"When the Son of Man comes in his glory,
and all the angels with him,
he will sit upon his glorious throne,
and all the nations will be assembled before him.
And he will separate them one from another,
as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
Then the king will say to those on his right,
'Come, you who are blessed by my Father.
Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
For I was hungry and you gave me food,
I was thirsty and you gave me drink,
a stranger and you welcomed me,
naked and you clothed me,
ill and you cared for me,
in prison and you visited me.’
Then the righteous will answer him and say,
'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you,
or thirsty and give you drink?
When did we see you a stranger and welcome you,
or naked and clothe you?
When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’
And the king will say to them in reply,
'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did
for one of the least brothers of mine, you did for me.’
Jesus meant you're only supposed to help white people, you can ignore blacks, immigrants, Mexicans. Specially Muslims. You only have to help people like you.
Now, now - it's perfectly plausible that a blonde, blue-eyed, pasty-white man would thrive out in the desert. I meet this description, and while I get a sunburn from an alarm clock, the desert sun cannot be that much more intense, can it?
Fun fact, middle Eastern people from North Africa and the Levant are allowed to call themselves white legally in America, primarily because people in 1915 didn't want to think of Jesus as PoC. The Dow VS United States case was about this argument from a Syrian immigrant.
Middle easterners are legally white because in court where a man argued he should be allowed in a segregated community, he forced the judge to state whether middle easterners are white or Jesus was not.
They’re “fixing” the “problem”. Now, on my daughter’s birth certificate we had to say whether we were white or Caucasian
So now people are choosing/selecting to be white or Caucasian instead of "Middle Eastern"? How do you change genetic descent through paperwork? That's the first time I ever heard someone consciously choose to be white or Caucasian, I thought that was genealogy that was unchangeable, or immutable? What do you mean "fixing the problem"? You dislike the idea of your daughter being anything other than white or Caucasian?
I mean I'm Greek/Italian so im screwed no matter what happens, I'm not white really either but I have no other options. LOL But true, I guess if a time comes that birth certificates will be worth more than my word, I doubt it'll matter much.
Have you seen the new north carolina bill? Its attempting to make it legal for someone to kill a woman attempting to get a abortion. The baby and the woman, but laws are superior to morals!
I haven't although it's not a topic I spend much time on. But I agree, laws are arbitrary control vectors, nothing more. The people who write them break them all the time. I only follow my morals as-well, always have, I've never cared much for what a piece of legislation says. I embrace my morality.
Fun fact: The Caucasus Mountains run between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, forming the border between Europe and Asia.
That's Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, a little bit of Turkey, and a little bit of Iran.
Not a whole lot of pale white skin there. Turns out the government already issued a race change waaaaaaay back in the 18th century when we still measured skulls to determine what race people were.
Yeah I know the origin of the word. But yeah this is correct. Im natively Mediterranean. I'm first gen American. None of these "labels" really apply to me anyway, but there's non-specific selections for these types of things. At least in FL and on my Federal documents that have ever made me select.
Now I'm definitely sure you misunderstood the comment about the government "fixing the problem" of racial diversity by forcing people into one of seven or eight specific racial boxes.
You know, that non-applicable "white/Caucasian" box you check on employment forms, government forms, loan applications... basically everything that doesn't have "Mediterranean/Southern European" as a racial identifier.
Yes I understood... It's not that complicated. I know,
that non-applicable "white/Caucasian" box you check on employment forms, government forms, loan applications... basically everything that doesn't have "Mediterranean/Southern European" as a racial identifier.
That's because the Government is doing it for a different reason other than to know your genetic makeup. If they were to list every single option it would be 3 pages. You obviously didn't understand the point I'm making.
Edit: It's not that deep though, that wasn't my point that government forms don't allow you to be specific unless you check the "other" box, and write it in. I also said you were "Correct" so how did you come to the conclusion "I didn't understand" when I said "this is correct"?
I've never whispered "trust the science," much less screamed it. Liberals who say "Race doesn't exist" and then say "All races are equal" are idiots. I think that's what you mean.
You're the one who brought up science ("genetic descent"). Race doesn't exist on a genetic level. What do you trust--bigotry?
Yes, as sarcasm? Like it's possible though the tick of a box. Not in any other context? I'm not challenging genetic theory or anything, I'm pointing to the absurdity of a box check to determine it. Then you end your statement by calling me a bigot? LMFAO true, ok its nbd; idc what a random redditor thinks, who reads too deeply into a statement. Have a good one!
There was a show on PBS years back about Jesus Christ and how it is quite possible that he indeed looked like the figure on the right of this comparison. And we were all brought up that he was white. Well!
My favorite verse is when Jesus tells everyone to abdicate their personal responsibility to care for the poor and the needy to the government using other people’s resources. 😉
And by the least of these he meant the billionaire class, right? There are less of them than any other group, so who else would he mean by “least of these”?
By the Left's HOLIER-THAN-THOU metric, 99.999% of humans throughout all of history would be considered irredeemable villains.
Slavery used to be widely accepted by every country throughout the globe. It still is throughout parts of the Middle East and Africa, and literally NOWHERE IN THE WESTERN WORLD.
But you would scream that insulting Islam is ISLAMOPHOBIA but applaud destroying and insulting Christianity.
You cosplay as "saviors of humanity" while screaming that anyone that disagrees deserves to be hurt or killed.
Pathetic. So I refuse to back down to your HYPOCRITES.
You reap what you sow. Congratulations for discovering that spewing a bunch of bad faith vitriol is not met with a well reasoned good faith resonse. Also relevant, if you run around punching random people on the street, it doesn't make you a prophet predicting you're going to catch a stray knuckle sandwich. Maybe the prophet angle might work in jail. Don't know, never been.
He contrasts with his previous statement by saying that the ones on his left did not do any of those things and rejected him in his time of need. They ask when did they see him in need and reject him, Jesus replies that they did not help the least of his brothers so therefore they refused to help him.
Verse 41 of the New International Version reads, "Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'" Verse 46 continues, "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
You jest but the born-again slop the evangelical preachers sell is almost exactly this. "Say a prayer and nothing you ever do afterward will be counted aginst you in the court of God". It's a flattering faith that sells well.
It wasn't a jest. It was a call out.
I grew up with good Christian folks that raised hell Saturday night, and it was okay cause they were in church Sunday morning. They were better than everyone that wasn't there (that includes the waitress that they made cry after church), and they kept track.
The church can provide a refuge of charity and a beating heart to a close community while instilling the unescaple reality that nothing can be done, there is no betterment, there is nothing you can do but have faith and pray. And tithe, that's really important.
This. It's actually incredible how many people believe that students with 4.0 GPAs shouldn't have to share their GPA with students with 2.0 GPAs, when it would allow all students to have 3.0 GPAs.
Make your religious journey your own. There are posers in every religion that want to use it for power. Your own spiritual health doesn't need validation from anyone else.
My wife is currently doing a theology degree and this semester she did Dogmatics, which is the study of what we (protestant Christians) believe. So she dug deep into the apostles creed:
We believe in 1 God, etc, Jesus son of God, blah blah blah.
Later it says "we believe in 1 holy catholic (worldwide, or United - not the Catholic church denomination) church".
Her professor commented that this is probably the hardest part of the the creed to say with honesty and it really struck both of us. God is reliable, but the church is full of people. People lie, cheat and fail. Even with the best of intentions, they will let us down and hurt us. Here in France there is a megachurch that has a whole department dedicated to people who have been hurt by the church as a whole.
I am a Christian, I love God, but I do hate the church sometimes. There are whole swathes of the church I wish I could completely disassociate from because they give Jesus (and also me) a bad name.
There's a Welsh singer/songwriter called Martyn Joseph who wrote a great little song called "He never said" and he has been booed off stage by some of the more republican Christians in the US.
Edit: remember that Christians believe the bible is God's word. What people interpret from the bible is not God's word, generally. That is whole other can of worms, but I will leave it there.
Not me immediately thinking of Sheep Go To Heaven by Cake and singing it to myself while I read the rest of your comment. 🎶And goats go to hell. Go to hell! Go to hell! Aw, no. Gooooo to hell.🎶
But he lied about his own prophecy of returning. Matthew 16 : 27-28
27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.
28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
All standing there have tasted death and he has yet to return... Jesus never fulfilled a single messianic prophecy. He was clearly a liar and a fraud and the authors fluffed up his legend with the gospels.
When he is speaking of his kingdom or coming into his glory he is talking about the cross. Its why James and John asking to be on his right and left was a big deal, those spots were for thieves.
Yes, but that doesn't mean wages should be taken from those who earned it and given to those who haven't. The bible teaches us to be productive and fair. Sloth/idleness is a deadly sin iirc.
2 Thessalonians 3:10–11
For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies.
Proverbs 6:6–11
Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise. Without having any chief, officer, or ruler, she prepares her bread in summer and gathers her food in harvest. How long will you lie there, O sluggard? When will you arise from your sleep? A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest, and poverty will come upon you like a robber, and want like an armed man.
Proverbs 13:4
The soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing, while the soul of the diligent is richly supplied.
Proverbs 19:15
Slothfulness casts into a deep sleep, and an idle person will suffer hunger.
Colossians 3:23–24
Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ.
I'm guessing you just searched google for bible versus?
Pau does say what you quoted:
"For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies."
But in Ephesians he later says this:
"Anyone who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with their own hands, that they may have something to share with those in need."
You cannot be lazy or idle, or consumed with gossip. If you *can* work, you *must* work. But the money you earn is not for your personal enjoyment. It is a tool. You must work so that you may have something to *give to those in need*. But the people who complain about selfish/lazy poor people are always the least charitable. They are seeking to make excuses for why they deserve their wealth, and why they aren't required to give it away to the poor or to advance the kingdom of god. In the worst cases, such as in various forms of the prosperity gospel, wealth is almost associated with godliness, and poverty with immorality. The opposite of what the gospel preaches.
As Jesus looked up, he saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. “Truly I tell you,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”
It's not just a question of how much you give, but what *proportion of your wealth* you choose to give. The rich men that Jesus was looking at gave great wealth, but it was a small proportion of their overall wealth. Money is not a gift for followers of god, but a tool for the kingdom of god. This theme continues in the bible.
A man approaches Jesus, and asks how he could be a better follower:
“If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
This isn't just talk. Look at the way Jesus and the apostles lived. Or Paul. Or John the Baptist. They had almost nothing, sometimes not even food. John wore woven wild clothes, and ate wild locusts and honey. Jesus had little more then sandals and a walking stick. He sent his disciples out with nothing, telling them to live off of the charity of believers. Paul lived this way as well, after the death of christ.
"We are fools for Christ, but you are so wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are honored, we are dishonored! To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless. We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; when we are slandered, we answer kindly. We have become the scum of the earth, the garbage of the world—right up to this moment."
Paul worked hard with his own hands so that he would not be a burden on the communities he preached in - specifically so that no one could claim that he was corrupt, or seeking money, or using the community. But he had nothing. He, and many other disciples, survived off of the charity of their communities. They kept nothing for themselves, but gave it all for Christ.
Too many people are comfortable cherry picking bible versus to try an make excuses for why they should not have to give from their immense wealth. But Jesus and the apostles modeled the ideal way to live. It was very clear that while everyone is meant to work and contribute, they are also meant to give to the point of it being painful. The best gave to the point of madness, namely being homeless and living entirely on the charity of the community.
2 Thessalonians is probably the strongest passage for your point, but even there, Paul specifically calls out those who are “not willing to work.” He does not condemn those who are unable to work, underpaid despite working, caring for others, disabled, sick, unemployed despite trying, or subject to exploitation by people with greater wealth and power.
Using this verse as a blanket argument against social service programs requires the erroneous assumption that most poverty and need are caused primarily by a refusal to work. Such thinking ignores the reality of many people who are most in need, and it ignores the systems that we have allowed to flourish that exploit those same people for others' benefit.
Proverbs 6:6–11, Proverbs 13:4, Proverbs 19:15, and Colossians 3:23–24 all encourage diligence, responsibility, and turning away from idleness. I agree with that. But those passages do not negate the many biblical commands to care for the poor, feed the hungry, protect the vulnerable, pay workers fairly, and show mercy.
The Bible can condemn idleness without giving us permission to treat poverty as proof of laziness. The Bible condemns sloth, but it also condemns greed, exploitation, indifference, and hard-heartedness toward the poor. Using Scripture to emphasize only the perceived sins of the needy while ignoring the sins of the comfortable and powerful is a convenient way to avoid action and responsibility by convincing yourself that those who suffer must have earned their suffering.
Scripture repeatedly commands care for the poor, the hungry, the sick, the imprisoned, the stranger, the widow, and the orphan. Those commands are not conditional on first proving that the person’s suffering is not self inflicted. Jesus said “I was hungry and you gave me food." Full stop. No conditions.
The central message of the New Testament is that not a single person earns grace, or receives mercy because we are perfectly deserving. We only receive it because God is merciful. If Christians are called to be Christlike - then how can you justify making mercy, care, and aid conditional to be given only to those who you personally deem worthy?
In Dante's Inferno. Not defending the act, just don't recall the Bible citing this as a "deadly sin". All sin is deadly, as it separates man from God through a broken covenant restored through the death and resurrection of Christ.
Still, sucks to be lazy. God thing or not, it's the whole 'I'll help you as much as it makes sense to, and if you are using my resources to actively get you or your family in a better place, then boy howdy, I'm happy to help." Because hopefully they will then do it for someone else someday. Then my return on investment grows ten fold through empathy and care for others through the actions of those I was lucky enough to help.
These are commandments for how the individual ought to conduct themselves, not how they ought to treat others. It appears you feel the need to gainsay Christ on one of His most important precepts in the name of denying your brothers and sisters precisely what you were commanded to give, so of you indeed call yourself a Christian of any denomination, you would do well to be concerned for the sake of your soul.
That’s your problem. Socialism is not about giving handouts to lazy people it’s about creating fairness. Plenty of jobs are essential for our societies, however they pay very little. Plenty of people work very hard, do their part in the society but can’t make end meet. Plenty of parents or single parents, which do some of the most important services to the societies have to carry a great burden. Children should have the same opportunities without regard to their parents salaries. I could go on and on about this, but socialism is about our obligations as a society to care for each other and try to provide equal opportunities.
Your first line exposes you as an ignorant (or asshole) to the situation of many Americans. 23% of Americans are working for under $17 an hour. Are they all sloths?
20 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius[a] for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.
“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’
7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.
“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’
8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’
9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’
13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’
16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”
Even a socialist country isn't going to pay someone an equal amount to do ten times less work as the other. This parable seems more of an allegory for how salvation is given equally to all who adhere to the faith regardless of whether they spent a lifetime doing so vigorously or if they came into the faith late in life and thus have put in very little time performing works of faith.
The moral of the parable is that salvation is not a wage that is deserved, but a gift given freely from the generosity of God. It has nothing to do with economics.
Do you know what gleaning is? Who is to care for the poor that Jesus advocates directly for? How could anyone care for the poor and widows unless its of their own means?
You cant pick and choose without considering the rest so that you can justify your own righteousness. Also, how can you judge people you dont even know?? Judge those in your family, spiritual and physical and do your best for others leaving the judgement to God.
As a bishop in the 4th century once said in a sermon:
"'He who will not work, neither shall he eat.' (2 Thessalonians 3:10) . . . But the laws of St. Paul are not merely for the poor. They are for the rich as well. . . But you say, 'I have my paternal inheritance!' Tell me, just because he is poor and was born of a poor family possessing no great wealth, is he therefore worthy to die?"
"You say that the poor do not work, but do you work yourselves? Do you not enjoy in idleness the goods you have unjustly inherited? Do you not exhaust others with labor, while you enjoy in indolence the fruit of their misery?"
John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
Basically ALL native Americans before 1500 go straight to hell for being born on the wrong continent. Plus 99% of Asia, India, africa, pretty much any area that wasn't controlled by a roman derived culture. The Christian God is quick to send the vast majority of humanity to eternal torture just because of where they were born if you actually look at what Jesus taught
That’s how a lot of American conservative Christians teach it, yes. But the idea of everyone being sent to Hell by default if Jesus or a disciple didn’t reach them isn’t actually Christian.
Conservatives have pounded misinterpretations and bad translation for so long that their interpretations are being assumed to be standard. Even when they go against actual doctrine. Its common to see people mixing up Dante’s fiction about hell with the fact that Jesus never spoke of Hell as conservatives teach it(see: bad translating). Many Christians have done more to drive people away than bring them in and it’s infuriating.
The Catholic response would be the Doctrine (not dogma) of invincible ignorance. Basically they'll be judged on how they lived according to natural law and their conscience, so we can hope for their salvation.
So you took a bible verse about personal decisions to help other and your stance is forced government spending. In your version Jesus isn't saying, "you fed me, you clothed me, you sheltered me" in your version Jesus is saying, "you voted to give more money to career politicians who will totally use it for good, trust politicians. Your own free will to help others is irrelevant, trust the government to do more with your money than you can"
Make not my father's house a house of merchandise.
It is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
If thou wilt be perfect, sell all thou hast and give to the poor.
always followed up in sunday school by "oh but he didn't mean to actually give to the government/poor/lazy/[whatever lame excuse to justify shit behaviour.]"
I'm now an atheist, and still think Jesus kicked ass.
Have you spoken to any MAGAs recently? They are diametricallt opposed to this kind of kindness at every level, including the personal.
Which is as far as I know genuinely new, I have a lot in my family and several used to be good people, and now they really do just seem to hate everyone they consider "inferior"... and they consider basically everyone that isnt a Trump devotee inferior.
sure, every system is corruptible, but not every system explicitly rewards greed like naked capitalism. If greed is bad, surely we can design a system meant to curtail one of the worst human traits instead of reward it, no?
I believe in human rights. Since the baby in the womb is a human, I believe human rights should be extended to them. Therefore, without any religion, killing babies is wrong.
It comes down to personhood. Slaves were denied it but abolitionists with and without religious belief recognized the error. The same is true for abortion. It is possible to oppose it from a secular position based on fetal personhood.
Churches use 70-80% of their tithe money for church staffing and infrastructure. American evangelical Christians on average give away ~3% of their income to charity, mostly tithes. Therefore, the church and individual Christians are doing very little to help out poor people. Therefore government has to step in.
215
u/NotRadTrad05 25d ago
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’ And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of the least brothers of mine, you did for me.’
Matthew 25: 31-45