It goes deeper than their "faith". These are the people who took away healthcare benefits from all Americans because they didn't personally want to fund birth control and women's health. It's reductive to say that the author looks negatively on the family because of their faith alone.
These are the people who took away healthcare benefits from all Americans because they didn't personally want to fund birth control and women's health.
This is not true though.. Most Americans have these benefits. Hobby Lobby just pushed for an extension of the existing Religious exemption to also apply closely held businesses. It affected a tiny portion of the population.
> According to a 2009 research paper from NYU Stern School of Business, these corporations account for 52 percent of private employment and 51 percent of private-sector output in the country. Those percentages might be outdated now but still give a sense of just how many workers are employed at closely held corporations. Fifty-two percent of today’s private sector employees comes out to approximately 60.4 million people, based on the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Of course it’s extremely unlikely that all of those companies are about to claim a religious exemption from providing coverage of contraception. Aaron Blake at the Washington Post points to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll that found that 85 percent of large employers offered contraception coverage prior to Obamacare requiring it.
Regardless, this is nitpicking, and the grandparent claim that it blocked contraception converage for all Americans is wrong.
The rights of millions of Americans were affected. Not a tiny portion of the population.
Also the grandparent comment correctly noted that all Americans lost rights in the ruling, which is accurate. Any American could get a job at a closely held company and not be extended contraceptive coverage.
It's nice that these corporations have the noblesse oblige to provide us the healthcare benefits that morally speaking should be ours by constitutional right.
It's not wise or historically accurate to consider these unrelated projects, or their goals unknowable. If you found it important to argue for it that way in 2017 I would call it naive, for doing it now I call you complicit.
> But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
There is no relevant contradiction. The entire New Testament is Jesus preaching love and forgiveness, Jesus practicing love and forgiveness - and not just to his followers - and explicit condemnation of wealth and instructing his followers to care for others.
Anyone who takes that message and instead lobbies to destroy healthcare and welfare and to push hate and attack anyone who doesn't agree with them - and anyone who votes for the party of politicians that has been practicing and preaching that for decades - is not a Christian regardless of how they spend their Sundays.
While I don’t want to look like I’m going to bat for the Hobby Lobby people, this seems like a very convenient way for you to argue that everyone ought to agree with your policy positions, even when those policy positions are not explicitly biblical. How do you reconcile the welfare state with Thessalonians 3:10, or Matthew 7:6? How do you address the restoration of Job? Was God mistaken in awarding Job with material wealth?
Jesus was unambiguous. "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these." (Mark 12:30–31)
Or, even more explicit, Matthew 25:31-46.
"Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’"
Jesus is explicitly advocating welfare - providing food, drink, clothes, healthcare, and more to anyone in need.
Jesus was also unambiguous on wealth. Christians, who follow the teachings of Christ, should give greater merit to his words than to anything in the old testament which came before.
For more, consider 1 John 4:20 "Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen."
> Jesus is explicitly advocating welfare - providing food, drink, clothes, healthcare, and more to anyone in need.
There is nothing in this verse which says that property is to be expropriated for the purposes of assuring others a particular standard of living, and I don’t think you’ll be able to find one.
> Jesus was also unambiguous on wealth. Christians, who follow the teachings of Christ, should give greater merit to his words than to anything in the old testament which came before.
You’ve ignored my question. If Jesus is God, and God rewarded Job with material wealth in this world, how can Jesus be said to offer an unambiguous criticism of wealth?
You're the one who cited it, it's up to you to demonstrate that it's relevant in this context.
>There is nothing in this verse which says that property is to be expropriated for the purposes of assuring others a particular standard of living, and I don’t think you’ll be able to find one.
The verse is literally instructing that anyone in need is to be helped. It does not specify the source of the help. Anyone professing to be a Christian should be in favor of those with plenty providing for those in need.
>You’ve ignored my question. If Jesus is God, and God rewarded Job with material wealth in this world, how can Jesus be said to offer an unambiguous criticism of wealth?
Ignoring the theological debate on if "Jesus is God", Jesus' statements and commandments came later and supersede anything which came before.
Oh, and since I missed (or you later added) the Thessalonians verse, how convenient of you to leave out its context:
> We did this, *not because we do not have the right to such help*, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate.
> Anyone professing to be a Christian should be in favor of those with plenty providing for those in need.
That isn't what you originally claimed and is not what I'm taking issue with. What you said was: "Anyone who takes that message and instead lobbies to destroy healthcare and welfare and to push hate and attack anyone who doesn't agree with them [...] is not a Christian regardless of how they spend their Sundays."
What you're saying is that anyone who does not support the welfare state as an apparatus is not a Christian, and I am contesting that, because there have been plenty of moral theories developed by Christians who opposed state welfare. Consider that the device you are using to post is likely worth more than the majority of the world's population earns in a year. Does it stand to reason that I could justifiably take it away from you and give it to someone who needed it more? What if we formed a committee you had no part in and voted on it being the right thing to do?
> Ignoring the theological debate on if "Jesus is God", Jesus' statements and commandments came later and supersede anything which came before.
Denying the divinity of Jesus undermines the entire belief system. It seems to me that you can't reconcile the treatment of Job with your reading of the New Testament, so you've decided to disregard the story entirely. There is some basis to this (e.g. the mixed fabrics issue you addressed in another comment), but it isn't as simple as saying "We can disregard everything prior to the New Testament."
> We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate.
Young translates that line as authority, not "right." In the KJV (which is the version I originally read), it is translated as "power." That is, because the author has come to minister to the church, he has the authority to ask for bread without having to work for it, but he does not, because he does not want to burden those around him: "8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:"
The passage continues after this line: "10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. [...] 12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread."
> There is nothing in this verse which says that property is to be expropriated for the purposes of assuring others a particular standard of living, and I don’t think you’ll be able to find one.
You're right; we have the free will to be as miserly as we choose. But if you want to be of Christ, you'll give your 5% or 10%, at least.
Our societies also have the free will to choose to tax the rich to help the poor. A govt run by actual Christians would not let the rich trample the poor and our shared environment, our human family's inheritance and future.
Yes, everyone is free to be a selfish asshole -- "there is not compulsion in religion" is God's command, too -- but our govt should reflect the generosity of spirit we are called to manifest.
If you don't like the taxes, find another place to ply your wares.
> You’ve ignored my question. If Jesus is God, and God rewarded Job with material wealth in this world, how can Jesus be said to offer an unambiguous criticism of wealth?
If one has acquired it by cheating or abusing others or selling harmful products or without paying one's fair tax rate, then those are ill-gotten gains are bad for the person who chose to live that way and bad for the society they are parasitizing.
So, yes, God's Messengers of love can have whatever beneficience our Lord bestows upon them, but it will not be ill-gotten and it will not be for the selfish pleasure and will never be wasted, for "God does not love the wasters".
Most of all, what is important to remember is that we cannot love both God and money, i.e. we cannot serve two masters. We must be generous with others out of love for them, and be grateful to God that we have been granted God's generosity to have better circumstances.
To love someone means wanting them to be happy. Any kind of "love" that does not result in effortful action -- i.e. actual service -- for the other person is nothing but empty words, and we must live the truth of God's teachings of love.
"Love thy neighbor as your own self." Not more, not less. We are given the choice in money matters and it is a sore trial for most human beings. But God's teachings of love are clear as day to those with eyes to see, ears to hear, and a heart that understands.
> but our govt should reflect the generosity of spirit we are called to manifest.
The whole notion of state welfare necessarily involves the forcible expropriation of property, resistance to which is punishable by death. If I took $20 out of your wallet and gave it to someone else who I thought needed it more, it would not be charity, it would be theft.
> i.e. we cannot serve two masters
This was never suggested. Wealth is a tool. Where it becomes fetishized as an end in and of itself, it becomes objectionable. You'll note that the device you're using to post in this thread is in all likelihood worth more than most people on earth earn in a year. Is your soul in danger because you own a laptop, or is there more nuance to this issue than you're suggesting?
If you don't want to live in that society, move somewhere else. That's your free choice, too, but I counsel against it. Are you directly choosing to help maintain roads, and hospitals, and everything else that helps society function? No, but your taxes are.
> Is your soul in danger because you own a laptop, or is there more nuance to this issue than you're suggesting?
Nuance is lost on you, my friend.
If you think that the poor should just be left to their own devices, then you're bound to learn a painful lesson or three in this life. Those with no compassion should be prepared to deal with those who have no compassion for them.
Mayhaps you won't realize this until you are left with no other options but enduring the pain of being under the power of people who have no concern for your well-being. I hope you have a kinder fate than that, but you shall reap what you sow, my friend, as we all do, in time.
I am explaining these things for your benefit, not mine. You should reach beyond your current perspective and realize that I am only here for your benefit.
Jesus does not condemn wealth. If that is what you are taking away from his interaction with the rich man, you would be wrong. Wealth itself is never condemned in the Bible (Old or New Testament). God often blessed his servants with wealth.
Jesus very explicitly condemns wealth, in a directly quoted passage that cannot be misunderstood. Jesus as quoted in Matthew 19:24 is very very blunt: "I'll say it again - it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of god!" I.e. wealthy people who don’t give it all away will go to hell.
> I.e. wealthy people who don’t give it all away will go to hell.
Did Job go to hell?
> And the LORD restored the fortunes of Job, when he had prayed for his friends; and the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before.
> [11] Then came to him all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before, and ate bread with him in his house; and they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him; and each of them gave him a piece of money and a ring of gold.
> [12] And the LORD blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning; and he had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she-asses.
The New Testament is unambiguous. Jesus expels the money lenders from the temple and says it is harder for a rich man to go to heaven than a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. Christians are, first, and foremost, followings of Christ and his teachings. That's the point of the entire name. Jesus's words have more weight than anything that came before.
The Old Testament is where fake Christians always go to pick and choose. If you believe the experiences of Job are relevant, do you also refuse to wear clothing made of multiple fabrics (Deuteronomy 22:9–11, Leviticus 19:19)?
> The Old Testament is where fake Christians always go to pick and choose.
If you’re denying both the historicity and allegory of the Book of Job the whole religion begins to fall apart. If the Book is of allegorical value, why would Job be rewarded with wealth?
> do you also refuse to wear clothing made of multiple fabrics (Deuteronomy 22:9–11, Leviticus 19:19)
To head off typical response to that passage - the idea that "the eye of a needle" was referencing a literal gate in Jerusalem (changing the meaning of the passage from "impossible" to "you might have to squeeze a little bit") is a post-hoc justification with no basis in reality.
Animals take advantage of others, human beings care for others by helping them and protecting them from harm.
May compassion rule our hearts for the benefit of one and all and the Earth, herself. We can choose to end suffering. As the "$6 Million Man" intro said in the 70s, "We have the technology."
The world has already learned how we MUST deal with people who act like Nazis, those who choose to emulate their brutal policies. The paradox of tolerance is also a part of Jesus's teachings for He "didn't come to bring peace, but a sword."
His Divine love must be fierce in the face of cruel depradations, but must never embrace hatred or rage or cruelty.
Tonight is the "Night of Power". Send some vibrations out asking our Creator to help you be a part of fixing this Earthwide deplorable mess. Make the Bhodisattva Vow. Ask our Creator to take Its spirit back into Itself to help cleanse and purify your soul of selfish vice, to help you become consumed by the Wisdom of Love (that's the meaning of the 1st Beatitude, called Hidayet in Sufism).
All that we emanate resonates back within ourselves. The spiritual path of love is the process of tuning our vibrations towards effortful loving service and away from selfishly callous ignorance of the suffering of others.
"Lasting peace and happiness for ALL human beings." --Me
> Animals do cooperate, a lot and frequently. Including predators like lions. There are solitary animals, but cooperation is not rare.
That is just pack behavior. Animals are nearly always at war among their own for territory, and will often attack other kinds animals that compete for their food sources, unless there is mutual benefit (e.g. deers and monkeys sharing alarm calls for tigers).
> Animals do help others and try to protect them from harm.
Not their competitors, friend.
I've seen all of Sir David Attenboroughs' nature serieses multiple times, save the Antarctica one, including the "Trials of Life" where the decades-ago TV commercial here in America had the line, "the relentless pursuit to continue the bloodline".
I know what happens when a bear comes upon a wolfpack's kill. Ain't no sharing there, friend.
Lions clawing the balls off a young wandering, trespassing male is the baseline root of animal nature. Any student of history knows this lionine behavior is closer to the driving impetus for human nature than pursuits of selflessly loving peace.
"They are like the animals, only worse." That is our negative potential, each and every one of us. Only we have a mind to learn how to contemplate our potential self-evolution and our current amount of progress. And we are free to instead use our minds to just pursue worldly pleasures at the expense of anyone else's happiness. All potentials are available to us, though we cannot escape the price of karma we must each pay, and do, for better or worse, always accurately reaping what we have sown. Not a jot unaccounted for.
God's teachings of love are here to help us self-evolve ourselves out of our selfishly animalistic negative potentials towards a peaceful, harmonious universally-compassionate integrated society of equals of different paths and cultures, sans abuse or oppression of any kind.
One great example is how Guru Nanak (Sikh founding Guru) set his table where everyone sat together, not stratified by caste. That is the Way of human love, born of God's love for us.
> Animals are nearly always at war among their own for territory,
This is not true. Quite a lot of animals are neither territorial nor at war constantly.
> will often attack other kinds animals that compete for their food sources
You should know that non aggressive animals exist. They are not some kind of exception at all. That being said, people have literal wars over important resources. They are no strangers of systematically abusing half the population or more ... or even enslaving them. There are people who believe empathy is weakness and they won election, because huge amounts of electorate agrees.
> , unless there is mutual benefit (e.g. deers and monkeys sharing alarm calls for tigers).
Nice example of cooperation. It is no different then humans cooperating with each other.
> Not their competitors, friend.
What kind of new standard you are putting on in there? How do you define competitor and is it really that different then social behavior of people? Like right now, you see half of America cheering on harm done to other Americans. You see them attacking other countries and people over percieved competition ... that completely their own construction.
> What kind of new standard you are putting on in there?
We act like animals -- mammals, specifically -- when we do not seek to become more humane, a better humanitarian.
> half of America cheering on harm done to other Americans
"They are like the animals, only worse."
We are the only creatures that can consciously self-evolve ourselves toward complete compassion. That doesn't mean that 90% of us care enough about others to do it, as they obviously don't.
That is the reason this world is in the mess it's in. We could choose to compassionately care for our fellow human beings, but most people are too self-absorbed and too self-righteous to take the necessary steps.
As to what you say about animals, you're just plain wrong, but you're obviously committed to your worldview, so I wish you good luck with that.
As per what they call themselves, but to be of Christ is to follow his teachings of love. This is what they are, as per Matthew 25:40-45:
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “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. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
A person whom Christ calls out as "you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" cannot be called in good faith (hardy har) a true Christian, like a true Scotsman must at least be from Scotland.
The callous fools cheering for 500k deportations of people back to war-torn lands full of strife are no Christians, my friend, no matter what they say.
"You have no idea how little we care about what people say." --Rumi
Hypocrisy is one of the 19 vices of the soul, all of which act in opposition to love, the Great(est) Command(ment).
This is the framework that encompasses all of God's commands, thus all proper behavior, for the benefit of one and all:
Always love. Teach to always love.
Never hate. Teach to never hate.
We believe that Christ lived for our virtues. He didn't come here to die, but to teach us how to live.
"The greatest among you shall be the servant of all." --Christ
JDV is learning one of the fool's saddest mistakes that power is no substitute for happiness. Maybe he'll get his head out of his arse and turn himself towards God and away from that orange devil, that Harkonnen beast, but his chances grow slimmer by the day, by the act.
That article (which I read in full, ty) almost comes close to the mark, but misses the point entirely. It's just more noise. Read my comment history for the pure signal, my friend.
"There's God's side and the other side." --Katt Williams
Forms of religion are not important compared to effortful compassion that seeks to help others suffer less and enjoy more happiness.
God always looks into our heart, for the soul's heart is where our moral compass resides. That is what we must nurture, evolve, and -- above all -- question on the spiritual path. We must find our vices and transmute them into their corresponding virtues, all 19 of them.
We are all one human race, with one Creator, and one ability to manifest loving compassion, if we are adamant in our desire to become better citizens of this blessed Earth.
Rememember that that serviceful compassion is required for every human infant to survive and thrive. It is also required for successful societies and cultures of any and all sizes. That such boundaryless compassion is sorely lacking is the source of ALL this world's problems.
We will do well to focus on the commonalities of our positive potential, over our obvious differences. We are commanded to not break into separate groups, as the mammals -- our physical body's template -- do.
Most religious thinking revolves around their false belief that they are the only "chosen" path or people. That is the single biggest "tell" that they are on the destructive, selfish path of prideful ignorance, which also tends towards callous cruelty towards whichever out-groups they define.
Always love. Even one's enemies. Even as their power to harm others is stripped from them. Hope that their defeat helps them realize their grave mistakes and helps them turn towards the light. But know that our love for the oppressed must be of a different nature than that which we reserve for the oppressors. Such is the nature of the responsibility we have for this loving grace.
