone's position in order for it to fit mine.

Well, since you provided such compelling arguments, such as "No he didn't," and "No he didn't," I suppose I should consider myself schooled. Well done, my good man. Thought provoking, as always.

Since your view of compelling arguments consists of Colbert clips and taking Bible Verses completely out of context, you should consider foolish.  But your "sky is purple" routine is fairly commonplace around here.

So enlighten me to the proper context, if you will. Indulge me.

Read your own post.

‘Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.’

He didn't say "allow everything to be seized against your will" he said "Go sell everything" clearly implying a voluntary action.

“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal."

That is entirely different than "DO store up for yourselves treasures on earth, but allow the government to 'break in and steal' and be happy that they make the decisions for you and your Lord"

In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple

"Give up" is a CLEARLY a voluntary action. Entirely different from "In the same way, any of you who does not have everything involuntarily seized, he has cannot be my disciple"



The entire basis of Christianity is "one must CHOOSE to accept it", you must freely and willingly accept that Jesus is the Son of God and that Jesus sacrificed himself for you. Saying that at the point of a sword while not willingly believing it is meaningless. Similarly, you should "willingly" sacrifice yourself for others. Without the "willingly" part it means nothing.

Surely Jesus would not approve of a system where wealth was forcibly taken form some and used to fund "abortion clinics run by gay/lesbian doctors" or "Hindu studies and appreciation classes"

[Biggs3535]

So enlighten me to the proper context, if you will. Indulge me.

You should be able to read the surrounding words of the verses you quoted.  None, and I mean none, of the verses you quoted say what you are trying to portray.

[CBWx2]

The versus imply a voluntary action, but they also imply a penalty for choosing the wrong action. In every scenario I've laid out, the message is pretty clear. The penalty for not giving up worldly possessions is that you don't get into heaven. There's a choice there, no doubt. But the choice appears to be either you give up your riches, or you are not a Christian. I don't know about you, but that seems like an ultimatum to me. Further proof of this can be found in Timothy 6:9-11:

If we have food and covering, with these we shall be content. But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare, and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. Flee from these things, you man of God, and pursue righteousness…

As to how the Bible views social welfare in regards to a society, one can look at the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, which is usually characterized as having to do with homosexuality, but as you can see in Ezekiel 16:49, it had more to do with distribution of wealth. The prophet quotes God as saying:

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it.

Many other Old Testament versus attribute the destruction of the Temple in Judah to mistreatment of the poor:

Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees…to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right…What will you do on the day of punishment, in the calamity that will come from far away? (Isaiah 10:1-3)

They have become great and rich, they have grown fat and sleek. They know no bounds in deeds of wickedness; they judge not with justice the cause of the fatherless, to make it prosper, and they do not defend the rights of the needy. ‘Shall I not punish them for these things?’ says the Lord, ‘and shall I not avenge myself on a nation such as this?’ (Jeremiah 5:26-29)

Alas for those who lie on beds of ivory, and lounge on their couches, and eat lambs from the flock, and calves from the stall…Therefore they shall now be the first to go into exile, and the revelry of the loungers shall pass away. (Amos 6:4-7)

Clearly, it appears that the prophets seemed to agree that providing things such as food, shelter, and medicine to the poor were things that God and Jesus did not take lightly. In fact, NOT doing those things was viewed as a cardinal sin, one that could incur God's wrath and/or keep you out of the kingdom of heaven. Trying to make an argument that God or Jesus would be opposed to Social Security, Medicare/caid, or welfare flies in the face of scripture, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.

[Biggs3535]

But the choice appears to be either you give up your riches, or you are not a Christian.

Clearly, you're not much of a theologian, but the message isn't quite as literal as you would like to portray.  The message of giving and/or serving applies to both wealthy and non-wealthy.  Also, greed isn't the same thing as being rich.  Not all greedy people are rich and not all rich people are greedy.

You are perverting the message to fit your argument, and it doesn't work.

Clearly, it appears that the prophets seemed to agree that providing things such as food, shelter, and medicine to the poor were things that God and Jesus did not take lightly. In fact, NOT doing those things was viewed as a cardinal sin, one that could incur God's wrath and/or keep you out of the kingdom of heaven. Trying to make an argument that God or Jesus would be opposed to Social Security, Medicare/caid, or welfare flies in the face of scripture, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.

Exactly how many more times does the concept of being forced to help the poor and helping the poor willingly need to be explained to you?  Jesus and God doesn't want you help the poor because you are forced to by the government, they want you to willingly give of yourself to others.  This isn't a difficult distinction to comprehend.

[Col. Klink]

Exactly how many more times does the concept of being forced to help the poor and helping the poor willingly need to be explained to you?  Jesus and God doesn't want you help the poor because you are forced to by the government, they want you to willingly give of yourself to others.  This isn't a difficult distinction to comprehend.

It's an extremely difficult distinction to comprehend because it's a razor thin distinction, if one at all, and you guys are doing a masterful job of laying on the bs to sharpen a distinction that's just not there ... Put simply, you're not FORCED to give up your riches by the government but if you don't, there will be consequences. Jesus/God didn't FORCE people to give up their riches but said if they didn't, there would be consequences. That seems pretty damn similar to me .... but maybe the surrounding verses give the Jesus angle a completely different spin and if so, please enlighten us ...

[spartan]

Actually, Jesus said that the rich should redistribute their wealth, or else. Jesus basically viewed the accumulation of wealth as a sin, and that the wealthy would get their comeuppance if they did not choose to redistribute their wealth. There's a bit of a spiritual ultimatum to the wealthy that permeates throughout the Bible. And I believe based on scripture, Jesus would be more in favor of a social safety net than he would be opposed to it.

Luke 12:15 — “Then he said to them, ‘Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.’ ”

Luke 6:24 — “But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.”

Mark 10:21 — “Jesus looked at him and loved him. ‘One thing you lack,’ he said. ‘Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.’ ”

Matthew 6:19-21 — “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

Luke 14:33 — “In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.”

Lets put things into a bit of perspective.

Jesus said to Simon and Andrew to give up fishing, follow him and he would make them fishers of men. He did not say for all fishermen to stop fishing and become his disciples. Just them. Likewise, he spoke to that rich man and used him as an example that rich people have a hard time getting into heaven because they value their stuff too much. Same with the other sayings. Jesus doesn't say "don't have stuff", he says don't pride your "stuff" over your love of and for your fellow man. If every rich person was to sell all their stuff they would very quickly run out of people to sell it to. Plus, define rich. Who should sell their stuff and who shouldn't?

Context and understanding are important here. Not being offensive but it seems you have either not read the bible, didn't understand it or are deliberately misconstruing it.

[Biggs3535]

It's an extremely difficult distinction to comprehend because it's a razor thin distinction, if one at all, and you guys are doing a masterful job of laying on the bs to sharpen a distinction that's just not there ... Put simply, you're not FORCED to give up your riches by the government but if you don't, there will be consequences. Jesus/God didn't FORCE people to give up their riches but said if they didn't, there would be consequences. That seems pretty damn similar to me ....

I suppose it is difficult if you want it to be.  Problem is, it isn't similar at all.  The distinction between being forced and giving willfully is incredibly simple.

These "consequences" for not serving others are no different than any other sin in the Bible.  Are the rest of the sins in the Bible something the government should also mandate?  I mean, if you Social Justice people want to bastardize Jesus' message, why stop there?

but maybe the surrounding verses give the Jesus angle a completely different spin and if so, please enlighten us ...

You can see the chapter and verse.  Read them.

[alldaway]

Here is my favorite from Jesus:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A24&version=NIV

Matthew 19:24
New International Version (NIV)
24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

[Col. Klink]

It's an extremely difficult distinction to comprehend because it's a razor thin distinction, if one at all, and you guys are doing a masterful job of laying on the bs to sharpen a distinction that's just not there ... Put simply, you're not FORCED to give up your riches by the government but if you don't, there will be consequences. Jesus/God didn't FORCE people to give up their riches but said if they didn't, there would be consequences. That seems pretty damn similar to me ....

I suppose it is difficult if you want it to be.  Problem is, it isn't similar at all.  The distinction between being forced and giving willfully is incredibly simple.

These "consequences" for not serving others are no different than any other sin in the Bible.  Are the rest of the sins in the Bible something the government should also mandate?  I mean, if you Social Justice people want to bastardize Jesus' message, why stop there?

Keep spinning it. They are almost identical. Today, you keep ALL your riches, you face consequences from the govt. Back then, you kept ALL your riches, you faced consequences from Jesus/God. It's that simple. Your hate/distrust/whatever for this country's incometax/welfare system has YOU the one bastardizing Jesus's message. Do you honestly think your Jesus would have a problem with the government taking from the rich and giving to the poor?? To Him, wouldn't them NOT being rich any more be a good thing .... allow them to enter into His kingdom (although this brings up a whole nuther theological question as to what His "kingdom" is) ... and wouldn't he want the poor to be helped?  ..... Granted, I'm not a Bible scholar so I may be jumping to conclusions.

but maybe the surrounding verses give the Jesus angle a completely different spin and if so, please enlighten us ...

You can see the chapter and verse.  Read them.

I didn't think so ....

[CBWx2]

Actually, Jesus said that the rich should redistribute their wealth, or else. Jesus basically viewed the accumulation of wealth as a sin, and that the wealthy would get their comeuppance if they did not choose to redistribute their wealth. There's a bit of a spiritual ultimatum to the wealthy that permeates throughout the Bible. And I believe based on scripture, Jesus would be more in favor of a social safety net than he would be opposed to it.

Luke 12:15 — “Then he said to them, ‘Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.’ ”

Luke 6:24 — “But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.”

Mark 10:21 — “Jesus looked at him and loved him. ‘One thing you lack,’ he said. ‘Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.’ ”

Matthew 6:19-21 — “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

Luke 14:33 — “In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.”

Lets put things into a bit of perspective.

Jesus said to Simon and Andrew to give up fishing, follow him and he would make them fishers of men. He did not say for all fishermen to stop fishing and become his disciples. Just them. Likewise, he spoke to that rich man and used him as an example that rich people have a hard time getting into heaven because they value their stuff too much.

So would you say Jesus viewed wealth as a positive thing or a negative thing?

Same with the other sayings. Jesus doesn't say "don't have stuff", he says don't pride your "stuff" over your love of and for your fellow man.

Actually, in almost every instance Jesus says don't have stuff. He says it over and over again.

If every rich person was to sell all their stuff they would very quickly run out of people to sell it to.

Then give it away. I'm sure that would be preferable to just keeping it all in the eyes of the guy telling you not to live in abundance.

Plus, define rich. Who should sell their stuff and who shouldn't?

Well in the Bible, "rich" is defined simply as having more than you need to live on.

Context and understanding are important here. Not being offensive but it seems you have either not read the bible, didn't understand it or are deliberately misconstruing it.

It seems like you are creating your own context here, spartan. The wording is pretty clear, and it's repeated quite frequently.

[CBWx2]

To Him, wouldn't them NOT being rich any more be a good thing .... allow them to enter into His kingdom (although this brings up a whole nuther theological question as to what His "kingdom" is) ... and wouldn't he want the poor to be helped?  ..... Granted, I'm not a Bible scholar so I may be jumping to conclusions.

That's the jist of it, CK. At the end of the day, societies are judged by their treatment of the poor. That issue was the central theme of why Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed, and why the Temple was destroyed in Judah, as described in the Bible. I don't think it matters as much to God/Jesus that the poor be helped via taxes used to fund social programs or via charitable contributions as it does to conservatives in America.

What's missing in this whole "Jesus doesn't want 'Uncle Sam' to take my money" argument is that in saying you don't want your money taken to fund Medicare, SS, welfare, and other social programs, you are essentially placing the value of you keeping your money over the value of the focus of these programs. Isn't that essentially the whole point of your "voluntary contribution" argument? That you should be able to choose to give? Well...there's your choice.