Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
What would Jesus think.. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Golf Guy 69
- Start date
JAA
Footballguy
Riiight - Jesus was not political. The cleaning of the Temple had to do with the money changers stiffing him on his tax return
But that is on an individual level. Christianity is about free will and choice. To use the force of government to make people believe or provide for others is not the way of Jesus.
dgreen
Footballguy
Of course it wasn't a kingdom on earth, but I think he knew how it was interpreted by the political leaders. His charge was "King of the Jews". Personally, I'd say if someone is intentionally acting in a way that upsets the politics of the day, they are at least being somewhat political. Obviously politics wasn't his goal. If you want to say he's apolitical, that's fine with me. I think we're saying the same thing about what he did, just labeling it a little differently.
JAA
Footballguy
You think the cleaning of the Temple was about profit? I would encourage you to compare and contrast the words 'profit' and 'extortion'
dgreen
Footballguy
I tend to agree, but that line of thinking always leads me to anarchy and a society with total reliance as God as their King. I posted 1 Samuel 8 earlier because God warned the Israelites about having a king other than Him. My guess is man-made governments aren't the ideal situation God has for man. But, they are the reality we are in so we have to best decide where we're ok with the force of government and where we aren't. Followers of Christ can reasonably disagree on where that line is.
dgreen
Footballguy
FWIW, my understanding (basically, what I've been told but have not studied myself) is that the temple money changers were set up in the area of the temple where gentiles were allowed. So, the problem was that they were willing to turn the gentile worship area into a market because, well, they're stinkin' gentiles! I could be totally misrepresenting what I've heard, though.
I view it as just because Christ was apolitical, does not mean his believers had to be apolitical. Christ taught people to respect the law ("Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." ), so anarchy is not what Jesus taught. I don't see a problem with working within the political system to make laws which are in line with and respects God will. I don't think either party carries the banner of Jesus well, nor should they claim exclusive rights to it.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not up to the government to decide morals, and why should a believer expect non believers to follow these laws?
In the last post of yours I quoted, you spoke of using governments to make laws to respect God's will. The issue with that is that God is the Lawgiver, not us. Of course, I had a whole other point to make, but I forgot what it was, so I'll drop this line of reasoning.
So why should we expect non believers to follow His teachings? To them, our beliefs are foolishness. It takes His own influence to work on people's lives, and He chooses to use us on occasion. How are we to be an effective witness if we're gatekeeping, or promoting views and statements that oppose His teachings?
No one is asking anyone to follow anything. Providing the opportunity to exercise their free will with regards to religion. I really have no idea what your contention is here or what you are reading into my statements.
Patrick LaForge @palafo
A pastor at a Louisiana megachurch who was previously cited for defying the state’s coronavirus stay-at-home orders is facing an aggravated assault charge after he backed up a bus toward a protester outside the church on Sunday, the authorities said
I think we found the answer...
A pastor at a Louisiana megachurch who was previously cited for defying the state’s coronavirus stay-at-home orders is facing an aggravated assault charge after he backed up a bus toward a protester outside the church on Sunday, the authorities said
I think we found the answer...
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Maybe in what you see as being political from a twentieth and twenty first century western political though perspective, but in the context of first century politics this is most certainly not true. Jesus was executed as a political agitator. And he was guilty of these crimes no matter how much the gospel writers write about Pilate "washing his hands".
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
There are many ways that this passage in interpreted. One of those ways, as you are using it mirrors the start of Romans 13. But even here there are multiple ways to read it. And I tend to believe that Jesus most certainly wanted us to get more from this than just submit to earthly authority. To me I read it like this-
What belongs to Caesar? And what belongs to God in this passage?
What belongs to Caesar
In the simplest form in this passage the coins with his image which may or may not claim to be god. Beside the tax revolt going on pretty much the entire life of Jesus (likely the point of the census) the image and claim to be a god made using these coins, especially to pay tribute problematic for those having one god, another god. In my mind Jesus is telling the people to go ahead and give Caesar those pointless coins of no value in the grand scheme of things. It didn't matter at all.
If you want to get really deeper in all this Jesus' earthly body and life ultimately belong to Caesar and he gave it to him. So sure Jesus submitted to earthly authority, but if that is all that was happening then I guess Easter is just a celebration of the return of spring.
What belongs to God
Everything that is really important.
dgreen
Footballguy
Should this just be "Everything."
Are there scriptures that say there are things that don't belong to God?
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Probably!
As for -
It is scripture. People can find anything they want if they try hard enough and I'm guessing that you'd find lots of Christians that would answer scriptures surrounding "sin", but I'm not one of them.
So with that caveat I'll say no.
dgreen
Footballguy
Interesting. I guess I meant tangible things (not sure if that's really what I mean, either), so wasn't really thinking of answers like "sin". I guess "our choices" could be another answer and would fall in line with "sin". But, if God gave us free will to make our own choices, then they also belong to him, sort of.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
One can drive oneself insane with these types of questions. I probably have! I certainly cannot reconcile my rational, logical side with a belief in God, at least how God is commonly defined by man. Jesus, at least as a living human being is easier in many senses at least until you get to the "being God" part. But Jesus as a political agitator from the perspective of the guy who mostly has a good life in Caesarea which is threatened by those troublesome Jews who get all worked up when gather for Passover each year often enough turning rebellious is really easy to understand. As is Jesus from the perspective of those monitoring the street for trouble makers if we were to clearly state "don't pay your taxes with that coin".
While I am not in any way an expert on living in the first century in Roman occupied Judea, I think I can kind of understand that Jesus to some degree. Much more than I can relate to the abstraction of God. But now I wonder how Jesus would answer your questions. I think I get how he would answer the "should it just be everything" question with a solid "yes" in private and a "read between lines" answer in public forums. Not so sure how he would answer your "find in" scripture question. And more importantly, whether the answer changes by who asks the question.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Just returned from a solo, social avoidance dog walk. Time to think about this conversation with @dgreen and how it might change my reply to @jon_mx.
Basically the question is can I take "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's" to mean to "Give God everything because he created it all and give what is left over (i.e. nothing) to Caesar". Absolutely! I think that is my original "read between the line take" with the perspective that the "coins were nothing". But can I go the next step and say that Jesus was saying the coins go to God also. Which would pretty much stick a fork in the "submit to authority narrative".
I can but then I think I might lose that Jesus is given to Caesar. It is simpler to think of Jesus losing his human life as "nothing" in a grander scheme of things. Ultimately hanging Jesus on the cross gave Caesar nothing and more or less started the spread of the virus through the empire that would (arguably) destroy the Roman Empire - Christianity. But Jesus's human life is only nothing in a relative sense to what follows to a believer. A life is certainly something right? If in the grand scheme of things it wasn't then why would Christian's ever care about abortion? Why would suicide be a sin? Why is a Good Friday service so somber? Again these kinds of things can drive one crazy.
But maybe giving Jesus to Caesar was ultimately just a sleight of hand trick where despite the misdirection Caesar got nothing. I think I can go with that at least until the next challenging question.
So how does that apply to this thread? While I think scripture is full of God sweating the details (the back half of Exodus for example) I don't think Jesus cared too much on the how we took care of each other, how we loved our neighbors as long as we strive to accomplish that goal. So to the degree that conservatives honestly believe that their "cruel to be kind" approach to "tough love" is looking after God's children then I think Jesus (if not I) might tell them they are wrong but I think they can still be good with Jesus' teachings. Of course I think that liberals wanting to use the power of government to join resources and more effectively reach those in needs fit also, though I think the safe guards to keep aid to only those who need it are usually counter productive.
In the context of the current crisis I think Jesus would want us to keep our distance to not spread the virus, but not at the expense of taking care of each other. Which creates the damned if you do, damned if you don't questions about when and how to move back to normal. Or what is most likely a new normal even after the virus is no longer a threat. I guess I can only pray for the best from those making these decisions whether my human failing might cause me to otherwise label them as condescending intellectual elites or deplorables.
Basically the question is can I take "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's" to mean to "Give God everything because he created it all and give what is left over (i.e. nothing) to Caesar". Absolutely! I think that is my original "read between the line take" with the perspective that the "coins were nothing". But can I go the next step and say that Jesus was saying the coins go to God also. Which would pretty much stick a fork in the "submit to authority narrative".
I can but then I think I might lose that Jesus is given to Caesar. It is simpler to think of Jesus losing his human life as "nothing" in a grander scheme of things. Ultimately hanging Jesus on the cross gave Caesar nothing and more or less started the spread of the virus through the empire that would (arguably) destroy the Roman Empire - Christianity. But Jesus's human life is only nothing in a relative sense to what follows to a believer. A life is certainly something right? If in the grand scheme of things it wasn't then why would Christian's ever care about abortion? Why would suicide be a sin? Why is a Good Friday service so somber? Again these kinds of things can drive one crazy.
But maybe giving Jesus to Caesar was ultimately just a sleight of hand trick where despite the misdirection Caesar got nothing. I think I can go with that at least until the next challenging question.
So how does that apply to this thread? While I think scripture is full of God sweating the details (the back half of Exodus for example) I don't think Jesus cared too much on the how we took care of each other, how we loved our neighbors as long as we strive to accomplish that goal. So to the degree that conservatives honestly believe that their "cruel to be kind" approach to "tough love" is looking after God's children then I think Jesus (if not I) might tell them they are wrong but I think they can still be good with Jesus' teachings. Of course I think that liberals wanting to use the power of government to join resources and more effectively reach those in needs fit also, though I think the safe guards to keep aid to only those who need it are usually counter productive.
In the context of the current crisis I think Jesus would want us to keep our distance to not spread the virus, but not at the expense of taking care of each other. Which creates the damned if you do, damned if you don't questions about when and how to move back to normal. Or what is most likely a new normal even after the virus is no longer a threat. I guess I can only pray for the best from those making these decisions whether my human failing might cause me to otherwise label them as condescending intellectual elites or deplorables.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
Blessed are the free, for their free is free in free.Leroy Hoard said:
Stealthycat
Footballguy
Jesus wouldn't have put those things on his list IMO
Jesus focused on teaching how to be better as a person. The characteristics and lessons taught has nothing to do with politics or government really ... although he did attack the false prophets of the day who blasphemed
JMO
So we're still skipping the parts where He said to care for the poor, sell posessions, not serve money and focus on storing up treasures in heaven?
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
i know what lots of 2000yo Semitic carpenters & fishermen would do in many situations. just ask me -
dkp993
Footballguy
What does that have to do with government programs? Jesus did not advocate a theocracy.
He advocated caring for the poor. Granted, we should be doing this anyway, but first, why are you so against this, and second, how is this creating a theocracy?
There will always be poor. Jesus is advocating for individuals to show compassion and sacrifice. Demanding the government extract money from people to help the poor accomplishes neither. Jesus is about saving individuals so they may enter the kingdom if heaven, not about fixing earthly problems through government programs. If you wish to use government to forcefully implement your vision for what you believe Christ wanted, then you are going down the path of a theocracy.
There's a lot of reading into what I wrote going on here. Nobody is forcing the government to do anything, in fact, several governments over the course of history set aside money to help the less fortunate, but yes, that is a command for believers to follow whether or not the government does. It is also true that we will always have the poor with us, but again, if government assistance exists, why not utilize it to help ease their struggles?
Stealthycat
Footballguy
You really are not paying attention to what I am saying. Jesus is not concern at all with the actions of government. If you wish to make the case for helping the poor, using the Jesus-card shows little understanding of the faith.
There is a lack of attention here, but it's definitely not on my end. Whatever, we'll disagree and leave it at that.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Not only should you be helping out of the kindness of your own heart, you're not really supposed to be broadcasting it either. Being humble is also part of the deal and not bragging that "your'e helping" like we see a lot of people do these days. They do that for selfish purposes, not because they actually care.
lakerstan
Footballguy
In America, we have a representative Democracy. You guys are talking about “Government” as some abstract entity, when the Government is made up of human beings that are supposed to represent your ideals. If your ideals are to help the poor, then shouldn’t your representatives endorse actions which help the poor?
Again, I'm not saying the government should do it, but if it so chooses, then it's a valid option.
Look, I don't really even like government all that much, but if they are helping people, I won't complain too loudly.
You vote for three representatives out of 536 total of whom you will never meet almost all of whom are in one of two parties. They make hundreds of thousands of pages of rules and regulations which are implimented by millions of bureaucrats who are required to coldly follow the rules. It is am inefficient and cold way to help anyone. The question for this thread is what would Jesus do, and the answer is nothing. He would not even vote. But that does not mean his followers shouldn't, but that is a different question.
rockaction
Footballguy
This really deserves an extra heaping of scorn on top of its popscorn.
I understand your point, but the kingdom Jesus is advancing has no place for a govt MANDATING people give money to the poor. No one has a choice in that situation and, by necessity people would only be giving money because they HAD to and not out of love for God.
Golf Guy 69
Footballguy
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Similar threads
