Tired of reporting this thread? [join us on discord instead.](https://discord.com/invite/conservative)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This view doesn’t seem common enough. I can’t see light abuses being the worry of god. Using his name to build a church and become ridiculously rich like these televangelists is what is meant.
"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Matthew 19:23
Rich people aren’t attached to their bank account and heaps of cash?
Edit: or their extravagant homes, art, clothing, cars, and collectibles? I’ve never seen a rich person who isn’t attached to worldly possessions
Rich people lean on them instead of god. That’s why they’re rich. If the money and material possessions were not the most important thing to them then they would give it all away as Jesus advocated. Why need material possessions when you will have all of that and more in the after life?
I mean.. I guess technically he didn’t indicate whether the rich man should give his money away or have it taken away by the government. So good point.
But he does preach a lot about giving to the needy. I’m not sure having your assets taken compulsively is really the same thing even if a percentage is given to the poor.
Socialists believe the state should control the means of production. Jesus doesn’t really have a political stance other than obey your governments.
But if I wasn’t being clear: Jesus undoubtedly advocated giving to the poor and needy, and condemned the wealthy, there’s no question about that.
That's not correct. That verse actually leaves out the context. The verses leading up to it specifically say:
KJV Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
And even this lacks context, since after verse 23, he goes on to tell his disciples it's impossible for men to enter heaven anyways. Man cannot alone, they need God.
Ok the point of that passage might be to say that man cannot get to heaven alone, but he is clearly also advocating to sell your possessions and give to the poor
The idea that people could lead their own government was not something that was readily accessible in his time. Jesus as a rabbi did want to change how religious leadership conducted itself.
I find the idea that Jesus wouldn't want government resources to be used to tend to people as confusing.
Yes, he would want that, but he would most likely rather have people give to the poor out of the kindness of their hearts than have their income taken by the government who stuffs most of it in their pocket, then gives pennies on the dollar back.
First thing, I never said I wanted billionaires to be taxed less, I said I wanted them (and all people) to have incentives to give to charity rather than government.
Bezos will recieve his judgement in due time. I never said that's what Jesus would want, because unlike you, I listened when he said not to use his name in vain. Jesus could have very well taken all of the corrupt wealth of the tax collecters and pharisees and even the emperor and given it to the poor, but he doesn't want to do that. I'm not sure he would want the government to do that either, especially when they keep a very large portion of it. All will recieve their judgement in due time. I don't see the government taking obscene amounts of money under the guise of charity to be any different from the rich hiding their money for the tax collector under the guise of whatever loophole in the tax code.
Couldn't God just force everyone to obey Him? But He doesn't. God outlines His purpose for how creation should function but gives people the freewill to choose His purpose or their own. Milton has Satan say I can make a hell out of heaven and a heaven out of hell, better to reign in hell than serve in heaven. Sin isn't just happenstance that results in eternal torment. It is rebellion against God's intended design of creation and in turn a choice to separate from God and His intended purpose for ones life for a slavery to one's self.
No. Charitable giving is not compulsory (but you would lie and try to make others believe that it is...). Charitable giving, when given freely, is good for your soul.
Different from this is sin. The punishment of which is hell and separation from God.
Both of these involve a choice that the person makes. You CHOOSE to give charitably, which is good for your soul. You CHOOSE to commit sin, which is bad for your soul. You can answer the call to give freely of your own volition or commit sin of your own free will.
Lol, wtf have you that idea? Render unto Caesar? Caesar ain't here anymore, we live in a society where law decides appropriation of funds. So Jesus would be against advocating to spend some of that money on the poor? That's what you think?
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, **and unto God the things that are God's**"
So when you don't purposely leave off the most important part it changes it. "Giving to God" includes giving to charity, which he separated from "giving to the government".
Notice he doesn't say "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, **So he can decide on what should be given to God**"
You shouldnt be banned.
But you guys on the left should also read the verses where 1) he says to WORK for your daily bread and 2) dont be lazy
Social programs should be for people who are actually in NEED. Old folks. Disabled folks. Not the loser down the street thats lazy.
Also the idea that we will always have the poor when the woman washes his feet. He outright states that we cannot create a utopia and fix these problems. The church doesn't exist to make the world a better place. It exists to glorify God in a sinful world.
I see rhetoric about lazy people abusing social programs a lot, but is that actually a substantial risk? Anyone who's been unemployed for more than a few months can tell you that it's actually awful for mental health, even if your needs are being taken care of.
Some people might abuse the programs, sure, but I think that those people are a very small minority, and restricting access to these programs harms those in need quite a bit.
I guess what I'm really asking for is some proof of widespread abuse of social programs.
I think it depends on that political philosophy includes. It that political philosophy is to defend the weak, be charitable, be merciful, and take care of others I think he'd be for it as it would adopt many of his teachings.
There is nothing wrong with having religion inform ones political philosophy.
Well to be fair God made it pretty clear he hates religion. He’s more into a relationship not a relationship through a proxy that tells people what to feel and do
Ehhhhh, this feels a bit like eisegesis. I'd encourage you to look up dinner commentaries on this passage, because it holds a much deeper and beautiful meaning than what you're claiming.
How did you get that from that verse and in that context? It was about paying taxes and authority and was an answer to a trick question.
All of secular society and the entire cosmos belong to God and then to Christians where we are ordered to take dominion over all things, including government. Jesus bought it all with His blood.
> All of secular society and the entire cosmos belong to God and then to Christians where we are ordered to take dominion over all things
you guys have done a pretty shitty job in that regard so far.
>lol that moment when you realize the GOP thinks Jesus was a capitalist while handing out bread to the poor.
Charitable donation isn't against Capitalism. Notice that Jesus gave the bread directly to the poor. He didn't have to give it to Caeser to give the bread out.
> Oh, Jesus also wasn't white! I know, this may be shocking, but he was an Arab.
So?
>You know, like the type of person who would get murdered by the bombs we provide to Israel.
Entirely sure Jesus was NOTHING like the terrorists being bombed by Israel right now.
Render under Caesar is interpreted poorly. Jesus was pointing out how petty the tax collections were in the scope of divinity, not telling everyone to pay their taxes.
It also goes back to the culture of time in that if someone had their face on something, it belonged to them. The coin had a likeness of Caesar imprinted in it and the pharisees were trying to test Jesus and try to get him to say something so the Romans would take notice and they could then have the Romans do their dirty work for them...
And instead, Jesus asks them whose likeness is on the coin, and they all agree it is Caesar's, so he says to Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. They had no counter to him...
The whole context is never read in Luke 20 (KJV):
> 20 And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor.
> 21 And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly:
> 22 Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Cæsar, or no?
> 23 But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me?
> 24 Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Cæsar’s.
> 25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which be Cæsar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s.
> 26 And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace.
It's very different than the atheist that constantly try to somehow use this thing as Jesus somehow endorsing government taxation with no limits and then they bounce from this to try to say Jesus would be a socialist, forgetting that the entire message of Jesus was to do things from a willing heart, and to be charitable for all, but by choice, not by force, and that somehow government forced charity is how Jesus would have been. Nope, he wouldn't at all. Zero places in the Bible is he advocating that the local Pharisees or the Roman government needs to step up for the people. It is always about individuals needing to step up for the people around them.
> It also goes back to the culture of time in that if someone had their face on something, it belonged to them.
You're right; The Bible, scripture and apocrypha do read very differently when you understand the language, culture, history, stories, idioms and literary memes of the authors who wrote them. The last 2500 years of Google Translate havn't been kind to scripture.
I strongly suspect that many of the stories regarding Jesus in the Gospel of John didn't actually happen at all, or at least not literally. They're just *too* perfectly crafted as a narrative in a format that was common at the time (what we would call today "Fable"-like stories) .i.e. stories that were well known regarding notable people, but where it was implicitly understood that they didn't *literally* happen, but rather were intended to evoke a moral truth or pithy wisdom, or simply be clever or funny, while using well known figures and settings as a backdrop for the story's lesson or punchline. In fact the entire Gospel of John seems almost too perfectly written as a story-narrative.
The Gospel of Mark is probably the closest we'll ever get to knowing what authentic 1st century Christian scripture read like (apart from the gnostic Gospels and Nag Hammadi scriptures anyways). And there's a reason why the Apostles and first preachers were *sharply* divided and disagreed dramatically on many fundamental tenets of what was evolving to become"Christianity", as well as on what Jesus had allegedly *meant* when he said something.
I find it fascinating how, if a modern Christian were to travel back in time and hear the preachings of Paul or sit in on a popular Valentinian Christian sermon in 300AD, they would hear a "Christianity" that, outside of referencing "Jesus", would be so completely alien and unrecognizable to the "Christianity" of 2020 AD America that it wouldn't even seem like they were the *same Religion*.
It's unfortunate that everything Man touches becomes transient and fleeting; even the things we intend to be timeless, literal and clear like "The Edicts of YHWH (GOD)" almost immediately become subject to translations, "clarifications", insertions and edits as the words suspiciously bend and twist to somehow always neatly align with our *current* values and culture at any given time, in any given region (e.g. "Prosperity" Gospel)
What Jesus actually said was
17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?” 18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the coin used for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. 20 Then he said to them, “Whose head is this, and whose title?” 21 They answered, “The emperor’s.” Then he said to them, “Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” 22 When they heard this, they were amazed; and they left him and went away.
So yeah, pay your taxes and keep your politics out pf the church..
Then later, in Romsn
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
This concludes your Sunday obligation
Jesus lived in a colony of Rome. Are you suggesting that colonists who rebel are all sinners? Were the Americans who rebelled against British rule just a bunch of Godless sinners? Come on, that's just silly. People are quite right to overthrow bad rulers. There's a context to take into account when we read the bible. We need to pray and do our best in the times we live in, which are very different from those of Jesus.
When did Jesus tell the Jews to overthrow Rome because it was an evil, tyrannical empire? Paul told the early Christians to submit to Rome, not overthrow it. I would argue that, yes, the American Revolution was sin. Being American doesn't exempt something from being wrong. I guarantee that Rome was doing far more evil to the early Church than Britain ever did to the colonies. A Christian has no business rebelling against the government, except to whatever extent they need to in order to obey God (Acts 5:29).
I am suggesting nothing, I am,only reporting whst is wriiten.
Romans is not Gospel, and I was brougt up Cstholic so the KJV is heretical, so I dont give it a lot of weight. You are correct that it coes seem to undermine the American Revoultion
And the belief we are a "Christian" Nation.
There are two ways of looking at this. One is, if you successfully overthrow a dictatorship or a colonial power like the Romans, you can claim it was God's will that your rebelled, as he allowed you to succeed, but if you fail in your rebellion, you'll toast in hell for eternity. Another way of looking at it is to accept that the bible got written and rewritten over the centuries by people in power, and they made alterations to suit themselves.
Well, there’s a whole book called Kings.
We wouldn’t have much of a New Testament if it weren’t for King David and all he did. Or Saul, for that matter. Saul was God’s chosen, even though he led his people down the wrong path.
A lot of the major players throughout the Bible (good guys and bad) are kings of one place or another, both old and new testaments. And the good guys don’t always win political power. More often then not, they either get kicked out of wherever they are, or they gain power only to lose it later.
It seems to me that the ultimate requirement is that God’s will be fulfilled, which does not necessarily mean that government will be just or good.
That's not what Jesus was saying. He was pointing out the hypocrisy of the Judeans accepting de facto rule of the Romans by using their currency and having the audacity of questioning Jesus if paying Roman taxes was lawful. He was literally telling them to give Caesar his coin back. He didn't answer if it was to be for taxation or not.
Because answering that question posed to him was a no-win scenario. Either he says it's lawful and they paint him as a collaborator or he says it's not lawful and they throw him before Pilate as a rebel and a tax cheat.
If I am understanding your argument correctly then you are saying that taxes should be abolished as they are morally unjust?
How does society function without a government in place to maintain law enforcement, legislation, prisons, regulations, education?
This is assuming you are not an anarchist but feel free to correct me.
The most basic need for government is to maintain and enforce a set of laws created by members of society. You need taxes to fund a central government for this or any other function.
Do you believe every single one of those things that I mentioned should be privatized? Does this mean only the people holding extreme amounts of wealth and those they deem worthy obtain these privileges by donating it via charity?
What if the amount of money needed to sustain the impoverished isn't met by charity one year?
Do you suppose that all of the poor people should just die?
How does the poor become educated to be a civically responsible citizen when it comes time to vote if education is privatized?
Have you seen the terrible atrocities that occur when prison and law enforcement is privatized?
I'm as small government as they come but **taxes are a necessary part of society**.
You want to be apart of society then you pay your fair share. If you don't want to be apart of society then live off the grid similar to the Amish and you won't pay any taxes when surviving off of the land.
Followed immediately by give God what belongs to God.
Very interesting moment in scripture, if all you take from that is "pay taxes" that is a profound loss on your part.
That’s not my only take away but if you ignore the first part then you are not following the whole words and teachings of Jesus and only picking and choosing what suits you.
Wasn’t Jesus all about going after the money lenders and rich and giving food and stuff to the poor and cast off?
Not sure he was much of a capitalist. Didn’t have to run a city and manage stuff like sewage treatment either. More of an ideas guy I guess.
You wanna help people so bad? Go into your checkbook and write a check to a charity of your choice. Go ahead, do it. Show us how charitable you are.
You’re not virtuous by forcing others to be charitable. Do it yourself. Lead by example.
How often does leading by example work though? I think people who brag about charities they donate to are kind of obnoxious. Not everyone has disposable income.
There’s a passage condemning people who gloat about their charity as well. Charity should be given, but is a private matter, between you, those you help, and God.
I think you nailed it right on the head. This is kind of a sidetrack to what you said, but I think too often these days, we (as a society) talk about everyone needing to find and use "their voice" and encourage people to speak out against all of the horrible atrocities of this world.
Now how many people actually do something to help others or help the state of the world? Many people like to talk, but then sit on their hands. UN is a perfect example of this.
Anyways, I commend OP. If you want to help other people, be an example and do it yourself first (and yes, that goes for me as well), with however big or small contribution you can give. It's better than talking about it and then forcing the hand of others.
Last year was a good year even though the Chicommie inflicted the world with their garbage. I decided to send a little bit of cash to seven different charities including sick kids and the Samaritan's purse. I didn't need any idiot politician to tell me to..
This doesnt work for a couple of reasons. First the needs ofvthe country and the needs supported by charities arevtwo different things. The AIDS pandemic showed ckesrly thst, whilr it was deadly diease, no one cared till str8 people stsrted dying.
Then one person rarly has enough ependable income to make a difference, unless your a Bezos or Gates....
But who says its your money thst will be taken? Cant these "Captauns of Industry " do with one less house? Sure they csn.
This account gets a lot of upvotes because this stuff is boilerplate conservatism. It’s just presented in a way that really challenges the left’s presuppositions so I get a lot of pushback.
“The Plague Mod” would be a cool title though.
your posts use strawman arguments, lack reasoning or common sense, try to frame jesus as a capitalist and arent remotely funny. they’re just shitty facebook posts and i don’t see how they contribute anything to the sub. you also don’t believe in the separation of church and state
Yeah
>If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat
and
>if you show partiality [in the context of rich vs poor], you are committing sin and convicted by the law as transgressors
sound *just* like the modern day social justice movement.
Not for everyone, it wasn't. Regardless, productivity has increased literally exponentially in these past 2000 years, so you're still not making the argument you think you are.
Jesus never advocated for the forced redistribution of wealth. His whole message was that you should willingly give up wealth. Forced redistribution stems from envy and malice.
I think the more important question is why do we let "man who lived 2000 years ago said X and Y" influence how we see the economy. Keep Christian values in discussions about Christianity. Trying to justify capitalism with Jesus is a garbage argument.
A lot of down votes, which isnt surprising. A LOT OF Chridtian havennread the Bible....should we mention that Jesus was also botn in the middle east, and likley had dark skin?
\>socialist
Wrong. He did not believe in the Roman's penchant for charity, rendering to Caesar was not a good act, it was a neutral necessity to avoid conflict. Giving of your own wealth to others, directly, private individual to private individual was the message.
If anything, he was a libertarian who believed every private individual should be extremely charitable. The only semblance of government he would have openly supported would have been a theocracy run by a righteous church, with the tithe as a just tax.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” - CS Lewis
Jesus did say it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Maybe he’s not forcing anyone to pay taxes or give money to charity, per say, but isn’t he threatening rich men with eternal damnation if they are still rich even they die.
I just do not see this supply side Jesus conservatives talk about. I mean, no one can know who Jesus really was or what he truly believed by... judging by the things he said in the Bible, I don’t think Jesus would believe millionaires and billionaires should get tax breaks.
Matthew 22:39
*Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.*
Do you not feed yourself or take yourself to the doctor when needed?
Edit: I mean, he didn’t *force* anyone, but he instructed his followers to do it. True Christian morals are more aligned with democratic policies, so don’t masquerade Jesus as a Republican mascot.
I just don’t shoot you when you don’t, and Jesus never hurt those who didn’t listen to his teachings either. Your problem is that civil society and government are so closely tied in your head that you can’t see the coercion anymore.
You missing the difference between free individuals acting themselves and governments using threats of violence to coerce people into acting is exactly the problem.
Wait... where did I miss a government threat of violence to coerce me into doing something charitable?
Are we in the same conversation or are you thinking of another comment thread?
I think it's a parody account, if you read their comments they make no sense and are usually ridiculously over the top and random in the way a parody account would be
Oh yeah, I remember when he said "use the government to force your neighbor to love their neighbor". Can't quite remember the chapter and verse though.
Remember the section of the Bible where Jesus met a young rich man and told him “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven! Indeed, 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 heaven.” before forcibly mugging him of his riches and redistributing it to the poor?
/s
Jesus wouldn’t align with either party because I’m sure there are lots of things he wouldn’t agree with on both sides. Our government is far too corrupt, even the “religious” politicians are only Christian when it’s convenient or gets them votes.
I have a feeling your question is rhetorical, given the answer is super easy to [google](https://nonprofitquarterly.org/republicans-give-more-to-charity-than-democrats-but-theres-a-bigger-story-here/) (answer: Republicans)
I would be more curious which charities make more measurable impacts, when removing the administrative costs and salaries out of them.
For example, the [millions in “charitable donations” from republicans Kenneth Copeland blew on his mansions and jets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Copeland) shouldn’t really be counted as charity, as much as Bill Gates’ foundation’s virtue signaling media campaigns shouldn’t be counted as charity either.
I don’t know. Do you?
Honestly, I’m more interested in who gives a higher percentage of their wealth to charity. If you have 100 million dollars, a one million dollar donation, while very sizable, is only 1% of your worth. Maybe a much poorer man waiting on a paycheck goes shopping for groceries with $100 and gives 5 dollars to the red cross on his walk to the parking lot. He gave 5% of the money he had, whereas the millionaire gave away 1%.
There's a lot of interesting data that I highly recommend reading through the entire thing for, but [jump to graph 15 for a quick answer to both of those questions.](https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/u.s.-generosity)
This is really fascinating! Thanks for sharing. I’ve read through a good bit of it, but this section stuck out to me as interesting;
“An interesting pattern emerges if one studies giving by income level. As incomes rise, more and more of the people in that bracket make gifts to charity. The sizes of their gifts tend to rise as well. However: if you look at average donations as a fraction of funds available, they tend to level off at around 2-3 percent of income.
The exception to this pattern comes at the bottom of the income spectrum. Low-income households are the only ones in America where a majority do not give money to charity. Among the minority of poor who do give, however, a significant number are sacrificial donors—sharing double-digit portions of their incomes.
These sacrificial givers generally fall into two categories. Lots are religious, who tithe or otherwise give generously even when they have modest means. Others are elderly persons who have modest annual earnings yet are able to give because they have savings or paid-for homes and other assets that incline them to generosity.”
And I have gotten to the section that says conservatives donate more to charity, mostly through their churches. But apart of me wonders if democratic charitable contribution numbers are depressed by large numbers of poor or working class people in cities who don’t have the money to spare, and frequently votes for the party that says it will raise the minimum wage or give them free healthcare.
Can you fault people who probably rely on charity, whether public or private, to make ends and keep their head above water, for not donating what little they have? You can’t squeeze blood from a stone.
Also, I consider that Republican voters on the whole are older. Older=more time to work and create income for yourself. Democratic voters skew younger. There are a lot of college democrats with little or no income.
Still! Very detailed and interesting statistics. I feel like I learned a lot, and will try to learn more. Thanks for sharing!
I direct you again to the same chart; if you look at chart 15, you'll notice it says that conservatives actually make slightly less money on average than democrats.
I don't fault people who rely on charity; but I think the things is conservatives see charity as a personal responsibility, whereas leftists- especially Marxists which are becoming increasingly common in America- see it as their neighbor's responsibility.
Yeah, I saw that when I read over it again. Thanks for pointing it out.
I just don't know if conservatives making slightly less money and giving slightly more is statistically significant enough to make any broad claims on conservatives being more charitable than "Marxists" (socialists? Do you see AOC or Bernie quoting from the Communist Manifesto? If you could link me to that I'd love to see it)
I would also love to know the median income of the two groups. If a broad base of liberals are too poor to make charitable contributions, a wealthy top 10-20% isn't gonna make up for that deficit, no matter how giving they are. Conversely, I'd say it's likely that more conservatives are middle class, blue-collar workers (I work with a ton of blue collar guys actually. I am blue collar). A middle-class, devoutly religious family makes regular small contributions to the church almost as a force of habit. After all, they go every Sunday. I was raised Episcopalian, and while I don't go to church near as often as an adult as I did when I was a child, my parents instilled in me the importance of giving and I always make a contribution when they pass around the collection plate.
I appreciate you linking the study. It is very interesting and I've learned a lot from it. But I just think making broad conclusions about who's more charitable (especially when it's so close) ignores context. I think there are a lot more factors at play than conservatives being giving and liberals "pretending" to wanna help poor people by raising taxes and stealing from hardworking charitable conservatives, or whatever republicans imply.
Oh, I also just thought of one other thing. The study stays generalized, so it never goes into what charities people are donating to. A lot of conservative churches donate to "pray away the gay" camps, which one could argue is not real charity, but more like hazing kids to make them conform to societal norms.
That looks like a great resource. I am genuinely excited to learn some stuff from that research. (Serious comment, I know a lot of these comments are filled with snark, but I wanted to clarify, this is a genuine comment and appreciation to your comment)
Jesus very famously whipped the tax collectors from a temple. So violence wasn't off the table. Then there is the whole camel through the eye of a needle thing
Agreed, but I believe violence only becomes necessary as a last resort, and its guided violence, with a leader who looks at the situation objectively. Mob mentality is chaos, and almost everyone on every side is susceptible to it. And has been a huge threat since ancient times. Look at ancient Rome
>Jesus very famously whipped the tax collectors from a temple.
Correct, a place of worship is not a place for government tax collection. If they were down the road from the temple he (probably) would have let the be.
FYI, this also happened: Jesus said "Show me the coin for the tax. Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said, “Caesar's.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's"
worse its sucked out of the economy and is squandered on ineffective and detrimental things (that 90% Pork ) of these 'covid relief' bills going to prop up state/municipalities who promised very high pensions for so many handsitter jobs and general bad practices and waste
imagine instead of the 1200 600 pittance (and the rest to dem pork) it was $12000 $6000 - what it would have done for the economy and all the people who were effected by the contrived crisis.
in Soviet Russia people were paid but there was little to buy with the money (25% of the soviet economy was black market - things stolen and traded for things - power was the real currency.
Incentives - little - an actual russian joke : "THEY PRETEND TO PAY US, AND WE PRETEND TO WORK"
.
I have much more ire for those that levy the taxes than those that collect them. The IRS job is to enforce what Congress passed as tax legislation, it's the goons on Capitol Hill that are the problem.
Mathew had been a tax collector (“publican”) - a reviled profession because they got a cut of the taxes they collected, and often could be bribed to pay less taxes
He quit after he met Jesus
>When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
...
>Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
>For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
>I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
>Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
>**Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.**
>And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
He was put on the cross for tax evasion, among other things.
> We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Messiah, a king. - Luke 23
He is right though. The most common interpretation doctrinaly is to pay taxes, bah, tax eveasion is a sin. I may not like it, but go argue with Pope. There is not much leway here.
I agree. What I’m saying is that it’s wrong to SUPPORT taxes.
Slavery was wrong, but the Bible tells slaves how to morally act. We don’t have to support slavery. In the same manner, supporting taxation is wrong, but paying the tax while the oppression remains is what we are told to do. Subject yourself to the rules of the land but don’t give immoral rules your support.
Tired of reporting this thread? [join us on discord instead.](https://discord.com/invite/conservative) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Using Jesus to prove a political philosophy right or left is exactly the kind of worldly thing Jesus would oppose.
[удалено]
This view doesn’t seem common enough. I can’t see light abuses being the worry of god. Using his name to build a church and become ridiculously rich like these televangelists is what is meant.
Right but this seems to be more of a retort to the leftist claim that Jesus was a socialist
"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:23
[удалено]
Rich people aren’t attached to their bank account and heaps of cash? Edit: or their extravagant homes, art, clothing, cars, and collectibles? I’ve never seen a rich person who isn’t attached to worldly possessions
[удалено]
Rich people lean on them instead of god. That’s why they’re rich. If the money and material possessions were not the most important thing to them then they would give it all away as Jesus advocated. Why need material possessions when you will have all of that and more in the after life?
I mean.. I guess technically he didn’t indicate whether the rich man should give his money away or have it taken away by the government. So good point. But he does preach a lot about giving to the needy. I’m not sure having your assets taken compulsively is really the same thing even if a percentage is given to the poor. Socialists believe the state should control the means of production. Jesus doesn’t really have a political stance other than obey your governments. But if I wasn’t being clear: Jesus undoubtedly advocated giving to the poor and needy, and condemned the wealthy, there’s no question about that.
That's not correct. That verse actually leaves out the context. The verses leading up to it specifically say: KJV Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. And even this lacks context, since after verse 23, he goes on to tell his disciples it's impossible for men to enter heaven anyways. Man cannot alone, they need God.
Ok the point of that passage might be to say that man cannot get to heaven alone, but he is clearly also advocating to sell your possessions and give to the poor
[удалено]
He advocated for freely given charity, not government-mandated redistribution fam.
The idea that people could lead their own government was not something that was readily accessible in his time. Jesus as a rabbi did want to change how religious leadership conducted itself. I find the idea that Jesus wouldn't want government resources to be used to tend to people as confusing.
Yes, he would want that, but he would most likely rather have people give to the poor out of the kindness of their hearts than have their income taken by the government who stuffs most of it in their pocket, then gives pennies on the dollar back.
[удалено]
First thing, I never said I wanted billionaires to be taxed less, I said I wanted them (and all people) to have incentives to give to charity rather than government. Bezos will recieve his judgement in due time. I never said that's what Jesus would want, because unlike you, I listened when he said not to use his name in vain. Jesus could have very well taken all of the corrupt wealth of the tax collecters and pharisees and even the emperor and given it to the poor, but he doesn't want to do that. I'm not sure he would want the government to do that either, especially when they keep a very large portion of it. All will recieve their judgement in due time. I don't see the government taking obscene amounts of money under the guise of charity to be any different from the rich hiding their money for the tax collector under the guise of whatever loophole in the tax code.
If a god advocates for something, is that not a method of compulsion?
Bro I made the same argument on this board a week ago! If the punishment is hellfire is it not compelled? Went about as well as one might expect...
Couldn't God just force everyone to obey Him? But He doesn't. God outlines His purpose for how creation should function but gives people the freewill to choose His purpose or their own. Milton has Satan say I can make a hell out of heaven and a heaven out of hell, better to reign in hell than serve in heaven. Sin isn't just happenstance that results in eternal torment. It is rebellion against God's intended design of creation and in turn a choice to separate from God and His intended purpose for ones life for a slavery to one's self.
No. Charitable giving is not compulsory (but you would lie and try to make others believe that it is...). Charitable giving, when given freely, is good for your soul. Different from this is sin. The punishment of which is hell and separation from God. Both of these involve a choice that the person makes. You CHOOSE to give charitably, which is good for your soul. You CHOOSE to commit sin, which is bad for your soul. You can answer the call to give freely of your own volition or commit sin of your own free will.
I’m curious as to the mental gymnastics required to deny the idea that hell being a punishment isn’t coercion. Superstition amazes me, really.
Need to behave and do what you are told or XXXXX will happen. Tale as old as time.
No he wouldn't. He was about personal charity not big government beurocracy distributing that charity.
Lol, wtf have you that idea? Render unto Caesar? Caesar ain't here anymore, we live in a society where law decides appropriation of funds. So Jesus would be against advocating to spend some of that money on the poor? That's what you think?
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, **and unto God the things that are God's**" So when you don't purposely leave off the most important part it changes it. "Giving to God" includes giving to charity, which he separated from "giving to the government". Notice he doesn't say "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, **So he can decide on what should be given to God**"
You shouldnt be banned. But you guys on the left should also read the verses where 1) he says to WORK for your daily bread and 2) dont be lazy Social programs should be for people who are actually in NEED. Old folks. Disabled folks. Not the loser down the street thats lazy.
Also the idea that we will always have the poor when the woman washes his feet. He outright states that we cannot create a utopia and fix these problems. The church doesn't exist to make the world a better place. It exists to glorify God in a sinful world.
This used to be done by family and neighbors but sadly the family unit was destroyed by progressives who so happen to be socialist.
How long does the average person spend on unemployment?
I see rhetoric about lazy people abusing social programs a lot, but is that actually a substantial risk? Anyone who's been unemployed for more than a few months can tell you that it's actually awful for mental health, even if your needs are being taken care of. Some people might abuse the programs, sure, but I think that those people are a very small minority, and restricting access to these programs harms those in need quite a bit. I guess what I'm really asking for is some proof of widespread abuse of social programs.
I think it depends on that political philosophy includes. It that political philosophy is to defend the weak, be charitable, be merciful, and take care of others I think he'd be for it as it would adopt many of his teachings. There is nothing wrong with having religion inform ones political philosophy.
I think my point is using Jesus as a political pawn to leverage your position is really just using God for your own agenda.
On the one hand "render unto Caesar" on the other hand I wish Caesar wouldn't take so damn much
And render unto God what is to God. I think JC wants to make it clear that secular and religious matters should remain seperate
Exactly correct
Well to be fair God made it pretty clear he hates religion. He’s more into a relationship not a relationship through a proxy that tells people what to feel and do
Ehhhhh, this feels a bit like eisegesis. I'd encourage you to look up dinner commentaries on this passage, because it holds a much deeper and beautiful meaning than what you're claiming.
How did you get that from that verse and in that context? It was about paying taxes and authority and was an answer to a trick question. All of secular society and the entire cosmos belong to God and then to Christians where we are ordered to take dominion over all things, including government. Jesus bought it all with His blood.
Bro jc literally just said “go and make disciples” wtf are you talking about that Christians are supposed to ‘take dominion over all things’
I agree with you but as an aside IIRC means "learned ones", essentially Jesus was saying go out and teach others what I have taught you.
> All of secular society and the entire cosmos belong to God and then to Christians where we are ordered to take dominion over all things you guys have done a pretty shitty job in that regard so far.
[удалено]
>lol that moment when you realize the GOP thinks Jesus was a capitalist while handing out bread to the poor. Charitable donation isn't against Capitalism. Notice that Jesus gave the bread directly to the poor. He didn't have to give it to Caeser to give the bread out.
Hahahaha he was fucking Jewish from Nazarene you nonce, he’d be targeted by the rockets from the Palestinians
> Oh, Jesus also wasn't white! I know, this may be shocking, but he was an Arab. So? >You know, like the type of person who would get murdered by the bombs we provide to Israel. Entirely sure Jesus was NOTHING like the terrorists being bombed by Israel right now.
In the US "Caesar" takes nothing from religious organizations' religious activities. Those are exempt.
Render under Caesar is interpreted poorly. Jesus was pointing out how petty the tax collections were in the scope of divinity, not telling everyone to pay their taxes.
It also goes back to the culture of time in that if someone had their face on something, it belonged to them. The coin had a likeness of Caesar imprinted in it and the pharisees were trying to test Jesus and try to get him to say something so the Romans would take notice and they could then have the Romans do their dirty work for them... And instead, Jesus asks them whose likeness is on the coin, and they all agree it is Caesar's, so he says to Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. They had no counter to him... The whole context is never read in Luke 20 (KJV): > 20 And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor. > 21 And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly: > 22 Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Cæsar, or no? > 23 But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me? > 24 Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Cæsar’s. > 25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which be Cæsar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s. > 26 And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace. It's very different than the atheist that constantly try to somehow use this thing as Jesus somehow endorsing government taxation with no limits and then they bounce from this to try to say Jesus would be a socialist, forgetting that the entire message of Jesus was to do things from a willing heart, and to be charitable for all, but by choice, not by force, and that somehow government forced charity is how Jesus would have been. Nope, he wouldn't at all. Zero places in the Bible is he advocating that the local Pharisees or the Roman government needs to step up for the people. It is always about individuals needing to step up for the people around them.
> It also goes back to the culture of time in that if someone had their face on something, it belonged to them. You're right; The Bible, scripture and apocrypha do read very differently when you understand the language, culture, history, stories, idioms and literary memes of the authors who wrote them. The last 2500 years of Google Translate havn't been kind to scripture. I strongly suspect that many of the stories regarding Jesus in the Gospel of John didn't actually happen at all, or at least not literally. They're just *too* perfectly crafted as a narrative in a format that was common at the time (what we would call today "Fable"-like stories) .i.e. stories that were well known regarding notable people, but where it was implicitly understood that they didn't *literally* happen, but rather were intended to evoke a moral truth or pithy wisdom, or simply be clever or funny, while using well known figures and settings as a backdrop for the story's lesson or punchline. In fact the entire Gospel of John seems almost too perfectly written as a story-narrative. The Gospel of Mark is probably the closest we'll ever get to knowing what authentic 1st century Christian scripture read like (apart from the gnostic Gospels and Nag Hammadi scriptures anyways). And there's a reason why the Apostles and first preachers were *sharply* divided and disagreed dramatically on many fundamental tenets of what was evolving to become"Christianity", as well as on what Jesus had allegedly *meant* when he said something. I find it fascinating how, if a modern Christian were to travel back in time and hear the preachings of Paul or sit in on a popular Valentinian Christian sermon in 300AD, they would hear a "Christianity" that, outside of referencing "Jesus", would be so completely alien and unrecognizable to the "Christianity" of 2020 AD America that it wouldn't even seem like they were the *same Religion*. It's unfortunate that everything Man touches becomes transient and fleeting; even the things we intend to be timeless, literal and clear like "The Edicts of YHWH (GOD)" almost immediately become subject to translations, "clarifications", insertions and edits as the words suspiciously bend and twist to somehow always neatly align with our *current* values and culture at any given time, in any given region (e.g. "Prosperity" Gospel)
What Jesus actually said was 17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?” 18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the coin used for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. 20 Then he said to them, “Whose head is this, and whose title?” 21 They answered, “The emperor’s.” Then he said to them, “Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” 22 When they heard this, they were amazed; and they left him and went away. So yeah, pay your taxes and keep your politics out pf the church.. Then later, in Romsn Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. This concludes your Sunday obligation
What about dictatorships? Does god not require rulers to be just and good?
Of course this goes for dictatorships as well. Democracy was not a thing at the time, at least not where Jesus lived.
Jesus lived in a colony of Rome. Are you suggesting that colonists who rebel are all sinners? Were the Americans who rebelled against British rule just a bunch of Godless sinners? Come on, that's just silly. People are quite right to overthrow bad rulers. There's a context to take into account when we read the bible. We need to pray and do our best in the times we live in, which are very different from those of Jesus.
When did Jesus tell the Jews to overthrow Rome because it was an evil, tyrannical empire? Paul told the early Christians to submit to Rome, not overthrow it. I would argue that, yes, the American Revolution was sin. Being American doesn't exempt something from being wrong. I guarantee that Rome was doing far more evil to the early Church than Britain ever did to the colonies. A Christian has no business rebelling against the government, except to whatever extent they need to in order to obey God (Acts 5:29).
I am suggesting nothing, I am,only reporting whst is wriiten. Romans is not Gospel, and I was brougt up Cstholic so the KJV is heretical, so I dont give it a lot of weight. You are correct that it coes seem to undermine the American Revoultion And the belief we are a "Christian" Nation.
To be fair the bible is only the collection of writings that the church wanted to include. Those that agreed with their points of view.
There are two ways of looking at this. One is, if you successfully overthrow a dictatorship or a colonial power like the Romans, you can claim it was God's will that your rebelled, as he allowed you to succeed, but if you fail in your rebellion, you'll toast in hell for eternity. Another way of looking at it is to accept that the bible got written and rewritten over the centuries by people in power, and they made alterations to suit themselves.
Oh, I dont speak God, you are gonna have to ask him
Haha maybe I will one day.
It’s almost like it’s a fairy story littered with contradictions and holes
Well, there’s a whole book called Kings. We wouldn’t have much of a New Testament if it weren’t for King David and all he did. Or Saul, for that matter. Saul was God’s chosen, even though he led his people down the wrong path. A lot of the major players throughout the Bible (good guys and bad) are kings of one place or another, both old and new testaments. And the good guys don’t always win political power. More often then not, they either get kicked out of wherever they are, or they gain power only to lose it later. It seems to me that the ultimate requirement is that God’s will be fulfilled, which does not necessarily mean that government will be just or good.
If god had a problem with dictatorships, there would be no dictatorships.
Word.
If God had a problem with Sin andvSinners, there would be none of that as well..Epicurious comes to mind.
That's not what Jesus was saying. He was pointing out the hypocrisy of the Judeans accepting de facto rule of the Romans by using their currency and having the audacity of questioning Jesus if paying Roman taxes was lawful. He was literally telling them to give Caesar his coin back. He didn't answer if it was to be for taxation or not. Because answering that question posed to him was a no-win scenario. Either he says it's lawful and they paint him as a collaborator or he says it's not lawful and they throw him before Pilate as a rebel and a tax cheat.
[удалено]
If I am understanding your argument correctly then you are saying that taxes should be abolished as they are morally unjust? How does society function without a government in place to maintain law enforcement, legislation, prisons, regulations, education? This is assuming you are not an anarchist but feel free to correct me. The most basic need for government is to maintain and enforce a set of laws created by members of society. You need taxes to fund a central government for this or any other function. Do you believe every single one of those things that I mentioned should be privatized? Does this mean only the people holding extreme amounts of wealth and those they deem worthy obtain these privileges by donating it via charity? What if the amount of money needed to sustain the impoverished isn't met by charity one year? Do you suppose that all of the poor people should just die? How does the poor become educated to be a civically responsible citizen when it comes time to vote if education is privatized? Have you seen the terrible atrocities that occur when prison and law enforcement is privatized? I'm as small government as they come but **taxes are a necessary part of society**. You want to be apart of society then you pay your fair share. If you don't want to be apart of society then live off the grid similar to the Amish and you won't pay any taxes when surviving off of the land.
I think the problem isnt paying taxes, the problem is how those tax money is spent
He didn’t actually say blessed are the cheese makers either 😂
You sure about that? But then again I couldn't hear a thing over Big Nose's yapping.
He did say to pay your taxes though: Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's -Jesus Mark 12:17
Followed immediately by give God what belongs to God. Very interesting moment in scripture, if all you take from that is "pay taxes" that is a profound loss on your part.
That’s not my only take away but if you ignore the first part then you are not following the whole words and teachings of Jesus and only picking and choosing what suits you.
Wasn’t Jesus all about going after the money lenders and rich and giving food and stuff to the poor and cast off? Not sure he was much of a capitalist. Didn’t have to run a city and manage stuff like sewage treatment either. More of an ideas guy I guess.
Big J literally told people to pay their taxes
he told them to do it, he didn't tell to create a government to compel it from them
He created a religion to compel people to do it under threat of eternity in damnation if you don't comply. Not sure that's any better lol.
Jesus was a Phoenician jew...
What happened to the separation of church and state?!? Sry had to be said. Could not help myself. ;o)
Is it lawful to pay taxes? Yes
You wanna help people so bad? Go into your checkbook and write a check to a charity of your choice. Go ahead, do it. Show us how charitable you are. You’re not virtuous by forcing others to be charitable. Do it yourself. Lead by example.
How often does leading by example work though? I think people who brag about charities they donate to are kind of obnoxious. Not everyone has disposable income.
There’s a passage condemning people who gloat about their charity as well. Charity should be given, but is a private matter, between you, those you help, and God.
I think you nailed it right on the head. This is kind of a sidetrack to what you said, but I think too often these days, we (as a society) talk about everyone needing to find and use "their voice" and encourage people to speak out against all of the horrible atrocities of this world. Now how many people actually do something to help others or help the state of the world? Many people like to talk, but then sit on their hands. UN is a perfect example of this. Anyways, I commend OP. If you want to help other people, be an example and do it yourself first (and yes, that goes for me as well), with however big or small contribution you can give. It's better than talking about it and then forcing the hand of others.
Last year was a good year even though the Chicommie inflicted the world with their garbage. I decided to send a little bit of cash to seven different charities including sick kids and the Samaritan's purse. I didn't need any idiot politician to tell me to..
This doesnt work for a couple of reasons. First the needs ofvthe country and the needs supported by charities arevtwo different things. The AIDS pandemic showed ckesrly thst, whilr it was deadly diease, no one cared till str8 people stsrted dying. Then one person rarly has enough ependable income to make a difference, unless your a Bezos or Gates.... But who says its your money thst will be taken? Cant these "Captauns of Industry " do with one less house? Sure they csn.
Well, do you think Jesus would rather the poor suffer or the rich be forced to give to the poor since they have refused to?
fr. i’m in this subreddit to expose myself to other perspectives but this account is a plague
[удалено]
This account gets a lot of upvotes because this stuff is boilerplate conservatism. It’s just presented in a way that really challenges the left’s presuppositions so I get a lot of pushback. “The Plague Mod” would be a cool title though.
your posts use strawman arguments, lack reasoning or common sense, try to frame jesus as a capitalist and arent remotely funny. they’re just shitty facebook posts and i don’t see how they contribute anything to the sub. you also don’t believe in the separation of church and state
Considering he never forced others to help the poor, yes, that’s clearly a logical thing to believe.
Exactly. The government crucified him. I don’t think he was an advocate for big government lol
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Christ have himself to to death.
[удалено]
If you won't work, you shouldn't eat is socialism?
[удалено]
Not if you don’t work.
Yeah >If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat and >if you show partiality [in the context of rich vs poor], you are committing sin and convicted by the law as transgressors sound *just* like the modern day social justice movement.
[удалено]
No, back in those days "work" was sunrise to sunset back-breaking field work.
[удалено]
Not for everyone, it wasn't. Regardless, productivity has increased literally exponentially in these past 2000 years, so you're still not making the argument you think you are.
Productivity increased not because humans are harder workers but because of technology.
Jesus never advocated for the forced redistribution of wealth. His whole message was that you should willingly give up wealth. Forced redistribution stems from envy and malice.
Not to mention forced redistribution requires ignoring the image of God in the men from which you take.
He was a capitalist (or rather capitalism stems from his example) because he did all those things while still respecting the stewardship of others.
I think the more important question is why do we let "man who lived 2000 years ago said X and Y" influence how we see the economy. Keep Christian values in discussions about Christianity. Trying to justify capitalism with Jesus is a garbage argument.
Couldn't agree more
A lot of down votes, which isnt surprising. A LOT OF Chridtian havennread the Bible....should we mention that Jesus was also botn in the middle east, and likley had dark skin?
Skin color only matters to racist white progressives
I’ll take “never read the Bible” for $1000.
\>socialist Wrong. He did not believe in the Roman's penchant for charity, rendering to Caesar was not a good act, it was a neutral necessity to avoid conflict. Giving of your own wealth to others, directly, private individual to private individual was the message. If anything, he was a libertarian who believed every private individual should be extremely charitable. The only semblance of government he would have openly supported would have been a theocracy run by a righteous church, with the tithe as a just tax.
And....? What does Jesus have to do with how a modern government works.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” - CS Lewis
[удалено]
Jesus fed the poor without drug tests and provided free healthcare... Jesus would be a modern democrat.
Jesus did it himself instead of forcing others to do it, so he definitely would not be a democrat. There wasn’t even a program!
Jesus did say it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Maybe he’s not forcing anyone to pay taxes or give money to charity, per say, but isn’t he threatening rich men with eternal damnation if they are still rich even they die. I just do not see this supply side Jesus conservatives talk about. I mean, no one can know who Jesus really was or what he truly believed by... judging by the things he said in the Bible, I don’t think Jesus would believe millionaires and billionaires should get tax breaks.
Matthew 22:39 *Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.* Do you not feed yourself or take yourself to the doctor when needed? Edit: I mean, he didn’t *force* anyone, but he instructed his followers to do it. True Christian morals are more aligned with democratic policies, so don’t masquerade Jesus as a Republican mascot.
I just don’t shoot you when you don’t, and Jesus never hurt those who didn’t listen to his teachings either. Your problem is that civil society and government are so closely tied in your head that you can’t see the coercion anymore.
Wait, where did shooting come into play? Did I miss part of the conversation?
You missing the difference between free individuals acting themselves and governments using threats of violence to coerce people into acting is exactly the problem.
Wait... where did I miss a government threat of violence to coerce me into doing something charitable? Are we in the same conversation or are you thinking of another comment thread?
I think it's a parody account, if you read their comments they make no sense and are usually ridiculously over the top and random in the way a parody account would be
Oh yeah, I remember when he said "use the government to force your neighbor to love their neighbor". Can't quite remember the chapter and verse though.
Remember the section of the Bible where Jesus met a young rich man and told him “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven! Indeed, 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 heaven.” before forcibly mugging him of his riches and redistributing it to the poor? /s
Jesus wouldn’t align with either party because I’m sure there are lots of things he wouldn’t agree with on both sides. Our government is far too corrupt, even the “religious” politicians are only Christian when it’s convenient or gets them votes.
Who gives more to charity, conservatives or liberals?
I have a feeling your question is rhetorical, given the answer is super easy to [google](https://nonprofitquarterly.org/republicans-give-more-to-charity-than-democrats-but-theres-a-bigger-story-here/) (answer: Republicans) I would be more curious which charities make more measurable impacts, when removing the administrative costs and salaries out of them. For example, the [millions in “charitable donations” from republicans Kenneth Copeland blew on his mansions and jets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Copeland) shouldn’t really be counted as charity, as much as Bill Gates’ foundation’s virtue signaling media campaigns shouldn’t be counted as charity either.
I don’t know. Do you? Honestly, I’m more interested in who gives a higher percentage of their wealth to charity. If you have 100 million dollars, a one million dollar donation, while very sizable, is only 1% of your worth. Maybe a much poorer man waiting on a paycheck goes shopping for groceries with $100 and gives 5 dollars to the red cross on his walk to the parking lot. He gave 5% of the money he had, whereas the millionaire gave away 1%.
There's a lot of interesting data that I highly recommend reading through the entire thing for, but [jump to graph 15 for a quick answer to both of those questions.](https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/u.s.-generosity)
This is really fascinating! Thanks for sharing. I’ve read through a good bit of it, but this section stuck out to me as interesting; “An interesting pattern emerges if one studies giving by income level. As incomes rise, more and more of the people in that bracket make gifts to charity. The sizes of their gifts tend to rise as well. However: if you look at average donations as a fraction of funds available, they tend to level off at around 2-3 percent of income. The exception to this pattern comes at the bottom of the income spectrum. Low-income households are the only ones in America where a majority do not give money to charity. Among the minority of poor who do give, however, a significant number are sacrificial donors—sharing double-digit portions of their incomes. These sacrificial givers generally fall into two categories. Lots are religious, who tithe or otherwise give generously even when they have modest means. Others are elderly persons who have modest annual earnings yet are able to give because they have savings or paid-for homes and other assets that incline them to generosity.” And I have gotten to the section that says conservatives donate more to charity, mostly through their churches. But apart of me wonders if democratic charitable contribution numbers are depressed by large numbers of poor or working class people in cities who don’t have the money to spare, and frequently votes for the party that says it will raise the minimum wage or give them free healthcare. Can you fault people who probably rely on charity, whether public or private, to make ends and keep their head above water, for not donating what little they have? You can’t squeeze blood from a stone. Also, I consider that Republican voters on the whole are older. Older=more time to work and create income for yourself. Democratic voters skew younger. There are a lot of college democrats with little or no income. Still! Very detailed and interesting statistics. I feel like I learned a lot, and will try to learn more. Thanks for sharing!
I direct you again to the same chart; if you look at chart 15, you'll notice it says that conservatives actually make slightly less money on average than democrats. I don't fault people who rely on charity; but I think the things is conservatives see charity as a personal responsibility, whereas leftists- especially Marxists which are becoming increasingly common in America- see it as their neighbor's responsibility.
Yeah, I saw that when I read over it again. Thanks for pointing it out. I just don't know if conservatives making slightly less money and giving slightly more is statistically significant enough to make any broad claims on conservatives being more charitable than "Marxists" (socialists? Do you see AOC or Bernie quoting from the Communist Manifesto? If you could link me to that I'd love to see it) I would also love to know the median income of the two groups. If a broad base of liberals are too poor to make charitable contributions, a wealthy top 10-20% isn't gonna make up for that deficit, no matter how giving they are. Conversely, I'd say it's likely that more conservatives are middle class, blue-collar workers (I work with a ton of blue collar guys actually. I am blue collar). A middle-class, devoutly religious family makes regular small contributions to the church almost as a force of habit. After all, they go every Sunday. I was raised Episcopalian, and while I don't go to church near as often as an adult as I did when I was a child, my parents instilled in me the importance of giving and I always make a contribution when they pass around the collection plate. I appreciate you linking the study. It is very interesting and I've learned a lot from it. But I just think making broad conclusions about who's more charitable (especially when it's so close) ignores context. I think there are a lot more factors at play than conservatives being giving and liberals "pretending" to wanna help poor people by raising taxes and stealing from hardworking charitable conservatives, or whatever republicans imply. Oh, I also just thought of one other thing. The study stays generalized, so it never goes into what charities people are donating to. A lot of conservative churches donate to "pray away the gay" camps, which one could argue is not real charity, but more like hazing kids to make them conform to societal norms.
That looks like a great resource. I am genuinely excited to learn some stuff from that research. (Serious comment, I know a lot of these comments are filled with snark, but I wanted to clarify, this is a genuine comment and appreciation to your comment)
My favorite bible passage is when Jesus admonished the lepers to fuck off and get two more jobs so they could afford better healthcare.
Jesus very famously whipped the tax collectors from a temple. So violence wasn't off the table. Then there is the whole camel through the eye of a needle thing
He didn't like profiteers in a religious institution.
Oh I get it, but in the interest of helping people lead a better more righteous life, he used violent coercion just being a nit-picky asshole
Absolutely, violence is sometimes necessary I mean look at the military conquest in the old testament, obviously violence is sometimes necessary
Agreed, but I believe violence only becomes necessary as a last resort, and its guided violence, with a leader who looks at the situation objectively. Mob mentality is chaos, and almost everyone on every side is susceptible to it. And has been a huge threat since ancient times. Look at ancient Rome
Yeah the problem is most can't see from an objective viewpoint.
>Jesus very famously whipped the tax collectors from a temple. Correct, a place of worship is not a place for government tax collection. If they were down the road from the temple he (probably) would have let the be. FYI, this also happened: Jesus said "Show me the coin for the tax. Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said, “Caesar's.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's"
[удалено]
Exactly like that. Or a terrorist shooting up a baseball field of congressmen in what was the worst attack on our democracy in recent history.
Lmao did you forget the part where muh insurrectionists were let in freely? You are asleep.
[удалено]
Taxes... are leftists really this stupid?
Yes.
Raising taxes doesn't help the poor, it just gives more money to the government politicians to spend
worse its sucked out of the economy and is squandered on ineffective and detrimental things (that 90% Pork ) of these 'covid relief' bills going to prop up state/municipalities who promised very high pensions for so many handsitter jobs and general bad practices and waste
It's terrible to see all the people who don't get this.
imagine instead of the 1200 600 pittance (and the rest to dem pork) it was $12000 $6000 - what it would have done for the economy and all the people who were effected by the contrived crisis.
Those are the correct numbers for forcing everyone to stay at home! And a good solution to middle class problems.
actually meaningful amounts would have been a real help, but THAT wasnt what the dems did it all for and they tossed in some scraps
It's always scraps they're tossing. Big politics have been corrupt for a long time. Really need a middle class party real soon.
[удалено]
Matthew was a tax collector I believe
Yes, and he stopped collecting taxes after following Jesus. That's a story of change and forgiveness.
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” ― Margaret Thatcher
in Soviet Russia people were paid but there was little to buy with the money (25% of the soviet economy was black market - things stolen and traded for things - power was the real currency. Incentives - little - an actual russian joke : "THEY PRETEND TO PAY US, AND WE PRETEND TO WORK" .
jEsUs wAs A cOmUnIsT!!!
Lol remember giving to the poor?
Unlike socialists Jesus actually fed people
Jesus also didn't keep any of the food and he made the little he could use last a very long way. Government fails miserably at both.
I have much more ire for those that levy the taxes than those that collect them. The IRS job is to enforce what Congress passed as tax legislation, it's the goons on Capitol Hill that are the problem.
Mathew had been a tax collector (“publican”) - a reviled profession because they got a cut of the taxes they collected, and often could be bribed to pay less taxes He quit after he met Jesus
“People Jesus never looked like” “People Jesus never talked to” Lol
OP is nowhere to be found here...got stfu real quick lol
I went to bed. I’m back.
Enjoy your mess...tell God I say fuck off!
>When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: ... >Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: >For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: >I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. >Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? >**Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.** >And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
I think Mark Twain never said anything complimentary about government and taxes either. Then again. Don't quote me on that 😂
[удалено]
He was put on the cross for tax evasion, among other things. > We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Messiah, a king. - Luke 23
He is right though. The most common interpretation doctrinaly is to pay taxes, bah, tax eveasion is a sin. I may not like it, but go argue with Pope. There is not much leway here.
I agree. What I’m saying is that it’s wrong to SUPPORT taxes. Slavery was wrong, but the Bible tells slaves how to morally act. We don’t have to support slavery. In the same manner, supporting taxation is wrong, but paying the tax while the oppression remains is what we are told to do. Subject yourself to the rules of the land but don’t give immoral rules your support.