I don’t believe Jesus EVER looked at charity and government taxation as having anything to do with each other either....something our Catholic friends often conflate.
I never saw a Bible verse where Jesus told us to petition Herod to tax people more to feed the poor. Nope, he told us as individuals to. That is Conservatism.
Jesus was about the INDIVIDUAL and our behavior and devotion to God. Jesus would object to the Catholic Church’s style of ministry as he did to those that worked with the Roman’s to influence handouts, laws, taxes and politics.
Having a government or even Church “force” good deeds (take from the rich and give to the poor) is not giving alms or tythes or anything else for the individual spirit. There is nothing moral about it. The government does not act in the spirit of God.
So I agree. Jesus would want individuals to give freely of their own choice.
I dont have a Bible on this computer, but Christ also used an analogy of persons working in the field, the last one hired got paid as much as the first one hired, the first one complained, Jesus asked him whether he agreed to his wages at the start or not...which the man did in the parable...
So, Jesus appears to be against unions that way, too , unfair wages, and if you agreed to be paid something, stick to your word
The Catholic Church opposed the charging of interest on money in Medieval Europe, but this parable reveals that Jesus supported banks that charged interest on moneyThe Biblical injunction is against charging interest on loans specifically, especially on loans made to Israelites.
In the 3779 verses of the four gospels, Christ shows zero interest in civic affairs. He offers no advice, no prescriptions, and no commentary on the civic arrangements of men with men, or the civic affairs of men.
Christ is SOLELY interested in the salvation of your soul.
Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s
Forget all the businessman nonsense. Plenty of business people are liberals. That proves nothing. Understanding the kind of charity Christ taught, as opposed to welfare, is key to understanding Christ’s beliefs. Christ spoke of VOLUNTARY alms giving, not forcible redistribution. No where does he speak of government taking from one to give to another. Christ wouldn’t have even had a concept of government welfare since the Roman Empire had no such system. No, Christ spoke of the kind of voluntary charity that ennobles and exalts the giver because it’s given out of the abundance of the heart, not forced out of them. Christ was never about coercion, but about free will. He spoke of a kind of charity that isn’t a nameless, faceless bureaucrat and bureacratic agency sending off an automated check gotten from funds taken involuntarily from another to give to someone known only by a Social Security number by said bureacracy. No he spoke of the kind of charity where a giver experiences and learns compassion, love and Christ-like virtues of generosity and kindness because they WANT to give, and to a person who isn’t just some faceless number but someone the giver can assess the worthiness and need of and then from there give from the heart. This is the kind of charity that has the power to exalt both the giver and the recipient, as opposed to the sense of entitlement and dependency—as well as resentment from those forced to fund government programs they may not believe in— coming from the welfare state.
So, he was a small businessman and he paid his taxes. He was an all around good and frugal guy.
He took care of his mother and obeyed her like a good Jewish boy, (per the 4th commandment) and he read the first half of the Good Book thoroughly.
Since he was pro-life and a small businessman, I would say that it would be safe to assume that if he were elected to Congress he would not be working to pass cr@p@$$ bills and he certainly would not be spending us into oblivion.
So, yeah, Jesus would be a fiscal AND social conservative.
And, we would probably see him frequent TEA Party rallies.
Jesus is the reason for western philosophical thought and traditional western society. It was Jesus who said that you personally are important to God, and just as important as any other person. The rulers of Jesus’ day would have thought it laughable that a king (or elite) and a peasant would have equal standing in any matter. The rulers of evil political systems today feel the same way.
The entire system of thought regarding individual rights pioneered by Locke, and then Jefferson (I am leaving out a ton of important people for brevity) were distilled from ideas put forth by Thomas Aquinas about God given rights. His ideas were natural derivations of the fact that you are important to God and that you are on equal footing with all other men in God’s eyes.
I am not sure I feel comfortable labling Jesus with the same term I use for myself but his precepts are the first principles from which fiscal conservatism, private property, and natural rights were derived.
In the eyes of “true conservatives”, Jesus Christ was a RINO - He befriended and forgave tax collectors, advised people to pay their taxes to the government, and consorted with known prostitutes. In their eyes, HE’S JUST NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
In the eyes of “true conservatives”, Reagan was a RINO - he cut and ran from Lebanon, gave amnesty to illegals, and raised taxes. In their eyes, HE’S JUST NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
Which begs the question, why did we end up with Bishop Willard from Planet Kolob as the GOPe nominee? Because in the case of every conservative candidate, the cry rang out from “true conservatives”: YOUR GUY’S JUST NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
The True Conservative’s Definition of Conservative: “I’m not sure, but whatever it is, it sure as hell ain’t YOU!!!”
Isn't the term "left wing Christian" an oxymoron? I do not think it is possible to be a left winger, and a true Christian at the same time.