As far as I know, Jesus never spoke as the voice of government. That could be debated though as 2000 years ago religions were the government. Sure we have the impression he advocated generosity and kindness. That's something we should all strive for on an individual level. But there is no justification for excessive socialism thievery (via taxation).
This is one where I have to say I draw a grey line. I like the idea of a socially responsible government, but only in the context of a *small* and fair government.
I have always been a very outspoken proponent of our Constitution from the time I was able to understand its founding and its impact on not just a national but global scale. While there are flaws inherent in every structure or document created by the human race, this one period of history is a watershed moment in the history of humankind. With that out of the way, I would like to relay a conversation, albeit paraphrased version, I had with my wife yesterday.
For those that have any knowledge of our family's recent history with our youngest son's battle with ALL (acute lymphoblastic leukemia), and his subsequent healing, this conversation was in no way a nuanced discussion. I am very passionate or animated or...(insert preferred euphemism) about Constitutionally responsible government, as laid out in the U.S. Constitution. I do not spend any time on social media sites (X, Facebook, Instagram, et al), although I do post on a few news bulletin boards and Substack pages occasionally. My wife, Lori, had mentioned to me about a post from a mom of a child lost to childhood cancer and another subsequent by a 2nd mom, both from our hometown, concerning Trump using a child during the State of the Union Speech and childhood cancer funding being cut from a recent omnibus bill. At which point I explicitly let my wife know that my coming explosion was not directed at her but at the 300+ million morons that inhabit this nation that have no knowledge of the Constitutional parameters placed upon our federal bureaucracy. it is not mere ignorance, but a blatant disregard of the guiderails placed upon government as a specifically limited entity that has far outgrown anything allowed or envisioned by the framers. Funding cancer research is in no way a responsibility prescribed as an authority given to any federal agency. Advocating for an ever-expanding federal bureaucracy is contra-constitutional as our 10th Amendment clearly states that ALL powers not explicitly delegated to the United States nor prohibited by the states are reserved explicitly for the states and/or the people. This means that if you want cancer research, that is a function best served at the state, local, and private level. If we were to scale our federal bureaucracy back to Constitutional limits, I would surmise that we could cut some 75%-90% of ALL federal agencies, their employees, and the taxes that "We the People" pay to keep these bureaucratic machines functioning, and send that rightful authority back to the states and their respective citizens, where all of these concerns could and would be handled with a more responsible civilian oversight than is allowed at the moment. Promoting federal research funding and federal oversight for childhood cancer is tantamount to arguing for continued and additional intrusion in the private lives and liberty of ordinary citizens and goes against anything and everything outlined in our Constitution. While I understand the need for funding needed for childhood cancer (the current rate is roughly only 5% of all funding goes to childhood cancer research/95% adult cancer research), the answer does not lie an ever-expanding bureaucratic nightmare. It lies in the hands of the states and their respective citizens to prioritize these concerns and act accordingly. The federal government is not efficient in anything except waste. And I am tired of self-proclaimed Republicans, Conservatives, Constitutionalists, Christians, etc advocating for the federal government to do anything. Rather, get out of our way and let us get to work at restoring the greatness that is the United States of America.
This makes me think of Luke 14:26 somewhat by association , when Jesus stated “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple".
So (in my interpretation), in order to be a disciple, we must be willing to give up everything for Jesus. We don’t know what that looks like . It’s a surrendering . We don’t have the right to make “rules” about how to run society, who to give what to. In following Christ, we cannot follow our own rules and inclinations. We cannot follow Him and the world’s way at the same time. God’s will is a mystery. We must unite with Him internally. In that way our focus is on Him, not on the world. Am I making sense? Thank you for all your insight and work.
I “get it”! I have been busy and strangely lethargic.
I also stopped taking the Cimzia biological for the psoriatic arthritis. I don't believe that it ever helped.
This came after I was no longer eligible for “extra help” with prescription costs because I was making money on a part-time basis!!!! LOLOLOL!!!!! I only pay 1/5 of my income to health insurance. LOL!!!!!
Thank you -- this is the best refutation of the "Jesus was a socialist" assertion that I've seen yet.
Acts 4:34-35 are verses libs quote when they try to convince people that Jesus was a socialist: "Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses
sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need."
Also Acts 2:44-47: 44) "Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45) and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. 46) So
continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47) praising God and having favor with
all the people."
As you point out, all of these activities were completely voluntary.
If you want to take that a step further, look what happened with Ananias and Sapphira in that same passage. They sold land and gave only some of the money, but they said they gave all the money. Were they reproved for only giving some of the money? No - they were reproved for lying about it, because it was theirs to do with as they pleased: “But Peter said, ‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.’” - Acts 5:3-4
I recall a time in my general reading of The Bible when Jesus arrived at the church and shamed the church for taking riches for themselves and only giving portions to those that need it. This is exactly what government now is doing. Those that do need social security either get denied or get very little, those that need it because they’re too lazy get everything and some. And of course the government is set to dip to the forced deduction pool as they so desire and dictate who can and can’t get the funds.
As far as I know, Jesus never spoke as the voice of government. That could be debated though as 2000 years ago religions were the government. Sure we have the impression he advocated generosity and kindness. That's something we should all strive for on an individual level. But there is no justification for excessive socialism thievery (via taxation).
This is one where I have to say I draw a grey line. I like the idea of a socially responsible government, but only in the context of a *small* and fair government.
“Give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, give to God that which is God’s.”
So Jesus was pro-government?
IDK but I think Jesus was pro-God.
That's probably a safe assumption. 😇
Rant warning!!!
I have always been a very outspoken proponent of our Constitution from the time I was able to understand its founding and its impact on not just a national but global scale. While there are flaws inherent in every structure or document created by the human race, this one period of history is a watershed moment in the history of humankind. With that out of the way, I would like to relay a conversation, albeit paraphrased version, I had with my wife yesterday.
For those that have any knowledge of our family's recent history with our youngest son's battle with ALL (acute lymphoblastic leukemia), and his subsequent healing, this conversation was in no way a nuanced discussion. I am very passionate or animated or...(insert preferred euphemism) about Constitutionally responsible government, as laid out in the U.S. Constitution. I do not spend any time on social media sites (X, Facebook, Instagram, et al), although I do post on a few news bulletin boards and Substack pages occasionally. My wife, Lori, had mentioned to me about a post from a mom of a child lost to childhood cancer and another subsequent by a 2nd mom, both from our hometown, concerning Trump using a child during the State of the Union Speech and childhood cancer funding being cut from a recent omnibus bill. At which point I explicitly let my wife know that my coming explosion was not directed at her but at the 300+ million morons that inhabit this nation that have no knowledge of the Constitutional parameters placed upon our federal bureaucracy. it is not mere ignorance, but a blatant disregard of the guiderails placed upon government as a specifically limited entity that has far outgrown anything allowed or envisioned by the framers. Funding cancer research is in no way a responsibility prescribed as an authority given to any federal agency. Advocating for an ever-expanding federal bureaucracy is contra-constitutional as our 10th Amendment clearly states that ALL powers not explicitly delegated to the United States nor prohibited by the states are reserved explicitly for the states and/or the people. This means that if you want cancer research, that is a function best served at the state, local, and private level. If we were to scale our federal bureaucracy back to Constitutional limits, I would surmise that we could cut some 75%-90% of ALL federal agencies, their employees, and the taxes that "We the People" pay to keep these bureaucratic machines functioning, and send that rightful authority back to the states and their respective citizens, where all of these concerns could and would be handled with a more responsible civilian oversight than is allowed at the moment. Promoting federal research funding and federal oversight for childhood cancer is tantamount to arguing for continued and additional intrusion in the private lives and liberty of ordinary citizens and goes against anything and everything outlined in our Constitution. While I understand the need for funding needed for childhood cancer (the current rate is roughly only 5% of all funding goes to childhood cancer research/95% adult cancer research), the answer does not lie an ever-expanding bureaucratic nightmare. It lies in the hands of the states and their respective citizens to prioritize these concerns and act accordingly. The federal government is not efficient in anything except waste. And I am tired of self-proclaimed Republicans, Conservatives, Constitutionalists, Christians, etc advocating for the federal government to do anything. Rather, get out of our way and let us get to work at restoring the greatness that is the United States of America.
Rant ended...
And an excellent and most welcome rant it was.
This makes me think of Luke 14:26 somewhat by association , when Jesus stated “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple".
So (in my interpretation), in order to be a disciple, we must be willing to give up everything for Jesus. We don’t know what that looks like . It’s a surrendering . We don’t have the right to make “rules” about how to run society, who to give what to. In following Christ, we cannot follow our own rules and inclinations. We cannot follow Him and the world’s way at the same time. God’s will is a mystery. We must unite with Him internally. In that way our focus is on Him, not on the world. Am I making sense? Thank you for all your insight and work.
Great post and discussion. What would Jesus say about “Don’t work, Don’t eat”?
To me the parable of the ant and the sluggard says a lot.
Good discussion and GREAT to "see" you!!!
Thanks Lisa. And sorry for the absence…just been very busy lately.
I “get it”! I have been busy and strangely lethargic.
I also stopped taking the Cimzia biological for the psoriatic arthritis. I don't believe that it ever helped.
This came after I was no longer eligible for “extra help” with prescription costs because I was making money on a part-time basis!!!! LOLOLOL!!!!! I only pay 1/5 of my income to health insurance. LOL!!!!!
Be well, sir!
Very interesting. Thank you
Thank you -- this is the best refutation of the "Jesus was a socialist" assertion that I've seen yet.
Acts 4:34-35 are verses libs quote when they try to convince people that Jesus was a socialist: "Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses
sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need."
Also Acts 2:44-47: 44) "Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45) and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. 46) So
continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47) praising God and having favor with
all the people."
As you point out, all of these activities were completely voluntary.
If you want to take that a step further, look what happened with Ananias and Sapphira in that same passage. They sold land and gave only some of the money, but they said they gave all the money. Were they reproved for only giving some of the money? No - they were reproved for lying about it, because it was theirs to do with as they pleased: “But Peter said, ‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.’” - Acts 5:3-4
I recall a time in my general reading of The Bible when Jesus arrived at the church and shamed the church for taking riches for themselves and only giving portions to those that need it. This is exactly what government now is doing. Those that do need social security either get denied or get very little, those that need it because they’re too lazy get everything and some. And of course the government is set to dip to the forced deduction pool as they so desire and dictate who can and can’t get the funds.