BaptistLife.Com Forums.

I guess this pretty well sums up what we are seeing in health care and in Puerto Rico.

Cheap shot nonsense.

Well, you got three frumped-up frownies to fire back, and given who they are, you hit the nail on the head.



It's really tough, if you want to stand on an inerrant, infallible Bible, to deny who Jesus is, so you have to hope no one actually looks it up. They know better, but tweets have trumped scripture, and politics have trumped theology, and the Jesus of the scriptures is different than the Jesus that has trumped him.

Alliterative tour-de-force

Not sure which verse that is a parody of -- the one where Jesus told the government to do those things, or individual Christians?

I always find it amusing that we all put Jesus in our camp. If so, then Jesus is a conservative/liberal/moderate. I suspect the truth is that he was all of these things------and so much more. If Jesus doesn't convict us in our direction, our politics, our attitudes toward government, toward riches and poverty, and in every other area, then there is a good chance we are manufacturing our own Jesus.

It's interesting, isn't it, that all we know about Jesus comes from the New Testament, and most of the content that involves eyewitness accounts comes from three of the four gospels that are, when put together, a really thin book of about 100 pages, and the rest of it is found in the commentary left by a few other authors, John and Peter, James, Paul, one not known. We are taught in church how to follow the standard interpretations in order to develop a perspective of Jesus through our pastors and professors and their commentary. We're two thousand years plus away from the time when Jesus walked the earth, and I'm pretty sure that the image we have of him is a cultural distortion. There are some authors, Phillip Yancey comes to mind, Robert Funk, Marcus Borg, who do a good job of filtering out the cultural overlay, and make an honest attempt to identify Jesus through the scripture. But they all admit that it's not an easy job given what's been written, and that the Jesus we think we understand is not the one that you find if you simply put the scriptures together without the cultural baggage that comes with it. So if you accept the premises of an inerrant, infallible Bible, then you have to accept the thought that what's there is all we need to know and if that's the conclusion, then he is the criterion by which the rest of scripture is interpreted.

That changes everything. For starters, it means that the "Kingdom of God" includes a whole lot more people than the modern church thinks it does, and the definition of knowing and following Jesus is much broader, and wider, and more accepting than we make it out to be.

Yeah, let's put a proof text that has the potential to justify all manner of slander and denigration and discrimination against some of the least of these, our brethren through Christ, in as big loud typeface as we can!

So, Jon, I would assume, from your literalistic prooftexting of one verse (taken out of context) that you are a conscientious objector to social security and medicare. Ordained ministers can do that. And you've duly refunded to the government any benefit you have ever received by using infrastructure, including electricity, water, highways, educational expenses (hope you didn't take a Pell grant, or attend a state college or university, or a public school ever in your life), and you refunded the difference for any medical care you received at a community or municipal hospital, or you paid back the subsidized cost of services at a church-owned and operated hospital. You've paid back the subsidized share of a student loan, you didn't use any FHA or VA benefit when you bought a house and if you did, you paid the bank back the subsidized interest rate.

I think we need to note here that when Paul wrote this to Timothy, the Christian church was still largely a communal organization (similar to what was recorded in Jerusalem in the first few chapters of Acts) and being part of the local body of believers included taking care of your own family, in addition to providing for the needs of the church, which cared for the "widows and orphans." Paul is making a distinction between widows who had no extended family responsible for their care according to custom, and those who had a family member that could provide for them. The church took responsibility for providing for all of its faithful members who, under the circumstances of the culture in which they lived, could not provide for themselves, and Paul was especially keen on making sure that those who were elderly were not forgotten. Jon's singled out one verse that can't be interpreted in context standing alone. The early church was communal, and it was a "welfare state" in the sense that it took resources from those who had much, and used them to care for virtually all of its constituents who had nothing.

Keith,

My argument is not against liberals here. It is pro scripture.

Liberal or not - to deny the Bible teaches this, denies the Bible.

If people want to give their money to lazy people - let them. Just don't ask for mine.

To make a political comment (of sorts). Many people say the immigrants are here to take the jobs US citizens won't take. That says a lot about the lazy man who refuses to do a certain legal work because it is ___________________ (you fill in the blank).

I've done labor jobs and I'll do them again if I needed. Shouldn't Christian men want to be the type of man God wants from the Christian husband/father?

If God says doing less is the actions of an infidel - I say our Father knows best.