Posted on 10/25/2010 2:46:05 PM PDT by HorowitzianConservative
Politicians of all stripes endeavor to invoke the Bible for many reasons. Some try to use God’s Word to score points with the Christian or Jewish communities. Others employ a Biblical analogy or story to drive a point home. A few even share impactful passages out of sincere faith. However, it appears that most politicians — on the Left as well as on the Right — use the Old and New Testaments to prove or further their agenda.
One of the most insidious and troubling areas in which politicians have co-opted scripture is the “social justice” movement. Since the 19th century, Leftists have attempted to use particular passages from the Bible to achieve progressive and often radical or statist ends. From communitarians to eugenicists to early 20th century progressives to New Dealers, evangelists of various strains of the Social Gospel have attempted to utilize the Bible to justify their views.
Civil rights leaders from the 1950s until today have used scripture to prove their point. Jimmy Carter made no secret of his Christian faith, and he claimed to center many of his policies around it. The environmentalist movement has attempted to lure Jews and Christians into its fold by using the Bible, even coining the term “Creation Care” to make radical environmentalism palatable to believers. The progressive Social Gospel concept has come front and center in the Obama era, with Leftist religious leaders like Jim Wallis and his group, Sojourners, peddling their peculiar band of radically Leftist religious conviction.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
So much for confiscation and redistribution of “the other guy’s stuff” being in ANY way biblical.
Those who stir up such feelings of greed and envy and class war among the “have nots” are sinners.
btt
Once it is taxed , it is government's to do with what it will. It's the downside of having a government that God warned Israel about when they wanted a human King instead of God as King.
"We the people" who formed our government, have limited government's role. So that government can't do "anything it want's". And it can't tax us without facing us in the next election as the democrats are finding out. But enforcing those limitations is an ongoing battle, that requires an alert and informed citizenry.
Here is a list of the Bible verses they have gotten right:
ConservaTexan—Great list of verses the religious left has gotten right. I’d add to your list the following:
Usually they seem to rely a lot on “judge not lest ye be judged.” I’ve seen the others referenced in the article, but that one has to comprise 80-90% of the leftist quotes to scripture.
Notably they take that quote out of context all the time too.
Bump for later
Their goal is to silence dissent. We are to shut up while they continue to judge and sin.
In the Matthew text, it continues on how the measure we judge is how we shall be judged and goes into the area of hypocrisy.
In the John text, Jesus was dealing with entrapment, where the ruling elite were trying to set Jesus up to either part with Mosaic Law or come against the ruling Roman Law.
The left will also often quote "give unto Caesar's what is Caesar's" (Matthew 22; Mark 12; Luke 20) to justify taxation, but yet again that was another instance where the ruling elite were trying to entrap Jesus and He saw through their schemes.
You are absolutely correct. Anytime any person or group tries to speak out against some evil, a large group will come out with that “judge not” statement.
If you read the whole chapter it is obvious it is talking about hypocrisy. Elsewhere the Bible clearly says we are to oppose evil even being, oh horrors. judgmental.
The whole “Eat The Rich” mentality is unbiblical. It is the socialist-anarchist mantra.
So is “No Gods No Masters”.
And yet they still want SOME system of structure to provide socialized medicine.
In their bicycle fueled utopia where they are in charge.
I do not believe any listing of scriptures murdered by the left would not be complete without including, “Thou shalt not kill”. The best source I have found for discussing this scripture is C.S. Lewis, who’s life journey besides his intellect eminently qualifies him discuss the topic. He abandoned a scholarship to Oxford in 1916 to serve in the British army as an officer with the Somerset Light Infantry. He was wounded at the Battle of Arras, mustered out, and suffered depression during his convalescence. The quote comes from Mere Christianity, which was fleshed out from radio broadcasts he made during WW II.
“Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him? No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment - even to death. If one has committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged. It is therefore in my opinion, perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence a man to death or a Christian soldier to kill an enemy, I always thought so, ever since I became a Christian, and long before the war, and still think so now that we are a peace. It is no good quoting, “Thou shalt not kill.” There are two Greek words: the ordinary word to kill and the word to murder. And when Christ quotes that commandment He uses the murder one in all three accounts, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And I am told there is the same distinction in Hebrew. All killing is not murder any more that all sexual intercourse is adultery. When soldiers came to St. John the Baptist asking what to do, he never remotely suggested that they ought to leave the army: nor did Christ when he met a Roman sergeant-major - what they called a centurion. The idea of the knight - the Christian in arms for defense of a good cause - is one of the great Christian ideas.”
The distinction in Hebrew is ratsach in the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, which corresponds to our understanding for most cases of first degree murder. In military and other settings the words muwth, harag, shamad, charam and shachath are used, with King James translations of kill, slay or destroy. Sorry about missing all the accent points, but Word has its limitations.
We live in a world where it is not ours until AFTER we receive our tax refund.
We pay before we are assessed and hope we have pre-paid enough.
Million dollar marxists insist WE are not paying enough.
They set up secular foundations to pressure Western governments to expand social programs, not to pay for those social programs out of the bounty of the private trusts they established and sit on the board of.
And politicians who are not even elected may appeals to the 50% who pay no income tax and tell them what they will RECEIVE if they only will vote for candidate XYC and DNC Party.
The new Democrat push is to raise the level at which we pay into Social Security and finally eliminate the social security contributions from those who earn so little. Making it an outright redistribution tax.
There is no charity in forced taxation, no matter what that no count Obama says about being his brother's keeper. I've seen pictures of the shack his brother lives in.
Not only that, it's an oft-distorted form of Matthew 7:1 and Luke 6:37.
Usually they seem to rely a lot on “judge not lest ye be judged.” I’ve seen the others referenced in the article, but that one has to comprise 80-90% of the leftist quotes to scripture.
Notably they take that quote out of context all the time too.
This is of course a distortion of 2 Thessalonians 3:10.
Article 18 (1918 constitution). The Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic declares labour to be the duty of all citizens of the Republic, and proclaims the slogan: 'He who does not work, neither shall he eat!'
ARTICLE 12 (1936 constitution). In the U.S.S.R. work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." The principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of socialism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work."
For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
True. But governments helping the poor IS biblical. There has to be balance. You don't bankrupt the country helping the poor. You don't help the poor by tearing down the rich. Nowhere does scripture call for equality of material possessions. But it does call for us to help the poor. Scripture doesn't call for us to do it wastefully or without incentives to work, or specify how much. And scripture specifically says the poor are always with you. We can't eliminate the poor. But both individuals and governments are called to help them.
Jer 22:15 Shalt thou reign, because thou closest [thyself] in cedar? did not thy father eat and drink, and do judgment and justice, [and] then [it was] well with him? Jer 22:16 He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then [it was] well [with him: was] not this to know me? saith the LORD.
Pro 29:14 The king that faithfully judgeth the poor, his throne shall be established for ever.
Dan 4:27 Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity.
Socialism is one extreme. No mercy to the poor is the other and is equally bad. "We the People" are rulers of this country. And we need to heed what the Lord told the kings of old, if we wish to continue to rule.
I agree with you. I used to be too extreme and did not believe in any kind of government assistance.
One day my Mother told me a true story. Back in the early 1900s my Uncle happened to notice a woman out in her yard cooking turnips in a large pot. She had six children.
It turned out her husband had died and left them penniless. That is all they had to eat, not even any bread. Back then there was very little welfare but there was a tiny bit. My Uncle drove them to the county seat and they applied for some kind of relief. The county paid them $20 a month, not a lot but it was enough for them to live on.
I also had a distant cousin who died of appendicitis. Her Father was crippled in a logging accident. Their relatives were not wealthy either but helped them enough that they got by OK. The problem was they had no money.
When she got sick, the local hospital would not take her because they were broke. Finally Baptist Hospital in Pensacola agreed to take her. Unfortunately she died on the way. She basically died from poverty.
If you think about the cousin that died of appendicitis. The government would probably have come out better if they had paid for the operation and she had gone back to work and paid taxes.
Not that they should do that every time, because it would create Moral hazard, but on a case by case basis. And really the government wouldn’t have had to gift the operation. They could have made the operation cost into a loan to her and got it back plus taxes.
It is NOT the role of government to relieve your own personal financial obligation to the poor.
When Barack Obama tells us it is required by Christ to support Obamacare, he is PUSHING his own false interpretation of scripture on people of ALL faiths which is CLEARLY unconstitutional. He cannot mandate that I tithe to his particular theological beliefs.
There were also from the beginning of this country, governmental programs for the poor. They were at the state and community level. And one of the jobs that kept state judges busy early in our history was making sure that communities did their part and didn't just dump indigents on other communities. Read the history of the poor laws in our country.
"It is NOT the role of government to relieve your own personal financial obligation to the poor."
No, government can not relieve you of your individual responsibility to the poor. However, as the verses I've posted show, government has it's own responsibility to the poor.
When Barack Obama tells us it is required by Christ to support Obamacare, he is PUSHING his own false interpretation of scripture on people of ALL faiths which is CLEARLY unconstitutional. He cannot mandate that I tithe to his particular theological beliefs.
I wasn't aware that Barack has mentioned Christ very often since becoming president. He seems more focused on Muslims.
The poor is also a civil problem, not just a spiritual problem. Thus Congress, not Obama, can and does mandate that you pay taxes that they then use for pork, waste and yes, to help the poor. It's not a tithe, it's a tax. It's not tithing to a particular theological belief, it's adhering to the civil law as passed by congress.
However, Scripture supports that government can and should do this and that its not your money as soon as a government levies the tax.
If you don't like the government, you can overthrow a government for reasons outlined in the Declaration of Independence. But we're not there. We have means of non-violent redress which will become apparent Nov 2.
Even today cities are bussing their homeless to other cities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.