So, are you willing to take the risk that Jesus DIDN'T want us to use government to ease suffering?
| 24 When they had come to Capernaum, those who received the temple tax came to Peter and said, "Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?" 25 He said, "Yes." And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?" 26 Peter said to Him, "From strangers." Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free. 27 Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money; take that and give it to them for Me and you." |
| 24 Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest. 25 And He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called 'benefactors.' 26 But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves. 27 For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves." |
Are you willing to risk eternal damnation simply for some devotion to some non-christian ideology?
Though I find funny that you, an atheist, are trying to use fear of damnation as a tactic of persuasion.
So, are you willing to take the risk that Jesus DIDN'T want us to use government to ease suffering?
Are you willing to risk eternal damnation simply for some devotion to some non-christian ideology?
I suggest that Jesus was neither a Libertarian nor a Socialist. These are modern terms, and would have had little meaning with Jesus.
But putting thyis into terms of XIX=XXI Century politics seems as absurd to me as discussing what tunes Jesus would have on his I-Pod.
Asked and answered already, in discussing the notion of taxation and who does the $$$ belong to
The polar problem here is in thinking that because Christ advocated helping our fellow man, that ANYTHING that does that is supposed to be cool, and what Christ would support. Christ's foundation however is in allowing us to CHOOSE out paths, the freedom to decide if we want to live more Christ-like, or not. It NEVER included the notion that one needs to support a "larger controlling body" to execute the task of helping our fellow man. It's purely to the individual soul. We don't get into heaven via the "group", we get into heaven by our own acts. Simple as that
And it's truely distressing to see one imply that one is not acting Christian if they don't support some socialistic 3rd party intervention in helping our fellow man, since supposedly Christ would have
The bigger risk you face is eternal damnation for not believing in the 1st place. But that's your burden to bear. To answer your question, considering I've apparently spent a hell of a lot longer studying the bible and Christ's teachings than yourself, there's no risk what-so-ever. Jesus wanted man, NOT GOVERNMENT to ease other men's sufferings. The scriptures clearly articulate such.
Jesus wanted man, NOT GOVERNMENT to ease other men's sufferings. The scriptures clearly articulate such.
1. Sirs defines taxation as "forcibly taking property." That definition is debatable.
Js, seriously, I can't have this conversation with you, if you're going to continue to insist that Christ would support the taking from 1 to give to another. Taxing is forcibly taking from someone, and using their $$ for someone else. All with the "best intentions" of course ::) That is very UN Christ like. Yes, we are to help our fellow man, and we should. But it's a CHOICE. The requirement of helping our fellow man, at risk of penalty, is in no way, consistent with any doctrince, or more markedly, any EXAMPLE that Christ performed. Christ helped his fellow man and performed miracles because he chose to, NOT because he had to. Are you grasping the difference, yet??
As I prompted one of our devoted Atheists, I defy you to present us some examples of Christ TAKING from someone to give to another, in the pursuit of taking care of our fellow man. Please, show us
So, are you willing to take the risk that Jesus DIDN'T want us to use government to ease suffering?
Are you willing to risk eternal damnation simply for some devotion to some unchristian ideology?
Js, seriously, I can't have this conversation with you, if you're going to continue to insist that Christ would support the taking from 1 to give to another. Taxing is forcibly taking from someone, and using their $$ for someone else. All with the "best intentions" of course ::) That is very UN Christ like. Yes, we are to help our fellow man, and we should. But it's a CHOICE. The requirement of helping our fellow man, at risk of penalty, is in no way, consistent with any doctrince, or more markedly, any EXAMPLE that Christ performed. Christ helped his fellow man and performed miracles because he chose to, NOT because he had to. Are you grasping the difference, yet??
As I prompted one of our devoted Atheists, I defy you to present us some examples of Christ TAKING from someone to give to another, in the pursuit of taking care of our fellow man. Please, show us
Sirs, why are you making this conditional upon your definition of taxation? Why are you limiting how man can help ease the suffering of his fellow man?
So, are you willing to take the risk that Jesus DIDN'T want us to use government to ease suffering?
Are you willing to risk eternal damnation simply for some devotion to some unchristian ideology?
Your second question is easily answered. The answer is unequivocally "YES." God sets the rules. It is everyone's personal choice whether to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior and therefore go to Heaven when they die. See John 14:6. I believe that verse is very clear on this subject.
Js, seriously, I can't have this conversation with you, if you're going to continue to insist that Christ would support the taking from 1 to give to another. Taxing is forcibly taking from someone, and using their $$ for someone else. All with the "best intentions" of course ::) That is very UN Christ like. Yes, we are to help our fellow man, and we should. But it's a CHOICE. The requirement of helping our fellow man, at risk of penalty, is in no way, consistent with any doctrince, or more markedly, any EXAMPLE that Christ performed. Christ helped his fellow man and performed miracles because he chose to, NOT because he had to. Are you grasping the difference, yet??
As I prompted one of our devoted Atheists, I defy you to present us some examples of Christ TAKING from someone to give to another, in the pursuit of taking care of our fellow man. Please, show us
Sirs, why are you making this conditional upon your definition of taxation? Why are you limiting how man can help ease the suffering of his fellow man?
Because, the mindset of taxing others to "help our fellow man" is LITERALLY taking something that belongs to someone, and giving it to someone else, based on some arbitrary decision that someone else needs it. That's not my definition, that is the definition. And as we call can see, you have zip examples of Christ EVER doing that, or even preaching that. And that is the point. Helping our fellow man is definately something that exemplifies the teachings of Christ. MANDATING that help by threat of force, coercion or taking something that doesn't belong to them, NEVER was part of Christ's teachings. Simple as that
And why the deflection in bringing in Government Foreign policy & National Defense issues stipulated in the Constitution, not the bible, as what the President can and can't do, merely shows how weak your original premice of a pro-taxation Christ is
So, are you willing to take the risk that Jesus DIDN'T want us to use government to ease suffering? Are you willing to risk eternal damnation simply for some devotion to some unchristian ideology?
Your second question is easily answered. The answer is unequivocally "YES." God sets the rules. It is everyone's personal choice whether to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior and therefore go to Heaven when they die. See John 14:6. I believe that verse is very clear on this subject.
I think that the purpose of life is not to seek heavenly reward. That is a false transaction.
The purpose in life is to REACH heaven.
So, are you willing to take the risk that Jesus DIDN'T want us to use government to ease suffering?
Are you willing to risk eternal damnation simply for some devotion to some unchristian ideology?
Your second question is easily answered. The answer is unequivocally "YES." God sets the rules. It is everyone's personal choice whether to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior and therefore go to Heaven when they die. See John 14:6. I believe that verse is very clear on this subject.
I think that the purpose of life is not to seek heavenly reward. That is a false transaction.
Sorry -- didn't see where Jesus said this. He simply said He is The Way. Do you dispute this claim?
Sorry -- didn't see where Jesus said this. He simply said He is The Way. Do you dispute this claim?
No.
But you don't follow Christ to seek a reward, correct?
Js, once again, you provide scripute that's not being refuted. Yes Christ wanted us to work together, but NOT by way of being forced to do so. THAT is NOT CONSISTENT WITH ANY TEACHINGS OF CHRIST, NOR DEMONSTRATED BY ANY EXAMPLES OF HIM DOING SUCH
No, you seek Him because you Love Him. You do, of course, want him to say when you meet Him in person "Good and faithful servant". And, of course, along the way, you enter the bounds of James' "Faith without works is dead", which, I beleive, is really the root of this thread.
No, you seek Him because you Love Him. You do, of course, want him to say when you meet Him in person "Good and faithful servant". And, of course, along the way, you enter the bounds of James' "Faith without works is dead", which, I beleive, is really the root of this thread.
I agree Professor. The purpose of man is to love God (the Holy Trinity). We should not ask, or presume reward from Him. We certainly have not earned it. We also need to be very careful in condemning others as I've seen both you and Sirs do. Let us not forget the Prodigal Son.
No, you seek Him because you Love Him. You do, of course, want him to say when you meet Him in person "Good and faithful servant". And, of course, along the way, you enter the bounds of James' "Faith without works is dead", which, I beleive, is really the root of this thread.
I agree Professor. The purpose of man is to love God (the Holy Trinity). We should not ask, or presume reward from Him. We certainly have not earned it. We also need to be very careful in condemning others as I've seen both you and Sirs do. Let us not forget the Prodigal Son.
If by condemnation, you mean condemning non-Chriatians to Hell, well, that is what God has to say about that issue. Surely, as a devout Christian, you believe non-Christians go to Heaven when Scripture plainly indicates the opposite?
We also need to be very careful in condemning others as I've seen both you and Sirs do. Let us not forget the Prodigal Son.
Js, once again, you provide scripute that's not being refuted. Yes Christ wanted us to work together, but NOT by way of being forced to do so. THAT is NOT CONSISTENT WITH ANY TEACHINGS OF CHRIST, NOR DEMONSTRATED BY ANY EXAMPLES OF HIM DOING SUCH
Answer the questions.
We also need to be very careful in condemning others as I've seen both you and Sirs do. Let us not forget the Prodigal Son.
And low and behold, Js throwing out yet another distorted accusation :-\ We, as Christians, have an absolute ability, and I'd say obligation, to condemn actions we feel inappropriate or unfit or sinful or evil. What we are not allowed to do is Judge and conclude who'll be allowed into heaven or not. That is the sole dominion of God.
We also need to be very careful in condemning others as I've seen both you and Sirs do. Let us not forget the Prodigal Son.
And low and behold, Js throwing out yet another distorted accusation :-\ We, as Christians, have an absolute ability, and I'd say obligation, to condemn actions we feel inappropriate or unfit or sinful or evil. What we are not allowed to do is Judge and conclude who'll be allowed into heaven or not. That is the sole dominion of God.
Not distorted Sirs. You condemned Brass and Professor condemned Terra as to their final destinations. I read both statements.
And yes, I am a Christian, though the strength of my devotion can tend to waver somewhat, especially the sin of gluttony when I'm near a Cold Stone.
==========================================================
Excuse. please, but what is a "cold stone temptation"? Perhaps a granite kitchen countertop?
The bigger risk you face is eternal damnation for not believing in the 1st place. But that's your burden to bear. To answer your question, considering I've apparently spent a hell of a lot longer studying the bible and Christ's teachings than yourself, there's no risk what-so-ever. Jesus wanted man, NOT GOVERNMENT to ease other men's sufferings. The scriptures clearly articulate such
LOL......Coming from a devoted atheist who resorts to calling anyone who has a belief system delusional, you're concluding my Christianity is a "non-Christian ideology"? Why would you even care, I'm delusional, remember? Gotta love it :D
QuoteThe bigger risk you face is eternal damnation for not believing in the 1st place. But that's your burden to bear. To answer your question, considering I've apparently spent a hell of a lot longer studying the bible and Christ's teachings than yourself, there's no risk what-so-ever. Jesus wanted man, NOT GOVERNMENT to ease other men's sufferings. The scriptures clearly articulate such
By your statement/logic, it appears that you would like to believe that Jesus did not want man to use tools to ease other men's suffering.
Yummy!
In a time when food was scarce, and for everyone who ate twice as much as he needed, another starved, I can see why gluttony would be a sin.
These days, the poor are overweight, and the rich are thin. If I eat a couple of scoops of ice cream a day, I suppose there will have to an extra cow up in Wisconsin, eating grass and farting and adding to the greenhouse gases. But the main problem with me overindulging in ice cream would be an earlier demise from a massive coronary infarction, most likely.
I find this interesting. We have preachers who tell you to sacrifice for Jesus and give to the poor, and we have other preachers telling you that Jesus wants us to be rich, and we should go out and get humping and make lotsa money.
Black people have pictures of Black Jesi, Germans have pictures of blond Jesi, but nowhere have I ever seen a picture of a fat Jesus. Only El Greco painted a skinny Jesus, and he painted everyone as emaciated.
Neither have I heard of any church that combined evangelism with weight loss. This seems to be a concept for the next L. Ron Hubbard, I think. Most Americans being a buit on the chubby side, and perhaps not as holy as they once were, this should have real potential for a mass movement.
QuoteThe bigger risk you face is eternal damnation for not believing in the 1st place. But that's your burden to bear. To answer your question, considering I've apparently spent a hell of a lot longer studying the bible and Christ's teachings than yourself, there's no risk what-so-ever. Jesus wanted man, NOT GOVERNMENT to ease other men's sufferings. The scriptures clearly articulate such
By your statement/logic, it appears that you would like to believe that Jesus did not want man to use tools to ease other men's suffering.
NOOOO, tools are fine, as long as they don't take something away from another. You can use all the tools one wants, so long as it's not taking "tools" away from someone else. At least that's not what Christ taught. But nice try
But make no mistake Brass, a "good Christian" can fully support taking money from others and applying it to simulated drowning and electroshocking of prisoners, invading foreign countries, and building walls to keep out the neighboring poor.
QuoteBut make no mistake Brass, a "good Christian" can fully support taking money from others and applying it to simulated drowning and electroshocking of prisoners, invading foreign countries, and building walls to keep out the neighboring poor.
Obviously good christians suck.
Your second question is easily answered. The answer is unequivocally "YES." God sets the rules. It is everyone's personal choice whether to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior and therefore go to Heaven when they die. See John 14:6. I believe that verse is very clear on this subject.
Actually, as defined by sirs, the example set involves the volitional assistance in helping one's fellow man, vs the mandatory taking from one to give to another. So, I'd say my example is one that's more likely to attract non-Christians. Excluding those non-Christians of course, who have no interest in helping, and simply want to take from others, and proclaim, "See what I did?" to make themselves feel better
"Tools" are great in the goal of "helping our fellow man", as long as it's not the literal taking away of someone else's "tools" to do so
Boy oh boy, does Js want to keep this focused on the war vs taxes in general. Well, last time I checked, I do recall battles that Israel had to deal with, including moving into different lands. Not sure how they financed their God-supported wars then. So, if you can come up with that answer, that should take care of your current query.
Oh yea, Christians, especially any who dare support the defending of our country, aren't perfect, contrary to popular leftist opinion
Boy oh boy, does Js want to keep this focused on the war vs taxes in general. Well, last time I checked, I do recall battles that Israel had to deal with, including moving into different lands. Not sure how they financed their God-supported wars then. So, if you can come up with that answer, that should take care of your current query.
And last time I checked, this wasn't a theocracy, so not sure how this line inquiry has anything to do with Christ's teachings. Unless of course you're now advocating a greater Christian intervention in policy making, both foreign & domestic
Oh yea, Christians, especially any who dare support the defending of our country, aren't perfect, contrary to popular leftist opinion
What a weak response. We didn't defend this country, we invaded another country.
Well of course its weak....its not what you want to hear. and your opinion of invasion is another one's opinion of preemptively dealing with a threat to this country, most all believed to have been valid --> WMD getting in the hands of terrorists, who had just taken down the WTC and killed 3000+ in a 2hour span
Sorry if it's not what you want to hear, but my conscience is perfectly clear regarding Christ's teachings of giving of oneself vs taking from another, in "helping our fellow man"
No, you seek Him because you Love Him. You do, of course, want him to say when you meet Him in person "Good and faithful servant". And, of course, along the way, you enter the bounds of James' "Faith without works is dead", which, I beleive, is really the root of this thread.
I agree Professor. The purpose of man is to love God (the Holy Trinity). We should not ask, or presume reward from Him. We certainly have not earned it. We also need to be very careful in condemning others as I've seen both you and Sirs do. Let us not forget the Prodigal Son.
If by condemnation, you mean condemning non-Chriatians to Hell, well, that is what God has to say about that issue. Surely, as a devout Christian, you believe non-Christians go to Heaven when Scripture plainly indicates the opposite?
As a simple man, I don't know whether they will go to heaven, purgatory, or hell. I don't even know what those really are. I'm certainly not about to stand in God's place and make those decisions for Him.
We also need to be very careful in condemning others as I've seen both you and Sirs do. Let us not forget the Prodigal Son.
And low and behold, Js throwing out yet another distorted accusation :-\ We, as Christians, have an absolute ability, and I'd say obligation, to condemn actions we feel inappropriate or unfit or sinful or evil. What we are not allowed to do is Judge and conclude who'll be allowed into heaven or not. That is the sole dominion of God.
Not distorted Sirs.
You condemned Brass and Professor condemned Terra as to their final destinations. I read both statements.
Well of course its weak....its not what you want to hear. and your opinion of invasion is another one's opinion of preemptively dealing with a threat to this country, most all believed to have been valid --> WMD getting in the hands of terrorists, who had just taken down the WTC and killed 3000+ in a 2hour span
Sorry if it's not what you want to hear, but my conscience is perfectly clear regarding Christ's teachings of giving of oneself vs taking from another, in "helping our fellow man"
I can provide many quotes from the Bible about helping your fellow man, taking care of the poor.
Sirs, I know your conscience is clear. That's what is so damn scary about people like you.
Except for JS, this whole discussion is singularly underwhelming. The beauty of Jesus's religion and philosophy, it seems to me, is that it gives man room to fumble forward toward "perfection" as time and place may require by following and working out the ambiguities of one of mankind's greatest spiritual, moral, social, intellectual and PRACTICAL guides to life on this earth. There are many entrance points, many frames of reference, many paths, many models of analysis. It is almost as if Christ had openly said: "Working out what I have taught is the great adventure and duty of life." Approached this way, the correct way, I suggest, no absolute dictum can be made about, of all things, taxation and the orientation of society along socialist (loving) lines.
Boy oh boy, does Js want to keep this focused on the war vs taxes in general. Well, last time I checked, I do recall battles that Israel had to deal with, including moving into different lands. Not sure how they financed their God-supported wars then. So, if you can come up with that answer, that should take care of your current query.
Oh yea, Christians, especially any who dare support the defending of our country, aren't perfect, contrary to popular leftist opinion
What a weak response.
We didn't defend this country, we invaded another country. We pay for it with taxation. The same taxation you are whining about to me. Now, you've supported this war as well as waterboarding (siumulated drowning) and other "coercive interrogation techniques" (i.e. sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, and electroshock). You support a wall on the Mexican border to keep out the unwanted poor from that nation.
Now, those are all paid for through taxation (yes, in some cases borrowed taxation on future generations).
So, you've attacked and attacked anyone supporting Government programs to help those in need. Clearly, in your mind, they are "contorting the Bible to fit their own socialist ideology."
I want you to show me how Christ supports your use of taxation. You've already defined it, so why should Christians support invading Iraq, simulated drowning and other coercive interrogation techniques, and a wall to keep out Mexicans? I don't want some weak blithering answer, I want a Biblical answer for Christians to cling to. In fact, I want an answer out of Christ's teachings.
You demanded no less of me (which I provided) now let's see your pudding on the table.
QuoteThe bigger risk you face is eternal damnation for not believing in the 1st place. But that's your burden to bear. To answer your question, considering I've apparently spent a hell of a lot longer studying the bible and Christ's teachings than yourself, there's no risk what-so-ever. Jesus wanted man, NOT GOVERNMENT to ease other men's sufferings. The scriptures clearly articulate such
By your statement/logic, it appears that you would like to believe that Jesus did not want man to use tools to ease other men's suffering.
NOOOO, tools are fine, as long as they don't take something away from another. You can use all the tools one wants, so long as it's not taking "tools" away from someone else. At least that's not what Christ taught. But nice try
But make no mistake Brass, a "good Christian" can fully support taking money from others and applying it to simulated drowning and electroshocking of prisoners, invading foreign countries, and building walls to keep out the neighboring poor. I bet that example makes you want to attend church this Sunday, doesn't it?
The issue is the HOW we go about doing that, and not 1 quote from the bible even implies the taking from one to give to another.
You're whining about having something taken away from you to use to ease suffering among the poor and sick.
You're whining about having something taken away from you to use to ease suffering among the poor and sick.
Not quite. I'm "whining" about someone taking something away that doesn't belong to them (NOT Christian BTW), to push their own ideological agenda, of how things are supposed to be, and screw anyone else that doesn't agree. As Prince has so expertly articulated in the past, those that don't support this socialist nonsense of it takes a village, and EVERYONE is obligated to pay into that village, does NOT equate to not wanting to help ease the suffering among the poor and sick. Not only is it not a mandate of the Federal Government to do so, they also realize that Government is one of the worst, most inefficient, and wasteful options in doing so. Katrina, anyone?
The Christian "attitude" is to help others, while NOT taking from someone else to do so. Simple as that
As Prince has so expertly articulated in the past, those that don't support this socialist nonsense of it takes a village, and EVERYONE is obligated to pay into that village, does NOT equate to not wanting to help ease the suffering among the poor and sick. Not only is it not a mandate of the Federal Government to do so, they also realize that Government is one of the worst, most inefficient, and wasteful options in doing so. Katrina, anyone?
The Christian "attitude" is to help others, while NOT taking from someone else to do so. Simple as that
Even when its for the good of others. Not very christian.
As Prince has so expertly articulated in the past, those that don't support this socialist nonsense of it takes a village, and EVERYONE is obligated to pay into that village, does NOT equate to not wanting to help ease the suffering among the poor and sick. Not only is it not a mandate of the Federal Government to do so, they also realize that Government is one of the worst, most inefficient, and wasteful options in doing so. Katrina, anyone?
The Christian "attitude" is to help others, while NOT taking from someone else to do so. Simple as that
Even when its for the good of others. Not very christian.
The "good of others" doesn't include TAKING from others. THAT would be "not very Christian" Never has, never will be.
So, how to reconcile taking our tax money to use to kill others? Taking from us to use for very unchristian endeavours.
The "good of others" doesn't include TAKING from others. THAT would be "not very Christian" Never has, never will be.
Their god is a vengeful god, you know.
The "good of others" doesn't include TAKING from others. THAT would be "not very Christian" Never has, never will be.
Seems like he advocated taking it if you felt you needed it.
QuoteThe "good of others" doesn't include TAKING from others. THAT would be "not very Christian" Never has, never will be.
Though a few pages back, and completely ignored, I posted a passage where Jesus was challenged for his disciples' taking corn (that didn't belong to them) on the Sabbath, and he responded by citing a passage where David took bread from the temple that was reserved for the priests and was not his to take.
Seems like he advocated taking it if you felt you needed it.
I beleive Jesus was providing a point on legalism and the Pharisees being so rigid and inflexible.
So it is not considered stealing if you limit your targets to rigid and inflexible people?
The "good of others" doesn't include TAKING from others. THAT would be "not very Christian" Never has, never will be.
So, how to reconcile taking our tax money to use to kill others? Taking from us to use for very unchristian endeavours.
seem we have an abundance of contradictions
The only dog i have in this fight is this whole slander thing of a group because of the statements of a few.
29 To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic.
30 Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back.
Well,
It's not just Sirs.
JS introduced a bucket of contradictions when we looked at the Catholics views on property.
The only dog i have in this fight is this whole slander thing of a group because of the statements of a few.
All Republicans are not closet pervs because Larry Craig has a wide stance in airport restrooms.
All blacks are not robbers because a black robbed someone.
All atheists are nut gun nuts because i read the musings of an atheist defender of the 2nd.
Religion, sexuality, race are components of a being but they don't define the being. And the being doesn't define the group.
Since y'all are having such a good time and since Sirs wants Biblical verses about taking things. I thought I'd post the entire passage from Luke 6:29-30Quote29 To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic.
30 Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back.
I don't believe I make such blanket statements.
I don't think you really want to follow this course of logic out because you won't like where it takes you. The Church does not believe that the money you have is yours but that it is a blessing from God and ultimately belongs to Him. There is no question of ownership.
The Church is, as always, practical in such matters. She recognizes the ownership of private property insofar as it relates to temporal existence. Though the Church does recommend voluntary poverty.
Do I own anything?
Legally? Yes.
Philosophically? No.
The Church does not believe that the money you have is yours but that it is a blessing from God and ultimately belongs to Him. There is no question of ownership.
Since y'all are having such a good time and since Sirs wants Biblical verses about taking things. I thought I'd post the entire passage from Luke 6:29-30Quote29 To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic.
30 Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back.
And......? Just another version to turning one's cheek. That has what to do with anything I've said?
Since y'all are having such a good time and since Sirs wants Biblical verses about taking things. I thought I'd post the entire passage from Luke 6:29-30Quote29 To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic.
30 Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back.
And......? Just another version to turning one's cheek. That has what to do with anything I've said?
It looks to me like property is not highly valued by Christ. I notice that verse 30 didn't say anything about murdering the one who takes what is yours, or crying, bitching, and moaning about it either.
It looks to me like property is not highly valued by Christ.
So they were eating the bread that was supposed to be an offering to God.
And Jesus said that was OK. No wonder they killed him.
Something we might be missing about the eating of grain/corn is that such was allowed by Jewish law (Deuteronomy 23:25). And basically the law did respect private property. "When you come into your neighbor's standing grain, you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you shall not use a sickle on your neighbor's standing grain." In other words, you can take a little to eat, but you don't get to steal from your neighbor's harvest. Also, when David took showbread for he and his men to eat, he did not sneak in and steal it. He went to the priest and asked for some bread to eat, and all the priest had on hand that could be given was day old showbread (1 Samuel 21:1-6). So rushing to conclude that all this means Jesus was somehow disapproving of or was apathetic to the notion of property ownership would be inadvisable to say the least.
And Luke 6:30?
How does that support property ownership?
Something we might be missing about the eating of grain/corn is that such was allowed by Jewish law (Deuteronomy 23:25). And basically the law did respect private property. "When you come into your neighbor's standing grain, you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you shall not use a sickle on your neighbor's standing grain." In other words, you can take a little to eat, but you don't get to steal from your neighbor's harvest.
QuoteSomething we might be missing about the eating of grain/corn is that such was allowed by Jewish law (Deuteronomy 23:25). And basically the law did respect private property. "When you come into your neighbor's standing grain, you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you shall not use a sickle on your neighbor's standing grain." In other words, you can take a little to eat, but you don't get to steal from your neighbor's harvest.
Actually that was one of two possible explanations I was waiting for our self proclaimed Bible expert to come up with, though it is related to the other.
Why do you keep talking about guilt and guilt trips?
Actually that was one of two possible explanations I was waiting for our self proclaimed Bible expert to come up with, though it is related to the other. That was from Leviticus 19:
9 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest.
10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.
You were waiting for Js, to come up with that? oooookay
...considering I've apparently spent a hell of a lot longer studying the bible and Christ's teachings than yourself...
QuoteYou were waiting for Js, to come up with that? oooookay
Uh, no.Quote...considering I've apparently spent a hell of a lot longer studying the bible and Christ's teachings than yourself...
QuoteSomething we might be missing about the eating of grain/corn is that such was allowed by Jewish law (Deuteronomy 23:25). And basically the law did respect private property. "When you come into your neighbor's standing grain, you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you shall not use a sickle on your neighbor's standing grain." In other words, you can take a little to eat, but you don't get to steal from your neighbor's harvest.
Actually that was one of two possible explanations I was waiting for our self proclaimed Bible expert to come up with, though it is related to the other. That was from Leviticus 19:
9 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest.
10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.
Definately not Js, so you're barking up the wrong tree.... again I'm afraid
QuoteDefinately not Js, so you're barking up the wrong tree.... again I'm afraid
You brought JS up, not me. I didn't mention in relation to anybody.
QuoteDefinately not Js, so you're barking up the wrong tree.... again I'm afraid
You brought JS up, not me. I didn't mention in relation to anybody.
Well considering YOU were the one referencing someone specific, I could only guess Js, as he IS a substantive Bible expert. If you had someone else in mind, then it's a mystery, since when taken in context, my quote demonstrates nothing of the sort
QuoteDefinately not Js, so you're barking up the wrong tree.... again I'm afraid
You brought JS up, not me. I didn't mention in relation to anybody.
Well considering YOU were the one referencing someone specific, I could only guess Js, as he IS a substantive Bible expert. If you had someone else in mind, then it's a mystery, since when taken in context, my quote demonstrates nothing of the sort
I have never claimed to be a Bible expert or a theologian. Thank you.
but what he can loose to bluejays
I don't think that there are bluejays in Israel.
Haven't you guys bludgeoned this rather silly topic to death?
Trying to stuff XXI century politics into I Century figures is like trying to dress the punier later model GI Joe in Barbie's clothing. Just silly.