For the Christian, the Sermon on the Mount shows the way to having needs met by God: Matthew 6:24-34. I made a successful career from this. Knowing God is your source gives you great freedom.
Nope. Jesus taught individual PEOPLE to be mindful of the needs of others. At no time did he recommend that other people, or governments, confiscate some people's wealth in order to distribute it to different people favored by that same government! You will not find any support for such a thing coming from Jesus, not anywhere in the New Testament!.
The problem is that individual people don't. Especially the wealthiest who could. It might appear so because you get these headlines that Oprah gave $1,000,000 to some charity or other but in the big scheme of her $2.5 billion, it's nothing. Now, when she does something worth mentioning, like give away two of her billion and keeps .5 for herself, she still has $500 million. More than I would see in 500 lifetimes. Do I think she should be forced to give that away? No, but I do think very wealthy people only give money away because it's a tax benefit for themselves.
Sometimes wealth can be a curse. Jesus said it's harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich person to enter the Kingdom... I won't offer some platitude meant to make you feel better like "I'll pray for you." I will, but I recognize that without taking action to assist homeless and/or dying people in my own backyard, my prayers don't hold water.
You mean that they don't give as much as would be needed in order to create a much more pleasant society with a minimum of privation, want, or unhappiness. And I would have to agree with that.
That is patently untrue. Jesus never did that.
It's better than letting the saved and unsaved alike die under a bridge, in a garbage bin or on the streets in a makeshift tent just so the ultra wealthy can go on bathing in their billions. Lives are more important than their mansions.
That's what you got from the story? Hmm. I get this: that there was a social model where everyone shared and it worked for everyone, as there was no one needy among them. A program where the apostles were given money and it was redistributed so that everyone had all they needed. Ananias and Sapphira lied - "no one claimed that any of their possessions was their own" and yet they held something back as their own. No one is asking that wealthy people give away ALL they own, but the model that was implemented worked. And don't lie about it or God will smite you. What does that look like in western societies today? Well, a great social program means that someone - whether government or church - collects money from the masses and redistributes to ensure at least people are able to survive, and don't lie on your taxes about it just to get out of paying what you owe.
Yes, and instead of creating programs that sustain the masses, corrupt governments continue to support the rich and oppress the poor, and spend $15,000 on a toilet for the White House. Perhaps rather than complaining about social programs, someone should petition the churches to take over because clearly we should all be contributing to social justice rather than social oppression, no matter who does the redistribution. All I know is that individual people helping individual people is not working, and there is a biblical model that does work.
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Mt 19:21
...which has nothing to do with GOVERNMENT programs. You are describing private charity and private acts.
So, you've now narrowed your proposal down to hitting just the "ultra wealthy." That sounds better to the ear, but it's not the "ultra wealthy" who are the most impacted by having the government confiscate wealth.
You're just begging us to ask if YOU, personally, have sold all your possessions and given the proceeds to the poor.
I am not "begging" but I live in a very small, old, modest home and when I am done with possessions, I donate them to thrift. I pay my taxes - some of which goes to infrastructure (such as the bridge under which people die), some to social programs such as the healthcare program in which I work, income assistance, disability income, old age security, employment programs, corrections and reintegration programs, childcare programs, rental assistance programs, and more. I am very generous, even though until less than a year ago, I hardly had to quarters to rub together. Why? Because I know what it's like to be on the edge of homelessness. Maybe every capitalist and rich person here should go live for a year under the bridge without food or warmth.
Capitalism and greed too often rob people of compassion and generosity.
You people here focus too much on the idea that giving should be voluntary. The problem is that most people don't teach generosity to their children, so no one is giving enough to save lives, to provide shelter and food and clean water. If it is not done voluntarily, then yes, it should be managed through some institution, agency or system. Canada is a "capitalist" and greedy country too, but I sure am proud of the social programs available here. Focus on the biblical principles. Generosity is a biblical value. Distributing wealth was a social program that worked, whether it is voluntary or not. People are not doing it voluntarily and people are dying so yeah... if you value life, you need to value ALL life - even the lives of those who are on the streets starving or freezing to death. But you don't. You value the life of the unborn child but find the life of a dying homeless man or woman meaningless. Shame on y'all.
I wouldn't say so. The absurdity of the original proposition did invite blunt replies, however.
Does that include having to wait up to six months for life-saving surgery?? That kind of thing is unheard of in the United States.
Rich people can afford life-saving surgery. Poor people can't. So in the US, poor people die and rich people get to live. Iow, poor people's lives don't matter; they have no value. I feel for the poor people who can't afford the babies they are forced to have because abortion is abolished. Those unborn babies have value only until they die under bridges, unable to afford life-saving surgeries or food.
I am beginning to think that you live in some world of your own imagination or else spend too much time hanging around the local NDP headquarters. You have somehow gotten misinformation about the way things work in the USA and are simultaneously unwilling to admit the truth about the Canadian system of things.