Keep Jesus Out of Your Socialism (Part 2)

[Revmitchell]

Michael Youssef | Oct 20, 2013

In part one of this series, I made clear, from the words of Jesus and the New Testament, that ministering to the poor and the needy among us is the work of Christian individuals and the church, not the secular government. Jesus said, "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. . . ." Today's Religious Left wants to change that to, "He has anointed the federal government to preach good news to the poor."

The Christian gospel is a message of salvation, not a message of income redistribution and raising our neighbor's taxes. Jesus said that the way to serve the poor is by giving generously of our own resources. "But when you give a banquet," He said in Luke 14, "invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

The Religious Left is very generous—with other people's money. In fact, I believe the founder of the Religious Left was none other than Judas Iscariot. When Mary, the sister of Lazarus, anointed Jesus with costly perfume just days before the crucifixion, Judas lectured her and said, "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor?"

Notice that Judas put on a show of caring for the poor—even though the money was Mary's, not his! The motives of Judas, John 12:6 tells us, were corrupt and self-centered—and Jesus responded with a stinging rebuke.

http://townhall.com/columnists/mich...urce=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

 

[Crabtownboy]

Michael Youssef | Oct 20, 2013

In part one of this series, I made clear, from the words of Jesus and the New Testament, that ministering to the poor and the needy among us is the work of Christian individuals and the church, not the secular government. Jesus said, "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. . . ." Today's Religious Left wants to change that to, "He has anointed the federal government to preach good news to the poor."

The Christian gospel is a message of salvation, not a message of income redistribution and raising our neighbor's taxes. Jesus said that the way to serve the poor is by giving generously of our own resources. "But when you give a banquet," He said in Luke 14, "invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

The Religious Left is very generous—with other people's money. In fact, I believe the founder of the Religious Left was none other than Judas Iscariot. When Mary, the sister of Lazarus, anointed Jesus with costly perfume just days before the crucifixion, Judas lectured her and said, "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor?"

Notice that Judas put on a show of caring for the poor—even though the money was Mary's, not his! The motives of Judas, John 12:6 tells us, were corrupt and self-centered—and Jesus responded with a stinging rebuke.

http://townhall.com/columnists/mich...urce=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

And so you conviently disregard Jesus' words:

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" (Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ.[Matthew 22:21]

Yes, Jesus said we should take care of the poor. However, he never said that government should not also take care of the people, poor or not, thay govern.

So you prove nothing Rev., except you cherry pick scripture to support your belief while ignoring other scripture.

This is the problem of proof-texting, you become liberal in that you try to make scripture say one thing, while ignoring other scripture.

You liberal!

 

[Revmitchell]

And so you conviently disregard Jesus' words:

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" (Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ.[Matthew 22:21]

Yes, Jesus said we should take care of the poor. However, he never said that government should not also take care of the people, poor or not, thay govern.

So you prove nothing Rev., except you cherry pick scripture to support your belief while ignoring other scripture.

This is the problem of proof-texting, you become liberal in that you try to make scripture say one thing, while ignoring other scripture.

You liberal!

I did not write the article Dr. Michael Youssef did. I gave full attribution so you have no excuse not to know this. Your issue is with him not with me. And apparently you do not know what cherry picking or proof texting is.

Also your use of the render to Caesar passage is applied out of context. Dr. Michael Youssef uses both scripture and context in an exegetical manner rather than an eisegetical manner like you have.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I did not write the article Dr. Michael Youssef did. I gave full attribution so you have no excuse not to know this. Your issue is with him not with me. And apparently you do not know what cherry picking or proof texting is.

Also your use of the render to Caesar passage is applied out of context. Dr. Michael Youssef uses both scripture and context in an exegetical manner rather than an eisegetical manner like you have.

Remember your above reply to me when you pen a nasty one-liner to something I post ... your quarrel is not with me but the author of the article. It appears you are saying, don't respond to what I post, write the author. I suggest you do the same to my posts in the future. Thanks in advance.

 

[Revmitchell]

Remember your above reply to me when you pen a nasty one-liner to something I post ... your quarrel is not with me but the author of the article. It appears you are saying, don't respond to what I post, write the author. I suggest you do the same to my posts in the future. Thanks in advance.

Again why can't liberals make legitimate comparisons. You accused me of cherry picking. I did not write the article therefore it is not possible that I did any such thing. Now if you want to address what Dr. Michael Youssef wrote then you would at least seem reasonable and less emotional.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Again why can't liberals make legitimate comparisons. You accused me of cherry picking. I did not write the article therefore it is not possible that I did any such thing. Now if you want to address what Dr. Michael Youssef wrote then you would at least seem reasonable and less emotional.

Why is it your brand of liberalism .. and you are a liberal can never own up their their own flaws or mistakes. Your are very liberal in attempting in your posts misrepresenting scripture by ignoring other scripture. That is the definition of liberal, and you are quite good as that form of liberalism.

Why did you quote the article?
Did you disagree with the author?
If so, why didn't you make a comment criticizing him?
If you agreed with the author, why did you not make a comment supporting him?
Why hide by simply quoting the article, giving the source, but making no comment?

 

[Revmitchell]

Why is it your brand of liberalism .. and you are a liberal can never own up their their own flaws or mistakes. Your are very liberal in attempting in your posts misrepresenting scripture by ignoring other scripture. That is the definition of liberal, and you are quite good as that form of liberalism.

Why did you quote the article?
Did you disagree with the author?
If so, why didn't you make a comment criticizing him?
If you agreed with the author, why did you not make a comment supporting him?
Why hide by simply quoting the article, giving the source, but making no comment?

So you believe Dr. Michael Youssef cherry picked scripture. He is known as a very credible bible expositor who avoids such practices. I would say that making a claim and then using your own cherry picked scriptures out of context is not a credible way to address the article written by Dr. Michael Youssef

 

[Crabtownboy]

More emotionalism. Stop derailing the thread deal with the op and its author or move on.

What is the topic, seeing as how you will neither say you support or do not support the premise of the article.

I say the Bible says nothing about socialism in one way or another. Actually Israel lived under a dictator and there is no praise or condemnation of that government ... or of any form of government that I can recall. There was only one form of government people of that time had experienced.

So, the author is even wrong in other ways.

So, do you support the idea of the article or not? Simple question.

 

[Revmitchell]

What is the topic, seeing as how you will neither say you support or do not support the premise of the article.

I say the Bible says nothing about socialism in one way or another. Actually Israel lived under a dictator and there is no praise or condemnation of that government ... or of any form of government that I can recall. There was only one form of government people of that time had experienced.

So, the author is even wrong in other ways.

So, do you support the idea of the article or not? Simple question.

Again So you believe Dr. Michael Youssef cherry picked scripture. He is known as a very credible bible expositor who avoids such practices. I would say that making a claim and then using your own cherry picked scriptures out of context is not a credible way to address the article written by Dr. Michael Youssef

 

[Crabtownboy]

Again So you believe Dr. Michael Youssef cherry picked scripture. He is known as a very credible bible expositor who avoids such practices. I would say that making a claim and then using your own cherry picked scriptures out of context is not a credible way to address the article written by Dr. Michael Youssef

Do you agree with Youssef or not?

 

[Revmitchell]

Do you agree with Youssef or not?

Do you? what parts do you agree with him? What parts do you not agree with him? Why? Did he cherry pick scripture? If so do you believe he makes a practice of doing that?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Do you? what parts do you agree with him? What parts do you not agree with him? Why? Did he cherry pick scripture? If so do you believe he makes a practice of doing that?

Your usual tactic, refusing to answer, but asking. Nope, won't play that game with you any longer.

Now, answer my question .. do you agree or disagree with him?

 

[Revmitchell]

Your usual tactic, refusing to answer, but asking. Nope, won't play that game with you any longer.

?

Because you can't. You have avoided dealing with the fact that Dr. Michael Youssef wrote the article. That is your tactic. So deal with the article and its author or move on and stop trying to derail this thread. Maybe you have better things to do Bill like going to Squire and whining about posts that place Obama and his cronies in a bad light.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Because you can't. You have avoided dealing with the fact that Dr. Michael Youssef wrote the article. That is your tactic. So deal with the article and its author or move on and stop trying to derail this thread. Maybe you have better things to do Bill like going to Squire and whining about posts that place Obama and his cronies in a bad light.

Like I said, I will discuss when you decide to answer questions?

Do you agree or disagree with Dr. Youssrf?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Michael Youssef | Oct 20, 2013

In part one of this series, I made clear, from the words of Jesus and the New Testament, that ministering to the poor and the needy among us is the work of Christian individuals and the church, not the secular government. Jesus said, "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. . . ." Today's Religious Left wants to change that to, "He has anointed the federal government to preach good news to the poor."

The Christian gospel is a message of salvation, not a message of income redistribution and raising our neighbor's taxes. Jesus said that the way to serve the poor is by giving generously of our own resources. "But when you give a banquet," He said in Luke 14, "invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

The Religious Left is very generous—with other people's money. In fact, I believe the founder of the Religious Left was none other than Judas Iscariot. When Mary, the sister of Lazarus, anointed Jesus with costly perfume just days before the crucifixion, Judas lectured her and said, "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor?"

Notice that Judas put on a show of caring for the poor—even though the money was Mary's, not his! The motives of Judas, John 12:6 tells us, were corrupt and self-centered—and Jesus responded with a stinging rebuke.

http://townhall.com/columnists/mich...urce=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

I can't find anything to disagree with in the linked article. The illustration of Judas as today's liberal, free with everyone else's money, is spot-on. I like it.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

And so you conviently disregard Jesus' words:

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" (Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ.[Matthew 22:21]

And you fail to realize those very words negate your argument, render it invalid.

Yes, Jesus said we should take care of the poor. However, he never said that government should not also take care of the people, poor or not, thay govern.

When are the socialists going to learn that when Jesus didn't say something, it was because He didn't need to say it, because what He did say was sufficient to itself? No additions, no subtractions, just His words. Period.

So you prove nothing Rev.

Actually, he proved you haven't a leg to stand on in this discussion. And I just reinforced that. Whether or not anyone agrees with Dr. Youssef is irrelevant to what Jesus said, and being too sold out to the liberal/socialist definition of "social justice" render you incapable of understanding that. Read my new signature, particularly the last phrase. Have a nice day.

 

[saturneptune]

And you fail to realize those very words negate your argument, render it invalid.

There are two points to be made here. One is that you and Crabtree are two peas in a pod when it comes to politics. The second point is that Jesus Christ is also Holy God, and there is not one thing in common with anything He said and what is going on with American politics today.

When are the socialists going to learn that when Jesus didn't say something, it was because He didn't need to say it, because what He did say was sufficient to itself? No additions, no subtractions, just His words. Period.

When are you going to learn that socialism, a man made economic system, has nothing to do with Jesus, either pro or con. Jesus came to save the lost, not reform the government to your image.

Actually, he proved you haven't a leg to stand on in this discussion. And I just reinforced that. Whether or not anyone agrees with Dr. Youssef is irrelevant to what Jesus said, and being too sold out to the liberal/socialist definition of "social justice" render you incapable of understanding that. Read my new signature, particularly the last phrase. Have a nice day.

The only thing you reinforce is that you do not understand the division between this world the and the spiritual world. I you were interested in social justice, you would be for governing by the Constitution and demanding politicians do their job and serve the people. Instead, you seem quite content to throwing your lot with a collection of thieves, that being the establishment Republicans that are your heroes, liberal as they are.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

There are two points to be made here. One is that you and Crabtree are two peas in a pod when it comes to politics. The second point is that Jesus Christ is also Holy God, and there is not one thing in common with anything He said and what is going on with American politics today.

When are you going to learn that socialism, a man made economic system, has nothing to do with Jesus, either pro or con. Jesus came to save the lost, not reform the government to your image.


The only thing you reinforce is that you do not understand the division between this world the and the spiritual world. I you were interested in social justice, you would be for governing by the Constitution and demanding politicians do their job and serve the people. Instead, you seem quite content to throwing your lot with a collection of thieves, that being the establishment Republicans that are your heroes, liberal as they are.

Somewhere along the way, I must have really ticked you off for you to want to jump in to criticize a post of mine when the point to be taken away from that post is pretty much exactly what you have said here.

 

[saturneptune]

Somewhere along the way, I must have really ticked you off for you to want to jump in to criticize a post of mine when the point to be taken away from that post is pretty much exactly what you have said here.

Time to get back to the basics Bubba. It has nothing to do with me being ticked. As Richard Nixon once said to a reporter, "don't think you make me angry, I only get angry at those I respect." Now pay close attention and read slowly.

Dividing something or a division means there is a gap, or set apart. The problem is you do not understand that principle. Here are some examples of ideas with a division:

Black and white
Evil and good
Eternity and this world
God and Satan
Liberty and oppression
Slavery and freedom
McConnell and Paul
Democrats-Republicans and the Constitution
Serving and bribery
Treason and loyalty

Here are some examples without division:

Republicans and Democrats
Obama and McConnell
Pelosi, Reid, and Boehner
CNN and FOX
Pro abortion and doing nothing about abortion
Debt and continuing to spend
Social Security and Medicare reform under Democrats or Republicans
Romney and Obama
McCain and Obama
Socialism and Social Security
Gay marriage and doing nothing about gay marriage
Obamacare and Romneycare

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Time to get back to the basics Bubba. It has nothing to do with me being ticked. As Richard Nixon once said to a reporter, "don't think you make me angry, I only get angry at those I respect." Now pay close attention and read slowly.

Ah, and now you expect me to read further. Think again. I think you just proved the truth of my previous post.