No, Jesus is not a socialist

WND ^ | October 12, 2006 | Tom Snyder

[the OlLine Rebel]

The poster said GENERALLY. Also pointed out there are TRULY Poor, as opposed to allegedly poor.

If you want real poverty, go to the Ozarks. These welfare queens in the cities are a joke. And why are the vagrants (I won't use that PC term) that way? Some are truly troubled. Others are just the extreme of the welfare kings - extremely lazy. Some just like living that way.

[the OlLine Rebel]

You're correct, but let's understand why "tax collectors" were reviled.

Because they were regarded as con-men and liars and cheaters. It wasn't simply because they came to get taxes. They were believed to be crooks who told people they owed more taxes than they really did so they could skim off the top.

[the OlLine Rebel]

(Applause)


Exactly what I and another poster have tried to say.

[Chena]

bttt

[LadyNavyVet]

"...There are plenty here who believe we shouln't help even the neediest..."

I've read all responses so far and I haven't seen one FReeper advocate letting the needy die in the street. Most FReepers, myself included, simply promote a different method than government coercion to help the needy among us.

[Texas_shutterbug]

And.....what does that have to do with proving that Jesus wouldn't have been a socialist?

Jesus wasn't political, although he made no rule that we couldn't be!

[Dave Olson]

Taxes are not "stealing."

"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other bestow it on favored individuals is nonetheless robbery because it is done under the form of law and is called taxation."
United States Supreme Court
Loan Association v.Topeka (1874)

[muawiyah]

Tax collection involves the use of force ~ if you don't pay at somepoint someone will coerce you at the point of a gun to do something about it.

[Junior]

Nope. Jesus was a communist.

[gogeo]

That's not entirely true. Lev. 19:9-10 indicates some sort of societal obligation to ensure that the poor and needy are housed, clothed, and fed. Likewise, Deu. 14:28-29 indicates some sort of social welfare program instituted under force of divine law.

Explain, please, how separation of church and state fit into this.

[Reeses]

Jesus isn't a socialist because he doesn't suffer from the sin of envy. Socialists sugar coat their evil thoughts by saying they want to make life fair, to level the playing field, to help the little poor people. The ugly truth is they support socialism for selfish purposes, mainly to placate their feelings of envy and sometimes to feed their narcissism. They learn to disrespect their mark to justify coveting their possessions, which is also why the left plays on the side of our enemies.

Jesus is not an socialist, no way, no how, and Christianity does not support leftism. It was the evil force of envy itself that got Jesus nailed to the cross 2000 years ago.

[Texas_shutterbug]

Jesus isn't a socialist, libertarian, democrat, or republican.

He's Jesus Christ, son of God.

I would imagine that you think any social program would be considered socialist, right? No government aid to the truly poor, mentally infirmed?

You do realize that many conservative christians don't share that view, and they don't all fit your description? You can read their hearts?

[the OlLine Rebel]

Nothing. Just making a point while the subject comes up. Too many times people make it out that ancient tax-collectors were hated because...they collected taxes. The real problem was that they collected basically what they wanted, not so much what the gov. decreed.

So, using Matthew is not good for anti-tax views because his official function wasn't really why he was despised.

[Texas_shutterbug]

cough cough

Then I think we agree. I believe I misunderstood your point.

[the OlLine Rebel]

I think 1 could possibly justify gov. use of funds for poor (of any definition).

However, 1 cannot justify the gov. stealing hard-earned INCOME for anything.

1 wrong doesn't make a right, IOW.

Get rid of the immoral and unconstitutional income tax.

[the OlLine Rebel]

I'm not always very good at explaining myself, no matter how many (or few, which is rare) words I use.

[nonsporting]

That's not entirely true. Lev. 19:9-10 indicates some sort of societal obligation to ensure that the poor and needy are housed, clothed, and fed. Likewise, Deu. 14:28-29.

Ok. Let's take look at Leviticus.

Lev 19:9-10 "Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean the vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the Lord."

The Lord is speaking to men not governments. Nor is he telling them to sell their gleanings and give the money to the government. It is a private act.

Now, let's look at Deuteronomy.

Deut. 14:28-29 "[Also you shall not neglect the Levite...] At the end of every third year you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in that year, and shall deposit it in your town. And the Levite, because he has no portion or inhertiance among you, and the alien, the orphan and the window who are in your town, shall come and eat and be satisfied, in order that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do."

This was intended to provide for the Levite, the preistly class which was used in the service of God (Numbers 3:13ff). Not clear how one is to "deposit it in the town" unless this is meant literally (put it on a street corner).

But in each instance the provision is made for those who are "needy" and "unsettled" (the stranger, the alien). The individual is not relieved of the responsibility by letting only the "rich" pay into the system, but rather, like the tithe, it was everyone's responsibility. At our church the tithe is a voluntary act, unlike taxes, and any penalties associated with not paying it will accrue in the next life not this one.

The point, there is no one to administer this "social welfare program" except the one commanded and its faithful stewardship is not the government's responsibility. This is NOT how the Democrats want the poor and needy taken care of in this country. They want a massive welfare state with an IRS. Jesus wants individual obedience in love.

[jude24]

The point, there is no one to administer this "social welfare program" except the one commanded and its faithful stewardship is not the government's responsibility. This is NOT how the Democrats want the poor and needy taken care of in this country. They want a massive welfare state with an IRS. Jesus wants individual obedience in love.

Now you're reading your politics into the text. An argument from silence is not a very strong argument.

[unlearner]

"Taxes are not 'stealing'."

Taxes that are levied for legitimate purposes are not theft. It is the obligation of citizens and other beneficiaries of our government to contribute their fair share to the necessary expenses incurred in running the government. To not pay our taxes is stealing in this case.

When the government takes money from some in order to equalize wealth, it is theft. Otherwise "theft" is meaningless. The idea of property ownership is based on the command not to steal. When Jesus answered the tax issue, He said to render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. To think that all property belongs to the government is socialism. And it is antithetical to the Biblical concept of ownership.

[unlearner]

" Some do; too many do not. Spend some time with the homeless (and there are far too many!), and tell me that this is true."

No, not some. Most. Most of who the left calls poor in our nation are actually wealthy by comparison to most of the world. And most have the things I described.

In fact, most illegal immigrants do too. I do have first hand experience.

And as far as the homeless, I have plenty of first hand experience there too. Most people in this country who are homeless have many resources available to help. Those who live on the streets mostly do so because they are unwilling to obey rules and work.

It should go without saying that there are exceptions. But the way you use the words "some" and "many" needs to be switched.

Many do. Some do not. Those who are truly poor represent those who Christ commands us to help.

This does not obligate us to facilitate drug and alcohol abuse, sexual immorality, rebellion, and laziness.

And these ARE the problems that many social programs do create. And that is even true for non government giving as well.