1
1
0
I have a question for my Republican friends. I usually don't "Cherry Pick" scriptures to justify positions, however, I heard this scripture read yesterday at Mass and it got me to thinking.
I will provide three different versions of the same scripture which is 2nd Corinthians Chapter 8, Verses 13-15.
The first if from the Catholic Bible
13
not that others should have relief while you are burdened, but that as a matter of equality
14
your surplus at the present time should supply their needs, so that their surplus may also supply your needs, that there may be equality.
15
As it is written:
“Whoever had much did not have more,
and whoever had little did not have less.”
The second version is from the King James Version of the Bible.
13 For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened:
14 But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality:
15 As it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack.
The 3rd version is from the New International Version of the Bible.
13Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. 14At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, 15as it is written: “The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little.”
I am not trying to pass judgment on anyone or start a scripture war or anything like that. I just honestly want to understand how does this scripture apply to the Republican platform?
Could someone please help me?
I will provide three different versions of the same scripture which is 2nd Corinthians Chapter 8, Verses 13-15.
The first if from the Catholic Bible
13
not that others should have relief while you are burdened, but that as a matter of equality
14
your surplus at the present time should supply their needs, so that their surplus may also supply your needs, that there may be equality.
15
As it is written:
“Whoever had much did not have more,
and whoever had little did not have less.”
The second version is from the King James Version of the Bible.
13 For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened:
14 But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality:
15 As it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack.
The 3rd version is from the New International Version of the Bible.
13Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. 14At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, 15as it is written: “The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little.”
I am not trying to pass judgment on anyone or start a scripture war or anything like that. I just honestly want to understand how does this scripture apply to the Republican platform?
Could someone please help me?
Religion
Republicans
Church
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
2
2
0
I have always understood that passage to be a commentary to the church in Corinth to look after the needs of their members that were in need, and to reflect Jesus' love by being a cheerful giver.
I am fairly confident Paul was not a Marxist.
As far as how this pertains to Republicans, I think that most Republicans believe that those in need should be looked after, and that the best method is through chartable community-based organizations with the encouragement and supplemental support of the proper echelon of government. Most conservatives would go the extra mile to lift a hand to help someone.
My personal take is that virtually any other means to assist others is more efficient than running it through a government bureaucracy. I further feel that many well-intended programs have been hijacked in order to keep people dependent and reliably voting for democrats. This approach is brutally flawed, as evidenced by the debacles taking place in Detroit and other one party-ruled cities around the country, as the tipping point passes where people with means are outvoted, and the whole house of cards collapses when the well-to-do vote with their feet.
I am fairly confident Paul was not a Marxist.
As far as how this pertains to Republicans, I think that most Republicans believe that those in need should be looked after, and that the best method is through chartable community-based organizations with the encouragement and supplemental support of the proper echelon of government. Most conservatives would go the extra mile to lift a hand to help someone.
My personal take is that virtually any other means to assist others is more efficient than running it through a government bureaucracy. I further feel that many well-intended programs have been hijacked in order to keep people dependent and reliably voting for democrats. This approach is brutally flawed, as evidenced by the debacles taking place in Detroit and other one party-ruled cities around the country, as the tipping point passes where people with means are outvoted, and the whole house of cards collapses when the well-to-do vote with their feet.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
As I see it a republican believes in helping those in need just not at the level of bankrupting the nation. Republicans don't believe in zero assistance for those with needs. They believe in keeping it within a budget. And it seems to me that fulfills the intent of the scripture you site.
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google