+17 When Jesus said to help the poor, spending a lifetime on benefits/was probably not what he meant. And when Jesus said care for widows, he probably didn't think there'd be single women deliberately getting pregnant to go onto single parent payments. We've taken His words(whether fictional or not) and completely twisted them, amirite?

by Anonymous 10 years ago

IMO Jesus was not speaking to Rome. Jesus, in my understanding, was speaking to individuals and groups of his followers. Jesus knew that when caring for and helping others as individuals, it is obvious who are the truly needy and who are beggers by choice. If Rome had taken its tribute and tax, then tried to distribute aid to the needy all throughout its vast empire, the same thing that is happening now to us, would have happened then. Caring for the poor and needy should come from our compassion, not from our government. Anyone who has lived in a small town has seen first hand the generosity of people. Anyone who has been in a natural disaster has seen first hand the sence of community that wells up to help the victims. We are have tried to do the right thing, but in the wrong way.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

My favorite part of the Bible is when Jesus gives money to the rich, tells the poor to suck it up, then asks for Caesar's birth certificate

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Yeah, like when he says, "give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." But the religious conservatives are against taxes. And what about that part of the rich man, the needle, and a camel? Oh I remember, it's "it's easier for a needle to pass through the eye of a rich camel, than for a man to enter heaven." Wait no that's wrong.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I agree that the words of Jesus have been twisted, but not in the way you suggest. The 'Jesus story' makes it clear that we are to eschew (give up, forget, abandon) private ownership. If/when we stop acting like "this stuff is mine and that stuff is yours" and instead act cooperatively, sharing all resources and labors //equally and freely// among each other then-and-only-then will the situation you decry cease. I am not saying we should, and I am not even suggesting that it would ever work, what I **am** saying is **THAT** is what Jesus would have, __and did__, suggest. "Give up worldly possessions" is a recurring theme in the story, Jesus was a socialist, period. Jesus would live in a commune working the soil next to his fellow's and sharing in the produce at the dinner table. He would not own a home, a car, an IPhone or a darn thing. He would not even own a cloak and would gladly give the cloak off his back to the first person who looked cold.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I think he would. He asked us not to judge. According to my understanding he would just help everybody and sort them out later. Sowing on both good and rocky soil.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

If you believe that Jesus was the son of God, then he could surely have seen into the hearts of men. Government programs to help the needy have no such insight. Therein lies the problem with governments administering aid.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Therein lies the problem with governments, period.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Factually, we dont know what Jesus said , or if he really existed. The gospels were written 100 years or more after the time he was purported to have lived by people who never knew him. 2000 plus years later, a lot of knowledge and experience have given us the tools to make better choices today without reference to Jesus.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

"Hand up, not a hand out" sort of thing?

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Give a starving man a hammer and tell him to start a construction business so he can earn money and buy some food for his kids.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Because the bible also sais....if you don't work, you don't eat.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Not really. It say the one who is "unwilling" to work shall not eat. Big difference between "willing" and "able" Despite what you hear in conservative news outlets very,very few (like .1%) of people on welfare are "unwilling" to work they are all "willing" to work but are "unable" to keep a job because they do not understand the standards of work ethic and employers are inflexible with that ethic

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Yes indeed. Same definition, correct. I never stated that everyone on welfare or state assistance is unwilling to work. Its a general fact that it is these types who are abhorrent.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

2 Thessalonians 3:10

by Anonymous 10 years ago

As a matter of fact, I don't ever remember reading anything about retirement, but then I never made it a study.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

First off I don't believe that Jesus actually existed, but the teachings in the bible, say, sell all that you own and give to the poor. Hate to tell this to you, but jesus, if he existed, was a commie.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

We should be willing to help those in need anytime and anyplace. But it is not so virtuous to coerce or be coerced into helping. It should be voluntary to be Christlike.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

Therefore, no "christian" should feel coerced by taxes, they should all gladly share all they have to those in need.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

No... Taxes are coercion. Government is force. They should cheerily pay their taxes.... Give unto Caesar and all... but that is neither virtuous nor charitable. They should give besides their taxes even more happily to charity to help the needy. They can also give of their property, time, talents and other resources to help the needy. Of course nobody is perfectly Christlike. What people should do and actually do are sometimes different. But taxes are not the ideal way to help the needy. In our cases, half of government spending is from borrowing instead of taxes. And the government is woefully inefficient at helping the needy. More often than not, it is the government employees who help themselves more than the needy. There is also the issue of eating the seed corn. It may be that an industrious person can leverage his wealth into even more wealth so that he can help even more people. Whether he will or not is not possible to know. But if the government strips him of his wealth and resources, he will be less able to help others and may end up even unable to help himself. It is not easy to be a Christian. Even harder if you are a wealthy Christian. As we know it is harder for the rich man to gain the keys to heaven than a camel to pass through the eye of a needle....

by Anonymous 9 years ago

No one knows they spend way too much time interpreting things based upon their own biases and opinions. I think he would say worry about yourself and how much good you can do in the world as it is not your business to assume anything about anyone

by Anonymous 9 years ago

If you are actually helping the poor you need to also help them get out of that messed up thinking as well.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

Who would get pregnant for benefits? Its soo not worth it.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

There are women out there with no skills and no hope who are willing to sell themselves in one fashion or another for money. I doubt there are many, if any, who would get pregnant solely for benefits. But some might avoid getting pregnant if not for the benefits. I really care less about the parents of a kid than the kid, himself, when it comes to having kids for the wrong reasons or without the wherewithal to raise the kid.

by Anonymous 9 years ago