Jesus' command is personal, not governmental

"Cal, all here seem to have missed the obvious moral law - God's 10th commandment of the sin of coveting thy neighbor's property. I have found those who continually say things like "the rich don't deserve their wealth" and that it should be "shared with the rest of us" are on pretty thin moral ground."-JWDKTURNER

So, wanting enough money to pay for food and rent because our faulty economic system coupled with a skewed tax scale denies you a living wage is "coveting," while insisting on your "right" to three boats, two mansions, and a $10,000 bonus IN ADDITION TO massive kickbacks from the IRS in the midst of a vast economic crisis is.....?

Art Linkletter was famous for his "Kids Say the Darndest Things" TV show. How things have changed. Now, the Republicans say the darndest, off-the-wall, whackiest things imaginable in a pathetic attempt to find some way to put lipstick on the pig that is their bankrupt 'philosophy'.

Reagan Trickle-Down Revolution, my @ss!

Mr. Thomas,

Let me see if I have this right.

1)In your first paragraph, you inartfully dodge to question about the taxation of wealthy people with a line about government over-spending. Ok.

2)Then you go on to say that the problem is essentially due to the bad decisions of poor people, especially "out of wedlock births."

3)Then you conclude by saying that the purpose of charity is to give the giver a platform to proselytize to the recipient of charity about what the giver thinks is the "correct" path to God.

I can think of no greater criticism for your point of view than a simple summation of the ideas that compose it. Bravo, sir. I am sure that this opinion or the ideas expressed in it will in no way come up in your "final judgment" before God Almighty as a mark against you for the honesty (1), care (2), and tolerance (3), that one shows to his fellow man.

The problem begins with rendering unto Caesar that which is his due. What the Christians failed to see is that NOTHING is due Caesar.
Now that the Christians have become Caesar, perhaps, other Christians see the problem. (The rest of us do.).
See Psalm 23, Hosea 2:19--חֶסֶד
Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | December 15, 2010 10:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Have you considered, Romans 13 ?

The problem begins with rendering unto Caesar that which is his due. What the Christians failed to see is that NOTHING is due Caesar.

Now that the Christians have become Caesar, perhaps, other Christians see the problem. (The rest of us do.).

See Psalm 23, Hosea 2:19--חֶסֶד

Jim Walters - the difference lies in between what should the government coerce me to do, and what should my faith in God cause me to do. I believe that my faith in God requires many things of me while not asking me to use the coercive force of the government to force other people to obey these same commands.

My belief that every single human being (including me) is living a sinful life and is imperfect does not conflict with my belief that Objectivism's recognition that human ability and greed can achieve great things for society, and Anarchism's recognition that humans will naturally cooperate with each other without being coerced into cooperation.

I believe corporations to be anti-capitalist. That is how I reconcile being pro-capitalist with the anarchist influence in my views.

To live is Christ to die is gain. Phil.
If you play professional football you can rape, plunder and slice throats, get a dream legal team and walk. Throw a big after trial party to celebrate murder. Ever wonder why California is totally bankrupt? LA law. DC law is different. Hire lawyers, call them lobbyists and send big shots from NY down for $4K a night romp in the hay at 4 star hotels and then put on CNN for analysis. Have Madoff & Sons do taxes. Poor wealthy can do less damage than rich. Another day another liquidation sale. Looking over soon to be vacant hospital. Lots of empty bedpans and mechanical beds. Highest bidder, cash or check only. Spread the sheets.

"Yes, I do apply that logic to all laws. Politically I am closer to Libertarian than to anything else, and despite being a Christian, my strongest political influences are Ayn Rand's atheistic Objectivism and Kropotkin's atheistic Anarchism."

Then I appreciate your intellectual consistency. I strongly suspect Mr. Thomas has no problem with picking and choosing which Christian values he wants the government to enforce.

On the other hand I find your religion and politics to be a very strange mix. While I agree that in general people should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn't hurt someone else, I think my duties to others extend beyond simply not hurting them. I think this attitude is not only consistent with Christianity, but is required of all Christians.

I also find that most people expressing philosophies like yours tend to have an excessively narrow definition of what constitutes hurting someone else. (This is not an accusation against you, just a general observation). There are more ways to hurt someone than just armed robbery and physical assault. Libertarian and objectivist philosophies also tend to degenerate into the philosophy of "I've got mine" with disturbing regularity. That is a very un-Christian attitude in my book. I would go so far as to call it an anti-Christian attitude.

As one Cal to another with your faith background you should already know that in Jesus' time religion and government were one. The temple collected taxes for the Romans. And at that time the rich were taxing the lower classes out of their homes in order to fund lavish building projects. If the poor could not pay their ties and taxes they then became "unclean" and outcasts to society. It was this practice, outside of almost any other, that drove Jesus into rage. While I agree that spending cannot cure poverty. It can go a long way towards limiting it.

Calvin Monty Keeling

Relying on God for one's provision will get you out of poverty every time. We should pay our fair share of taxes, but too many of us have the "Tiny Tim" mindset..or a "crippling" mindset where rely on crutches instead of having the strength to walk on your own two feet. Only God can give the strength and the ability to "walk" and when we rely too much on governments to give us things, then we make the government an idol god. The government should have programs to help the poor, and certainly should monitor and improve civil rights, but it is up to every individual to create their own lives..the lives that God has made us responsible for.

Thanks, WaPo for inviting this racist homophobe to offer yet another apologia for the rich, the powerful and those who own the government. This shill for the rich should be an embarrassment for WaPo to even think this far right wing reactionary has anything to say to open, tolerant, thinking people.

To include this sybaritic reactionary in your list of "experts" is a supreme insult to your readers....even as right wing a publication as WaPo is

One of the biggest causes of poverty in this country is our history of racism and bigotry, the decision to close our eyes to the way freed slaves and their descendants were treated by supposed Christians.

Clearly we cannot rely on religious folks alone to undo the harm caused by their ancestors.

I do agree that we should not be running huge deficits except in the worst of a recession, but I don't recall Cal whining about those deficits when Reagan and the Bushes engineered them.

"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

Amen, excellent assessment of the big picture problems.

Cal, all here seem to have missed the obvious moral law - God's 10th commandment of the sin of coveting thy neighbor's property. I have found those who continually say things like "the rich don't deserve their wealth" and that it should be "shared with the rest of us" are on pretty thin moral ground.

Thus, a Liberal's definition of charity thus becomes to tax me to pay for their pet cause.

Ultra-Conservative Bible-thumper and right-wing columnist really doesn't love everyone unconditionally. He is outspoken in his hatred of gays and lesbians.

Jesus never said, "Thou shalt not kill" as a command all by itself. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5 through 7) Jesus mentions several of the commandments given to Moses... and he revises them.

In words to this effect (military legalese for paraphrase), Jesus said in more than one place, "If you hate someone, you have murdered them in your heart and you could end up in the Lake of Fire (the place of eternal punishment).

"Your comment relfects ignorance about Mother T., who happened to be Catholic."

Jinnyhahn,

Why do you believe that anyone who presents facts you don't agree with must be ignorant?

As it happens, I have read extensively on the life of MT, and she was not what she seemed.

I didn't take something she may have said out of context; I referred to details given by a range of different people who knew her in Calcutta and were familiar with both her mission and her daily activities.

MT was known to project her own need for communion with God onto her "patients," encouraging them to suffer as a way to be closer to God. Oddly, though, she spent little time in the "trenches" helping them with their divinely inspired suffering. Instead, she spent the summers and the monsoon periods in Europe and the U.S.

Much of her extensive traveling time was devoted to intervening in legislative debates about abortion in countries throughout Europe and in parts of Asia.

Those of her nuns who did work in the trenches were generally not permitted to use painkillers; on the occasions when they could, they routinely reused needles and almost certainly spread disease in this fashion.

And the details go on and on.

It is your choice, Jinnyhahn, to willfully reject information that you don't like. But that doesn't give you the right to brand others as "ignorant" because they point out this information.

I'm sure that MT won't be the first fraud canonized by the Catholic church...or the last. But she holds a special place in the history of the saints for bringing so little comfort to so many for so long.

"The command of Jesus is personal, not governmental."

Since our Constitution does not mention that the government is based on Jesus's pronouncements, your point is moot, Mr. Thomas.

I couldn't care less if Jesus commanded me to feed the poor, I would do it anyway because it is the right thing to do. That is called humanity. Something you seem to lack.

I give personally because it is part of my Christian heritage. I approve of helping others through the use of my taxes because decent and makes us a stronger country.

Look in the mirror Mr. Thomas and you will see the reason I no longer consider myself a Christian. The crap that comes out of the mouths of people like you is sickening.

Jesus also said, "Render unto Caesar, what is Caesar's and to God what is God.

Matthew 22:21

Do you apply that sort of logic to all laws, or only to the laws you disagree with? For example, many people think we should have laws against gay marriage for religious / moral reasons. Do you think they are wrong, too?

POSTED BY: JIMWALTERS1 | DECEMBER 14, 2010 2:43 PM

Yes, I do apply that logic to all laws. Politically I am closer to Libertarian than to anything else, and despite being a Christian, my strongest political influences are Ayn Rand's atheistic Objectivism and Kropotkin's atheistic Anarchism.

As for gay marriage, I believe that each church/religion should be allowed to decide who they are willing to marry. The government's legal paperwork should be called civil unions, and should be available to all consenting adults. I know that there would be no shortage of Christian churches/atheist groups that would be willing and eager to marry gay couples.

For conservatives the Bible is only useful when it can be used as a weapon to attack others. All other times its "personal" Abortion is not personal, gay rights aren't personal, but money is personal.

Jesus told us very clearly how NATIONS will be judged:

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the NATIONS will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Matt 25:31-45

Jesus? OMG! I thought that stuff was related to the anti-abortion and anti-gay movement.

The Gospels are alive and well in the US. We see employers paying minimum wages below the level they were in 1969 in terms of real dollars.

The poor pay corporations to move the poor's jobs' overseas. What could be more Christian?

Then we have a Congress that tells us "do as I say, not as I do".

Amen!

Jinnyhann: "You're right that such a passage is subject to many and varied interpretations. Does this make it less relevant? Not at all. It gets us pondering, self-examining, and hopefully, acting."

That makes the Bible as relevant as the folktales of the Little Red Hen and the Frog and the Scorpion. It makes the Bible as relevant as the movies "It's a Wonderful Life" and "All Quiet on the Western Front" and "The Bicycle Thief."

I wouldn't deny that.

The problem is, people claim that the Bible has special authority. They do not accept that it has no more or less to contribute than any thought-provoking product of our culture.

MaryC4: Re: "Which is why I think the Bible is mainly irrelevant to modern life." Have you read much of it? I'm not saying I've read a lot of it, but the stuff I've seen absolutely applies to contemporary life.

On the particular topic being discussed today, I'm thinking of the New Testament parable of the workers in the marketplace...the ones hired early in the morning -- who work all day -- expect at day's end to be paid more than those who were hired in the late afternoon. The vineyard owner says to the malcontents, "I paid you what we agreed to. Is your eye envious because I am generous? Take what is yours and go your way."

You could say this passage emphasizes that the man who hires can do what he likes with his own money (including giving equally to those who labored less than others). You could also say he emphasized that we shouldn't be as concerned as many of us are with what other people have, or how they got it. You could say he emphasized the individual's responsibility, and power, to take what he or she has earned and get about our life, whatever our role or niche.

You're right that such a passage is subject to many and varied interpretations. Does this make it less relevant? Not at all. It gets us pondering, self-examining, and hopefully, acting.

GabrielRockman: "Jim - charity with what is not rightfully yours is not charity. Jesus commands personal charity, but he does not command us to coerce others into fulfilling our interpretation of Jesus' commands."

Too bad we'll never know what Jesus would think of going to war on money the state doesn't actually have. Or coercing others into supporting such a war with their taxes.

"Jesus commands personal charity, but he does not command us to coerce others into fulfilling our interpretation of Jesus' commands."

Do you apply that sort of logic to all laws, or only to the laws you disagree with? For example, many people think we should have laws against gay marriage for religious / moral reasons. Do you think they are wrong, too? If not, why is it OK for "us to coerce others into fulfilling our interpretation of Jesus' commands" in these cases, but not when it comes to helping the needy?

Haveaheart: Your comment relfects ignorance about Mother T., who happened to be Catholic. You've taken something she may have said and quoted it out of context: "There's no better example of [rabid proselytizing] than Mother T. Contrary to popular belief, she and her band of sisters didn't soothe and comfort the sick and dying with medicines and kind words. No, they soothed and comforted by telling millions of dying Indians that their pain was holy, their suffering a gift from God."

You have every right to your opinion about organized religion. But please get your facts straight and present them in their richness and nuance, and not just through your own lens.

So, were Joseph and Pharaoh behaving immorally when they taxed (collected) peoples' grain in good years so that everyone would have something to eat when famine struck? Sounds like Cal would say, "Yes".

"I find it hard to believe that Jesus would command personal charity, yet disapprove of charity by groups, even when the group in question is a government."

POSTED BY: JIMWALTERS1 | DECEMBER 14, 2010 12:59 PM

Jim - charity with what is not rightfully yours is not charity. Jesus commands personal charity, but he does not command us to coerce others into fulfilling our interpretation of Jesus' commands.

"So is Jesus' command "thou shalt not kill" also not a governmental command?"

POSTED BY: GARAK | DECEMBER 14, 2010 12:17 PM

No, it is not. The justification for the government's prohibition of killing should be and is independent of Christianity.

Haveheart: "When Mr. Thomas makes the judgment that the 'immediate physical needs' for food, clothing, shelter, and medical care aren't as important as the the need for spiritual sustenance, he is demonstrating the jaw-dropping callousness and high self-regard (read: arrogance) of the Christian religion's staunchest defenders."

While Jesus would teach that his followers should give away all that they have to the poor, he would actually agree with Mr. Thomas that their salvation is more important than meeting their physical needs. This point of view depends entirely on belief in an everlasting heaven and hell. If you really do believe in these things, nothing finite could possibly be more important.

Nowadays I believe very few people, even professing Christians, realy believe in heaven and hell. If they did, they would behave quite differently.

"And it is not an end, but a means by which individuals can demonstrate God's love to poor people by meeting their immediate physical needs for the purpose of earning the right to tell them about their greater spiritual need and God's provision in Jesus Christ to meet that greater need."

Mr. Thomas must be quite enamored of this kind of convoluted reasoning, because he uses it all the time. On this occasion, though, pairing it with arrogance of the first degree, he has achieved a personal best that will be hard to topple.

In my world, you give to poor people because they are in need. They're hungry; they're in pain; they're cold; they're frightened; their children don't have shoes; their families don't have homes.

Only in the shadow of organized religion is this care and feeding tied to rabid proselytizing. There's no better example of this than Mother Teresa. Contrary to popular belief, Mother Teresa and her band of sisters didn't soothe and comfort the sick and dying with medicines and kind words. No, they soothed and comforted by telling millions of dying Indians that their pain was holy, their suffering a gift from God.

This, of course, is an extreme example, but it's a good metaphor for the ways in which organized religions hold basic decency hostage while extracting professions of belief from empty stomachs and and hurting hearts.

When Mr. Thomas makes the judgment that the "immediate physical needs" for food, clothing, shelter, and medical care aren't as important as the the need for spiritual sustenance, he is demonstrating the jaw-dropping callousness and high self-regard (read: arrogance) of the Christian religion's staunchest defenders.

To tell people whose bellies are growling that they need faith a whole lot more than they need a sandwich is a breathtaking breach of basic human decency. That it is committed by a well-fed narcissist who is also a religious and social bigot makes the deed that much nastier.

Garak: "So is Jesus' command 'thou shalt not kill' also not a governmental command?"

You've hit the nail on the head. It is fine to kill if the government orders it, whether it is Iraqis who are fighting our invading troops or a condemned murderer. Jesus didn't tell the Roman Centurion that he had to stop occupying Palestine or stop killing Jews who tried to rebel in order to be saved.

You might say that the situation is complicated beyond Jesus' comprehension, now that we vote for the people who make up that government and decide whether there should be a death penalty, or whether a country should be invaded. But Christians like Mr. Thomas don't like complexity.

"The command of Jesus is personal, not governmental."

I find it hard to believe that Jesus would command personal charity, yet disapprove of charity by groups, even when the group in question is a government.

"The cause of poverty in America is primarily the result of the decline of our moral center"

That takes a lot of nerve to say when almost 1 American in 10 is unemployed. Do you think that none of them are God-fearing Christians?

"The federal government immorally -- yes, immorally -- spends more than it takes in"

I concur over the long run, but over the short run deficits may be required to handle emergencies. I'd have to say two wars during the biggest economic upheaval in two generations qualifies. Going from a surplus to a deficit to finance tax cuts does not, IMO.

Realistically it is going to take a mix of tax increases and spending cuts to balance the budget. There is a lot of room for debate about the final mix, but I honestly don't see how any people who call themselves followers of Christ could say "take money from the poor so you can spare the rich".

Of course Mr. Thomas is right. Jesus had absolutely nothing to say about government, applied science, a health care system, economics, immigration, war, pollution, or any other arena where we face difficult decisions today. Jesus never imagined his followers might one day be able to vote for or against government policies or influence law-making by electing representatives, so he said nothing about it. He never imagined that we would become part of "Caeasar," whom he said should be paid the taxes he demanded. Besides, he thought the world was going to end shortly, so why worry about climate change?

What do you think? If Jesus were suddenly reconstituted on earth, would he speak at the Tea Party rallies against universal health care and extension of unemployment benefits, and for deportation of illegal aliens and killing more Taliban? There's no way he'd be protesting against these things either. He'd be encouraging private charity in soup kitchens and homeless shelters, just like Mr. Thomas says.

Extrapolating Jesus' guidance to a national level results in about 300 million different interpretations. Which is why I think the Bible is mainly irrelevant to modern life.

So is Jesus' command "thou shalt not kill" also not a governmental command?