What's New? Nothing

[SamSpade]

Tell me, Bubba, what was Christ's position on supporting the poor? My Bibles all say he told the rich man to sell all he had and give it to the poor. He didn't say sell all he had and send it to Rome did he?

Jesus also said - "the poor you will always have". When he told the rich young ruler to sell all he had and give to the poor, he didn't say it because of the poor - but for the rich young ruler.
The Bible says that Jesus looked at him and loved him, and told him to then come follow me. He was concerned because the young man was trying to be righteous, but either wanted to brag about always following the law - or knew in his heart it just wasn't going to be enough.

When the young man went away sad, he explained how hard it is for rich to enter heaven, because they trust too much in wealth and not enough in God.
Later in the letter from James, the writer says that God has made the poor rich in faith, in a lesson specifically meant to show that the rich and poor need each other.
A strange concept for his disciples who - like a lot of people - assumed that if a man is rich, it's because he's doing right by God.

 

[SamSpade]

nothing about sending the money to Rome

Well - except "render unto Caesar". We know THAT story. They wanted to trap him in a word game - should you break the law and refuse to pay taxes to Caesar - or capitulate?
He gave them the perfect answer - give to the worldly authorities what belongs to them, and to God what belongs to him.

 

[PsyOps]

Certainly Christ had no opinion on the rich supporting the poor, or the treatment of the sick and the elderly.

What Lurk said... Jesus never called for the government to get involved in the rich giving to the poor.

 

[This_person]

Well, as long as you are firm in the belief that this country was founded entirely on secular values and not Christian ones. Certainly Christ had no opinion on the rich supporting the poor, or the treatment of the sick and the elderly.

Let me get this straight - you believe that we should follow a Christian interpretation of the Constitution, not a legal one? When in doubt, we legally should ask WWJD, and be required to follow that?

 

[hotbikermama40]

Jesus also said - "the poor you will always have". When he told the rich young ruler to sell all he had and give to the poor, he didn't say it because of the poor - but for the rich young ruler.
The Bible says that Jesus looked at him and loved him, and told him to then come follow me. He was concerned because the young man was trying to be righteous, but either wanted to brag about always following the law - or knew in his heart it just wasn't going to be enough.

When the young man went away sad, he explained how hard it is for rich to enter heaven, because they trust too much in wealth and not enough in God.
Later in the letter from James, the writer says that God has made the poor rich in faith, in a lesson specifically meant to show that the rich and poor need each other.
A strange concept for his disciples who - like a lot of people - assumed that if a man is rich, it's because he's doing right by God.

Thank you for this! People of today easily, if not conveniently, forget that the stories in the old testament were not literal, but lessons in morality and spiritual growth. So as you pointed out (so clearly and beautifully), Jesus commanded the young man to give all of his wealth to the poor to teach him that his wealth was what was holding him back. He was not teaching that riches hold a person back, period; but that they will if we put our faith in our wealth, status, material things (aka false gods?) above our faith in God.
Essentially, the 'poor' were not the central characters of the story.

 

[GURPS]

He gave them the perfect answer - give to the worldly authorities what belongs to them, and to God what belongs to him.

true ...

I thought the point of this discussion was rendering to Caeser so Caeser could hand out to the less fortunate [entitlements]

Instead of holding on to more of your shekels and rendering to the poor on your own

 

[Clem72]

Let me get this straight - you believe that we should follow a Christian interpretation of the Constitution, not a legal one? When in doubt, we legally should ask WWJD, and be required to follow that?

I think I have an idea what Jesus would do, flip over a table and bring out the whip.

But I was really just yankin your chain a bit with that one.

 

[This_person]

I think I have an idea what Jesus would do, flip over a table and bring out the whip.

But I was really just yankin your chain a bit with that one.

View attachment 118593

Oh, I know.

I think we should probably follow the first amendment, though, and keep religion out of law making. And, keep the constitution IN law making. That would take out a huge percentage of our "discretionary" spending and virtually all of our "non-discretionary" spending. We could easily be below 10% tax rate for all if we did that.

 

[Lurk]

Thanks to all who tried to interpret or misinterpret what I mean by send it to Rome.

Jesus preached an individual's obligation to look out for his less advantaged neighbor personally. That means it's not up to the government to provide food, home, clothing, support for the less fortunate. These who require help must be helped locally by those in the same area who can monitor and provide for their neighbors. The first would be the widows and orphans as stated frequently in the Old and New Testaments. In order to identify those who have and those who have not, local organization of benefactors would take care of those in the community in need.

 

[GURPS]

Jesus preached an individual's obligation to look out for his less advantaged neighbor personally.
That means it's not up to the government to provide food, home, clothing, support for the less fortunate.