What is the very FIRST question that we asked in the Holy Bible?

[Sky Dancer]

Yes, but at no time did Jesus of Nazareth suggest that concern for the sick, hungry, naked, those in prison, etc. was anybody's obligation to do but rather was something that makes a person a good neighbor and a person that loves God when we do it. At no place did he ever see it as a responsibility of the government or anything other than voluntary charity that comes from the heart.

jesus also says he came only for the jews....but that seems to have changed too...
i agree with you that there is no government directions for that....just render unto ceasar what is his.....but that is basically all....his chasing the money changers out of the temple...does say something and the verse.....easier for a camel to pass thru the eye of a needle than a rich man getting into heaven....and there is tilting

Remember though that this is a JudeoChristian story beginning with Adam and coming forward through Abraham and Jacob and Moses and King David to the 'modern' First Century. The Jews were the Chosen People of God through which he would bless all the Earth. So yes, the Gospel would naturally be preached first to the Jews. And the first Disciples, several hundred strong by the time of Pentecost, were also almost all Jewish and would make up the first Christian congregations. It was only after the Jews had been addressed that Peter, Paul et al began to branch out to carry the Gospel to the gentiles too.

I think the 'rich man' was a metaphor for anything that we put ahead of our love for God, and few who do not put God first will ever have a relationship with Him. Jesus was explicit that those who do have that relationship, however, are already in the kingdom of God that was already at hand. We are getting into a pretty mystical section of Christian beliefs here, and I honestly don't think God cares all that much about the technicalities of our theology.

He wants us to love God with all our heart and soul and mind and to love our neighbor. The only reason we need any other laws or regulations at all is that too many don't even try to do that and the rest of us do it imperfectly.

Am I to infer that you support the Domionist premise that all laws must be re-written to be biblical?

 

[Sky Dancer]

and yet the last sentence is true as well.

and he still repped me.

The thing about gays was kind of out of left field.

not really. it showed jesus' priorities.

Jesus priorities did not include gay people.

 

[Avatar4321]

...



"Am I my brother's keeper?"~Cain

was an answer ever given?

what do you Bible readers and believers think?

We are all related. We all have free will. We do what we can, when we can.

Be Fruitful, Bear Witness, tell the truth about what you see.

What does being "fruitful" mean to you? I suspect it doesn't mean the same thing to me, LOL.

Depends on the Context. But the original command, which is still in force, is to "be fruitful. Multiply and replenish the earth."

We have a natural yearning to create life and have children. Though some do ignore that natural urging for more selfish reasons.

Of course, there is also "Be fruitful" in the Context of doing good works.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why don't you just tell everyone what you think it means? Are we our brothers keeper?

imo the simple answer is, yes, yes we are....

Actually, the answer is up to each individual.

I would agree - but I will do willingly for my brother, I will not be forced to by others - like Government.

I agree.

And I will not force others too.

Forcing people to part with their goods to give them to others is not charity. It's Robbery.

Charity cannot happen withing voluntariness.

 

[Avatar4321]

I was thinking the same thing

and yet the last sentence is true as well.

and he still repped me.

The thing about gays was kind of out of left field.

It was. and yet her statement is completely Ironic. Because she is stating it in an effort to argue that Christians should let homosexuals alone to do what they want. If we are to be our brothers keeper, than to some degree, we can't do that.

 

[Care4all]

imo the simple answer is, yes, yes we are....

Actually, the answer is up to each individual.

I would agree - but I will do willingly for my brother, I will not be forced to by others - like Government.

I agree.

And I will not force others too.

Forcing people to part with their goods to give them to others is not charity. It's Robbery.

Charity cannot happen withing voluntariness.

it was not voluntary in Jesus's time....the various tithings were mandatory or you would be shunned or worse, excommunicated from the church....or you were blackballed and not able to open a business or do business with others in the community.
There were many tithings (taxes) required of their citizenry
one example was farmers were required to allow the poor to take 10% of their crops when ripened...

 

[Immanuel]

Why don't you just tell everyone what you think it means? Are we our brothers keeper?

imo the simple answer is, yes, yes we are....

I agree. Whether we read the Bible or believe in God, or not, we have a responsibility to love and care for one another.

Excellent answer.

But, in regards to things like social welfare which is where many on the left like to take this discussion (maybe the already have in this thread I have not yet read it all) there are differing ideas on what exactly it means to "love and care for one another".

Some simply mean supplying them with food, shelter and clothing through tax dollars i.e. Welfare. Others believe that it means helping them to become self sufficient. I tend to be more of the belief that you do more good by helping them to become self sufficient as opposed to buying their beer for them every week.

Immie

 

[Care4all]

imo the simple answer is, yes, yes we are....

I agree. Whether we read the Bible or believe in God, or not, we have a responsibility to love and care for one another.

Excellent answer.

But, in regards to things like social welfare which is where many on the left like to take this discussion (maybe the already have in this thread I have not yet read it all) there are differing ideas on what exactly it means to "love and care for one another".

Some simply mean supplying them with food, shelter and clothing through tax dollars i.e. Welfare. Others believe that it means helping them to become self sufficient. I tend to be more of the belief that you do more good by helping them to become self sufficient as opposed to buying their beer for them every week.

Immie

yes, the goal on both the left and the right should be to make them self sufficient....got any ideas that would not cost any money? even if it is educating them or training them for a job, it costs tax monies to do such.

btw
Where did jesus teach the 5000 on the mount he fed to be self sufficient? Where did he teach any of the poor he took care of to be self sufficient?

 

[rdean]

...



"Am I my brother's keeper?"~Cain

was an answer ever given?

what do you Bible readers and believers think?

Where is the:

 

[Immanuel]

I agree. Whether we read the Bible or believe in God, or not, we have a responsibility to love and care for one another.

Excellent answer.

But, in regards to things like social welfare which is where many on the left like to take this discussion (maybe the already have in this thread I have not yet read it all) there are differing ideas on what exactly it means to "love and care for one another".

Some simply mean supplying them with food, shelter and clothing through tax dollars i.e. Welfare. Others believe that it means helping them to become self sufficient. I tend to be more of the belief that you do more good by helping them to become self sufficient as opposed to buying their beer for them every week.

Immie

yes, the goal on both the left and the right should be to make them self sufficient....got any ideas that would not cost any money? even if it is educating them or training them for a job, it costs tax monies to do such.

btw
Where did jesus teach the 5000 on the mount he fed to be self sufficient? Where did he teach any of the poor he took care of to be self sufficient?

Where did I say anything about not costing money?

Jesus wasn't teaching about being self sufficient when he fed the 5000 nor was he teaching social welfare. He was teaching about faith. In fact, he was teaching his own disciples about faith.

Immie

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually, the answer is up to each individual.

I would agree - but I will do willingly for my brother, I will not be forced to by others - like Government.

I agree.

And I will not force others too.

Forcing people to part with their goods to give them to others is not charity. It's Robbery.

Charity cannot happen withing voluntariness.

it was not voluntary in Jesus's time....the various tithings were mandatory or you would be shunned or worse, excommunicated from the church....or you were blackballed and not able to open a business or do business with others in the community.
There were many tithings (taxes) required of their citizenry
one example was farmers were required to allow the poor to take 10% of their crops when ripened...

But that was the ancient Jewish law. There were no such mandates among the early Christian communities. Further charity in the Jewish mandates were restricted to obligations to the Jewish poor. Jesus was clear that when we minister to ANYBODY in need, we are loving Him/loving God.

We Christians express love for God by expressing love for the poor and disadvantaged which may or may not be giving of physical things but rather giving them what they need at the time; not necessarily what they want.

He told the rich young ruler to sell what he had and give to the poor and follow him (Jesus.) Why? Because the young man's possessions were getting in the way of what God called on him to do.

Most of the rich, Jesus made no such recommendation but rather instructed them to do good with the wealth with which God has blessed them:
In the Gospel of Luke: Luke 14:13-14 "But when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, since they do not have the means to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

Jesus went to in the home of Zaccheus, the hated tax collector:
Luke 19:8-9: "And Zaccheus stopped and said to the Lord, 'Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much.' And Jesus said to him, 'Today salvation has come to this house. . . ."

Jesus told the disciples, “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.”

Charity also calls on Christian to pray for those who persecute us; love those who hate us. Almost impossible except through God's grace.

But in no place does the New Testament instruct us to be anybody's 'keeper' which would imply that they are subject to us and we are their overlords. I think Jesus would deplore a well intended but misguided form of charity that encourages dependency and lack of will to achieve and accomplish for oneself and one's family. And I think he would condemn the hypocrites who take from others to dispense as 'charity' for the sole purpose of enhancing the politician's own power, prestige, influence, and longegivity in office.

 

[CMike]

matthew has a lot of the answers to this question....25:40.....something about what you do to the least of my breathen you do to me....

Yes, but at no time did Jesus of
jesus also says he came only for the jews....but that seems to have changed too...
i agree with you that there is no government directions for that....just render unto ceasar what is his.....but that is basically all....his chasing the money changers out of the temple...does say something and the verse.....easier for a camel to pass thru the eye of a needle than a rich man getting into heaven....and there is tilting

That was a really stupid thing to do and say.

 

[CMike]

Actually, the answer is voluntariness.

it was not voluntary in Jesus's time....the various tithings were mandatory or you would be shunned or worse, excommunicated from the church....or you were blackballed and not able to open a business or do business with others in the community.
There were many tithings (taxes) required of their citizenry
one example was farmers were required to allow the poor to take 10% of their crops when ripened...

What churches and where exactly did you get that information from?

 

[Ernie S.]

Why don't you just tell everyone what you think it means? Are we our brothers keeper?

imo the simple answer is, yes, yes we are....

I agree. I am my brother's keeper, but charity is supposed to be voluntary. It is no longer the freely giving of one's self when you are compelled by government to support sloth.

 

[Care4all]

I agree.

And I will not force others too.

Forcing people to part with their goods to give them to others is not charity. It's Robbery.

Charity cannot happen withing voluntariness.

it was not voluntary in Jesus's time....the various tithings were mandatory or you would be shunned or worse, excommunicated from the church....or you were blackballed and not able to open a business or do business with others in the community.
There were many tithings (taxes) required of their citizenry
one example was farmers were required to allow the poor to take 10% of their crops when ripened...

But that was the ancient Jewish law. There were no such mandates among the early Christian communities. Further charity in the Jewish mandates were restricted to obligations to the Jewish poor. Jesus was clear that when we minister to ANYBODY in need, we are loving Him/loving God.

We Christians express love for God by expressing love for the poor and disadvantaged which may or may not be giving of physical things but rather giving them what they need at the time; not necessarily what they want.

He told the rich young ruler to sell what he had and give to the poor and follow him (Jesus.) Why? Because the young man's possessions were getting in the way of what God called on him to do.

Most of the rich, Jesus made no such recommendation but rather instructed them to do good with the wealth with which God has blessed them:
In the Gospel of Luke: Luke 14:13-14 "But when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, since they do not have the means to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

Jesus went to in the home of Zaccheus, the hated tax collector:
Luke 19:8-9: "And Zaccheus stopped and said to the Lord, 'Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much.' And Jesus said to him, 'Today salvation has come to this house. . . ."

Jesus told the disciples, “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.”

Charity also calls on Christian to pray for those who persecute us; love those who hate us. Almost impossible except through God's grace.

But in no place does the New Testament instruct us to be anybody's 'keeper' which would imply that they are subject to us and we are their overlords. I think Jesus would deplore a well intended but misguided form of charity that encourages dependency and lack of will to achieve and accomplish for oneself and one's family. And I think he would condemn the hypocrites who take from others to dispense as 'charity' for the sole purpose of enhancing the politician's own power, prestige, influence, and longegivity in office.

THOSE were the rules at the time of Christ, do you think he was not aware of them? I think He was well aware of them Foxy.

I don't think I have the same interpretation of what being a "brother's keeper" as you seem to have....(or maybe we are on the same page?)I don't see being your brother's keeper as being over Lords.

I also do not see these gvt programs to feed the poor as enhancing the politicians individual power either....that's something that i definitely disagree with you on and all republicans on.....

this does not mean i agree with all of our different welfare for the needy either...i just do not in any way see how it truly benefits them.....50% of our voting population or more, does not even vote in our elections.....I can assure you that MOST of that crowd that does not vote, are the poor and newly made adults...18-22 years old....not the wealthy or middle class or seniors...they are the voting bunch, also, most who receive welfare, are children, and they can't vote.

yes, our programs have lots of faults and loopholes that moochers have found...and yes we have problems....

but i just do not see how welfare enhances the political life of a politician.

 

[Ernie S.]

2 Thessalonians 3:10 King James Bible

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat

 

[Care4all]

2 Thessalonians 3:10 King James Bible

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat

I agree....

but they were speaking to MEN at the time and not women with children....and most who receive welfare today are women with children, and some elderly I believe? women were not allowed to work in Jesus's day....not outside of the home.

there are others that are poor that WORK, who do qualify for food stamps.... in my state, you can not get welfare (tanf) if you do not have kids or if you are not a senior....you have to make something ridiculous, like only 7k a year for a person to qualify without kids.....you can't receive the EIC, earned income credit if you don't have kids either....well it is near impossible.....so many of our programs are directed around having kids.....and most involve people working but not making enough....to survive....though i was amazed that you could make as much as 48k a year if you have a few kids and still qualify for food stamps!

 

[Foxfyre]

it was not voluntary in Jesus's time....the various tithings were mandatory or you would be shunned or worse, excommunicated from the church....or you were blackballed and not able to open a business or do business with others in the community.
There were many tithings (taxes) required of their citizenry
one example was farmers were required to allow the poor to take 10% of their crops when ripened...

But that was the ancient Jewish law. There were no such mandates among the early Christian communities. Further charity in the Jewish mandates were restricted to obligations to the Jewish poor. Jesus was clear that when we minister to ANYBODY in need, we are loving Him/loving God.

We Christians express love for God by expressing love for the poor and disadvantaged which may or may not be giving of physical things but rather giving them what they need at the time; not necessarily what they want.

He told the rich young ruler to sell what he had and give to the poor and follow him (Jesus.) Why? Because the young man's possessions were getting in the way of what God called on him to do.

Most of the rich, Jesus made no such recommendation but rather instructed them to do good with the wealth with which God has blessed them:
In the Gospel of Luke: Luke 14:13-14 "But when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, since they do not have the means to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

Jesus went to in the home of Zaccheus, the hated tax collector:
Luke 19:8-9: "And Zaccheus stopped and said to the Lord, 'Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much.' And Jesus said to him, 'Today salvation has come to this house. . . ."

Jesus told the disciples, “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.”

Charity also calls on Christian to pray for those who persecute us; love those who hate us. Almost impossible except through God's grace.

But in no place does the New Testament instruct us to be anybody's 'keeper' which would imply that they are subject to us and we are their overlords. I think Jesus would deplore a well intended but misguided form of charity that encourages dependency and lack of will to achieve and accomplish for oneself and one's family. And I think he would condemn the hypocrites who take from others to dispense as 'charity' for the sole purpose of enhancing the politician's own power, prestige, influence, and longegivity in office.

THOSE were the rules at the time of Christ, do you think he was not aware of them? I think He was well aware of them Foxy.

I don't think I have the same interpretation of what being a "brother's keeper" as you seem to have....(or maybe we are on the same page?)I don't see being your brother's keeper as being over Lords.

I also do not see these gvt programs to feed the poor as enhancing the politicians individual power either....that's something that i definitely disagree with you on and all republicans on.....

this does not mean i agree with all of our different welfare for the needy either...i just do not in any way see how it truly benefits them.....50% of our voting population or more, does not even vote in our elections.....I can assure you that MOST of that crowd that does not vote, are the poor and newly made adults...18-22 years old....not the wealthy or middle class or seniors...they are the voting bunch, also, most who receive welfare, are children, and they can't vote.

yes, our programs have lots of faults and loopholes that moochers have found...and yes we have problems....

but i just do not see how welfare enhances the political life of a politician.

The word 'keeper', I simply go back to the ancient Hebrew translation and interpretation and how the word was used which was a owner/keeper/protector of the animals or other property one owned or to do that as somebody's employee. I am quite certain that Cain did not mean 'concern for' Abel when he used the term 'keeper' but rather he was using a form of sarcasm to illustrate that he didn't own Abel and therefore was not privy to his whereabout.

"Charity' dispensed by the Federal government indeed enhances the politician's power, influence authority, and personal fortune when he or she can keep getting votes by channeling the people's treasury to the voters. The 'charity' can be in the form of real or promised benefits to the less affluent or can be in the form of protection and favors for the unions or in the form of lucrative contracts or favorable regulation for certain big contributors in commerce and industry. The spigot of taxpayer money is kept flowing to these folks as long as they support those in control of the spigot.

It doesn't concern the politicians that nothing positive seems to result from all this 'benevolence' that is approaching $10 trillion now since the War on Poverty was launched. They turn a blind eye to the obscenely high unemployment rate for male minorities, crumbling projects, dangerous schools, or generations of the now chronically unemployed due to cultivated dependence on the government. All they have to do is keep the benefits flowing and promise the recipients that nobody cares about them except those who have the spigot.

In my opinion, it is the most corrupting influence both to those in government and to the recipients of the benefits that we have ever introduced into the American culture.

 

[Sky Dancer]

But that was the ancient Jewish law. There were no such mandates among the early Christian communities. Further charity in the Jewish mandates were restricted to obligations to the Jewish poor. Jesus was clear that when we minister to ANYBODY in need, we are loving Him/loving God.

We Christians express love for God by expressing love for the poor and disadvantaged which may or may not be giving of physical things but rather giving them what they need at the time; not necessarily what they want.

He told the rich young ruler to sell what he had and give to the poor and follow him (Jesus.) Why? Because the young man's possessions were getting in the way of what God called on him to do.

Most of the rich, Jesus made no such recommendation but rather instructed them to do good with the wealth with which God has blessed them:
In the Gospel of Luke: Luke 14:13-14 "But when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, since they do not have the means to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

Jesus went to in the home of Zaccheus, the hated tax collector:
Luke 19:8-9: "And Zaccheus stopped and said to the Lord, 'Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much.' And Jesus said to him, 'Today salvation has come to this house. . . ."

Jesus told the disciples, “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.”

Charity also calls on Christian to pray for those who persecute us; love those who hate us. Almost impossible except through God's grace.

But in no place does the New Testament instruct us to be anybody's 'keeper' which would imply that they are subject to us and we are their overlords. I think Jesus would deplore a well intended but misguided form of charity that encourages dependency and lack of will to achieve and accomplish for oneself and one's family. And I think he would condemn the hypocrites who take from others to dispense as 'charity' for the sole purpose of enhancing the politician's own power, prestige, influence, and longegivity in office.

THOSE were the rules at the time of Christ, do you think he was not aware of them? I think He was well aware of them Foxy.

I don't think I have the same interpretation of what being a "brother's keeper" as you seem to have....(or maybe we are on the same page?)I don't see being your brother's keeper as being over Lords.

I also do not see these gvt programs to feed the poor as enhancing the politicians individual power either....that's something that i definitely disagree with you on and all republicans on.....

this does not mean i agree with all of our different welfare for the needy either...i just do not in any way see how it truly benefits them.....50% of our voting population or more, does not even vote in our elections.....I can assure you that MOST of that crowd that does not vote, are the poor and newly made adults...18-22 years old....not the wealthy or middle class or seniors...they are the voting bunch, also, most who receive welfare, are children, and they can't vote.

yes, our programs have lots of faults and loopholes that moochers have found...and yes we have problems....

but i just do not see how welfare enhances the political life of a politician.

The word 'keeper', I simply go back to the ancient Hebrew translation and interpretation and how the word was used which was a owner/keeper/protector of the animals or other property one owned or to do that as somebody's employee. I am quite certain that Cain did not mean 'concern for' Abel when he used the term 'keeper' but rather he was using a form of sarcasm to illustrate that he didn't own Abel and therefore was not privy to his whereabout.

"Charity' dispensed by the Federal government indeed enhances the politician's power, influence authority, and personal fortune when he or she can keep getting votes by channeling the people's treasury to the voters. The 'charity' can be in the form of real or promised benefits to the less affluent or can be in the form of protection and favors for the unions or in the form of lucrative contracts or favorable regulation for certain big contributors in commerce and industry. The spigot of taxpayer money is kept flowing to these folks as long as they support those in control of the spigot.

It doesn't concern the politicians that nothing positive seems to result from all this 'benevolence' that is approaching $10 trillion now since the War on Poverty was launched. They turn a blind eye to the obscenely high unemployment rate for male minorities, crumbling projects, dangerous schools, or generations of the now chronically unemployed due to cultivated dependence on the government. All they have to do is keep the benefits flowing and promise the recipients that nobody cares about them except those who have the spigot.

In my opinion, it is the most corrupting influence both to those in government and to the recipients of the benefits that we have ever introduced into the American culture.

Small government is a conservative value. It's not related to Christianity at all.