In the article he says the following (quoting from the Gospel of Luke) "For me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus's teaching that for unto whom much is given, much shall be required". From the surface, it seems like Jesus would be be saying that if you own much, you should give much, hence he would be in support of Obama's tax-the-rich policy.
But the catch is Jesus is teaching to individuals, and it's the individual that must choose for themselves, being accountable to God for their choices. If government then enforces the Christian principle, then the individual cannot be accountable to God, but to man, which is wrong.
I do want to let you know that I was livid at how much President Obama didn't understand free agency or free will, that I posted a response on Facebook to show my displeasure. I received a wealth of commentary that followed, all of which were very spot-on with how the Gospel is an individual choice out of love God, and how the government should really be protecting the rights of the individual to choose, instead of taking away, like the Adversary would like.
Here's is the edited dialogue from Facebook.
Vladimir's status: "For me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus's teaching that for unto whom much is given, much shall be required," Obama said, quoting the Gospel of Luke.
But what Obama neglects to understand, is that following Jesus's teachings is an "individual" choice, and when government chooses for you, you lose your ability to choose for yourself.
But what Obama neglects to understand, is that following Jesus's teachings is an "individual" choice, and when government chooses for you, you lose your ability to choose for yourself.
Comments:
Rebecca - I didnt know he was a Christian, obviously he doesnt get that it is God who gives and requires, or he like the emperors if Rome who thought if themselves as gods ...
Steve - Bam! Vlad, you nailed it. I hadn't heard about that quote, thanks for sharing. Evoking scripture to justify actions of the state against individuals. I thought only imperialistic right-wingers did stuff like that.
Allan - If tax policy is to be governed by such principles, we should look to the ancient Church. Perhaps what Obama really wants to do is institute something like the United Order. How does that coincide with you Communist Conspiracy Theory?
Vladimir - Oh, Allan. Always creating a ruccous, but you do provide a very important point to ponder.
And to provide some background here, Allan is LDS. We served in the same mission, and now he is an accomplished attorney. His role on facebook is to play devil's advocate to ensure that we are solid in our position.
The United Order was an attempt for society to live the Law of Consecration, which on surface looks like Communism. But the difference is, the Law of Consecration is a commandment given by God, in which the individual still has a choice to live it.
Communism is a law given by man, and is enforced, where the individual has no choice (and even punished if not followed).
As one of my friends shared with me, "One is the essence of us CHOOSING to turn our will, and give everything we have over to God. The other is men forcefully TAKING all we have with or without our consent."
Allan - Truly, though, it seems to me that using secular authority to implement ecclesiastical principles is anathema to the most basic power given of God to Man, agency. GIVING of our substance is an eternal principle of love of God and of man. The TAKING of our substance, however, is an eternal principle of the Adversary, who wishes also to take that most basic power. To depart from principle and look to application, here is a brief but powerful statement of our (potential) leaders' adherence to Christian principles in terms of charitable contributions:
ROMNEY 16% of total income
NEWT 2.9% of total income
OBAMA 1.0% of total income
BIDEN 369 dollars of income
I'm thankful for my friends that understand the difference between Choosing God, and Government Taking.
No comments:
Post a Comment