Scarborough: “Matthew 25 Christians” Can’t Support Republican Health Care Bill
Scarborough says he doesn’t want to bring religion into debate or judge anybody, and then proceeds to do both.
On today’s Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough said he didn’t want to bring religion into the health care debate. But he then proceeded to do just that.
He said that he’s not judging anybody, but then said that the Republican health care bill can’t be defended “morally.”
“I’m sorry, don’t want to bring religion into this, but if you are a Matthew 25 Christian and you believe what Jesus says, that we will be judged on how we treat the poorest among us, then there is no legislative justification for cutting $650 billion in health benefits. And then turning around in the same bill and benefiting the richest among us $800, $850 billion.
I’m not judging anybody. I’m just saying, if Paul Ryan or somebody had asked me beforehand, I would say, you can’t do it politically, and I’m not being self-righteous here, because I’m the last person to be self-righteous, but you can’t do it morally either.“
I am anything but a Christian theologian, but my understanding of Matthew 25 and the broader question of social justice in Christianity is reflected in this statement by an evangelical Christian group in its discussion of Matthew 25 [emphasis added]:
“[T]he Christian notion of social justice is different from the contemporary notion of social justice. The biblical exhortations to care for the poor are more individual than societal. In other words, each Christian is encouraged to do what he can to help the “least of these.” The basis for such biblical commands is found in the second of the greatest commandments—love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:39). Today’s notion of social justice replaces the individual with the government, which, through taxation and other means, redistributes wealth. This policy doesn’t encourage giving out of love, but resentment from those who see their hard-earned wealth being taken away.”
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Nobody can be charitable by compulsion. (See the period?)
And, without compulsion, Americans have historically been the most charitable people ever.
“Render unto Caesar’s what is Caesar’s . . .” God left it up to Caesar to determine what is his.
Yeah and in the US, some people do not leave charity to the government.
what a horrible misinterpretation of the bible. He also said render unto God what is God’s. That puts Caesar on notice that not everything is his; that he should keep his hands off what is God’s. Caesar doesn’t decide what is God’s, God does. If Caesar decided, he would be superior to God. Of course, that’s the progressive dream.
It puts us on notice that we need to know the difference.
By logic Scarborough’s, should we extend ObamaCare to the 1.38 billion Chinese and the 1.31 billion Indians ?
Actually by Scarborough’s logic we’re all damned to hell unless we become communists right now.
Well just goes to show that all that “separation of church and state” is just another big pile of cow manure put on by the left.
re: ““I’m sorry, don’t want to bring religion into this, but if you are a Matthew 25 Christian…”
BUT you will bring religion into the discussion, for your own self-serving purposes. Read the passage a little closer, there is no designation about Matthew 25 Christians, or 1 John 1 Christians, etc.
It’s always chilling to see an admitted reprobate trying to quote scripture to justify themselves; the perversion of self-justification.
Hmmm, I wonder if Joe tithes the church? I dislike when people quote the Bible but don’t follow the practices of the church. I firmly believe in charity begins at home. When those who seem to what to tell the rest of us Christians what do and quote the Bible to us they should first seek to understand their own practices. Glass houses anyone?
The trick of course is to Render unto Caesar’s what is Caesar’s*
*hint. Whatever Caesar lays claim to is Caesar’s
15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax[an added tax for not being Roman citizens] to Caesar or not?”
18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.
Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
22 When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.
Note that according to Scripture, *humans* are made in the image of God.
In context, Jesus was being asked if it was right to pay tribute in order to be left in peace, and He said that it depended on whether the tribute was something that belonged to the conquerer or something that belonged to God. He didn’t say or imply that it was the conquerer’s right to determine which was which.
I hear this all the time on Twitter and when I’m out and about.
People who want me to change my mind about illegal aliens, tell me I’m not very Christian. They don’t care about Christianity; they care about using Christianity to get their way.
I tell them I’m not Christian and that usually takes them aback & they have no comeback. :^)
Tell them you’ve converted to Islam and that you expect all women to wear a Burqa. Then they’ll REALLY be scared of you.
Apparently, the only way to help the poor is to spend trillions of taxpayer dollars in a 50 year effort that has scarcely had an effect on poverty, but which has had all sorts of negative “unintended” side effects – decline of the family and marriage, rising illegitimacy and crime, dependency, the list is long.
Why does this sort of biblical interpretation remind me of indulgences? Vote the right way, advocate the right government programs, and you, too, can be free of all your Christian obligations, regardless of the actually effect of your vote and support.
Note that voting and supporting (or opposing) is very important (though I suspect my notions of who to vote for and what to support differ from those of Morning Joe). But it does not relieve us of what we are called upon to do – personally.
I thought they wanted religion and politics separated?
From one Mark to another: great point!
Yes, they want them separated; that’s why it’s so obviously just a manipulation when they bring it up.
They may not notice their dissonance, but I sure do.
I am sure Joe will be rewarded at home by Mika for that one…
While “God” might be mentioned, it will not involve much religion.
This adulterer wants to lecture Christians on Biblical theology. Hypocrite much?, Joe.
WJDND: What Jesus did not do.
Jesus did not say, “The poor in our society can be middle class with more gub’mint funding.”
Jesus did not approach the Sanhedrin to demand a tithe on Temple goers to clothe the naked & feed the hungry.
Jesus did not petition the Senate in Rome to levy a tax on all subjects in order to do medical research and heal the sick.
Jesus did not end the parable of The Good Samaritan with a guilt trip to goad the townspeople to pay for the expenses of others with confiscated wealth.
Jesus did not promise an earthly utopia through political solutions or judicial fiat because “the poor you shall always have with you.”
All the miracles that Jesus performed were designed to point to His divine nature and the truth of His Word of Heavenly salvation – not to solve the earthly dilemmas of sickness, hunger & poverty.
Here’s another lesson for you, Scarborough: Never stick your johnson into crazy. The result is always devolution into an irrational, whipped puppy that licks his own small berries.
Jesus did command that we give Caesar what is Caesar and left it up to Caesar to determine what is Caesar’s
Denver, your trope is tiresome. See ecreegan’s response above for your answer.
And I would add that America is different in that we have elected our representatives. They have the ability to add new laws as well as eliminate bad ones that are on the books.
Our “Caesars” change every 2, 4 or 6 years so change is possible.
“Denver” is a one-trick pony.
The Left seems to be able to ignore religion/morality in the issue of abortion so Joe can shove his hypocrisy down his own throat.
Their quasi-religious/moral philosophy is Pro-Choice, unprincipled, opportunistic, and notoriously selective. Accusations of hypocrisy and especially bigotry (i.e. sanctimonious hypocrisy) fall on deaf ears. Religion and morality are derived from articles of faith, including individual dignity and intrinsic value.
Smoothing functions (e.g. welfare) are short-term solutions that sponsor secular and spiritual corruption.
Revitalization. Rehabilitation. Reconciliation.
First, restore capitalism (i.e. organic economic model) to control pricing. Then help people who cannot help themselves. Order matters, because affordable may cost less than “free.”
End [class] diversity (i.e. judging people by the “color of their skin”), which is a leading cause of prejudice.
Close the abortion chambers, and Mengele clinics, and institute moral and educational reform.
End social justice adventurism (e.g. elective regime changes, extrajudicial trials, redistributive change) that has forced catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform for the benefit of the people and interests who then demand immigration reform. It’s a vicious circle.
25 “Then the kingdom of heaven will be like 10 virgins[a] who took their lamps and went out to meet the groom. 2 Five of them were foolish and five were sensible. 3 When the foolish took their lamps, they didn’t take olive oil with them. 4 But the sensible ones took oil in their flasks with their lamps. 5 Since the groom was delayed, they all became drowsy and fell asleep.
As soon as someone brings religion into a public policy discussion, I tune out.
I have learned from experience that substitution of religion for reason in a public discussion is a sure sign that some scoundrel is supporting bad policy. Otherwise, that person would simply argue the merits of the policy.
I see the politically bi-polar Scarborough is in his hate Republicans mode today.
Great comment! Scar reminds me of that type of person my mother always warned me about, he who always wants to know which side his bread is buttered on.
The little toadies serve their network masters well.
Experience has generally shown me that when somebody makes a statement of belief with a ‘but’ in the middle of it, what they say before the but is just meaningless fluff, and what they say afterward is what they believe right down to their core. Let’s test that theory.
Joe: I’m not judging anybody….I’m not being self-righteous here, because I’m the last person to be self-righteous, but you can’t do it morally either.“
Ok, that matches.
At least he picked the chapter with the sheep and the goat judgment. Right now he is acting the part of a goat.
The entire point of charity was what you gave, not what the kingdom took from you. You did it because you were compassionate, not because you were being forced to care.
Even so, most people would be fine with it if the money was spent wisely. We know that’s not happening. Solomon himself wouldn’t be able to adjudicate this mess. It takes an Alexander to cut the Gordian Knot.
Yes, the early Christians were known for their generosity. But it stemmed from their love and compassion, and not their zeal to contribute to the empire.
Emperor Julian the Apostate 331-363(“the Apostate” because he strived to turn the people back from Christianity and towards the traditional Roman gods) said this in a letter:
“Why do we not observe that it is their [the Christians’] benevolence to strangers, their care for the graves of the dead, and the pretended holiness of their lives that have done most to increase atheism [unbelief of the traditional Roman gods]. For it is disgraceful that, when no Jew ever has to beg, and the impious Galileans [Christians] support not only their own poor but ours as well, all men see that our people lack aid from us. Teach those of the Hellenistic faith to contribute to public service of this sort”
There are other examples of compassion among the early Christians. These should drive today’s Christians to examine their values and be involved in causes to aid those that are marginalized.
But this being said, one might wonder how charitable Joe Scarborough is in HIS charitable giving. Perhaps he should display HIS tax returns before venting at Christians and calling them hypocritical.
**I am aware that some interpret Julian’s quote to infer that the churches were channels that the empire used to distribute charitable donations. I have not studied that issue to determine its veracity
Yeah, Morning Joe is the theologian I turn to all the time for spiritual guidance – NOT.
If he’s going to push the religion angle (which he’s not, except for when he is, because it happens to be convenient for him), I would start by reminding him that God Himself only required 10% in the tithe, and for the government to insist on 15% and higher borders on blasphemy, since it makes the government out to be greater than God.
Estimates of the taxes and tithes paid in Biblical Israel vary widely. Samuel cautious the Israelites that if God gives them a king, the king will take 10% (and steal the best land.) Basic tithes were 10%. There were additional religious donations required — the firstborn of any female animal, a donation on the occasion of your firstborn son (in lieu of just giving the child to the temple), the first fruits of a tree. Farmers (i.e. most people) were also required to leave the corners of their fields unharvested and not go back and double-check that they hadn’t missed anything in the field — some produce was simply left in the field for the poor to come and take the leftovers (“glean” — but it was backbreaking labor; in the story of Ruth, the young widow went alone to try to harvest for herself and her widowed mother-in-law; the old woman did not come with her even though two would probably have been safer than one and even though they desperately needed every grain.)
The economy God seems to be instructing the Israelites to adopt could be summarized as “familial capitalism with a 50-year-reset.” Individuals don’t own land (the overwhelming majority of the means of production); they lease land from their families. They can sell the years they’re entitled to the land, but it comes back to their family every 50 years. Similarly, every 50 years all debts are supposed to be forgiven, and you’re not supposed to refuse to loan because the year of forgiveness is almost up. (Though I’m not sure loans ever were forgiven.) The minority of land in cities, by contrast, could be sold and remained in the possession of the buyer after the year of the Jubilee.
Old Testament charity seems to mostly be aimed at cripples, widows and orphans, whereas New Testament charity discusses the poor in general. (Which makes sense — the Old Testament was instructions about a specific time and place, where healthy men could generally support themselves; the New Testament speaks *from* Israel in the Roman era but *to* the ages.)
thanks for wallowing through this every day.
I expect that next week you will be reporting that Rev. Scarborough is reading the bible verses on gay marriage and abortion and demanding they be used to decide those issues – or not.
I love it when fake Christians/atheists quote the Bible and demonstrate they’ve never read it. Kasich basically did the same thing when he tried to excuse the fact he expanded Medicaid by doing an end run around his own legislature which had voted down the measure.
He would lecture everyone who wouldn’t vote for him because of that (and other things, as well) that he would have something to tell St. Peter when he got to the Pearly Gates. He helped the poor by expanding Medicaid.
That answer, I’m sure, would get him sent straight to another place.
One of the most basic concepts in the New Testament that is often forgotten when Leftists quote Scripture out of context to make their point is that we are not to sin and, just as importantly, we are not to enable others to sin. What this means is that essentially unrestricted welfare is our own sin for it enables those who do not want to work to remain slothful and sinful.
Likewise in 2 Thessalonians 3:10, it says “that if any would not work, neither should he eat”. In different versions of the Bible this comes out as “those not willing to work”, “if any will not work”, “if you do not work”, “if someone won’t work”, and so forth. Many Leftists use this verse to condemn the teachings of the Bible because they think it means to include those that CANNOT work such as the elderly or disabled which is clearly a misinterpretation.
Similarly, the Bible exhorts farmers to leave a portion of their crop in the field after the harvest so that those who are hungry many gather food. Once again this is a form of charity, but it requires the hungry to perform work to get their meal.
While I am nowhere near a Bible scholar, I often become incensed by mental midgets on the Left who demand the world interpret everything according to how they want it interpreted to suit their own agenda. Joe Sco is nothing more than another Leftist faux intellectual (despite what he claims) who basks in his superiority that comes from his job and over inflated salary. I would dearly love to see Joe’s tax return and see how much he donates to the poor. His charitable donations likely reflect his intellect which are both near zero.