Does Jesus approve of science
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
ProbablyOverthinkingThisUsername wrote:
AspE wrote:
ProbablyOverthinkingThisUsername wrote:
...
While you're not wrong, I don't believe Jesus would be for government-mandated redistribution of wealth. The reason being, the act of voluntary giving is good for the soul; it teaches humility and mercy. If it shifts from "how can I help others" to "how am I required to help others" then it no longer helps the giver to become a better person, and the attitude of the receiver can quickly shift from thankfulness to entitlement. Just my 2c...
Anyway, on topic, I would think that any benevolent deity would applaud science if it is used to better the human condition. I doubt they'd even have issues with belief in evolution so long as they were not cut out of the picture entirely.
While you're not wrong, I don't believe Jesus would be for government-mandated redistribution of wealth. The reason being, the act of voluntary giving is good for the soul; it teaches humility and mercy. If it shifts from "how can I help others" to "how am I required to help others" then it no longer helps the giver to become a better person, and the attitude of the receiver can quickly shift from thankfulness to entitlement. Just my 2c...
Anyway, on topic, I would think that any benevolent deity would applaud science if it is used to better the human condition. I doubt they'd even have issues with belief in evolution so long as they were not cut out of the picture entirely.
The government is the people on a large scale, of course Jesus would approve of giving to the poor. I don't think Jesus would care about how giving helps the givers, he was more concerned about the people that needed food. f*****g conservatives.
That's awfully rude of you. By all means, disagree with me, but hurling insults is really unnecessary. I disagree with your assertion on the government, but this should really be moved to a separate thread.
I would encourage those interested to do some reading on the topic:
https://realtruth.org/articles/140610-007.html
https://www.openbible.info/topics/socialism
And, on topic: https://www.openbible.info/topics/science
The first one is perhaps the most relevant: "Great are the works of the Lord, studied by all who delight in them."
Whether socialism can be tied to Christ is questionable, as that economic philosophy didn't exist yet (though the early church certainly practiced a primitive communism), it's obvious that he, and a great part of the Bible, denounces the oppression of the poor by the rich. I'm not familiar with the links you presented, but I have to assume that they're of a fundamentalist/evangelical persuasion, which has sacrificed sound theology for the sake of conservative secular politics in more recent times.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
ProbablyOverthinkingThisUsername wrote:
AspE wrote:
ProbablyOverthinkingThisUsername wrote:
...
While you're not wrong, I don't believe Jesus would be for government-mandated redistribution of wealth. The reason being, the act of voluntary giving is good for the soul; it teaches humility and mercy. If it shifts from "how can I help others" to "how am I required to help others" then it no longer helps the giver to become a better person, and the attitude of the receiver can quickly shift from thankfulness to entitlement. Just my 2c...
Anyway, on topic, I would think that any benevolent deity would applaud science if it is used to better the human condition. I doubt they'd even have issues with belief in evolution so long as they were not cut out of the picture entirely.
While you're not wrong, I don't believe Jesus would be for government-mandated redistribution of wealth. The reason being, the act of voluntary giving is good for the soul; it teaches humility and mercy. If it shifts from "how can I help others" to "how am I required to help others" then it no longer helps the giver to become a better person, and the attitude of the receiver can quickly shift from thankfulness to entitlement. Just my 2c...
Anyway, on topic, I would think that any benevolent deity would applaud science if it is used to better the human condition. I doubt they'd even have issues with belief in evolution so long as they were not cut out of the picture entirely.
The government is the people on a large scale, of course Jesus would approve of giving to the poor. I don't think Jesus would care about how giving helps the givers, he was more concerned about the people that needed food. f*****g conservatives.
That's awfully rude of you. By all means, disagree with me, but hurling insults is really unnecessary. I disagree with your assertion on the government, but this should really be moved to a separate thread.
I would encourage those interested to do some reading on the topic:
https://realtruth.org/articles/140610-007.html
https://www.openbible.info/topics/socialism
And, on topic: https://www.openbible.info/topics/science
The first one is perhaps the most relevant: "Great are the works of the Lord, studied by all who delight in them."
Don't care, the Christian right are the biggest hypocrites on the planet.
AspE wrote:
Don't care, the Christian right are the biggest hypocrites on the planet.
I think Jesus thought the same sort of thing about the powerful religious people in his day when they used their religion as a way to get what they wanted or to beat the poor with rules and regualtions, judging everyone harshly. When he saw the Pharisees and Sadducees getting baptised by John he called them a brood of vipers. Later he names then as hypocrites too. He was really good at getting behind that hypocracy and popping it like a balloon. They weren't impressed though and eventually had him executed.
_________________
"That's no moon - it's a spacestation."
Diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ICD10)
Tim_Tex wrote:
I don't think Jesus was political at all.
This is what I have been (failing to, apparently) convey. The way the original post I responded to was phrased seemed to be implying that Christianity is best fulfilled through socialism (particularly with the remark about healthcare), which I took issue with. But yes, Jesus was not political because his teachings were not about earthly kingdoms, much to the annoyance of many of the Israelites at the time who really wanted him to be a leader to free them from Roman occupation.
Kraichgauer wrote:
Whether socialism can be tied to Christ is questionable, as that economic philosophy didn't exist yet (though the early church certainly practiced a primitive communism), it's obvious that he, and a great part of the Bible, denounces the oppression of the poor by the rich. I'm not familiar with the links you presented, but I have to assume that they're of a fundamentalist/evangelical persuasion, which has sacrificed sound theology for the sake of conservative secular politics in more recent times.
The second link is literally just Bible verses, the first is about the history of socialist theology.
The early church did share a lot of what they had, but voluntarily so, amongst themselves and those in need. They did not turn it into a political cause. I think that's the model Christianity really calls for.
AspE wrote:
Don't care, the Christian right are the biggest hypocrites on the planet.
Christians in western society do have a lot to answer for. The people pushing Christianity as a means to obtain wealth, the mega-churches reaping in oodles of cash, the Pope eating off gold plates, etc. are just as bad as the Pharasees in Jesus' day. Jesus would've had a field day with today's society, any way you slice it.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
ProbablyOverthinkingThisUsername wrote:
Tim_Tex wrote:
I don't think Jesus was political at all.
This is what I have been (failing to, apparently) convey. The way the original post I responded to was phrased seemed to be implying that Christianity is best fulfilled through socialism (particularly with the remark about healthcare), which I took issue with. But yes, Jesus was not political because his teachings were not about earthly kingdoms, much to the annoyance of many of the Israelites at the time who really wanted him to be a leader to free them from Roman occupation.
Kraichgauer wrote:
Whether socialism can be tied to Christ is questionable, as that economic philosophy didn't exist yet (though the early church certainly practiced a primitive communism), it's obvious that he, and a great part of the Bible, denounces the oppression of the poor by the rich. I'm not familiar with the links you presented, but I have to assume that they're of a fundamentalist/evangelical persuasion, which has sacrificed sound theology for the sake of conservative secular politics in more recent times.
The second link is literally just Bible verses, the first is about the history of socialist theology.
The early church did share a lot of what they had, but voluntarily so, amongst themselves and those in need. They did not turn it into a political cause. I think that's the model Christianity really calls for.
AspE wrote:
Don't care, the Christian right are the biggest hypocrites on the planet.
Christians in western society do have a lot to answer for. The people pushing Christianity as a means to obtain wealth, the mega-churches reaping in oodles of cash, the Pope eating off gold plates, etc. are just as bad as the Pharasees in Jesus' day. Jesus would've had a field day with today's society, any way you slice it.
Bible verses can often be used to say whatever you want them to say.
And a history of socialism can be slanted in a negative way, depending on who's writing it.
And sure, the early church shared voluntarily. It doesn't make it any less communistic.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Well, no, the definition of communism is that a totalitarian state owns all the means of production: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism
ProbablyOverthinkingThisUsername wrote:
Well, no, the definition of communism is that a totalitarian state owns all the means of production: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism
The dictionary is the last resort of people who have already lost the argument.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
ProbablyOverthinkingThisUsername wrote:
Well, no, the definition of communism is that a totalitarian state owns all the means of production: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism
Then communal, if that's better.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
AspE wrote:
ProbablyOverthinkingThisUsername wrote:
Well, no, the definition of communism is that a totalitarian state owns all the means of production: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism
The dictionary is the last resort of people who have already lost the argument.
How so? It's important that both people in any sort of discussion have the same understanding of what words they are using, otherwise it can go in circles without either side really making themselves understood.
Communal is a good word for it.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Does the community approve of self-diagnosis? |
02 Mar 2024, 6:58 pm |
Intelligent design has no place in science classrooms. |
17 Mar 2024, 8:20 pm |
The Science Behind the "Spinach Mouth Phenomenon" |
09 Apr 2024, 9:30 pm |