Tweet
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria
View Post
In Mark 10.21 the instruction is quite clear.
That same chapter also has Jesus' comments on little children. Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs.
However, for some posting to this thread a dollar or so [quite possibly less] on their tax bill is too great a price to pay to help many of the little children of the USA.
That same chapter also has Jesus' comments on little children. Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs.
However, for some posting to this thread a dollar or so [quite possibly less] on their tax bill is too great a price to pay to help many of the little children of the USA.
First off, Jesus' words weren't meant as a general statement for everyone but rather were addressed to a particular unnamed rich person. It was a personalized remark for that individual and what he needed to do. He was still bound to his material possessions and couldn't let go.
Btw, do you even have any clue about what Jesus meant by his comments about letting the little children come to Him? I'll give you a hint. It has nothing to do with forcibly collecting money from anyone.
Originally posted by rogue06
View Post
No. This gets beaten into a fine pink mist every year as Christmas approaches.
Jesus definitely instructed His followers to take care of the poor, but charity is not communism. Early Christians were a group of people helping each other out, a family not a government. And nobody was forced to give anything. They shared it.
It was how they took care of themselves and each other -- a very small group that in effect was an extended family. Nowhere is it even suggested that this was supposed to be a blueprint for how a nation or government should do things. In fact, in I Timothy 5:8, where we read
makes it clear that it is an individual responsibility and not something to be sloughed off onto others to do it for you. The simple fact of the matter is that Jesus instructed His followers to take care of the poor. He never said anything about getting the government to force others to do so -- which is what socialism does.
Moreover, in II Thessalonians 3:10 Paul tells us that any assistance that we give out needs to be paired with responsibility
Those who slack off, refuse to work, and expect a handout should get nothing. They should be refused aid. That contradicts the whole "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" mantra of the left.
Now I know you prefer to ignore Paul, so let's look at exactly what Jesus taught.
In His parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30) Jesus has the main character giving according to their ability not according to their need. And note how he took back what he gave the servant who buried the money and did nothing with it rather than used it to increase the owners wealth and gave it to the servant who had increased his wealth ten-fold.
Often the parable concerning the Good Samaritan is put forth as evidence that Jesus supported Socialism. But the Good Samaritan took it upon himself to help out. What he didn't do is walk off and contact any government officials and told them to do it instead. And he didn't expect the innkeeper to assume the cost of caring for the injured man but instead paid it out of his (the Samaritan's) own pocket.
Again, Jesus taught that it is a personal responsibility to care for those in need. Please note that Jesus never told anyone that instead of helping others in need themselves they should get the Pharisees, scribes or even Roman officials to do it for you. It is your responsibility.
And let's be blunt, Socialism is not about sharing but rather seizing someone's property by force or threat of force (if you don't voluntarily hand it over) and giving it away including to those who do nothing but hold out their hand and then demand more. And keep in mind that the Bible does not condone in any way shape or form someone demanding money from others. Instead it explicitly teaches that we should not covet what others have (Exodus 20:17; cf. Deuteronomy 5:21)
Socialism teaches that we should look at what other people have, crave it and then decide on what should be taken away from them so that we can have it.
Finally, "common ownership" didn't mean everything was shared. As Acts 12:12; 16:40; Romans 16:3-5; Colossians 4:15 makes clear some Christians (including John Mark -- the first reference) still owned property and their own homes, allowing them to be used upon occasion as meeting places for the church.
Jesus definitely instructed His followers to take care of the poor, but charity is not communism. Early Christians were a group of people helping each other out, a family not a government. And nobody was forced to give anything. They shared it.
It was how they took care of themselves and each other -- a very small group that in effect was an extended family. Nowhere is it even suggested that this was supposed to be a blueprint for how a nation or government should do things. In fact, in I Timothy 5:8, where we read
But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
makes it clear that it is an individual responsibility and not something to be sloughed off onto others to do it for you. The simple fact of the matter is that Jesus instructed His followers to take care of the poor. He never said anything about getting the government to force others to do so -- which is what socialism does.
Moreover, in II Thessalonians 3:10 Paul tells us that any assistance that we give out needs to be paired with responsibility
For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.
Those who slack off, refuse to work, and expect a handout should get nothing. They should be refused aid. That contradicts the whole "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" mantra of the left.
Now I know you prefer to ignore Paul, so let's look at exactly what Jesus taught.
In His parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30) Jesus has the main character giving according to their ability not according to their need. And note how he took back what he gave the servant who buried the money and did nothing with it rather than used it to increase the owners wealth and gave it to the servant who had increased his wealth ten-fold.
Often the parable concerning the Good Samaritan is put forth as evidence that Jesus supported Socialism. But the Good Samaritan took it upon himself to help out. What he didn't do is walk off and contact any government officials and told them to do it instead. And he didn't expect the innkeeper to assume the cost of caring for the injured man but instead paid it out of his (the Samaritan's) own pocket.
Again, Jesus taught that it is a personal responsibility to care for those in need. Please note that Jesus never told anyone that instead of helping others in need themselves they should get the Pharisees, scribes or even Roman officials to do it for you. It is your responsibility.
And let's be blunt, Socialism is not about sharing but rather seizing someone's property by force or threat of force (if you don't voluntarily hand it over) and giving it away including to those who do nothing but hold out their hand and then demand more. And keep in mind that the Bible does not condone in any way shape or form someone demanding money from others. Instead it explicitly teaches that we should not covet what others have (Exodus 20:17; cf. Deuteronomy 5:21)
You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's
Socialism teaches that we should look at what other people have, crave it and then decide on what should be taken away from them so that we can have it.
Finally, "common ownership" didn't mean everything was shared. As Acts 12:12; 16:40; Romans 16:3-5; Colossians 4:15 makes clear some Christians (including John Mark -- the first reference) still owned property and their own homes, allowing them to be used upon occasion as meeting places for the church.
(Aside from continually trying to sound smarter than she actually is)
Comment