It is valid, however, to explore whether Leftist principles or Rightist principles are closer to the actual, complete, written word of God. To keep this simple, I’ll go through just a couple of books: Matthew (you seem to like that one) and parts of Acts; but first, I’ll add back in some of the Word that you left out in your attempt to twist the Bible to fit your political position. If you’re trying to win an argument, you’ll find this to be very unpleasant. If you’re seeking the Truth, you’ll enjoy it and learn something.
II Thessalonians 3:6-10. You (no doubt accidentally) missed a few key phrases here on both of the occasions when you quoted it. Let’s see what Paul was really discussing here; hmm… turns out it was not wage labor at all, he was discussing the work of evangelizing, because that is what he did for a living (it didn’t pay well back then). Nevertheless, in 3:9, Paul throws in a socialistic concept about his food: "Not that we did not have the RIGHT TO SUPPORT, but to furnish you ourselves an example which you should follow." Then in verse 10, he describes the charge he gave to his own followers as a voluntary example, even though he had the RIGHT to support: "For while we were with you, we gave you this charge: If anyone does not want to work…"
Now lets look at a section you completely mischaracterized, Matt 20:1-16. Jesus is not really talking about property or labor relations at all, is he John? He’s talking about the Kingdom of Heaven. We know this because verse 1 says so: "For the kingdom resembles an estate owner…" and verse 16 concludes with, "So the last will be first and the first will be last." In other words, Jesus is preparing us for the idea that those who give their lives to Him at the ends of their lives will receive the same gift of salvation as those who have been laboring at it all their lives. The section unions. If a business owner chose to model her payroll after this, she wouldn’t be long in business.
Then you threw in this: Liberals believe in forced usurption (usurpation) of property rights. Ridiculous. We don’t; communists believe that. That’s just like saying, "Conservatives believe in enslaving minorities." Then you brought up Acts 5:1-4. John, thank you for making this easy. Let’s look at the verses just preceding those; they are critically important because they tell us how the early Christians actually lived. Acts 4:32-35 reads: "The host of believers were one in heart and soul; NO ONE CLAIMED HIS BELONGINGS JUST FOR HIMSELF, BUT EVERYTHING WAS THEIRS IN COMMON. And with great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and grace rested liberally on all of them. Not one among them suffered need; for those with who owned fields or houses sold them, brought the proceeds of the sale and deposited the money at the feet of the apostles. THEN IT WAS DISTRIBUTED TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED." Pure, voluntary, socialism based exactly on Christ’s commands. The 12 apostles lived this way, Jesus told the wealthy man to live this way, and the early Christian believers lived this way. And it’s completely antithetical to the conservative version of Capitalism.
Then comes 5:1-4; as you knew before you tried to stretch this into your supporting argument, Ananias and Sapphira sinned by holding back some of the proceeds from the sale of their property and then lying about it ("you did not lie to men but to God" v.4). There was no property-related sin here, as Peter made clear.
Then you address multiculturalism, and you have it exactly backwards: The liberals believe in multiculturalism and protecting people from being offended by Christian preaching. Wrong again. Atheistic Liberals might support that, as would atheistic Conservatives. Christian Liberals believe in multiculturalism because: 1. We recognize that by respecting other cultures, we will render them more open to hearing the Good News; 2. There is no group, no nation, and no individual that is loved by God more than He loves anyone else; and most important, 3. Jesus was the original multiculturalist. I don’t know how conservatives miss this if they actually read the Bible; it permeates the words and behavior of Jesus. The Hebrews of 30 AD were completely opposed to recognition of other cultures, just as are many in your camp. Jesus subjected Himself to ridicule and persecution when he spoke with the foreign woman at the well, when he urged his followers to recognize Roman law ("pay to Caesar what is due to Caesar…"), and especially when He told the story of the Good Samaritan (Samaritans were considered unclean and Jews were forbidden to have contact with them). In fact, the verse you quoted from Matthew, "Go therefore and teach all nations…" was a radical departure for the Jewish followers of Jesus, and in the centuries since, the heroic people who have translated the Bible into hundreds of languages and the missionaries who have adopted the mores of hundreds of cultures in order to bring the Message to the nations represent multiculturalism at its best.
First lets define 'liberal'. A liberal is for big government (usually welfare/entitlement type programs), for abortion (or as they prefer to say it "right to choose"), for homosexual rights (and most other sexual perversions). A liberal is against school choice, parental rights (takes a village don't you know) and the involvement of the church in any facet of life outside of the church walls (separation of church and anything the state might think about touching some day). While some liberals may go contrary to some items on this list all liberals adhere to at least one of them.
A Christian (briefly) is one who has accepted Jesus as Savior and Lord of their lives and lives there life to the best of their ability according to God's Word. Included in God's Word is the command to go and make disciples of all the world. All Christians are to be preachers every day of their life.
Now, can a liberal be a Christian and are we to judge those who try to masquerade as both?
Matt 7:15 ¶ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
[note that the word prophets in this usage, as modified by the sheeps clothing reference includes anyone who teaches a false doctrine, not just those who claim to be prophets.]
So if someone preaches that abortion is good or that the practice of homosexuality (or any other sex outcide of marriage) is good or that any other thing which the bible is against is good, then that person falls into the false prophet category. Since liberals espouse all these things as good how can they be Christians? Sounds like we are supposed to judge them.
See also 1 Cor 5:9-6:4 We are to judge those who call themselves Christians (by their fruit) and put those out who sin unrepentently. If someone calls themselves a Christian then I have to judge them to see whether I can indeed fellowship with them. At best liberals fail the 1 Cor 5:11 test.
Liberal: Homosexuality is an acceptable alternative lifestyle
God's Word: H. is an abomination and those who practice it will be cast into hell.
Liberal: Abortion is just another way to prevent unwanted pregnancies (or some other hoakum)
God's Word: Thou Shalt not murder.
ETC
You cannot be both Liberal and Christian.
Likewise, declaring that "Jesus is a conservative" – or liberal, ...
True. I should have been more accurate. Let me rephrase. If Jesus was physically alive on the Earth right now He could only be identified as a conservative as all His ideals are embodied in (and are the basis for) conservative thought. Likewise, the liberal ideals are against the majority of things that Jesus is for, including evangelizing everywhere.
II Thessalonians 3:6-10. (tying it to evangelizing vice physical labor)
I did a quick check of 8 to 12 different commentaries as well as the rest of scripture and see no foundation for allowing the idle to eat when they are not willing to work. Jewish teachings of the day repeated this and scripture (Gen 3:19) supports it. It's part of the price we pay for Adam's sin. We have to work in order to eat.
The evangelist having the right to support falls under Matt 10:10 more easily and fittingly.
Matt 20:1-16. (...) He’s talking about the Kingdom of Heaven. We know this because verse 1 says so: "For the kingdom resembles an estate owner…" and verse 16 concludes with, "So the last will be first and the first will be last." In other words, Jesus is preparing us for the idea that those who give their lives to Him at the ends of their lives will receive the same gift of salvation as those who have been laboring at it all their lives.
While this is true it does not exclude the lesson given on wages or on property rights. What you agree to work for is what you work for and it is up to the owner of the property to reach agreement with each worker (see verse 15). Unions steal this perogative from the owner.
Then you threw in this: Liberals believe in forced usurption (usurpation) of property rights. Ridiculous. We don’t; communists believe that.
Do you believe that taxes should be assessed to pay for welfare programs, national endowment for the arts or any other program not specifically authorized in the constitution? (being a Liberal and guessing from your earlier replies, you probably do). Therefore you are forcing the usurption of my property rights. These taxes represent my property which is being stolen by force to support things that I do not want to support. Either you are a communist or liberals support forced usurption of property rights
Acts 5:1-4. I brought this up originally to show that God's Word does not support usurption of property rights. While it is true that the Disciples held all in common and that some sold what they had to provide for others please pay close attention to Verse 4 "Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." They were not commanded to sell it and could have held onto it for their whole lives with no ill will or effect. IT WAS THEIR PROPERTY. Their rights to it were never usurped. (Their sin was in lying and saying they were giving the total price when they didn't. If they had said, "here's half the price" they would have been fine.) Even God tells us here that our property is our property and not others. (He does tell us in other places that all is His and that we are to be good stewards of it)
Then you address multiculturalism, and you have it exactly backwards: The liberals believe in multiculturalism and protecting people from being offended by Christian preaching. Wrong again. Atheistic Liberals might support that, as would atheistic Conservatives.
All Liberals are atheistic, or at least non Christian. How can someone support everything that is anti-christ and call themselves Christian? Most atheistic conservatives are secure enough that they don't worry about preventing other people from speaking freely. Suppression of free speach is more usually a liberal idea.
Christian Liberals (There's that oxymoron again) believe in multiculturalism because: 1. We recognize that by respecting other cultures, we will render them more open to hearing the Good News; 2. There is no group, no nation, and no individual that is loved by God more than He loves anyone else; and most important, 3. Jesus was the original multiculturalist.
In reverse order
#3. Jesus was the original mono-culturalist. Jesus declares that there is no way to heaven but through Him. This is decidedly against the majority of the cultures of the world of His day (on Earth) and regrettably, still against most cultures of the word today. Now Jesus was forgiving and accepting of people from other cultures when they came to Him but this forgiveness is ALWAYS based on them surrendering their culture (or at least any religious aspects of it) and coming to Him.
2. Correct. But as seen in discussion of #3 above, if these people, groups, nations, do not repent and come to Jesus as Savior they will still go to hell. The ONLY way to heaven is through Jesus.
1. (Respecting other cultures). The problem is not the liberals respect of other cultures. the problem is the liberals total disrespect for Christian culture. You can have a kwanza celebration at school but Heaven help you if you want to put up a nativity scene. Liberals seem to greatly prefer anything other than Christian culture. Why is it that the mohammedans can spew their hatred on TV and no one is troubled but let a Christian get up and preach the truth and all the liberals are up in arms?
GSA(P)