Jesus was worse than a socialist, apparently.

Seems to me that the more insistant one is that the Bible should be interpreted literally, the more selective one becomes over which passsages actually count.

And Jesus also loved guns, lipped off about gays and abortion, and wants imperialistic crusades.

Hey, I thought christians "are" being thrown to the lions. I just felt one bite me. Did you know that the eye of the needle is actually the name of a gate in the old Jerusalem wall? It was a small low gate designed for people traffic. For a camel to go through it, they would have to strip him of all the burdens he was carrying and the camel would have to crouch as low as he could and then he would have to squeeze through, but it could be done, it was just difficult.

Thank you.
fight fire with fire...

Hi, Peter Joseph Swanson. I like this hat better than the pumpkin hat.

Lee P,

Yes, the eye of the needle was hard to get a camel through, but being a gate, it was done if you were too late for the main gate. And Jesus was, regardless, lipping off against the rich. Jesus mocked the rich time and again. The whole Bible does.

TAX THE RICH !!!

Tax the Rich??? Well, that leaves me out, maybe they will leave my social security alone, or did I just open another can of worms. I think I've been too late for a "main gate" a time or two in my life, but it makes life interesting.

With the picture you so nicely painted of the struggle it would take to get a camel through that low gate, I bet Jesus got the crowd to howl in laughter, at the clumsy clown-like image of it all.

Mockingly laugh at the rich, too. Jesus did.

You never see me quote Bible verses except, very rarely, when I am quoting them to someone who I know has an in depth understanding of the Bible. To take quotes out of context, not only the context of the surrounding text, but out of the wholeness of their meaning as they relate to the rest of the Book, and without knowledge of how they relate is foolish, but typical of morons.

I grew up in a right wing Lutheran Bible school for 9 years - but I try not to be a moron, now.

Luckily for me they didn't have any high school age classes or I would have been stuck there 4 years more than that.

It's on the internet (to scare everybody):

http://www.stjamesqcy.org/

That has nothing to do with in depth knowledge of the Bible, Peter.

It wasn't a pumpkin hat it was a tomato! ;)

It certainly does when you are talking about a Missouri Synod Lutheran interpretation of it. Of course some of that Bible reading was rather worthless just because it was the King James translation. That was stupid. But we used lots of translations - Mostly the Thompson Chain Reference.

My one religion class in college was all about dogma - we didn't even open a Bible there.

And what is your formal religious education ???

I guess in the interests of honesty I should say that nobody really knows if Jesus of Nazareth said the eye of the needle bit. This stuff was not written down for a generation. Can you quote to me exactly what your friend told you in 1978?

I've studied the Bible, Peter, not only as the Word of God, in several bible studies with concordances over a period of years, but also as a literary piece, in a secular university setting, unrelated to any specific religion.

Yeah Chris W., and he didn't say it in English, either, or Greek, so it's hard to take literally when even modern English, spoken today, is so open for interpretation.

There is no doubt that Jesus asked followers to cast away any burdens that would stand in the way of helping the poor, sick, weak, and despised. He spoke of a personal transformation and didn't focus on "government programs," if you will.

He did openly mock authorities. Under Caesar's image on the coin of the realm was inscribed the phrase, "Son of God," a handle Jesus claimed for himself.

We are all sons of GOD once we realize it.

Chris,

I don't understand why this is so hard for you to wrap your brain around; it didn't work the last time I tried to point out this fundamental distinction for you, let's try it one more time:

Jesus asked his people to voluntarily set aside a portion of the proceeds of their labor, to help the destitute. He did NOT advocate that his people should form an organization, for the purpose of using violence and the threat thereof, in order to confiscate an arbitrarily-determined portion of everyone's income, and redistributing it according to the whim of some appointed bureaucracy.

Do you see the difference?

The crucial, fundamental distinction between individualist doctrine and collectivist doctrine, lies in the use of violence. Individualist doctrine holds that the only proper use of violence in society is in the protection and maintenance of the natural and intrinsic rights of every individual. Collectivist doctrine holds that individuals do not have rights; that violence may be used to infringe upon the persons and property of any individual or group, if it is perceived to benefit "society." This is why politicians do their utmost to indoctrinate society under collectivism; because it gives an air of legitimacy to their exercise of arbitrary dominion over the persons and properties of al of their subjects.

Individulaism does not preclude charity, generosity, fraternity, or any other social institution -- it only precludes the use of coercive force in attempting to establish any of them.
Individualists ("libertarians"), in general, recognize that people have a moral duty to contribute whatever is practicable to charity; to help those in need who are deserving of help (not everyone who is poor is deserving of charity -- people who squander their lives away, or who are lazy or unscrupulous -- have no right to expect charity from their fellow man; they certainly have no justifiable, enforcible claim to a portion of the wealth created by the productive members of society, to be taken by force and subsequently handed out to them).
Compulsory charity actually negates the exercise of that moral duty. When the funds are taken coercively by the State, then one can hardly be said to be exercising their moral duty to be generous.
Moral, ethical, and spiritual faculties -- just like physical faculties -- begin to atrophy and die when they are not exercised. The establishment of compulsory charity within a society eventually cripples the moral fabric of that society.
And this is outside the consideration that bureaucratic administration of charity is dehumanizing, inefficient, and conducive to dependency on the State.

Private charities tend to be more conducive to actually getting the funds to those who truly are needy and who are deserving of help; and are generally geared more towards getting people back on their feet, then they are of fostering dependency.

The existence of compulsory government charity tends to diminish the propensity to give to private (better) charities. People who might otherwise have given, take the position of "I don't have to worry about giving, the state is already taking care of it," and "I already gave, when I paid my taxes."

Hey Chris, I posed the following question and included the link to the full article at the bottom. I believe you will really enjoy it.

Was Jesus Christ A Liberal Socialist?

The first step to answer this question is to define the terms. Much disagreement exists not because those arguing fundamentally disagree, but because they’re simply defining terms differently.

If by “liberal socialist” one refers to a person who seeks to serve his fellow man with compassion and charity, and who spends his life voluntarily clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, liberating the captive, educating the ignorant, and caring for the sick and afflicted, then yes, Jesus Christ was a liberal socialist and we should all strive to be liberal socialists.


If being a liberal socialist means striving to attain just and equitable society, a society where there are no rich or poor, where all men are treated equally, then Jesus Christ was a liberal socialist. If liberal socialism means to give of our talents and substance to serve and uplift others, then Jesus Christ was a liberal socialist.

For those readers who are choking on my words, please read on carefully to digest the full context.

...While Jesus Christ demonstrated the path we should follow by washing Peter’s feet, He also taught, “Thou shalt not steal.” Interestingly, contemporary liberals and socialists break one of His laws in order to fulfill another. They justify theft in the name of charity — ironically rendering charity obsolete in the process.

I wholeheartedly agree with Barack Obama — and Jesus Christ — that the ideal society is one in which all citizens seek the interest of their neighbors and do everything in their power to serve and uplift the downtrodden, the oppressed, and the underprivileged. And I also believe and strive to adhere to the commandment, “Thou shalt not steal.”

Using the government to take from one person or group to give to another is an act of force. Strip away all of the nice-sounding language about “social justice” and the concept of the “village” and all it is is one person putting a gun to another’s head and saying, “You will give this money or you will be shot dead, or at the very least imprisoned.”

…a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” -Thomas Jefferson

If charity is not implemented on a voluntary basis it is thievery, it is moral cannibalism, and it fails every time, as proven throughout history.

So, was Jesus Christ a liberal socialist? It depends on the definitions and the context. Our challenge is to follow Him without resorting to force.

http://www.causeofliberty.com/2008/10/was-jesus-christ-a-liberal-socialist/

Here is a passage (which you should have included before Luke 18:25) where Jesus told a rich guy: "spread ALL of your wealth."

Luke 18:18-23
[18] A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
[19] "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good -- except God alone. [20] You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.'"
[21] "All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said.
[22] When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
[23] When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth.

granted, that tax policy is not the same as individuals donating to charities. But it needs to also be granted that every tax is also a de facto spreading around of wealth, and you cannot run a government without taxation.
"Tax and spend" can be a bad thing. "Spend but do not tax" is ALWAYS a bad thing- and that is what we have done the past 8 years.

We should also look a the word 'wealth" for it's content and context.

Wealth to most = money in the bank
Prosperity to most = money

Wealth to me can be a kiss from a child, a hug from a grandmother, the respect of fellow workers, the smile from a stranger on the street.

Prosperity to me - is happiness.

By my definitions, we can ALL be wealthy and prosperous. Which would you rather have?

We know money can't buy happiness - look at all those who have it, and those who pretend to have it (charge cards maxed out). Many wealthy people are divorced many times, children are on drugs, out of control, or ignore them all together. They work long and hard hours while ignoring their families.

What would you choose? MY definitions of wealth and prosperity, or the definitions most people utilize? And, how great would it be to teach others they can have it all too.

Jeff - "spread all your wealth" (but not at the point of a gun). I believe what he was trying to teach him, is the more you give, the more you get back.

I've seen that time and time again!

Chris - the bloated government has not lived within it's means. So, instead of additional "taxes" - THEY SNEAK taxes from us, by printing more money, inflation and deflation.

High gas prices is nothing more than a hidden tax. I don't believe for a second it is supply and demand, the propaganda we hear every day.

They should get out of mandating or very lives! What they have taken from us is much more valuable than money. Freedom! Last straw was stealing control of finances with the illegal "bailout". $700 Billion is the 1% down payment to the Trillions they will steal.

Never forget the hidden taxes of inflation and deflation. How much is our flat dollar worth today?

We lived better years ago in a FRACTION of the income we have today! They deliberately eliminated the middle class for more control over our lives.

Some great observations here in these comments ...

A government by Christian principles would be a lot more like those scriptures you quoted. Sadly, many people mix Christianity and the "religion of self-interest".

interesting