Posted on 06/09/2011 11:33:27 AM PDT by deltaromeo11
The headline of the full-page ad asks, "What Would Jesus Cut?—A budget is a moral document." The text continues, "Our faith tells us that the moral test of a society is how it treats the poor." .... How would you answer that question? My answer would be, "It's a nonsense question. Your premise is faulty. Your priorities are not His priorities." What would Jesus cut? When He stood before the Roman Empire, He didn't suggest cuts. He received cuts. His flesh was cut by Roman nails and a Roman spear. He was bruised for our transgressions, and with His cuts we are healed. That's the gospel of Jesus Christ.
(Excerpt) Read more at michaelyoussef.com ...
Jesus has nothing to do with the theft and destruction that is Socialism.
Jesus refused to get involved in secular government. His words about social responsibility were ALWAYS directed at INDIVIDUALS.
Jesus might start with Planned Parenthood.
One of the valuable things Beck has publicized is this leftist idea of “Group Salvation”. Obama buys it hook line and sinker even though it is a complete heresy.
Jesus never forced charity from anyone. Nor did he demand worship from any that did not wish to do it. if youre in Heaven however...different story altogether.
Judas was definitely a socialist. He betrayed the Son of God and turned him over to a criminal mob.
Jesus was definitely a capitalist. He took five loaves and two fish and turned them into enough food for 5,000 people.
I like the response, “Who would Jesus tax?”
Seems more to the point.
Socialism (a.k.a. "liberalism") is simply organized stealing, and socialists make their living stimulating and exploiting envy.
It sits right on I-75 at West Paces Ferry in northwest City of Atlanta, and it's popularly known as "Our Lady of the Interstate." People frequently wind up at his parish looking for our parish, which is right down the road.
More power to him.
Confiscating "charity" from others under the threat of imprisonment is not a Christian idea.
Jesus was not talking to Pilate in John 21:16-17. He was talking to Peter.
He did not say, “Government, feed my sheep”. He said, simply, “feed my sheep”.
Therefore, the entire argument of ‘what would Jesus cut’ is based on a false premise. It is not government’s responsibility, Scriptural or otherwise, to provide in this way. For a Christian, it is an individual responsibility.
Governments are the kingdoms of THIS world. They are necessary evils and if we learn anything from history they are easily corrupted and fail.
The only reason governments work well are because of good Christian people attempting to live a life pleasing to Jesus Christ. They will fail along the way too but that doesn’t stop them from continuing to live properly.
Government is not the charity arm of society, it is the Church and individuals beign able to determine ON THEIR OWN what they want to do to help the poor. Not being coerced by force by government to turn over part of their earnings so that government can give it to whatever protected classes and special interest groups their whims desire.
Every Christian should know how to quickly stamp down such a flawed premise.
Interested to see the comments on this one.
My take: I’m far from a Bible scholar, and way more sinner than I’d like to be. I do know some of my Bible and think about certain Bible stories. The woman who gave her last cent while the rich gave from excesses (she was not mandated by the IRS to do so, she did what was in her heart). I think about the good Samartan, who also acted out of compassion for another human being (he didn’t act based on a regulatory requirement). I think about the numerous people Jesus healed, not based on a perversion of the commerce clause, but out of His love.
It is imppossible for me to know God’s will (see Job). Based on what I’m capable of knowing and concluding... I think GOD wants us to love and help each other; and that isn’t with a mandate of re-distribution of wealth.
Boy they’d really have a time if one of the commandments was “You shall not buy special interest votes by the redistribution of others’ wealth.”
Think of it this way.
Forced Charity, is not charity at all. It isn’t freely given. It is oppression, it is legal theft, it is compelled compliance you cannot refuse. You do not determine how much you give, you are told what you MUST hand over. Forced charity is done by force of law and threat of punishment for not doing it. It is the state demanding you give the state money that it, in turn, gets credit for giving to whoever the state thinks deserves it more than you - the EARNER of that money - do.
Real charity is freely given. You determine how much you want to help.
You want to learn the difference between God and man (government)? This is a prime example.
Jesus never compelled or forced anyone to give Him anything, or worship Him, or do anything for Him. He let people make up their own minds. To this day, even before and after the physical time on earth of Jesus, God never forced anyone to worship Him or not. God, a being with infinite power and ability to force any kind of compliance on people, could be the ultimate liberal, and just force everyone to live exactly the way He wants us to, but instead He does not.
SINFUL MAN, which means government is RUN by sinful people, has far less power than God, yet what does government do to its fellow men? Force people by threat of law, imprisonment and punishment if you don’t give them what they want so they can spend it on what they want. Having trouble with repaying your student loan will get you a SWAT team visit in the middle of the night in today’s world. Selling a few animals over a certain limit, gets the government saying they’ll fine you 9 million dollars.
Who really values people as individuals deserving respect and free will? Seriously. Clearly God respects people as PEOPLE. Not government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.