Why do Liberals hate the rich??

Jerry Newcomb wrote:
Socialism involves the state mandatorily taking someone’s property, ostensibly to distribute to the less fortunate. In reality, in all socialistic schemes, it’s the government bureaucrats who live high off the hog.
What Jesus and the Bible advocate are voluntary giving to the less fortunate.
The key concept is voluntary versus mandatory.
Voluntary giving is commanded and commended by the Bible.
Mandatory “giving” is condemned in the Bible. Why do I say that? Because God’s law declares, “Thou shalt not steal.” That law implies the sanctity of private property.
The Ten Commandments also declare, “Thou shalt not covet.”
Socialism is based on coveting your neighbor’s goods and wealth.

Voluntary giving=good
Taking by force from one to another=bad
Get it?

Liberals seem to read certain parts of the bible while ignoring other parts. In the book of Luke alone there is the story about the fisherman being asked to give up 50% of his catch, the rich man who goes to hell while the poor beggar goes to heaven for no apparent reason than the rich man did not help the poor man, the prodigal son who squanders a fortune and returns broke only to be given more money because he is now poor.
Get it? I get it. Do you?
The Bible is full of stuff that if you just focus on one message you miss out on larger points that you raised. It is no coincidence that the most religious countries in Europe (all Catholic and Orthodox that tends to follow the teachings in Luke more), are also the countries suffering from overly generous entitlements. The PIIGS-Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain. The Protestant countries tend to have more sustainable government programs and also are less religiously based.

That's right the rich man does not get into heaven for not helping the poor man. It's because he was greedy, not because he was wealthy! Just because a person is rich does not mean they are greedy. Many, many rich people give much of their money to charities. William Buffet has given over 50 billion to charities. Once again, Jesus had nothing against the rich, only the greedy.

But you can understand how that rich man going to hell story can be intrepreted. The Bible tells us nothing about what he did with his money after he passed his gate and the beggar. I don't recall any mention of his being greedy. He may have provided jobs for people, he may have run a soup kitchen, he may have been like Buffet who will give away billions. Irrelevant to the story. He is going to hell because he ignored one beggar, despite our modern view of experts that you don't help panhandlers by giving them handouts. The Biblical story perpetuates the idea that it is not what you actually achieve or accomplish in helping the poor, simply that you do the right thing even if there is no long term improvement.
Bush talked about "compassionate conservatism". I understood what he meant. You help the beggar more not by giving him some charity but by giving him a way to provide for himself, a mission, a sense of accomplishment, as well as sufficient resources to survive. Liberals read that passage and symbolically give the beggar money even though nothing will change and the beggar will still be there tomorrow, hungry and needing money.

That's a great analogy! Greed is just one characteristic the man could have had. My point was, being wealthy doesn't make you a bad person in the same way that
being poor doesn't make you a good person. A man who tries to convince people that the contents of a
man's wallet is the determining factor of what is in his
heart you have someone who seeks to divide. I believe
people honestly do need help sometimes and it is our moral obligation( if you are able) to help them while they get back on their feet. I'm not against taxes all together... What we are doing in this country with extended entitlements is demoralizing to the the very people it's supposed to be helping. It destroys a persons dignity and makes them dependent. That is just plain wrong.

I wanted to add this: Sometimes helping someone while they get back on their feet is all you can do. They must be responisible for themselves at some point. When a person becomes accountable and stops making excuses, that is 1000 times more valuable than simply throwing more money at him/her. You can not put a price on dignity...it's priceless.

Jesus was concerned with the contents of a person's heart not the contents of their wallet....rich or poor. Yes, I most certainly do get it.

Socialism involves the community. nothing on just going up to the rich and taking what you want, it's about figuring out what is fair for everyone that is a part of it.

Still, taking by force from one to give to another was never advocated by Jesus. You give because it's the right thing to do not because a government takes what you have earned by force. I'm just saying Jesus says giving to the poor is the right thing to do if you are able. He never says to forcefully take what is not yours.

the only people that are taking from anyone are the already massively rich in the forms of massive tax-cuts and loopholes.

Once again, not all rich people are greedy, tax cheats. It's about what's in a person's heart and there are many wealthy people who give back more than enough in taxes and charities. Rich people who do not give back are greedy. It's not because they are rich, it's because they are greedy.

It is unfortunate that liberals are forcing Christian morality on the rest of us. No other religion is as anti-rich as Christianity. In the Bible, the fisherman is asked to give 50% to help others. Moslems are happy with 2.5% going to charity, Buddhists believe that it is due to karma so if someone is wealthy they must have deserved it. Hindus believe that money is irrelevant to the important spiritual things in life. Socialism is derived from Christian morality. When you talk about "fairness" you are talking about the Christian view of fairness. Marx came from a long line of rabbis and understood the biblical views on "fairness". He may have taken the god out of religious morality but left the religious morality.

And, of course, the oddest thing about liberals in the US is they don't seem to understand that the real poor are in the undeveloped world. Instead they whine about wanting more for themselves here, ignoring the 2 billion living on less than $2/day. Fairness??? Largely because of outsourcing, the world is experiencing amazing growth in previously improverished countries such as China, India, Brazil. Africa is poised to become the next economic miracle. But US liberals are angry because they aren't getting more for themselves. Positively amazing.

This is a country where you can be anything you want, it takes work and ambition that's why so many people from other countries come here. Progressives are too lazy to work and have no ambition and want to sit on their ass and only want to live off the rich.

right, we are to lazy to work. and yet at the same time we have the ideas, we are the innovators. I don't see any conservatives trying to figure out ways to get off oil and find other sources of power.

This is not about Jesus, this is about your boy obama telling you to hate the rich and you repeating it like an Obamabot. The master says.. say this.. and the sheeples will carry on his request.

lol

Really are you all stupid. We don't hate them how about they keep the tax break and we can change jobs and pay. They can know what its like to bust your ass making 8.50 an hr. If I made 50 grand a year I wouldn't cry as lound as them about taxes. Much less over 250 grand.

Ideology. Truth is many Democrats in power are wealthy themselves.

It's envy. Which is not the same as jealousy. Jealousy just says, “I want what you have.” Envy is a different animal. Envy says, “I don’t think I can ever have what you have, so you shouldn’t have it either.” Envy is at the chore of Obama's Occutard movement!

Simply jealous.

It is very odd being as so many billionaires and millionaires are libs. The only ones, I imagine, that hate them are those libs standing in line for the "free" lunch. Maybe the word hasn't filtered down to them yet.

No one hates the rich, but repubes hate the poor

You are another one who has been drinking Obama's Kool ade for sure. Your boss Obama told you to say this and your little simple mind agreed.

Irony.

Don't post you self shots please.

Strange that you should post that. I do charitable work with the poor and I never have a lib show up to help out. Maybe they are waiting elsewhere for the rich to share their wealth.

you probably work at a church

It is odd how that works. In my volunteer efforts I noticed that the hardest working volunteers tend to be those with religious affiliations. Not sure why. I am a life long agnostic but I can't deny what my eyes see.
Maybe it is just a sampling error.

Yes, they are. They also take a huge burden off the taxpayers by the work they do.

No, christians hate gays ad everything that is against their old dusty book, and you know you are christian.

You came up with that misinformation based on my volunteering?
You may want to try logic.

I have tried logic, I am atheist.

Funny.
1. I don't believe in god.
2. I don't know everything.
Therefore I can't know that there is no god.

1. I don't believe in santa
2. I don't know everything

Therefor I can't know there is no santa?

Also, atheism is not when you are sure there is no god.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable.
(From Wikipedia-don't be making up your own definitions.)

I am an agnostic because I can't prove or disprove the existence of god. I also can't prove or disprove the existence of Santa. I seriously doubt either god or Santa exists but I am an apathetic agnostic because I don't really care much about the subject either way.
But I am bothered by the religiously fanatical atheists who try to proselytize about something lacking proof, simply on faith. No different from Christians, Moslems, etc.

read the rest of the article.

OK, fine.
I guess that you are an implicit atheist, then? I probably am as well but prefer the agnostic label. Is it my belief that when someone says they are an atheist they probably mean an explicit atheist. And as I understand it, I would not want to be associated with them.

Atheism=lack of belief in gods.

If you don't know everything I recommend you to go to school and graduate from kindergartner.