Would Christ Fight The Christmas War?

[Ozmar]

Uh oh, projections. I see what's happening here.
The premise of this thread is that the battle over Christmas is somehow linked to the rich right wing of America showing contempt for the poor. Why would Jesus have to marry those concepts? Couldn't Jesus be against the secularization of Christmas, but at the same time hold the rich in contempt for their smarmy attitudes towards the poor?

Do celebrating Christmas and being generous to the poor go hand in hand? Is this more of this "all or nothing" retarded bullshit from Madeline?

It makes about as much sense as saying "I smoke, therefore I'm automatically against any restrictions to smoking in public places." And if I'm for restrictions to smoking in public places, I'm not a genuine smoker.

 

[WillowTree]

Wonder what Jesus thinks of those family values Republicans who push to keep Christ in Christmas but yet pull moves like giving tax breaks to the rich and refusing to give health benefits to 9/11 first responders? Now, I don't claim to have the mind of Christ. But I can easily imagine heaven resembling a Monty Pythonesque sketch right about now. As these faith fights spin out of control, Jesus pleads with a Terry Gilliam depiction of the Almighty, "Dad, I can't believe you sent me down to earth so I could die for this!"

Some days, the jokes seem to write themselves. But I fail to find the humor in touting American exceptionalism as though the United States represents this City on a Hill, an exemplar of Christian virtue by those who turn in a political performance that would make the Grinch green with envy.

I can't think of a more inappropriate present to give the baby Jesus than to bag the Beatitudes (Matthew 5-7) during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Just who do these Republicans think Jesus is referring to when he talks about "the least of these?" With over 3,000 references to poverty in the bible, it's pretty clear that Jesus' priorities lay with the poor. Without a doubt, he would turn the tables on a family-friendly agenda that advances a form of biblical capitalism where those in power evoke the name of Jesus as though the will of Christ is in synch with their own ambitions.

Guest Voices: Would Jesus fight in the Christmas Wars? - On Faith at washingtonpost.com

This is not the entire article; please read the whole thing. I must say, I think the author is dead on.

Your thoughts?

Tell ya what, Christians celebrate Dec. 25th as Christmas in honor of the birth of Christ. Now I know that puts burrs in the atheist boots, and bumps in dey drawers but that's just the way it is. Spot on my ass.

 

[Ozmar]

Atheists: Intolerant of Christianity, allied with Islam.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I dont believe in outsourcing my responsibilities to the government. Nor do I believe in spending my children's money without their consent and representation. That is robbery. When you take money from one group to give to another, this is not a public benefit, this is robbery.

Charity must be done by the individuals and as families. I dont believe in lying to people and telling them they are entitled to the money of others. I would fully encourage everyone to do their duty to help the poor and afflicted. But taking money by force is wrong.

Then you deny the history of the LDS church and the preaching of King Benjamin. You might tell your Bishop and your Stake President and/or his representative of your doubts during the recommend interview.

You are a perfect example of why the LDS church leadership considers membership in, or belief, the John Birch Society and its teachings.

 

[Stitchman]

I dont believe in outsourcing my responsibilities to the government. Nor do I believe in spending my children's money without their consent and representation. That is robbery. When you take money from one group to give to another, this is not a public benefit, this is robbery.

Charity must be done by the individuals and as families. I dont believe in lying to people and telling them they are entitled to the money of others. I would fully encourage everyone to do their duty to help the poor and afflicted. But taking money by force is wrong.

Like I mentioned before, you're advocating anarchy here (moreso in your last post, it seems like you might be trying to avoid sounding like an anarchist here). Is that what you intend on doing? You seem to have avoided addressing my previous post.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I dont believe in outsourcing my responsibilities to the government. Nor do I believe in spending my children's money without their consent and representation. That is robbery. When you take money from one group to give to another, this is not a public benefit, this is robbery.

Charity must be done by the individuals and as families. I dont believe in lying to people and telling them they are entitled to the money of others. I would fully encourage everyone to do their duty to help the poor and afflicted. But taking money by force is wrong.

Like I mentioned before, you're advocating anarchy here (moreso in your last post, it seems like you might be trying to avoid sounding like an anarchist here). Is that what you intend on doing? You seem to have avoided addressing my previous post.

Avatar4321, who in other ways is admirable, abdicates any responsibility for being a member of a social compact.

 

[William Joyce]

Describing taxation as "robbery" sort of assumes the reply, Avatar. I can see your point about keeping religion out of politics, but what sort of christianity is it that makes an idol of the rich and insults the poor?

BTW, christianity is hardly the only religion that urges its adherents to tend to the poor. I should think they all do, more or less.

Christ asked us to take care of the poor by our means and wealth. Not with the wealth and means of others.

Taxation is legalized Robbery. Taking property from others by the use of force is Robbery. And that's exactly what our current government is doing. We are taking money from one group to give to another.

It's one thing to tax ourselves. But we are robbing our children without their representation. And for what? Social programs no one is accountable for? Programs that waste money? That destroy initiative? That decieve people?

You honestly think that is what God wants?

God wants us to have charity for the poor. To help them. To lift them up. I repeat. He wants us to do it.

How does outsourcing our responsibilities teach us charity? How does it teach those that recieve our gifts gratitude when they believe they are Entitled to it?

How is it charity if it's not voluntary?

You can't force people to do good. That's not Christ's plan. That's the signature of the other guy.

I want freedom. I dont want to labor until April to pay off the government just to have them spend even more than what I have to give them every year. I could pay off my debt. I could better support my family. I could truly help those that need it. But I can't because the government takes so much of my money. And I am no where near the rich level.

Taxes are our labor. Our Effort. The more you take them to waste on things, the less we have to truly bless the world around us.

Your labor is only profitable because you live in a society, Avatar. Without government, you could not earn dime one, and you cost all your fellow citizens a certain amount of cash. It is not unreasonable to ask that you pay your fair share. Calling taxes "robbery" may feel good, but theoretically it is a foolish and wrong-headed idea.

As for "charity", in your view all of us should be on a cash and carry basis for all goods and services and to whatever degree we are not, we receive government aid or government-mandated-aid. I can't tell if your complaint is the government aids the poor too much and there isn't enough left for you to do, or the government should not aid the poor at all, because if it did not, the middle class and rich would do so much more "efficiently". But whatever you hoped to argue is utter nonsense IMO. Please point out any nation, now or in the past, which neglected to use its government to aid the poor but the wealthy did so voluntarily and adequately. None has ever existed and none ever will.

For starters, government aid to the poor is a service to YOU. You and your family enjoy peace and security because the underclass are not desperate and hopeless. I'm aways amazed at how blightly people overlook this direct benefit to them. I have a right to know there's a minimum amount of aid available in my area for those who need it -- and I demand this right. Whether we agree on how these programs should be designed, the fact is, both you and I benefit from them tremendously.

It is an essential government function to provide aid to the poor, along with courtrooms to settle disputes and trash collectors to keep the streets clean. We can have many fine convos about how that aid should be structured, etc but I am 100% convinced that caring for the children, infirm and elderly who cannot care for themselves is all our responsibilities as humans and citizens. Aid to able-bodied adults presents other issues IMO, but if a modest amount of aid for a brief period of time gets a family back up on their hind legs, at a minimum, it is a good investment.

I want my government to be just, and IMO, justice includes some assurances to me and anyone else in the middle class or wealthy that the poor among us will be dealt with fairly, will be looked after if that's all that can be done and will be given an opportunity to escape poverty if they are able. I do not understand those of you who claim no such justice is needed, wanted, or worth funding. I truely do not.

Advocating that the government abandon the poor, the unemployed, the plight of 911 first responders and anyone else in distress -- especially those who have served us -- while at the same time advocating that the wealthiest among us receive a ginormous tax cut seems to me to undercut the justice available to us all in this country.

If your faith dictates your morals and informs your acts, then it seems to me that acts like these are at odds with your faith's precepts, and those of the elected officials who self-identify as christians and are responsible for these decisions.

Stuck in the 60's much?

NOBODY believes this shit anymore.

I'm amazed at how openly liberals bash Christians. Christians do, in fact, spend time and money helping the poor. Meanwhile, liberals expect others... the rest of us... to handle that dirty work. For all their efforts, they're trashed by the likes of Madeline. What explains the hate?

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Oh, more lets bash the wealthy Christians who indeed do all the freakin giving to the poor, locally and internationally.
2. Some libturds are just plain nazi's.
3. Jesus would be for Christmas and those not for it, they would also be against him.
4. The ending on that will be a quick trip to hell.


Regards,
SirJAmesofTexas

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some actual Nazis were Christians..

Some liberals are just plain Christians.

You can't prove those who oppose Christmas oppose Jesus. Silly idea.

Your words above indicate a troubled soul who just may stumble on to the down elevator if he doesn't clean his act up.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

Some actual Nazis were Christians..

Some liberals are just plain Christians.

You can't prove those who oppose Christmas oppose Jesus. Silly idea.

Your words above indicate a troubled soul who just may stumble on to the down elevator if he doesn't clean his act up.

1. What makes you think I can't prove it Jake?



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Ozmar]

Some actual Nazis were Christians..

And a lot of Nazis were atheists.

Some liberals are just plain Christians.

Red herring. No one is saying that they aren't.

You can't prove those who oppose Christmas oppose Jesus. Silly idea.

I dunno. If someone opposed the celebration of my birthday, it's a good bet they don't think too highly of me. I suppose there's Jehovah's Witnesses...

Your words above indicate a troubled soul who just may stumble on to the down elevator if he doesn't clean his act up.

Ooh boy, more of your self righteous bullshit. If incapable of a decent argument, go ad hominem.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You guys can't carry an argument, that is the point.

Don't like it, then carry an argument, or go elsewhere if you wish.

Oz, you are simply pissy I corrected your nonsense as I just did chesswarsnow.

I know conservatives who are christians, atheists, jews, gays, whatever.

Your sweeping generalities are not arguments, just silliness.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, dragging the train back onto the tracks please. . . .

I think Jesus was practical to a fault--being practical instead of always 100% orthodox got him into trouble with the local elite more than once. Gleaning the fields on the Sabbath? Ewwwww, how could he do that? Healing on the Sabbath? Unheard of!!! And on the Sabbath terrible!!! Going to the house of a loathed tax collector? Obscene!!!! Showing respect for the intelligence of a woman? What sort of real man would do that????

So what would Jesus think about our Christmas? I think he would love the music. I think he would love the color and lights and the pure delight and anticipation on the faces of the children. I think he would respect those churches that do their damndest to honor him respectfully and with reverence during Advent and Christmas. I don't think he would fault merchants for participating in and profiting from the gift giving traditions. I think he would applaud using the season for special efforts to benefit the poor.

I think he would not appreciate the oneupmanship that sometimes happens. I think he would not appreciate those who use the season to manipulate, cheat, or coerce people. I think he would rebuke those of us who get all stressed out and sometimes out of sorts trying to do everything we think is expected of us. I think he would rebuke those who attempt to disrupt or destroy or deny the harmless traditions and pleasures that Christians enjoy during the season and that harm nobody. I think he would be sad at those who use Christmas symbols or traditions in perverse and obscene ways even though I think he would appreciate some of the more clever humor. I have to believe he was a fun guy to be around.

I think he would say as he did in the story of Mary and Martha. Do not rebuke or deny those who seek to adore him and show kindness to him.

I think he would think the writer of the OP had no clue about what charity is or what our attitudes toward the poor should be. (Hint: charity/compassion is not giving away somebody else's property and then feeling righteous that you've done your duty.)

He was pretty much a live and let live kind of guy so long as people were not attempting to harm or mislead others. So I think he would enjoy Christmas as most of us enjoy it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Avatar4321, who in other ways is admirable, abdicates any responsibility for being a member of a social compact.

Actually, It's quite the opposite. I think individuals do have a responsibility to give and lift a neighbor. That's why I am against the goverment pretending to.

I don't like people outsourcing their responsibilities to faceless bueaucrats and pretending that they are somehow good and nice because they have let bueaucrats spend other people's money to "help" others. Especially when that "help" usually leaves them worse off than they were prior to recieving the help.

When Ebeneezer Scrooge was first asked to give charity, he was against it because he already paid into the government welfare programs. He honestly thought he was doing the good he needed to do because of those programs.

At the end of a Christmas Carol, he realized he had the privilege to lift others through His own time and resources. That He was losing out.

I don't understand how so many of you don't see the very obvious difference between being forced to give to others and lying to those others and saying they are entitled to something, and voluntarily giving to others so that they may be lifted and recognize the gratitude of the gift.

One method is the one God teaches throughout the scriptures. The other is Satanic and destroys our souls. And I don't use the word Satanic lightly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ebeneezer Scrooge is a character in a book. You believe King Mosiah was a real individual. You should pay far more attention to Mosiah 4 than Charles Dickens for inspiration of your duty to your fellow man.

 

[Foxfyre]

Is there any evidence that there was a King Mosiah other than in the Book of Mormon? I don't recall his words re the poor, but I do know that his son Benjamin said that we serve the Lord when we give to the poor who ask. I don't recall that either advocated collecting mandatory taxes to benefit the poor.

I am positive that Jesus and none of the apostles advocated turning the business of charity or doing good works over to the government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Is there any evidence that there was a King Mosiah other than in the Book of Mormon? I don't recall his words re the poor, but I do know that his son Benjamin said that we serve the Lord when we give to the poor who ask. I don't recall that either advocated collecting mandatory taxes to benefit the poor.

I am positive that Jesus and none of the apostles advocated turning the business of charity or doing good works over to the government.

Benjamin, as king, was head of a theocratic state. He instructed his subjects since all was given to them by God they had not the right to withhold from the petitions of the poor based on whether the poor were worthy, because all are poor in the sight of God. Avatar, I think, believes Mosiah is scripture and that Benjamin actually lived. Whether you or I think that does not matter unless we are followers of Joseph Smith and the Restoration.

 

[uscitizen]

Christ has been watching the Christian church and is so disgusted with it he is not coming back.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ebeneezer Scrooge is a character in a book. You believe King Mosiah was a real individual. You should pay far more attention to Mosiah 4 than Charles Dickens for inspiration of your duty to your fellow man.

I do. And it teaches individual responsibility to take care of the poor. Not government programs to.

 

[Avatar4321]

Christ has been watching the Christian church and is so disgusted with it he is not coming back.

I think you might be disappointed by that.