Jesus Was Liberal, Sadducees and Pharisees, Conservatives

Page 2 of 6 [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

24 Dec 2013, 11:02 pm

MCalavera wrote:
Mark 8:34-38
And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? For what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.”

Very liberal man that Jesus was.


I should have phrased that better: I'm not really sure why you directing this at me . . .


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

25 Dec 2013, 12:40 am

He wanted to save the sinners. This is well known and no one is arguing against it. This passage does not suggest he is a conservative. A conservative would not want to save the sinner. A conservative doesn't care about them.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

25 Dec 2013, 2:13 am

The passage shows that he had a sense of grandiosity about him that was quite delusional. But then again, you're familiar with that sense, OP.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,720

25 Dec 2013, 2:44 am

MCalavera wrote:
The passage shows that he had a sense of grandiosity about him that was quite delusional. But then again, you're familiar with that sense, OP.


Well friend whether or not you live it..regardless of what the target of the belief or faith may be..they are real attributes for some individuals..that are extremely beneficial..to health and welfare in the now of the moment..

And yes that was all the real historical Jesus was concerned with ..the moment of now..

And a person's will of ability through belief and faith to make good things happen for themselves...

He was just there to inspire..the folks with the faith and belief did all the leg work..

As JUST IS the case today..as faith and belief are a cornerstone of the health and welfare of many individuals..but no.. not all..as these attributes may not exist at all in some folks..that some people describe comparably as dead in affect and even potential effect too..

It's pretty obvious that the OP is more of a happy blissful type of individual than most folks on this internet site..and all i can say about that is you go girl.....

Well anyway i've been to that place of heaven and bliss in NOW that is the power of belief and faith..

And well..i've been in that place of hell and the abyss that is the deficit of power of belief and faith..

And just in my opinion..i'll choose the place the OP lives..at least a thousand times over that place i experienced without faith or belief..or what i describe as human hell..

As i am one of the fortunate ones or what one might call one with the grace or blessings of this thing some people describe as GOD or the Christ Consciousness or 'whatever'....

As i have been living in the 'better' place as far as i see..most of my life..and nah i have faith and belief that i ain't going back to 'human hell' again...

That cold dark place of little to no faith or belief in a higher power..that yes does exist for those who know it and take full advantage of IT....

Anyway i keep getting older stronger..and healthier..as long as i live in the LIGHT OF FAITH AND BELIEF..OR THAT THING THE HISTORICAL JESUS WAS TALKING TO IN REFERENCE TO THIS THING CALLED CHRIST..THE HIGHER POWER OF WHAT IS...

THAT YES..EXISTS ONLY FOR SOME PEOPLE..

AND NO.. 'GOD' IS NOT FAIR..NOT MUCH TO DO ABOUT THAT..AS IT IS WHAT IT IS...

BUT STILL BETTER TO BE IN THE BEST PLACE..THAN THE COLDEST PLACE OF A METAPHORICAL HUMAN HELL....

IN YAH..MY FRIEND..JUST MY OPINION..BUT THE BENEFITS FOR ME ARE SIMPLY BLISS..AND A PEACEFUL WAY OF LIFE...THAT I WOULD HOPE ANYONE COULD ATTAIN..THAT KEPT WORKING AT HAVING FAITH AND BELIEF IN A HIGHER POWER..

BUT HOPE IS ALL THAT IS.....

OR SHORTER PUT..

HOPE IS ALL tHERE IS....

AND MOST HORRIFYING TO BE SEPARATED FROM IT...

Again in just my opinion..

But that's what this true will under love without doing any harm to others..is all about..

True Will for the individual..not necessarily reflective of the top of the bell curve of the herd.....

And yah..the OP is doing a very fine job of doing that core beauty of existence....


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

25 Dec 2013, 7:09 am

I don't personally find narcissism to be beautiful.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,612

25 Dec 2013, 10:49 am

I find this amusing and disturbing.

"If Jesus came back today, he'd be a socialist." That's the philosophy of Liberation Theology.

Conservative = to adhere to the rules.

Liberal = to deviate from the rules.

Jesus instructed us to care for the poor. Jesus DID NOT instruct us to take by force from those who have and give to those who do not.

God blesseth the cheerful giver.

When Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead by God in the New Testament, it WAS NOT because they didn't give every penny of the property they sold to the church. They were struck down for LYING about having given every penny of the sale to the church. The church body agreed that all would sell of what they had and give the proceeds to the church to fund ministry operations. There was no mandate to give every penny, but that's what most did. Ananias and Sapphira wanted the credit for having given all but yet wanted to keep a portion for themselves. They didn't just lie to the people in their congregation...they tried to lie to God.

Quote:
3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
Acts 5:3-4


The needs of humanity are to be tended to by the WILLING offerings of people who are moved with compassion for those in need. It is not a mandate upon the state nor is it moral to use the state to compel supporting those in need by taking from the unwilling.

Using someone else to rob your neighbor doesn't make you generous or merciful or considerate of others...it makes you an accessory to robbery before the fact.

There are many things a state could do to ENCOURAGE people to build a support structure for those in need, but that line should stop at robbing people via taxation to pay for programs they may not want to support.

And that doesn't even touch the argument about how fiscally effective government programs are compared to a private charity. Government is grossly inefficient and fails to help many because of the rules and regulations imposed on the assistance offered. Private charities are answerable to their donors and gain/lose funding based on how good a job they are perceived to be doing in the community.

***

The Pharisees and Sadducees were in love with the political power they wielded. Power tends to corrupt. They knew the law to the last jot and tittle, but they had long ago lost the SPIRIT of what the law was telling them to do. Like many people (including Christians) today, they had made a list of Do's and Don'ts to follow and figured as long as they did that, all was good, but they were spiritually twisted and dead on the inside.

Jesus didn't negate the law. Jesus fulfilled/perfected it. The Pharisees and Sadducees made the law rigid, inflexible and dead. Jesus showed that you could fulfill the law by simply loving God with all your heart, mind and strength AND loving your neighbor as you love yourself.

None of that is really "liberal" or "conservative."

***

I know "liberals" who genuinely want to help others. To that end, they want more and bigger government programs (which we can't afford) to give that help. They want that because they know they can't do it themselves. THEIR SIN (other than stealing from one man to give to another) IS LAZINESS. They have good intentions, but they are unwilling to put in the personal effort and sacrifice to obtain enough support from WILLING donors to achieve their goal. They want the state to do it all for them, and they take false moral justification from supporting a system that steals from all to support a few as being the same as having done the work of helping the poor themselves.

These people are no different from the Jews who demanded that the Romans crucify Jesus. Under Jewish law, there was no basis to execute Jesus. No law was broken. The elders had to take him to Pilate, who after much questioning found no basis for execution. When he offered the Jews a choice between freeing Jesus or Barbabas, the elders got the crowd to scream for Barabbas...a noted murderer...so that Jesus would be put to death. The Romans may have done the deed, but the Jews also have blood on their hands. The same is true of the liberal who wants the state to steal from their neighbor to direct funds to those they feel deserve to be helped. It's not benevolence...it's violence...and it's wrong.

***

I also know "conservatives" who genuinely want to help others. Many do support charities, but they can be a little discompassionate (to put it mildly). They may limit how many charities they want to support, or the nature of help they want to give. It's similar to groups that help endangered animals. If the animal of choice is cute or beautiful to look at, they do much better attracting donors. If the animal of choice is repugnant, it often gets no aid. People want to save the cute animals, not all endangered animals.

Should you be forced to lift yourself up by your own bootstraps? In many cases, YES. However, that doesn't work in all cases, and it takes a lot of compassion and discernment to determine when a person in need is just having a pity party and needs a good kick in the pants to get them out of the rut they've put themselves in from when a person really can't help themselves and needs someone to lean on for months or years to get to a better place.

Most conservatives get where they get by self-reliance and not depending on others to carry them. It worked for them, so why shouldn't it work for you, right? Well, life isn't that cut and dry.

These people (off hand) remind me of the priest and the Levite who walked past the naked man left beaten and naked in the street. It was the Samaritan who came to his aid. Why didn't the priest or Levite help the man?

***

People generally are unbalanced. We gravitate towards one end of the spectrum or the other. As a whole, you'd think we'd balance out, and maybe we do.

If you want to selectively glean the Bible about the nature of God, the mandates/laws of God, or the acts and teachings of Jesus, you can support most any ridiculous proposition you can come up with. However, if you look at it all as a whole, you realize God is neither Liberal nor Conservative. He has elements of both, but perhaps the best word to describe God (in this case) is that God is WISE. God knows when you need to be cradled in his arms and nursed from a bottle, and God knows when you're being pathetic and need a good swift kick in the butt to snap you out of your stupor. God answers the situation with what is needed in the situation.

The goal of the application of "justice" is to dish out to each offender a consequence that both upholds the law and is sensitive to the unique circumstances of each case. This is why you might give a man six months in jail for sealing bread to sell to others but another man six months of community service for stealing bread to feed his family. The breaking of the law mandates a punishment, but the punishment should be sensitive to the motivation behind why the law was broken.

The existence of mercy means the law can not be inflexible, but for the law to be flexible, it must be administered with WISDOM. When a judge is unwise in the administration of justice, laws are adjusted to deprives the judge of his discretion in determining punishment. This, in turn, makes the law inflexible and harsh...without mercy.

There is no place for a "hang 'em high" conservative judge or a "revolving door" liberal judge. You need a judge who upholds the law with wisdom and mercy. Likewise, people need to judge issues in society with wisdom and mercy. Without that, you will gravitate to an extreme and fail to be what God/Jesus instructs of you.



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

25 Dec 2013, 10:54 am

^well stated


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 85
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

25 Dec 2013, 11:30 am

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
There's a difference between old-fashioned liberalism and the modern-day Liberal Left (note the capitals). The Pharisees were hypocrites who cared more about maintaining their own power than being servants of the people. The problem with the LL crowd is that their core worldview demands a complete denial of objective morality across the board, where no distinction is accepted as any more right or wrong than another...except of course, their own.

Jesus was a revolutionary, to be sure...but He understood the facts of certain things needing to remain as they were. He refused to personally condemn the woman the Sanhedrin caught in the act of adultery, but also told her to leave her life of sin. The main philosophy of the Liberal Left can be best summed up like this...

1) If truth is always subjective, then morality doesn't mean anything beyond opinion.
2) If morality doesn't mean anything beyond opinion, sin doesn't exist.
3) If sin doesn't exist, there's no need for a Savior.

The entire process falls apart with the first step though, because insisting truth is always subjective is in fact an objective philosophy.


The Modern Liberal is a collectivist, one who puts the society ahead of the individual, one who believes that Need should determine who gets what.

ruveyn



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

25 Dec 2013, 1:30 pm

MCalavera wrote:
The passage shows that he had a sense of grandiosity about him that was quite delusional. But then again, you're familiar with that sense, OP.

No need for cheap shots. I am in no way delusional. Just trying to show people the way. I feel like it's my duty to help get the message of the real Jesus through to people



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

25 Dec 2013, 2:22 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
I find this amusing and disturbing.

"If Jesus came back today, he'd be a socialist." That's the philosophy of Liberation Theology.

His ideas were socialistic compared to the mores of his day. Put him in context, please. He revolted against the established order. He violated the laws of His day. There is nothing suggesting He is conservative. He spent his time freely and handed out goodies to the poor who attended his meetings, according to the Gospels.

Quote:
Conservative = to adhere to the rules.

Liberal = to deviate from the rules.

Jesus instructed us to care for the poor. Jesus DID NOT instruct us to take by force from those who have and give to those who do not.

God blesseth the cheerful giver.

Jesus would want governments to care for the poor, the way His ministry did. That is what He was all about. He wanted to help the ones who were thrown under a bus by society. It was one of the main things He did. If you deny this, you are really missing the point of Christianity and what made Him truly different than the others. Keep in mind, back then, zero separation between religion and the state so Jesus would have no concept of such an idea. In fact, Jesus would probably want to see government and Church fused together with the governments spending a lot of money on people, judging from His ministry, if you are to believe what the Gospels say. I focus more on these books than the books written later because these were created by people other than Jesus attempting to mold the church in their image.

Quote:
When Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead by God in the New Testament, it WAS NOT because they didn't give every penny of the property they sold to the church. They were struck down for LYING about having given every penny of the sale to the church. The church body agreed that all would sell of what they had and give the proceeds to the church to fund ministry operations. There was no mandate to give every penny, but that's what most did. Ananias and Sapphira wanted the credit for having given all but yet wanted to keep a portion for themselves. They didn't just lie to the people in their congregation...they tried to lie to God.

Quote:
3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
Acts 5:3-4

Um, doesn't that sound like Jesus wanted His followers to own nothing and for the Church (His ministry) to own everything? That's how it appears but I am sure you will come up with an excuse of some kind to hide this fact.
Quote:
The needs of humanity are to be tended to by the WILLING offerings of people who are moved with compassion for those in need. It is not a mandate upon the state nor is it moral to use the state to compel supporting those in need by taking from the unwilling.

Using someone else to rob your neighbor doesn't make you generous or merciful or considerate of others...it makes you an accessory to robbery before the fact.

There are many things a state could do to ENCOURAGE people to build a support structure for those in need, but that line should stop at robbing people via taxation to pay for programs they may not want to support.

And that doesn't even touch the argument about how fiscally effective government programs are compared to a private charity. Government is grossly inefficient and fails to help many because of the rules and regulations imposed on the assistance offered. Private charities are answerable to their donors and gain/lose funding based on how good a job they are perceived to be doing in the community.

***

That doesn't seem to be the message of Jesus. He saw a need and wanted people to address it. He was focused more on society than individuals. He was a socialist. No doubt about it.

Quote:
The Pharisees and Sadducees were in love with the political power they wielded. Power tends to corrupt. They knew the law to the last jot and tittle, but they had long ago lost the SPIRIT of what the law was telling them to do. Like many people (including Christians) today, they had made a list of Do's and Don'ts to follow and figured as long as they did that, all was good, but they were spiritually twisted and dead on the inside.

Jesus didn't negate the law. Jesus fulfilled/perfected it. The Pharisees and Sadducees made the law rigid, inflexible and dead. Jesus showed that you could fulfill the law by simply loving God with all your heart, mind and strength AND loving your neighbor as you love yourself.

None of that is really "liberal" or "conservative."

***

That's pretty much what liberals want to do. Not see things so much in black and white. Conservatives are just as corrupt as anyone on the left and they thirst for power just as strongly. Power corrupts all, including conservatives.

Quote:
I know "liberals" who genuinely want to help others. To that end, they want more and bigger government programs (which we can't afford) to give that help. They want that because they know they can't do it themselves. THEIR SIN (other than stealing from one man to give to another) IS LAZINESS. They have good intentions, but they are unwilling to put in the personal effort and sacrifice to obtain enough support from WILLING donors to achieve their goal. They want the state to do it all for them, and they take false moral justification from supporting a system that steals from all to support a few as being the same as having done the work of helping the poor themselves.

These people are no different from the Jews who demanded that the Romans crucify Jesus. Under Jewish law, there was no basis to execute Jesus. No law was broken. The elders had to take him to Pilate, who after much questioning found no basis for execution. When he offered the Jews a choice between freeing Jesus or Barbabas, the elders got the crowd to scream for Barabbas...a noted murderer...so that Jesus would be put to death. The Romans may have done the deed, but the Jews also have blood on their hands. The same is true of the liberal who wants the state to steal from their neighbor to direct funds to those they feel deserve to be helped. It's not benevolence...it's violence...and it's wrong.

***

We can afford it and as Christians, it is your duty to insist on a better society and focus on fixing societal issues. This is what the New Testament says we should do.

Quote:
I also know "conservatives" who genuinely want to help others. Many do support charities, but they can be a little discompassionate (to put it mildly). They may limit how many charities they want to support, or the nature of help they want to give. It's similar to groups that help endangered animals. If the animal of choice is cute or beautiful to look at, they do much better attracting donors. If the animal of choice is repugnant, it often gets no aid. People want to save the cute animals, not all endangered animals.

Should you be forced to lift yourself up by your own bootstraps? In many cases, YES. However, that doesn't work in all cases, and it takes a lot of compassion and discernment to determine when a person in need is just having a pity party and needs a good kick in the pants to get them out of the rut they've put themselves in from when a person really can't help themselves and needs someone to lean on for months or years to get to a better place.

Most conservatives get where they get by self-reliance and not depending on others to carry them. It worked for them, so why shouldn't it work for you, right? Well, life isn't that cut and dry.

These people (off hand) remind me of the priest and the Levite who walked past the naked man left beaten and naked in the street. It was the Samaritan who came to his aid. Why didn't the priest or Levite help the man?

***

Conservatives only care about themselves and what they can get out of something, their profit. That's it. They don't wish to help others unless they gain at the same time. This is not what's in the Bible, in fact, it's what Jesus revolted against at the Temple. He wanted to kick out the money changers from His father's house and get back to spirituality and the true meaning of mysticism which isn't what one gains in material. Oh, by the way, Christianity is one of the true poverty religions, meaning its followers are instructed to live in poverty and that the poorer they are on earth, the richer they will be in heaven. Didn't you know? Read your NT.

Quote:
People generally are unbalanced. We gravitate towards one end of the spectrum or the other. As a whole, you'd think we'd balance out, and maybe we do.

If you want to selectively glean the Bible about the nature of God, the mandates/laws of God, or the acts and teachings of Jesus, you can support most any ridiculous proposition you can come up with. However, if you look at it all as a whole, you realize God is neither Liberal nor Conservative. He has elements of both, but perhaps the best word to describe God (in this case) is that God is WISE. God knows when you need to be cradled in his arms and nursed from a bottle, and God knows when you're being pathetic and need a good swift kick in the butt to snap you out of your stupor. God answers the situation with what is needed in the situation.

The goal of the application of "justice" is to dish out to each offender a consequence that both upholds the law and is sensitive to the unique circumstances of each case. This is why you might give a man six months in jail for sealing bread to sell to others but another man six months of community service for stealing bread to feed his family. The breaking of the law mandates a punishment, but the punishment should be sensitive to the motivation behind why the law was broken.

The existence of mercy means the law can not be inflexible, but for the law to be flexible, it must be administered with WISDOM. When a judge is unwise in the administration of justice, laws are adjusted to deprives the judge of his discretion in determining punishment. This, in turn, makes the law inflexible and harsh...without mercy.

There is no place for a "hang 'em high" conservative judge or a "revolving door" liberal judge. You need a judge who upholds the law with wisdom and mercy. Likewise, people need to judge issues in society with wisdom and mercy. Without that, you will gravitate to an extreme and fail to be what God/Jesus instructs of you.

Paul says a lot about the beauty of charity or
"mercy" depending on how you translate. You should read up on it. He changed from being a harsh, inflexible conservative of the state to a kinder, softer , more "liberal" follower of Christ after he had the vision on the road to Damascus. You conservatives, think of yourselves like Saul, then morph into Paul.

Truth is, Jesus was on the side of the impoverished people, not the conservative, profit mongers. The sick lepers, the poor, the dirty, unclean, disgusting people who have nothing to give in return. He embraced these people. That is the truth it is right there in the Gospels. Its a truth Christians rarely wish to acknowledge.
It's time to demonstrate the same kind of wisdom He had in such matters. When society improves, we are all better off.



Last edited by ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo on 25 Dec 2013, 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,720

25 Dec 2013, 2:39 pm

MCalavera wrote:
I don't personally find narcissism to be beautiful.


I do not know who you are addressing ..but if you are addresing me apparently ya don't know much about narcissism..

Narccissists cannot live without the approval of other people...

Haha..if it ain
t obvious i don't care what people think about me per my unusual actions that aren't within the norm of the herd..

You are not paying much attention to me..

But that
s kool dude..cause i ain't looking for anyone's approval or affirmations..or attention either..,

I'm interdependent on folks in real life..not this online stuff..that is an amusing distraction for me...Yea dude that's just assertive...

Making what i perceive and believe as knownow...

IS ALL..sharing it for those who care to hear it...and to ignore just as easily too,..as i would ignore silly personal attacks like this..if it wasn't an amusing distraction...while i' m waiting on CHristmas lunch.....


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,720

25 Dec 2013, 2:47 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
I find this amusing and disturbing.

"If Jesus came back today, he'd be a socialist." That's the philosophy of Liberation Theology.

His ideas were socialistic compared to the mores of his day. Put him in context, please. He revolted against the established order. He violated the laws of His day. There is nothing suggesting He is conservative. He spent his time freely and handed out goodies to the poor who attended his meetings, according to the Gospels.

Quote:
Conservative = to adhere to the rules.

Liberal = to deviate from the rules.

Jesus instructed us to care for the poor. Jesus DID NOT instruct us to take by force from those who have and give to those who do not.

God blesseth the cheerful giver.

Jesus would want governments to care for the poor, the way His ministry did. That is what He was all about. He wanted to help the ones who were thrown under a bus by society. It was one of the main things He did. If you deny this, you are really missing the point of Christianity and what made Him truly different than the others. Keep in mind, back then, zero separation between religion and the state so Jesus would have no concept of such an idea. In fact, Jesus would probably want to see government and Church fused together with the governments spending a lot of money on people, judging from His ministry, if you are to believe what the Gospels say. I focus more on these books than the books written later because these were created by people other than Jesus attempting to mold the church in their image.

Quote:
When Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead by God in the New Testament, it WAS NOT because they didn't give every penny of the property they sold to the church. They were struck down for LYING about having given every penny of the sale to the church. The church body agreed that all would sell of what they had and give the proceeds to the church to fund ministry operations. There was no mandate to give every penny, but that's what most did. Ananias and Sapphira wanted the credit for having given all but yet wanted to keep a portion for themselves. They didn't just lie to the people in their congregation...they tried to lie to God.

Quote:
3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
Acts 5:3-4

Um, doesn't that sound like Jesus wanted His followers to own nothing and for the Church (His ministry) to own everything? That's how it appears but I am sure you will come up with an excuse of some kind to hide this fact.
Quote:
The needs of humanity are to be tended to by the WILLING offerings of people who are moved with compassion for those in need. It is not a mandate upon the state nor is it moral to use the state to compel supporting those in need by taking from the unwilling.

Using someone else to rob your neighbor doesn't make you generous or merciful or considerate of others...it makes you an accessory to robbery before the fact.

There are many things a state could do to ENCOURAGE people to build a support structure for those in need, but that line should stop at robbing people via taxation to pay for programs they may not want to support.

And that doesn't even touch the argument about how fiscally effective government programs are compared to a private charity. Government is grossly inefficient and fails to help many because of the rules and regulations imposed on the assistance offered. Private charities are answerable to their donors and gain/lose funding based on how good a job they are perceived to be doing in the community.

***

That doesn't seem to be the message of Jesus. He saw a need and wanted people to address it. He was focused more on society than individuals. He was a socialist. No doubt about it.

Quote:
The Pharisees and Sadducees were in love with the political power they wielded. Power tends to corrupt. They knew the law to the last jot and tittle, but they had long ago lost the SPIRIT of what the law was telling them to do. Like many people (including Christians) today, they had made a list of Do's and Don'ts to follow and figured as long as they did that, all was good, but they were spiritually twisted and dead on the inside.

Jesus didn't negate the law. Jesus fulfilled/perfected it. The Pharisees and Sadducees made the law rigid, inflexible and dead. Jesus showed that you could fulfill the law by simply loving God with all your heart, mind and strength AND loving your neighbor as you love yourself.

None of that is really "liberal" or "conservative."

***

That's pretty much what liberals want to do. Not see things so much in black and white. Conservatives are just as corrupt as anyone on the left and they thirst for power just as strongly. Power corrupts all, including conservatives.

Quote:
I know "liberals" who genuinely want to help others. To that end, they want more and bigger government programs (which we can't afford) to give that help. They want that because they know they can't do it themselves. THEIR SIN (other than stealing from one man to give to another) IS LAZINESS. They have good intentions, but they are unwilling to put in the personal effort and sacrifice to obtain enough support from WILLING donors to achieve their goal. They want the state to do it all for them, and they take false moral justification from supporting a system that steals from all to support a few as being the same as having done the work of helping the poor themselves.

These people are no different from the Jews who demanded that the Romans crucify Jesus. Under Jewish law, there was no basis to execute Jesus. No law was broken. The elders had to take him to Pilate, who after much questioning found no basis for execution. When he offered the Jews a choice between freeing Jesus or Barbabas, the elders got the crowd to scream for Barabbas...a noted murderer...so that Jesus would be put to death. The Romans may have done the deed, but the Jews also have blood on their hands. The same is true of the liberal who wants the state to steal from their neighbor to direct funds to those they feel deserve to be helped. It's not benevolence...it's violence...and it's wrong.

***

We can afford it and as Christians, it is your duty to insist on a better society and focus on fixing societal issues. This is what the New Testament says we should do.

Quote:
I also know "conservatives" who genuinely want to help others. Many do support charities, but they can be a little discompassionate (to put it mildly). They may limit how many charities they want to support, or the nature of help they want to give. It's similar to groups that help endangered animals. If the animal of choice is cute or beautiful to look at, they do much better attracting donors. If the animal of choice is repugnant, it often gets no aid. People want to save the cute animals, not all endangered animals.

Should you be forced to lift yourself up by your own bootstraps? In many cases, YES. However, that doesn't work in all cases, and it takes a lot of compassion and discernment to determine when a person in need is just having a pity party and needs a good kick in the pants to get them out of the rut they've put themselves in from when a person really can't help themselves and needs someone to lean on for months or years to get to a better place.

Most conservatives get where they get by self-reliance and not depending on others to carry them. It worked for them, so why shouldn't it work for you, right? Well, life isn't that cut and dry.

These people (off hand) remind me of the priest and the Levite who walked past the naked man left beaten and naked in the street. It was the Samaritan who came to his aid. Why didn't the priest or Levite help the man?

***

Conservatives only care about themselves and what they can get out of something, their profit. That's it. They don't wish to help others unless they gain at the same time. This is not what's in the Bible, in fact, it's what Jesus revolted against at the Temple. He wanted to kick out the money changers from His father's house and get back to spirituality and the true meaning of mysticism which isn't what one gains in material. Oh, by the way, Christianity is one of the true poverty religions, meaning its followers are instructed to live in poverty and that the poorer they are on earth, the richer they will be in heaven. Didn't you know? Read your NT.

Quote:
People generally are unbalanced. We gravitate towards one end of the spectrum or the other. As a whole, you'd think we'd balance out, and maybe we do.

If you want to selectively glean the Bible about the nature of God, the mandates/laws of God, or the acts and teachings of Jesus, you can support most any ridiculous proposition you can come up with. However, if you look at it all as a whole, you realize God is neither Liberal nor Conservative. He has elements of both, but perhaps the best word to describe God (in this case) is that God is WISE. God knows when you need to be cradled in his arms and nursed from a bottle, and God knows when you're being pathetic and need a good swift kick in the butt to snap you out of your stupor. God answers the situation with what is needed in the situation.

The goal of the application of "justice" is to dish out to each offender a consequence that both upholds the law and is sensitive to the unique circumstances of each case. This is why you might give a man six months in jail for sealing bread to sell to others but another man six months of community service for stealing bread to feed his family. The breaking of the law mandates a punishment, but the punishment should be sensitive to the motivation behind why the law was broken.

The existence of mercy means the law can not be inflexible, but for the law to be flexible, it must be administered with WISDOM. When a judge is unwise in the administration of justice, laws are adjusted to deprives the judge of his discretion in determining punishment. This, in turn, makes the law inflexible and harsh...without mercy.

There is no place for a "hang 'em high" conservative judge or a "revolving door" liberal judge. You need a judge who upholds the law with wisdom and mercy. Likewise, people need to judge issues in society with wisdom and mercy. Without that, you will gravitate to an extreme and fail to be what God/Jesus instructs of you.

Paul says a lot about the beauty of charity or
"mercy" depending on how you translate. You should read up on it. He changed from being a harsh, inflexible conservative of the state to a kinder, softer , more "liberal" follower of Christ after he had the vision on the road to Damascus. You conservatives, think of yourselves like Saul, then morph into Paul.

Truth is, Jesus was on the side of the impoverished people, not the conservative, profit mongers. The sick lepers, the poor, the dirty, unclean, disgusting people who have nothing to give in return. He embraced these people. That is the truth it is right there in the Gospels. Its a truth Christians rarely wish to acknowledge.
It's time to demonstrate the same kind of wisdom He had in such matters. When society improves, we are all better off.


Well.. i think i'll just quote this for truth..as the OP obviously knows who the true historical Jesus was..and everything she speaks here..simply IS THE TRUTH...OF HOW TO TREAT OTHER PEOPLE IN LIFE..SIMPLY WITH LOVE AND COMPASSION......


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,791
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Dec 2013, 4:47 pm

buffinator wrote:
As a jew, the biggest problem I have with the Cristian dogma that "Jesus died for our sins" and the miryiad interpretations that has led to. The thing I find most frustrating is that conservative Cristian do not keep kosher, maintain the sabbath or follow even the basic tenets of God's laws. They argue that Jesus died to absolve their sins and so they are no longer bound by the old testament. The only problem with that is that the old testament wasn't a punishment, it was a gift. It was and is god's law. Arguably the bible and the Koran are also books of god's law depending on who you ask. "Jesus died to absolve us of our sins" does not absolve one's responsibility to follow God's law. What sins, then, did Jesus die to absolve? Jesus did not die to absolve us from god's law. He died to save us from annihilation and god's wrath.

The sacrifice of Jesus was in direct response to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. In S&G god warned his disciples that the cities would be destroyed for their sinfulness and that they should leave and not look back. His disciples tried to save the cities and god agreed that if they could find good men within the city he would spare them all. Again and again the diciples failed to find any good sodomites or gomorrians and the bar was lowered and lowered until god's disciples could not find one good man to save and the cities were destroyed. Even the wives and children who looked back on the cities with longing were smote onto dust in their husband's arms.

The apostles of Jesus served as a safeguard against this. They were the good men Jesus could turn to and say onto god "here are good men worth saving." The betrayal of Judas changed that, however. Jesus could no longer trust that his apostles were the men he had hoped they were. When god gave him new life and offered him sanctuary from the oncoming storm Jesus offered himself as the one good man to save humanity from God's wrath and so god smote his soul to save ours.

Those who call themselves Christians are an insult to the memory of Jesus for calling to his name for help when he has already given them everything. They are an insult to God for profaning his name and abandoning his laws.


According to ruveyn, those OT laws only applied to Jews, not Gentiles.
And it should also be pointed out, Judaism divides Jews from the rest of humanity, while Christianity made everyone equal in God's eyes.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

25 Dec 2013, 5:56 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
buffinator wrote:
As a jew, the biggest problem I have with the Cristian dogma that "Jesus died for our sins" and the miryiad interpretations that has led to. The thing I find most frustrating is that conservative Cristian do not keep kosher, maintain the sabbath or follow even the basic tenets of God's laws. They argue that Jesus died to absolve their sins and so they are no longer bound by the old testament. The only problem with that is that the old testament wasn't a punishment, it was a gift. It was and is god's law. Arguably the bible and the Koran are also books of god's law depending on who you ask. "Jesus died to absolve us of our sins" does not absolve one's responsibility to follow God's law. What sins, then, did Jesus die to absolve? Jesus did not die to absolve us from god's law. He died to save us from annihilation and god's wrath.

The sacrifice of Jesus was in direct response to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. In S&G god warned his disciples that the cities would be destroyed for their sinfulness and that they should leave and not look back. His disciples tried to save the cities and god agreed that if they could find good men within the city he would spare them all. Again and again the diciples failed to find any good sodomites or gomorrians and the bar was lowered and lowered until god's disciples could not find one good man to save and the cities were destroyed. Even the wives and children who looked back on the cities with longing were smote onto dust in their husband's arms.

The apostles of Jesus served as a safeguard against this. They were the good men Jesus could turn to and say onto god "here are good men worth saving." The betrayal of Judas changed that, however. Jesus could no longer trust that his apostles were the men he had hoped they were. When god gave him new life and offered him sanctuary from the oncoming storm Jesus offered himself as the one good man to save humanity from God's wrath and so god smote his soul to save ours.

Those who call themselves Christians are an insult to the memory of Jesus for calling to his name for help when he has already given them everything. They are an insult to God for profaning his name and abandoning his laws.


According to ruveyn, those OT laws only applied to Jews, not Gentiles.
And it should also be pointed out, Judaism divides Jews from the rest of humanity, while Christianity made everyone equal in God's eyes.

This goes even further to suggest there're some liberal ideas at work. Not necessarily Jesus in this respect since he was not the one who decided gentiles should be included in his ministry but some of the apostles, yes, they could be considered liberal as well.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,612

25 Dec 2013, 5:57 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Jesus would want governments to care for the poor, the way His ministry did. That is what He was all about. He wanted to help the ones who were thrown under a bus by society. It was one of the main things He did. If you deny this, you are really missing the point of Christianity and what made Him truly different than the others. Keep in mind, back then, zero separation between religion and the state so Jesus would have no concept of such an idea. In fact, Jesus would probably want to see government and Church fused together with the governments spending a lot of money on people, judging from His ministry, if you are to believe what the Gospels say. I focus more on these books than the books written later because these were created by people other than Jesus attempting to mold the church in their image.


Maybe Jesus did, but then you are advocating that the USA should become a Christian THEOCRACY. We are a REPUBLIC with limited government and the cause of the poor IS NOT the job of government.

One of the laughable issues I have with liberals who say, "It's what Jesus would do" is the way they miss the fact that (1) we don't live in a system of government where the state must conform to religious rules and (2) to do what Jesus would want us to do would require we do EVERYTHING the way Jesus said we should do it.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

25 Dec 2013, 6:23 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Jesus would want governments to care for the poor, the way His ministry did. That is what He was all about. He wanted to help the ones who were thrown under a bus by society. It was one of the main things He did. If you deny this, you are really missing the point of Christianity and what made Him truly different than the others. Keep in mind, back then, zero separation between religion and the state so Jesus would have no concept of such an idea. In fact, Jesus would probably want to see government and Church fused together with the governments spending a lot of money on people, judging from His ministry, if you are to believe what the Gospels say. I focus more on these books than the books written later because these were created by people other than Jesus attempting to mold the church in their image.


Maybe Jesus did, but then you are advocating that the USA should become a Christian THEOCRACY. We are a REPUBLIC with limited government and the cause of the poor IS NOT the job of government.

One of the laughable issues I have with liberals who say, "It's what Jesus would do" is the way they miss the fact that (1) we don't live in a system of government where the state must conform to religious rules and (2) to do what Jesus would want us to do would require we do EVERYTHING the way Jesus said we should do it.

That's what The Right wants anyway so if that's going to be the case they had better go all the way instead of just insisting on their version. In other words, this country would be quite socialistic. Abolish the death penalty and no one should have any problem with people having loads of kids that the state helps support because Jesus advocated marriage and children while taking care of the poor.