Big Fitz
User Quit *****
- Nov 23, 2009
- 16,917
- 2,522
- 48
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.
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.
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.
I'm just astounded by this horrible, blatantly STUPID statements and misuse of scripture to pontificate wildly about the divinity of collectivist government.
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
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.Mat 10:3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;
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 9:11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"
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.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."
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."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?"
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.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.
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.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."
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
Last edited: