Obama thinks Jesus backs his tax plans?

[Cow Poke]

At the National Prayer Breakfast, Obama invoked Jesus as proof that we should have higher taxes.

He implied, because to whom much is given, the government should take more away.

If he were preaching that we should VOUNTARILY assist the poor, I'd AMEN him!

[princesa]

just a little link to go with this discussion....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...pay-taxes.html

he's been here for years already, is this some new change he's going after?

[JimL]

At the National Prayer Breakfast, Obama invoked Jesus as proof that we should have higher taxes.

He implied, because to whom much is given, the government should take more away.

If he were preaching that we should VOUNTARILY assist the poor, I'd AMEN him!

Oh thats nice Cowpoke, are you going to voluntarily assist all the poor, are you going to take in all the homeless, feed all the hungry, heal all the sick? No? Then at least volunteer your vote for a system that does.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Well, Obama actually said that Jesus would approve of the idea that much is required of those who have been given much. He went on to say:

"Our goal should not be to declare our policies as biblical. It is God who is infallible, not us. Michelle reminds me of this often. (Laughter.) So instead, it is our hope that people of goodwill can pursue their values and common ground and the common good as best they know how, with respect for each other."

So it's not likely that he meant to say that Jesus is all-in on his tax proposal. Instead, Obama views his tax proposal as a fallible pursuit of a moral good. Clearly, there is argument to be had about how much of that moral good can be attained through a social contract as expressed through government.

—Sam

ETA: Transcript

[Jaecp]

Couldn't have said it better myself,

It was him speaking to an, obviously, highly Christian audience in highly Christian terms for something he was already doing. This isn't a repeat of Bush and the "God said to invade Iraq" nonsense, but pointing out how Jesus would approve of doing the kinds of things Jesus advocated back in his first century equivalent to OWS.

[Cow Poke]

Well, Obama actually said that Jesus would approve of the idea that much is required of those who have been given much. He went on to say:



So it's not likely that he meant to say that Jesus is all-in on his tax proposal. Instead, Obama views his tax proposal as a fallible pursuit of a moral good. Clearly, there is argument to be had about how much of that moral good can be attained through a social contract as expressed through government.

—Sam

ETA: Transcript

Jesus had no intent for GOVERNMENT to FORCE people to give up their money to help the poor. The Gospel is about voluntarily giving.

[Cow Poke]

Couldn't have said it better myself,

It was him speaking to an, obviously, highly Christian audience in highly Christian terms for something he was already doing. This isn't a repeat of Bush and the "God said to invade Iraq" nonsense, but pointing out how Jesus would approve of doing the kinds of things Jesus advocated back in his first century equivalent to OWS.

You mean it was Obama PANDERING to a Christian audience, and failing miserably, because most of them were fully aware of the contextual failure.

[Cow Poke]

This isn't a repeat of Bush and the "God said to invade Iraq"

Citation, please.

[Darth Executor]

Oh thats nice Cowpoke, are you going to voluntarily assist all the poor, are you going to take in all the homeless, feed all the hungry, heal all the sick? No? Then at least volunteer your vote for a system that does.

The system you propose does not do that. It intentionally keeps people poor so they can keep voting democrat. So no thanks.

[Darth Executor]

the kinds of things Jesus advocated back in his first century equivalent to OWS.

[Cow Poke]

Oh thats nice Cowpoke, are you going to voluntarily assist all the poor, are you going to take in all the homeless, feed all the hungry, heal all the sick? No? Then at least volunteer your vote for a system that does.

When you can tell me that the government does an efficient job of ministering to the needs of the poor, I'll seriously consider voting for such a system. Meanwhile, my Church assists the poor in many ways with ZERO administrative costs, and I do my own personal assistance without charging a dime. I also support ministries who help the poor with INCREDIBLY low "management" costs.

How much does the government spend in MANAGING the money they take from "the rich" and give to "the poor"? How many cents on the dollar actually makes it to "the poor"?

[Ansgar Seraph]

Jesus had no intent for GOVERNMENT to FORCE people to give up their money to help the poor. The Gospel is about voluntarily giving.

Really? Is there a clear delineation between the giving performed by Christians in the New Testament and the giving mandated by Israelite law in the OT? Paul told his followers to hold money back so that he could take it Jerusalem to help people there — it's not a weak assumption to believe that this was on top of the support they were providing their local churches. Israelite law was voluntary in the sense that people could ignore the command . . . but I believe that Israel was collectively punished at times for some not following the imperative.

And it's the function of our government to express a social contract we, as citizens, have with one another. If the majority decides that America ought to be a country that serves and protects the poor, taxes are going to be necessary for that endeavor. When it comes to taxes, though, people seem to forget that government is the structure of social contracts and that ours, however fragmented, still serves that function.

I'd also give far more weight to people talking about "government force" and voluntary giving were I to see sufficient care being provided by Christian churches. In the places I frequent, both government assistance and private service are falling somewhat short.

—Sam

[Cow Poke]

Really? Is there a clear delineation between the giving performed by Christians in the New Testament and the giving mandated by Israelite law in the OT? Paul told his followers to hold money back so that he could take it Jerusalem to help people there — it's not a weak assumption to believe that this was on top of the support they were providing their local churches. Israelite law was voluntary in the sense that people could ignore the command . . . but I believe that Israel was collectively punished at times for some not following the imperative.

Obama was referencing Jesus, not OT. But, since you mention Paul, he probalby had some different ideas on the poor than you do. Let's see if you agree with ...

(2 Cor 9:6-7 KJV) But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. {7} Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

Paul also said that those who don't work shouldn't eat.
When the disciples complained about the perfume poured on His feet -- that the perfume should have been sold and the money given to the poor - Jesus wasn't actually in agreement, was He?

And it's the function of our government to express a social contract we, as citizens, have with one another.

Where, in the Constitution, is this expressed?

I'd also give far more weight to people talking about "government force" and voluntary giving were I to see sufficient care being provided by Christian churches. In the places I frequent, both government assistance and private service are falling somewhat short.

—Sam

My Church gives 51% of all income to minsiter to the poor and to mission causes. And we do that willingly. It's in our bylaws.
The state convention I belong to, Southern Baptists of Texas, also gives 51% of income to missions.

[Thersites]

Well, Obama actually said that Jesus would approve of the idea that much is required of those who have been given much. He went on to say:



So it's not likely that he meant to say that Jesus is all-in on his tax proposal. Instead, Obama views his tax proposal as a fallible pursuit of a moral good. Clearly, there is argument to be had about how much of that moral good can be attained through a social contract as expressed through government.

—Sam

ETA: Transcript

Why'd you have to go and inject common sense into a perfectly good rant thread?

[Darth Executor]

Well, Obama actually said that Jesus would approve of the idea that much is required of those who have been given much.

I highly doubt Jesus would approve of the idea in and of itself, void of context.

And the context is that the one demanding much (God) is the one who gave much (also God).

In contrast, the relationship between who the US government gives much to (like special interest groups, from the lower income brackets who receive benefits but pay no taxes to corporations who receive subsidies or regulations that kneecap the competition but also pay few to no taxes) and who gives much to the US government (the mid to upper middle class and those of the rich who don't feel the need to hide their money in offshore tax havens) is quite a bit more contorted. If you're an honest businessman who's built up a nice income for yourself with the US government taking a good 20% of your money while providing benefits that barely add up to a fraction of that money then you most certainly were not "given" much.

So it's not likely that he meant to say that Jesus is all-in on his tax proposal.

I think this is a bit disingenuous. There would be no need for Obama to appeal to a concept put forward by Jesus if he did not mean to say "Jesus would agree with this". He did it precisely because he thinks Jesus would approve of what he's doing. Just because he then weasels out of it by saying he doesn't think "we" should think of our proposals as biblical doesn't change what he said, it just makes him look slimy.