Would Christ Fight The Christmas War?

[Newby]

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.

Again, YOUR opinion, and not reality.

 

[Newby]

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.

It is very insulting that you would say that Christians make idols out of the rich and insult the poor. WTH Madeline.

She obviously can't help herself, she hasn't had a christian bashing thread in a while, and what the hell, it is 'the season', right?

 

[Newby]

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?

What you're essentially advocating here is anarchy. If you believe that Christ is focusing more on the means, and that there is no value in forcing someone to do something, then there is not logic in having any laws at all. From a Christian perspective, anarchy actually makes a lot of sense. One of my close friends is a Christian anarchist actually, he's a pretty cool guy.

On a related note, I had an economics teacher who almost had a utopian idea of capitalism. In his eyes, the greatest thing you could give an individual or a country is capitalism. Where barriers to trade/entry have been removed and property rights have been protected, prosperity (on a societal level) has followed. Now, this really isn't a Christian idea; clearly, charity conflicts with this notion. It's important to question how valid this is; a disparity between the rich and poor can be very vast indeed. Also, it's a simple fact that (relative) poverty will always exist in a society.

Charity conflicts with what notion? Capitalism?

 

[Truthmatters]

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.

It is very insulting that you would say that Christians make idols out of the rich and insult the poor. WTH Madeline.

That is what the right has been doing for decades.

Defending the wealthy and calling the poor lazy and worthless

 

[Newby]

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.

It is very insulting that you would say that Christians make idols out of the rich and insult the poor. WTH Madeline.

That is what the right has been doing for decades.

Defending the wealthy and calling the poor lazy and worthless

And of course, 'right' = 'christian' = 'republican', and 'left' = 'atheist' = 'democrat', right?

 

[goldcatt]

There have been some very angry threads directed at the poor, unemployed, etc. of late. That's certainly true. Dunno if the writers were self-described christians or not.....but there is a resurgence of the Religious Right in this country and in the main, they also seem antagonistic to the disadvantaged and worshipful of the rich.

Hardly "christian" values.

Maybe in your head, but that's not reality.

It isn't your reality, and it isn't mine. It also isn't mainstream. But there is a growing strain of Christianity among some of the self-styled fundamentalist sects that embraces prosperity doctrine.

I say self-styled because, of course, prosperity doctrine has no legitimate biblical basis. In fact, the opposite is true. But those who adhere to it often believe in a general sort of nutshell that if you're godly you will be prosperous financially, so the poor who are not prospering must have done something to deserve their lot and the rich are literally more righteous - having received more blessings.

Kinda sick if you ask me, especially to call it "fundamentalist". But it's out there.

 

[Truthmatters]

It is very insulting that you would say that Christians make idols out of the rich and insult the poor. WTH Madeline.

That is what the right has been doing for decades.

Defending the wealthy and calling the poor lazy and worthless

And of course, 'right' = 'christian' = 'republican', and 'left' = 'atheist' = 'democrat', right?

its what the demographics say you fool

 

[Truthmatters]

Poll examines Tea Party faith values – Oregon Faith Report

 

[Newby]

There have been some very angry threads directed at the poor, unemployed, etc. of late. That's certainly true. Dunno if the writers were self-described christians or not.....but there is a resurgence of the Religious Right in this country and in the main, they also seem antagonistic to the disadvantaged and worshipful of the rich.

Hardly "christian" values.

Maybe in your head, but that's not reality.

It isn't your reality, and it isn't mine. It also isn't mainstream. But there is a growing strain of Christianity among some of the self-styled fundamentalist sects that embraces prosperity doctrine.

I say self-styled because, of course, prosperity doctrine has no legitimate biblical basis. In fact, the opposite is true. But those who adhere to it often believe in a general sort of nutshell that if you're godly you will be prosperous financially, so the poor who are not prospering must have done something to deserve their lot and the rich are literally more righteous - having received more blessings.

Kinda sick if you ask me, especially to call it "fundamentalist". But it's out there.

I agree with you, but I've not seen it, so I don't think it's something that Madeline can accurately attribute to 'christians' in general, even though she'd very much like too.

 

[Newby]

That is what the right has been doing for decades.

Defending the wealthy and calling the poor lazy and worthless

And of course, 'right' = 'christian' = 'republican', and 'left' = 'atheist' = 'democrat', right?

its what the demographics say you fool

So you think the majority of democrats are atheists? Really?

 

[Madeline]

Newby, doubtless you have a POV and I would enjoy hearing it. As with Avatar, I am interested in exploring (if true) why you do not feel taxes are a legitimate expense of being American and why you do not feel aid to the poor is an essential government function.

However, had you bothered to read the Op, you would see that it contrasts the outcry from some elected officials to "keep Christ in Christmas" while at the same time, voting against various bills that aid the poor or disadvantaged or favor the wealthy.

So, I am also curious to know if you follow the author's reasoning and agree or not, and why.

This is not a "christian bashing" thread; it is a "hypocrite bashing" thread.

 

[Newby]

Newby, doubtless you have a POV and I would enjoy hearing it. As with Avatar, I am interested in exploring (if true) why you do not feel taxes are a legitimate expense of being American and why you do not feel aid to the poor is an essential government function.

However, had you bothered to read the Op, you would see that it contrasts the outcry from some elected officials to "keep Christ in Christmas" while at the same time, voting against various bills that aid the poor or disadvantaged or favor the wealthy.

So, I am also curious to know if you follow the author's reasoning and agree or not, and why.

This is not a "christian ashing" thread; it is a "hypocrite bashing" thread.

I won't read the article, when it talks about 'Republicans' regarding 'christian' behavior, it's bogus bullshit. Maybe when you can prove that the majority of democrats are not also christians, you and the author may have a point. Taxex have nothing to do with christianity, and I agree with Avatar's thoughts on that 100 percent. I help the poor on a continual basis. As a matter of fact, my church group came into the city just this past Saturday and visited several groups of homeless people that are living under bypasses here in the city and brought them all kinds of warm winter clothing, sleeping bags, food, rat poison, and many other items out of our own pockets. My church and the people that go to my church do these types of things on a constant basis, so I know what real charity is, and it's not paying taxes. Paying taxes is to keep society running for those things that are needed by the whole, such as national defense and road systems, which is what was originally intended by the founders.

Yeah, and isn't it amazing that the only people you find to be hypocrits are 'christians', isn't it? You don't know a damn thing about real christians, and you prove that with every lie you post about them.

 

[Stitchman]

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?

What you're essentially advocating here is anarchy. If you believe that Christ is focusing more on the means, and that there is no value in forcing someone to do something, then there is not logic in having any laws at all. From a Christian perspective, anarchy actually makes a lot of sense. One of my close friends is a Christian anarchist actually, he's a pretty cool guy.

On a related note, I had an economics teacher who almost had a utopian idea of capitalism. In his eyes, the greatest thing you could give an individual or a country is capitalism. Where barriers to trade/entry have been removed and property rights have been protected, prosperity (on a societal level) has followed. Now, this really isn't a Christian idea; clearly, charity conflicts with this notion. It's important to question how valid this is; a disparity between the rich and poor can be very vast indeed. Also, it's a simple fact that (relative) poverty will always exist in a society.

Charity conflicts with what notion? Capitalism?

There's something called the Samaritan's dilemma; that by performing charitable acts, one is essentially making poverty more bearable, therefore more people will "choose" (the quotation marks aren't meant to add a sarcastic tone, just that one's poverty being a choice is debatable) to be poor. According to this belief, charity just messes up incentives and keeps the poor poor. At the same time, capitalism is all about letting people maximize their benefits however they see fit; if one wants to do so by performing acts of charity, that's certainly is "allowed." I dunno, I feel like the "essence" of capitalism is to internalize one's economic well being by making them responsible for their own actions, which does conflict with charity, and therefore with Christianity. Not to mention, the materialism of today is completely antithetical to the message of many faiths, including Christianity (I believe that was the point of the article). BTW, I actually go to Pitt, go Steelers!

 

[Newby]

What you're essentially advocating here is anarchy. If you believe that Christ is focusing more on the means, and that there is no value in forcing someone to do something, then there is not logic in having any laws at all. From a Christian perspective, anarchy actually makes a lot of sense. One of my close friends is a Christian anarchist actually, he's a pretty cool guy.

On a related note, I had an economics teacher who almost had a utopian idea of capitalism. In his eyes, the greatest thing you could give an individual or a country is capitalism. Where barriers to trade/entry have been removed and property rights have been protected, prosperity (on a societal level) has followed. Now, this really isn't a Christian idea; clearly, charity conflicts with this notion. It's important to question how valid this is; a disparity between the rich and poor can be very vast indeed. Also, it's a simple fact that (relative) poverty will always exist in a society.

Charity conflicts with what notion? Capitalism?

There's something called the Samaritan's dilemma; that by performing charitable acts, one is essentially making poverty more bearable, therefore more people will "choose" (the quotation marks aren't meant to add a sarcastic tone, just that one's poverty being a choice is debatable) to be poor. According to this belief, charity just messes up incentives and keeps the poor poor. At the same time, capitalism is all about letting people maximize their benefits however they see fit; if one wants to do so by performing acts of charity, that's certainly is "allowed." I dunno, I feel like the "essence" of capitalism is to internalize one's economic well being by making them responsible for their own actions, which does conflict with charity, and therefore with Christianity. Not to mention, the materialism of today is completely antithetical to the message of many faiths, including Christianity (I believe that was the point of the article). BTW, I actually go to Pitt, go Steelers!

For the part that I bolded, doesn't that depend upon the reasons for the poverty to begin with?

Sorry, but I don't see the same relationship that you do with capitalism and christianity. Christianity is about the individual and their relationship with God and those around them, I think capitalism is also about individual ambition, motivation, and success. I think they can go hand in hand quite well. You have a perverted view of capitalism, you treat it almost as if it were a religion itself. But, just because it's mostly about individual responsibility doesn't mean that you can't or won't be charitable towards your fellow man in hard times. I don't see how you come to that conclusion.

 

[Stitchman]

Charity conflicts with what notion? Capitalism?

There's something called the Samaritan's dilemma; that by performing charitable acts, one is essentially making poverty more bearable, therefore more people will "choose" (the quotation marks aren't meant to add a sarcastic tone, just that one's poverty being a choice is debatable) to be poor. According to this belief, charity just messes up incentives and keeps the poor poor. At the same time, capitalism is all about letting people maximize their benefits however they see fit; if one wants to do so by performing acts of charity, that's certainly is "allowed." I dunno, I feel like the "essence" of capitalism is to internalize one's economic well being by making them responsible for their own actions, which does conflict with charity, and therefore with Christianity. Not to mention, the materialism of today is completely antithetical to the message of many faiths, including Christianity (I believe that was the point of the article). BTW, I actually go to Pitt, go Steelers!

For the part that I bolded, doesn't that depend upon the reasons for the poverty to begin with?

Sorry, but I don't see the same relationship that you do with capitalism and christianity. Christianity is about the individual and their relationship with God and those around them, I think capitalism is also about individual ambition, motivation, and success. I think they can go hand in hand quite well. You have a perverted view of capitalism, you treat it almost as if it were a religion itself. But, just because it's mostly about individual responsibility doesn't mean that you can't or won't be charitable towards your fellow man in hard times. I don't see how you come to that conclusion.

Could you elaborate on your first point, that it depends on one's reasons for poverty in the first place?

I don't mean to treat capitalism as it's own religion, but I do think that there are aspects of it that don't coincide with what I know of Christianity. I've always seen faith in general as something that's almost meant to humble the individual, no? I mean, look at asceticism. To give a more concrete example, as different sects have differing views on asceticism, there's lent and fasting. Jesus fasted for forty days in the desert. The apostles gave up their whole lives to follow Christ. Now look at capitalism. Don't you see contradictions? I think the reason that you may think that I'm treating capitalism as a religion is because so many people, myself included, turn capitalism into idolatry. I would certainly say that materialism, which I'd consider an inevitable byproduct of capitalism in today's modern world, has really secularized the world. Capitalism by itself it pure; it's nothing but individual action. But really, do you not see materialism, consumerism, and the idolatry it inevitably comes with as a perversion?


I think our argument here is more definitive than anything else. I'm looking at it on more of a macro-scale, and you're focusing on it as an individual affair.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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..

(Softly but firmly) You do not speak for Jesus. Some of your own prophets have said the people have the duty to take care of the people. Your King Benjamin, the ruler of a theocratic state, said the people had no moral right to question the poor's right to charity.

What is your problem, Avatar?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Newby, doubtless you have a POV and I would enjoy hearing it. As with Avatar, I am interested in exploring (if true) why you do not feel taxes are a legitimate expense of being American and why you do not feel aid to the poor is an essential government function.

However, had you bothered to read the Op, you would see that it contrasts the outcry from some elected officials to "keep Christ in Christmas" while at the same time, voting against various bills that aid the poor or disadvantaged or favor the wealthy.

So, I am also curious to know if you follow the author's reasoning and agree or not, and why.

This is not a "christian bashing" thread; it is a "hypocrite bashing" thread.

Avatar along with Beck, both LDS, are the epitome of conflict with the Christianity of social justice.

 

[Newby]

There's something called the Samaritan's dilemma; that by performing charitable acts, one is essentially making poverty more bearable, therefore more people will "choose" (the quotation marks aren't meant to add a sarcastic tone, just that one's poverty being a choice is debatable) to be poor. According to this belief, charity just messes up incentives and keeps the poor poor. At the same time, capitalism is all about letting people maximize their benefits however they see fit; if one wants to do so by performing acts of charity, that's certainly is "allowed." I dunno, I feel like the "essence" of capitalism is to internalize one's economic well being by making them responsible for their own actions, which does conflict with charity, and therefore with Christianity. Not to mention, the materialism of today is completely antithetical to the message of many faiths, including Christianity (I believe that was the point of the article). BTW, I actually go to Pitt, go Steelers!

For the part that I bolded, doesn't that depend upon the reasons for the poverty to begin with?

Sorry, but I don't see the same relationship that you do with capitalism and christianity. Christianity is about the individual and their relationship with God and those around them, I think capitalism is also about individual ambition, motivation, and success. I think they can go hand in hand quite well. You have a perverted view of capitalism, you treat it almost as if it were a religion itself. But, just because it's mostly about individual responsibility doesn't mean that you can't or won't be charitable towards your fellow man in hard times. I don't see how you come to that conclusion.

Could you elaborate on your first point, that it depends on one's reasons for poverty in the first place?

I don't mean to treat capitalism as it's own religion, but I do think that there are aspects of it that don't coincide with what I know of Christianity. I've always seen faith in general as something that's almost meant to humble the individual, no? I mean, look at asceticism. To give a more concrete example, as different sects have differing views on asceticism, there's lent and fasting. Jesus fasted for forty days in the desert. The apostles gave up their whole lives to follow Christ. Now look at capitalism. Don't you see contradictions? I think the reason that you may think that I'm treating capitalism as a religion is because so many people, myself included, turn capitalism into idolatry. I would certainly say that materialism, which I'd consider an inevitable byproduct of capitalism in today's modern world, has really secularized the world. Capitalism by itself it pure; it's nothing but individual action. But really, do you not see materialism, consumerism, and the idolatry it inevitably comes with as a perversion?


I think our argument here is more definitive than anything else. I'm looking at it on more of a macro-scale, and you're focusing on it as an individual affair.

Sure, I think if you're poor because you're lazy and unmotivated that's a big difference from being poor due to circumstances beyond your control. The homeless people that I visited this past weekend are where they are due to their own choices in life. But, they have reached a chronic condition as well where I think they are beyond helping themselves, so they definitely need help. I guess I'm referring to the typical family that is mentally and physically capable and could easily work but choose to let society take care of them because they know they can get away with it.

And I believe you hit the nail directly on the head in your second paragraph, whenever I was reading the beginning of your comments I thought that what you were really talking about was materialism, not capitalism. I think it has become a by product of it because of the 'secular world', not the other way around. The nation has gone more secular over the years and I think it's due to the left leaning cultural influences to remove religion from the public view as much as possible, more than capitalism. So, which came first, secularism or materialism, I say secularism. Jesus taught that you should not care for most that is 'of the world', i.e. materialism. My church speaks often of the evils of materialism, but I don't tie that to capitalism, I tie that to having very little to no moral guiding principals being put forth in the public view anymore due to the villification of religion and morality. It's a 'do what feels good' society, and a view of morality as being relative.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The Bible states that hostile questioners tried to trap Jesus into taking an explicit and dangerous stand on whether Jews should or should not pay taxes to the Roman occupation. They anticipated that Jesus would oppose the tax, for Luke’s Gospels explains their purpose was “to hand him over to the power and authority of the governor.”[3] The governor was Pilate, and he was the man responsible for the collecting of Rome's taxes in Judea. At first the questioners flattered Jesus by praising his integrity, impartiality and devotion to truth. Then they asked him whether or not it is right for Jews to pay the taxes demanded by Caesar. In the gospel of Mark, the additional, truly provocative question is asked, "Should we pay or shouldn't we?" [4] Jesus first called them hypocrites, and then asked one of them to produce a Roman coin that would be suitable for paying Caesar’s tax. One of them showed him a Roman coin, and he asked them whose name and inscription were on it. They answered, “Caesar’s,” and he responded “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give to God what is God’s.” His interrogators were flummoxed by this authoritative (though ambiguous) answer and left disappointed.

Render unto Caesar? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nope, Yeshua stated we should pay our rightful taxes.