"What Would Jesus Take?" 'Christian' tax theory

[Big Fitz]

After consideration, this is probably the best forum for this discussion, though it's highly political and economic in nature.



The question asked on Apr 25th by El Rushbo was why liberals were co-opting Jesus to defend taxation and their political faith. The left has been drum beating lately that Jesus was a collectivist and that taxation equals charity. It reminds me of the bullshit "Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor" slogan popular during the 08 election. One revolting sentiment considering it against scripture's actual words. By this standard, Oral Roberts, Jim Bakker and Jim Jones were community organizers too.

I've been looking through scripture to instances about taxation and fail to see anything of the kind there. Most often, tax collectors are lumped in with prostitutes and sinners.

The Disciple Matthew was a tax collector who broke the mold of most in that era, for instead of totally hoarding the wealth (since the tax collector had to tax for his own income), he often paid the taxes of the poor with his own money. Jesus was often condemned for eating with them. You can find more information about Matthew from related biblical encyclopedias and the like.

Mat 9:9 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.

Mat 10:3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;

Now, Jesus is a champion of taxation being equal to giving? Why did not Jesus champion the tax collector? I don't find anywhere in scripture that he did. He did not curse them, but often included them with sinners for the sake of their job.

Mat 9:11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"

When forced to pay a temple tax, he sent his disciples to catch a fish and remove the coin inside to pay the tax for all of them, lest they offend the tax collectors.

Mat 17:27 "But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours."

So here we sit with Rush asking this question, but MSNBS's Larry O'Donnell pops off in response. A man known for deriding believers of the Bible, then attempts to use it to defend his actions. I dunno... maybe my hearing isn't 20/20 anymore but isn't that well... very hypocritical? Maybe it's just me.

But the question of "What Would Jesus Cut" makes a major fatal assumption, that the money is legitimately owed. Other than paying for the temple tax from the mouth of a fish, Christ never paid taxes that we know of.

But this little exasperating statement just astounds me.

"The New Testament does have an answer to Rush's question, 'What would Jesus take?' and it's not one Rush is going to like," O'Donnell began, adding smugly, "And since he obviously has no working command of the Bible, it will surely shock him because he will be hearing it now for the first time."
"The answer is everything, not 35 percent, not 39.6 percent. One hundred percent," O'Donnell continued, referring to marginal tax rates for top income-bracket earners, citing as his proof text a passage from Mark 10 in which a rich man comes up to Jesus and asks "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?"

Excuse me? Really? And the parable of the rich man giving everything and following Jesus is the basis for government taxation policy???? How perverse! This is such a deliberate misinterpretation it's downright laughable. The problem is, too many scripturally ignorant they don't know that this is a deliberate misuse of this parable. It was about an individual not letting their wealth become a stumbling block to them following Christ. NOT as a plan for giving everything you own to government.



Clues to this include, giving his sold wealth directly to the poor. Not a government. Not a tax collector. Individual giving. He also did not say he should go to the government and give his wealth to them to give to the poor. No, the judgment of who to give it to was the rich man's responsibility.


What's really revolting is that this misuse equates government as divine, taking the place of Jesus as the spiritual and temporal provider of all things. A telling statement of liberal political faith. To them, government, if they agree with this, is God in the flesh. Nothing could be more wrong and deceitful.

That means you, Rush. And that means everything. Give up everything. Those are the words of Jesus Christ. Give up everything. You can be a radio talk show host and you can make your 50 million dollars a year. But you cannot do that and be a disciple of Christ if you keep all of your 50 million dollars a year.

And here we equate money... dirty nasty money to being a block to a relationship with Christ. I wonder if Mr. O'Donnell is willing to give up everything he owns and continue to do his job for nothing? Should he keep his large salary as well and subsist on the same methods as the poorest entitlement junkies in this nation? Should he get a WIC and EBT card, housing credits and live in a crappy little government subsidized OR provided tenement? After all, Government is God by his equations and we should give EVERYTHING to Government who will then give to the poor for our act of charity.


I'm just astounded by this horrible, blatantly STUPID statements and misuse of scripture to pontificate wildly about the divinity of collectivist government.

While Jesus may not have specified specific tax brackets, he was the first recorded advocate of a progressive income tax. Jesus actually said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth, but she, out of her poverty, put in everything, all she had to live on."

And to this I say Horseshit. This is called basic mathematics which Jesus seemed to understand. It was a shaming to the rich who tried to claim their supremacy of being charitable when they gave a pittance as compared to a faithful poor person who had much less, STILL giving much less than him, but it was proportionally larger than what they gave. Again, another lie for the sake of collectivist government.

Indeed, passages in the New Testament about giving focus on the motive of giving, not cold hard numbers. As St. Paul wrote the church in Corinth (emphasis mine):

The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
​

Give as he's decided in his heart? Not under compulsion? Cheerfully? When does that apply to anyone regarding any tax?

And this is the truth that most collectivist zealots ignore and the death of their attempts to equate Jesus to their political faith.


What a sick sad world we live in.

MSNBC's O'Donnell Slams Limbaugh As Biblically Ignorant; Contorts Scripture to Paint Jesus As Socialist | NewsBusters.org

 

[konradv]

How about Matthew 22:17-21(KJV)?

17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.


Seems Yeshua ben Yusef was alright with taxation!!!

 

[Truthmatters]

I think he whipped the money changers and not the poor

 

[FuelRod]

Democrats don't pay their fair share to charity. Otherwise we wouldn't need the Governement's social programs.

 

[sinister59]

After consideration, this is probably the best forum for this discussion, though it's highly political and economic in nature.



The question asked on Apr 25th by El Rushbo was why liberals were co-opting Jesus to defend taxation and their political faith. The left has been drum beating lately that Jesus was a collectivist and that taxation equals charity. It reminds me of the bullshit "Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor" slogan popular during the 08 election. One revolting sentiment considering it against scripture's actual words. By this standard, Oral Roberts, Jim Bakker and Jim Jones were community organizers too.

I've been looking through scripture to instances about taxation and fail to see anything of the kind there. Most often, tax collectors are lumped in with prostitutes and sinners.

The Disciple Matthew was a tax collector who broke the mold of most in that era, for instead of totally hoarding the wealth (since the tax collector had to tax for his own income), he often paid the taxes of the poor with his own money. Jesus was often condemned for eating with them. You can find more information about Matthew from related biblical encyclopedias and the like.

Mat 9:9 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.

Mat 10:3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;

Now, Jesus is a champion of taxation being equal to giving? Why did not Jesus champion the tax collector? I don't find anywhere in scripture that he did. He did not curse them, but often included them with sinners for the sake of their job.

When forced to pay a temple tax, he sent his disciples to catch a fish and remove the coin inside to pay the tax for all of them, lest they offend the tax collectors.

So here we sit with Rush asking this question, but MSNBS's Larry O'Donnell pops off in response. A man known for deriding believers of the Bible, then attempts to use it to defend his actions. I dunno... maybe my hearing isn't 20/20 anymore but isn't that well... very hypocritical? Maybe it's just me.

But the question of "What Would Jesus Cut" makes a major fatal assumption, that the money is legitimately owed. Other than paying for the temple tax from the mouth of a fish, Christ never paid taxes that we know of.

But this little exasperating statement just astounds me.


Excuse me? Really? And the parable of the rich man giving everything and following Jesus is the basis for government taxation policy???? How perverse! This is such a deliberate misinterpretation it's downright laughable. The problem is, too many scripturally ignorant they don't know that this is a deliberate misuse of this parable. It was about an individual not letting their wealth become a stumbling block to them following Christ. NOT as a plan for giving everything you own to government.



Clues to this include, giving his sold wealth directly to the poor. Not a government. Not a tax collector. Individual giving. He also did not say he should go to the government and give his wealth to them to give to the poor. No, the judgment of who to give it to was the rich man's responsibility.


What's really revolting is that this misuse equates government as divine, taking the place of Jesus as the spiritual and temporal provider of all things. A telling statement of liberal political faith. To them, government, if they agree with this, is God in the flesh. Nothing could be more wrong and deceitful.



And here we equate money... dirty nasty money to being a block to a relationship with Christ. I wonder if Mr. O'Donnell is willing to give up everything he owns and continue to do his job for nothing? Should he keep his large salary as well and subsist on the same methods as the poorest entitlement junkies in this nation? Should he get a WIC and EBT card, housing credits and live in a crappy little government subsidized OR provided tenement? After all, Government is God by his equations and we should give EVERYTHING to Government who will then give to the poor for our act of charity.


I'm just astounded by this horrible, blatantly STUPID statements and misuse of scripture to pontificate wildly about the divinity of collectivist government.

While Jesus may not have specified specific tax brackets, he was the first recorded advocate of a progressive income tax. Jesus actually said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth, but she, out of her poverty, put in everything, all she had to live on."

And to this I say Horseshit. This is called basic mathematics which Jesus seemed to understand. It was a shaming to the rich who tried to claim their supremacy of being charitable when they gave a pittance as compared to a faithful poor person who had much less, STILL giving much less than him, but it was proportionally larger than what they gave. Again, another lie for the sake of collectivist government.

Indeed, passages in the New Testament about giving focus on the motive of giving, not cold hard numbers. As St. Paul wrote the church in Corinth (emphasis mine):

The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
​

Give as he's decided in his heart? Not under compulsion? Cheerfully? When does that apply to anyone regarding any tax?

And this is the truth that most collectivist zealots ignore and the death of their attempts to equate Jesus to their political faith.


What a sick sad world we live in.

MSNBC's O'Donnell Slams Limbaugh As Biblically Ignorant; Contorts Scripture to Paint Jesus As Socialist | NewsBusters.org

christian have nothing to say about paying taxs , "render unto Cezar " pay what your told .

TAX the church's synagogues and mosk , no non for profit . not any more . church employees pay earnings tax priest, nones , rabbi , minister or mullah . or high priest or priestess .

if you take in money then pay tax's .

 

[Big Fitz]

How about Matthew 22:17-21(KJV)?

17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.


Seems Yeshua ben Yusef was alright with taxation!!!

christian have nothing to say about paying taxs , "render unto Cezar " pay what your told .

TAX the church's synagogues and mosk , no non for profit . not any more . church employees pay earnings tax priest, nones , rabbi , minister or mullah . or high priest or priestess .

if you take in money then pay tax's .

And taxation is the same as charity how? Back then there WAS no social safety hammock. It was the family's, church's and philanthropist's job to care for the poor and needy. Where is "Herod's Home for the Disabled"? Can you point me to Solomon building women's shelters? How often are we reminded of King David's court issuing food stamps? How about that Roman healthcare and social security plan?

So, where, is the equation of taxation = charity?

Would you two like to hang yourself with your words again? Or was once enough?

 

[Big Fitz]

I think he whipped the money changers and not the poor

Red letter day. I'm actually going to Posrep Truthmatters. She got that one right.

and a cute non-snarky lolcat. Boy I'm too nice at times.

Ow, I think I sprained my frontal lobe doing that.

 

[Sallow]

Ah the great schism rears it's ugly head again amongst the Christians.

Whether the Messiah thought it was more in keeping with their god to be rich or poor.

This has led to all sorts of mischief including wars.

Gotta love it.

 

[Avatar4321]

I think he whipped the money changers and not the poor

Not surprisingly, irrelevant to the conversation.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ah the great schism rears it's ugly head again amongst the Christians.

Whether the Messiah thought it was more in keeping with their god to be rich or poor.

This has led to all sorts of mischief including wars.

Gotta love it.

I don't think the Lord wanted us to be either.

 

[Missourian]

Ah the great schism rears it's ugly head again amongst the Christians.

Whether the Messiah thought it was more in keeping with their god to be rich or poor.

This has led to all sorts of mischief including wars.

Gotta love it.

Nope, it's the great schism between liberals and conservatives.

Whether it is charity when the government takes money to be used the way the government sees fit, or if charity is money freely given by choice to organizations that help the poor.

 

[sinister59]

After consideration, this is probably the best forum for this discussion, though it's highly political and economic in nature.



The question asked on Apr 25th by El Rushbo was why liberals were co-opting Jesus to defend taxation and their political faith. The left has been drum beating lately that Jesus was a collectivist and that taxation equals charity. It reminds me of the bullshit "Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor" slogan popular during the 08 election. One revolting sentiment considering it against scripture's actual words. By this standard, Oral Roberts, Jim Bakker and Jim Jones were community organizers too.

I've been looking through scripture to instances about taxation and fail to see anything of the kind there. Most often, tax collectors are lumped in with prostitutes and sinners.

The Disciple Matthew was a tax collector who broke the mold of most in that era, for instead of totally hoarding the wealth (since the tax collector had to tax for his own income), he often paid the taxes of the poor with his own money. Jesus was often condemned for eating with them. You can find more information about Matthew from related biblical encyclopedias and the like.

Mat 9:9 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.

Mat 10:3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;

Now, Jesus is a champion of taxation being equal to giving? Why did not Jesus champion the tax collector? I don't find anywhere in scripture that he did. He did not curse them, but often included them with sinners for the sake of their job.

When forced to pay a temple tax, he sent his disciples to catch a fish and remove the coin inside to pay the tax for all of them, lest they offend the tax collectors.

So here we sit with Rush asking this question, but MSNBS's Larry O'Donnell pops off in response. A man known for deriding believers of the Bible, then attempts to use it to defend his actions. I dunno... maybe my hearing isn't 20/20 anymore but isn't that well... very hypocritical? Maybe it's just me.

But the question of "What Would Jesus Cut" makes a major fatal assumption, that the money is legitimately owed. Other than paying for the temple tax from the mouth of a fish, Christ never paid taxes that we know of.

But this little exasperating statement just astounds me.


Excuse me? Really? And the parable of the rich man giving everything and following Jesus is the basis for government taxation policy???? How perverse! This is such a deliberate misinterpretation it's downright laughable. The problem is, too many scripturally ignorant they don't know that this is a deliberate misuse of this parable. It was about an individual not letting their wealth become a stumbling block to them following Christ. NOT as a plan for giving everything you own to government.



Clues to this include, giving his sold wealth directly to the poor. Not a government. Not a tax collector. Individual giving. He also did not say he should go to the government and give his wealth to them to give to the poor. No, the judgment of who to give it to was the rich man's responsibility.


What's really revolting is that this misuse equates government as divine, taking the place of Jesus as the spiritual and temporal provider of all things. A telling statement of liberal political faith. To them, government, if they agree with this, is God in the flesh. Nothing could be more wrong and deceitful.



And here we equate money... dirty nasty money to being a block to a relationship with Christ. I wonder if Mr. O'Donnell is willing to give up everything he owns and continue to do his job for nothing? Should he keep his large salary as well and subsist on the same methods as the poorest entitlement junkies in this nation? Should he get a WIC and EBT card, housing credits and live in a crappy little government subsidized OR provided tenement? After all, Government is God by his equations and we should give EVERYTHING to Government who will then give to the poor for our act of charity.


I'm just astounded by this horrible, blatantly STUPID statements and misuse of scripture to pontificate wildly about the divinity of collectivist government.

While Jesus may not have specified specific tax brackets, he was the first recorded advocate of a progressive income tax. Jesus actually said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth, but she, out of her poverty, put in everything, all she had to live on."

And to this I say Horseshit. This is called basic mathematics which Jesus seemed to understand. It was a shaming to the rich who tried to claim their supremacy of being charitable when they gave a pittance as compared to a faithful poor person who had much less, STILL giving much less than him, but it was proportionally larger than what they gave. Again, another lie for the sake of collectivist government.

Indeed, passages in the New Testament about giving focus on the motive of giving, not cold hard numbers. As St. Paul wrote the church in Corinth (emphasis mine):

The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
​

Give as he's decided in his heart? Not under compulsion? Cheerfully? When does that apply to anyone regarding any tax?

And this is the truth that most collectivist zealots ignore and the death of their attempts to equate Jesus to their political faith.


What a sick sad world we live in.

MSNBC's O'Donnell Slams Limbaugh As Biblically Ignorant; Contorts Scripture to Paint Jesus As Socialist | NewsBusters.org

when he turned over the tables selling offering ? money changers , and more did he pay for that vandalism?
why would a person respect others property if JC doesn't?

those people were following jews tradition at the time , they were trying to feed their kids , cloth them , shelter their families . did jesus say sorry ? did he make restitution ? no ! so how can you that worship him as god over look theses evil acts ?

 

[Old Rocks]

Democrats don't pay their fair share to charity. Otherwise we wouldn't need the Governement's social programs.

Hey dimbulb, we do provide the biggest charity of all, the blue states supporting the red states. If people like you would get out of your singlewide and look for a job, maybe the people in the liberal states would get to keep more of their hard earned money.

TaxProf Blog: Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How about Matthew 22:17-21(KJV)?

17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.


Seems Yeshua ben Yusef was alright with taxation!!!

Was he, or did he just recognize the trap they were trying to lay for him?

Mathew 22:15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in [his] talk. 16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any [man]: for thou regardest not the person of men.

It seems the Pharisees were trying to get him into trouble with either the common folk of the day, who hated the oppressive and deliberately punitive Roman taxes, or the Roman government itself. If he had supported taxes the people would have rejected him as the Messiah, because they believed the Messiah would free them from the Romans. If he had opposed the taxes he would have been guilty of treason against the occupying forces, and would have been killed. Pointing to this passage as proof of anything other than Jesus's ability to avoid traps is disingenuous.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think he whipped the money changers and not the poor

What makes you think the money changers were not poor themselves?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ah the great schism rears it's ugly head again amongst the Christians.

Whether the Messiah thought it was more in keeping with their god to be rich or poor.

This has led to all sorts of mischief including wars.

Gotta love it.

How did he feel about that? Is it possible that you know less about that than you think you do?

Mathew 26:7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat [at meat]. 8 But when his disciples saw [it], they had indignation, saying, To what purpose [is] this waste? 9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.10 When Jesus understood [it], he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. 11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. 12 For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did [it] for my burial.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Democrats don't pay their fair share to charity. Otherwise we wouldn't need the Governement's social programs.

Hey dimbulb, we do provide the biggest charity of all, the blue states supporting the red states. If people like you would get out of your singlewide and look for a job, maybe the people in the liberal states would get to keep more of their hard earned money.

TaxProf Blog: Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed

Not the dreaded tax chart that is completely wrong, out of context, and out of date. How can anyone possible stand up against the BIG LIE?

 

[Big Fitz]

After consideration, this is probably the best forum for this discussion, though it's highly political and economic in nature.



The question asked on Apr 25th by El Rushbo was why liberals were co-opting Jesus to defend taxation and their political faith. The left has been drum beating lately that Jesus was a collectivist and that taxation equals charity. It reminds me of the bullshit "Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor" slogan popular during the 08 election. One revolting sentiment considering it against scripture's actual words. By this standard, Oral Roberts, Jim Bakker and Jim Jones were community organizers too.

I've been looking through scripture to instances about taxation and fail to see anything of the kind there. Most often, tax collectors are lumped in with prostitutes and sinners.

The Disciple Matthew was a tax collector who broke the mold of most in that era, for instead of totally hoarding the wealth (since the tax collector had to tax for his own income), he often paid the taxes of the poor with his own money. Jesus was often condemned for eating with them. You can find more information about Matthew from related biblical encyclopedias and the like.

Mat 9:9 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.

Now, Jesus is a champion of taxation being equal to giving? Why did not Jesus champion the tax collector? I don't find anywhere in scripture that he did. He did not curse them, but often included them with sinners for the sake of their job.

When forced to pay a temple tax, he sent his disciples to catch a fish and remove the coin inside to pay the tax for all of them, lest they offend the tax collectors.

So here we sit with Rush asking this question, but MSNBS's Larry O'Donnell pops off in response. A man known for deriding believers of the Bible, then attempts to use it to defend his actions. I dunno... maybe my hearing isn't 20/20 anymore but isn't that well... very hypocritical? Maybe it's just me.

But the question of "What Would Jesus Cut" makes a major fatal assumption, that the money is legitimately owed. Other than paying for the temple tax from the mouth of a fish, Christ never paid taxes that we know of.

But this little exasperating statement just astounds me.


Excuse me? Really? And the parable of the rich man giving everything and following Jesus is the basis for government taxation policy???? How perverse! This is such a deliberate misinterpretation it's downright laughable. The problem is, too many scripturally ignorant they don't know that this is a deliberate misuse of this parable. It was about an individual not letting their wealth become a stumbling block to them following Christ. NOT as a plan for giving everything you own to government.



Clues to this include, giving his sold wealth directly to the poor. Not a government. Not a tax collector. Individual giving. He also did not say he should go to the government and give his wealth to them to give to the poor. No, the judgment of who to give it to was the rich man's responsibility.


What's really revolting is that this misuse equates government as divine, taking the place of Jesus as the spiritual and temporal provider of all things. A telling statement of liberal political faith. To them, government, if they agree with this, is God in the flesh. Nothing could be more wrong and deceitful.



And here we equate money... dirty nasty money to being a block to a relationship with Christ. I wonder if Mr. O'Donnell is willing to give up everything he owns and continue to do his job for nothing? Should he keep his large salary as well and subsist on the same methods as the poorest entitlement junkies in this nation? Should he get a WIC and EBT card, housing credits and live in a crappy little government subsidized OR provided tenement? After all, Government is God by his equations and we should give EVERYTHING to Government who will then give to the poor for our act of charity.


I'm just astounded by this horrible, blatantly STUPID statements and misuse of scripture to pontificate wildly about the divinity of collectivist government.



And to this I say Horseshit. This is called basic mathematics which Jesus seemed to understand. It was a shaming to the rich who tried to claim their supremacy of being charitable when they gave a pittance as compared to a faithful poor person who had much less, STILL giving much less than him, but it was proportionally larger than what they gave. Again, another lie for the sake of collectivist government.

Indeed, passages in the New Testament about giving focus on the motive of giving, not cold hard numbers. As St. Paul wrote the church in Corinth (emphasis mine):

The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
​

Give as he's decided in his heart? Not under compulsion? Cheerfully? When does that apply to anyone regarding any tax?

And this is the truth that most collectivist zealots ignore and the death of their attempts to equate Jesus to their political faith.


What a sick sad world we live in.

MSNBC's O'Donnell Slams Limbaugh As Biblically Ignorant; Contorts Scripture to Paint Jesus As Socialist | NewsBusters.org

when he turned over the tables selling offering ? money changers , and more did he pay for that vandalism?
why would a person respect others property if JC doesn't?

those people were following jews tradition at the time , they were trying to feed their kids , cloth them , shelter their families . did jesus say sorry ? did he make restitution ? no ! so how can you that worship him as god over look theses evil acts ?

So now you're trying to say Jesus sinned? Riiiiight. You need to go stand in the corner facing the wall for a few years.

At least that answers the question of "are you a Christian" or not.

 

[Avatar4321]

Democrats don't pay their fair share to charity. Otherwise we wouldn't need the Governement's social programs.

Hey dimbulb, we do provide the biggest charity of all, the blue states supporting the red states. If people like you would get out of your singlewide and look for a job, maybe the people in the liberal states would get to keep more of their hard earned money.

TaxProf Blog: Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed

Entitlements aren't charity.

 

[emilynghiem]

I am guessing the lesson learned here: If we don't set up better means of supporting society sustainably by voluntary charity,
then by the time the problems escalate so badly they become a national issue pushed onto govt to solve,
then the punishment for not effectively solving problems directly ourselves
is being forced into paying unconstitutional taxes for unconstitutional policies
UNTIL we get our act together and set up better solutions that ARE constitutional.

Example of better models based on voluntary participation, funding and outreach:
www.paceuniversal.com
www.grameenfoundation.org
www.pdmpwebsite.org

mixing nonprofits with business and govt:
www.naca.com
www.earnedamnesty.org
www.10million.net