Jesus cared for the marginalized. Why don't his followers? | Opinion
By: Martin Thielen (The Tennessean)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Many churches are anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-gay, anti-science, anti-women, judgmental, narrow-minded, overtly political and mean-spirited. Where did Jesus go?
Martin ThielenGuest Columnist
I recently reviewed a collection of surveys that compared the values of church-going Christians with people who have no religious affiliation. The contrast in values between the two groups proved disconcerting.
One of the surveys dealt with climate change. The vast majority of religiously unaffiliated persons believe climate change is an existential threat to humanity and support efforts to mitigate it. However, many church attenders, in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence, deny the ominous threat of climate change and resist efforts to deal with it.
Another of the surveys measured attitudes about immigrants. Most unaffiliated religious people want compassionate treatment of immigrants, even if they support strong border security. They don't want hard-working immigrants without criminal records to be deported, especially without due process.
But large numbers of church-going Americans support harsh (and even cruel) immigration policies, in spite of the clear command of scripture to welcome immigrants and treat them with compassion.
One of the surveys measured support for laws that protect LGBTQ people from discrimination. By a wide margin, religiously unaffiliated persons affirmed laws that support LGBTQ rights, but only a small number of frequent church goers affirmed gay protection laws.
Similar dynamics could be found in the other surveys. Take the subject of health care. Though most religiously unaffiliated persons support efforts to provide health coverage to as many Americans as possible, that's not the case with large numbers of frequent church goers. Many of them support recent cuts to Medicaid and other health-care benefits for low-income Americans.
Jesus' followers don't reflect Jesus' teachings
On and on it went. People with no religious affiliation support compassionate public policies at far higher levels than people who claim to be followers of Jesus.
I found myself startled by these surveys. Issues that Jesus would likely support — like efforts to reduce climate change (after all, "God created the heavens and the earth" and has a vested interest in protecting the planet), or being compassionate to immigrants (Jesus once said, "I was a stranger and you welcomed me"), offering legal protections for the LGBTQ community (Jesus hung out with and advocated for marginalized people), or providing health care (Jesus was a healer) — are supported by the vast majority of nonreligious people.
Yet these crucial issues, along with many other Jesus-friendly policies, are resisted by many (although certainly not all) Christians who attend church on a regular basis.
I have loved and served the church of Jesus Christ for most of my life. But I'm deeply troubled that the kind, loving, compassionate and grace-filled spirit of Jesus seems to be disappearing from large numbers of American churches.
Instead, many of these churches are anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-gay, anti-science, anti-women, judgmental, narrow-minded, overtly political and mean-spirited. As I look at many churches in America in the twenty-first century, I can't help but wonder:
Where did Jesus go?
Martin Thielen, a retired United Methodist minister, former megachurch pastor and bestselling author, is the founder and author of www.DoubtersParish.com.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
149 visitors
White evangelicals DENY biblical Jesus the proper 'image' in the world you would expect of him if you read through the New Testament. They, White evangelicals, have given crafted a fierce, John Wayne-ess, gun-toting, blue-eyed, and "warrior-ethos," Jesus (S-o-B), with designs of ruling the world through his warrior-class 'disciples.' (I can distinguish how that differs from what the demon-class is designed to be, but there you go!)
Define "anti-immigrant". Define "anti-gay". Or "anti-woman".
Why does this all just stink of traditional leftist nonsense where anyone who doesn't completely adopt the militant ideology is evil?
Does "anti-gay" mean "wants gay people executed" or "isn't willing let you fire people over pronouns"? Or something in between?
Using one's votes, voice and actions to limit or eliminate those they see as "foreign" populations from coming to what one might see as "their" town, county, state or country. It can range from directly voting against policies that allow immigration to cussing under your breath at what one might think is an immigrant that just inconvenienced them somehow. Being "anti-immigrant" almost always carries a component of xenophobia, but that isn't actually required to be "anti-immigrant".
The dictionary definition seems to agree.
Pretty much the same thing as above with only the target changed.
With " anti-woman" it's a little different, because it's not simply opposed or hostile to women, it's really being opposed or hostile to women who are refusing to accept certain roles that a male dominated society established.
Notice the difference in the dictionary definition:
Notice that definition is the only one that specifically included "discrimination". You might love women in general, but cling to an ideology that wants to put women in their "place" and you voice that, vote for that and take action to limit or control what women can or can't do, then you can still be "anti-woman".
Likely because anything that isn't conservative Christian approved is considered some sort of fucking attack on Christians. It is rather humorous that you're trying to paint non-believers as the ones labeling others ideology as "evil". I mean, that is just too rich.
Of course as anyone with more than half a brain can see, many conservative Christians believe the world revolves around them. So, when someone around them doesn't want to adhere to their beliefs they decide it's their mission in life to save everyone from themselves. Awww, what big hearts, they only do it because they care! /s
And of course, if their target refuses to be saved, they will immediately try to eliminate the threat to their faith by trying to criminalize their behavior or make life so uncomfortable for them they end up moving away on their own.
The fact that you equate those two situations is cute. So being "anti-gay" does not have to mean you want them executed, as I covered above, though of course it would include it. And perhaps there are no conservative Christians who might wish that upon any gay persons, one would have to admit that many believe that their God will not tolerate such behavior and will either eventually murder all gays or, when they die, will send them to a place of eternal torment for daring to love someone of the same gender. An eternity of suffering for a blink of an eye loving a person an invisible wizard apparently said they're not allowed to, though we can't be certain because all we have so far is ancient hearsay.
As for those fired over pronouns, how would you feel if your child came home and said, "The teacher keeps calling us 'Homo Sapiens' and now other kids are calling me a Homo Sapien and laughing!". And so, you go to the school, and they tell the teacher to stop using such a word that, even though correct, is making some students uncomfortable. The teacher refuses to stop, saying it's their right to use the scientific classification for humans to refer to the students. The teacher then gets fired after several warnings. Are you still complaining? It's not about the fact that the teacher called his kids Homo Sapiens, it's about the teacher refusing to consider the children's feelings in the teachers rush to use what they see as the "right" terms.
Using the pronoun you believe to be "true" could pass the "true" test, but does it really pass the "kind" and "necessary" test?
Sure. The ease - even glee - with which many conservatives are willing to discriminate against, be disrespectful to, or unjust to any member of those groups and it’s ok. And worse, the urge to transform that animus into public policy.
So, for example, it’s well and good to support enforcement of immigration law. It is decidedly unchristian, in my view, to cheer brutal arrests or detainment conditions. It is unchristian to joke about feeding detainees to alligators.
You don’t have to approve of gay marriage personally, but no one is forcing conservatives into gay marriage. There is no reason to deprive gay adults of the joys of marriage and family. Such couples are routinely denied adoptions, housing, teaching positions, or other employment on the grounds they are dangerous to children just by virtue of being gay.
There exist conservatives today who want to repeal the 19th Amendment, and other legislation that gave independence to women.
Not to mention the unfounded assumption that any member of these groups who has achieved something in life had it simply handed to them.
I find all of these approaches, which are part of the current conservative platform to contradict the teachings of Jesus.
North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson called for the extrajudicial killing of people during an address at a church service on June 30
Throughout his tenure, he has made racist, antisemitic, homophobic and transphobic attacks, along with promoting conspiracy theories, including denial of the Holocaust, per The New York Times . . . . .
He has also spoken against the LGBTQ+ community, referring to its members as "filth,” and said trans women should be arrested when using women’s restrooms, per the Associated Press and The Washington Post .
Robinson has also posted racist, anti-Muslim and anti-Asian comments to his social media accounts, per Rolling Stone .
There he is! In all his ingloriousness!
Right. So nothing about supporting the idea that immigrants follow legal processes.
Right. So nothing about indulging zee/zem pronouns or protecting women's spaces for actual women.
So do you get the idea here? Your definitions will vary from theirs.
But you can't even describe the definition without overt hatred toward people who have different views. If they disagree with you they must be xenophobic.
If my child came home from school and told me the teacher was using a word that she used to describe roughly half the other kids with common characteristics, I'd have a short talk about not being so precious and we'd move on.
How are you defining "brutal"? What, in your mind, would a "non-brutal" arrest of a resisting criminal look like?
If it's just a joke, why?
Fair point.
I think you are misstating the prevailing view.
First, foremost, and really almost exclusive of any other thoughts.... this is utterly unacceptable and an abomination against God.
That said, the author describes this as the prevailing view of "many" churches. I assure you it is not. One such church is too many, but I don't think you'll find very many.
I can not define "many" for others. Point noted, nevertheless.
He mows my lawn on Tuesdays.
Can anyone tell me why conservative interpretations of the teachings of Jesus are more legitimate than liberal interpretations of the teachings of Jesus ?
They are not. It's simply that some conservatives, specifically White evangelicals (for other "evangelicals," the term is used loosely with them, are a different sort), are deeply engraved into community, social justice, and the like!
Yes. Liberal, or more accurately, progressive interpretations have Jesus following their goals. Conservatives, meaning the one's who actually attend church and try to follow Jesus in their lives have it the other way around, meaning they follow Jesus' goals.
Evangelical Protestant Warner Sallman made this "Jesus" go "viral" in the hearts and minds of the people since 1940. This "man" never existed.
Of course, there is the error which has been engaged in of attempting to depict entities in Heaven which none have any idea of appearances anyway.
Oh, liberals, Sallman isn't a liberal, did not do this.
Personal note: As a young black youth, I remember church fans with this depiction on them. We used them every hot Sunday or week meeting. WoW. Growth and development finally took hold.
Riiiiggghhhtttt.
Your argument is simply circular. It needs specifics to be persuasive.
Doesn't meet the definition of "circular" but I agree it needs specifics to be persuasive.
I didnt think anyone could, and they havent.
Because conservative translations support the conservative mindset. You just ignore all the rest.
In an ideal world, progressives will understand how much damage their policies do to the marginalized in the name of "empathy."
The article is about conservative interpretations of the teachings of Jesus.
The obvious point being conservative interpretations don't hurt the marginalized, progressives do.
Do you know of any kind of churches that do this. General unverified accusations are worthless.
No it isn’t. It’s about the faithless picking and choosing the faithfuls teachings when it suits their needs. It’s a bastardization of faith.
Completely shameless.
Please tell me about this assertion. I can not remember any evidence of your faith confession and experience shared with this forum over the years! Did I miss it? Set me 'straight.' What Authority and Teaching Discipline on faith and religiosity can you enlighten us with today?
Nah. It's about liberal interpretation of conservative interpretation.
It's yet another unsurprising chapter in the long book of liberals basking in their own moral superiority.
What is the conservative Authority? Do tell us, so we can adjust and update our "interpretation." Just coming around to jeer ain't a valuable use of time. Just saying.
WTF does that even mean? Seriously.
Authority, with an adjective-descriptor in front of it!
Glad to help you understand! 
NOTE: Going forward, do not "WTF" me. . . and, I will return the same to you!
We're not any closer to that making any sense whatsoever.
At least we'll know what that means.
NOTE: Going forward, I intend to say what I like in ways that you will understand. I expect you to return the same.
As it relates to moral superiority, what is your moral Authority? Sorry, the preceding question has another adjective-descriptor in it. Can't be helped!
See-adults working out their kinks in communication! Gotta love it!
Hey! I will humbly work to communicate plainly in as few words as possible when addressing you. My pleasure, seriously! Good communications is important!
Do you mean from where do I derive my ideas about right and wrong?
Fair enough.
Yes, your moral Authority. (Emphasis on the capitalized "A.")
My ideas about right and wrong are predictably the product of my upbringing as an American, my Christian faith, and my personal experiences in my life.
Why? What is yours?
Quite similar and maybe closely the same!
Why? It will help me, aspire to help NT become a less fierce place if I strive less against you and seek more common grounds for 'community' sake. Going forward, I want to do my part to support NT membership growth and not be a hindrance (through repetitive and unproductive squabbling).
I'll try this a little different way. What about the teachings of Jesus is more conservative than liberal ? Be specific.
I would be very surprised if we don't agree on a lot of things.
[✘]
How nice!
You've made my day exciting! 
You'll need to define "conservative" and "liberal", and that's where much of the disagreement lies.
And the details become significant.
For example, liberals like to point out that Jesus teaches us to give to the poor. They're right. So they use that teaching as justification for support of all the social programs they like to favor.
Conservatives point out that nowhere did Jesus say "set up a government program to take other people's money and give that to the poor". They're also right. Giving is something Jesus instructs us to do as individuals. Making somebody else do it for you doesn't count.
So any person's opinion about Jesus' teachings being more "liberal" or "conservative" is going to vary based on how they view the issue in question.
The problem with articles like this is the insane slant of the author, and how he deploys the all to familiar liberal practice of declaring anyone with different ideas to be evil. The irony is that Jesus teaches us specifically to avoid thinking we're better than other believers.
Here's the concept Jesus hoped to reach to people: Do what is right. . .for your collective selves.
As Jesus/God would not always be with us in flesh (2000 plus and counting years gone); we are to be 'stewards' (with Spirit's guidance) of what is good, wholesome, compassionate, and yes, merciful. We are to have mercy on one another.
Of course, there will be abusers of kindnesses, be impatient, instructive, direct, and ultimately restorative of them.
God wants the same outcome for each winner and loser in society.
When we say that we are so individually capable on our own; are we really? That is, do we not depend on the least person on Earth to not unsuspectingly 'cut us down' or 'cut us off' from our lives because of social connectivity (Community).
We are all in this together. We are 'growing together' and Jesus wanted us to feel that when I - win - You win too.
I think that's fair.
I would add he specifically demands that we rethink traditional human ideas about God's judgment.
In spiritual terms, yes. In worldly terms, he doesn't seem to worry too much about that.
I think we are far less individually capable than some conservatives like to believe and far more individually capable than some liberals like to believe.
That’s a dodge put forth by people who want to ignore the inconvenient teachings of Jesus, which calls them to action in charity, justice, mercy, and love.
Government in our time and place doesn’t even work the same as it did in Jerusalem 2000 years ago.
Ours is supposed to be a government of all our people, by the people, and for the people. When Jesus urged people to feed the hungry, house the poor, and welcome the stranger as our own, he was teaching all the people. And the people he chastised the most for not doing it, was the Hebrew leadership.
Conservatives LOVE to proclaim this country was founded on Christian teachings and principles. Well, that’s what that would mean.
Would you agree that if someone said "Jesus was a liberal" they would be just as right as someone who says "Jesus was a conservative" ?
There are a lot of liberals in the Catholic Church. I lived in a mostly liberal parish for many years. No one that I knew thought they were less of a Catholic because they were liberal.
Conservatives want to claim the mantle of Christianity. Why ?
Private charities cannot even come close to providing enough funds to act as a social safety net in this society. I think Jesus would see and understand that.
"In worldly terms," too. God can not lie! Why not? To whom should God utter such a lie?
If we are going to read the bible we may as well read it for all its worth!
Do not let anybody misguide and/or divide you from what the Word actually has written in it.
No, I am not speaking on SAMENESS in degree or scale, but God wants all people to SUCCEED in life-specifically spiritually.
Example: Remember the parable of the "Rich Young Ruler"—he walked away from God, and the "Rich man with his (multiple) Barns piled High—He died and ended up in (spiritual) Hell.
Yes, I can agree that God wishes the individual to help supply his or her own needs—rightly. But, when circumstances are too harsh or systems are set against people: God wants the BELIEVERS to stand up for the Poor and Wretched accordingly and appropriately.
No, actually, it wouldn't. It would nearly be the opposite. Jesus was about personal responsibility. He wanted each person to be personally invested in helping the poor, the widow and the downtrodden. Having government do it is exactly not that. First, it isn't as if one is personally obeying Jesus simply because you pay taxes you have no choice in paying and bad things will happen if you don't pay them. Somebody else decides where that money is spent so it isn't as if you yourself are taking care of the poor. In actuality, having government do it is foisting off what Jesus asks of his followers onto someone else so you don't have to and is not at all what he was talking about.
It's kind of like what's wrong with the civil rights bill passed in the 60's. On the one hand, people are protected by these laws. On the other hand, laws do not change people's hearts. It takes the responsibility off the individual and puts it on the government. Rather than achieving what is fair concerning the treatment of other people due to personal conviction, that responsibility is now replaced with "Do this or do not do that or you will go to jail." Put another way, the moral question of one's views concerning the civil rights tend not to be questioned when the most relevant factor is going to jail or not going to jail. That is, it tends to remove personal responsibility because the government is doing it for you. You may not discriminate against black people, for instance, but there's a world of difference between not doing so because you are personally convicted that it would be wrong and not doing so because the government is making you do so.
That isn't to say passing the civil rights act was bad, exactly. Due to human nature, it was almost certainly necessary. But that isn't the sort of thing Jesus spoke of. Having a government issued conscience, I mean. He wants us to personally be convicted of the rightness of his law for how we treat others, not have government force it on us.
Jesus approved of taxation of the citizens by the government. Nowhere does Jesus say unless enough individuals contribute enough resources to care for the poor and sick they should go unaided.
In the United States the government operates under the consent of individual people. The United States, a land spanning thousands of miles with 350 million people cannot have its social needs met solely by private charity from individuals.
In the story A Christmas Carol Scrooge complains when he is approached for a charitable donation to the poor. He says he pays taxes to help take care of the poor. I dont think anyone would describe Scrooge as a liberal.
No. “Personal responsibility” is just a political buzzword on the Right, used to justify callous disregard for people in need. It absolves the Right of any moral responsibility toward their fellow man.
Yeah, nothing about that means the government either can’t or shouldn’t be involved. Our government is not controlled by an emperor. It’s a government of, by, and for the people. Our defining document of government begins with “We The People.” They are not separate things. Furthermore, that government was formed by the people to promote the general welfare.
That is inaccurate. Whether it be in the public or private sector, each person has their own talents. It is more efficient to work as a group. So one person makes money and gives it to someone who is smart about buying food. Then that person passes it to someone who is good at distributing it. It would be inefficient to have each person do all the steps in every situation.
Your arguments are typical of today’s conservatives who look for ways to be less involved in the care of their brothers and sisters, not more.
They most certainly can - and do - change people’s hearts over time. What starts out as controversial and forced becomes the normal, expected state of things over generations. Unfortunately, there are always enclaves of diehard bigotry, cruelty, and inhumanity to be found. That’s why we must remain vigilant, and remember our history.
Exactly where in the Bible does Jesus say anything about personal responsibility as regards us caring for the disadvantaged?
I ask because everything I read written in red quoting Jesus explicitly demands that Christians feed the poor, clothe the naked, nurse the ill, welcome strangers from strange lands and have pity on prisoners.
I can't find anything to absolve your views.
Also, "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness".
You plainly misrepresent for Jesus Christ.
Christ would be disappointed in your for it.
Your SENTIMENTS on this topic are correct. However, I wan to be real clear here, because I live then and now, the CIVIL RIGHTS BILL PASSED in the 60's: The alternative to STUBBORN and MEAN-SPIRITED, and as the Bible puts it STIFF-NECKED people IS NOT TO LECTURE the people who need RIGHTS PROTECTED from those whom have DETERMINED IN THEIR HEARTS that they will not grant them to their fellow citizens.
Again, while I can agree that the hearts of STIFF-NECKED individuals as a COLLECTIVE should soften; the duty of the state and COMMUNITY is to SEEK RIGHTEOUSNESS for all its citizens. . . in-spite of them.
I want to make you fully aware of the tone of something: be careful how you repeatedly make up in your heart how you talk about someone or 'outsider' reality/ies. It kind of comes across-to me anyway-as somebody who tries to explain what life is life for a 'PEST'—as if to explain it is to say we can continue to take 'PRECIOUS' and INDEFINITE TIME in never coming to a conclusion about improper behaviors from the citizen 'power' centers while the people being underserved LANQUISH.
We can not languish—'forever.' We should not have to just waiting on others to keep ignoring us!
Nonsense. The dodge is trying to buy obedience to Jesus' teaching with other people's money and sacrifice.
Yes. Correct. ALL the people. Not just the ones with extra cash.
Um.... why would you ask me such a question and then answer it yourself in the next sentence? And then say
Just what is it you think I was saying?
It's interesting that you ask this. I teach a Bible study at my church. Like any large group of people in an urban setting, we have people with fervent political loyalty on both sides of the aisle.
A few weeks ago I was teaching a lesson and the topic of politics came up. I said "if you think Jesus would be a member of your political movement, you are absolutely mistaken."
So the short answer I guess is that I would say they are equally wrong. And it's a very, very high degree of wrong, for both sets.
Conservatives believe that their ideas about morality are closer to those dictated in the Bible. TBF, they're probably right when it comes to things like sexuality (which they over-emphasize to a staggering degree). Their downfall is the judgmentalism, which Jesus himself warns about repeatedly.
Liberals believe their ideas about acceptance and forgiveness are closer to Jesus' teachings. They're generally correct, provided we don't look at how they treat conservatives. But they tend to believe that all the things Jesus commanded us to do by way of helping our fellow man should be done by somebody else.
There are a lot of liberals in evangelical churches.
You are hard to understand but I think I get what you are saying. If I do, you're saying that, at least in the case of civil rights, the government has a duty to impose just behavior on the population. I do not disagree in the case of civil rights. However, I was pointing out what Jesus expects from his followers. To his followers, the Civil Rights Act would be irrelevant to them personally because they are already operating that way in their hearts and in their actions. As I said, there's a world of difference between just treatment of others because it is in your heart to do so and being forced to do it by the government. Jesus was about the former, not the latter, although I don't think he would fault the government for the law as being necessary, since the intent of the law is just.
Correct. That still doesn't count as you helping the poor.
OK. But don't imagine yourself to own some sort of moral virtue because you voted for the poor to be cared for with somebody else's money. That's a common claim among liberals, and it's nonsense.
You seem to have answered your own question there. Which probably means I didn't understand it properly.
What exactly are you trying to say?
Do you understand the context of this conversation?
I can't recall a single place where Jesus spoke of how people should be governed. Rather, everything he said was aimed at what the individual was responsible for. Why? Because it was not governments that he wanted to bring back to God, but individuals. When he spoke, he was speaking to each individual and what was expected of them if they wanted to be a part of God's kingdom. Each individual is responsible for their fellow man. Nowhere did he say that it was the government's job, not theirs.
That is correct, when speaking of a charitable organization. They exist to address a specific problem. It is manifestly not true of governments which are the opposite of efficient, especially with money.
Not supported by the data that says the religious give more in money and time to charities, even when taking out the amount they give to churches.
You've got the cart in front of the horse. It was the changing hearts that already existed that caused the law, not the other way around.
I dont know what your point is. I dont see anything that shows Jesus did not approve of the government assisting the poor.
Once again.... many liberals... like this author... like to claim that their love of government social programs constitutes some form of moral superiority over conservatives.
The moral superiority is a much more important idea to them than helping the poor, BTW.
But that's not how it works. Jesus' commands that we help the poor, visit the imprisoned, tend to the sick, etc are personal commands to each and every one of his followers.
Nobody is somehow more virtuous because they voted for something. Nobody is more virtuous because they support forcing somebody else to do the things Christ commanded them to do. There is most certainly no virtue in supporting programs that don't actually achieve much.
This is not responsive to my words, which you quoted.
I didn’t bring it up. You did. And you did so in the context that Jesus’s words must somehow exclude government. As I said, when it’s a government of, by, and for the people, you attempt at dichotomy makes no sense.
You are responding to a comment about conservatives by conflating “religious” with “conservative.” They are not the same thing.
Both are true. You have an odd need to have things as one way or the other. That is not how life works.
Probably because he did not address it. Not by accident, but because it wasn't relevant to his message. Jesus did not go to the rich, the powerful or those who governed. He went to the common people; often the lowest of the low. In other words, if Jesus thought government was the answer to getting hearts turned back to God, he would have gone there. That he didn't, that he instead went directly to the common person and told them they were responsible for responding to the poor, downtrodden and the like, tells us where Jesus thought the solution lay. In people taking direct responsibility rather than depending on government to do it. They, themselves.
Nothing in anything Jesus said was geared toward government. That is, he said nothing similar to "If you are really my follower then you will ensure the government collects money from everyone and gives it to the poor." It isn't even implied, as far as I can see. I believe that is because if all the people are the ones taking care of the poor, the orphan, the widow and the like, there would be no need for the government to do it and, most importantly, indicate hearts approved by God as evidenced by the following of God's will by the people themselves. On the other hand, if the government does it, then there's no reason for individuals to have the love God wants us to have for others. They can just say "They're not my problem. That's what government is for".
The idea that Jesus thought we should have government force people to do it would probably not sit well with Jesus or else that would have been where he spent his time and effort, would he not?
Boy, I wrote 31.32 this AM PST in a rush! Sorry for the mistakes! Here's a rewrite at 17:15 military time:
I wrote that last night (or was it first 'thing' this morning - I was tired then and am now too-somewhat. Long day!
I rewrote the comment and attached it to your earlier comment. . . up or down this thread 'somewhere.' (Poor quality sleep last night.)
That is not true. See Mark 10: 17-31. See also Mark 11: 15-18 and 27-33. See also Matthew 23 (all). See also Mark 3: 1-6. See also Matthew 8:5-13.
But you need to be willing to expand your conception of “rich, powerful or those who governed” beyond the emperor or the local governor.
Also, it’s absurd and tortured to insist that nothing in Jesus’s ministry could possibly be translated to representative government 2000 years later. This is especially so when conservatives go around insisting that this country was founded on Christian principles.
I understand. Now, I have to raise the bar a bit: What is the U.S. government composed of?
We can not expect PEOPLE to suffer a/several lifetimes (centuries) of suppression because of hatreds from a majority or those in power who will not relent! I remind you this suppression, bias, and hatred is happening to people who live under it day in and day out NON-STOP or with FEW BREAKS (due to variable laws). . .it is no way to live. More to the point, it should not even be acceptable in a country that CLAIMS to value all its citizens—specifically which do NO HARM TO OTHERS.
People can not exist to 'wait' the entirety of their lives (as I have nearly done) for some people who FEEL themselves PRIVILEGED enough to control (suppress) their passions and their rights.
And yes, God had men write on this very thing. Jesus did too. Add-on Paul as well.
This is total nonsense.
In every one of those examples they all came to him, not he to they.
Didn't say that it can't. Just not the way progressives are trying to highjack Jesus' message and the intent behind it.
Some did, some didn’t. The money changers did not come to him. In any event, he could have ignored anyone who came to him. Instead, he helped the people who came to them, or taught them. Your whole thesis has been that Jesus’s ministry was not for those people, yet he offered it to them anyway.
They aren’t hijacking anything. They follow it. Again, political conservatives make excuses to justify helping as few people as possible. All the while, they complain about progressives trying to help “too many.”
It's there if you are politically looking for an 'Out'-to not help HALF THE COUNTRY you despise. /S
I wonder what side of the country FEELS THAT way and often says so.
What is the government composed of?
Do stop 'splitting' and separating the Word from itself! Jesus told us whom our NEIGHBOR is, and it is not just our TRIBE—spiritually or carnally. We are to help, and have compassion (in this life of course) for everybody-good, bad, indifferent!
Nope. you're just rewriting what I have said to suit your purposes.
Nonsense. There's nowhere Jesus said to take other people's money and spend it on others. Nor do conservatives complain about progressives trying to help too many. That's nonsense, too. They complain about the way progressives do it; with other people's money.
Government money is not "other peoples money" it is everyones money.
I find it absolutely amazing that you think social services could be paid for with private charity and, that thats the way Jesus would want it.
What I find even more amazing is you think Jesus would want his followers to give their money to Ceaser to take care of the poor, that's hilarious or completely disingenuous. Because we all know they were doing a bang-up job of taking care of the poor and hungry during Jesus's time.
Nobody is TAKING anything from "other people." You us the worst vernacular you can to make it sound diabolical. What is occurring is we have politicians trying their best to make a SYSTEM that works and helps people. It is people who frame the discussion in selfish terms that keep the issue upsetting people/culture.
Furthermore, these "other people" you imagine are US-all of us. Not just people like you. Stop this: Us versus Them crap. Christians are not supposed to be dividing people in this manner!
He also didn’t say not to. Again, you’re trying to equate two completely different systems of government and society, all to justify doing as little as possible for those in need. And anyway, “taking other people’s money” is a very simplistic and juvenile way of describing taxes that we voted for.
You’re joking or your tribalism is forcing you into deep denial. Social programs are literally the number one complaint that conservatives have had about progressives for generations.
And no, it’s not just about “the way they do it.” That’s another disingenuous dodge. There has never been an alternative offered by conservatives, and every attempt by progressives is attacked as socialist or communist.
And by the way, the first Christians basically lived as communists. The Romans criticized them for sharing all their property with each other. Something to think about.
Yes. With your own money.
It was definitely "other people's money" until the government taxed it away from them.
If you are a follower of Jesus, He wants YOU to feed the hungry, help the needy, and care for the helpless. You. With your money, your time, and your effort.
Whatever social services governments choose to provide or don't is utterly and completely unrelated to YOUR personal obligations as a follower of Christ.
Of course they are. Try not paying your taxes, and the Internal Revenue Service will clear this up for you.
Please name a single such politician. That just seems categorically ridiculous on every level.
Jesus stated, 'Give up to Caesar. . . and Give unto God. . . ' (paraphrased.) You can fill in the rest from the Bible.
So what the Government does for its citizens is for its citizens-which include the Church (which pays taxes too). Enough of this trying to split people for selfish indulges and wishes. Jesus is quite clear. . . "We" are all in this together as a nation whether MAGA supporters like it or not!
Utterly beside the point on a liberal self righteousness seed about why Christians supposedly don't follow the teachings of Jesus.
That doesn't make it incorrect.
And your taxes too if you are a citizen of this country! We are all in this together, no special pleading allowed for MAGA "Christians."
Yes. But don't try to tell people they're somehow less righteous if they don't want to support massively expensive government programs that do far more harm than good.
Yes. You read that correctly. More harm than good.
Some of us are in this together. Others of us are just working the system.
What does that even mean?
What is categorically ridiculous is your abuse or neglect of the Word (of God) you want us to be accept you are solemn about upholding (in bible study)! Either tell the truth about Jesus or quit!
BTW, you STIFFED me on the comment about EQUITY from Psalms 98 on a different article. Why should I have any confidence that you are serious about this? My time is precious and I can not keep switching in and out of discussions that go 'nowhere' or bog down at critical 'choke' points.
You have an interpretation of what Jesus said or meant.
Do you honestly believe Jesus would object to using government money to feed and clothe the poor ?
That's your opinion and you are entitled to it as one man or a group! However, it is not the CHRISTIAN response. I challenge to prove me wrong on that anytime. Bring your 'best' bible verse/s.
Sure, now will you define " Others" - please. Because just throwing out a line is not going to get us 'there.'
As far as your Christianity goes. . . how do you know that the beneficial money granted you and other MAGA supporters is not meant for the "GLORY" of God through helping those who need it? After all, what became of the New Testament rich (busted Hell wide open when they landed there) who build 'storehouses' so they could just sit and stare (I guess) at their wealth? While others languished and despaired at their doorsteps and gates? Also, spiritually, the rich are wealth already if they have God in their hearts and minds! It is the poor that we will always have with us. . . and so the need to help/aid them!
Speak on that and do not avoid it!
You can go figure out the rest for yourself or you know what. . .just let the rest go.
I didn't say it in response to the seed. I said it in response to Drakkonis making a pointless observation that Jesus didn't promote our modern system of collecting tax money to fund social programs.
It makes it incomplete and inaccurate - dishonestly so. It's the Idiocracy perspective.
None of them actually believe it, but they push that propaganda anyway to justify their unwillingness to help those in need.
That would be a plausible excuse if conservatives kept promoting alternatives, but they don't. Instead it's cut, cut, cut, just for the sake of cutting. And every proposal from the other side is demonized as communism or socialism. Any of our programs can be improved, but just cutting funding and turning your back on the needy is not an improvement, and it's certainly not Christian.
And they wonder why people are going to forsake their cause soon enough! God is not pleased with the GOP!
You forgot to name any of those politicians "trying their best to make a SYSTEM that works and helps people." I'm sure that was just a simple oversight on your part.
Please cite any untruth I have posted.
You'll have to remind me. I know we were on one article where the seeder kept censoring comments just because she disagreed with them, so I stopped posting.
Why would your mental state be any of my concern?
You may just have to risk it.
Let me to this: Just get on with wherever you are. This 'abuse' of my time and insincerity is not worth it to me.
No, and if you'll review carefully you'll notice that I've never made that claim.
I do object to the author's idea that supporting those programs somehow makes a person more virtuous, or that failure to support these programs indicates a lack of care for the marginalized.
Since you are promoting yourself as the authority of what God is pleased with, is he more or less pleased with the GOP than the party of sexual abomination and murder of the unborn?
George, actually I would like to have this discussion with you, though. . .I wonder how much space we can be given to do it here. First, I would like you to explain what sexual abomination you are driving at. . . can you do that? Oh, and be sure to give the bible verse/s you have as YOUR authority to address me on this subject! Know this ahead of time, I will ignore any bull or childish snark.
That's not for you to say.
I challenge you to find a single verse where Jesus commands us to seize other people's property for any purpose. Then I would refer you to any verse where Jesus tells His followers to serve others, and challenge you to find any reference to compelling or paying others to do so.
Matthew 25:
Notice how there is no mention of "I was hungry, and you voted for a government program".
I haven't defined anything.There is a long established definition of the word.
As far as your Christianity goes. . . how do you know that the beneficial money granted you and other MAGA supporters is not meant for the "GLORY" of God through helping those who need it?
Why do we think government programs help?
How do you miss the astonishingly obvious idea that this is supposed to be a voluntary choice these people make to change behavior? It does not count if it is compelled.
And, for probably the 1000th time, I am not a MAGA supporter. Pro gay marriage, pro immigration, anti tariff. They don't like me at all. Are you able to understand the existence of people who don't fit one of your two prescribed groups?
Let me help you with my favorite Chris Williamson quote:
I will get back with you; right now I am distracted with an issue more important than this!
Will you discuss this verse, before we move on ALREADY?
(These comments get so unwieldy when you play dodge-ball with them! Just answer and I can catch up and 'clear the slate' so to speak!)
I spent a lot of time looking for the below verse only to find it on this thread! This is what can occur when other commenters 'stall' for time and back things up!
"In worldly terms," too. God can not lie! Why not? To whom should God utter such a lie?
If we are going to read the bible we may as well read it for all its worth!
Do not let anybody misguide and/or divide you from what the Word actually has written in it.
No, I am not speaking on SAMENESS in degree or scale, but God wants all people to SUCCEED in life-specifically spiritually.
Example: Remember the parable of the "Rich Young Ruler"—he walked away from God, and the "Rich man with his (multiple) Barns piled High—He died and ended up in (spiritual) Hell.
You're missing the point. You're looking for an "alternative" shitty program to replace the current shitty programs.
My personal alternative was starting basketball teams for underprivileged teenagers in my area, feeding them, tutoring them, taking them on college visits, organizing education for their parents, and recruiting and training young coaches. Every kid in our group saw increased GPA while playing with us (we enforced strict no-pass/no-play rules).
My other personal alternative was starting a family foundation giving scholarships to women. Tens of thousands of dollars of my own money. My wife chairs the selection committee where we go through hundreds of applications to choose the recipients.
I'm sorry... what were you saying about "turning my back"? What are you doing to help these people?
My church buys school supplies for 10,000 local kids every year. We then go hand them out in person, so those families can see an entire community behind them. We sponsor and provide first hand support for refugee families, often Muslims from Islamic countries. We teach ESL, support disaster relief, feed the homeless, and our people personally engage in over 100 other ministries.
We do that because obedience to Christ demands our personal involvement and sacrifice. Not pretending it takes "courage" to go vote to give people you've never met money you took from other people you've never met.
Good. Because that's how the word "equity" is normally misused.
Certainly. Which is why outsourcing our care for our fellow man does not constitute virtue.
After 3.1.79 . - Please!
1 Peter 2 :
Romans 13:
5 Therefore it is necessary to submit to authority , not only to avoid punishment, but also as a matter of conscience .
6 This is also why you pay taxes. For the authorities are God’s servants, who devote themselves to their work . 7 Pay everyone what you owe him: taxes to whom taxes are due , revenue to whom revenue is due , respect to whom respect is due , honor to whom honor is due .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 5:
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you ,
45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteou s.
46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get ? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?
47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
48 Be perfect , therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect .
It's late. More on this in the light of 'tomorrow' day.
Churches, temples, mosques, all have programs that receive funding from the government, because it is acknowledged that the 'task' of caring for the people is too great for any one organization to do!
Life is about more in this realm than spirituality in the next realm! Beyond that, I do not know what the bolded text means to convey to me. Please elaborate. . . .
You're still making stuff up. I made no comparison between any governments, past or present. My comments have been about progressives trying to highjack Jesus. Neither government nor society matters much at all as, whether then or now, the expected behavior of the citizens of God's kingdom as taught by Jesus doesn't change over time. Whether under Imperial Roman rule, Soviet Russia, the United States or some future nation, what God expects of His children won't change.
Still sticking with that nonsense simply because we don't want to steal from Peter and give it to Paul? That we think we're supposed to do it, not government? As I said, conservatives and the religious outgive atheists and secularists, even when discounting the portion we give to our churches. Where do you think that money is going to?
Yes, because most of them do more harm than good. But do you hear what you just said? You think our position is wrong because we oppose some, or possibly most, social programs. That's literally your bar. Simply that we oppose them. Ever ask yourself why, other than the kneejerk reaction to opposition to something you support? Because I think the deep reasoning you put behind your support of those programs is simply that it makes you feel good and morally superior. It doesn't matter to you whether or not they actually work. I think all that matters to you are your good intentions. I could be wrong, though.
Yes, they have. You just don't like them because it involves making the "victims" you're so proud of supporting getting off their ass and take responsibility for themselves.
Not even close to being true. Communism operated on principles so opposed to what the first Christians did it can't be said to be comparable. I know you think that a perfect communist society would have done the same thing, but that's a fantasy because a perfect communist society is impossible. Human nature is such that there is no reality where Communism could ever work. History keeps showing us that. Some seem unable to learn that lesson.
We are not to do so without question. God's law comes first. And if those authorities go against God's law, we have no obligation to submit. Just because the government wants to steal money from taxpayers for political gain doesn't mean we're being Godly by not objecting.
Are you under the impression that conservatives are not trying to hijack Jesus ?
We're in a seed where yet another liberal author is attempting once again to announce the moral superiority of his ideology by condemning people he hates over their rejection of what he defines as "Jesus friendly policies".
His argument is that he is a better Christian because he is a liberal, which is complete nonsense. He's like most other virtue signalers, patting himself on the back with hands he will never dirty in actual service to Christ.
He is the Pharisee in Luke 18, thanking God he is not like the evil doers he despises.
There’s not a thing wrong with private sector progressivism. There’s also not a thing wrong with a democracy organizing its government to do the same thing.
Jesus teachings are more liberal than conservative, and you have no good argument otherwise.
Why would that be true? Simply because you declare it so? You clearly cannot support the statement.
You're still ignoring the point.
The author of this article wants you to believe that people who don't support his pet government programs and political causes are somehow lesser people morally.
Again, he is a Pharisee, which is the very thing Jesus tells us all not to be. Political views do not make one more righteous.
None of it is “stealing.”
Then you should work to improve them or present us with superior alternatives. But you don’t. Conservatives howled like they were being raped as Obamacare was developed - and even that program was not what the Left really wanted - but we’re all still waiting on the alternative. Trump has promised us a replacement (in about two weeks) dozens of times over the last decade. It never happens. In the meantime, Republicans gut healthcare every chance they get. That is doing more harm than good.
Isn’t helping people supposed to be the morally superior thing? Conservatives cut programs that help people and they do it while openly declaring themselves to be morally superior.
There’s that conservative “morality” again. Everyone in need is just lazy.
It is 100% true. In the 1st century, Lucien of Samosata wrote of the Christians,
…
You don’t know what I think of communism. Try sticking to the topic.
No one is living in a perfect society.
This presupposes that the Bible represents the law of the creator of everything. As opposed to mere words penned by ancient men with an agenda.
An argument based on the premise that the Bible is the true, clear law of the grandest possible entity is not sound.
The author doesn’t really discuss “pet government programs.” He discusses basic attitudes of people toward minority groups like LGBT, and immigrants. He’s looking at compassion, not specific programs. The only time he really references a specific program is a mention of healthcare, but again without specifics. No “pet government programs.”
Would Jesus support government aid to the poor, or , as you say, not support such aid because it is not coming solely from individuals? That is what the people here care about, not your interpretations of the scriptures.
Specifically refers to Medicaid.
Jesus makes no comment on government support. I suspect that's partially because there wasn't really a mechanism for it at the time, and also because He understood that all governments are temporary. Almost no government of that time is still in existence today.
Again, the issue is the presumption that "supporting" something with your feelings can make you a better Christian or more virtuous person. It's the very basic bullshit of "God is a Republican" or "God is a Democrat".
He's neither.
And yet people keep quoting scriptures in their replies. So maybe not.
As I said,
You can waste time, if you like, debating whether or not Medicaid is a “pet government program,” whatever tf that means. You make it sound like a frivolous thing, with no actual value. I would disagree. But whatever.
Care to respond to the rest of what I said?
I agree that it’s bullshit, but the basic fact underpinning this seed is that there is one party that consistently seeks power as “the party of God/Jesus.” But when they get that power, they don’t act like it.
What you write is not the "challenge" put forward at 3.1.77 by Jack_Tx!
AGAIN, you are using the word "steal" out of context. Anyway, (Our) government can not steal money from its own laws (itself).
Furthermore, it is God that 1 Peter 2 and Romans 13 are making the case for; do respond to the substance of the comment, please.
Finally. Yes! Citizens can protest our mutual laws (and do), however, to willy-nilly revolt or violently fight against the good for all people in this country is a wrong in itself!
Remember that too many distracting comments. . . cause 'information' to be prolonged and unintentionally loss. Deal with the context of what Jack asked, and the substance of the verses 'delivered.'
Deal with the SUBSTANCE of the message delivered by a 'Messenger' -which could be anyone of us who can read the book and more importantly: The 'spirit' placed in those writings. Anybody can 'shoot' the Messenger. . . and the message itself with still continue to state what it is!
The message itself, as I have already stated, is that in order to be a "good Christian", you must agree with liberal politics. It's a ridiculous message brought by a ridiculous person.
It is for Christians.
Belief alone does not make an argument sound.
If our government believes that, then that is exactly the problem.
Belief that critical thinking will generate a good society isn't a sound argument, either. One can think critically about how to best eliminate a certain people group, for instance. One can think critically about what is best for society and its resources. To euthanize defective newborns, sterilize those with genetic diseases and institutionalize people who have the wrong mindset for instance. Makes sense for a cold, emotionless goal.
But that doesn't really address why you're wrong. If one is convinced that the Bible represents the word of God, whether you think that is justified or not, then operating within that context is either sound or unsound dependent on whether the argument or action is supported or not by the Bible.
CB quoted scripture in order to make an argument. I made a counterargument. Both within the context of the Bible. Those arguments are either sound or unsound within that context. It doesn't matter at all whether you think the Bible itself is a sound argument, as you are not within that context.
Irrelevant. That comment is a waste of 'our' time. Again, answer the question or just be obstinate alone.
Stealing is a crime, for which there is a penalty. No penalties apply to government funding programs signed into law. Your 'argument' is unsound and thus, can not be accepted. Time to admit it.
Correct. Within the 'bounds' of the Bible pages and this faith. . . such statements can stand on their own merits.
Or.
In the real world.
Completely the point.
More pomposity, enjoy your indulgence. Excuse me, I will leave you to indulgence.
Not sure I ever argued that. What I have argued (in the past) is that critical thinking (i.e. sound reasoning based on well-corroborated evidence) is likely the best method we have devised for getting closer to truth. That mere belief does not help us get to the truth.
The fact that an individual believes something is true, does not mean it is true.
But when one has drawn a conclusion based on evidence and sound reasoning, that conclusion can be tested (and refined). At that point, on a foundation of quality evidence and sound reasoning, belief in the likely truth of the conclusion has demonstrable merit.
Within the context of the Bible (i.e. if one assumes the Bible is true), arguments could be valid and conditionally sound. But the premise that the Bible is true is not established; thus, the argument itself, in reality, is unsound.
As an example of being conditionally sound, I can establish premise 0 (the context) that Superman is real. That he was born on Krypton and escaped in a pod to avoid Krypton's destruction and landed on Earth to be raised as Clark Kent. But due to biological conditions, he is superhuman. Based on that premise, I can argue that Superman would be able to defeat any human foe in hand-to-hand combat. I could construct a conditionally sound argument from this premise. But in reality, my premise is not established, thus my argument is not sound.
I could also construct a conditional argument by establishing premise 1 as: "if superman were real ...". Similarly, a conditional argument could include premise 1 as: "if the Bible were true ...". In both cases, this is an ex hypothesi argument. It is a fallacy.
Well. I suppose that with therapy and the support of my friends, I'll get over it. In the meantime, feel free to conduct your life however you see fit according to whatever standards you feel are reasonable and I'll do the same. Deal?
ex hypothesi
adverb
Yes. According to the rules of logic, God is not proven. Thus, the God of the Bible is a religious 'Construct.' However, the words in the bible and their placement together consist to make a whole.
There is a 'ready-made' problem, nevertheless. That is, the believers holding to varying interpretations and understandings of the Construct, do not end up with the same conclusion or conclusions. (It's a tangible problem for the Construct, and its belief system!)
I disagree. Spending millions of dollars to promote LGTBQ values in Africa is not something I support, let alone the US. Rather than using tax dollars to run the government, we have our legislators spending my tax dollars to fund NGO's that do this crap and give those same legislators part of those tax dollars to those same legislators as political election donations. Nice, right? Not the way our tax dollars are supposed to be spent and only someone devoid of a conscience or totally ignorant could support this scam.
Or take the ACA. When it was first enacted, they essentially were taking money from those who had it and giving it to those who didn't. They did this by making private insurance help pay for the ACA, taxes on high income households, the Employer Shared Responsibility Provision and so on. All of it was taking money from one group and giving it to another, by force.
Not sure what you would define stealing as.
We do. You just don't like them. We want to stop funding single mothers who keep having babies, for instance, because the way welfare is set up they are rewarded for it. Tired of paying for mothers with four kids from four different fathers who aren't around to support the mother. And, even if the law catches up with the fathers and can actually get them to pay, same problem. The fathers are just a paycheck and the kids the excuse. And the courts are set up to support this scam.
Sure it is. But progressives just use this as an excuse to redistribute other people's money. Stealing, in other words. It's okay if we steal your money and give it to someone else because we see it as the moral thing to do.
They stop people from stealing other people's money that are just put in programs that cause or perpetuate the problem. They don't want to help people, they want people to be dependent on the state, which they hope to control.
No, it's not. Pretending I was saying that it's not true the Romans criticized Christians for holding property in common fools no one. My comment was about your comment concerning Christians basically living as Communists. Yes, Acts records that the Christians there held property in common, but that had not one shred of Communist reason behind it, nor was it held in that fashion. And, perhaps the biggest difference is that the people of Communist countries do not hold property in common. It is entirely held by the state, and as we all know, the people have absolutely no say about anything.
You are defining the government as stealing (re-distributing money away for bad interests) from its citizens. Well, if and where true, that may be a crime. . .or is it not a crime if there is no law against doing so?
As a conservative or a liberal, we do not get to decide government expenditures based on our opinion/s about Worth or Value! Our "collective" representatives do, and they realize all scenarios are not equal or even can be for people/groups. And so the repeated and continued use of the word, "stealing" simply shows a bias and in the case of religion a politically-charged religious bias. . . Jesus would call that "self-righteousness" and it is morally wrong as Jesus explained.
You do not list any points our representatives considered in formulating their policy to help pass their legislation on the stated subject matters, either through commission or omission. So how are we to judge whom is right based solely on a private opinion?
Why the sarcasm? I said nothing about you personally. I made an argument regarding belief vs. truth.
Sad to see you admitting to not supporting spending money to support the US, but not surprised. Also, if an American citizen wants to bow to Putin and stop spending any money fighting against Russian aggression against our NATO allies, should we just do what that one citizen wants? If there were white conservative Christians being persecuted in Africa, would you stand up and say "Stop any funding that would go to protecting those conservative Americans in other countries! We need to spend that money here!".
I think that is a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening.
Nope. Not even remotely. The ACA simply got a lot more people into the pool which is what health insurers wanted so that those who needed care could afford it. Everyone pitched in. Are there some clueless asshole conservatives who think they're never going to need medical care in America and think they will always be able to afford the costs of keeping them alive so they think it should be their right not to have to pitch in to the insurance pool? Of course. But does any rational patriotic American give a fuck about those useless pieces of shit? Fuck no!
Private insurance didn't "pay" for the ACA, the ACA sent private insurance a bunch more customers but had to remove their pre-existing condition bullshit.
Speaking of bullshit...
Why doesn't the GOP offer an alternative to the ACA, instead of trying to repeal or invalidate it first? - Quora
A majority of Trump supporters back extending Obamacare subsidies
Why is it so hard for Republicans to replace Obamacare? | Brookings
There have been effectively ZERO actual plans to replace the ACA. Many attempts to repeal it, like their big push in 2017 under Trump that failed miserably because they had no real plan, zero concrete plans to actually replace it with something better.
I get it, some assholes want to have all the benefits of this country, but they don't actually want to pitch in for others. They only want American freedoms when it applies to them, fuck anyone else who dares ask our nation for a penny when they are falling through the cracks of society. The rest of us want to help fellow American citizens fallen on hard times, to help them get retrained for the jobs of the future, but not the bitter conservatives who see anyone who's not a white Christian conservative as a competitor for resources. In my opinion, those useless conservative cunts should go fuck themselves.
"in 2024, the ACA's Advance Payments of the Premium Tax Credit (APTC) had an improper payment rate of 1.01% for Benefit Year 2022" Fiscal Year 2024 Improper Payments Fact Sheet | CMS
All those people stealing other peoples money! Oh, the rampant fraud must be out of control!! Oh, woe is me!! How can any program allow 1.01% improper payments! Oh God! We're being robbed blind!!! /s
The only one who are blind here are the conservatives with parts of the male anatomy protruding from their ocular cavities, aka dickfaces, that yell and scream about shit they don't actually know anything about and can't even quantify how much they think they're actually being "robbed" for. These folk don't understand how insurance works or how pools of risk are able to spread costs and that if they got really, really sick this system actually is beneficial for them. I think they did realize it in 2017 when Trump tried to kill the ACA and conservatives said "Hold on, what are we going to replace it with? And of course, they got no answer from their shameless Republican leaders, so they voted against cutting the branch they were standing on. That was perhaps the last intelligent thing Republicans have done collectively.
Drakkonis, do you support this re-distribution of wealth? How about 200 billion taken from U.S. citizens as "tariff revenue" (taxation by another name)?
Why not? Aside from the fact that, as usual, you are trying to change the subject of what I was responding to, you seem incapable of understanding that your point of view rests on premises that have no evidence of being the factual ones. This, for example...
Provide evidence that our material universe's existence is the result of material causes. How will you test that? How will you refine that? Answer? You can't. The best you can do is put forth hypothesis after hypothesis and refuse to commit to any of them, claiming we may not know now but we may in the future.
Or how about why humanity is the way it is? We're obsessed with morality, yet we always fail to be so. Our understanding and technology grow exponentially, yet we never change.
In my worldview, God explains all of it. In my worldview, that explanation is logical, rational and arrived at by critical thinking. In yours, it remains a mystery, supported by the expectation that someday we will have an answer which, presumably, will solve all our problems through rational, critically thought-out processes which will somehow change human nature. Nope. Even if we were to achieve level III on the Kardashev scale, humanity will not have changed. In fact, it would likely become worse. What use is morality when you have the power of a god?
So, once again, you do you and I'll do me. I have this one life. I will put my faith in what makes the most sense to me. You put your faith in what makes the most sense to you.
I have not made that claim. My argument is that we observe how natural forces over time interact to evolve complex forms. We know that reality consists of energy and matter (and both may reduce to more primitive substances). In contrast, we have no evidence of a sentient creator.
This is how we evolved.
I do not believe you can claim that our morality has not changed. Given human beings have been around for over 300,000 years now, the 'data' on human morality does not exist for over 96% of human history (assuming recorded history starts 10,000 years ago). A counterexample, though: I believe most human beings no longer consider owning another human being as property to be moral.
Except it does not explain the presupposition of God. I could just as easily presuppose that we are a science project for a super-advanced alien species. That explains it all too ... except for my presupposition.
What we have seen on the last couple of Newstalkers articles discussing the issue, is some of the conservatives not only saying the social safety net should not be funded by the government (the only entity with the resources to do it) , but also that is the way Jesus would have wanted it.
It almost leaves one speechless.
People interpret the Bible in all sorts of conflicting ways.
In general, the message of Jesus (in this context) is "Love thy neighbor". Accordingly, it seems reasonable that this philosophy would translate into a modern system that helps those who need help. One that helps people become self-sufficient and provides for areas where they are not.
Seems unnecessarily restrictive to interpret this philosophy as "only you personally should help others ... but no social institutions or governments should do so".
That is what we can expect from "One-Way" conservatives which MAGA is. So now the question for us is how long and what will do about 'bumping heads' with intransigent citizens who keep to their talking points every time they write (here)!
Why Four kids? Why FOUR fathers? Isn't the truth you and other conservatives want to be judgmental about single girls having sexual relations without a marriage-period?
Why FOUR?
No idea what that means.
The unlawful seizure of someone else's property, without their permission, with no intention of returning it.
It is irrational to imagine that any society can function without some form of sharing of wealth or taxation. We live in a democracy, where we actually have a voice in how much property is shared and for what purposes it is used. So, your attempt to characterize this system as stealing, just because you don't always get your way, is either profoundly ignorant or deliberately dishonest.
So...you're not pro-life, then.
So, women are getting pregnant on purpose, without a man in the home, just because they want free money? I think your perspective comes off as a little skewed based on sex.
By the way, I don't remember Jesus checking with women to see if they were having too many babies before helping them.
Civilization and government - in any form - are all about redistributing resources for the benefit of all. I'm sorry, but you really need to grow up a little on this issue. This is the world. Maybe you should go live in the forest, by yourself.
Everyone - every where - is dependent on the state. The ego of conservatives who think they can do it all on their own is truly massive!
I never said it was inspired by Karl Marx, you know. Two things can be similar.
I fail to see the difference between this and the government in your life. You already think you don't have any say in anything and you live in a democracy. It's pretty clear that you're intent on feeling like a victim no matter what system we use.
Personal experience, if it makes any difference. My brother's old girlfriend had four kids from four different fathers. And now that you know, now what?
[deleted][✘]
And from that anecdotal story you judge all single women's story to be so situated?! Now what? You've exposed your attempt to stigmatize unwed mothers as scammers! It's all built on personal animus about women having sexual freedom outside of marriage.
Some conservatives do the same for Others across the board; trying to fashion and enact governmental policies that leaves citizens and their taxes out of governmental programs you judge to be better suited for Conservatives (whom you insist are "true Americans").
(Even Jesus was aware that marriage was not for everyone. Matthew 19:11-12. And yet, 'the world' outside the Church/Temple/Mosque/Etceteras must pay taxes to the tax systems too!)
Farmers do not get to set the price for their products, in most cases. That is determined by the commodities market, which generally doesn't care how much it cost the farmer to grow the commodities. If it costs more to grow the commodity than farmers can sell it to the commodities market system for, they will eventually go out of business. Since having food on the table is fairly important to most people, we can't have that, so, yeah, subsidies to farmers are okay with me because it directly affects all of us equally, regardless of ideology. I, along with everyone else, sees the benefit of subsidizing farmers so it isn't simply taking my money (or anyone else's) and giving it to someone else with no benefit to me (or everyone else). It isn't as if we can do without food.
Why do you constantly make stuff up to make your point? Kind of invalidates it right out of the gate, doesn't it?
So your 'judgement' is the money is of no benefit to anybody-unless it benefits you and other conservatives? Tell me if you agree with that or what I misunderstand you to write and mean.
I categorically support farm subsidies because it positively serves the nation. So let me hasten to get that understanding out to 'everybody' reading this thread!
No personal distraction. I am not a discussion topic. Either explain what point is invalidate or accept my accusation that you and other conservatives similar to you do not want tax money to help girls and women who have a child or children out of wedlock. Which is it, please?
See below ...
$3.7 Billion spend in grants, loans and direct payments.
Free will.
So you have a problem with an American president supporting HUMAN RIGHTS?! Really, Snuffy. (No, you do not say that in your comment, but you did leave the question "OPEN" for others to ponder! So I ask you directly!
When the federal government is $37 Trillion in debt and the president of that administration has trillion dollar plus deficit each year of his presidency then yes I have a problem with an American president spending money overseas on these issues. The obvious question to you is do you support it? If yes, why would you support a president who pushes moral issues on other countries? Or are you ok with pushing these issues that you agree with but not ok with other issues?
But my post was not so much as a question as it was a direct answer to the question posed by Tacos!.
You neglected the question I asked you: Do you have a problem with an American President supporting Human Rights?! Care to answer the question asked of you?
I answered the fucking question, read it again. If you still don't understand what I said then I can't help you.
Vulgar language ignored this time only!
You choose not to answer the question ("Yes" or "No") on grounds of human rights . Well then the American president has more factors to consider than just being trillions of dollars in debt: Ask Trump as he just passed a 'big beautiful bill' in the trillions of his own.
(The intent being you can't make money unless you spend some too.)
Now then, here the issue you face:
Source:
So expenditures happen.
That's Afghanistan and Iraq wars combined expenditures projected forward due to those wars and war-related after-effects (disabilities). The two wars began on Bush's watch (if you are keeping 'score' of who started each!
Future projected cost may rise due to. . . well, inflation across the boards these days.
This is why I asked you does it matter to you what human rights the U.S. supports, because we are supposed to effectively care for people in need of help. And, do not get me started on the churches that sent "missionaries" to foreign third-world countries. . . to "enlighten" about how to hate and suppress human rights in the name of (their) God.
(Any new comment with cussing at me will get one reply: "No more replies." Or, words to that effect!)
No, you're not asking anything. You are making an accusation disguised as question in order to make the other guy's position seem morally inferior. You do this by taking for granted that your position is objectively, and therefore, obviously correct. It's probably the most used tactic of progressives.
That is not comparable what Snuffy posted. Veteran spending isn't discretionary. It is an obligation.
I am not a progressive or a label. I am a pragmatist. And as such, I could easily be a conservative (except that I think some conservatives are selfish, arrogance, meddlesome, and mean-spirited and as a type of Christian they tend to jerk around Others!).
If I accused Snuffy wrongly or in error, then he continues to have the privilege NT affords us to comment and set the record straight. He has left the question OPEN and tried to corral national debt as a reason to abandon human rights. It's reasonable to think so when you read the wording of his comment!
As for you, Drakkonis: I asked a question at 3.1.133 that you left OPEN. . . perhaps, I should answer for you too?
Yes, because they're the same thing. Accusations rather than questions, based on made up positions you need me to hold.
What exactly do you find objectionable? Promoting decent treatment of people who make you uncomfortable?
We (Snuffy and I) are discussing EXPENDITURES-specifically internationally-related. I asked (him) about overseas Human Rights expenditures .
I don't need you to 'hold' anything. If you are going to confront me, then expect that you will have to go beneath the shallow surface of discussion or do not bother with me at all.
No, I answered your question. You just didn't like the answer. It doesn't have to be a simple yes or no answer, please read 3.1.149.
Treating people decently doesn't demand that we also have to accept their position as valid, no matter how you try to word it.
The U.S. signed on to the United Nations- Universal Declaration of Rights more than 65 years agod, and LGBT rights are human rights. I will assume you agree with that.
Additionally, the United States is the global leader, which means if it is to keep the 'handle' global leader then we must lead all other nations in human rights- where they are they issue!
Now then, U.S. Missionaries have played a VITAL ROLE in the exporting hatred and punishment of homosexuals to other countries, this one is a case in point:
We give aid for all sorts of things all over the world, but I only see you complaining about LGBT issues.
What “position?” That they have the same rights as any other human?
To name a few. I don't have to be disrespectful to these people in order to reject their positions as valid.
Untrue. He spoke on that issue because I brought it up first as an example of wasteful, partisan spending in 3.1.116 to which you said you didn't know what I meant. Snuffy explained it. He wasn't complaining.
I have several good friends across the country that are preachers of one faith or the other, and they all hold their faith dear and close. One of these is extremely troubled by the way he views the scripture, what it is saying to him is his duty to do, and the questioning that arises from this apparently non-Jesus like Christianity that so many followers of the "Prince of Peace" are seemingly drawn to. It seems duplicitous that a man could follow the words of Christ, yet feel that he is endangered by certain people of his own faith.
A major problem here is people from various perspectives failing to agree on the definitions of very key terms.
Those who follow the teachings of Jesus and love without precondition become vulnerable to exploitation. The poor, needy, and vulnerable are quite capable of exploiting the generosity of others. Skid row charity only empowers the pursuit of vice.
The primary focus of Jesus' calls for radical generosity was on the giver's heart and making sacrifices, not on the worthiness of the recipient. But Jesus also cautioned givers to use wise stewardship to avoid being exploited. Those known for generosity attract beggars. Those who will not fend for themselves demand charity.
I think I remember something in the new testament about Jesus telling us to give a stranger the shirt off our back.
It is fair to question the wisdom of this, but it is the teachings of Jesus.
Moreover, the Good Samaritan. Luke 10:25-37.
Wow. Where to start: That comment did nothing for this discussion - yes really.
I do not need to accept misinterpretations of the teachings of Jesus. Nor should I ignore the apostolic teachings of the early church.
Do you honestly believe Jesus expected you to live in poverty? Doesn't the presented interpretation of radical generosity ultimately marginalize the giver? If I give someone the shirt off my back then I won't have a shirt and I become the needy one.
Did Jesus expect those who are generous to advertise their generosity? You are judging people for lack of charity. But if the givers follow the true teachings of Jesus then how the hell would you know?
What does anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-gay, anti-science, anti-women have to do with radical generosity? These labels do not indicate need or marginalization. And judging churches for being judgmental seems to be a rather circular rationalization that ultimately means nothing.
H‐y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y Is the charge being leveled. Accurately, I would say.
Hypocrisy by who? Why is it that people only become marginalized after entering the United States?
First, prove that people only become marginalized after entering the US, then tell us why.
A Hispanic person is not marginalized in a Hispanic country of origin. A Black person is not marginalized in a predominantly Black country of origin. A Muslim is not marginalized in a Muslim country of origin.
These individuals are not entering the United States because they are marginalized. They become marginalized by entering the United States because the US is not predominantly Hispanic, Black, or Muslim. So why are they entering the United States? Are they entering the United States to exploit the generosity of the American people?
How do you know they are coming from a non-marginalized portion of the population in their home country? The above comment is culturally tone deaf, to put it in the kindest possible terms.
But it gets worse:
You tell me because it would seem that you have a definite opinion that goes something like "Foreigners, at least the Black, Hispanic and Muslim ones, are in the country simply to exploit the generosity of the American people. "
Or maybe you would like to clarify your position?
Maybe at the same time you can tell us just how you came to the conclusion that all people from a nation are homogeneous? This I cannot wait to see, after all, we show so much of a homogeneous culture and people.
It's a common belief among some conservatives. They refuse to accept that many people coming here are escaping horrible conditions, threats from militias and gangs that rip children away from their families, rape young girls and force villages to live in abject poverty beholden to a regional warlord or an abusive government. No, in conservatives minds that all just a ruse to come and exploit Americans by working for them at really low wages doing the jobs many Americans refuse to do like ditch digging, produce picking, toilet cleaning, janitorial and other menial jobs. Yes, we Americans are just getting taken to the cleaners by these people! (or at least our dry cleaning does...).
And many travel back and forth to the country they are supposedly fleeing from.
people come here overwhelmingly becuase it’s a better life and they are taken care of. Shithole countries are shitholes, and the people want to leave them.
I had no idea what 5.2.1 was going on about. . . so I just couldn't indulge it.
Followed by
So do they want to leave them or do they wish to travel back and forth?
Perhaps we should entertain the idea that each person has their own set of reasons for immigrating? That might keep the internal dissonance with regard to commentary just a little bit lower.
didn't Jesus implore a man to give away all his earthly possessions so he could enter the Kingdom of Heaven?
Hispanics, Blacks, and Muslims are considered marginalized in the United States. Christians in a Muslim country would be marginalized in the country of origin but not in the United States.
Just because groups of people are considered marginalized in the United States doesn't mean they were marginalized in their country of origin.
We're not being generous towards marginalized 'foreigners'. If we provide special education for 'foreigners' we're actually being generous to the educators. If we provide health insurance to 'foreigners' we're actually being generous to insurance companies. If we provide housing for 'foreigners' we're actually being generous to landlords.
We're actually paying someone to be generous on our behalf. Those directly providing services to 'foreigners' are not making sacrifices; the service providers are recipients of generosity. And service providers have a vested interest in increasing the number of marginalized people to exploit that generosity.
That is a conclusion that has been forced upon me. As this discussion shows, I am not allowed to distinguish need from desire. I am not allowed to apply discerning criteria to make wise decisions that guide generosity and avoid exploitation.
I am supposed to feel guilty. And that guilt can only be alleviated with generosity toward middlemen, service providers, and administrators.
you're whining. Nobody is forcing you to feel guilty
Some conservatives seem to always be up for the argument about why/this and why/that when it is ON OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES, CHARACTER, FEELINGS, AND TERRITORY. As we can see they are very 'thin-skinned' and file a 'list' of grievances anytime anybody touch their lives, character, feelings, and PROPERTY!
Here's the passage you might be referring to:
The passage illustrates some of the problems I have with some Biblical scripture (and church teachings). Jesus instructs “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
But what becomes of those who depend upon the rich man? What happens to the rich man's household? What happens to those who work for the rich man? What happens to those who are recipients of the rich man's generosity? The rich man could follow Jesus' instruction and become richer still. But why wouldn't that be a selfish act?
A much less obvious lesson from the passage is that radical generosity without wisdom can be harmful.
I always took that as a test to become a disciple who followed Jesus in his travels, if you truly believe in me then rid yourself of everything and follow me. The other interesting note, is that he said "sell everything you have and give to the poor", he didn't say 'and give "it" to the poor', that is two completely different things, one is to make oneself destitute and the other is to be charitable. (Of course there is always the possibility of "lost in translation")
The context of this story is important. Jesus is specifically talking to a man whom he knows is an example of a typical self-righteous religious person of the day, looking for public praise for his goodness.
So when the man asks "what must i do", Jesus jumps at the chance to teach everyone a lesson. Jesus tells him to do all of the things that were in line with the traditional thinking of the day.
And the guy replies by showing his merit badges.
So Jesus outs him by giving him a bridge too far.
In doing this, He tells the man he's going give up the things he values more than God. Which is the whole point of the lesson.
Like Jesus.... who was buried in a rich man's tomb.
There is a reason the flight attendant tells you "in case of emergency, put your own mask on first".
Jesus is teaching in a day where wealth was considered a sign of God's favor, while poverty, illness, or misfortune were considered punishment for either your sins or your ancestors. He's turning that whole idea on its head.
But Jesus tempted the rich man with treasure in heaven. So what does the man value more than God?
Isn't it really a lesson about serving self before serving God? The story does not end at verse 22. Unfortunately I missed the last verses of the story with my previous citation; my error. The full story is
Jesus continues the tradition of wealth as a sign of God's favor in verses 29-31. It doesn't matter if you are wealthy or not. What matters is if you put yourself before God.
If the rich man places his household, workers, and those he provides for above himself then isn't he serving God?
His status. He derives that not only from his possessions but from his pride at being a good Jew. When he was told to divest himself of his possessions AND that his checklist of good deeds was not sufficient, he balked.
It's a lesson about putting anything before God. Whatever you put ahead of God is your idol.
Almost surely.
For many of us, God has made us stewards. In many cases that means we're tasked with looking after people. It's absolutely service to God to embrace that mission.
I agree, that's how I read it, too.
I agree. IMO that goes beyond the lesson being taught in this story but is certainly the overarching lesson from the teaching of both Jesus and the apostles.
To me, stewardship is often ignored in these discussions of generosity. Generosity without stewardship means we are the rich man pursuing rewards.
Those who repair coats for those in need may be far more generous than those that make donations to buy coats. The person repairing coats may be making a greater sacrifice to be generous.
It ties back to the Israelites of the Old Testament, as well.
The conversations often involve people who don't understand either concept.
The article itself is a great example. We have a guy who, rather than take his advanced degree into the world and earn the means to care for those less able, has hidden himself in an ivory tower to pontificate and stand in judgment of people he doesn't begin to understand.
The rich young ruler, yes! But 'he loved his possessions too much.' He went away sorrowful. Matthew 19:16-22.
So be it!
I try not to marginalized anyone.
Not necessarily. They may be a minority, but that is not a test for marginalized/non-marginalized. Marginalized means treated as insignificant. It has to do with the treatment of whomever we are talking about.
And just because they may be marginalized here, has no relation on whether they were or were not marginalized in their home country.
...but in your other post you alluded to them exploiting the generosity of the American people:
Which leads me to wonder if you have an internally consistent view on this topic?
People bypassing the legal process to enter the country are exploiting the generosity of Americans. There's a right way and wrong way to seek charity. It's similar to the guy with the spray bottle and squeegee spritzing windshields at a traffic light to exploit the generosity of others.
Why should anyone be generous toward those who deliberately refuse to follow the rules? These people claim they want a better life but following the rules is a step too far?
Yet you say in your prior post that we are not being generous to the immigrant but rather to the American people with whom they deal... So, if we are actually helping the American people by providing this help to immigrants, how is it not in our interest?
Simply allowing non-citizens that entered United States through irregular means to remain is an act of generosity. Eliminating the cats in the barn would be generous to the mice because that would allow the mice to take whatever they want. Leaving the chicken house door open and unguarded would be generous to the foxes. But that would be unwise generosity.
The United States is being extraordinarily generous toward unauthorized non-citizens by failing to secure its borders and not enforcing its laws. That is unwise generosity. That error is judgment is compounded by allowing 'service providers' to exploit those non-citizens present in the United States without authorization to obtain taxpayer charity. Those in government who are being generous to 'service providers' are not making personal sacrifices, they're imposing the sacrifices onto the public and taking credit for the generosity of others.
" The poor, needy, and vulnerable are quite capable of exploiting the generosity of others"
You got that right!
What are you talking about? This sounds like a reach.
Jesus needs to step up and come out from the shadows. Oh wait, that can’t happen because … faith.
yes, where has he been hiding for over 2,000 years?
I don't know if Jesus was any of those things, but he was clearly not an illegal immigrant.
he was clearly not an illegal immigrant.
How do you know that?
Because Bethlehem was a city in the kingdom of Judah about 6 miles from Jerusalem.
The question is why would you say such a thing?
Jesus was not an immigrant as a child. Joseph and Mary were traveling to follow the king's orders so his being born in Bethlehem did not make him an immigrant
Or he was just any one of the many people with the name Jesus, which was a common name at that time. Archeologists have found writings as mundane as shopping lists from that era, but events as important as the one attributed to the mythical Jesus somehow are only recorded in a book of other myths cobbled together and edited by countless scribes to suit their personal agendas. Not suspicious at all.
Not one writing describing Gaius Marius, who lived two generations before Jesus, survives either. He was only the most powerful man in the world, counsel a record seven times, saved Rome from destruction at the hands of the barbarians and was called the "Third founder of Rome" yet we only know about from works written after his death. He was, without any doubt, the most famous man of his era whose impacted the entire Mediterranean world during his life.
But sure, it's suspicious no records remain from the life of a carpenter in a backwater province. It's almost as only a tiny fraction of written documents from that survived, and its completely random what actually did.
They fled to Egypt after He was born.
But sure, it's suspicious no records remain from the life of a carpenter in a backwater province.
… who multiplied food with his mind, turned water into wine, healed with his hands, walked on water, etc. Yes, very suspicious that nobody thought to memorialize the miracle man with powers far exceeding ANYTHING that Gaius Marius could ever have even dreamed of. But hey, at least we know what an average family picks up at the market for supper.
Marius was the most famous, powerful man in the world surrounded by the most educated people in the world, in the most important city in the world. Zero contemporaneous writings of his life survive. Only a fool would consider him a myth.
Jesus was a carpenter in a back water province who supposedly performed miracles among other backwater peasants. That you are apparently surprised contemporaneous documentation of that didn't filter down to the present day, you are sorely misled about our sources of knowledge about what happened 2000 years ago.
we know what an average family picks up at the market for supper.
Do you? Or does pure randomness make you believe all sorts of suppositions that have no basis in rational thought other than your need to have your beliefs confirmed?
It doesn’t matter how “backwater” one is when they possess effortless magical powers that would give any civilization an unprecedented advantage over its rivals and enemies. That person would have been elevated above the backwaters immediately, not strung up for being a mouthy Jew. The whole story of Jesus is unbelievably stupid.
But arguing that the historical person didn't exist because zero of the zero documents that survived from his time and place mention him is not an unbelievably stupid argument, right?
Considering the context, absolutely.
Zero mentions in the zero documents that survived. That's some standard.
The true definition of asylum seekers, not so much for Joseph and Mary, they were from prominent families and were rich, but their son was to be put to death.
The census didn't count Jesus, in fact no one under the age of two was counted, and there was a barbaric reason for this, for our time not for Jesus' time. What do you know about a child by the time they are two, they can talk, see, hear, and walk and it they couldn't do even one of these they were to be put to death, if the family didn't do it themselves there was a military squad that would do it for them, think Saul (Paul) as the captain of one of those squads.
Well, I dunno about any of that, but Jesus' family fled to Egypt specifically to avoid Herod's proclamation killing all the male children under 2 years old.
Matthew, Ch 2: (ESV)
So yes, He was an asylum seeker.
Egypt was a roman province, just like Palestine.
killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under,
The military squad that took care of this had the records of all births and ages, pregnancies weren't kept secret. Since Jesus wasn't counted he had to be among the less than two year old males. By the time news traveled back and forth Jesus would've been close to two, but since he wasn't part of the census, he would've been marked for death.
Wiki has dozens of detailed facts and dates listed on Gaius Marius. I wonder if dozens of unrelated scribes made them all up for wiki since (according to you) his history is also as unrecorded as Jesus.
Thank you
Even though Egypt was, the Egyptians would in no way allow Roman death squads to run through their province and start killing the male children under two, it is almost like they been there and done that.
No kidding. Did you think I was claiming otherwise?
No original writings about him survive from his lifetime. Everything we know about him comes from authors writing after his death.
I wonder if dozens of unrelated scribes made them all up for wiki
What are you talking about?
Another point about the two year old test for children, there was no one alive that was born blind, deaf, or lame, only those that could be productive were allowed to live. All the infirmities that made up the miracles were acquired later in life. The blind man was cured by, basically, a primitive type of "Lasik", he was profoundly near sighted and the scratches produced by the mud rubbed in his eyes cleared his vision. The others also have scientific explanations, what is harder to explain is that he did the miracles because he knew he could.
And when they went to Egypt?
Completely splitting hairs for no meaningful reason whatsoever.... technically Judea wasn't made a province until after Herod's death. It was a client kingdom, where they let Herod stay in power. It was not independent, but also not fully annexed.
Hope you've enjoyed your Cliff Clavin moment of the day.
You’re trying to equate the historic record of Jesus to that of Gaius Marius. The historical record of Jesus is a mishmash of mythical events to begin with, then further reinvented by the few who were capable of authoring “copies”. Are the facts about Gaius Marius backed up similarly? Or is there actually archeological evidence?
as stated in 7.2.12 above
Egypt was under Roman rule just as area around Bethlehem was. Just another part of the Roman Empire.
Yes, because you seem to think the fact that there are zero mentions of Jesus in the zero contemporarily written records that survive from where he lived is some sort of "gotcha" when there are also zero surviving contemporaneously written records about the most famous and powerful man in the western world during his life.
e historical record of Jesus is a mishmash of mythical events to begin with, then further reinvented by the few who were capable of authoring “copies”.
Lol. There's all sorts of contradictory records about Marius. We have fragments from different histories written after his death, with the most complete version that we have not being written until almost 200 years after he died. In contrast, Jesus's life has much more documentation authored closer to his death.
Believing that Jesus was the son of God is a matter of faith, believing that he didn't exist and that a religion didn't start up around him immediately is just ignorance.
Well, no. It's actually very relevant since you want to call him an asylum seeker. He moved from one part of the empire to the other. No asylum involved anymore than moving from Indiana to Arizona makes one an asylum seeker.
Since Herod was the king of Judea, he had no say in what happens in Egypt, for that matter the rest of the Roman empire, and couldn't extend his death proclamation there so that makes them asylum seekers when they fled to Egypt. That would be like the governor of Indiana demanding the governor of Arizona return all those fleeing Indiana to Arizona for tax reasons.
Herod had no power to enforce a death sentence. The Roman prefect enforced the law. (pontius pilate at the time of Jesus's death)
Of what Herod demanded of them inside his jurisdiction, the Roman prefect couldn't then go into Egypt and do Herod's bidding unless the Pharoah gave him the permission to do likewise.
Pontius Pilate was handed the dilemma of two messiahs, one that wanted to deliver the Jews from the Romans via an insurrection that killed some Roman soldiers in the hopes that the Jews would uprise and fight the Romans with him leading the way and the other wanted to deliver the God of the the Jews to the Romans, which the hierarchy of the Jews felt was blasphemy and was more worthy of a death sentence.
they fled to Egypt....That's not Jerusalem.
There is that word, "FLED" again. Kind of communicates a sense of urgency! A sense of running from something going on in one realm to another realm where it is not going on, I think.
They did not stay there
Correct.
I think I said "asylum seeker" before, but I believe the correct term in today's legal system would be "refugee".
Per Amnesty International:
So they obviously met the definition of "refugee".
Many forget one key point. Historically speaking, long before the Biden illegal immigrant flood aberration, the US has always been the preeminent acceptor of immigrants in the world.
I think Jesus might like that policy.
I agree with you on that point!
But not any more
Based on what?
The U.S. is no longer considered the most welcoming nation to immigrants - not only are we not welcoming we are sending those seeking to be welcomed back to where they came from as fast as we can.
The "we totally support "legal" immigration " response will be ignored so don't bother. Every pilgrim who came here was an illegal immigrant and that status would pass through generations right
Given the problems in Germany, Sweden, England, Ireland and several other places right now, I'm not sure that's the worst thing.
Outstanding start to an open minded discussion.
Really? My ancestors came here in the 1740s. What immigration laws did they break?
But that's not fair or right. Illegal immigration didn't exist back then, and it didn't become a crime until 1929. Even with that, this country has always supported immigration that is correctly done thru the legal way. Ignoring that part just plain wrong. As for the last part of the sentence (that status would pass through generations right) seems you're forgetting about birthright citizenship. That's back with SCOTUS and while they haven't ruled yet I'm willing to bet that they will not change it now.
What has never been explained is why so many people can conflate legal immigration with illegal immigration. Would you be so amenable to someone just walking in your front door and making themselves at home in your house? I suspect not, there are laws against that and I'm willing to bet you would be right there calling the police on the trespass. Why should anybody just walking into the country be any different?
There are problems with the immigration process that do need to be fixed, but that requires Congress to work on them so it's not likely.
Where to start? I’m not drinking the koolaid you and others are trying to sell with your first paragraph. The numbers aren’t in yet for 2024 or 2025 but as of 2023 we still accepted more legal immigrants than any other nation. About 1.2 million in 2023. Up from a rough average of 1 million per year.
How that equates to “no longer welcoming immigrants” is beyond me. I suppose we will find out when the numbers do come in but I’d bet the house we will still accepted more than any other country.
Too bad. IMO you are ignoring the truth and that is very unfortunate.
Jesus cared for the marginalized but not everybody gets into The Kingdom of Heaven
Your Flag Decal Won't Get You into Heaven Anymore · John Prine
Illegal immigration didn't exist back then,
Hilarious - I am sure the Native Americans who were killed by the settlers or diseases they brought and forced off their land would loudly disagree
When I come upon someone who needs help, I do my best to help them - I do not have them dragged out of the neighborhood by masked men afraid to show their faces to the people they are "protecting"
Correct. when thousands of military aged men crossed the borders without government permission it was considered an invasion and repelled by force.
ilarious - I am sure the Native Americans who were killed by the settlers or diseases they brought and forced off their land would loudly disagree
So what lesson about not stopping uncontrolled immigration would you take from that? It's not just "native americans, it the entirity of human history including native americans tribes ethnically cleansing each other that tell that tale.
When I come upon someone who needs help, I do my best to help them
That's great. [deleted] [✘] But private acts of charity to mitigate immediate distress and the role of the government to protect the whole are not the same.
So what lesson .... would you take from that?
That the current native Americans should deport everyone else back to wherever the hell their people came from
I thought you were against deportations. But it might be a little late for that, huh?
You think our strategy should be to do the same thing the Indians did and hope for the best? Forget all of recorded history, this time it's bound to work!!!
Many of the first Indian chiefs thought they could use the first settlers against their own enemies. Sort of like how Democrats think they can exploit migrants as a political wedge against Republicans. Flood the country use them to increase Democrats power through manipulating the census, illegal voting etc..
What could possibly go wrong?
How would they be different than the other Indian tribes they killed to obtain the land before the Europeans came?
There is a difference between immigration, colonization, and conquest.
There is a difference between immigration, colonization, and conquest.
thanks for the news flash I think we all know that
Then why did you refer to colonization as illegal immigration?
It was illegal immigration when they arrived in someone else's country without invitation and didn't assimilate but rather destroyed.
It was colonization when there were not enough Native Americans left to dispute their presence
That's settler colonialism.
Closing this article tonight. Its been going for a week.