Why so scared of Christmas?

[_JS]

Along with H's answer I would also add this:

Matthew 25:31-46

31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne,
32 and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33 He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,
36 naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'
37 Then the righteous 16 will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
38 When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
39 When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'
40 And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41 Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43 a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.'
44 Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?'
45 He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.'
46 And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

This section is known as "The Judgement of Nations."

Christianity is not freedom, nor is it easy. Christ did not come to give us Democracy, or indeed any political system. The Jewish people were hoping for a military and political Messiah, but as Domer insinuated, that is not who Jesus was. Yes, people have freedom of religion - but once you are a Christian you become responsible to Christ and His teachings.

[_JS]

"Well now prove that Jesus said to give away all your stuff and live in poverty."

I know where that is too. 

The debate is whether He meant it for certain people or all. The truth is that the wealthy don't exactly come off easy in many of the New Testament books (esp. Luke, Acts, and James). Though some have tried to play those sections of the Bible down over the centuries.

[sirs]

No one said Christ came to give us democracy Js.  Christ came to provide us the means to attain salvation.  God gave us the ability to chose for ourself, what path we're going to take.  The one that leads to salvation or the one that doesn't.  

At no time did he mandate that path.

And despite Tee's foaming at the mouth rant, the point remains that at no time does Jesus advocate the forcible taking from someone to give to another.  What he's always advocated is that we do so, by our own volition, as a testement to that path we've chosen.  That's the freedom I'm referring to, and not some Government process.

You however seem to believe, that Jesus wants Government to intervene.  So obviously that applies to salvation, since that't the ultimate goal.  I'll look forward to you pushing for a theocratic goverment, and the forcible adherence to Christ's teachings

[Xavier_Onassis]

Christ did not come to give us Democracy, or indeed any political system.

===============================================
True, and very untrue: Jesus came to impose a monarchy, whith Himself as the perpetual monarch. Hence the terms "Christ the King" and "King of Kings".

He did not plot to overthrow the Romans. He came to bring about an Apocalypse and THAT overthrow them.

--------------------------
The basic message from Jesus is "do as I say, or suffer the consequences of Helfire and eternal damnation".

And you say that this is not compulsion?

[sirs]

The basic message from Jesus is "do as I say, or suffer the consequences of Helfire and eternal damnation".  And you say that this is not compulsion?

Motivation perhaps, but by no means a mandate, to be enforced at the hands of some 3rd party

[Lanya]

Why don't you provide scripture that demonstrates how Jesus would support goverment officials taking from one to give to another??  Perhaps because there ISN'T ANY?? 

Christ's advocating that we help our fellow man does not equate to MANDATING that we help our fellow man.  It all goes back to free will....that which God gave us, the freedom to CHOOSE our actions and our paths.  At NO TIME DID JESUS EVER PREACH HOW WE'RE TO FORCE OUR FELLOW MAN TO HELP OTHER FELLOW MEN.  I defy you to refute that

It only mandates that we help our fellow man if we purport to be followers of Jesus.
If you've ever passed by a person in the street who was holding out their hand, a street person, and gave them nothing,  then you did it to Jesus. That's what he's saying.
Of people like that, Jesus said, "You call Lord, Lord, but I do not hear you."

And if you willingly eat the fruits of a society and a government like we have, with pure water and electricity and repaired roads and so on, and you feel like you have no mandate to help others, what does that say about you?  Do remember, "Render to Ceasar that which is Ceasar's."  Who said that?  Jesus. Back in the day, there were selfish people who didn't want to share. Jesus told them to put up and shut up, basically.
And you have the damn gall to pronounce this a "Christian Nation"?  Feh.   

[........]
But be careful. Christ made it quite clear that, ?Not everyone who says to Me, ?Lord, Lord,? shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in Heaven.? This includes some who very well expected to be among the saved: ?Many will say to Me in that [judgement] day, ?Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your Name, and done many wonders in Your Name?? And then I will declare to them, ?I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.? (Matt. 7:21-23.) Such are the people who call Jesus ?Lord? but have never really accepted Him as Savior or truly allowed Him to be the Lord of their life. Christ says to such a person, ?why do you call Me ?Lord, Lord,? and do not do the things which I say?? (Luke 6:46.)
[.........]

[sirs]

Why don't you provide scripture that demonstrates how Jesus would support goverment officials taking from one to give to another??  Perhaps because there ISN'T ANY?? 

Christ's advocating that we help our fellow man does not equate to MANDATING that we help our fellow man.  It all goes back to free will....that which God gave us, the freedom to CHOOSE our actions and our paths.  At NO TIME DID JESUS EVER PREACH HOW WE'RE TO FORCE OUR FELLOW MAN TO HELP OTHER FELLOW MEN.  I defy you to refute that

It only mandates that we help our fellow man if we purport to be followers of Jesus.  If you've ever passed by a person in the street who was holding out their hand, a street person, and gave them nothing,  then you did it to Jesus. That's what he's saying.

So, are you now jumping onto the theocratic bandwagon as well Lanya, ready to push Government assisted salvation??  That is the whole point of this tangent, what Jesus would support, ie the forcible taking from one, to give to another by a 3rd party, in this case by means of Government intervention.  It started out about taxes, but my position again is that salvation is so far greater a priority to Christ, if twisting scripture to claim that Jesus is supporting Government intervention by collecting taxes to "help our fellow man", then logically he must also support Government intervention to help bring about all our salvation.  And to hell with free will is apparently what you think he's saying

[Amianthus]

So, if you're Christian, you should support taxes to pay for Social Services.

However, if you're not Christian, you don't have to pay those taxes?

[Xavier_Onassis]

At this point, I think it is entirely safe to say that Jesus doesn't want anything, anymore than Genghis Khan or Gautama Siddhartha, or the Third Effing Earl of Sandwich doesn't want anything. Jesus is dead, deceased, and we shall never hear a peep from him ever, again.

Just people who think they heard him, perhaps.

O Jesus, Thou who art both ubiquitous and omniscient and prescient, if thou readeth this post, pleaseth to reveal thyself in person, that we mighteth know thy political orientation!

[Cynthia]

....(Jesus)....we shall never hear a peep from him ever, again.


Cynically speaking, of course, XO.

Speak cynically for yourself. .....

He peeps for me!

[sirs]

and me     

[yellow_crane]

....(Jesus)....we shall never hear a peep from him ever, again.


Cynically speaking, of course, XO.

Speak cynically for yourself. .....

He peeps for me!

When Jesus returns, if not in Cravensville (!!!!), Missouri, maybe Branson, he will be like Jupiter or Mercury or Santa--omnipresent--and he will come as One who has a lot of groupies who slavver, weary from knowing that sometimes iif they did not slavver for Him they would slavver for Another.

Question is, does a groupie deserve to get into the Room simply because they slavver?

[Michael Tee]

<<And despite Tee's foaming at the mouth rant . . . >>

Let it be noted - - as sirs' credibility sinks ever lower, now hovering somewhere around 500 meters off the bottom of the Philippine Trench - - that my "foaming at the mouth rant" consisted of a fairly dry and methodical recap of sirs' challenge to hnumpah, hnumpah's answer to the challenge, sirs' immediate issuance of a newer, even crazier challenge, hnumpah's refusal to take the bait, and sirs' final, desperate and completely ludicrous non sequitur - - that if Christ advocated government action addressed to the material needs of the people, how much more would he have advocated government action aimed at facilitating the "salvation" of the people, since it was so much more important than material aid.  (The wording might not be exactly reproduced here, the craziness is captured with guaranteed 100% accuracy.)

<< . . . the point remains that at no time does Jesus advocate the forcible taking from someone to give to another. >>

I don't know how many times you can deny what's been set forth in black and white in front of your very eyes, but from the looks of this thread, it must be a very large number of times.  It may, in fact, be forever.

In response to the question whether the Jewish people should pay taxes to the Romans, Jesus said to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's.  He was telling people to pay their taxes.  It should be fairly obvious to any person with an I.Q. higher than that of the average house plant that the Romans were going to spend large portions, if not all, of those tax revenues on projects that would not meet with the approval of the average Jewish person or the average Son of God.  It is generally accepted that the Roman tax collector was not some lackadaisical, laid-back proto-hippie who collected taxes only from those who voluntarily wanted to pay them and gave everyone else a free pass.  They were known to be quite brutal and exacting in their methods.  They were known, on occasion to resort to (gasp!!) the use of force to collect those taxes.  Yet despite all that, Jesus told his followers to pay their taxes.

Get it?  Pay your taxes.  There's nothing wrong with it.  Even if some of the money goes to (gasp!!) the poor.  Jesus says it's OK.

[sirs]

The part Tee doesn't get, and never will, is this has never been about if Jesus agreed or disagreed about paying taxes, and has ALWAYS been about what Christ teaches, in this case, if he would advocate the taking of something that belongs to person A, and give it to person B.  The scriptures that have been presented cleary demonstrate that at no time did jesus EVER teach such a process.  He always prefaced his teachings with the giving of oneself.  And if you missed that, let me repeat GIVING.  NOT taking, NOT forcible removal of something that belongs to someone in order to give to someone else, but to GIVE, as he gave. 

I'm guessing they'll never find a passage either that has Christ taking something from anyone to give to another.  Let's wait and see if that position of mine is at least refuted, since nothing else has been yet

[_JS]

I have to say Sirs, your point (if you have one) is bizarre. Mike makes an excellent observation. It is right there in black and white.

Moreover, you keep saying that person A owns something that is being forcibly given to person B. If you read your Bible (and the more you speak the more it seems that you do not read it) you'll know that person A owns nothing. He has been blessed by God. Everything of creation (and the fruits of creation) are God's, not the property of man. You continue to apply the law of man to God.

The only twisting I see here is from you. You've been given plenty of scripture, yet I've yet to see you produce anything from Christ that defends egoism (that's you buddy) or free-market economics. You let me know when you do.