Finally sick of this: Minimal-state Jesus

[JollyRoger]

Did Jesus disavow all that Old Testamanet gibberish about collectively helping the poor? I think the Sodomites were destroyed for failing to help the poor.

 

[Farm Boy]

Did Jesus disavow all that Old Testamanet gibberish about collectively helping the poor? I think the Sodomites were destroyed for failing to help the poor.

That destruction has been rebranded by certain denominations to be a condemnation of wut wut in the butt.

I agree with you that Jesus did not largely expressly endorse one form of government over another. (He did come out expressly against lex talionis, so to say He never came on down on one side or another is untrue.) He did, however, instruct His followers to abide by a set of certain values. Some forms and policies of governance better fit those values than others. The key value in question is one of communal care for others. That value is accorded fair more import in a liberal democracy with a strong welfare state than in a libertarian system.

So while it may be true that Jesus never opposed a libertarian system of government, His teachings are much more in line with a welfare state than that of a libertarian one.

Regarding the importance of communal ownership, I direct you to Acts 4:32: "The whole group of believers was united, heart and soul; no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, as everything they owned was held in common."

That's about as striking a call for communal ownership as I've ever seen.



Uhm, what? He was pretty clear that care for others, including the poor, should be of paramount concern to His followers.



Who cares if you are happy about it? Jesus's message isn't one that creates temporal happiness, it is one that ensure celestial happiness in this life and the next.



Jesus was concerned about the manner in which His followers treat others. I don't see how you can divide the use of money as a means to provide care to others from simply providing care to others. He didn't qualify His instructions with "okay, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, but don't feel like you need to spend a dime doing it." Instead, His instruction to His flock was absolute. I don't see how you can possibly think that He wanted His followers to care for others but not spend money.

He gave us two commandments: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

While it is clear from this that the expression of faith is more important than care for others that doesn't in anyway diminish the care He expected us to extend to others. The use of money is the best way to provide that care to others.





Luke 6:30: Give to everyone who asks you....

That doesn't qualify the call to share one's wealth as being a voluntary act. It makes it an obligatory duty.

Thank you for this.

 

[JollyRoger]

That destruction has been rebranded by certain denominations to be a condemnation of wut wut in the butt.

Some denominations seem naturally attracted to obsessing over wut wut in the butt.

 

[WindFish]

>Implying wut wut in the butt is wrong

 

[El_Machinae]

Did Jesus disavow all that Old Testamanet gibberish about collectively helping the poor? I think the Sodomites were destroyed for failing to help the poor.

They didn't only ignore the poor they also probably ate shellfish & rabbit and brought the icons of other gods into their homes, just because they liked the wealth or the look that the icons represented.

 

[Farm Boy]

Some denominations seem naturally attracted to obsessing over wut wut in the butt.

Indeed. I wonder how much money could be redirected to the poor from anti-homosexuality lobbying efforts. Ah, but now I'm Judas bickering about the expense of perfume. If you can label anti-homosexuality lobby efforts as a gift given in kindness and love.

 

[Borachio]

Luke 6:30: Give to everyone who asks you....

That doesn't qualify the call to share one's wealth as being a voluntary act. It makes it an obligatory duty.

This annoys the heck out of me. Now all the charity appeals coming through my letter box just look like bills.

 

[Arakhor]

Ah, but now I'm Judas bickering about the expense of perfume.

I don't understand that allusion at all. Can you explain it please?

 

[Berzerker]

So while it may be true that Jesus never opposed a libertarian system of government, His teachings are much more in line with a welfare state than that of a libertarian one.

Regarding the importance of communal ownership, I direct you to Acts 4:32: "The whole group of believers was united, heart and soul; no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, as everything they owned was held in common."

That's about as striking a call for communal ownership as I've ever seen.

enforced by Caesar?

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't understand that allusion at all. Can you explain it please?

Matthew 26:9. Read charitably and perhaps a bit naively it could be that you shouldn't condemn people for doing something nice if you can bicker and argue about whether they should have spent their time, or more notably money, doing something more efficient. But that's a pretty generous reading I suppose.

 

[GhostWriter16]

enforced by Caesar?

I think its hillarious how much liberals can't see this distinction, even more so than conservatives. Santorum aside, most conservatives do want to enforce morality but understand the distinction between what can and cannot be enforced and why (They get it wrong, of course, but they do have a standard.) Liberals are unbelievably "Pro-Caesar" when it suits their needs, but they omit the same logic when it comes to abortion and gay marriage.

And then I'm told I'm the one who wants to enforce my morality on everyone else because I'm pro-life

@Galdre- I don't think I answered you yet, I don't know for certain if taxes to pay for things like national defense are theft, but even if they are, I really don't see any alternative whatsoever. Not just a mildly inconvenient alternative, I really don't see one. I'd say the same thing about police and courts, you kind of need a system of law and its unavoidable to tax to pay for it unless you want loads of free riders.

I do object to extracting my tax money for unnecessary functions, or ones that exist solely to redistribute wealth by force.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I don't understand that allusion at all. Can you explain it please?

He is referring to the woman who anointed Jesus's feet with an expensive perfume (the price given is approximately equal to the total yearly income of a common laborer) rather than using the funds to help the poor. The mention of Judas seems to indicate that he was referring to John's account, and might also imply that that he has selfish reasons for wanting the funds to be donated to another cause.

12 Jesus, therefore, six days before the passover, came to Bethany, where was Lazarus, who had died, whom he raised out of the dead;

2 they made, therefore, to him a supper there, and Martha was ministering, and Lazarus was one of those reclining together (at meat) with him;

3 Mary, therefore, having taken a pound of ointment of spikenard, of great price, anointed the feet of Jesus and did wipe with her hair his feet, and the house was filled from the fragrance of the ointment.

4 Therefore saith one of his disciples -- Judas Iscariot, of Simon, who is about to deliver him up --

5 `Wherefore was not this ointment sold for three hundred denaries, and given to the poor?'

6 and he said this, not because he was caring for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and what things were put in he was carrying.

7 Jesus, therefore, said, `Suffer her; for the day of my embalming she hath kept it,

8 for the poor ye have always with yourselves, and me ye have not always.'

The version found in Matthew 26 says that the disciples were displeased, but doesn't say anything about Judas Iscariot in particular speaking up or being a thief. Here Jesus says that the perfume is to prepare for his burial. Judas goes to the high priest to ask how much he could get for betraying Christ right after this.


The Luke 7 version doesn't mention any disciple being upset about the cost, but rather a pharisee condemning him for letting such a sinful woman touch him. Here Jesus says that she has been forgiven her many sins because she loved so much, and washing his feet with tears and perfume is an expression of this love.

 

[Arakhor]

Thank you to both of you for your answer.

 

[Angst]

Indeed. I wonder how much money could be redirected to the poor from anti-homosexuality lobbying efforts. Ah, but now I'm Judas bickering about the expense of perfume. If you can label anti-homosexuality lobby efforts as a gift given in kindness and love.

I rather think you're showcasing love for your next. Anti-homosexuality needs mockering rationalization to have any foundation at all. It's hateful. Love doesn't need such rationalization; it isn't hateful. The perfume simile does not apply here; lobbying against homosexuality is not what I'd consider as "love". You pointed this out nicely yourself.

I did not recall that part, however. Thanks for the reference. It was interesting.

 

[BvBPL]

enforced by Caesar?

What bars it?

For one, Ghost Writer has made a compelling case for Jesus divorcing His teachings from governmental systems. So what's to prevent Christians from utilizing government as a means to promote Christian values?

In addition, liberal democracies are not Caesar. Caesar was an authority largely unacceptable to his subjects. In contrast, democracies are accountable. That's a significant difference?

 

[JollyRoger]

enforced by Caesar?

No, David.

 

[GhostWriter16]

For one, Ghost Writer has made a compelling case for Jesus divorcing His teachings from governmental systems. So what's to prevent Christians from utilizing government as a means to promote Christian values?

What's funny is that when it comes to abortion or prayer in schools, liberals cry foul but when it comes to economics, then you want us to dictate our policy directly from Jesus' teaching.

The disconnect is ironic, if nothing else.

Its not that I explicitly want to divorce Jesus' teachings from policy, but that I think Jesus would oppose taking of money by force. Jesus supported VOLUNTARY sacrifice.

 

[BvBPL]

What's funny is that when it comes to abortion or prayer in schools, liberals cry foul but when it comes to economics, then you want us to dictate our policy directly from Jesus' teaching.

What's funny is that you can't accept that this thread is about Jesus and taxes and social welfare and not about abortion.

What's funny is that you can't seem to accept, at all, that someone can be a liberal and identify as a Christan, that a liberal may choose to support a welfare state policy but not abortion or not oppose prayer in schools, and that people might not fit exactly in your black and white worldview.

What's funny is that you pick and choose the elements of Jesus's teachings in a manner that supports your existing worldview without accepting your faith as not merely an affirmation of your current beliefs and practices but also a challenge to them.

Isn't that funny? Aren't you laughing?

 

[JollyRoger]

Jesus said nothing about abortion and didn't seem to be a big fan of the type of in-your-face praying that the prayer-in-school types are pushing for.

 

[Angst]

He did say no to public prayer iirc.