@RexRed,
that does prove your point about my remarks. you called liberals whores, liars, and pederasts.
we discussed already that personal generousity alone does not measure up to what a person can do politically. you missed my point two weeks ago entirely.
so here it is again, and perhaps it will stick this time.
Read this passage from the Bible.
Matthew 25:31-46
Quote:31. "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33. and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. 34. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35. for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36. I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37. Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38. And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39. And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' 40. And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' 41. Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42. for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43. I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' 44. Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' 45. Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' 46. And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
Jesus sends to Hell the very people whose actions precisely fit those of people who today call themselves conservative Christians.
While conservative Christians do give to charity, and many I know are quite generous.
But, we’re not talking about their private charitable giving, but speaking of political choices and activism, and this passage from Matthew does not apply only to acts of individual charity.
So,
where does Matthew 25 say or even imply that it only applies to individual actions of a charitable nature?
The proper view is, you are individually held to account under Matthew 25 for your individual one-on-one acts of charity or lack thereof, but you are also
individually held to account under Matthew 25 for how the actions you take influence your society in its treatment of the "least of these."
In the analysis directly following, such assertions will be backed up by (1) plain meaning and logic -- analysis of the text itself; and (2) Papal teachings -- citing of relevant elements of the Catholic Church's official written social doctrine.
So let's first look at the Biblical text itself.
Jesus separates the goats and sheep by
nations, not by individuals.
Moreover, when the "righteous" -- the sheep -- address Jesus, they ask "Lord, when did
we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?" When the "cursed" -- the goats --address Jesus, they also speak collectively: "Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?" The righteous and the cursed do not individually ask "When did I…" or even "When did each of us…"
It is true that "
nations" as used in Matthew 25 may not mean nation-states as we know them today, but it's still a collective noun. That, together with the "
we" language, certainly doesn't militate against responsibility to influence collective action, or excuse its failure.
This textual analysis is backed up by another factor: should a passage such as Matthew 25 really be interpreted narrowly so as to avoid responsibility? To do so would be a perversion of the Golden Rule itself.
Having a narrow, stingy reading of Matthew 25 is, to put it more bluntly, absurd.
Would anyone seriously maintain that Jesus would say it’s okay for society as a whole to let people suffer and die, as long as some members give some money to charity?
Even the social doctrine of the Church affirms this textual analysis and examination of Biblical antecedents, and similarly makes clear that
individual acts of charity are not sufficient to satisfy Matthew 25.
btw the true message of the Lord's Gospel is not too popular with you, precisely because you want to use the Bible in the reverse order in which it brings full meaning to a spiritual life on Earth. You are not supposed to use Bible teachings to support your previously held secular political positions, instead, you are supposed to have your political positions evolve from your Biblical lessons,
You have turned the teaching of Jesus upside down, and I can find no greater blasphemy of His message.
I wonder, just who in Heaven's sake taught you such a messed up version of the teaching of Jesus? Its all inside out.
