Jesus taught to meet the needs of others, BUT...he also taught that "it rains on the just and the unjust", "The poor you have with you always, but you will not have me with you always".....Paul, in the Epistles, taught that "if a man shall not work, neither will he eat"......he was addressing the church at the time. If we accept that Paul's position as Apostle was legal, we have to accept that he was speaking for Christ......What do you think?
First of all, thank you so much for your input. LOVE IT!
Secondly, can you provide scripture references for your verses above? Book, chapter, verses? I like to see the context of Scripture.
Finally, let's look at each one in turn.
#1.
"It rains on the just and the unjust alike." Very true. I wonder what political issue that favors? Is that favoring a position that's lenient on crime? Being found guilty should not necessarily carry a long prison sentence? Or were you going somewhere else with that? Let's explore that some more.
#2.
"The poor you have with you always, but you will not have me with you always." I like this one. Especially recognizing its context. Do you know its context? Mary had opened a bottle of expensive oil and was washing Jesus' feet with her tears, drying them with her hair, and anointing them with this expensive oil. Judas, who was already planning to betray Jesus, complained, not because what Mary was doing was particularly shocking or inappropriate (which it was), but because it was wasteful of resources. He said the oil could have been sold and the money used to give to the poor. Jesus knew that Judas had no interest in the poor. Jesus didn't say what he did because of the poor. He said it as an object lesson to Judas, and to others around him, about what was going to happen. I'm not sure we can use this verse as a political value, because it was a specific sentence used in a specific situation.
But even if we do take it as a statement that also transcends its immediate use, what does that mean? Does that mean we shouldn't give to the poor? That we should always chose to throw lavish gifts at Jesus rather than giving to the poor? We should spend thousands on making fancy churches instead of giving to the poor? Do you really think that's what Jesus wants? One could certainly make an argument for that. And if one were to look at some of the churches around the world, one could say many institutions have done that. Is this a Biblical Value?
#3
"if a man shall not work, neither will he eat" I have no problem taking Paul's word as authoritative, perhaps not quite as authoritative as Jesus', but close to it. And I have no problem taking this particular verse as authoritative.
Again, let's look at the context. Paul was responding to a question about people in the church who were lazy. They were able to work, but thought that they were "above" manual labor. I happen to agree with Paul. (LOL ... like my personal opinion counts for squat ....) I think retired CEO's who are making multi-billion dollar pensions for sitting on their butt all day is a sin.
Cutting capital gains tax is absolutely a direct contradiction to this Biblical Value. Technically, if one were to follow this biblical value, capital gains and all other forms of unearned income should be taxed at a rate of 100%. I'm not sure I'm willing to go that far, but I certainly have no problem saying that unearned income should be taxed at a higher rate than earned income. To my knowledge, all the republican candidates are in favor of LOWERING taxes on capital gains and other forms of unearned income. The democrats in congress want to raise it, so that those who do not work for their money have to pay a higher share of taxes, and those who do work pay less in taxes. In other words, the republican candidates are less in line with this particular Biblical Value than the democrats. At least on this one issue.
On the other hand, Paul would never have said that a person who was incapable of working should be denied basic services. Paul and Jesus both performed miracles to heal the sick, and reached out to the poor. We know they loved the marginalized in society. They absolutely would have been in favor of giving food and other basic needs to those who were in need. How does that play out today? Which social programs today are most beneficial to the needy? And which of the political parties are supporting those programs?
So far, we've identified two issues based on Biblical values: taxing unearned income and supporting Israel. Currently, both major parties support Israel, but only one supports taxing unearned income at a higher rate, as Paul advocated. So we have:
Republicans: 1; Democrats: 2.
Interesting. More issues?
