Why wouldn't Jesus...

[Ralph]

want us to structure our society to help the poor?

Jesus preached that we should help the poor...that is indisputable.

I often see self-described Christians arguing against social welfare, claiming that Jesus meant that we should help the poor individually.

This makes no sense to me. If we have the power, as individuals, to collectively help the poor then IMO this is what Jesus would want us to do.

Any thoughts?

Are you suggesting a society of laws based on Christianity?

I guess you're not a fan of the whole separation of church and state concept. That surprises me.

This nations LAWS where based upon the Judeo/Christian ideology as parroted from the Blackstone theories of common law. Its very easy to demonstrate as much with the 15,000 pieces of historical documentation that point out the truth thereof. Do they not teach REAL HISTORY at your school? There is no Separation of Church and State doctrine declared in the US CONSTITUTION.....not one word, concerning such. Such was not OPINED into LAW until 1947 with the Everson v. Board of Education decision...made by the COMMUNIST court appointed by King Roosevelt.

The supposed "establishment" clause was directed only at BIG BROTHER FED...to prohibit the Central Governments "CONGRESS" from making ANY LAW in regard to religion, to stop anyone from forcing a GOVERNMENT theocracy upon the entire nation, recognizing only ONE RELIGION...a STATE mandated religion. The first was not drafted to concern the STATES and LOCAL government...as it was DRAFTED and ratified by the STATES to LIMIT BIG BROTHER...not the INVERSION. If you actually READ THE 1ST amendment you will find a FREEDOM "OF" religion quite clearly and very unambiguously declaring as much.......WHAT YOU WILL NOT FIND is a FREEDOM "FROM" religion...anywhere therein....or in any of the words of the Constitution or following amendments. Such freedom from religion exists only between the ears of the COMMUNISTS of this nation...as defined by the ACLU....the American Communist Lawyer Union. Who have made it their MISSION to destroy the Constitution of the United States as clearly defined in the Congressional Record. Communist Goals - 1963 Congressional Record

SCOTUS has directly violated the 1st amendment by MAKING NEW LAW concerning religion...by OPINION where CONGRESS was forbidden to do as much by LEGISLATION. If you want to find the Words in a constitution CONCERNING STATE AND RELIGION I would suggest reading the Communist constitution drafted for the USSR.

Sure there was the intent of Separation of Church and State in the LAW....that's why the first act that one preformed in any Court Room across America for over 250 years was placing a hand on the Christian Holy Scriptures and swearing an oath before God and Man to tell the truth. And that must be why Our Common Currency has worn the Seal on its currency that declares that "GOD WATCHES OVER THIS NATION'S ENDEAVORS"....form the beginning of this Nation. The reason that TAX PAYER monies support the CHAPLIN CORP in the FEDERAL MILITARY. The Reason that even Today the majority of ALL STATE constitutions mention God in their Constitutions or preambles....As I said there are over 15,000 pieces of Historical Documents that Confirm the fact of this nation and its laws being established to represent a CHRISTIAN NATION.

What is the foundation of America?

Religion of the Founding Fathers of America


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQOCvthw-o[/ame]

 

[manifold]

Check-Mate!

And then some.

Except...that's not what I said, and you know it. Which is why I laughed. Truth be told, you probably understand my point of view, even if it pains you.

So you agree that Christ's teachings have no place dictating public policy?

 

[eagleseven]

And then some.

Except...that's not what I said, and you know it. Which is why I laughed. Truth be told, you probably understand my point of view, even if it pains you.

So you agree that Christ's teachings have no place dictating public policy?

I think the existence of this thread answers that question...

 

[Ravi]

And then some.

Except...that's not what I said, and you know it. Which is why I laughed. Truth be told, you probably understand my point of view, even if it pains you.

So you agree that Christ's teachings have no place dictating public policy?

Yes, I do. Though just because Jesus said something doesn't make it owned by Christians and therefore something that is wrong. Helping the poor is just basic common sense for a country overall, check out the ones that don't and you'll find the entire country is basically a toilet.

But that has nothing to do with my question.

 

[logical4u]

Except...that's not what I said, and you know it. Which is why I laughed. Truth be told, you probably understand my point of view, even if it pains you.

So you agree that Christ's teachings have no place dictating public policy?

Yes, I do. Though just because Jesus said something doesn't make it owned by Christians and therefore something that is wrong. Helping the poor is just basic common sense for a country overall, check out the ones that don't and you'll find the entire country is basically a toilet.

But that has nothing to do with my question.

If you look at the countries that have governments (Cuba, USSR, Cambodia, China, Venezuela) that got power due to telling "the poor" they would have a share (the wealth redistributed), you will see they are either:
in the toilet
headed for the toilet
or swinging to the conservative (capitalist) way.

Your arguement holds no water. Yeshua said that those that are not againt us (Him) are for us (Him). I guess that means whether they acknowledge Him or not.

 

[Ravi]

So you agree that Christ's teachings have no place dictating public policy?

Yes, I do. Though just because Jesus said something doesn't make it owned by Christians and therefore something that is wrong. Helping the poor is just basic common sense for a country overall, check out the ones that don't and you'll find the entire country is basically a toilet.

But that has nothing to do with my question.

If you look at the countries that have governments (Cuba, USSR, Cambodia, China, Venezuela) that got power due to telling "the poor" they would have a share (the wealth redistributed), you will see they are either:
in the toilet
headed for the toilet
or swinging to the conservative (capitalist) way.

Your arguement holds no water. Yeshua said that those that are not againt us (Him) are for us (Him). I guess that means whether they acknowledge Him or not.

Your post actually has nothing to do with what I said nor does it refute it.

 

[Intense]

Yes, I do. Though just because Jesus said something doesn't make it owned by Christians and therefore something that is wrong. Helping the poor is just basic common sense for a country overall, check out the ones that don't and you'll find the entire country is basically a toilet.

But that has nothing to do with my question.

If you look at the countries that have governments (Cuba, USSR, Cambodia, China, Venezuela) that got power due to telling "the poor" they would have a share (the wealth redistributed), you will see they are either:
in the toilet
headed for the toilet
or swinging to the conservative (capitalist) way.

Your arguement holds no water. Yeshua said that those that are not againt us (Him) are for us (Him). I guess that means whether they acknowledge Him or not.

Your post actually has nothing to do with what I said nor does it refute it.

When an Idea has merit, It stands on It's own regardless of Origin. Don't need to deny Christ, while borrowing Ideas.... Better to say nothing. Sepatation of Church and State is a Separate Issue Ravi. Do you want to see It's True Origin in American Politics. I''ll show You. Hint.. It has nothing to do with what You were taught.



To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia
A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments


We the subscribers , citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,
Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever? ...............


It continues further Ravi.... if You wish to study it......

Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)

 

[manifold]

I'm not aware of a single example of Christ's teachings where he advocated for government enforcement of the behavior he preached.

 

[manifold]

I'm not aware of a single example of Christ's teachings where he advocated for government enforcement of the behavior he preached.

Which, coincidentally is exactly why I say Jesus would be pro-choice.

 

[Ravi]

I'm not aware of a single example of Christ's teachings where he advocated for government enforcement of the behavior he preached.

I don't think you read my question very closely.

 

[jodylee]

because he never exsited!

Prove it.

Typical, prove a negative, usually I wouldn't entertain such a thing but in this case.
1. From all the writers around at the time of jesus no one mentions him.
2. The first book of the new testament was writen 70 years after his supposed death.
more to come.

 

[manifold]

I'm not aware of a single example of Christ's teachings where he advocated for government enforcement of the behavior he preached.

I don't think you read my question very closely.

You think incorrectly. You were carefully and cleverly vague in the OP, forcing anyone attempting to respond to fill in the blanks.

Feel free to be clearer with exactly what you are asking.

 

[HUGGY]

Sounds like the Emperor has no Clothes, and the Court wants to Support Him. Kadaffi wants to be His God Father too. Kenya Claims Him. Huggy claims Him too.

Ya moron...supporting a sitting president is a real crime. I supported Bush until he actually commited REAL crimes against our country. So far I have seen zero proof that Obama has commited a crime. His winning has put the neo cons in a hole which benefits me also seeing as how they stole my party... Just wait till he passes health care with a public option. You think the vile neo cons are ass out now? You haven't seen anything yet. I look forward to a republican party that is not over run by traitors like Grassly and Bachmann.

We might not want You in Huggy. You're too Animated! Seems like you lose it if the peas touch the mashed potatoes on your dinner plate. Lighten up, enjoy yourself a little.

You know so little about me, I smush the mashed potatoes into a boat. Not your regular MP's either. RICED mashed pot6atoes..that's the ticket! Then ya fill the insides of the boat with the peas AND Corn niblets. Now comes the gravy. MMMMMMmmmmm driblin the gravy over the peas n corn sets off a pavlov dog reaction and the drool starts flowing.

You just don't get it do you Intense..if thats your real name.... My people have ALL been republicans since long before you were concieved in the back seat of a car.

 

[Ravi]

I'm not aware of a single example of Christ's teachings where he advocated for government enforcement of the behavior he preached.

I don't think you read my question very closely.

You think incorrectly. You were carefully and cleverly vague in the OP, forcing anyone attempting to respond to fill in the blanks.

Feel free to be clearer with exactly what you are asking.

LOL! You always think I'm clever when I'm merely being curious.

I do see that my question was a little unclear, it sounds like I believe that he would want us to set up our society that way.

I should have asked, Why would Jesus object to us structuring our society to help the poor?

Maybe I'll stop asking questions before my caffeine kicks in for the day.

 

[manifold]

"Structuring our society to help the poor" is still too vague.

At face value, of course he would'nt object to it, but you need to be more specific about the structure itself. You might disagree, but there are some very smart people in this world that think the best thing to help the poor is to provide them with a thriving free market economy with no welfare and very little government intervention. But I'm pretty sure that's no what you're asking.

 

[THE LIGHT]

That matters not at all. A society that voluntarily sets itself up to help the poor, even if not every member of society gives willingly, would not be something Jesus would be against.

In fact, those that didn't give willingly would be no different in his eyes than those that didn't give willingly to some other charitable program or poor individual.

Since when was Chris Dodd and Wall street poor?

 

[Ravi]

"Structuring our society to help the poor" is still too vague.

At face value, of course he would'nt object to it, but you need to be more specific about the structure itself. You might disagree, but there are some very smart people in this world that think the best thing to help the poor is to provide them with a thriving free market economy with no welfare and very little government intervention. But I'm pretty sure that's no what you're asking.

No...I wanted to see if anyone had any reasonable objections to such a thing because believe it or not, some people think that because he said nothing about it he'd be against it. Or that he somehow believed or stated that only individual person-to-person contributions were valid.

As to how, that's a topic for another thread. Personally I don't think Jesus would care how we did it as long as we made a sincere effort to do it.

 

[manifold]

"Structuring our society to help the poor" is still too vague.

At face value, of course he would'nt object to it, but you need to be more specific about the structure itself. You might disagree, but there are some very smart people in this world that think the best thing to help the poor is to provide them with a thriving free market economy with no welfare and very little government intervention. But I'm pretty sure that's no what you're asking.

No...I wanted to see if anyone had any reasonable objections to such a thing because believe it or not, some people think that because he said nothing about it he'd be against it. Or that he somehow believed or stated that only individual person-to-person contributions were valid.

As to how, that's a topic for another thread. Personally I don't think Jesus would care how we did it as long as we made a sincere effort to do it.

You mean like when people think the turn the other cheek thing only applies to individuals in a fist fight?

 

[Ravi]

yep

 

[manifold]

So basically, you set out to prove that virtually every self-proclaimed Christian is guilty of at least some measure of hypocrisy.

In related news, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.