Would Christ Fight The Christmas War?

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.

Somehow using a sermon from King Benjamin made to His people to awaken to their individual responsibilities to take care of the poor among them, Jake has extrapolated this to mean that he is advocating for the government to take money from one group and give to another.

It's a stretch to say the least.
 
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.

And when individuals shun that responsibility what? Do we just let people starve?
 
(2 Thessalonians 3:10-15) “. . . If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread. But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary in doing good. And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.”
 
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.

Somehow using a sermon from King Benjamin made to His people to awaken to their individual responsibilities to take care of the poor among them, Jake has extrapolated this to mean that he is advocating for the government to take money from one group and give to another.

It's a stretch to say the least.

King Benjamin, as head of the theocratic state, was giving the word of the Lord to his people. There is no extrapolation whatsoever about what the king said or what the Lord expected.
 
'bones and Ozmar have the right of it. Chanel and Avatar have the right spirit but need a better approach. Revere is not worthy of direct response. Matthew 22: 34 - 40.
 
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.

I agree with you on a lot of this Foxy. Of course he would enjoy much of it, certainly not the more crass commercialism and the "gimme mine" Black Friday attitude that creeps in. But I'm positive he would love many of the traditions meant to be beautiful and enjoyed, like displays of lights or the caroling that still happens in some places, or just plain harmless fun particularly for families and children, like Santa and holiday treats.

It's very difficult indeed given God's somewhat outrageous sense of humor to believe Christ didn't or wouldn't appreciate, smile and laugh like everyone else. ;)

But I agree most that he was a live and let live kind of guy. As such, I can't see him participating in the infamous "War on Christmas". Somehow I doubt he'd be offended if he was told "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", or vice versa. I can't see him telling people who don't celebrate his birthday to "shut up, December 25th is Christmas and the rest of you can suck it up" like a few people on this board do. Nor do I see him reacting well to the few nonbelievers who tell Christians to "shut up". Live and let live, the perfect words.

It's what's in people's hearts and minds that mattered to him, not the words on their lips. And I think he would approve of how the vast majority of both believers and nonbelievers handle it, with a smile and nod and going back to their daily business without making a big issue of it so long as everybody is making the attempt to be kind and respectful.

Which is something a deceptively loud but small minority these days would do well to remember, IMO.
 
(2 Thessalonians 3:10-15) “. . . If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread. But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary in doing good. And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.”

And yet the Hebrew Law allowed the poor to glean the fields without penalty. Christ in many passages including but certainly not limited to the one bones posted from Matthew admonished his followers to care for the poor.

There are many such contradictions and seeming contradictions in the scriptures. Cherry picking those passages that bolster your opinion while ignoring the others isn't the best way to go about resolving them.
 
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.

And when individuals shun that responsibility what? Do we just let people starve?

Nobody has to starve in the USA, but most states and local communities do provide some social services. And, as long as we consider it good and proper to have local charities, there will always be a hand up for anybody who needs that. Local charity is also far less likely to be seriously abused and less likely to enable correctable bad behavior than are large impersonal one-size-fits-all programs.

It is absurd to think that if the federal government doesn't do it, it won't get done. And we have seen the evidence that there is simply no way for the federal government to dispense charity without that becoming a corrupting force within government and for the beneficiaries of the benevolence.

One of the greatest things we could do to protect and preserve the Constitution, freedom, American liberties and values, and restore fiscal and ethical sanity to our government is to get the federal government out of the business of ALL forms of charity entirely.
 
I do. And it teaches individual responsibility to take care of the poor. Not government programs to.

And when individuals shun that responsibility what? Do we just let people starve?

Nobody has to starve in the USA, but most states and local communities do provide some social services. And, as long as we consider it good and proper to have local charities, there will always be a hand up for anybody who needs that. Local charity is also far less likely to be seriously abused and less likely to enable correctable bad behavior than are large impersonal one-size-fits-all programs.

It is absurd to think that if the federal government doesn't do it, it won't get done. And we have seen the evidence that there is simply no way for the federal government to dispense charity without that becoming a corrupting force within government and for the beneficiaries of the benevolence.

One of the greatest things we could do to protect and preserve the Constitution, freedom, American liberties and values, and restore fiscal and ethical sanity to our government is to get the federal government out of the business of ALL forms of charity entirely.
That's not what I'm getting at.

My point is this: If there were no government services whatsoever, local state or federal, and it were just left up to individuals to make donations to charity, give to beggars, etc., what happens if those individuals decide to be stingy and not give money? And don't go the obvious route of "it's their choice." If they choose not to help the poor, and there is not safety net whatsoever, what happens? People starve. Kind of like what happened in pre-Revolution Russia... which is a big reason why they had a revolution: The rich hoarded all the money while people were starving.

I'm not for socialism, but I can foresee the consequences of your absolutist ideology just as I see the consequences of absolute socialism.
 
'bones and Ozmar have the right of it. Chanel and Avatar have the right spirit but need a better approach. Revere is not worthy of direct response. Matthew 22: 34 - 40.

I admit I'm not perfect. You should get off your soapbox about this imaginary holier than thou persona you have me pinned for.
Guess what: To be Christian is not to be perfect. Time for you to get a definition check.

Romans 3:23
 
You know it's funny. you guys specifically say you dont want us to legislate our religion and then complain when we dont.

Problem is Christianity and Christ never argued for government programs. He didn't advocate governments take money from people to give to others. He wanted individuals to come to Him and choose of their own free will what to do with what the Lord has blessed them with. With their time, talents, wealth etc

The Savior doesn't advocate Robbery. Even the legalized kind through taxation. He advocates us taking up our cross and being our own stewards in consultation with the Lord.

It's not just the ends. It's the means that are important.

I would suggest that the author and anyone who agrees with him actually turn to the Savior and get to know Him. They will understand how He thinks much better..

Wrong Avatar.........Yeshua Himself is the dude who said "render unto Cesar what is Cesar's", meaning pay your taxes.

As far as your question Madeline? No, I don't think Yeshua would support Christmas as it currently stands.

For one thing, He actually knows what day He was born on, and it ain't Dec. 25th.

I'm also pretty sure that He'd be a bit pissed off that they were using His birth as a way to pay homage to Saturn and Odin, as well as the Siberian shaman known as "Sinterclause" being the main spokesperson for HIS holiday.

If Yeshua had to choose sides on the war on Christmas? I'm pretty sure He would be on the side against it.

I think you just quoted the one scripture that supports me the most.

Render to Ceasar what's Ceasars and to God what is God's.

They are mutually exclusive. Governments don't do the work of God. Individuals do. When governments claim to do the work of God, bad things happen.

And what is God's? What's made in His image?

If what you say is true in regards to the highlighted statement, how do you interpret Romans 13:1-5?

1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

Just curious. According to Romans 13, God places those in authority over us and therefore we should submit to those in authority.

Immie
 
'bones and Ozmar have the right of it. Chanel and Avatar have the right spirit but need a better approach. Revere is not worthy of direct response. Matthew 22: 34 - 40.

I admit I'm not perfect. You should get off your soapbox about this imaginary holier than thou persona you have me pinned for.
Guess what: To be Christian is not to be perfect. Time for you to get a definition check.

Romans 3:23

None of that is a shield against your bad behavior. Grow up and be adult.
 

Forum List

Back
Top