You are correct here. I should have said "in 99% of cases unions are bad" In the last 1% they are only neutral.
No they don't (blackmail owners). They don't and can't force any company owner to give up any property that he is unwilling to give up. If a company owner chooses to accede to a union's demands, he or she is doing so voluntarily, because he or she determines that the potential loss of production and loss of employees is a greater negative than the loss incurred by paying higher wages/benefits.
According to your reasoning kidnapping is totally ethical because the ransom payer is paying it voluntarily. Likewise mugging is totally ethical (when the mugge doesn't resist) because the muggee is handing over his wallet voluntarily.
So the union says "pay us more or we won't let you make anything and we'll block the entries to your plants and we'll attack any replacement workers you bring in". Sounds like blackmail to me. But according to your reasoning blackmail is totally ethical because the one paying the blackmail does it voluntarily.
"If the workers don't want to work for the offered wages they can work elsewhere."
And if the workers feel they are not being compensated adequately, they can attempt to organize and risk being fired
But the then union cries and calls for help from the Government and eventually forces the owner to hire these thugs back again. (I thank God for Ronnie firing PATCO.)
it's all very free, on both sides.
Yeah right. The union forces the owners to accept an agreement that the owners would rather not make and the unions use the Government (is it Fair Labor Relations Board?) to enforce it. The owner is blackmailed. This is not freedom.
"There would be plenty of charities available to help the poor if the liberal government do-gooders would stop stealing our money to give to those who won't work."
No. That is a rationalization. For one thing, you get a tax write-off for the dollars and goods you give to charities, so you should be giving lots to your favorite charity, because you know that it reduces the amount you pay to that evil Federal Government.
I get NOTHING from moneys taken by the government for entitlement programs. The moneys on which I get write offs would be given anyway as God commands these tithes. I'd give more if the government didn't steal it first.
Besides, everyone could give more to charities, with or without our tax system. If we did as Jesus instructed us, we would sell all that we own and give it to charity, and then follow Him, and then we would have no tax problems at all.
Jesus told this to one person (Luke 18:18-23) as an example. Did he tell this to Nicodemus (John chapter 3)? N. was rich. Why didn't Jesus tell him to sell all? Perhaps because the rich man was owned by his things and Nicodemus owned his things? The bible promises us prosperity and blessings. It is not wrong to have many things. It is only wrong when these things come between you and God, as they did for the rich man.
You guessed it, the (mostly Conservative) top 10% gives the samllest %.
And this same top 10% pays, what, 95% of the taxes taken? They've already made their contribution. Unfortunately it's taken from them at the point of a gun.
"If my taxes were lower I'd give more to charities to help these people (who really need it. THE REST CAN STARVE)."
(my capitalization)
2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
(God's Word)
Christian liberal
This is a contradiction in terms. (although the rest of the description might be accurate)
My giving is between me and God but just to maintain my witness I will let you know that we tithe and give offerings (and we tithe on gross not net)
GSA(P)
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.
The first three chapters cover His birth. Then in Ch. 4:19-20, He addresses Peter and Andrew: "’Come! Follow me and I will make you fishers of men.’ And at once they abandoned their nets and followed Him." They left their gainful employment and took on a type of work which generates no wages: evangelizing. Are these the type of people who you would let "starve" according to your previous post? They produced no income, yet Paul said in II Thessalonians that they were "entitled to support." Would conservatives agree? Liberals would.
In Ch 5, Jesus delivers the beatitudes. "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." Does that square well with the conservative view of Capitalism? Or how about v. 7: "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." Or v. 9: "Blessed are the peacemakers," which was my point when this enormous thread began, for which I was castigated and branded a liar. Let’s continue with v. 38-39: "You have heard it was said (Ex 21:24), ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, ‘Do not resist injuries, but whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other as well." Is that the "new anti-American Standard version" you referred to, John, or is it the words of your Lord and Savior?
You’ll love v. 40 and 42: "And if anyone asks you for your tunic, let him have you robe as well." And "Give to the one who begs from you and do not refuse the borrower." Nothing about letting lazy people starve. Nothing about welfare cheats. Do you know why? Because of v. 7:1: "Do not pass judgment, that you may not be judged." In other words, it doesn’t matter whether you think they deserve it or not. God commands you to give. Period. It’s up to Him to judge the hearts of the beggars and the character of people on public assistance. The conservative wails, "but I believe in private charity, not public assistance." The Christian Liberal responds, "we need both." I’m honest enough to know that 99% are not willing to give up everything and devote our lives to preaching and helping the less fortunate. So I give to give some of what’s left over from my huge, self-employment income tax bill to charities and vote for the government to use some of those taxes for the needy. Because what we do on our own is not enough, and due to our selfish natures, it probably wouldn’t be enough even if we paid no taxes. I want public AND private money going to those who need it. Because Christ commanded it.
Now back to ch 6, v. 19 and v. 24: "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth" and "You cannot serve God and mammon." V. 25 continues, "Do not worry about your living – what you are to eat or drink…" Right wing capitalism?
Ch 7 is about spiritual health, 8 covers various healings. Then comes 9:13: "I want mercy and not sacrifice." In Ch 10:9-10, he instructs his disciples: :"Provide neither gold, nor silver , nor copper to put your belts, nor a bag for the journey; neither two coasts, nor sandals, nor staff. for the worker deserves his support." Back to what Paul said. And where does that support come from? From us. A bit socialistic for our society, isn’t it?
Ch. 11 gives Jesus’ reaction to John the Baptist. In Ch. 12, He is criticized by the Pharisees for breaking the Sabbath. I said in earlier post that Jesus declared Himself to be the Law. You responded with, This must be from the new anti-American Standard version of the bible. I can't find it in any of the 12 or so versions I have at my fingertips. Jesus here answers by declaring that He can break the Sabbath and be blameless and concludes in v. 8 with: "For the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath."
In ch. 13, there’s a verse you may want to misuse, so let me save you some time. He says in v. 12: "For whoever has will receive will receive superabundantly, but whoever has not will be deprived of whatever he has." He explains this verse in 18-23. As before, he is referring to the "message of the kingdom" and not to wealth. "One who listens and understands the message; he bears fruit and yields…"
Ch 14: WILLINGLY SHARE WHAT YOU HAVE; v. 16, five loaves two fish, everyone shared, a miracle occurred. Are my conservative friends on the same page?
Ch 15 – More from the Pharisees, definitely law-and-order types, attacking Him for violating Old Testament Law. Then seven loaves, a few fish, "He ordered the masses to sit," more sharing, another miracle.
Ch 16 – The end is coming (really the beginning). Another economic message, in v. 26: "For what advantage will a man have if he acquires the whole world and forfeits his own life?"
Ch 17 – v. 27: Jesus instructs Peter to pay the local tax. I won’t comment; that one is too easy.
Ch 18 – TAKE PITY ON THOSE WHO WRONG YOU AND FORGIVE THEM. Conservative or Liberal? Jesus point out that He forgives us for an enormous debt (our sin), therefore each must (v. 35) "heartily forgive his brother."
Ch 19 – Here’s where Right Wing Capitalism really diverges from the Word. V. 20-22: "The young man said to him…’How do I still fall behind?’ Jesus replied, ‘If you want to be complete, go and sell what you have and donate it to the needy, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come and follow Me.’ But the young man, on hearing that, went sadly away, for he had much property." Earlier, John, you discounted this verse by stating that Jesus said this to only one person. Wrong. In the next two verses, he makes the thought universal: "I assure you, it will be difficult for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. I SAY TO YOU AGAIN, IT IS EASIER FOR A CAMEL TO PASS THROUGH A NEEDLE’S EYE THAN FOR A WEALTHY PERSON TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN." That includes Joseph of Arimathea, and every Democrat or Republican, and you and I. Like us, the disciples are "dumbfounded," and ask, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus answers, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." For Christians who like to brag about being part of the wealthiest country on earth, it’s time to sit down, shut up and thank God for saving us despite our focus on wealth.
Ch 20 – Already covered. The estate owner clearly as a metaphor for the kingdom of heaven, not for property relations.
Ch 21 – V.12 – "Jesus entered the temple and expelled all who were buying and selling in its courts….and told them, ‘It is written, my house shall be called a house of prayer…’"
Ch 22 – V. 21 – "Pay Caesar what is due to Caesar, and God what is due to God." Of course, to be fair to the Right, He didn’t say we couldn’t whine before we paid. And in 37-40, Jesus takes precedence over Old Testament Law: "You shall love the Lord your God with your whole soul, and with your whole mind. This is the great and chief commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ON THESE TWO COMMANDMENTS THE WHOLE LAW AND PROPHETS DEPEND."
Ch 23 – How should these verses properly infuse our politics? V.4 – "They (the wealthy Pharisees) tie up heavy loads and place them on the people’s shoulders, but they themselves do not care to move them with their finger." V. 12 –"Whoever elevates himself shall be humbled, and whoever humbles himself shall be elevated." V.14 – "you cheat the widows out of their houses. For this you will receive greater judgment." V. 23 – "Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you tithe mint, dill and cummin, and YOU OMIT THE WEIGHTIER ASPECTS OF THE LAW – JUSTICE, MERCY AND FAITH."
Ch 24 – The End Times.
Ch 25 – The story of the master who entrusted 10 talents to one servant, 4 to another and 2 to a third, and then went away to see what the servants would do with the talents. This, I believe is a warning to our nation, for no nation in history, with the possible exception of Rome, has been given more blessings, more talents, than America. And we must, therefore, hold ourselves to higher standard of behavior, but God will expect more of us. Then comes a stark warning to us as individuals in v.41 – "Then will He say to tho0se at His left, ‘Begone from Me, accursed ones… for I was hungry and you did not feed Me; thirsty and you gave me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not entertain Me; naked and you failed to clothe me; ill in prison and you did not come to see Me.’" They ask God when they saw Him in those circumstances. He answers, in V. 45 – "Insofar as you failed to do it to one of the least of these (brothers of Mine), you failed to do it to Me. " Be careful who you allow to starve, John. For a down-and-out person, you may be the only face of Christ they see today. Or you may be saying no to the face of Jesus when you sneer at a "lazy" beggar, or vote to cut a Federal school lunch program for a hungry child.
Ch 26 – In revenge for capturing Jesus, a companion cuts off the ear of the slave of the High Priest. Jesus admonishes (v. 52), "Return your sword to it’s place, for all who draw the sword shall be destroyed by the sword." Pretty clear.
Ch 27 – Death.
Ch 28 – Resurrection.
Jesus was a conservative? Not hardly. The verses I did not discuss were politically neutral, but if you disagree, feel free to examine them. Or try looking at another Gospel. Where is the weight of the evidence?
There are other issues not discussed, obviously, such as abortion. I personally disagree for the most part with my Liberal brethren on that issue, for spiritual reasons. But where is the weight of the evidence? For me, the answer is clear; you may reach a different conclusion, but you and I must both be sure that we are making our politics subject to our faith, and not the other way around.
Jesus is willing to save even us diehard Left or Right Wing types. Not because we’re on the correct political path, but because His grace is sufficient to overcome our hopefully well-intentioned political mistakes.