Channel: Home | About

Is Jesus a Socialist?

Not according to Tom Snyder whose article, No, Jesus is not a Socialist, offers some compelling evidence in support of that claim. The very first paragraph was enough to realize posting on it would provoke near apoplectic response from certain commentors, and while that image amused me, let me state quite clearly that that is not why I'm posting on it now. His premise is intriguing, and yes, it is provocative, but I can't find anything wrong with his argument. I would say that his vision of social welfare is the ideal, but in the present social climate here in America, and indeed around the world, it is and will continue to be an elusive dream.

But it doesn't have to be that way.

Mr. Snyder writes...

A group of self-described "progressive" Christian evangelicals calling themselves "Red Letter Christians," and led by the left-oriented Sojourners magazine and left-oriented religious pundits like Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo, has recently emerged in the body politic. These self-proclaimed "progressives" have been making a lot of noise recently complaining about the ties that other Christian evangelicals have long held with the conservative movement in the United States, including the conservative movement in the Republican Party.

One policy under attack by these "progressives" is the conservative effort to "cut programs to the poor." They say that such a policy goes against Jesus Christ's commands in chapter 24 of the book of Matthew to feed those who are hungry.

These "Red Letter Christians" are making a lot of noise, but they are just a bunch of clanging cymbals – and the love that they claim to spout has no truth in it whatsoever.

What these misguided religious zealots conveniently fail to note is that nowhere in the New Testament or the other books of the Bible do Jesus Christ, His apostles, God the Father, the Holy Spirit, Moses or the Hebrew prophets command the government to take money from its citizens and transfer it to poor people. In fact, the Bible says just the opposite.


Matthew 24 speaks of the Great Tribulation at the end of this age, or this present dispensation of Grace. No mention whatsoever is made of 'the poor', and only one mention of 'feeding'...

Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?
--Matthew 24:25

But this admonishment is not so much a command to feed but rather a qualifying despription of what a 'faithful and wise servant' is, and the nature of his commission... 'to give them meat in due season'.

It is obvious that Snyder is disdainful of progressive "Christians" who, to his mind, distort the truth of God's word. If his article were nothing more than a list of objections it too would be no more than 'clanging cymbals', but Snyder offers corroboration...

God presents us with three general ways in the Bible to take care of the poor and needy: 1) through the family; 2) through the church; and 3) through individual charity. The applicable passages for these three ways are Deuteronomy 14:28-29, Numbers 18:24, Matthew 6:1-4 and 1 Timothy 5:3-16.

So what do these verses say?

"At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates: And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest."
--Deuteronomy 14:28-29

It is the Church, therefore, in this Church age, the dispensation of Grace, that is responsible for feeding not just the poor, but the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and then only, what? Every three years? Personally, I believe the Church can do much better than that, but Snyder explains further on that this is all that's required by God.

"But the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave offering unto the LORD, I have given to the Levites to inherit: therefore I have said unto them, Among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance."
--Numbers 18:24

Numbers 18:24 appears to be clarification of the Deuteronomy verse which describes the Levites as 'hav[ing] no inheritance', which seems to afford them a measure of neutrality. Any thoughts on this? Anyone?

"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly."
--Matthew 6:1-4

Where Deuteronomy spoke to organizational responsibility, these verse speak to personal responsibility, coupled with a warning against pride and self-righteousness.

"Honour widows that are widows indeed. But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God. Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day. But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth. And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless. But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work. But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. For some are already turned aside after Satan. If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed."
--1 Timothy 5:3-16

These verses get into specifics, who to and who not to 'relieve' of their affliction. But another aspect here is starkly present: Members of the house of God come first and foremost.

I can support that claim with Galatians 6:10... "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith." Use of the word 'especially' indicates preference.

To add to Mr. Snyder's list of who should receive aid, allow me to point out who should NOT receive aid... "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." --2 Thessalonians 3:10

Back to Snyders article...

Now, the first two ways are pretty clear. People's first obligation is to the needy, poor, widowed and orphaned in their own families. Only after they do this do they have any obligation to help the needy, poor, widowed and orphaned through their local church organization. God established the pattern for this kind of church giving in Numbers 18:24 and Deuteronomy 14:28, 29. As David Chilton points out in his great book "Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators," the bulk of Christian giving to the local church should be geared toward financing professional theologians, experts in biblical law and church discipline, teachers of God's word and leaders skilled in worship. It was only every third year that all the giving was set aside to help the needy, poor, widowed and orphaned. Even then, the money was not given just to anyone who showed up. Those able to work but don't do not qualify for help. Also, those who have families to take care of them don't qualify, nor do widows under age 60 qualify, according to the Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 5:3-16.

Jesus Christ, who is God in the flesh, talks about the third way in Matthew 6. He tells His listeners that they should give individual charity. He also says they should give such charity secretly: "Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing."

In other words, Jesus is not a socialist. Nor is he a liberal. In fact, in none of the Bible passages just cited, nor in any others I know of, does Jesus, God or even Moses cite the government as the means by which the poor, needy, widowed and orphaned are housed, clothed and fed.

Thus, a simple, straightforward reading of the Bible, God's Word, including the "Red Letter" words of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, clearly shows that the American welfare state is anti-Christian and unbiblical. Any Christian who advocates such a government welfare system (including clergymen or women) should be harshly rebuked. Furthermore, any members of any political party, including Republicans, Democrats, Reform Party members, Libertarians or whatever, who advocate such a socialist system yet claim to be Christian should be reprimanded by their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and by all church leaders.


It sounds harsh, but again, I can't find anything wrong with it. The American welfare system is an abomination, and a travesty. It encourages sexual impurity; fornication, un-wed motherhood. It encourages slothfulness. It destroys families. And it fosters generational dependency, a sense of entitlement, and outright slavery with little or no hope for freedom... unless they rise up themselves and flee the Welfare state of mind.

There are of course plenty of stories of men, women, and children rising above poverty and the welfare state to make something of themselves, and the lives of their children, but these results are rarely the result of anything the 'system' has done for the welfare recipient, but rather, are overwhelmingly the product of the hard work and determination of those welfare recipients. Personal disgust of one's situation coupled with hard work and determination bring more people out of poverty than Welfare, or EBT.

There is much more to the article, but I'll leave that for you to read.

71 Comments:

  1. Anonymous said...
    I wouldn't think that Jesus is a socialist (meaning supporting state-ownership of stuff), but neither would I find Jesus to be a capitalist ("Greed is good!").

    I could entirely see Jesus supporting rules that re-allocate wealth and buffer against an accumulation of wealth and power in too few hands, as the Jubilee Laws call for.

    This Snyder guy doesn't seem to know much of which he speaks (or is it you writing at this point?). He says that nowhere does God "command the government to take money from its citizens and transfer it to poor people."

    1. Nowhere does God say that a community can't freely choose to do so either.
    2. Further, people and nations that treat their poor and oppressed well are praised and the ones that don't are cursed (Sodom and Gomorrah, Amos 2:6-7, Ezekiel 34:16, for starters).

    "In fact, the Bible says just the opposite."

    1. What IS the opposite of this? That gov't CAN'T take money and give it to the poor? That God commands the gov't to take money from the poor and give it to the wealthy?
    2. Snyder (or you) provide no biblical basis for whatever "just the opposite" is, as far as I can tell.
    3. In fact, the Bible does provide the model of the Jubilee codes, where the kingdom of Israel was to redistribute wealth on a regular basis.
    4. Further, clearly we both believe that Christians have an obligation to the poor and oppressed (right?). So, if Christians in a democratic community want to give assistance to the poor via their own tax dollars (if it made sense to them that some problems were better dealt with by the gov't, or that needs weren't being met outside the gov't), then there's no scriptural basis for Christians not voting to spend their tax money in that way as opposed to other ways.

    I don't think much of what he and you stands well up against what the Bible actually says. But then, I reckon you knew that already...

    I mean, I'm not disagreeing with you here:

    "God presents us with three general ways in the Bible to take care of the poor and needy: 1) through the family; 2) through the church; and 3) through individual charity."

    Except to say that God has not limited us to only these three ways.

    Is Jesus a socialist? No, I don't know of anyone who'd say that. Is Jesus a capitalist. Clearly not.

    Is Jesus concerned that we identify with and side with the poor and look to their genuine needs and protect them from rich oppressors and gov'ts? Clearly, yes.
    Anonymous said...
    And *I* get accused of "twisting the Bible" to meet my preconceived political views!!!

    I am a liberal BECAUSE I'm a Jesusian, not in spite of it.

    Can open. Worms everywhere:

    Nowhere does the Bible say to war against homosexuals, which seems to be a primary mission of "God's Own Party," so I don't. An underlying principle of the Gospel is an open door. Therefore, ALL are welcome, along with every other stripe of sinner on the planet.

    Abortion sucks. But if the only way to stop a woman from having an abortion is by raping her, I will not use the law to stop her. And if rape is an act of violence -- and rape *is* an act of violence, an act by a powerful person over a weak one -- then using the law to force women to make the decision that *you* would have them make is an act of social violence, putting YOUR power over theirs, and therefore is a form of rape.
    Put *that* on your bumpersticker.

    Having thus snuffed the H-bomb and the A-bomb used to try to discredit liberal Christians ...

    Another underlying principle of the faith is to help the poor and needy, so I do, by using MY VOTE, which is my most important resource as an American Christian. I give from my own pocket, and, the cold hard fact is, given the chance, I vote to give from yours, in the form of taxes.

    That ain't socialism. It's social welfare, to counter the evils of unchained capitalism -- and unchained capitalism, being the aggregation of greed by definition, is a form of evil.
    Anonymous said...
    Well, it's a can I wanted to open... To see where it went, if nothing else.
    Anonymous said...
    "Another underlying principle of the faith is to help the poor and needy, so I do, by using MY VOTE, which is my most important resource as an American Christian. I give from my own pocket, and, the cold hard fact is, given the chance, I vote to give from yours, in the form of taxes."

    That ain't socialism. It's social welfare, to counter the evils of unchained capitalism..."


    No, ER. That's thievery.

    Don't blame that on Jesus.

    Er, Dan, how do your positions on things like Homosexuality and Abortion, state sponsored thievery in the form of wealth redistribution by Governmental Force, and transfering the responsibilities of god's Churhc to a secular Government bring Glory to God?

    How does your arrogance, self righteousness, and willful misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the Scriptures and the Message of Jesus bring Glory to God?

    Why is it okay for YOU to use the power of your vote to force YOUR religion down MY throat?
    Anonymous said...
    See, here's the deal.

    God laid out a very clear system for taking care of "The Poor" (whoever they are), the needy, and the Widows. (Both clearly defined in the scriptures.)

    But Dan and ER know much better how to take care of these people and how to determine who these people are than God does.

    The problem with all of us other "so called" Christians, (those of us who have not yet attained the status of "Jesusian") just don't understand the Scriptures.

    Especially the passages where we are told to rip resources away from unwilling donors, in order to do GOD'S work with them.

    Since the words "Thou Shalt Not Steal from the rich and give to the poor" never appear in Red Letters in the Bible, then it must be okay.

    Never mind the damage it does to the donors, the recipients, our society.

    Never mind the fact that when you take that position, you turn people away from God in about 17 different ways and make people hate you and God's Church.

    Never mind the fact that you undermine the effectiveness of the Church as a positive influence in society by engaging in theft in it's name.

    ER and Dan can't find anywhere in the Words of Jesus NOT to do it, so it HAS to be okay.
    Anonymous said...
    Because ER and Dan say so.
    Anonymous said...
    So there!
    Anonymous said...
    Agreed, TugBoatCapn, well said.

    What I found most shocking, ER, is how you condone and allow the murder of innocents for fear of raping the mother...

    That is perhaps the most specious argument I've ever heard. My! You've managed to absolve yourself of the guilt of murder by standing against rape! Wha? Demanding children be carried to term is equivalent to rape?

    That's the most tortured logic I've ever encountered.
    Anonymous said...
    And in the process it manages to totally ignore the Humanity of the unborn Baby.

    In ER's mind, standing up for the right of that HUMAN BEING, created in the image of God, to LIVE, is an act of violence against the person WHO WOULD SAVAGELY END THAT LIFE!

    In the name of Jesus!
    Anonymous said...
    Okay, before we go any further, let's put this shaky strawman down. He's too sick to go on anymore.

    Tell me this: Several of y'all have used the suggestion that spending tax dollars on welfare is equal to thievery. Are you saying that taxing people is stealing?

    I'm guessing your answer is no. And that is the correct answer. There is a difference between taxation and stealing. Which is not to say that every tax is a morally good one (God forbid!), just that taxation is NOT THE SAME AS STEALING.

    If it is, then it is stealing whether or not the gov't spends that money on poverty assistance or road-building assistance or bomb-building assistance.

    So which is it? Is taxing stealing (and therefore you're advocating no taxation) or is it not (and we have to muddle through together which taxes and uses are just and which ones aren't)?
    Anonymous said...
    All I'm saying is Welfare is criminal in that it destroys more lives than it saves. Far more.

    As for taxation... render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's... but that in no way implies that taxation is not evil, only that we are to obey the laws of Government and respect the leaders God has placed over us, unless those laws cause us to deny the God who saved us.
    Anonymous said...
    You're not one of those that says taxation is stealing. Very good, then. That's a starting point.

    [Tug apparently is, though:

    "state sponsored thievery in the form of wealth redistribution by Governmental Force..."]

    But, I'll deal with your response for now and get back to Tug later. You said:

    "All I'm saying is Welfare is criminal in that it destroys more lives than it saves. Far more."

    And if you're right, then I'm there with you. Who wants to destroy lives?!

    But before agreeing to fight welfare with you: On what do you base this extreme claim? What are your sources? What studies have you read to validate this viewpoint?

    What particular programs in the broad welfare category do these studies show have destroyed lives? Feeding hungry children? Helping addicts get clean? Helping inmates get their GEDs?

    I'll join with you in fighting every program that you can show me (and I don't mean anectdotally) is harming people if you'll join with me in supporting every program that I can show is helping people. How about that?
    Anonymous said...
    "Strawman"--Gawd, Dan! Must you sidtort and twist everything out of context?

    "But before agreeing to fight welfare with you: On what do you base this extreme claim? What are your sources? What studies have you read to validate this viewpoint."

    His sources, Dan the revisionist, is what he sees happening all around him in society.

    Who needs to quote anyone else when the evidence is clear as the water flowing into White River from Piney Creek?

    WE are tiring of your irrelevant "strawman", "fallacy", "false witness", accusations , DAn. They are pretty hard to take from a fallacious false witness who puts strawmen up and hides behind them continually.

    In other words--with each and every post you make, those of us who have been victim to your incessant distortions give you less and less credibility.

    You nreed to learn how long your distortions are eeffective then get out before your opponents realize what a deluded (or purposeful) deciever you are if you want to maintain credibility with anyone.

    Get out before the bullsh*t you bring to the debate gets too deep, Dan.

    You're drowning in your own spittle, Dan.
    Anonymous said...
    "Straw man": noun - Any point which a Liberal cannot refute.

    (See also: "Red Herring.")

    Dan, when you or anyone else decides to use any tool to take something that does not belong to you, and use it for your own purposes, that's Theivery.

    It makes no difference whether that tool is a crowbar or a vote.

    If the person who earned the money does not give it to be used to help the poor with a glad and willing heart, then it's use brings no Glory to God.

    It brings temporary Glory to Government with one group of people, while fostering hatred and animosity with another.

    Charity is the Biblical Responsibility of the CHURCH, Guys.

    Not the Government.

    Can you show me a passage anywhere in the Bible where Jesus fed anyone without preaching to them?
    Anonymous said...
    It is a strawman, Tug, because you DON'T believe it to be stealing, I'm guessing. You don't believe in paying any taxes? Are you prepared to give up your military? Your roads?

    I'll be glad to answer your question once you've clarified whether you truly believe taxation is stealing or if you're just pulling stuff out your hat.
    Anonymous said...
    I will allow that this may not be exactly a strawman fallacy you're promoting. It may be more of a red herring.

    You're arguing something that you don't (or no one else) believe in order to say "see, he's advocating stealing."

    Regardless, it is a fallacy.
    Anonymous said...
    Dan, You have a tendency to carry my arguments to ridiculous extremes.

    No. ALL taxation is not theivery. The Government does some things with the money that I pay in taxes that benifit me directly.

    There are legitimate uses for Public funds, all clearly enumerated in the Constitution.

    What you two are advocating is side-stepping your own Christian obligations and those of your Church by turning those responsibilities to a bloated, faceless Burocracy.

    For the THIRD time, Dan, I will ask you.

    HOW DOES THIS BRING GLORY TO GOD?

    What you are advocating is exactly the same thing as if I said, "I choose to use the power of my vote to support the practice of using the U.S. Military to spread the Gospel all over the World, because that is what Jesus would have us do."

    Arguing with you is absolutely maddening, Dan, because you purposely ignore the major point of the discussion and insist on picking apart some minute detail of an irrellevant tangient, all the while ignoring direct questions, demanding sources, and accusing your opponents of using "straw men", and "red herrings".

    You try to get us all so distracted with the inner workings of the watch, that we forget what time it is.

    I'm not falling for it anymore.

    When did Jesus ever feed anyone without witnessing to them?

    When did He ever feed anyone twice in a row?

    When did he ever take anything away from anyone who did not want to give it, in order to provide anything for anyone?

    I will ask these questions over and over until you answer them, and I will not discuss anything else with you until you do.
    Anonymous said...
    Two points.

    Even when it was illegal, abortion was called abortion, not murder. Look it up. Abortion was abortion. It was not murder.

    Hey, the fact is, abortion is a nothing issue in reality, used to categorize and demonize, which is why I don't mention it often. If y'all honestly think it's murder and you're not out in the streets, picketing, adopting babies or otherwise working against it, then you're the worst sort of hypocrite, really, and just playing with words.

    It doesn't look to me like the GOP cares much about the issue either -- but then, the Repubs have been taking fundamentalist Christians for a ride for *years* now and y'all just keep climbing on board. This truth is outing even as we blog, though. "Values voters"? Ha. One, it's a misnomer, and two, the only value y'all have for the Republican Party is your little ol' votes.

    Tug, Jesus didn't live in a representative democracy, so we don't know how he would vote if he chose to. But my interpretation of everything he said and did causes me to conclude that he would, in fact, opt to use the resources of the government, that is, his vote, as his right in such a form of government, to carry out his chief command to love one's neighbor as oneself.

    So, when I vote the way I do, I do so because I think it's the right thing to do, based on my beliefs about who Jesus is and his example. Very simple. Y'all do likewise. Of course, I think you're wrong. Totally.

    BTW, I never thought of my term "Jesusian" as being "above" anything. I do, however, use it to distinguish from "Christianity," which I believe the right wing has sullied with selfishness to the point of rank sinfulness.
    Anonymous said...
    Tug said:
    "No. ALL taxation is not theivery."

    I wasn't taking your ideas to the extreme, I was taking your words at face value and asking you to clarify them. It's an important distinction to make. We have to agree upon words and their meanings if we're going to have a discussion.

    Okay. So we agree that taxation is NOT thievery. We may agree or disagree about what taxation is WISE or called for, but it is clearly not thievery.

    Tug went on to say:
    "The Government does some things with the money that I pay in taxes that benifit me directly."

    Is that your definition of what makes a tax legal or not? I'm not sure of the point here.

    You go on to say that"
    "There are legitimate uses for Public funds, all clearly enumerated in the Constitution."

    And on this we agree, too. That we can rely upon the Constitution to tell us what is legal and not legal in our country.

    So we agree upon:
    1. Stealing = wrong.
    2. Taxation is NOT stealing.
    3. The Constitution is what outlines the basic legal rules of living in the US.

    We disagree upon the notion that the Constitution does/does not allow taxation for the purposes of "welfare." Unfortunately for you, you are in the minority on this point, and in our Republic, that means our representatives have decided that the constitution DOES allow for investing in social services.

    You can say that it doesn't all you want, but it doesn't change that this is the way things are. The majority have said that you're wrong on this point.

    (And we disgree for some very sound, conservative, fiscally-responsible reasons - if we don't invest in social services, we end up paying more in poverty-related crime and other side effects. Why would we NOT pay up front to prevent a problem rather than after the fact to deal with a problem?)

    That's the legal/constitutional side of things. I'll tackle what I consider to be the Christian side of things next.
    Anonymous said...
    Now that you've answered my question, I can begin to respond to yours, Tug.

    You asked (about welfare):
    "HOW DOES THIS BRING GLORY TO GOD?"

    It's a pretty easy question, dude:

    When poor people are fed, the homeless housed, the sick cared for, the orphans loved, God is glorified. There's nothing in the Bible that says that we can't use gov't to assist the poor. In fact, gov'ts are frequently criticized in the bible for NOT tending to the poor.

    You know the "sin of Sodom" was, don't you?

    In Ezekiel 16 it says:

    "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."

    This notion of kingdoms failing to do justice for the poor is repeated throughout the OT. (Read Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah for fun and education sometime.)

    Further, the Jubilee Laws in the Pentateuch talk about the gov't setting up a means of taking care for the poor in the land and systematic redistrubtion of land (wealth) on a regular basis.

    So, in summation:

    1. God is glorified when the poor are tended to (a notion I believe we agree with)
    2. There's nothing in the Bible forbidding kingdoms/gov'ts from assisting the poor.
    3. Kingdoms are OFTEN condemned in the Bible for failing to take care of the poor.
    4. The Jubilee Laws WERE a means for the gov't to take care of the poor and to try to keep too much wealth from accumulating in too few hands.

    I'm out of time, I think this addresses your other questions, but when I get a chance, I'll check back later and see if I need to respond to some specifics.
    Anonymous said...
    Great googley-moogley...

    It's been nice arguing with you then, Dan.

    Have a nice life.

    That's just too much damage for me to repair.

    May God have Mercy on you, and ER both.
    Anonymous said...
    You have misapprehended the Jubilee Laws.

    The jubilee was instituted primarily to keep intact the original allotment of the Holy Land among the tribes, and to discountenance the idea of servitude to men. "For unto me the children of Israel are servants; they are my servants whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: I [am] the LORD your God." --Leviticus 25:55

    In other words... the Children of Israel were not to be servants to anyone but God, And by means of this law no tribe would end up with more than what was rightfully theirs, ie; it was instituted to keep the tribe of Asher from eventually owning land that belongs to Naphtali. Every 50 years whatever was taken fairly in debt or otherwise was returned to the rightful family of the rightful tribe. This does not amount to redistribution of wealth.

    Any man who owed a debt saw that debt cancelled in the year of Jubilee.

    Any man who was a slave was freed in the year of Jubilee. And, I might add, was freed with just wages given for his servitude.

    A man who sold land, or lost land due to debt, did not have to fear that his children would likewise suffer loss. Even if he died penniless, his children would recover the land in the year of Jubilee.

    The Sabbatical years were likewise not a redistribution of wealth. Every seven years the land was to lie fallow; unplowed, unplanted, etc. Whatever spontaneously sprung from the ground during that year was the possession of all the people, not the owner of the field.

    Along a similar line, fields during any year were not to be fully harvested. The edges were to be left for the poor to "glean." But this also does not amount to a redistribution of wealth.

    But neither is it a tax. It's actually more a tithe, or an offering to the Lord... Even though it was commanded.

    God only redistributes wealth in the case of the slothful servant who hid his talent in the sand. Of that unprofitable servant the Lord says, "Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath."

    That is not redistribution of wealth. If anything, the parable seems to say that the poor stand to lose more than their empty pockets for being lazy and unprofitable. Of course this is a parable and the interpretation doesn't amount to unprofitability in terms of money (though it can be implied to mean we should use the resources we have to create more resources), but rather in terms of spiritual things.

    But again... It's not redistribution of wealth. God is not unjust; He would never demand that we work hard to make an increase just so He could take it away and give it to someone who hasn't worked at all. If He does take it away, it's because of our greed, and our refusal to use that gain to be a blessing to others.

    But again, this is NOT redistribution of wealth. It's not even welfare, as the giving was every seven years in the fields, every three years in the gates of the cities, and every fifty years throughout the land.

    If a man will not work, neither should he eat. And even then only certain people were eligible for the handouts... widows of 60 years or more, children (the fatherless), and the stranger (charity to foreigners? or those not of the faith? In either case God's mercy is extend to both, for God allows the rain to fall on the just and well as the unjust).

    It's getting close to news time so I have to end this here.
    Anonymous said...
    "You have misapprehended the Jubilee Laws."

    It's okay for a liberal to pervert the very meaqning of God's word, though, El!

    Right, Dan?

    The jubillee laws had NOTHING to do with the redistrubition of wealth.

    In today's society, welfare is not for the needy--it's for keeping the poor in its place--an essential part of the Democratic agenda.

    Thare's a VERY small percentage of welfare recipients who really NEED any dang thing. Most of them could have eveything they need if they would just act responsibly.

    But then responsibility is something not worth considering to a leftist, is it?
    Anonymous said...
    Tug asked me what biblical reason I had for support gov't assistance for the poor.

    I responded with a series of biblical points and rational conclusions. Repeated here:

    [1. God is glorified when the poor are tended to (a notion I believe we agree with)
    Right?
    2. There's nothing in the Bible forbidding kingdoms/gov'ts from assisting the poor.
    Factual.
    3. Kingdoms are OFTEN condemned in the Bible for failing to take care of the poor.
    Factual.
    4. The Jubilee Laws WERE a means for the gov't to take care of the poor and to try to keep too much wealth from accumulating in too few hands.
    My intepretation here is debatable, but entirely reasonable.]

    Tug responded:

    "Great googley-moogley...

    It's been nice arguing with you then, Dan."

    And I'd suggest that THAT sort of reasoning is one reason why the majority of US citizens don't agree with folk like Tug. He's willing to state why you must agree with him but unwilling to discuss the other side.

    At least Elashley is willing to talk about such matters.

    We've a great divide in our country, Tug, and if Christians can't even talk about these divisions, what hope is there for the rest of the country and the world?
    Anonymous said...
    It's time for me to leave for church, I'll come back later, but why don't we look at the Jubilee Laws some?

    Leviticus 25 (God speaking):

    "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When you enter the land I am going to give you, the land itself must observe a sabbath to the LORD. 3 For six years sow your fields, and for six years prune your vineyards and gather their crops. 4 But in the seventh year the land is to have a sabbath of rest, a sabbath to the LORD.

    Do not sow your fields or prune your vineyards.

    Do not reap what grows of itself or harvest the grapes of your untended vines. The land is to have a year of rest.

    Whatever the land yields during the sabbath year will be food for you—for yourself, your manservant and maidservant, and the hired worker and temporary resident who live among you, as well as for your livestock and the wild animals in your land.

    Whatever the land produces may be eaten.

    " 'Count off seven sabbaths of years—seven times seven years—so that the seven sabbaths of years amount to a period of forty-nine years. Then have the trumpet sounded everywhere on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the Day of Atonement sound the trumpet throughout your land.

    Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you; each one of you is to return to his family property and each to his own clan. The fiftieth year shall be a jubilee for you; do not sow and do not reap what grows of itself or harvest the untended vines. For it is a jubilee and is to be holy for you; eat only what is taken directly from the fields.

    " 'In this Year of Jubilee everyone is to return to his own property..."

    This is the Word of the Lord.

    Thanks be to God.
    Anonymous said...
    Yes, Dan. I can read.

    That does not say anything at all about the governmenttaking from the haves and giving to the have nots through Taxation.

    It says absolutely nothing about Government directly giving money to "the poor".

    If we, as a Nation had been living all along under the Jubilee Laws, and this discussion was about whether or not to continue that practice, or if we were arguing about whether or not to institute a National system based upon the Jubilee Laws, then all of that might be relevant here.

    I know that the Bible says to help the poor, the widows, the less fortunate.

    But what you are trying to support, Dan, is NOT Biblical, and no matter how you twist the Bible, you can't make it be.

    Oh, and I LOVE this arguement...

    You know the "sin of Sodom" was, don't you?

    In Ezekiel 16 it says:

    "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
    "

    That was the ONLY Sin of Sodom, huh, Dan?

    You have SCOURED the Bible from cover to cover, and for the life of you, you cannot seem to find anything else that the people of Sodom might have been doing that may have displeased God, Right?

    Sodom was destroyed because they didn't engage in enough Socialism?

    Go peddle that to someone else.
    Anonymous said...
    And one other thing, Dan.

    If you were interested in discussing what the Bible ACTUALLY says, in context, and not trying to distort and rewrite it to fit your Agenda, then I don't mind discussing things with you.

    But I do not have time to De-Program you.

    So...

    It' a Free Country, God Bless America, Make Love, not War, yada, yada yada...
    Anonymous said...
    And praise be to God, Leviticus is not a system of wealth redistribution.

    It is a system of forgiveness, restoration, and rest. Contrast that with our current system of welfare and answer me this:

    1) What wealth or land is being 'restored' to the poor, who, by today's definition typically owns[ed] no land prior to their present state of poverty? What inheritance is being restored? Typically? Nothing, but a sense of entitlement.

    2) What have they done, besides be born into poverty, and/or fail to rise above poverty due to inaction, or slothfulness? [Note: Inability is entirely different. Welfare should exist for these people.] What have they done to be forgiven of besides not applying themselves?

    Consider many of those in poverty today: flat screen TV's, game systems, wardrobe, pimped up rides? Contrast that with genuine poverty struck people in the Appalachians, the dirt dirt poor in the inner city, the dirt dirt DIRT poor in sub-Saharan Africa... These people DO need help. Many who are on welfare in this nation DO NOT need help.

    3) Who in this nation abides by the Sabbatical laws? The Jubilee Laws?

    Certainly not our court system, which allows credit card companies to create a system of indentured servitude, virtual slaves... When are these people ever forgiven, except through bankruptcy, and even THAT has been made difficult by our elected representatives who, in all likelihood will never have to file bankruptcy. But you see, we do things bass-ackward here in America... We forgive the slothful, and reward him with sustenance and a measure of wealth, while punishing those who have struggled and fought and saved to attain a measure wealth. We reward slothfulness, and punish hard work.

    Why, oh why insist redistribution of wealth is a positive, Christ-like thing to do, when nowhere does Christ endorse such? Such a system does not teach personal responsibility, but rather, teaches one to hold out his hand in righteous expectation.

    What He does endores is: Give to him who asks of you, expecting nothing back. Give. Not take.

    He does endores feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, caring for the sick, and visiting those in prison. Many who apply for welfare are neither hungry, naked, or in prison. Should we want all our citizens to have better? Absolutely! But these people will appreciate their wealth far more if they have to work for it. Instead of endlessly doling out money to the not-so-needy, let's dole of opportunity instead. Let them build it for themselves so they will appreciate it more.

    Jesus also endorses rewarding the hard worker as in the parable of the talent and the pound, as well as punishing the slothful.

    I don't say Welfare is a bad thing, only that it presently serves little good to those who genuinely need it. It rewards slothfulness, and creates slaves to the state, and has largely become a political vote-buying scam.

    [You had to know I would inject politics into this thread at some point!]

    And anyone who thinks I need to pay more taxes to support welfare is someone who is not thinking biblically, and will not get my vote. You of course are free to vote for whomever you will.

    And on a personal note: I have no intention of supporting new taxes for welfare... for redistribution of wealth... proposed by congressmen who can't even place Job in the proper Testament; who mangle scripture in public, thinking they appeal to the religious. The faith of these men and women is as phoney-baloney as ocean-front property in Arizona. And when they come trying to sell me that bill of goods... They'll find a sign on the door that says, "Sorry, Bank's closed. I'm simply not buying."
    Anonymous said...
    And I'm now late for Church. Which should have come first...
    Anonymous said...
    One of the limitations of the blog format: Where does one begin to respond to multiple points?!

    Tug said:

    If you were interested in discussing what the Bible ACTUALLY says, in context, and not trying to distort and rewrite it to fit your Agenda, then I don't mind discussing things with you.

    Is this not what I'm doing? I'm pointing to some biblical passages, saying that this is what the bible says and asking if you agree with that much.

    I haven't tried to distort anything, just offered what the Bible says and what it means to me. Isn't that how Christians do Bible study? It is where I come from (well, along with praying for God to speak to us through the scriptures).

    And, I'm sure I've said this before, but allow me to point out (in response to Tug's suggestion that I'm trying to fit the Bible in to MY agenda) that I was a conservative Christian who got to where I am (still conservative in many ways if you ask me) because I've read the Bible and had to change some of my positions based upon God's revelation to me and not the other way around.

    Perhaps, if we could ascertain where we agree and disagree it would help. Allow me to repeat the following to see if we aren't clear on some basics:

    1. God is glorified when the poor are tended to.

    Am I right in assuming that we're in agreement here? I think we are.

    2. There's nothing in the Bible forbidding kingdoms/gov'ts from assisting the poor.

    Do we agree that this is a factual statement?

    3. Kingdoms are OFTEN condemned in the Bible for failing to take care of the poor.

    Do we agree that this is a factual statement?
    Anonymous said...
    On an unrelated topic:

    Tug said, "That was the ONLY Sin of Sodom, huh, Dan?"

    And you are correct I've scoured the Bible. As one who believed homosexuality a sin, I tried to find evidence to support that position.

    Much to my consternation, the Bible is pretty silent on homosexuality and the ONLY place in the Bible where God TELLS us specifically what the "sin of Sodom" was, is this Ezekiel passage pointing to their inhospitality towards the poor and hungry. Needless to say, I was amazed that I'd been taught incorrectly all those years.

    But then, that's really off-topic.
    Anonymous said...
    Okay.

    This is another trick that you love to use, Dan.

    You strip your own points down to bare bones, then ask, "Don't we all agree?"

    Then you try to use this rickety framework to suggest that since we all agree that the poor should not be allowed to starve in the street, then we should all support the Robin Hood style, steal from the Rich and give to the poor Welfare system.

    But I will answer your points.

    1. God is glorified when the poor are tended to.

    God is Glorified when His Church tends to the Poor in His name.

    The only thing glorified by the Welfare System is the Self Righteous Liberals who support it.

    2. There's nothing in the Bible forbidding kingdoms/gov'ts from assisting the poor.

    No but there is a LOT in the Bible condemning theft, envy, and coveteousness.

    Dan, I have no problem with helping the poor.

    But the system that we are currently discussing (the U.S. Welfare system) punishes achievement, and rewards sloth and uselessness, and actually does very little to help the poor overcome their poverty, but rather works to remove incentive from them to take control of their situation and become self-sufficient.

    THAT glorifies no one.

    3. Kingdoms are OFTEN condemned in the Bible for failing to take care of the poor.

    Kingdoms are condemned in the Bible for their Godlessness, Dan.

    Failure to help their poor is a symptom of this rather than the thing that angered God directly.

    And on the topic of your attempt to manipulate the Bible to fit your Agend...

    I am always amused when a learned Bible Scholar such as yourself says things like "The Bible is pretty silent about Homosexuality..." and then points to ONE verse in Ezekiel to determine that Lack of Socialism was the sin of Sodom.

    Read this:

    Leviticus 18:22
    Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

    Leviticus 20:13
    If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

    The Bible is so silent about Homosexuality that it puts it into the same category with Bestiality, and commands the Children of Israel to KILL anyone found to be guilty of it.

    No, on the subject of Sodom...


    Genesis 13:13
    But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.

    Genesis 19:4-5
    4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

    5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

    You were not taught incorrectly all those years.

    The Sin of Sodom was their overall lifestyle of wickedness and Godlessness in every facet of their lives, and among the most glaring examples of their wickedness was their Sexual Depravity.

    Another symptom was thier mistreatment of their poor.

    The verse from Ezekiel does not cancel out the Sinfulness of Homosexuality. (Sorry to have to be the one to break it to you.)
    Anonymous said...
    I'll pass on the homosexuality debate (since it's off-topic) except to say that I used to agree with you. Looking closer at the bible, praying and knowing gay christians has shown me otherwise.

    Could it be that you're mistaken, and not me?

    For instance, in your suggestion that Sodom's destruction was somehow about homosexuality (rather than godlessness and not tending to the poor, as God says in Ezekiel), have you noticed that homosexuality is not even an issue in the Sodom and Gomorrah story?

    All the men of the town wanted to rape the two angels, who appeared as men. But if the angels had appeared as women and all the men of Sodom had wanted to rape them, would that have been a condemnation of heteosexuality?

    No, the problem in Lot's story was a desire to rape, which we all agree is wrong, rather than homosexuality which, as I said, is not even mentioned.

    If you'd like to write me, I'd be glad to give you further biblical reasoning on why I know longer believe what you believe.
    Anonymous said...
    Now, to the topic at hand.

    Tug said:

    "This is another trick that you love to use, Dan.

    You strip your own points down to bare bones, then ask, "Don't we all agree?""

    No trick, Tug. Just verifying our positions and agreements before we delve into our disagreements. It's the best way I can think of to have an intelligent conversation in this format.

    So, we agree that:
    1. God is glorified when Christians tend to the poor.
    2. That the Bible nowhere forbids gov'ts from assisting the poor.
    3. Kingdoms are condemned in the Bible for their Godlessness, and that failure to help their poor is a symptom of this Godlessness.

    We further agree that:
    4. Stealing is wrong.
    5. Taxation is not the same as stealing.

    Right so far?

    We disagree, thus far, on your comment, "failure to help their poor is a symptom of this rather than the thing that angered God directly."

    Clearly, oppression of the poor pisses God off. (psalm 12:5, Amos 4:1-2, for starters. I can give you dozens of other passages if you'd like them).

    You also stated:

    "But the system that we are currently discussing (the U.S. Welfare system) punishes achievement, and rewards sloth and uselessness, and actually does very little to help the poor overcome their poverty..."

    And you know this...how?

    What studies have you read? What statistics are you relying upon? How many "welfare" families do you know personally?

    I'll say to you what I said to EL: No one is in favor of welfare that harms. You show me evidence (not anectdotal) that a program is harming someone and we'll join together to oppose that program. And, similarly, I'd expect you to join with me in support of any programs that I can show evidence that are working.
    Anonymous said...
    "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."
    --Ezekiel 16:49-50

    Pride, wealth, slothfulness, stingy... AND they were haughty, and guilty of abominations.

    Sodom wasn't destroyed because she lack hospitality skills. She was destroyed because of her wickedness. Part of that certainly included her lack of charity, but lack of charity alone did not buy her a tailor-made fire and brimstone thunderstorm.

    In the second chapter of Amos God pronounces judgment of Moab, Judah, and Israel. It is to Israel that the reasons... "they sold the righteous for silver, and the poor for a pair of shoes; That pant after the dust of the earth on the head of the poor, and turn aside the way of the meek: and a man and his father will go in unto the same maid, to profane my holy name: And they lay themselves down upon clothes laid to pledge by every altar, and they drink the wine of the condemned in the house of their god."
    --Amos 2:6-8

    There are a number of things for which God says he "will not turn away the punishment thereof;" But we CAN tie Israel's punishment to the Sabbatical laws wherein the land was to lie fallow once very seven years.

    In a piece entitled Understanding the Holocaust by Harry H. Weber, is the reason for Israel's punishment...

    "God punished Israel, through its leaders, measure for measure for the sins they committed in their homeland. He was not satisfied with their exile alone. Their triumph over these travails led directly to their return home a mere seventy years later. Only seventy years? One for every year of the Sabbatical years in which the Jews did not allow the land to rest. The land needed seventy years to recover, and got it, as the stiff-necked tenants working it were evicted."

    Now, as to...

    "...homosexuality is not even an issue in the Sodom and Gomorrah story"

    Not an issue in that it is specifically mentioned in Ezekiel, but certainly indicative of the level to which Sodom's 'abominations' rose. The men of sodom were so depraved that even when offered Lot's 2 virgin daughters, the men of Sodom still wanted the men... to rape them.

    Romans 1:26-28 says, "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;"

    Those verses couldn't be clearer. For while the term 'Homosexuality' is clearly not found within the Bible's language, the description of it is clearly defined.

    Gay men and women who claim to be Christian... Claim to be saved... while still practicing the lifestyle will be sorely shocked when they stand before God who will tell them, 'depart from me ye workers of iniquity. I never knew you.' For if the bible clearly states that no 'fornicator' will enter into heaven, your Gay friends can honestly extend that to homosexuality as well.

    But! Let's be clear here. It will not be their homosexuality that sends them to hell. No, that won't be it at all. It'll be because their names will not be written in the Lamb's book of life.

    But back to Sodom.

    Looking more closely at the word itself...

    sedôm [sed-ome']
    From an unused root meaning to scorch; burnt (that is, volcanic or bituminous) district; Sedom, a place near the Dead Sea: - Sodom.

    Gomorrah as well...

    ‛ămôrâh [am-o-raw']
    From H6014; a (ruined) heap; Amorah, a place in Palestine: - Gomorrah.

    Of course, if we accept that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, then it follows that the cities were named according to their punishments, not for any sexually deviant behavior associated with its inhabitants. But this hardly matters, since the story of Lot and Sodom clearly illustrates the nature of Sodom's many abominations; as described in Romans, 'they had given themselves over to vile affections.' And we can be sure these 'affections' encompass more than just the sexually deviant variety.

    Homosexuals need salvation every bit as much as heterosexuals. And just like heterosexuals, Homosexuals need to stop "being the sin", ie: living the sin.

    Remember this list?

    "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
    1 Corinthians 6:9-10

    Homosexuality won't send a man or woman to hell. Being unregenerated will. But regeneration certainly implies abstaining from sin, and homosexuality is most definitely sinful. If you cannot see that... well, you're certainly on my prayer list. Your eyes need to be open; not to hating homosexuals, but to recognizing their need to stop being homosexual.

    But I've also strayed off topic. How does this happen?

    As for 'homosexuality is never mentioned...' the very fact that men wanted to RAPE men! That, brother, is homosexuality. Not a 'mentionable' issue as far as God is concerned, because it clearly falls under the 'Abomination' banner.

    This isn't rocket surgery, Dan. It's pretty straight forward. The King James is written at a fifth-grade reading level. As for understandability, learn a few archaic terms, and presto, barrier removed!

    Getting back to the American Welfare system... I'm in complete agreement with TugBoatCapn, who said...

    "the system that we are currently discussing (the U.S. Welfare system) punishes achievement, and rewards sloth and uselessness, and actually does very little to help the poor overcome their poverty, but rather works to remove incentive from them to take control of their situation and become self-sufficient."

    And this is NOT a system that is currently doing God's work. I can't support a system that you claim allows us to do God's will by helping the poor, when this very same government seeks to subvert God in the public square at every turn, backing down only when confronted by lawyers and judges still capable of rendering a just verdict, based on the Constitution.

    I think I'm done here for now... I've been two hours working on this, and I'm tired.
    Anonymous said...
    EL said:

    "Getting back to the American Welfare system... I'm in complete agreement with TugBoatCapn, who said...

    "the system that we are currently discussing (the U.S. Welfare system) punishes achievement, and rewards sloth and uselessness, and actually does very little to help the poor overcome their poverty..."

    And again I'll ask for your source? You're a newsdude, you know just anecdotal evidence does not make a case.

    We all know that there have been some problems with welfare, but there have been many people who've been kept from homelessness, many children who were able to remain in school, many people fed, too. These are not bad things.

    Demonstrate to me with some evidence that some particular programs are causing more harm than good and we can talk. Offer up your opinion and I, like the majority of the US, will continue to support various welfare programs.

    Democracy.
    Anonymous said...
    My comment above, of course, was for the citizenry at large. For Christians and Bible believers, you would need to demonstrate some evidence from the Bible that gov't assistance for the poor is wrong. Thus far, y'all have not done that.

    As to the gay issue, since you brought it up again, I'll just say that, if you go into your bible study with the assumption that homosexuality is wrong, then it is pretty easy to find evidence that it is wrong - even in places like Sodom, where it's not even an issue.

    I've found, though, that when I entered into biblical study with a heart open to God's leadership, that there is very little in the Bible that seems to address homosexuality and most of those don't really address it at all.

    But let's assume you're correct. Homosexuality is a sin.

    You said:
    "Let's be clear here. It will not be their homosexuality that sends them to hell. No, that won't be it at all. It'll be because their names will not be written in the Lamb's book of life."

    And by so saying, you're making the assumption, it seems to me, that if you happen to be wrong about a sin, your name is not written in the Book of Life. That is to say, if smoking were a sin but some people didn't really look at it as a sin and smoked anyway, they're names are not written in the Book of Life. (Or, if killing your enemies in war is a sin and you support war nonetheless...)

    Is that what you're saying?

    If so, that seems to presume that we have perfect knowledge about right and wrong - an ability we clearly don't have.

    I don't think that's your point, so would you care to explain further why, for my gay Christian brothers and sisters - those who've repented of their sin and asked Jesus into their lives and confess Jesus as Lord - why you think they're not heavenbound?
    Anonymous said...
    Or, to paraphrase you, EL:

    "men and women who support killing our enemies and who claim to be Christian... Claim to be saved... while still practicing the lifestyle will be sorely shocked when they stand before God who will tell them, 'depart from me ye workers of iniquity. I never knew you.'"

    You don't mean THAT, do you?
    Anonymous said...
    "And again I'll ask for your source?"

    Dan--ARE YOU BLIND?

    Or just deceptive?

    Look around, dude! It's YOU who are up in arms about poverty! It's YOU who talks aboout how many children go hungry in America each night.

    It's liberal policies that have carved out a modern day slave contingient among the poor--designed to keep them poor and depending on liberals. (Why else would the poorest of poor continue to vote for their slavemasters season after season even while remaining poor?)



    It's liberals who have caused the price of essential needs to skyrocket in price via their ill-informed and rediculous environmental crusades.
    Anonymous said...
    Allow me to clarify.

    The only thing that sends anyone to hell is their unregenerated soul. Accepting Christ, according to scripture, is the ONLY way men can come to God. The ONLY way.

    Homosexuality is clearly an abomination against God and nature. If you want to look at it through Darwin's prism of "survival of the fittest" it is clear that homosexuality would breed itself out of the gene pool by NOT breeding.

    But homosexuality is not what sends the homosexual to hell. It is rebellion against God.

    When working to convert the homosexual and draw him away from his sin, you DON'T attack homosexuality, that will only put up their guard. Instead we should use the 10 Commandments "as a school master" to show them why they need a savior, why they need to be forgiven by God; not for homosexuality, but for their sinful nature, which they cannot escape without God's help. Once they are genuinely saved, the Holy Spirit will then deal with their sin and draw them away from that lifestyle, at which point they will cease to be Gay, or identify themselves as Gay.

    Just like a man who has committed murder-- and rightly earned the label of 'murderer' --cannot continue to be a murderer AND be a genuine Christian, the same is true of homosexuals. They cannot continue in the homosexual lifestyle AND be Christian.

    And your paraphrase in no way mirrors what I've said here or in previous comments.
    Anonymous said...
    You aren't getting my point, El.

    Suppose that I agree that one cannot continue gladly and willingly in sin and be a christian, that presumes that we will always clearly know when we are sinning. But we're imperfect humans. There are going to be times when we sin and don't know it.

    Again, I'll offer my cigarette smoking analogy: Suppose it IS a sin to smoke cigarettes (I don't know about you, but in the Baptist circles I grew up in, it was clearly a sin) - something that God doesn't want us to do.

    Further suppose that Bob is a smoker who repents of his sins, asks Jesus into his heart and confesses Jesus as his Lord. Bob puts behind him the excess alcohol drinking, the porn, the hatred of others as he seeks to follow Jesus.

    Bob is aware that some people think smoking is a sin, but since it is clearly not found in the Bible, he dismisses such talk as just wrong.

    Bob dies and goes to God where, much to his surprise, God tells him that smoking IS a sin!

    Oh my word! What does this mean for Bob? Is Bob bound for hell because his limited human genius did not allow him to realize that smoking was a sin?

    Now, I think I know what you'll probably want to say: That smoking is a different issue. It's not clearly a sin. Homosexuality, you say, is clearly a sin and therefore, anyone who is gay and unrepentant of being gay can't possibly be a Christian.

    Would that be your response?

    If so, my response is that for many of us who are deeply concerned born-again Christians who believe in the Bible and want to follow in Jesus' steps have looked at the handful of verses in the Bible that people quote to condemn homosexuality and we sincerely disagree. We don't think those 5-7 passages are talking about committed gay relationships AT ALL.

    Should you be right and I wrong, will my gay friends be bound for hell, just like Bob (the smoker)? Or is even Bob bound for hell? Will I be bound for hell, too, because I thought loving gay relationships were acceptable before God?

    My question is: Do you think people are hellbound because of a lack of understanding?
    Anonymous said...
    Wow. This thread got juicy. I just now noticed this:

    "You've managed to absolve yourself of the guilt of murder by standing against rape!"

    I have zero guilt for abortion. Abortion is not murder. Making abortion illegal is an act of violence against women's bodies by people who have no moral right to do so, and so, to be as hyperbolic as fundies usually are as a matter of course, I argue rhetorically, is a form of rape.

    So ... where did TUG go to church this week? ...
    Anonymous said...
    Oh, and to answer the question posed in the headline: No. But he is a liberal.

    See:

    http://eruditeredneck.blogspot.com/2005/08/jesus-is-liberal.html
    Anonymous said...
    "So ... where did TUG go to church this week? ..." The Right Reverend Redneck

    (Translation)



    "Nanny-nanny boo-boo!"
    Anonymous said...
    "We don't think those 5-7 passages are talking about committed gay relationships AT ALL." Deciever Dan

    Yeah--that's NATURAL behaviour.

    LOL!
    Anonymous said...
    ...Abortion is not murder....

    That is, perhaps, the most shocking statement I've ever heard from a professed Christian.

    I am... at a complete loss for words.

    Congratulation, you have quite effectively rendered me speechless.
    Anonymous said...
    AGAINST NATURE?

    You know the University of Oslo has such a huge interest in this discussion.
    Anonymous said...
    Er, YOU ain't goin' to Church Neither.

    Not really.

    How's the view from the top of that ridiculously High Horse?

    You Self Righteous Hypocrite.

    People like you make me sick.
    Anonymous said...
    I'm still curious, El: Are people going to hell for a lack of understanding?

    If it turns out you are wrong about this Iraq Invasion, when you get to heaven, will God tell you, "I know you did what you thought were all the right things, but you were dead wrong on the Iraq Invasion, so you're going to hell?"
    Anonymous said...
    "It's liberal policies that have carved out a modern day slave contingient among the poor"

    I'll point out again that no one has provided a source for this sort of claim and again I'll offer that, for every program you can demonstrate is hurting more people than it helps, I'll join with you in opposing IF you'll join with me in supporting every program that I can show is helping people.
    Anonymous said...
    Then, go outside and puke, Tug.

    I've made no secret of the fact that one of the reasons I started attending church again regularly is because I felt like a hypocrite for letting myself get involved in discussions about Scripture, interpretation, and how faith and public policy should be worked out, when I didn't even show up for meetigns of the faithful.

    And so now, with you claiming God told you not to go to church, which is utterly ludicrous on its face, which really does make you a cult of one, to see you continue to engage discussions about faith and public policy makes me see you as a hypocrite. If you're going to have an opinion, the least you should do is show up for the meetings.

    And EL, I was quoting the law. Take it up with the states that had outlawed abortion but did not treat it the same as murder! I'm not making that up.

    And, you need to meet some more Christians: We do not all march under the Fundamentalist Banner, which is another way of saying: All Christians are not exact replicas of yourself.
    Anonymous said...
    Oh, and I'm an unrighteousness hypocrite, Tuggie, just like you.

    But I don't let that keep me from gathering with other unrighteousness hypocrites trying to follow Jesus. Like you do.

    *That's* what's making you sick, dude. Because while virtually everything we argue about is debatable, this is not:

    You need to be going to church, and you know it, but for whatever reason you're not, and it's making you sick. And when you start back, you'll thank me for riding your ass about it.
    Anonymous said...
    I'll thank you to mind your own flippin' business.

    You don't know what I need, nor do you have any idea what my standing with God is.

    No matter what you THINK you know.

    YOUR attitude and the attitudes of people like you, are what drove me from Church in the first place.

    So look, everybody! Look at ER!

    Look what a GOOD Christian he is!

    HE is a MUCH better Christian than TUG is, because HE goes to CHURCH!

    I'd rather be a Cult of One, and be inside the Will of the Lord, than to be a fool, swept up in a cult of thousands, spouting my new brand of Legalism at everybody I talk to.

    I hope you enjoy looking down your nose at me, ER.

    Because THAT is your reward.

    YOU need to get right with God, and stop worrying about me.
    Anonymous said...
    Abortion is not murder? Because the laws of the United States says it not?

    Whose law will you answer to when you stand before God? The laws of the United States, or His laws?

    Whose laws will He hold you accountable to?

    You're treading dangerous waters, ER.
    Anonymous said...
    NO, ELashley...

    ER has absolutely NOTHING to worry about when he stands before the Throne...

    Because HE goes to CHURCH, don'tcha know.

    Never mind the fact that he can't seem to wrap his feeble human brain around the phrase "THOU SHALT NOT KILL."

    Never mind the fact that he cannot wrap his feeble human brain around the phrase "THOU SHALT NOT COVET."

    Never mind the fact that he cannot wrap his feeble human brain around the phrase "THOU SHALT NOT STEAL."

    He got the one about "REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY" down pat, so he is in like Flynn.

    The rest of that stuff is completely irrellevant, because HE GOES TO CHURCH!

    Besides, all those other commandments are in the OLD Testament, and there are no Red Letters in that.

    Just disregard it, and be sure that you go to Church, point out the fact that other so called "Christians" who disagree with you do not, and then pray thus with yourself, "God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this Republican." (Luke 18:11)

    God is sure to welcome you with open arms, no matter how warped and twisted your Theology or Political positions may be.
    Anonymous said...
    Luke 18:14 (abridged)

    "...for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."

    I worship the Lord, ER.

    You Worship a Church, and an Ideaology.

    And yourself. (There is more B.S. after your name than anything else.)

    If you are an example of Church, you can have it, because God is not in it.
    Anonymous said...
    So, here's an honest question (not that I'm having much luck getting straight answers to questions here):

    Which laws in the OT do we obey, as Christians? Which apply to us? Just the Ten Commandments? The Jubilee Laws? The dietary laws?

    Which laws do you take to apply to you and why those and not others?
    Anonymous said...
    Dan, if you have a personal relationship with God, He will use the Holy Spirit and your Prayers to convict you of Sin in your life.

    He will point out what you should and should not do.

    And if you Sin, and you honestly pray for the Guidance of the Holy Spirit, you will be forgiven if you do not get it right.

    If you are looking for a checklist, or a recitation of which OT Laws you must obey, and which ones you are allowed to overlook, then you really need to re-examine your relationship with God.

    Is that a straight enough answer for you?

    Or would you like for me to provide you with a few sources?
    Anonymous said...
    I have a close friend who firmly believes that God has instructed him personally to never consume Alcohol.

    He has a history of alcoholism in his family, and God told him to completely leave it alone, forever.

    Now, there is no specific prohibition of alcohol in the Bible, no matter what "Fundies" may tell you.

    But for my friend, drinking any alcohol at all would be a clear violation of God's instructions, because he is a Christian, and he knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that God told him not to do that.

    Now there are some of God's Laws which common sense dictates that we should follow. (The Ten Commandments are among these, simply because, even if Religion were left out of the equasion, they are THE BEST guidlines ever committed to paper for living in any society of human beings.)

    But Jesus came to the Earth in order to establish a new Covenant between God and Man, and in order to facilitate personal relationships between us, and Him, by which He can lead and guide us in the way that WE should go.

    On a "one on one" basis.

    If you are a real Christian, you will know when you are rebelling against God's Leadership.
    Anonymous said...
    Well, your first answer wasn't so clear but your second helps some.

    "If you are a real Christian, you will know when you are rebelling against God's Leadership."

    So then, my gay Christian friends who ARE "real Christians" who know that they're not rebelling in being married to their partner are okay then, as far as you're concerned?
    Anonymous said...
    I will have to say, though Tug, that your answer is a pretty subjective one and would not be greeted kindly in most evangelical churches.
    Anonymous said...
    Tug, you are FURIOUS and it's not me making you that way. Everything you've said about me is wrong. You're blinded by your own anger. This is like ninth grade all over again. I am not asserting that I'm "better" than you, ya jerk, I'm giving you shit because you don't go to church but insist on asserting your opinions about faith and public policy. My business is your business, brother. GOD TOLD ME TO BE A THORN IN YOUR BLOG FLESH until you repent of separating yourself from the earthly expression of the Body of Christ and GO BACK TO CHURCH.

    EL, "murder" in this country has a legal definition, and abortion does not now meet it. That's all I'm saying.

    Anyway, as long as abortion is an abstract concept, and it is nothing but an abstract concept to any man, it's debatable. Here's where it gets real, and I've said it before:

    If my single daughter, 20, were to face the decision of carrying a pregnancy or aborting, I would do everything I had a right to do to persuade her to have the baby, even if I had to raise it myself. But once she had made the decision, it would be her decision -- and if you, or the state, or the church, or anyone else dared crawl between her legs and into her womb and have the audacity to make the decision for her, I would attack, in the abstract or literally, in defense of her.
    Anonymous said...
    "...my gay Christian friends who ARE "real Christians" who know that they're not rebelling in being married to their partner are okay..."

    This is false. Allow me to explain.

    1) If your Gay 'Christian' friends 'accepted' Christ at a time when they were already living the gay lifestyle, then something is seriously wrong with their profession of faith. The holy spirit would convict them of their abomination and they would either repent, separate, and cease being 'gay', or they would rebel and fall away from the faith as in the parable of the sower: seed upon stony ground, no roots, withers and dies.

    2) Perhaps they accepted Christ before they turned to the gay lifestyle, in which case I would question the genuineness of their conversion; they were never saved in the first place.

    In either case, 1)your friends are lost, 2)you have been tricked into believing a lie about homosexuality, and 3)you should take care that the admonishment of Ezekiel 33:8 does not befall you... "When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand."


    "your answer... would not be greeted kindly in most evangelical churches."

    Most evangelical churches may indeed greet Tug's (and My) position unkindly, but then many churches in American today do not worship God at all, but rather idols, and their own egos (which amounts to the same thing).
    Anonymous said...
    ER, I grasp your reasoning. It is the decision of the mother, not ours. But the death of an unborn child is not an abstract, it's quite literally, death by the deliberate hand of a remorseless killer. The pieces and parts that lie in a garbage pail afterwards are not abstracts, but literal space-and-time fragments of human flesh. But what I take tremendous issue with is your insistence on believing this is not murder. If the hypothetical aborted child of your daughter were to go to term and exit the birth canal alive, that child would be human. Passing from womb to world is not what grants that vaunted status... humanity... it is the DNA, and the chromosomes. It is the sure knowledge that what grows in any creatures womb is a replication of the mother's species; Giraffes do not beget hamsters.

    And by defending the act of abortion simply because the laws allow it or it is the woman's right to have one, does not make the act any less a murder; the intentional killing of an unborn child.

    I would point you to Ezekiel 33:8 as well...

    "When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand."

    And America has the blood of 45+ million children on its hands, including yours, including mine. Killing an unborn child is sin, plain and simple.
    Anonymous said...
    "The holy spirit would convict them of their abomination and they would either repent, separate, and cease being 'gay',"

    You're assuming that your interpretation of the Bible that being gay is the only right answer. I reject your position as non-biblical (although I shared your confusion for a long time and understand how those handful of verses can be confusing).

    But set that aside, I'll ask you again (I don't think you ever answered this before):

    What if you genuinely believe that Sin X is NOT a sin, and it turns out you're wrong? Are you hellbound because you were mistaken?

    If it turns out that I'm correct about peacemaking and you're wrong, are you hellbound?

    Suppose that there are exactly 1000 possible sins and you, in your human fallibility, only recognized 999 - are you hellbound because you failed to recognize that one sin? Are you saying we must be perfect to be saved?!

    Of course you're not, we wouldn't NEED to be saved if we were perfect, right?

    I know you said:
    "It will not be their homosexuality that sends them to hell. No, that won't be it at all. It'll be because their names will not be written in the Lamb's book of life."

    And that will be your answer here, but it's not getting to the root of my question and the problem with your position. WHY would you think their names aren't written in the Book of Life? Because they were wrong about a particular sin? But I say with complete confidence that YOU are wrong about some sin, too - does that mean you're doomed?
    Anonymous said...
    This sort of iron clad religious certainty blows me away.

    EL, ER, Dan, Tug, how well do you grasp the life of the flea on a dog? Do you understand it's drives, motivations, thoughts? Religous people talk about what the creator wants as if such a being could be grasped by human understanding. Do you believe that humanity is the sole tenant of the universe? Do you believe that all the other galaxies and nebulaes are just there for decoration?

    There is the universe with an uncountable number of galxies. Each of which holds an uncountable number of stars. Around which and even larger number of planets spin. And christanity, and islam posit that all of this is just for the purpose of humanity that hasn't even been here for a heartbeat in the life of the universe. And even greater arrogance is that someone says that a written work from maybe 5,000 years ago contains within it all the wisdom you need to understand both your place in this infinity and your reson for being here.

    My perception has always been that if you can't completely and totaly understand the life of a flea on a dog, then one should not attempt to divine the creator's thoughts about humanity.
    Anonymous said...
    I guess that answers that.

    Anything I say now would be pointless.
    Anonymous said...
    I don't think I can stand accused of that kind of certainty. What I stand on is the belief that God loves me, and everyone else, to the extreme, to the point mysterious Self-sacrifice on the Cross. That's faith, and if I'm wrong, well, I don't know what else to do. God's grace either is real, and is THE governing factor of all religious faiths, or it's all a bunch of hooey.

    EL, you, again, are using "murder" in a broad sense while I am asserting its legal definition.

    Is abortion the squelching of life? Well, it sure looks like it. But so is turning a blind eye to poverty and every other danger, toil and snare in life!

    Is the answer forcing people to have babies, especially when the political ideology most likely to force people to have babies leaves no room for the government, that is, we the people, to care directly for them? No, that is not the answer. The answer, like most answers to important questions, is much more complex than that.

    A point: What the heck is "viable" life? A newborn baby lying in the street is not viable, not on its own. So, until "pro life" people are willing to be "pro" ALL life, it's all a bunch of air to me.

    Exceptions for rape and incest are bogus. Either be pro-life or not. Elsewise, the whole argument is one about power -- who has the power to decide -- and not about "life" at all.
    Anonymous said...
    "My perception has always been that if you can't completely and totaly understand the life of a flea on a dog, then one should not attempt to divine the creator's thoughts about humanity."

    C'mon, Ben. Allow us our fun...

    Can't we spend some time trying to figure out how it is we're best supposed to live? And if we want to include the Bible in our How-To manuals, why not let us?

    This was my point with El - that we have limited genius. We don't always know what's right and wrong. The best we can do is accept that God is Love and that God wants us to love one another and operate from those assumptions.

    Where's the harm in that?
    Anonymous said...
    And El, since you've moved a discussion about homosexuality to a newer post, I'll take my still-unanswered question and go there:

    What if you genuinely believe that Sin X is NOT a sin, and it turns out you're wrong? Are you hellbound because you were mistaken?
    Anonymous said...
    Dan I wasn't condemning believers for their belief. I was commenting on the arrogance of believers who feel that all questions have been answered. People who when asked "Why?" can only respond with "Because the book/holy man says its so." with no further discussion. I see it as a form of laziness.

    For these people there's no need to work to improve society, because they know that eventually all human constructs will be washed away and replaced by a paradise created for them by diety. There's no need to be worried about this life, because they've already been granted a VIP pass into the after-death club.

    "Faith which does not doubt is dead faith." —Miguel de Unamuno

Post a Comment