Jesus was a liberal

[ihallhou]

The story of the loaves and fishes is a perfect example of Jesus being a 'liberal.' If everyone pools their resources, what they have, some a little, some a lot, if we all work together and give what we have, then we all have what we need.

Wiki

It was a story about faith, not forced redistribution of resources, stupid. Jesus was not a communist.

No one forced the redistribution of resources. It is a story about faith, having the faith in Jesus to understand his philosophy about helping each other so we can all survive and take care of each other. Poor Jesus must be extremely disappointed in Christians who display such meanspiritedness, anger, desire to be violent, etc. Most of what a certain type of Christian advocates is nothing like what Jesus preached. Nothing.

No shit, Sherlock. That was my point. And it wasn't a lesson about sharing, it was a lesson in having faith in God.

Yes, having faith in something that there is no evidence to have faith in. Let's all believe that there are pink elephants floating in the sky! Let's write a book about it and hope that 2000 years from now, someone might buy that bullshit! Let's take the fatally flawed understanding of our 2000 year old ancestors and swear by it as truth! Sure! The earth is composed of four elements, earth, wind, air, and fire. That's the truth! It was written by ancient philosophers!

 

[AntiParty]

The tenet of the Christian faith to help the needy is in what Jesus told us to do.

Yes. He did not tell us force others to do it.

Tell me:
Is the Christian burden of charity filled by simply paying taxes and not giving any of your time or money out of your pocket?
Is it met by forcing others to provide charity?

if not, then how is there any issue with Christians taking exception to the state forcing people to provide charity?

So you brought up the topic, "I only want to if I'm not forced to". That's a topic on it's own. But you have to deal with our Constitution here. THE PEOPLE pick the people who make these laws that "force" certain taxation. If you don't like our Constitution, that's on you. You can't just nullify yourself from the voting process and Democracy because you think only your opinion is correct. It's our job to fix the loopholes in laws to prevent abuse. Taking that stance that laws that have been voted in are ignorant and you shouldn't have to abide by them just makes you look like a typical Nihilist.

 

[AntiParty]

The tenet of the Christian faith to help the needy is in what Jesus told us to do.

Yes. He did not tell us force others to do it.

Tell me:
Is the Christian burden of charity filled by simply paying taxes and not giving any of your time or money out of your pocket?
Is it met by forcing others to provide charity?

if not, then how is there any issue with Christians taking exception to the state forcing people to provide charity?

As it is now, money collected from taxpayers mostly supports the 1%.

The 1% invests in bias media and politicians. The small brains

that's doubtful. he would never support the killing of the innocent with abortion

^not sure who you are responding to or who "he" is"

 

[Mertex]

The tenet of the Christian faith to help the needy is in what Jesus told us to do.

Yes. He did not tell us force others to do it.

If you don't want to do it you don't have to do it. Don't pay your taxes. But remember, Jesus said, render unto Cesar what is Cesar's and unto God what is God's.

Tell me:
Is the Christian burden of charity filled by simply paying taxes and not giving any of your time or money out of your pocket?
Is it met by forcing others to provide charity?

I don't know about you, but I volunteer plenty of my time and money to different causes. I'm just smart enough to realize that my church can't handle all the needs of the community, much less of the country. And, we have a hard time finding people to volunteer.

if not, then how is there any issue with Christians taking exception to the state forcing people to provide charity?

There is no issue with Christians taking exception to the state forcing people to provide charity, the thing is, they have to garner enough votes to overturn the law, and so far they've been unable to do so. But it goes against Christian thought/belief to want to shirk paying taxes because part of it goes to helping the poor.


Also, it seems funny to me that many that call themselves Christian claim that because some small percentage of their taxes ends up supporting Welfare that they are being forced to help others, yet when they talk about bringing prayer back into the schools they sure don't mind forcing others to participate, whether or not the others believe. It's okay to force others to do something they don't want to do, but don't force you?

 

[Mertex]

that's doubtful. he would never support the killing of the innocent with abortion

Neither would he support the allowing a mother to die because she is pregnant and her doctor has told her that carrying the fetus to delivery will kill her. This would cause her to leave her present children orphans, yet many conservatives want to do away with abortion altogether, even in situations such as these. Only the woman has the right to choose whether or not she wants to give up her life for her unborn child.

 

[Stephanie]

that's doubtful. he would never support the killing of the innocent with abortion

Neither would he support the allowing a mother to die because she is pregnant and her doctor has told her that carrying the fetus to delivery will kill her. This would cause her to leave her present children orphans, yet many conservatives want to do away with abortion altogether, even in situations such as these. Only the woman has the right to choose whether or not she wants to give up her life for her unborn child.

I'm not going to argue this with you. because I love your cat threads and I know deep down you have a kind heart. but
that strawman you threw out there are not that common that 55 MILLION abortions had to be done. and not one time have I seen any conservative say the want to "do away" with abortion. when I speak on abortion its from my own point of view.
so from my point of view, if they want to chose to kill their own offspring, have at it. it's damn sure easier than having to take Responsibility of the choice's they made leading up to that isn't it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The tenet of the Christian faith to help the needy is in what Jesus told us to do.

Yes. He did not tell us force others to do it.

If you don't want to do it you don't have to do it. Don't pay your taxes. But remember, Jesus said, render unto Cesar what is Cesar's and unto God what is God's.

So you agree that Jesus did not tell us to foce others to give to charity.
How then does taking issue with forcing others to give to charuty run against Christian teachings?

Tell me:
Is the Christian burden of charity filled by simply paying taxes and not giving any of your time or money out of your pocket?
Is it met by forcing others to provide charity?

I don't know about you, but I volunteer plenty of my time and money to different causes. I'm just smart enough to realize that my church can't handle all the needs of the community, much less of the country. And, we have a hard time finding people to volunteer.

I don't see answers to my questions.

 

[Mertex]

]I don't see answers to my questions.

Well maybe you need to take your blinders off....better still, put your thinking cap on.....if you have one.

 

[blackhawk]

You know I'm not a hugely religious person I do believe in God but I can't quote the bible chapter and verse even so I feel pretty safe in saying Jesus would not identify with either the liberals or conservatives of today.

 

[Mertex]

You know I'm not a hugely religious person I do believe in God but I can't quote the bible chapter and verse even so I feel pretty safe in saying Jesus would not identify with either the liberals or conservatives of today.

I don't think Jesus looks at a person's label to see if they are Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal to claim them as his own. It's an individual thing.....maybe you're trying to say that he doesn't identify with the platforms of either party, but I beg to differ there. Many of the Democratic policies/goals have to do with the betterment of mankind. Republican platform, not so much, more like helping companies.

 

[blackhawk]

You know I'm not a hugely religious person I do believe in God but I can't quote the bible chapter and verse even so I feel pretty safe in saying Jesus would not identify with either the liberals or conservatives of today.

I don't think Jesus looks at a person's label to see if they are Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal to claim them as his own. It's an individual thing.....maybe you're trying to say that he doesn't identify with the platforms of either party, but I beg to differ there. Many of the Democratic policies/goals have to do with the betterment of mankind. Republican platform, not so much, more like helping companies.

Nice talking point and an opinion your entitled to I think I will alter the saying beware the one who presumes to know the mind of God to include Jesus as well to this.

 

[M14 Shooter]

]I don't see answers to my questions.

Well maybe you need to take your blinders off....better still, put your thinking cap on.....if you have one.

Translation:
You know there's no way you can soundly answer the questions and maintain your position.
I accept your concession.

 

[koshergrl]

Jesus absolutely was not a liberal. The loaves and the fishes is not an indication that he was socialist...he didn't take bread and fish from anyone and re-distribute it. He took what was available, and God increased it. He didn't tell people to take money from others and spread it around..he told them to spread their own money around.

Huge difference. Of course progressive nutbags don't understand it, it's waay too subtle for their clunky brains.

 

[Esmeralda]

Jesus absolutely was not a liberal. The loaves and the fishes is not an indication that he was socialist...he didn't take bread and fish from anyone and re-distribute it. He took what was available, and God increased it. He didn't tell people to take money from others and spread it around..he told them to spread their own money around.

Huge difference. Of course progressive nutbags don't understand it, it's waay too subtle for their clunky brains.

This is really a very laughable post. Too, too funny.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Jesus absolutely was not a liberal. The loaves and the fishes is not an indication that he was socialist...he didn't take bread and fish from anyone and re-distribute it. He took what was available, and God increased it. He didn't tell people to take money from others and spread it around..he told them to spread their own money around.

Huge difference. Of course progressive nutbags don't understand it, it's waay too subtle for their clunky brains.

This is really a very laughable post. Too, too funny.

How is she wrong?

 

[Esmeralda]

Jesus absolutely was not a liberal. The loaves and the fishes is not an indication that he was socialist...he didn't take bread and fish from anyone and re-distribute it. He took what was available, and God increased it. He didn't tell people to take money from others and spread it around..he told them to spread their own money around.

Huge difference. Of course progressive nutbags don't understand it, it's waay too subtle for their clunky brains.

This is really a very laughable post. Too, too funny.

How is she wrong?

The Bible story is a parable, not reality. God did not increase the fish and bread. It is a moral lesson which is meant to say that we should all pool together and share. Jesus collects all the available fish and bread and redistributes it so everyone gets some. To believe God increased it is to believe in a Sunday school tale: to believe in a fairy tale. The story is meant to be a lesson, not reality. At least if you are an adult.

 

[koshergrl]

Jesus absolutely was not a liberal. The loaves and the fishes is not an indication that he was socialist...he didn't take bread and fish from anyone and re-distribute it. He took what was available, and God increased it. He didn't tell people to take money from others and spread it around..he told them to spread their own money around.

Huge difference. Of course progressive nutbags don't understand it, it's waay too subtle for their clunky brains.

This is really a very laughable post. Too, too funny.

How is she wrong?

The Bible story is a parable, not reality. God did not increase the fish and bread. It is a moral lesson which is meant to say that we should all pool together and share. Jesus collects all the available fish and bread and redistributes it so everyone gets some. To believe God increased it is to believe in a Sunday school tale: to believe in a fairy tale. The story is meant to be a lesson, not reality. At least if you are an adult.

Sorry, the majority of Christians don't believe that. Nor are you an authority on what the bible means.

 

[koshergrl]

For the biblically illiterate:

"A parable is a particular type of teaching method that involves a comparison or use of analogy between two different things. It involves words, used to illustrate and instruct. A miracle, on the other hand generally involves an action rather than just words. In relation to Jesus' miracles, for example, the miracle was performed to meet a need, often to heal a sick person. Of course, many of Jesus' miracles also illustrate and teach things about Jesus, especially His compassion and divine power, but they are primarily action rather than words."
What is the difference between a parable and a miracle

The Parables of Jesus Intro and List

^^Check out the list. Nothing about the loaves and fishes. Because it isn't a parable, nitwit. It would help if you actually knew the meaning of the words you like to toss about.

The MIRACLE of the loaves and fishes is considered a MIRACLE, not a parable.

"The Feeding of the 5000 and of the 4000 men—Jesus, praying to God and using only a few loaves of bread and several fish, feeds thousands of men, along with an unspecified number of women and children; there are even a number of baskets of leftovers afterward."

Miracles of Jesus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I love it when fanatical atheist zealots think they have any credibility when it comes to their weird-ass interpretations of the word. I think that their obvious unfamiliarity of the Bible, and their ignorant acceptance of whatever they hear on A&E alien shows from the 70s, is to blame for their views, and composes the whole of their comprehension of the religion they claim to understand,.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Jesus absolutely was not a liberal. The loaves and the fishes is not an indication that he was socialist...he didn't take bread and fish from anyone and re-distribute it. He took what was available, and God increased it. He didn't tell people to take money from others and spread it around..he told them to spread their own money around.

Huge difference. Of course progressive nutbags don't understand it, it's waay too subtle for their clunky brains.

This is really a very laughable post. Too, too funny.

How is she wrong?

The Bible story is a parable, not reality. God did not increase the fish and bread. It is a moral lesson which is meant to say that we should all pool together and share

But that's not what happened in the story, where Jesus took a little and made it into a lot, to demonstrate the power and love of God.
So, you must be wrong.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Jesus wasn't liberal. A liberal works from within the system, as do conservatives. If Jesus was anything it's more accurately termed anarchist.