Religious Discussion!!!

Saw this on CNN recently http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/23/was-jesus-a-communist-or-a-capitalist/?iref=allsearch

So, was Jesus more of a capitalist or a communist?

It's too bad only the edited version is available. I'm shocked that CNN would post this. How they decided to name it "Was Jesus a communist or a capitalist?" is beyond me. It has absolutely nothing to do with either ideology.

It hits the nail on the head and it probably is the "silver buckshot" this country needs to kill this beast. They didn't get it exact though, it is to love your neighbor as yourself. Now I've thought this one through in the past and I've determined what it means for me.

Example:

Paul: a guy we all grew up with that is irresponsible, doesn't hold a job and generally uses others around him to get by in life.

This means that when Paul wants a ride to the store for beer my attitude needs to be the same as if it were me, myself, wanting to go... AND THAT'S NOT EASY!

There is absolutly nothing wrong with charity. But maybe you have heard the saying that you CANT help somebody who will not HELP themselves. That is the problem we have today with charity. Not everybody deserves charity. Charity is just a temporary fix, not a solution. Each individual person is responsible for the SOLUTION to their problems or issues.

Otherwise you get people who begin to depend on charity. They will say 'I have a 'right' to a home, YOU provide it for me. I have a 'right' to a good education, YOU provide it for me. I have a 'right' to helth care, YOU provide it for me. I have a 'right' to a good paying job, YOU provide it for me.... etc.... This is where we are at in regards to charity. They do have a 'right' to those things, they have the 'right' to provide it for themselves.

In your example about 'Paul' who uses ppl around him to get by in life, is it really a loving thing to give him a ride to the store? Or are you becoming an 'enabler' to his habits?

NO NO NO nOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

I agree with SG that the name of the piece is completely wrong. But i guess they want readership.

Jesus meets a man by the pool who is an invalid and has had his friends carry him there daily to be healed. Jesus comes to the pool and heals the man, but then he says, "pick up your mat and go" (paraphrase). To me that's indicative that people need the healing hand of charity etc. but then they need to help themselves. I work with an organization that has as it's Iron Rule, "never do for others what they can do for themselves". As we interpret that, it means that we should help provide the means for a person to advocate and help themselves. This is most often through organizing with others to bring about change.

But we often are more willing to give a check or a hot lunch or some old clothes, but if the person says, will you help me change the system that keeps me oppressed, we pull back. It's better to keep them in servitude. Keep the homeless mentally ill person or the mentally damaged vet living on the street rather than helping fund a clinic or a safe place to live and rehabillitate.

Another consideration is that healing, if it comes, may take a long time. Most of us have known persons addicted to drugs or alcohol. An addict may want more than anything to be free of the addiction and may try several times to become sober, but fail. It may take numerous times to finally stay in remission. We know now that addictions such as these are chemical and neurological and not just bad behavior. In the meantime we may have to show "tough love" before they finally clean themselves up.

The same goes for persons who drop out of school and after years of failing at life, finally wake up one day and decide that they want to make something of themselves. Can we be generous enough to give persons a second or third chance. That's a hard question to answer but one that society/we are called on to address.

I saw nothing in the discussion by Greer and Claiborne that I would not agree with in principal. It was a good dialogue. There should be more like it.

"Paul" would not get a ride to the store to buy beer. If I am to treat him as myself, I would not drive myself to the store to buy beer because I do not buy alcohol any longer.

If there is a qualified applicant who has done everything right the first time, is it doing him justice to hire the less qualified applicant that screwed up and is looking for a second chance? That is a more difficult question or an easier one, depending on your perspective.

As far as my opinion, I have absolutely no problem with charity... so long as it is always voluntary. EDIT: The only difference between a capitalist or a socialist viewpoint is whether this charity is voluntary.

I'm not interest in a religious discussion.

but...

I'd like some free beer or for a nominal GC charge a six of Bud.

give him cake

Yellow Cake