When Did Jesus Stop Caring About the Poor?

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-schwartz-m-div/when-did-jesus-stop-carin_b_4025841.html

Andrew Schwartz, M Div.Freelance Writer

Posted: 10/02/2013 8:56 am

It's tragic that so many of our Congressmen and women are Christians. It really is. Because if they weren't Christians, there would at least be some political excuse for why so many of our Christian Republican Congresspeople are refusing to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and find shelter for the poor.

They are Christians though, or so they tell us. If they weren't Christians then they probably wouldn't have been elected because Americans insist that Johnny and Jane Politic are best friends with Jesus. If Johnny Politic weren't a Christian, then he would have no moral compass or ethical barometer. His lack of morality would lead the country to rack and ruin, leaving churches penniless and houses of ill repute full of aimless charlatans.

Thankfully that hasn't happened. Johnny and Jane Politic have kept the churches stacked with cash and the bellies of the poor empty. Yup, just like Jesus would have wanted.

Our Christian Congresspeople must be reading a different Bible than I, probably an abridged version -- the one that leaves out the parable of the Rich Merchant and the Rich Man (Luke 12:13-21; Matthew 19:24), the Woman with Two Coins (Mark 12:41-44), the Beatitudes (Matthew 5), and the passage that tell us where we can find Jesus amongst us (Matthew 25:31-36) It would seem that our Christian Republican Congresspeople are doing everything they can to make sure Baby Jesus cries.

It's fucking ridiculous.

more at link

[Stuart G]

1. Republicans hate the poor, disabled, and weak...Jesus would hate them...nt

[cbayer]

5. Agree. I think he would throw them out of the temple.

[unblock]

2. at least since calvin a probably much earlier.

[cbayer]

4. I don't understand this post.

Are you referring to how some have interpreted the teachings of jesus?

[unblock]

6. i would phrase it as "how some use the bible to justify their own ends", but, yes.

i think the surge in "greed is good, the rich are to be admired, and poor are lazy" politics marks a surge in calvinist thinking we haven't seen in this country for about 100 years or so.

[cbayer]

7. Agree. Thanks for the explanation.

[trotsky]

3. This stuff is so tiresome.

What both sides are yelling at each other is this:

"You aren't TRUE Christians because you ignore the parts of the bible I like, and I ignore the parts you like!"

There's also the incredible disconnect between the left and the right when it comes to the role of government in helping others. Conservative and liberal Christians can wholeheartedly agree that Jesus told them to take care of the poor - and most do! But conservatives don't think government can or should be able to do it. They prefer to lower taxes and assume that individuals will then donate their money where it will be most effective. You yourself have echoed these sentiments, cbayer, when you defended using religious charities to provide social services because you didn't think the government could do it.

And guess what? For all the bible verses they can throw at each other, neither of them has one from the J-dude himself stating exactly whether we should use government to care for the poor or not. (In fact, I would have to say that conservatives have the stronger biblical position here.)

So by all means, keep throwing the "You're not a true Christian!" crap back and forth. It's worked so well to this point.

[PotatoChip]

38. I would never presume to say that another person is not 'a true christian'

anymore than i would call another Dem that I disagree with 'not a true dem'.

That does not mean that I let these works based, judgmental, self sanctimonious, bible literalists off w/out criticism. Their biblical interpretations are far different than mine, and I've every right to say so. Especially when someone tries to lump my very personal beliefs in with the beliefs of other christans that I completely disagree with.

But my original point still stands. It is not my place to say that another person is not 'a true christian'. Or that someone else is 'not a true dem', ect. And, indeed I never have.

[cbayer]

40. Well said.

This tendency to define all who identify as christian by the criteria set by the religious right is divisive and destructive.

It's makes about as much sense as defining all muslims as similar to the 9/11 terrorists.

[trotsky]

44. Good for you.

Far too many Christians (including so very many on DU) are quick to judge in that manner.

[hrmjustin]

8. Jesus never stopped caring aout the poor.

The fact that these people who say they bring their faith to their politics makes me scratch my head. How can you claim to be a Christian and vote for policies that hurt the poor. Boggles the mind.

[cbayer]

9. It takes a lot of pretzel logic to get there, imo.

[trotsky]

10. "How can you claim to be a Christian and vote for policies that hurt the poor?"

They would likely ask you, how can YOU claim to be a Christian and vote for policies that murder babies?

[hrmjustin]

11. They do ask that question and it is their right. I will say I believe women should

have reproductive rights and it is not my job to judge them.

I think my question is better.

[trotsky]

12. Of course you think your question is better.

And they think theirs is! Murdering babies versus trying to cut government spending? Holy smoke, they are no doubt aghast at your priorities.

[hrmjustin]

14. Well that is their problem. We all have our priorities.

[trotsky]

15. And this is why nothing changes.

Sigh.

[hrmjustin]

16. What do you whan me to do?

[trotsky]

17. You asked a question.

I gave you an answer.

You still think your religious beliefs are valid, but theirs aren't.

That's the problem - they think the same thing.

[hrmjustin]

18. What I am saying is that I have an issue with a politician who claims to be Christian and can cut

aid to the poor.

[trotsky]

19. And they have an issue with a politician who claims to be Christian and can

vote to allow abortion.

I don't feel like this has gone anywhere. You still don't seem to understand.

[hrmjustin]

20. I understand you and your point. I am not changing my opinion because of what they may say.

[trotsky]

21. Then you'll have to understand that they won't either.

And that you've given them justification not to.

[hrmjustin]

22. I am still going to question them. I have been question byt them all my life for being gay and

liberal. It is time they are challenged. I come from my point of view as a Christian who thinks that hurting the poor is bad and un-Christian. I already know what they think of me so please don't repeat it to me.

[trotsky]

23. I didn't say you can't question them.

I just pointed out how they are equally justified in being outraged at politicians based on their religious belief. That was your initial question, and I answered it.

[Fumesucker]

42. Eh, Jesus never once mentioned abortion..

On the other hand He spoke quite a bit about the poor.

[trotsky]

45. He never once mentioned a lot of things.

Homosexuality, blood transfusions, euthanasia, and the list goes on.

That doesn't seem to have stopped Christians (liberal and conservative) from insisting they know what he thought about those issues.

[dimbear]

13. It's rare that a question here can be answered so exactly. About 30 CE. n/t

[Act_of_Reparation]

24. When did Jesus start caring about the poor?

Let's take a look at the cited passages, shall we?

Luke 12:13-21

A man asks Jesus to demand of his elder brother an equitable division of their inheritance. Does Jesus tell the older brother to share the wealth? No, he does not. He admonishes the younger brother, warning his audience against the trappings of material wealth.

Jesus then tells a parable of rich farmer who has such a bountiful harvest he lacks the facilities to store his grain. The farmer decides to tear down his barns to build bigger ones. Jesus tells us this is foolish--not because he could have given away the surplus grain to feed the poor, but because he was thinking about acquiring more material wealth when he should have been dedicating himself to God.

Matthew 19:24

Ah, the oft-cited passage about camels passing through eyes of needles.

Of course, there is the prevailing opinion that the "eye of the needle" actually refers to a gate in Jerusalem that was too low for a camel to pass through standing up. To enter the city through this gate, the camel would have to kneel, thus implying the problem with rich people isn't their wealth so much as their humility.

Even if you take the passage literally, is Jesus telling us to care for the poor, or is he instead exalting poverty?

Mark 12:41-44

Jesus and his disciples watching rich people make donations to the treasury. A poor widow shows up and gives the treasury a few coins, which Jesus observes as a far greater sacrifice than those made by the wealthy.

Again, is he telling his disciples to care for the poor, or is he exalting poverty?

Matthew 5

The Beatitudes.

Nowhere in here does Jesus implore his followers to care for the poor. Instead, he says the poor are blessed, and shall inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

Matthew 25:31-36

Jesus describes the final judgement. Those who were caring and compassionate will be seated at his right, and will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

This is really the only passage the author listed in which Jesus specifically demands his followers care for the needy. While one may certainly cite this as a theological basis for social safety nets, you'd still have to ignore the preceding passages, which do not advocate the elimination of poverty so much as they exalt it. They do not demand charity of believers so much as they demand an ascetic lifestyle, as one can only give God his due attention when one has divorced themselves of material possessions.

This message is repeated over and over again throughout the Gospels. Christ didn't want to see poverty eradicated... he wanted everyone to be poor.

[trotsky]

25. Wow, nice work.

Well reasoned and researched.

[Act_of_Reparation]

29. Thanks...

...but I'm guessing that in reading these passages for what they actually say, as opposed to what liberal believers think they should say, I will be written off as a "fundamentalist".

[cbayer]

32. You have really distorted this.

On actually reading these passages, what I see is admonishment against the rich - very similar to the Occupy admonishment against the 1%.

He's not exalting poverty, he is condemning wealth, particularly wealth that is hoarded. He recognized that there would always be poverty and that the most marginalized in a society deserved special attention.

These are basic democratic values, imo.

[Act_of_Reparation]

33. No, I really haven't.

Christ's message was apocalyptic, warning of an imminent Final Judgment. He commanded his followers to give up their professions and earthly things, not as an act of charity, but because the end was very much nigh, and no material possession could keep them from fires of Hell. Only faith could save you. Every moment of every day, your every word, thought, or action should be an exaltation of God. Don't worry about feeding or clothing yourself, because through your faith, the Lord will provide.

Don't believe me? Keep reading Luke Chapter 12, right after the OP conveniently instructs us to stop:

22l He said to [his] disciples, “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life and what you will eat, or about your body and what you will wear. 23For life is more than food and the body more than clothing. 24Notice the ravens: they do not sow or reap; they have neither storehouse nor barn, yet God feeds them. How much more important are you than birds!m 25Can any of you by worrying add a moment to your lifespan? 26If even the smallest things are beyond your control, why are you anxious about the rest? 27Notice how the flowers grow. They do not toil or spin. But I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of them.n 28If God so clothes the grass in the field that grows today and is thrown into the oven tomorrow, will he not much more provide for you, O you of little faith? 29As for you, do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, and do not worry anymore. 30All the nations of the world seek for these things, and your Father knows that you need them. 31Instead, seek his kingdom, and these other things will be given you besides. 32Do not be afraid any longer, little flock, for your Father is pleased to give you the kingdom.o 33Sell your belongings and give alms. Provide money bags for yourselves that do not wear out, an inexhaustible treasure in heaven that no thief can reach nor moth destroy.p 34For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be.

Authors, Various; United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (2011-06-06). New American Bible Revised Edition (Kindle Locations 141672-141693). Fairbrother. Kindle Edition.

Verses 35-48 further expound on this, likening God to a master away from his house, who may at any moment return. Just as it is prudent for the household servants to behave accordingly in their master's absence, Christ admonishes his followers to dedicate themselves to God always, at all times, because he could return--or they may die--at any moment.

These passages are not the basis of economic equality, but of Christian monasticism. Christ isn't preaching about evening the playing field, but abandoning the field altogether. Just as he admonished the younger brother for demanding an equitable division of his inheritance, so would Christ admonish the Occupy Protesters demanding an equitable division of wealth.

As Christ says in Matthew 6:24: "No one can serve two masters.m He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."

In fact, I would go as far as to say conservative Christians, in their contempt for the poor, are more in keeping with the message of the Gospels than are progressive Christians who demand institutional safeguards against poverty and all it entails.

Just take a look at Matthew 6:31-34:

31So do not worry and say, ‘What are we to eat?’ or ‘What are we to drink?’ or ‘What are we to wear?’ 32All these things the pagans seek. Your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. 33But seek first the kingdom (of God) and his righteousness,* and all these things will be given you besides. 34Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will take care of itself. Sufficient for a day is its own evil.

Authors, Various; United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (2011-06-06). New American Bible Revised Edition (Kindle Locations 127623-127628). Fairbrother. Kindle Edition.

Why we do need food stamp programs? If people don't have food, obviously it is their own fault for being of deficient faith. If they truly believed, then God would provide for them!

Why do we need welfare programs or unemployment? If people only believed, they would never need to worry about providing for themselves, because the faithful can always depend on God!

So says Jesus, at any rate.

[cbayer]

34. Well, thanks for taking the same position that the religious right is using

to OK these cuts.

Really?

[Act_of_Reparation]

35. What position would that be?

That claims to the moral authority of the Bible are utter nonsense? I fail to see how this is somehow enabling people who seek to use this pestilential book as the basis of their legislative program.

I could more easily argue your position is the more damaging, but we went over that to some length when you last accused non-believers of carrying water for the Republicans, and I've no desire to revisit such nonsensical and despicable allegations.

[cbayer]

36. You made their argument for them and rejected the interpretation of the author

of this piece.

What do you think my position is?

I didn't accuse non-believers of carrying water for republicans. I accused anti-theists of doing that by assisting them in dividing the left.

And when you make their argument for them, I'm not sure what you might want to call it.

[Act_of_Reparation]

37. I would call it honesty.

The Bible says what the Bible says, and the Bible says God will provide for those of sufficient faith. You could argue and say that it does not... and you'd be wrong, because it clearly does.

So, your options are thus:

1- Admit the Bible is wrong.

2- Pretend this verse doesn't exist.

If you pick option 1, you have to conclude the Bible is an unreliable source of moral direction, and should not be the basis of public policy regardless of alignment.

If you pick option 2, as the author has, then you are selectively reading the Bible... an odd tactic considering the author's argument is that conservative Christians are hypocrites for doing precisely this.

Incidentally, I have picked option 1, which means, ipso facto, I am not making the Republicans' argument for them. Rather, it was stated to prove a simple point: if you assert the authority of the Bible, then you are in no position to combat them on their assertions which are supported by Biblical passages. You accuse them of selective reading, and they accuse you of precisely the same. How you expect to win such an argument is completely and utterly beyond me, but by all means, have at it. But no way in hell am I playing along.

[cbayer]

39. Despite some people's claim that it is wrong, I'm a big fan of cherry picking.

Some parts of the bible are right and some are wrong. You are cherry picking to suit your goals and others do the same in making the republican argument.

The conservatives are using what they choose from the bible to harm others. In my moral code, that's wrong. If someone uses the bible to do good, that's ok with me.

Only a fundamentalist, be they a believer or non-believer, would take the position that one must take the whole thing as wrong or right. That's the position you have taken and you have taken it because it suits your argument.

And you are playing along.

[trotsky]

46. LMAO

cbayer, you can't even keep your attacks on a person consistent.

First, you criticize A_o_R for "cherry picking to suit your goals."

Just a few sentences later, you attack him/her for being a fundamentalist who says the bible must be taken as completely right or completely wrong.

No wonder you struggle to be taken seriously. lol

[Igel]

41. Or even better, humble.

Meek. Willing to serve God instead of fighting.

The inheritance was fairly straightforward. But Jesus wasn't an arbitrator, and turned the issue to one of relying on God and humility rather than being poor or winning.

The young man didn't want to give up his wealth. Jesus didn't say that being poor was a good thing. But that loving things rather than God was the problem. And it's possible even for a wealthy man to be saved--the disciples were concerned that if poverty was the criterion, salvation was far off. But with God all things are possible.

The widow wasn't a model because she further impoverished herself. But she sacrificed for a godly cause, rather than relying on her own money and being greedy. Rely on God, not on your own stuff. Again--humility, reliance on God. Not just "it's good to be destitute." That's a kind of Dark-Ages Catholic or Orthodox asceticism.

The poor are blessed. As Jesus said elsewhere, one of the lessons of the Tanach, was that as Israel prospered it came to rely on its own strength. Poverty for poverty's sake wasn't at issue: arrogance and independence from God was.

Part of being humble is also recognizing that love for God is superior only to love for one's brother. The "greatest" commandment and the commandment like it. Arrogance and love of stuff tends to go hand-in-hand with refusing to help others.

Jesus had no problem staying at the houses of those who weren't poor. He also had no problem being without shelter. It was presumably a matter of indifference to him, apart from any inconvenience and any hindrance to his preaching--because his message was what was most important. Not being a judge.

[liberal N proud]

26. You are thinking of the liberal Jesus

The republicans have their own Jesus, one they interpret with fire and brimstone, one that has no comoassion.

They interpret biblical stories differently than tradition.

[gopiscrap]

27. Jesus never stopped, just the fuckers who pretend to follow Jesus have stopped.

and I'm not talking about the progressive Church/Faith community, it's the fucking fundy assholes that I am referring to.

[Thinkingabout]

28. I question those who are against abortion but are for cutting food aid, shelter and clothing

to our young children. I don't think Jesus taught we should not provide for young children.

[madrchsod]

30. they are the money changers in the temple

and they are the ones who demanded his death.

[dimbear]

31. Turn to the Gospel of Thomas, the only other gospel which has a claim to be the first of them all:

14 Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits.

What is different here is that the Gospel of Thomas wasn't edited by the church at Rome. Its sayings have that primitive ring of things that a mystic teacher might really have said.

[TBF]

43. I like to recite bible verses to right-wingers

and their latest retort is that they love the poor and want to give willingly through their churches - not through government entities.

Other than trying to explain that it is a very inefficient way to find folks who need help I don't really have a good response.