Stephen Colbert And Jesus

Stephen Colbert has built a career on mockery, and his audience loves it.  To them, Colbert projects the impression that he is superior to those he mocks.  And they, like children laughing at the stuffiness of grownups, delight in seeing their victims taken down a peg or two.   But those of us from an older generation see Stephen Colbert as an irresponsible, immature, deceived, know-it-all brat.  Where his fans think he is just a great guy doing the same things great comedians have always done, I see him as someone who has no sense of probity.

It isn’t simply a matter of him crossing the line.  He acts as if there are no lines.  He acts as if the only thing that matters is the pleasure he experiences by acting superior to everyone and everything he mocks.  On his show of December 16, 2010 he mocked statements made by lawmakers that referenced Jesus.  And as clever as Mr. Colbert and his fans like to think he is, he made problematical statements which misrepresented Jesus, Christianity and even the separation of church and state.

When talking about “what Jesus actually said”, Colbert gave as an example, “rich people should sell all their possessions and give the money to the poor.”  But Jesus never made that generalized statement.  You may either take Colbert’s statement at face value and not think any further or you can actually examine what the Bible records.  It’s your choice.  Are you a know-it-all or are you willing to learn?  Stephen Colbert has already decided he is an expert on what Jesus taught.  He is woefully ignorant.

In Matthew 19:16 a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Rabbi, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”  Already, this person was off to the wrong start.  The New Testament teaches that there is NOTHING we can do to “get” eternal life.  Ephesians 2:8 & 9 says, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that none can boast.”  Jesus answered this man (Matthew 19:17) saying, “Why do you ask me about what is good?  There is only One who is good.  If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”  In other words, Jesus was telling him NO GOOD DEED was good enough to “get” eternal life.  But that he should begin (enter) by obeying the commandments.

In verse 20 the man said he had already been keeping the commandments but asked, “What do I still lack?”  This man felt a definite lack in his life, or else he would never have asked this.  Jesus knew that this man’s love of money was preventing him from making any real spiritual commitment, so in verse 21 he said, “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.”  It’s the “follow me” that’s most significant.  In verse 22 the man went away sad.  The love he had for his great worldly wealth prevented him from following Jesus and seeking heavenly treasure.

After this story Jesus talks about how difficult it is for those who are rich to enter the kingdom of God, yet he tempers that statement by saying all things are possible with God.  It is the love of money that gets in the way, not the money itself. Speaking of making such a choice between money and God, Matthew 6:4 and Luke 16:13 both teach that you can’t serve both masters.  1 Timothy 6:10 tells us the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.  And it is the love of money that makes you a servant to it.

In 1 Timothy 6:18  the rich are told to “do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.”  But how they actually do that is strictly their business.  No one has the right to oversee the altruism of anyone else.  In Matthew 6:1-4 Jesus instructs us not to do our “‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them”  and “when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret.”  This is because giving to the poor is a voluntary act, rightly motivated by a willing heart.  2 Corinthians 9:7 spells it out: “Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”  That’s freewill.

Colbert concluded his Jesus routine: “…if this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge that he commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition… and then admit that we just don’t want  to do it.”  There are some glaring mistakes here that aren’t funny.  First of all, the Bible teaches us about personal accountability to God.  Jesus didn’t teach that government taxation was how we should give to the poor.  He taught that the most important consideration is what is in the giver’s heart, not the amount of the gift.  Mark 12:42-44 (the story of the widow’s mite) illustrates that point.

In order to laugh at this, you have to find mocking the separation of church and state funny.  I don’t.  On the one hand Christians are denied the free exercise of their religion, when it comes to any public, tax supported forum, but on the other hand they are expected to pay extra taxes because it helps them practice their religion by giving to the poor.  That not only lacks humor, it lacks intellectual integrity because giving to charity and being taxed to pay for government “charity” have absolutely nothing in common.  One is an expression of freedom, the other is an act of tyranny.

Second, Colbert characterizes Americans as selfish?  I don’t believe that for a moment.  Americans have always generously helped the needy through charitable giving.  It’s only when statistics are prepared by pro Pan-Leninists that American giving appears to decline, in comparison to other countries.  That’s because socialists call their tax-supported government assistance “charitable giving”.  And their official line is that they’re looking out for the little guy, while those rich Americans are just “greedy”.   Of course, such a sentiment comes from envy (a sin equal to greed), but they somehow see it as a virtue, that poor people are, by definition, virtuous.  And that is a complete distortion of reality.

Third, Colbert said, “we’ve got to acknowledge that he commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition”.  Did Jesus really command us to do that?  I know Jesus told us to love our enemies.  But does that mean we are to subsidize them?  After all, he did say we would always have the poor.  I also know that we are to “serve one another in love” (Galatians 5:13).  That specifically refers to Christians serving Christians, not just the poor.  In fact, if you will study Scripture, you will discover that the poor are not to be given preferential treatment.  We are to treat everyone equally.  His phrase “without condition” is meaningless.  We are to love unconditionally, because that is how God loves us, but that does not equate to social welfare.  Only an unspiritual person would think so.  Even the Bible teaches: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” (2 Thessalonians 3:10)

Fourth, Colbert says if we don’t acknowledge Jesus commanded us to love the poor and serve them unconditionally, then we need to admit we just don’t want to do it.  This statement angers me beyond belief.  Biblical charity is to be done in secret.  It has nothing to do with tax-funded programs for the poor.  God and God alone is the judge as to who is a generous and cheerful giver.  Not the IRS, not the congress and certainly not Stephen Colbert.  A person’s generosity can’t be measured by the taxes he pays.  A Christian’s desire to help the poor goes way beyond taxes.  And taxation to support socialist programs for the poor actually has been shown to be more detrimental to poor people because it keeps them on the government dole.  They lose any incentive to better themselves and they remain dependent on the state.  How does that serve the poor?  How is that loving them?

Stephen Colbert’s mockery attacks my beliefs and values.  He attacks Biblical theology and misrepresents the teachings of Christ.  While wrapping himself in the flag, he mocks the very freedom that forged this country and the very values instilled in our constitution: small government that guarantees the freedom of self-determination based on personal responsibility, not big government that engenders and preserves a plantation mentality.  And just in case you don’t know what that means, it means don’t worry your pretty little head.  The master will take care of everything.


About retiredday

I am Michael D. Day, a regular, everyday guy -- retired. I stand for God-given freedom, which means I think for myself. I believe in being civil, because the Bible teaches that we should love our enemies. But I also believe in saying it how I see it, and explaining just why I see it that way, sort of like 2 Timothy 4:2.
This entry was posted in Bible, Christian Faith, Freedom, Mockery and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Stephen Colbert And Jesus

  1. miriamhyde54 says:

    Do you also condemn those who have repeatedly lied, mocked, spread fear and hate about President Obama and Democrats? They certainly are winning that race (oops…sorry; that was not meant as in “using the race card”). From Day 1, McConnell pronounced that their main goal was to make “the President a one-term president.”, and they have not wavered from that one bit. At the American people’s expense.

    You defend the Bible. As a Democrat, I’m fine with that. I’m fine with anyone defending their religion. However, according to the right-wing religious “tea party”, if you are not a “prosperity, “dominuism”, evangelical Christian, you are less than dirt. Once you have successfully trained your brain to think of others as “nonhumans”, doing anything you want to them is not only acceptable, but encouraged. My mother survived five years in Nazi work and death camps. I know what discrimination and hatred is. I am not fine with integrating religion into politics. No one should have to undergo vetting based on their religion. What does it matter? The one thing any candidate must bring to the table is the desire to serve their constituents. Surprise! The current House is serving corporation, oil, etc. They have proven they have no interest in the needs of the people. Polls show that a lot of people are getting tired of it.

    Colbert’s quote, “If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge that he commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition… and then admit that we just don’t want to do it.”

    As a Jew, I think Jesus did live on Earth, was a more-than-good man and taught his followers excellent things. While I don’t think the Bible is written now as it likely was way back when, I believe there is much to be learned from BOTH Testaments. I base my life on those principals found in Western religions.

    The current House and other (especially Tea Party) politicians plan to cut almost everything, especially in social services – without being willing to ante up themselves and their buddies, or take cuts to their own benefits – and using God and Jesus in their verbiage but not their attitudes and actions assures me they have no real interests but themselves.

    There are many who identify themselves as “religious. Indeed, a few actually follow their religions teachings of assisting those in need.

    One suggestion: read this article. It is written a by newly-resigned professional Republican staffer of almost 30 years. A true “insider”

    You are welcome to follow me on FB. I do come down often and hard on those who are liars and hypocrites; Democrats included. I haven’t posted much about it lately, but I am also Chair of the Utah State Democratic Disability Caucus. I put my time and energy where my mouth is. I have increasingly little money, and sometimes am unable “to make ends meet”. Otherwise, I’d be putting my money where my mouth is, as well


    • retiredday says:

      Halfway through your comment, you quote Colbert. But your opinions about Jesus, Western religions, government, politicians and “religious” persons in no way address the specific points I made in the article. Apparently you are saying the government should have the power to make sure everyone is living up to their personal religious beliefs. You imply that the government should force us to “give” by taxation, which assumes the government knows better how I should spend my money than I do.

      It is difficult to respond to your comment because it is all over the place. Your only “point” is your passion, which I applaud. However, rather than actually explaining why you think what I wrote is incorrect, you simply vent your feelings. And while feelings are valid, they are ineffectual in dealing with concepts. Where I crafted my thoughts, you just spout impressions.

      “Do you also condemn…?”

      I don’t condemn anyone. Why do you accuse me of that? If Stephen Colbert is right about Christianity, and I am wrong, then come up with a cogent argument to prove your case. If he does not rely heavily on mockery, prove it. You have done neither.

      “fear and hate about President Obama and Democrats”

      In the very first sentence of your comment, you have changed the subject, a tactic of argument employed by those who are unable to cope with the point at hand. However, since you brought up the subject, I will reply. You have used two powerful words: fear and hate. Are you implying that anyone opposed to Obama or opposed to Democrats is motivated by fear and hate? Are you saying there is no rational, defensible, respectful, dignified, principled reason to be a conservative?

      The political convictions I hold are not in any way motivated or expressed in hate. On the contrary, it is on my love of freedom that I base my political principles. In terms of fear, I do have the fear that if Americans continue to look to the government for the solutions to all their problems, we will lose our freedom to tyranny. There is an important principle that you on the left too often ignore: Freedom makes you responsible. Big government takes that responsibility away from you and makes you dependent on them. In the process, you are no longer free.

      For my money, a perfect example of basing one’s opinions on fear and hate — completely ignoring reality in the process — is your statement, “…according to the right-wing religious “tea party”, if you are not a “prosperity, “dominuism”, evangelical Christian, you are less than dirt.” While that’s you’re impression, and you are free to be as ignorant as you choose, there is no basis in fact for that statement. It simply reflects the “fear and hate” of those you listen to. The Tea Party movement represents middle (average) Americans who are tired of the government taking more control over our lives and taking more of our money that we earn, to give it to others who don’t deserve it. These are the same kind of people who VOLUNTARILY support charities.

      Let me clarify something. I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN! I have been in the past. I also was a Democrat. But I changed my political affiliation during W’s first term and I am now a member of the Constitution Party. Power politics and globalism of both Democrats and Republicans is what is destroying our country. If we don’t get back to CONSTITUTIONAL government, our freedom is dead. The majority of both Democrats and Republicans do not represent American national interests.

      You claim, “I know what discrimination and hatred is.” Since your mother suffered first hand under the Nazis. If that is true, then why do you use the pain of your wounds to justify inflicting the same kind of treatment against those in the Tea Party movement? You obviously hate them because to you they represent all the evils of society — just as Jews were singled out in pre-war Germany. You make no factual, reasoned argument. You simply decry the evil of those dastardly Tea Partiers. Your own hatred prevents you from seeing that real human constituents (like me) want smaller government. You dehumanize us with terms such as corporation and oil. You should look to yourself and learn the facts.

      “There are many who identify themselves as “religious. Indeed, a few actually follow their religions teachings of assisting those in need.”

      What does this mean? That if people don’t follow their religious teachings, the government should take over? Is it the government’s job to make sure everyone assists those in need, because religions aren’t doing their duty? If you think so, you are willing to give up your freedom. Not me. As I said earlier, many charities are supported by those terrible, inhuman Tea Party members. Many of those Nazi-like creatures (as portrayed by leftist hate-mongers) support charities in addition to their 10% tithe. They’re so horrible. They believe, AS THE BIBLE TEACHES (both Jewish and Christian) that giving should be VOLUNTARY. When taxation is increased under the supposed intent that we must help the less fortunate, taxes becomes confiscatory. Philosophically, I am opposed to a big, powerful government confiscating my money to help those they choose to help.

      In the general sense, that is the essence of socialism: government knows best. And looking specifically at our government, it has already become socialist. Under Obama, we are making a sharp left turn towards Communism. That is not hyperbole. If you have ANY intellectual integrity at all, examine your own fear and hate-based impressions against the documented facts found in “Trickle Up Poverty”. My guess is that you are too determined to hold onto your demonized characterization of those on the right to actually expose your unfounded impressions to the light of truth.

      As a Jew, you need to know that Christians are your friends. Yes, there have been centuries of painful and even nightmarish anti-semitism. But for those of us who know the Bible, we acknowledge the Tanakh is the word of Adonai. The Torah is holy Scripture to us too, because it presages Messiah. It is not Scripture that divides us, but the interpretation of it. Both Christians and Jews believe in the God of the Bible. Your statement, “…I don’t think the Bible is written now as it likely was way back when,” indicates you are somewhat ignorant of the reliability of Scripture. Did you know that the entire book of Isaiah found with the Dead Sea Scrolls was word-for-word the same as a modern day copy? This speaks to the dedication and discipline of Jewish scribes.

      In Acts 17:11 (New Testament) we are told that the people in Berea who heard Paul’s message checked the Tanakh every day to make sure that what he said was true. Paul was a Jewish Rabbi, his first listeners were Jews and they tested what he taught about Jesus against the teaching of Jewish Scripture. (The New Testament had not been written yet.) The reliability of both “Old” and “New” Testaments is well-attested, and together form much of the basis of Western Civilization, in law, culture and the value of each individual.

      Read the Declaration of Independence. God (not religion) was in our government from the very beginning. If you choose Godless Communism you are turning your back on our Creator.


  2. Jeff Wiebe says:

    I don’t know, friend. The argument about how we help the poor (eg. taxation vs. private giving) seems a little “corban” to me.


    • retiredday says:

      Perhaps corban has a certain connotation to you which you hope will give the impression that you know something. Yet, you do not bolster your position in any way. You do not counter a thing I wrote. You make no point. Instead, you opt to simply characterize my argument as “corban”. basically, that’s nothing more than name-calling. You are just giving me your gut reaction without rational thought.

      Your comment reminds me of the negative connotation of the term “Uncle Tom”. If you actually read Uncle Tom’s Cabin, by Harriet Beecher Stowe, you discover that the character, Uncle Tom, is the most noble, moral and truly Christian character in the book. So to criticize blacks who violate the liberal doxy as “Uncle Toms” is an oxymoron. It does not follow. It makes no sense. Just as your corban comment makes no sense.

      Corban (korban, qorban) comes from the Hebrew and refers to any type of sacrifice that is dedicated to the LORD as an offering to him. The making of these sacrifices was commanded by God and spelled out in detail in the Torah. Jesus came to fulfill the Torah, not to abolish it (Matthew 5:17). So when he answered the legalistic questions of the Pharisees and scribes, he addressed their “letter of the Law” thinking with his “spirit of the Law” (fulfillment). (See Mark 7:5 – 13, which contrasts the “spirit” of Corban with it’s legalistic practice, wherein religious offerings were made in absence of love or compassion.)


  3. retiredday says:

    I received a comment from Ryan Gerardi (@yhurg) who gave me a bogus email, which explains why I did not publish it. This person referenced a Facebook conversation at in which he quoted the opening to my post without crediting me or linking to my post. Because I do not have accounts on any of the social networks, and the email he gave is bogus, I did not contact him to tell him I did not appreciate his quoting me without at least saying who he was quoting from. I welcome anyone who does FB (or Twitter) to link this post.


  4. Michelle Miller says:

    When I see Tea Partiers and Conservatives as a whole cease attempts to limit Islamic and other expressions of faith, I may take seriously the bitching and moaning of evangelical Tea Partiers and Conservatives about how they can’t walk around and pray in schools. Yes, being the majority in power is so, so oppressive. My heart bleeds for our plight.

    I’m an evangelical myself, and a political moderate, but I’m often so ashamed of the behavior of the conservative evangelical minority that I’m tempted to refer to myself as liberal, except that would be open deception.

    If you want a separation, then so be it. Don’t let your Judeo-Christian values determine whom the state authorizes for marriage, even if you believe theologically that homosexuality is sinful. By that same theology, so is lying, premarital sex, and unchecked greed, yet all of these evangelical conservatives strangely have no interest in regulating. Practice your religion in schools, but it had better not be the only religion you allow, so either accept the group worshiping an effigy out back or make it easy and say that schools are religion-free for everyone.

    As for Colbert, he is guilty of hyperbole and overstating his case. You are correct. Nonetheless, most evangelicals would agree that Jesus did teach us to care for the poor, the underprivileged, the single moms and dads, the orphans – in short, anyone who needs help. You may not have to agree that such assistance should come partly or entirely from government, but surely you can agree that all that private assistance we’ve been relying on has done a poor job indeed of addressing those needs. And just as Jesus didn’t specifically state that such assistance should be distributed through government, he also didn’t specifically say it had to come from private givers, either. Kind of leaves room for an open interpretation, no? Government is the most convenient, efficient method of massive, formal distribution of care. Government allows for society-wide cultures that affect how we view the needy. Frankly, it seems equally noble to me (and perhaps this is the moderate in me) to fixate society on helping the needy through its government than to fixate society on the God of Greed, instead, and hope that some of the wealth propagated by that greed makes it’s way to the poor.

    Capitalism has its benefits, but it’s foolishness to believe it doesn’t have its drawbacks, too, one of which is the tendency of unchecked private sectors to subvert the will of the people at the ultimate cost of society’s most vulnerable members (see: corporations buying off congress to pass regulations that further their own interests at the cost of taxpayers, the needy, or the air we all breathe).

    Either we can overspend on the wealthy, or overspend on the needy. Tell me truthfully, as an evangelical, which would you prefer?


    • retiredday says:

      When I publish a post, such as “Stephen Colbert And Jesus”, I put a great deal of thought into them. It is therefore very disappointing to get comments that are poorly thought out. Part of me wants to simply delete comments that don’t rise to any real level of debate, (such as yours). But another part of me says maybe if I reflect back to them what they have said, they will see how tenuous their position is and perhaps do some re-thinking or re-evaluation of their assumptions. So it is with a sense of duty that I respond to your “comment”, which is really more of an uncontrolled vomiting out of emotional associations, than ideas.

      What you wrote probably holds some special meaning to you, based on your biases, your opinions, your beliefs, or your positions. Yet, while that is enough to satisfy you, you have said nothing to prove any point. You simply have your POV, based on misinformation which you don’t seem willing to hold up to the light. Your comment reflects a mush of chaotic consciousness, with little skill in addressing the specific points I made, and little demonstration of an ability to think things through. This seems to be a common trait among fans of Stephen Colbert.

      Your opening paragraph has nothing to do with my post, “Stephen Colbert and Jesus”. Rather you state your opposition to “evangelical Tea Partiers and Conservatives” “bitching and moaning about how they can’t walk around and pray in schools.” Were you on drugs when you wrote this? The statement, “Yes, being the majority in power is so, so oppressive. My heart bleeds for our plight.” is a non sequitur. What were you trying to say? Who is in power? And who are the majority?

      You claim to be an “evangelical”. Labels mean different things to different people, so I really don’t know what Christian beliefs, if any, you hold. But for me, if you can’t back up your beliefs with what the Bible teaches, then whatever you call yourself is irrelevant. You wrote, “Don’t let your Judeo-Christian values determine whom the state authorizes for marriage, even if you believe theologically that homosexuality is sinful.” Why not? If you go to any Islamic nation today, they don’t allow homosexual marriage. In fact, the punishment for being homosexual is death. You mentioned the majority. Don’t you think the majority should decide who is authorized to marry? In every State where this issue has been voted on by the people, the majority says they do not support gay marriage. And yet federal judges, in an unconstitutional abuse of power, have stricken down such votes, going against the majority. That’s not Democracy. It’s tyranny.

      Your misstatements continue: “By that same theology, so is lying, premarital sex, and unchecked greed, yet all of these evangelical conservatives strangely have no interest in regulating.” I don’t really know who your straw man (“these evangelical conservatives”) is. Reducing others to labels is a convenient way to demonize those to whom you are opposed. I will not defend the group you have labeled because I don’t know who they are. But as far as Bible-believing Christians are concerned, we are opposed to all sin, and believe that society’s laws should represent God-ordained morality. Very basically, we believe in Natural Law, which produced such documents as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Unfortunately for Christians, Natural Law is being gradually replaced with what is called Positive Law, which rejects the absolute authority of God, as represented in laws, replacing God’s authority with Relativism and Humanism.

      More ignorance: “Practice your religion in schools, but it had better not be the only religion you allow, so either accept the group worshiping an effigy out back or make it easy and say that schools are religion-free for everyone.” Clumsily stated, you imply that Christians want religious freedom while denying the same freedom to non-Christians. If you truly believe that, you are indeed ignorant. It’s Christians who are most often denied their religious freedoms in schools today. That is because we are under attack by those who wish to eradicate Christian influence in society. And I happen to agree that every religion should be allowed to operate their own schools — with the caveat that they do not teach terrorism or the violent overthrow of America.

      In the fourth paragraph of your comment, you finally come to a subject Colbert spoke about, which my post addressed. You wrote, “surely you can agree that all that private assistance we’ve been relying on has done a poor job indeed of addressing those needs.” My answer to you is I do not agree at all. First of all, when you say “we’ve been relying on”, who are you talking about? Who is “we”? I haven’t been relying on private assistance. Even long before I was a Christian, I was providing private assistance. I have first-hand seen many people helped by various church ministries and have seen larger, para-church organizations do tremendous good. When you say private assistance has done a poor job, you do not know the facts. You believe a lie.

      “…he also didn’t specifically say it had to come from private givers, either. Kind of leaves room for an open interpretation, no?” No. Jesus was speaking to individuals about their individual accountability, and the condition of their “heart” (spirit) in their giving. He was not addressing an organization, a neighborhood planning council, a political action committee or any governmental bureaucracy. He was talking to each person about what God desires from him, personally. You are an “evangelical” and you don’t know that? What you suggest is Liberation Theology, which is Communism.

      “Government is the most convenient, efficient method of massive, formal distribution of care.” Either you are knowingly lying or you’ve been taken in by socialist thought, becoming what Karl Marx called a “useful idiot”. Government handling of “massive, formal distribution of care” is notoriously wasteful, inefficient, costly, boggled down with bureaucratic red-tape and often ineffective because of the lack of sensitivity to whomever has the greatest need. Because government has the power to tax, they have greater resources than private agencies, but that doesn’t mean they handle those resources as well as the private agencies. If you want the greatest value, contribute to a reputable agency. But demanding that everyone pay more taxes, so the government can help the “needy” (however you define it) is confiscatory, and will never accomplish what you want.

      Who is the “God of Greed” you speak of? Is that the “God” of the so-called “evangelicals” or the “Tea Partiers” or the “conservatives”? My God is the God of the Bible and I can (and have) supported my positions Biblically. My blog is about politics and religion, and I have documented my principles Scripturally. What I see is that in your unsound, socialistic confusion, you think that raising taxes on everyone to take care of “the needy” will make this a wonderful world. The only problem with that is that everywhere socialism and communism has been tried, it has failed — not only failed to produce the promised results, but resulted in the governmental and financial collapse of nations. The only people who benefit are those in power who skim off what they want and let everyone else suffer.

      “… corporations buying off congress to pass regulations that further their own interests at the cost of taxpayers…” So tell me, if congress is being bought off by corporations, how can you possibly trust congress to handle tax-payer dollars in the redistribution of our wealth to “the needy”. How stupid is that? I don’t trust them. But I guess you do. The Tea Partiers that you so vehemently malign want to make government smaller. That means put less of our money in the hands of government, so they won’t be able to screw us. In a Democracy, We The People are supposed to have the power to make government do what we want, not the other way around.

      Finally, your closing question is absurd. “Either we can overspend on the wealthy, or overspend on the needy.” What kind of idiotic choice is that? A mature person, one who has learned what responsibility is, someone who understands there are consequences to one’s actions, someone who has developed judgement and discernment from having experienced life — someone very different from you — will ask, “Why must we overspend at all?” That’s insane. Keep that up and everyone will be in the poor house. You are misinformed and spreading disinformation. You are willing to believe lies without examining the evidence. In your idealistic zeal, you deny the truth.

      Our nation is currently in a deep financial crisis, not caused by rich people hoarding their money, but by prolonged government overspending. As a Bible-believing Christian, I would prefer freedom: a small government, as envisioned in the Constitution, enabling everyone to have the freedom to choose to give or not to give, as he responds to the Holy Spirit’s prompting. And let God take care of the rest.


  5. jmatisi says:

    I could pick through all of your statements and make many corrections to your assumptions. But why would I do that? They are very clearly assumptions. In quite a few cases, you don’t quote from the bible and accept very clear statements as being what they are, very clearly stated. No, you don’t do that, you do what every self serving christian does and you interpret the words to mean exactly what you want and think them to mean.

    Just as one example, you don’t quote what a man supposedly said to Jesus and what Jesus supposedly said in return.. what you do is you interject what Jesus and the rich man were thinking and feeling… Where did you get your mind reading skills from that enable you to read the mind of fictional characters in a 2000 year old religion? Your opinion about a man (Colbert) who is your intellectual superior is worthless. You are arrogant and long winded and you are also wrong on most points… and no, I’m not about to bother with a debate with you because you aren’t worth the time it would take. Two paragraphs is all I can manage to waste on you.


    • retiredday says:

      You, my sad adversary, are the arrogant one, not I. It takes no knowledge or discernment to insult a person because you hate what he has written. It takes no study, no consideration, no weighing of the facts, no rational exercise of intellect at all to make snap value judgements, cast aspersions and vilify an opponent, simply because you lack the character to tolerate any opposition to your personally approved worldview.

      Despite your ego-driven bravado, you lack the will or intellectual integrity to actually confront a single point I made in my post.
      Your single pitiful example reflects your total ignorance of and predisposition against Biblical exegesis. You limit your comment to two paragraphs, not just because of your contempt for my unmitigated gall in actually writing something critical of your hero, Stephen Colbert, but because you have no more to say. You have no rational argument. All you offer is vituperation.

      You, as one of Steven Colbert’s audience, share his perspective — superior, condescending and arrogant. You base all your mockery on the primacy of your own opinion, which makes the factual knowledge of anyone who disagrees with you irrelevant. You lack the knowledge, skills, dignity and integrity to rationally debate.

      I haven’t the slightest concern for your blather.


  6. Marty Faulkner says:

    Why did you even bother writing this? To show that Colbert is wrong and you are right? How does that possibly bring people to an understanding of God’s grace? How does that minister to the needs of the weak and hurting? How does that edify God? Have you even read Matthew 5-7? There is no evidence of it in your posts. You show is no evidence of charity or love in this arrogant display of “look at how smart I am and how well I know the Bible”, so whatever sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal you expected to create here does not reach God’s ears. Walk away from this vanity. Humble yourself. Feed his sheep. This is vain disputation aimed only at making yourself feel better and it does not serve the Lord in any way much less make you more holy. You would have better luck hiring someone blow a trumpet before you as you go to Church to give your tithe. Your tithe, as though it ever belonged to you…

    I will pray for you but understand that I prayed before I posted this. You are portraying “cheap grace” (look it up) as the real thing. By doing that you damage the cause of Christ and offer salvation to a superficial christianity that asks not what can I do for God but how can God help me so that I may do more. If you do not understand the difference between those two positions you need not send me an email. I will not debate this in a public forum. The net is not a fertile field for evangelism!


    • retiredday says:

      Your comment is full of generalizations (not to mention, packed with innuendos). You have passed judgement on me without making a single cogent, reasoned point. Mainly, your comment conveys anger and sounds a bit holier-than-thou. You are welcome to your point of view, but have given no reasons or evidence for me to respect it or consider it.

      Why did I bother writing this? Because Stephan Colbert abused his position of being listened to because of his celebrity. He misrepresented Scripture, misquoted Jesus and mischaracterized Christian attitudes. He is a professing Catholic and should know better. I don’t believe what he said deserved to stand without a Scriptural refutation.

      Have I even read Matthew 5-7. Yes I have. Have you? Shouldn’t you be concerned about the log in your own eye?

      You accuse this post, and apparently everything I have written, of being “vain disputation” just to make myself feel better and not to serve the LORD. And yet you do not cite a single thing I said or explain any basis for your accusation. My desire is, in fact, to serve the LORD. But you do not have any standing in my life to judge me on that. The aim of this blog is to give a reasoned discussion of issues relevant to the Christian world view. I try to illustrate my points with Biblical principles, and I use Scripture quotations to support those points. I also use reason, including logic, because it is important to me to demonstrate that spiritual truths can be discussed rationally and that Christians need not check their brains at the door.

      Although I admit that from time to time I tend to “jump into the fray”, it is not my intention to argue for the sake of arguing. I do not toot my own horn. And I challenge you to show otherwise. I believe in the principle of Romans 14, which teaches not to pass judgement on fellow believers over disputes of opinions. But Stephen Colbert’s comments do not fall into that category. He flat-out misrepresented Jesus, the Bible and Christians. In his case, he needed correction. Read 2 Timothy 3:16. In your case, you did not apply the Scriptures you referenced to anything I specifically wrote. You simply used them to express your feelings that led you to pass judgement on my motives.

      Thank you for praying for me. I also will pray for you. Everything we do as Christians must follow and be undergirded with prayer. And remember that prayer is not just a one-way conversation. We must be still and train our spirits to hear him. And there is nothing more wonderful than hearing from the LORD, doing his will, seeing his victory and giving him the glory!


  7. Roger H says:

    Well, a comedian can’t please all the people all the time now, can he?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s