Posted on 01/02/2009 11:02:52 PM PST by AlaskaErik
He makes some perfectly valid points about selfishness and the danger of going to Hell.
The final remarks about income “inequities” and tax cuts have NOTHING to do with the valid moral points that precede it. There is NOTHING about high tax rates or compulsory income limits that in any way responds to the teaching of Jesus.
This is a man who knows something about the Gospel, and NOTHING about economics.
“Liberation theology” is neither.
Blech.
So many Christians confuse two issues:
They think that just because is is right to help the poor that it must be OK to force people to help the poor.
They try to force a “win/win” situation. In reality it is a lose/lose situation.
The giver resents the receiver because he is forced to give the aid. The receiver hates the giver because he knows the the giver is only helping because he is forced.
Only hatred and resentment are created through Government redistribution. Not Christian at all. Nation becomes less Cheistian as a result.
Yes. Especially since it would be a lie.
There are several parts of this screed which are factual and common sensical. Then there are other parts which could simply be summed up as, “socialism, now, comrades”.
Jesus was not a Socialist. Successful people don't go to hell for creating wealth. In fact, I seem to recall that a lot of Christians believe that the steps for achieving eternal life (Heaven) are: 1. Accept Christ. 2. Be Baptized. 3. Repent. No catch-22. No other requirements. Some people think that is too easy, so they try to make up other rules, such as “give away all your money to the poor, but only if we consider you rich, of course.”
Very true. This paragraph made that clear:
Americans have made a lot of people rich. In our recent history, we have made it easier for people to become rich. They have become rich at the expense of the poor.
“Thou shalt not steal.”
Seems to me that Christians are sinning if they use the state to steal from others.
This sounds like a Jesuit spouting his Marxism.
He's actually a Baptist. A one of a kind Baptist if there ever was one.
You can search the words of Christ in vain looking for an economic theory. You won’t find any instructions to raise or lower taxes, to promote business or regulate commerce. It just isn’t there; and thinking it should be merely shows a lack of understanding about the entire purpose of Scripture.
He furnishes an example of why this might be so.
“On issues of economics and wealth, our pulpits are and will remain silent.”
Perhaps they should be if they share his misunderstanding of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. Hint: It had to do with spiritual condition and the reversal of that condition not CEO pay.
“The rich and powerful assassinated Jesus for speaking out.”
He tiptoes past saying it was the religious leaders that feared Jesus’ message. Too P.C. I guess. Note the following,
The CHIEF PRIESTS and PHARISEES said,
“If we let him alone this way, they will all put faith in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” (John 11:48)
The Romans came, but not because of Jesus’ message.
“Just now it is not easy for preachers to tell their wealthiest members that they are going to hell.”
He means they hesitate to lie? It was the LOVE of money that was the root of all evil, not the money. Just being wealthy is not a sin or Solomon would have been the greatest of all sinners.
He is supposed to be a “pastor emeritus”, and he does not understand even these simple things? Amazing! and sad.
Or you could point out that the other man with a speaking part in the parable (Abraham) had also been ‘a rich man’ when he was alive. Still, despite the author’s obvious Marxist axe-grinding, it is true we have an excessive love for wealth in the country; you can just check out the “health and wealth” preachers to see that ugliness in action.
One reason I suggested that parable dealt with spiritual
riches was that in Matthew, chapter three, when the
Pharisees and Sadducee's met John the Baptist he told them
their claim of Abraham as a father meant nothing since God could raise children to Abraham from the stones.
They could claim Abraham as a physical forefather but here
they presumed to say to themselves, “As a father, we have
Abraham.”, spiritual sons of Abraham, unlike the rabble.
But in the parable the once poor Lazarus now has the “bosom position”, leaning back in closeness as a friend might when
reclining at a meal with Abraham.
I agree completely about the materialistic preachers. Their
crass message of religious hucksterism is disgusting.
[22] But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
[23] Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
[24] And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Jesus' own teachings on money include the following: The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
Matthew 25:39-41 (in Context) Matthew 25 (Whole Chapter)
Luke 16:15 And He said unto them, “Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
verse 16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man pressseth into it.
verse 17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Lazarus and the ‘rich’ man was not a parable but Christ exposing the Pharisees’ traditions concerning the dead.
Abraham had died and is in heaven and when Lazarus dies he even as a poor beggar goes to be comforted in Abraham's bosom. But the ‘rich’ guy (representing the traditions of the Pharisees) dies and is buried but could see afar off Abraham and Lazarus....
The ‘rich’ guy calls out to ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’
Abraham answers the rich guy reminds him of his ‘flesh’ life and Lazarus and then says in heaven there is a gulf (chasm) that is impossible to pass. Abraham is not giving financial advice to the ‘rich’ guy but Christ is instructing the Pharisees where they are going to end up because .... verse 31 And he (Abraham) said unto him, ‘If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.’”
Some of these Reverends need to get real jobs and stop passing the plate pretending to be Lazarus.
He tiptoes past saying it was the religious leaders that feared Jesus message. Too P.C. I guess.
The religious leaders WERE the "rich and powerful" of the time in Judea. The Jewish political system of the time was much like that of Muslim countries today. Religion and politics were intertwined, not separate as Jesus said they should be.
The gospels make it pretty clear that the religious/political leaders of the day wanted to kill Christ for essentially political reasons. They believed he threatened their cozy collaboration with the Romans that left them in power over their fellow Jews and from which they drew their wealth. They used religious justifications for this murder to the Jews and political ones before Pilate.
Thank-you for that.
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.