There’s a bit in the gospels where Judas complains that some perfume used to anoint him could have been sold and the money given to the poor - it’s made clear that this wasn’t his true intent, but Jesus’ reply was interesting, because it appears fairly discompassionate - he says (words to the effect) “Nope - it’s better that this was done for me - you’ll always have poor people around”.
At its most extreme level of implementation, I think not - because it removes a lot of the motivation for potentially high earners to get rich.
At lower levels of implementation, we already do something like this through sliding scales of taxation.
I believe this is a principal of the judgement of God against man’s society so yes it is a paraphrase, and the reason He will overthrow the people in power and give the spoils to the poor.
In this world, it is generally not possible for man to create this without God, but a reason for praying for the Kingdom of God, where God supplies all the needs.
You have that subtley wrong, but in an important way I can’t let past unopposed. Implicit here are two concepts. One is the point that jesus is basically saying, “Nope, this particular jar has been set aside for Me since the beginning.”
The other is that ultimately Christianity is not some kind of utilitarian faith. There are a lot of very good things in this world, and the same logic which says, “Let’s sell/destroy/otherwise dispose of this very good thing, which exists to be enjoyed, in order that nobody suffer from any want,” is the death of humanity. If you set anything - even hungry children - up as your end-all, you will wind up destroying everything so that nobody particularly gets fulfilled. There are things worth dying for, and things worth some suffering, but even feeding the poor is not worth living for.
My first thought on that article was, why the fuck would you be living in Boston?? Boston is notoriously expensive. I couldn’t afford it.
To be fair, we know nothing about that person’s situation and they may have grown up there and don’t have the resources to leave. But yes, that does highlight some of what needs to be considered wrt a parent’s obligation to his or her child.
One only need accept the implicit assumption that the procurement of good typically involves the exchange of money and the rest pretty much joins up, doesn’t it?
I’m not really sure how you found that much to disagree with in a post that wasn’t really.making any firm theological arguments. I just (perhaps too sloppily) referred to an example where Jesus appears to take a different tack from the other places where he advises people to give everything away.
Lest you try to turn God into a Libertarian, Jesus also endorsed taxation. Mark 12:14-17
I never said all taxation was evil or immoral. Taxation is a necessary part of funding a government and even if you disagree with a particular tax, you should be honest and pay it while its in force. That’s all Jesus is saying.
I may have misread the intent of your post. To me, it’s a prime example of telling people that the worth of good and kindness is not measured in in numbers. And I’m a man who loves his numbers. (Especially 3… she’s a dirty girl who likes it wild.)
here is Micah 4:4 NIV
notice the his own bit. Not under a communal fig tree, not under Obama’s Department of Vines and Fig trees federal fig tree, not even under a corporate cloud fig tree with 99% guaranteed uptime. There is no mention of any efforts by EPA to declare the oxygen and shadow generated by these fig trees as dangerous and taxable pollutants either.
Uh, that bit is for the good ones after or during the end of times, and we will get there thanks to divine intervention, in the meantime I will go for what they told everybody to do before those days, so, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and all that Jazz”
I believe he was using something called sarcasm.
I was not referring to his sarcasm but to the bible passage, so now go, and whoosh no more.
Having the right to personal wealth is a major aspect of everything we do, with or without the poor starving. In a twisted sense the rich need the poor, if only to set the benchmark. So it is in the intrest of the rich to keep the poor from actually starving. They can just be poor, but not starving. Everybody wins.
so you figure that the only way to get secure property rights, a just government and low tax rates in this vale of tears is the coming of Messiah? :eek: That goes against historical record. There were plenty of such times in the history of the West - people simply forget, because that is not what the media and educational institutions tell them.
No, it’s not directly, but yes, indirectly.
Christian religion allows and blesses wealth, discrimination, abuse and slavery.
So do all three of the major religions in recent human history.
Nope, what happens is that we are using the bible here in this case and if the best example you can get refers on getting that paradise only at the end of times… well, that is not very useful example to use for current ideologies to use in this world.
Ah, good to see then a demonstration that God was not telling the truth, we do not need the end of times or the Messiah to get there. 
But really, those times also included lots of injustice and that item can not be ignored as we are also dealing with bible moral lessons. So you do need some remedial history and Bible classes.
No problem - I didn’t really have one - except to mention what appears (at first, at least) a contrast between two different incidents.