|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 16, 2017 1:22:27 GMT
This is what conservative Christians always uses an excuse for their unchristian greed. But it is very unlikely that Jesus (if he existed and said the things attributed to him) would have been happy for capitalists to exploit the poor or for the rich to shirk social responsibility. Given the fact that there is still poverty even with the existence of a threadbare safety net, there is no reason to think that those 'upstanding' Christian conservatives would voluntarily provide for the less fortunate. They would just invoke the 'personal responsibility' clause to excuse themselves from having to donate to charities. Furthermore, many Christians are disciples of Ayn Rand, whose 'philosophy' holds that any kind of charitable giving or activity is immoral. Numerous studies have shown that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. But regardless, you miss the point entirely. Jesus didn't preach about government programs. Period. And keep in mind that I'm not disagreeing with you that a lot of Christians are greedy. They undoubtedly are. But Jesus wasn't interested in tinkering with political programs and paradigms. That's what we're talking about here. He demanded that his followers be radically charitable. That's a personal thing. People can disagree about which government programs are best for the poor. Perhaps perpetual dependency on government isn't the answer. Or maybe it is. I dunno. But either way, that's not what Jesus was talking about. Also, I know a lot of Christians (probably more than you). Don't know a single one of them who are disciples of Ayn Rand (an atheist) or who think that charitable giving is immoral. Imagine if some atheist/non Christian went on Fox New and preached the same teachings as Jesus from a secular standpoint (give to poor, give up worldly positions, love thy enemy, etc). What do you think their reaction would be? They would probably accuse him of being a communist. Obviously Jesus wasn't gonna preach about government programs since they didn't really exist back then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2017 1:23:49 GMT
Numerous studies have shown that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. But regardless, you miss the point entirely. Jesus didn't preach about government programs. Period. And keep in mind that I'm not disagreeing with you that a lot of Christians are greedy. They undoubtedly are. But Jesus wasn't interested in tinkering with political programs and paradigms. That's what we're talking about here. He demanded that his followers be radically charitable. That's a personal thing. People can disagree about which government programs are best for the poor. Perhaps perpetual dependency on government isn't the answer. Or maybe it is. I dunno. But either way, that's not what Jesus was talking about. Also, I know a lot of Christians (probably more than you). Don't know a single one of them who are disciples of Ayn Rand (an atheist) or who think that charitable giving is immoral. Imagine if some atheist/non Christian went on Fox New and preached the same teachings as Jesus from a secular standpoint (give to poor, give up worldly positions, love thy enemy, etc). What do you think their reaction would be? They would probably accuse him of being a communist. Obviously Jesus wasn't gonna preach about government programs since they didn't really exist back then. If Jesus was arguing that people be FORCED (by the sword of government) to do those things, then he would have been a communist. But he wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 16, 2017 1:29:19 GMT
Imagine if some atheist/non Christian went on Fox New and preached the same teachings as Jesus from a secular standpoint (give to poor, give up worldly positions, love thy enemy, etc). What do you think their reaction would be? They would probably accuse him of being a communist. Obviously Jesus wasn't gonna preach about government programs since they didn't really exist back then. If Jesus was arguing that people be FORCED (by the sword of government) to do those things, then he would have been a communist. But he wasn't. Whether or not he was a communist wasn't really the point, the point was if you look at the teachings of Jesus from a secular standpoint, many Republicans/conservative/libertarians/etc wouldn't have much issue with completely disregarding them seeing how those are more left leaning positions. But apparently if you take socialism and add Jesus, conservatives will go through sophistry how that actually isn't socialism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2017 1:36:49 GMT
If Jesus was arguing that people be FORCED (by the sword of government) to do those things, then he would have been a communist. But he wasn't. Whether or not he was a communist wasn't really the point, the point was if you look at the teachings of Jesus from a secular standpoint, many Republicans/conservative/libertarians/etc wouldn't have much issue with completely disregarding them seeing how those are more left leaning positions. But apparently if you take socialism and add Jesus, conservatives will go through sophistry how that actually isn't socialism. You're confusing socialism with charity. Conservatives have no problem with charity (and what Jesus preached was charity). In fact, studies show they give more to charity than their liberal critics do.
|
|
|
Post by dividavi on Apr 16, 2017 1:42:26 GMT
If Jesus of Nazareth actually existed he doesn't appear very impressive or wise. As for being non-violent, his actions in overturning tables and threatening the Temple money lenders with a scourge show otherwise. Non-violent Jesus told his followers to trade their cloaks to buy swords. At least one of he swords was used and its use was to slice off the Temple representative's ear. That would today be considered assault or maybe attempted murder. Was Jesus charitable or even understanding to those he encountered? He told the guy who wanted to bury his father, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God." He compared the woman in Tyre to a dog. Jesus was not a nice guy.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 16, 2017 1:43:09 GMT
Whether or not he was a communist wasn't really the point, the point was if you look at the teachings of Jesus from a secular standpoint, many Republicans/conservative/libertarians/etc wouldn't have much issue with completely disregarding them seeing how those are more left leaning positions. But apparently if you take socialism and add Jesus, conservatives will go through sophistry how that actually isn't socialism. You're confusing socialism with charity. Conservatives have no problem with charity (and what Jesus preached was charity). In fact, studies show they give more to charity than their liberal critics do. "You're confusing socialism with charity."
No I'm not. Do you really think Jesus would be ok with say, a flat tax rate that would put a stronger burden on the lower class? Do you think Jesus would be against welfare for single mothers? Do you think he would be ok with people being unable to afford healthcare? Again Jesus didn't preach about government programs because they didn't really exist back then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2017 1:51:28 GMT
You're confusing socialism with charity. Conservatives have no problem with charity (and what Jesus preached was charity). In fact, studies show they give more to charity than their liberal critics do. "You're confusing socialism with charity."
No I'm not. Do you really think Jesus would be ok with say, a flat tax rate that would put a stronger burden on the lower class? Do you think Jesus would be against welfare for single mothers? Do you think he would be ok with people being unable to afford healthcare? Again Jesus didn't preach about government programs because they didn't really exist back then.
Taxes existed in Jesus day. He gave his opinion on them. And then he commanded his FOLLOWERS to take care of the needy. He didn't argue for a new type of government (which by its nature MUST use force to enforce the rules). He preached about a new inner disposition that his followers should have. And that's unrelated to which government programs are best for poor people. Why? Because, despite your erroneous claim to the contrary, we don't KNOW that perpetual dependency on government is GOOD for poor people. A lot of studies suggest that it's not. But what Jesus wanted his followers to get is that they should love the needy and care for them. If you think a piece of that puzzle is establishing a government safety net, then that's great! I wouldn't disagree with that (just my opinion). But he certainly wasn't preaching that the government (which, again, is an entity that MUST use force) should take care of people from cradle to grave. Why? Because in order to establish that type of program, you would have to steal from other people. And Jesus certainly wasn't in favor of stealing. Radical charity =/= government-run socialistic programs (no matter how much you want it to or think it does).
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 16, 2017 2:02:09 GMT
"You're confusing socialism with charity."
No I'm not. Do you really think Jesus would be ok with say, a flat tax rate that would put a stronger burden on the lower class? Do you think Jesus would be against welfare for single mothers? Do you think he would be ok with people being unable to afford healthcare? Again Jesus didn't preach about government programs because they didn't really exist back then.
Taxes existed in Jesus day. He gave his opinion on them. And then he commanded his FOLLOWERS to take care of the needy. He didn't argue for a new type of government (which by its nature MUST use force to enforce the rules). He preached about a new inner disposition that his followers should have. And that's unrelated to which government programs are best for poor people. Why? Because, despite your erroneous claim to the contrary, we don't KNOW that perpetual dependency on government is GOOD for poor people. A lot of studies suggest that it's not. But what Jesus wanted his followers to get is that they should love the needy and care for them. If you think a piece of that puzzle is establishing a government safety net, then that's great! I wouldn't disagree with that (just my opinion). But he certainly wasn't preaching that the government (which, again, is an entity that MUST use force) should take care of people from cradle to grave. Why? Because in order to establish that type of program, you would have to steal from other people. And Jesus certainly wasn't in favor of stealing. Radical charity =/= government-run socialistic programs (no matter how much you want it to or think it does). So Jesus wouldn't want anything to do with the government? An institution that is often corrupt, highly influential and can easily ruin people's lives? If that's what you're arguing than your Messiah is rather useless. I notice many of his follower don't have much issue throwing his name around when it comes to abortion and gay marriage, so indeed many of them don't have much issue either with using government "force" when it fits their agenda.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2017 2:06:42 GMT
Taxes existed in Jesus day. He gave his opinion on them. And then he commanded his FOLLOWERS to take care of the needy. He didn't argue for a new type of government (which by its nature MUST use force to enforce the rules). He preached about a new inner disposition that his followers should have. And that's unrelated to which government programs are best for poor people. Why? Because, despite your erroneous claim to the contrary, we don't KNOW that perpetual dependency on government is GOOD for poor people. A lot of studies suggest that it's not. But what Jesus wanted his followers to get is that they should love the needy and care for them. If you think a piece of that puzzle is establishing a government safety net, then that's great! I wouldn't disagree with that (just my opinion). But he certainly wasn't preaching that the government (which, again, is an entity that MUST use force) should take care of people from cradle to grave. Why? Because in order to establish that type of program, you would have to steal from other people. And Jesus certainly wasn't in favor of stealing. Radical charity =/= government-run socialistic programs (no matter how much you want it to or think it does). So Jesus wouldn't want anything to do with the government? An institution that is often corrupt, highly influential and can easily ruin people's lives? If that's what you're arguing than your Messiah is rather useless. He says his kingdom is not of this world. If he wanted to lead a political revolution, he could have. I tend to think he was right for acknowledging that the hope of the world isn't in a political party or political system. They're the ones who always screw things up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2017 2:07:01 GMT
"You're confusing socialism with charity."
No I'm not. Do you really think Jesus would be ok with say, a flat tax rate that would put a stronger burden on the lower class? Do you think Jesus would be against welfare for single mothers? Do you think he would be ok with people being unable to afford healthcare? Again Jesus didn't preach about government programs because they didn't really exist back then.
Taxes existed in Jesus day. He gave his opinion on them. And then he commanded his FOLLOWERS to take care of the needy. He didn't argue for a new type of government (which by its nature MUST use force to enforce the rules). He preached about a new inner disposition that his followers should have. And that's unrelated to which government programs are best for poor people. Why? Because, despite your erroneous claim to the contrary, we don't KNOW that perpetual dependency on government is GOOD for poor people. A lot of studies suggest that it's not. But what Jesus wanted his followers to get is that they should love the needy and care for them. If you think a piece of that puzzle is establishing a government safety net, then that's great! I wouldn't disagree with that (just my opinion). But he certainly wasn't preaching that the government (which, again, is an entity that MUST use force) should take care of people from cradle to grave. Why? Because in order to establish that type of program, you would have to steal from other people. And Jesus certainly wasn't in favor of stealing. Radical charity =/= government-run socialistic programs (no matter how much you want it to or think it does). If conservative Christians had the "inner disposition" that was preached by Jesus, then they would not be decrying all efforts to provide the less fortunate with any kind of economic security (whether that be a higher minimum wage, unemployment benefits, or the right to access healthcare without bankrupting themselves). So the point is academic, because the actions of conservatives betray that they are not comfortable with any form of improving the circumstances of the poor. And if you watch those pious Christian pundits on Fox News, you will see that the poor are condemned as shirkers and spongers, even if the economy is in recession and the unemployment rate is high. Any person with compassion and sense knows that a safety net is required in a system which is built upon the fact that there will almost always be fewer employment opportunities than there are those who are earnestly seeking employment. Capitalism needs a certain level of unemployment in order to function in the way that it currently does. And requiring people to pay back into the system from which they have benefitted and from which they continue to benefit is hardly "stealing".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2017 2:14:52 GMT
Taxes existed in Jesus day. He gave his opinion on them. And then he commanded his FOLLOWERS to take care of the needy. He didn't argue for a new type of government (which by its nature MUST use force to enforce the rules). He preached about a new inner disposition that his followers should have. And that's unrelated to which government programs are best for poor people. Why? Because, despite your erroneous claim to the contrary, we don't KNOW that perpetual dependency on government is GOOD for poor people. A lot of studies suggest that it's not. But what Jesus wanted his followers to get is that they should love the needy and care for them. If you think a piece of that puzzle is establishing a government safety net, then that's great! I wouldn't disagree with that (just my opinion). But he certainly wasn't preaching that the government (which, again, is an entity that MUST use force) should take care of people from cradle to grave. Why? Because in order to establish that type of program, you would have to steal from other people. And Jesus certainly wasn't in favor of stealing. Radical charity =/= government-run socialistic programs (no matter how much you want it to or think it does). If conservative Christians had the "inner disposition" that was preached by Jesus, then they would not be decrying all efforts to provide the less fortunate with any kind of economic security (whether that be a higher minimum wage, unemployment benefits, or the right to access healthcare without bankrupting themselves). So the point is academic, because the actions of conservatives betray that they are not comfortable with any form of improving the circumstances of the poor. And if you watch those pious Christian pundits on Fox News, you will see that the poor are condemned as shirkers and spongers, even if the economy is in recession and the unemployment rate is high. Any person with compassion and sense knows that a safety net is required in a system which is built upon the fact that there will almost always be fewer employment opportunities than there are those who are earnestly seeking employment. Capitalism needs a certain level of unemployment in order to function in the way that it currently does. And requiring people to pay back into the system from which they have benefitted and from which they continue to benefit is hardly "stealing". You're working from the odd assumption that Christians think charity is bad (which, as far as I can tell, is based on nothing). Most conservatives I know not only are very charitable, but they also believe that government dependency is ultimately WORSE for poor people. That's not to say that safety nets should go away, but you also don't want poor people to have to rely on the government for everything. That creates freeloaders. And there is no denying that a lot of people here take advantage of that system. That's just Economics 101. When you subsidize something, you get more of it.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 16, 2017 2:15:31 GMT
So Jesus wouldn't want anything to do with the government? An institution that is often corrupt, highly influential and can easily ruin people's lives? If that's what you're arguing than your Messiah is rather useless. He says his kingdom is not of this world. If he wanted to lead a political revolution, he could have. I tend to think he was right for acknowledging that the hope of the world isn't in a political party or political system. They're the ones who always screw things up. So you are in fact acknowledging he didn't want anything to do with government? Again that's rather useless considering the influence of government in people's lives. Also many of his followers don't have much issue with using government when it comes to gay marriage and abortion, so again if what you're saying is true, than many Republicans/conservatives clearly do support a political party/political system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2017 2:17:39 GMT
He says his kingdom is not of this world. If he wanted to lead a political revolution, he could have. I tend to think he was right for acknowledging that the hope of the world isn't in a political party or political system. They're the ones who always screw things up. So you are in fact acknowledging he didn't want anything to do with government? Again that's rather useless considering the influence of government in people's lives. Also many of his followers don't have much issue with using government when it comes to gay marriage and abortion, so again if what you're saying is true, than many Republicans/conservatives clearly do support a political party/political system.
Many Republicans do. And I disagree with them on that.
|
|
dawglf
Freshman
@dawglf
Posts: 63
Likes: 4
|
Post by dawglf on Apr 16, 2017 2:23:48 GMT
Taxes existed in Jesus day. He gave his opinion on them. And then he commanded his FOLLOWERS to take care of the needy. He didn't argue for a new type of government (which by its nature MUST use force to enforce the rules). He preached about a new inner disposition that his followers should have. And that's unrelated to which government programs are best for poor people. Why? Because, despite your erroneous claim to the contrary, we don't KNOW that perpetual dependency on government is GOOD for poor people. A lot of studies suggest that it's not. But what Jesus wanted his followers to get is that they should love the needy and care for them. If you think a piece of that puzzle is establishing a government safety net, then that's great! I wouldn't disagree with that (just my opinion). But he certainly wasn't preaching that the government (which, again, is an entity that MUST use force) should take care of people from cradle to grave. Why? Because in order to establish that type of program, you would have to steal from other people. And Jesus certainly wasn't in favor of stealing. Radical charity =/= government-run socialistic programs (no matter how much you want it to or think it does). If conservative Christians had the "inner disposition" that was preached by Jesus, then they would not be decrying all efforts to provide the less fortunate with any kind of economic security (whether that be a higher minimum wage, unemployment benefits, or the right to access healthcare without bankrupting themselves). So the point is academic, because the actions of conservatives betray that they are not comfortable with any form of improving the circumstances of the poor. And if you watch those pious Christian pundits on Fox News, you will see that the poor are condemned as shirkers and spongers, even if the economy is in recession and the unemployment rate is high. Any person with compassion and sense knows that a safety net is required in a system which is built upon the fact that there will almost always be fewer employment opportunities than there are those who are earnestly seeking employment. Capitalism needs a certain level of unemployment in order to function in the way that it currently does. And requiring people to pay back into the system from which they have benefitted and from which they continue to benefit is hardly "stealing". Can you show where Jesus said to take from one to give to another?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2017 9:17:24 GMT
So you don't think that Jesus would have been in favour of government intervention, even if such was the only bulwark to prevent the systematic oppression and exploitation of the poor and vulnerable? Even if you can't say that the character of Jesus was in favour of socialist government, it would be difficult to make a strong Biblical case for the predatory capitalism that is fetishised by Christian conservatives. Poor people are better off in capitalist countries than in socialist/communist ones. This isn't Jesus's opinion. It's mine (and it's based on evidence). Why can't you Americans tell the difference between Socialism and Communism? First of all every country in the world is run under a capitalist system,capitalism is an Economic system not a political one that idiots like you falsely conflate the two is because of your economic illiteracy. In terms of poor people and how they are treated then the evidence is clear, social welfare programs are far more generous in socialist countries than conservative ones and poor people(both employed and unemployed) enjoy a higher standard of living as a result. And here's something you didn't produce, evidence that what I say is true. A link to the countries the spend the most on social welfare as a percentage of their GDP: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#Effects_of_social_expenditure_on_economic_growth.2C_public_debt.2C_and_educationNotice that France(currently under a socialist government) is at the top with 32% of its GDP spent on social welfare,while America is ranked 21st with 19% of its GDP spent on social welfare. Now how does that translate to helping poor people? Here's a link to a table which shows the absolute poverty rate(which is 40% of US median household income) and the percentage of people by country that live below that poverty line: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#Effects_of_welfare_on_povertyNotice that the countries who have been most effective at reducing poverty because of their social welfare programs are left wing(with socialist Sweden at the top) Now let's look at France and the USA again. In France the relative poverty rate has fallen from 21.8% of the population before their social welfare programs to 6.1% after their social welfare programs had been in place for 27 years. In the USA their relative poverty rate before their social welfare programs were implemented was 17% of their population after 27 years of social welfare programs that rate dropped to 15% The conclusion is obvious, France, after spending more on its social programs than America was able to reduce it poverty rate by 2/3 in 30 years. The US by spending less on its social programs has reduced its poverty rate by 2% in the last 30 years. That pattern repeats itself in the other OECD indexed countries. That's called evidence mate perhaps you could produce some.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Apr 16, 2017 12:37:42 GMT
Why do liars avoid the truth and blame others for their own faults?Are you saying Christians are like Jesus? Are you saying you are like Jesus? If you try to claim that you even try, I will call you a liar. Of all self-proclaimed Christians I have ever come across, you - yes, you - are the furthest removed from Jesus's ideal. "I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!"
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Apr 16, 2017 12:41:47 GMT
But what Jesus wanted his followers to get is that they should love the needy and care for them. If you think a piece of that puzzle is establishing a government safety net, then that's great! I wouldn't disagree with that (just my opinion). But he certainly wasn't preaching that the government (which, again, is an entity that MUST use force) should take care of people from cradle to grave. Why? Because in order to establish that type of program, you would have to steal from other people. And Jesus certainly wasn't in favor of stealing. Steal from them? How so? Unless you consider taxes stealing, but Jesus was all for paying taxes. Render unto Cæsar that which is Cæsar's.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 16, 2017 12:47:36 GMT
But what Jesus wanted his followers to get is that they should love the needy and care for them. If you think a piece of that puzzle is establishing a government safety net, then that's great! I wouldn't disagree with that (just my opinion). But he certainly wasn't preaching that the government (which, again, is an entity that MUST use force) should take care of people from cradle to grave. Why? Because in order to establish that type of program, you would have to steal from other people. And Jesus certainly wasn't in favor of stealing. Steal from them? How so? Unless you consider taxes stealing, but Jesus was all for paying taxes. Render unto Cæsar that which is Cæsar's. Paying taxes is not a political stance. Jesus lived in a time where the religion and the community took care of the poor. He himself had money to give to the poor because Christians have a personal responsibility to take care of others. They know that no mater how sucky the country is they may live in, it doesn;t change their sense of giving. The blatant fact that there are Christians existing under any regime and ideaology sis proof of that. That boneheaded quote limits the message Jesus provides Really, it's incorrect to imply that conservatives who don't want the government to pay for social services don;t donate to charitable causes or even implement them.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 16, 2017 12:48:59 GMT
What someone says or believes politically is irrelevant to Jesus' teachings. Not sure how many times I have to waste my time saying that. Prove me wrong rather than bring up what people do for their own benefit or insulting me simply for challenging what is turning out to be a dumb thread. Stop pretending there is no correlation between a person's political beliefs and their religious beliefs. Yeah, all you're doing right now is blah, blah, blahing. You now nothing about religious people and even less about political movements. Just sit back and let other people take over your thread.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 16, 2017 13:07:58 GMT
It contains "was never American and never spoke English". The English language did not exist then. Jesus probably spoke a now extinct Aramaeic language. And everybody living in America would be excluded from being like Jesus in this way, just by being American. So to say "why are Christians so unlike Jesus" in an accusatory way, and setting up categories that are partly impossible to fulfill for modern-day people, is silly. We might as well say: He died at age 33. Anybody who didn't is unlike Jesus.
|
|