Quote:
Originally posted by sammyg2
Sup, bad move.
Comparing Jesus to a socialist? Not right.
The government should not be in the charity business, private citizens should. that was what Jesus was preaching, that people should take care of one another. Government had nothing to do with it.
I absolutely hate having my hard earned money taken from me against my will so it can go to the undeserving or be wasted on some other stupid program.
But....... my wife and I voluntarily rack up about $8,000 a year in donations to our church. Much of that money goes to feed the hungry, clothe those who need clothes, help some members of our community pay bills when they fall behind, we even built a school and house for a pastor in mexico. That's what Jesus was talking about.
You see there is a difference. It should be my decision, not someone else's.
Charity begins at home and not at the polling booth.
|
Not so fast, Sammy. Greed is considered good in my country, and folks get really emotional when someone proposes limits. You did. I understand your fairly thin distinction between individuals making charitable decisions and groups of individuals making charitable decisions (like the citizens of a........oh let's see.....a COUNTRY), and I somewhat agree with it......kinda. But your quick and emotional decision to declare my analogy as "bad" is off target. Jesus had a following. A fairly large one. And at times, wealthy people were inclined to join. Followers were consistently asked to share their resources with the group. Not just a little at a time. To join this group, you placed your wealth in the collection basket as you entered. So charity, in Jesus' original Christian community......was mandatory and administered by the group. Just like a tax. With a tax rate of 100%. He was not flexible on this one.
So, no. I think this "charity should be an individual decision so that my million-dollar portfolio remain untouched by the people who would give portions of it to the needy without my okay.........."
......is bull****.