MSNBC’s O’Donnell Contorts Bible to Paint Jesus as Socialist, “He Was the First Recorded Advocate of a Progressive Income Tax”…
I know what you’re thinking, “he can’t be serious,” but amazingly, he is.
While Jesus may not have specified specific tax brackets, he was the first recorded advocate of a progressive income tax. Jesus actually said, “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth, but she, out of her poverty, put in everything, all she had to live on.”
What would Jesus take? Obviously, he would take from each according to their ability to pay. That is the clear Christian philosophical basis of a progressive income tax; 10 percent on low incomes, 35 percent on high incomes is the current structure.
Via Newsbusters
Posted by ZIP on Tuesday, April 26, 2011, at 12:49 pm | 
Tweet
“While Jesus may not have specified specific tax brackets, he was the first recorded advocate of a progressive income tax.”
When Jesus said “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s” He expected that there would be money to give to God and that Caesar didn’t take 100% of a person’s income.
Wasn’t Mathew a tax collector until he met Jesus?
If Mathew could give up his evil ways (tax collecting), then shouldn’t we follow his example?
.
Does that mean you have a new found respect and adherance to Christianity dickface ?!?
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Did your parents have any children that lived?
Private Gomer Pyle: Sir, yes, sir.
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: I bet they regret that. You’re so ugly you can be a modern art master piece! What’s your name fat buddy?
Private Gomer Pyle: Sir, Leonard Lawrence, sir.
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Lawrence? Lawrence what… of Arabia?
Private Gomer Pyle: Sir, no, sir.
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: That name sounds like royalty. Are you royalty?
Private Gomer Pyle: Sir, no, sir.
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Do you suck dicks?
Private Gomer Pyle: Sir, no, sir.
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Bullshit. I bet you could suck a golf ball through a garden hose.
Private Gomer Pyle: Sir, no, sir.
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: I don’t like the name Lawrence, only faggots and sailors are called Lawrence. From now on you’re Gomer Pyle.
Private Gomer Pyle: Sir, yes, sir.
“You Goddamn communist heathen, you had best sound off that you love the Virgin Mary, or I’m gonna stomp your guts out! Now you DO love the Virgin Mary, don’t ya?”
When did O’Donnel get Religion?
Good point gastorgrab…
Wow..the religious walking orders have been distributed! What a bunch of Hypocrites!
The talking heads spewing more liberation theology…
WOW,lawrence is a christian too…..who’d a guessed.
BetterDeadThanRed says:
Beat me to it!
Yes… let’s take the biblical hermeneutics of a godless Socialist at it’s face.
Yep. Good idea.
But, in the interest of Truth, let’s dig a bit, shall we?
“Mark 12:41-44 states: And He (Jesus) sat down opposite the treasury, and began observing how the people were putting money into the treasury; and many rich people were putting in large sums. A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which amount to a cent. Calling His disciples to Him, He said to them, “Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the contributors to the treasury; for they all put in out of their surplus, but she, out of her poverty, put in all she owned, all she had to live on.”"
Now, note that NO WHERE in the text does Jesus command his followers to follow her example, nor does he condemn the rich for giving “large sums” from their surplus. He does not condemn the rich for remaining rich after giving at all, but simply notes the spirit of the old woman.
No socialism there. Sorry.
But lest we misinterpret, let us consider what the Apostles taught on money. Surely, they above all would know Jesus’ heart on the matter being that they walked with Him, and lived with Him for the better part of 3 years straight.
Fast forward to the early church. Peter and the apostles are collecting goods to give to the church as a whole. It is important to note that those that gave were to give of a FREE SPIRIT, under no compulsion, but from a loving spirit.
Acts 5 reads: “But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet. 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.”"
Again, let’s note that Ananias was free to keep his money and give what he wanted. It was HIS money after all, but his offense was that he LIED about it and all the while gave the impression he was giving all.
The Apostles did not forcibly take because Christ never taught that. Instead, Christ taught cheerful giving, from a pure heart, and may each heart give to it’s measure.
That’s known as FREEDOM to you and me folks. Christ was big on it.
Socialism is it’s antithesis.
Wait……isn’t Mr Non-Sequitor (O’Donnell) an atheist?
Were is the part of the New Testament where Jesus forces people to pay taxes……forces them to do anything?
Did Jesus ever impose any physical consequences on anyone? Did he take from followers, or simply ask people to give? (“be like the Samaritan”)
Did he force people to be Christians? Did he ‘Regulate’ them into submission if they refused to agree with his positions on things?
Did Jesus ever compel anyone to do anything? Did he create consequences of any kind?
.
So what is stopping Lawrence from emulating the hero of the story, the poor widow who gave all she had???
Crack open the vault, Mr. Socialist, and write a big check–
Oh, I see, it’s another case of a liberal saying “Do as I say and not as I do…”
OK, let me tackle this one. Mr. O’Donnell, let me point a simple textual interpretation skill that you must have missed in college. It is called “context” It refers to the text that comes before and after the passage being quoted. The scene that you are referring to comes from Matthew 14, starting at verse 38. I, unlike you, quote the entire passage below (as taken from the NIV, courtesy of BibleGateway.com)
38 As he taught, Jesus said, “Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, 39 and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 40 They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.”
41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.
43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”
First, the widow was giving her tithe and offering (10% + x) to the “TEMPLE” treasury, not the Roman government, for the upkeep and maintenance of the building as well as those employed within as part of her personal observance of Levitical law.
Second, she gave all that she could afford, because she was poor. Even though she had next to nothing, she still gave (unlike 45% of Americans who pay absolutely nothing, and expect everything).
Third, she gave in faith, believing that God would reward her faithfulness, even though she could not afford much.
Fourth, Jesus put more value on her willingness to give in poverty than those putting in large amounts out of wealth.
Finally, this has nothing to do with taxes. It is about charitable giving, which according to recent studies, the left and the Democrats know personally very little about.
God also has a bit to say about teachers (the role that you are assuming here) who reinterpret God’s word for their own benefit and miss the point. Read the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5 to 7), in particular, 5: 17 to 20. Beware of teachers having itching ears.
More could be said, but this will do.
The woman was giving freely of her income to the church treasury, not the government you poor deluded idiot!! She was giving all she had to God, not the government. (though they would gladly take a poor widow’s last penny!!)
Taxing income may be unconstitutional all on it’s own. Nevermind the Marx-inspired ‘Progressive Income Tax’.
Our government has the right to tax our activity, but not the activity that is tied to labor. That’s called “Involuntary Servitude”, and it’s barred by the 13th Amendment.
Assigning different classes of Americans based on their different income levels, and treating those classes ‘Unequally’, violate the ‘Equal Protection’ Clause. To treat any American different than any other, our government must first find them guilty of a crime. The last time i checked, it wasn’t against the law to have more money than someone else.
Only a consumption-based tax could safely navigate our constitution.
.
Mr. O’Donnell, you sir are an idiot.
What Jesus was attempting to illustrate here was the woman’s love for God was greater than any material thing she might own. Whenever he spoke of money, taxes, etc., the central theme was that one should love God more than anything else. This story has absolutely nothing to do with giving to the poor.
Another common mistake made by liberal theologians is that Jesus came to minister to the poor and downtrodden. He did, of course, but his central purpose was to suffer and die for the sins of the world.
And if we follow O’Donnell’s premise to its logical conclusion, we must re-institute the Mosaic economy, which would require a theonomic theocracy.
I have heard before peopel try to paint teh early church in the book of acts as a communist style life. Even though they sold everything and took care of everyone, teh stark difference is this: First they did not serve a dictator they Served Jesus, second the property was freely sold not taken from them liek communist would do. Friggen liberals
The Operative word in the passage is “Gave”, not confiscated….
“The devil can cite scripture for his purpose” Merchant of Venice–Act 1, Scene 3. William Shakespeare.
I am so stupid!
After years of going to Sunday school, church and reading the Bible, I thought the only thing Jesus took was my sins. All this time he was after my wallet.
I saw this late last night (couldn’t sleep). Hard to believe the amount of twisting he did to make it seem true.
Jesus was in favor of a regressive tax. He praised the widow who gave 100% of her savings: two mites.
KJV Mathew 17:24 “And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? 25He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? 26Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.”
JESUS TAKES NOTHING!!!!!! God loves a cheerful giver. What will you give?
The difference, O’Doucheman, was that the poor woman wasn’t compelled at the point of a gun to give her wealth but instead gave out of the goodness of her heart….”God loves a cheerful giver.” HUGE difference! And exactly how much are the 47% of the country who don’t pay federal income taxes paying/giving out of the goodness of their hearts? ZIP!….. They’ve got their hands out TAKING.
The tale I like about taxes is Jesus sent Peter to the sea to bring in one fish (just one) and look in its mouth and there would be enough (just enough) coin to pay the TAX for Jesus and Peter.
Amazingly Jesus paid the tax as it was due, only what was due, and not a penny more. My priests are always telling me to try to be more like Jesus. (I think they know I’m paying more than my fair share).
Simply amazing
Leonard says:
“When did O’Donnel get Religion?”
When he got a good look at Obama’s recent polls.
Wow, the Blush LimpBlah is now a reverend, he can take his place next to the other flakes like Jim Jones, Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, (all silly jimmy’s), Ted Haggard, Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Franklin Gramham (son of Billy), John Hagee, and we can’t forget the rev. Mike Huckabee. Maybe LimpBlah next sermon will be about the scripture “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give to God what is God’s”, found in the good book. But alas we probably hear more or the same lies that we heard today. He is such a windbag.