NOW:53211:USA01012
http://widgets.journalinteractive.com/cache/JIResponseCacher.ashx?duration=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.wp.myweather.net%2FeWxII%2F%3Fdata%3D*USA01012
28°
H 28° L 18°
Cloudy | 5MPH

DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO BE LOGICAL?

 

 I think not.

 

Jesus said that the poor should always be with us.  Was this a mere observation or did it carry a significant message? 

 

He did not say that the rich shall always be with us; therefore we shall always have the poor.  He did not blame the rich for the poor.  Nor did he expound any sort of trickle down theory, either.

 

Of the rich man he said that it would be as difficult for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle as for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

He declared a more direct and drastic solution than mere trickle down, that the rich man must dispose himself of all his worldly goods.  (What 35% of actual income?  No, 100%)

 

It would appear quite clear that Jesus was indicating the rich man’s obligation toward the poor and the obligation of all of us toward the poor to win the favor of the Father.  

 

Jesus did not show the compassion for the moneychangers in the temple that the conservatives show today toward those on “K” street (lobyists) and on Wall Street. 

 

Would Jesus be for oil pipes (oil special interests) and against Social Security and for the interest of the rich against those of the poor?

 

I think not.

This site uses Facebook comments to make it easier for you to contribute. If you see a comment you would like to flag for spam or abuse, click the "x" in the upper right of it. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use.

Page Tools

Advertisement