3 ms·

While I don’t want to look like I’m going to bat for the Hobby Lobby people, this seems like a very convenient way for you to argue that everyone ought to agree

• Arainach 2y ago
  Other humans are not "dogs" or "pigs". Jesus was unambiguous. "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these." (Mark 12:30–31) Or, even more explicit, Matthew 25:31-46. "Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’" Jesus is explicitly advocating welfare - providing food, drink, clothes, healthcare, and more to anyone in need. Jesus was also unambiguous on wealth. Christians, who follow the teachings of Christ, should give greater merit to his words than to anything in the old testament which came before. For more, consider 1 John 4:20 "Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen."
  • lurk2 2y ago
    > Other humans are not "dogs" or "pigs". So why is the verse there? > Jesus is explicitly advocating welfare - providing food, drink, clothes, healthcare, and more to anyone in need. There is nothing in this verse which says that property is to be expropriated for the purposes of assuring others a particular standard of living, and I don’t think you’ll be able to find one. > Jesus was also unambiguous on wealth. Christians, who follow the teachings of Christ, should give greater merit to his words than to anything in the old testament which came before. You’ve ignored my question. If Jesus is God, and God rewarded Job with material wealth in this world, how can Jesus be said to offer an unambiguous criticism of wealth?
    • Arainach 2y ago
      >So why is the verse there? You're the one who cited it, it's up to you to demonstrate that it's relevant in this context. >There is nothing in this verse which says that property is to be expropriated for the purposes of assuring others a particular standard of living, and I don’t think you’ll be able to find one. The verse is literally instructing that anyone in need is to be helped. It does not specify the source of the help. Anyone professing to be a Christian should be in favor of those with plenty providing for those in need. >You’ve ignored my question. If Jesus is God, and God rewarded Job with material wealth in this world, how can Jesus be said to offer an unambiguous criticism of wealth? Ignoring the theological debate on if "Jesus is God", Jesus' statements and commandments came later and supersede anything which came before. Oh, and since I missed (or you later added) the Thessalonians verse, how convenient of you to leave out its context: > We did this, *not because we do not have the right to such help*, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate.
      • lurk2 2y ago
        > Anyone professing to be a Christian should be in favor of those with plenty providing for those in need. That isn't what you originally claimed and is not what I'm taking issue with. What you said was: "Anyone who takes that message and instead lobbies to destroy healthcare and welfare and to push hate and attack anyone who doesn't agree with them [...] is not a Christian regardless of how they spend their Sundays." What you're saying is that anyone who does not support the welfare state as an apparatus is not a Christian, and I am contesting that, because there have been plenty of moral theories developed by Christians who opposed state welfare. Consider that the device you are using to post is likely worth more than the majority of the world's population earns in a year. Does it stand to reason that I could justifiably take it away from you and give it to someone who needed it more? What if we formed a committee you had no part in and voted on it being the right thing to do? > Ignoring the theological debate on if "Jesus is God", Jesus' statements and commandments came later and supersede anything which came before. Denying the divinity of Jesus undermines the entire belief system. It seems to me that you can't reconcile the treatment of Job with your reading of the New Testament, so you've decided to disregard the story entirely. There is some basis to this (e.g. the mixed fabrics issue you addressed in another comment), but it isn't as simple as saying "We can disregard everything prior to the New Testament." > We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. Young translates that line as authority, not "right." In the KJV (which is the version I originally read), it is translated as "power." That is, because the author has come to minister to the church, he has the authority to ask for bread without having to work for it, but he does not, because he does not want to burden those around him: "8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:" The passage continues after this line: "10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. [...] 12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread."