Thread: Purgatory: Does God like conservatives or liberals better? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001054
Posted by hermit (# 1803) on
:
This arises from comments made in the "who are you going to vote for thread" ... would Jesus give a bigger thumbs up to politics which mandate the "redistribution of wealth" and more extensive social services?
I think I've heard that Australians have different meanings of what liberals and conservatives are, so by liberal I mean lefties who want the State to become a gigantic, obese, Robin Hood with nanny tendencies ... taking more money from those who earn it and throwing it at the poor.
I suppose that gives you a hint of where I stand on this .... however my reading of scripture does indeed indicate that Jesus wanted and mandated redistribution of some amount of wealth. Who could read the parable of Lazarus or Matthew 25 and not come to that conclusion? But it was to be done voluntarily and on an individual basis, and it pertained to the necessities of life, food shelter and clothing, not luxuries.
In this secular society I am glad that those of us who are poor and genuinely disabled such as myself, can get those necessities and then a little extra if we're careful. Most Republicans in this country don't want to throw away the safety net, just make sure the system is run efficiently and without too much scamming, and that beneficiaries are genuinely needy and can't work. And that they receive only what's necessary to survive in peace, rather than large amounts of luxury items.
I think we have a fairly good system now in the USA ... too much socialism and economies stagnate or die entirely .... too pure a capitalism and so many suffer. We're fairly well balanced, mostly capitalist but with a heart. I think Jesus is happy with our politics, other than the abortion thing.
[ 24. February 2004, 22:54: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
I dunno, Hermit. I think your question includes an assumption that I disagree with. I don't think God likes conservatives or liberals better. I think he loves us all, whether we're liberals, conservatives, libertarians, communists, monarchists, or whatever other brand of political stupidity we favor.
I happen to think that, as members of a community, we each have a clear responsibility to do our share for the upkeep of the community, just as each member of a home has a responsibility to do their share of the chores. So we should each pay our share of the bills for roads, schools, police, parks, and the like, and taxes are usually the fairest and most sensible way to do that. None of us should be allowed to have garbage piles outside, attracting vermin and creating odors that damage the quality of life of the neighbors. None of us should endanger our neighbors by driving drunk, or shooting off fireworks during a drought.
Likewise, the community has obligations to its members -- basic necessities (food, clothing, shelter, education, medical care (including treatment for mental illness and substance abuse), police and fire protection) should be available to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay.
I know there are some who think that, in the long run, lower taxes and libertarian policies benefit everyone. I don't think so. I think that higher taxes and communitarian policies benefit all of us. They allow us to do the things that have to be done so that folks who are now drains on the system can become productive members of the community.
But I wouldn't say that God agrees with me. Or that he doesn't. I think it's very dangerous to wrap specific social policies in God's name.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
The basic problem with the communitarian argument is that it doesn't generalise beyond the specifics of modern society. It is only because modern technology (and capitalism!) has given us the enormous surpluses that they can be taxed to provide the community goods and support to the poor. Once this is recognised, the central thrust of liberal argument that we have an absolute duty to provide these things crumbles away. All that is left is a commendable desire to do so - but it lacks the appeal to 'rights' that enflames most liberals.
Posted by angloid (# 159) on
:
By definition God - in Christian theology at least - is community. The Trinity in which 'none is afore nor after another'. If that isn't a model for human society I don't know what is. But to answer the OP, God's love for us doesn't depend on our opinions of God or politics or anything else.
Posted by 'Lurker' (# 1384) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
I think I've heard that Australians have different meanings of what liberals and conservatives are, so by liberal I mean lefties who want the State to become a gigantic, obese, Robin Hood with nanny tendencies ... taking more money from those who earn it and throwing it at the poor.
I don't know what God thinks, but I sure think a debate framed in this way is going to be a big waste of time. If all you want to do is rant about the "nanny state", do it in Hell.
Posted by MarkE (# 4660) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
I think we have a fairly good system now in the USA ... too much socialism and economies stagnate or die entirely .... too pure a capitalism and so many suffer. We're fairly well balanced, mostly capitalist but with a heart.
My understanding is that here in the UK we have a more 'socialist' system than in the states. (We could argue about the quality of service but we do have free health care for all, unemployment / disability benefits etc.)
Doesn't seem to have damaged our economy too much Hermit so I guess you could afford to be a bit more 'socialist' wihout it killing you on that side of the pond.
Posted by Balaam. (# 4543) on
:
Does God like liberals or conservatives better?
Neither, he likes us all the same.
Does God prefer liberal or conservative policies?
This is another question entirely.
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on
:
quote:
by liberal I mean lefties who want the State to become a gigantic, obese, Robin Hood with nanny tendencies ... taking more money from those who earn it and throwing it at the poor
Ah, you mean *that* sort of liberal. If you cook like you write, I'm not sure your guests will be able to digest all that roast pork served with marmelade and Rocky Road ice cream finished off with a shot of smoked salmon floating in cream soda.
Raspberry Rabbit
Penicuik, Midlothian
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
by liberal I mean lefties who want the State to become a gigantic, obese, Robin Hood with nanny tendencies ... taking more money from those who earn it and throwing it at the poor.
Holy straw man, Batman! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Seriously, I'd say this. The strength of capitalism is that it is based on self-interest, of which there is an abundant supply. The weakness of capitalism is that it is based on self-interest, which all to easily becones short-sighted greed instead of the enlightened self-interest that recognizes that being dishonest tends to hurt oneself in the long term.
Somehow, I don't see God that cares so much about whether an economic policy is to the left or the right. He seems more concerned about justice and mercy.
Posted by 'Lurker' (# 1384) on
:
I think society is something that can grow, change, evolve. We shouldn't look to a book written 2000 years ago for social policy (not that the bible is irrelevant today, God is eternal, but we have to take it in the context of the time it was written).
Charity may have worked in dealing with social problems in the past, but will it work now? Or is the population too big these days? Is capitalism the way things will be forever, or just another stage in the development of society? Will technology one day render capitalism as we know it obsolete?
Posted by Autobailer (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The basic problem with the communitarian argument is that it doesn't generalise beyond the specifics of modern society. It is only because modern technology (and capitalism!) has given us the enormous surpluses that they can be taxed to provide the community goods and support to the poor.
You mean those surpluses that hunter gatherers didn't have (hunter gatherers were as strong and well nourished as modern western man- it was farming that caused the malnutrition of e.g. the dark ages (source: Jared Diamond, The Rise and Fall of The Third Chimpanzee). You mean those surpluses that the Romans didn't have so they couldn't give their citizens "Bread and Circuses"? You mean the surpluses that didn't create e.g. Versailles, the Vatican (to pick the two most extreme examples I've seen) and many other palaces and monuments? You mean the surpluses in man-hours that didn't eist that were not used to create the Pyramids, Cuzco, Maccu Pichu, the Aztec Pyramids, the English Longbow and the Legion to name a few (also to an extent the Katana and many other technological devices). Sure, we've got more now than we've had in the past but it's just a matter of degree.
quote:
Once this is recognised
Then you have framed the argument with a poor knowledge of history.
quote:
the central thrust of liberal argument that we have an absolute duty to provide these things crumbles away. All that is left is a commendable desire to do so - but it lacks the appeal to 'rights' that enflames most liberals.
I don't know any liberals who say that we have an absolute duty as opposed to just a moral imperative and in many cases a recognising of "there, but for the grace of God" (or blind chance or whatever the belief system of the speaker is).
Also:
quote:
Hermit wrote:
I think I've heard that Australians have different meanings of what liberals and conservatives are, so by liberal I mean lefties who want the State to become a gigantic, obese, Robin Hood with nanny tendencies ... taking more money from those who earn it and throwing it at the poor.
I'll accept that as long as you accept conservatives to mean righties who want a pax Americana, discrimination on whatever grounds desired by those with power and every man for himself and damn the long term consequences. Yes, I am presenting an inflamatory misrepresentation and one I don't hold to, but it's about the leftist equivalent to your statement. (From what you say of Republicans, the major difference between the left and the right is whether it is worse to have waste in the safety net (left) or to have the safety net fail for a larger number of people (right). I'd rather a more reliable net although you will never get complete coverage.
Oh, and as for the American economy, remind me what the level of American military spending is please. Also try wandering into some of the black neigbourhoods in downtown LA. (Actually, I don't think it's that bad, although I prefer the British system in most cases)
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on
:
Hermit wrote:
quote:
I think I've heard that Australians have different meanings of what liberals and conservatives are
Actually I believe that the Americans are unique in using the political term 'liberal' as a sort of grab bag which includes progressives, centrists, social activists, those who thought the New Deal was a good idea, anybody from Vermont and all those who are deemed not to be 'fighting the good fight'.
The OED puts it quite well
quote:
5. Of political opinions: Favourable to changes and reforms tending in the direction of democracy. Hence epithet of a party; opp. to Conservative
One might add that the term originally referred to many free market capitalists opposed to the constrictions of trusts and old family compacts upon the free flow of commerce.
Raspberry Rabbit
Penicuik, Midlothian
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
There are many advantages to being Canadian, prime among which is our character-building weather (it's quite warm today! only -19°C!!) and our fine Canadian wines. Another useful reality is that currently two of our major parties are actually called the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party.
This means that, when we wish to hurl ideological abuse, or caricaturize opinions, we need to be more precise in our language (e.g. free-market Liberal, left-wing Liberal, red Tory, socially conservative Conservative etc etc) as simple use of the adjective is often mistaken for a partisan indicator.
As Rabbit points out, USian-speak often uses the term liberal to describe a grab-bag of attitudes and things the speaker disdains, and discussion quickly descends into a language using almost exclusively red-herring vocabulary.
Might I thank Rabbit for his interesting menu description?? I was planning a dinner party for tomorrow and he has given me much food for thought....
As far as the OP is concerned, Scripture suggests that there is little need or justification for private property. We are exhorted to hold all things in common and to give away all that we have- eye of the needle and all that. There is, alas for for most of us with any property as well as for the bankers and investment counsellors in the pew, very little qualification and not much to suggest that certain classes of property are exempt from Divine Instruction. Discussing this issue some years ago with an Orthodox monk of my acquaintance (now gathered up to the great Skete above), he told me that economic sins were much like sexual sins in many ways, rarely entirely inescapable and that all we could really hope for was not to be in too much trouble.
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on
:
And might *I* add that there is a connection between love and public institutions (forthcoming bit about this) and that leaving the welfare of men and women to the accidental vagueries of the magic hand which redistributes wealth in a world of free markets is not loving. Hence, perhaps God loves it less.
Raspberry Rabbit
Penicuik
Posted by Robert Jesse Telford (# 3256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam.:
Does God prefer liberal or conservative policies?
This is another question entirely.
May I venture that he thinks there's a bit of truth in both of them? And God's also clever enough to know that it's not just a case of "liberal" or "conservative".
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on
:
Just what we need, an equal division of the cake 'just because'.
Raspberry Rabbit
Penicuik, Midlothian
Posted by Robert Jesse Telford (# 3256) on
:
What cake? Will you preach for it? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by hermit (# 1803) on
:
quote:
Does God like liberals or conservatives better? Neither, he likes us all the same.
Does God prefer liberal or conservative policies?This is another question entirely.
Well, that's actually what I meant the discussion to be about. I was trying to be humorous in the way it was asked, but I guess that fell flat.
quote:
Ah, you mean *that* sort of liberal. If you cook like you write, I'm not sure your guests will be able to digest all that roast pork served with marmelade and Rocky Road ice cream finished off with a shot of smoked salmon floating in cream soda.
You've been spying on me.
quote:
I think society is something that can grow, change, evolve. We shouldn't look to a book written 2000 years ago for social policy (not that the bible is irrelevant today, God is eternal, but we have to take it in the context of the time it was written).
Charity may have worked in dealing with social problems in the past, but will it work now?
I would say that charity much beyond the bare necessities is actually harmful to people nowadays, especially for those devoted to drugs. They have no motivation to change if they're handed all they need for survival AND money for drugs.
quote:
You mean those surpluses that hunter gatherers didn't have ... You mean those surpluses that the Romans didn't have so they couldn't give their citizens "Bread and Circuses"? You mean the surpluses that didn't create e.g. Versailles, the Vatican (to pick the two most extreme examples I've seen) and many other palaces and monuments? You mean the surpluses in man-hours that didn't eist that were not used to create the Pyramids, Cuzco, Maccu Pichu, the Aztec Pyramids, ...
Hmmmm ... neither capitalist nor socialist societies that depended on conquering other peoples and demanding heavy tributes, with the exception of the Vatican.
quote:
I'll accept that as long as you accept conservatives to mean righties who want a pax Americana, discrimination on whatever grounds desired by those with power and every man for himself and damn the long term consequences. Yes, I am presenting an inflamatory misrepresentation and one I don't hold to, but it's about the leftist equivalent to your statement.
Fair enough, Autobailer, I'll try to tame my inflammatory statements. To me a liberal tends to favor "redistribution" of wealth through taxation together with an extensive safety net, a conservative believes there's some smaller need for taxation and a lean safety net, a libertarian believes in no safety net and little govt or taxation except for absolutely necessary services like roads, fire, police.
quote:
Actually I believe that the Americans are unique in using the political term 'liberal' as a sort of grab bag which includes progressives, centrists, social activists,
Good point, perhaps we should all define our meanings a bit, Rabbit. quote:
As far as the OP is concerned, Scripture suggests that there is little need or justification for private property. We are exhorted to hold all things in common and to give away all that we have- eye of the needle and all that.
Augustine the Aleut, while Acts describes the first Christian community in those terms, that's not said to be a mandate for all future societies. And while Jesus exhorted individual people to give their excess property to poor people in great need of the basics of life, that doesn't necessarily mean that a nation must forcibly take away most of the income and property even of non-Christians and make everyone share equally, whether they've earned it or not.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Hermit-- I simply made reference to those texts to emphasize that the Marching Orders we have, and the Directions with which we've been provided, are quite uncomfortable for those of us with property. They need to be faced. They do not suggest that it should be a state apparatus of any sort that arrange redistribution, but neither does Scripture forbid or preclude it (cf. Isaiah 61, where Cyrus is the Lord's instrument to reprove Israel).
These texts, which are what we've got, have few qualifiers and are not intended to take into account our economic structures, let alone our personal political preferences or even what one would say is simple common sense. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. Consider the lilies of the field.
They are uncomfortable, and difficult, and challenging, and that's how it is.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The basic problem with the communitarian argument is that it doesn't generalise beyond the specifics of modern society.
Huh? I must be dense today, because I don't have a clue what you mean by this. Could you try again?
quote:
It is only because modern technology (and capitalism!) has given us the enormous surpluses that they can be taxed to provide the community goods and support to the poor. Once this is recognised, the central thrust of liberal argument that we have an absolute duty to provide these things crumbles away. All that is left is a commendable desire to do so - but it lacks the appeal to 'rights' that enflames most liberals.
Ah, yes, communitarian arguments don't appeal to rights, they appeal to duties, which are much less appealing, don't you think? We all want to make sure we get whatever we have a right to have, but are much less concerned about doing whatever it is that we have a duty to do. Nevertheless, I think that reframing political discussion from rights to duties would be helpful.
For example, I don't know that addicts have a right to receive treatment for their addictions. I do think that we, as a community, have a duty to provide treatment for them.
I don't know that foster children have a right to support systems that go beyond their 18th birthday. I do think that we, as a community, have a duty to provide it.
I don't know that people who go hiking on mountains in the winter have a right to expect anyone to rescue them if they get into trouble on the mountain. I do think we, as a community, have a duty to rescue them if we can.
I don't know that people who choose to live in the urban/wilderness interface have a right to expect firefighters from surrounding states to fly in and protect their lives and homes during wildfire season. I do think we, as a community, have a duty to protect their lives and homes from wildfires.
Of course, the individuals also have duties to the communities. The person living in the urban/wilderness interface has a duty to maintain a defensible zone around their home; the winter hiker has a duty to have appropriate gear and experience and an emergency plan.
The greater your resources, the greater your duty to the community. "To whom much is given, much is required." A mentally ill or mentally retarded child has virtually no duties at all; the rest of us have the duty to see that the child receives whatever care is needed. A healthy, wealthy, intelligent, educated adult has many duties to his community.
The argument, "I don't use that park, so I shouldn't have to pay for it; I don't go mountain climbing, so I shouldn't have to pay for rescuing stupid mountaineers who get lost; I don't have children, so I shouldn't have to pay for the schools" is just plain stupid.
As John Donne put it:
quote:
No man is an island intire of itselfe, every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is lesse, as well as if a promontorie were, as well as if a mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any man's death diminshes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
All of the righteous people I read about in the bible were rewarded for thier righteousness by riches and/or power. And God ask for no more than 10% back, which was given to the "church", which in turn was responsible for feeding the poor and the "stranger amongst you". God did not set up secular politics or political parties, therefore he probably looks on both with at worst contempt, at best disappointment.
Most people seem to forget that Rome was a democracy (Julius made it into the senate because of political support from the poor - see Seutonis "The 12 Cseasars"). Paul was a jew who was also roman citizen, yet didn't encourage christians to be activein, or concerned with secular politics.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
All of the righteous people I read about in the bible were rewarded for thier righteousness by riches and/or power.
Jonathan, friend of David and son of Saul, met an untimely end through no fault of his own.
I see no sign that Job's first set of kids were anything but righteous.
Joseph, Mary's husband the stepfather, as it were, of our Lord, received neither riches nor power.
John the Baptist got his head cut off for being righteous.
Finally, by the time Jesus was in his public ministry, the Roman Empire had ceased to be a republic and was a dictatorship.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Paul was a jew who was also roman citizen, yet didn't encourage christians to be activein, or concerned with secular politics.
Errr, OK. But neither did he discourage Christians from being active in or concerned with politics. Even when in, for example Romans 13, where he is talking about governments. Infact, he says "The authorities that exist have been established by God", which by my mind means that a) the concept of "secular politics" is a falsehood as they are the work of God, and b) that if we are to participate in the work of God then we must be involved in politics.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
And God ask for no more than 10% back, which was given to the "church", which in turn was responsible for feeding the poor and the "stranger amongst you". God did not set up secular politics or political parties, therefore he probably looks on both with at worst contempt, at best disappointment.
I don't think the tithe was used to feed the poor. I think it was used to support the priests and Levites.
Moo
Posted by Amphibalus (# 5351) on
:
After taking early retirement from full-time parish work because of disability, I spent a short time in local politics. The following observations occur to me - not that they have any great philosophical weight, they are just from my experience.
Politics, at least local politics, is a practical and pragmatic science. OK, at the big quarterly full Council meetings people get up on their hind legs and bray a party line - but that's the difference between Politics and politics. All the real work is done in committees and seminars where party lines are both a hindrance and an irrelevance. The guy whose dustbin hasn't been emptied, the community in danger of losing their school, the kids in a small village with no youth facilities and no transport - they don't want party Politics, they just want someone to listen - and do something, if possible.
Within this system, there are honest, caring, compassionate Christians across the spectrum of all parties. They are in politics because they want to do something to fulfil the command to 'Love one another... etc.' (And frustration at an over-bureaucratised governmental system is a shared experience no matter which party you are - or whichever party is in power!)
Christians are in politics to bear a witness - not to a party platform, but to a vision of God's love and grace at work in the everyday stuff of human existence. They get things right (and wrong) as often as anyone else, but that isn't because they are liberal or conservative, libertarian or communitarian, it's because they are humans with a God-inspired sense of what humans can be, and they are helping other humans (hopefully!) to be more fully human.
I don't know whether that helps or hinders the debate...
...but I will add one brief (doctrinaire?) reflection (which immediately tells you where I stand on the spectrum!). My understanding of capitalism in its purest economic form is that it can only be fuelled and sustained by continuous growth. Well, the earth, it seems to me, is a finite resource, and cannot be continually exploited, however responsibly, so the premise is doomed to extinction anyway. (It chilled me somewhat to note that one of B*sh's reasons for going to the moon again was to garner its mineral resources ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
)
The profit motive, in the meanwhile, is most easily satisfied by an efficiency of production which - as a by-product, no doubt - requires the workforce to be expressed in terms of productive work units - not as human beings with unfulfilled goals and aspirations of their own. (In much the same way as children are being treated as 'learning-units-in-the-process-of-becoming-productive-work-units' in our schools today.)
I know that this is very simplistic, but then I never was an over-complicated person - 'a bear of very little brain'! Maybe that's why I didn't last long on the Council ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
.
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
Just to clear thi up -the poor had a voice in Roman government:
early rome voting rights quote:
The plebeians were mainly the poor, but the wealthy plebeians led the plebeian opposition. They had two aims:
Access to the priesthoods and offices of the state (especially the consulship).
Redress of economic distress. In particular, the poor plebeians wanted debt relief and the distribution of state land.
3) Methods and Institutions of Plebeians
The plebeians (the majority of citizens) used was to withdraw from the city until they got their way. This was called secession. This happened three times and they threatened to do so on others.
They also had an assembly of the plebs, whose resolutions (plebiscites) were at first binding on the plebs alone.
They elected officials called tribunes, who eventually acquired the right to step any magistrate's activities in the city. This was called a veto (from the Latin word for "I forbid"). Tribunes could also propose resolutions in the assembly of the plebs.
populares and optimates quote:
...from the days of the brothers Gracchus onwards - there were two political parties, the populares ('people's party') and the optimates ('senatorial party').
The populares were for the extension of citizenship to provincials, for the cancellation of debt, and for the distribution of land. The optimates were the opposing conservative force, defending the traditions of Rome and the existing order.
... to speak on behalf of the Cisalpine Gauls or Samnites who did not enjoy citizenship meant, that, if they would ever be granted it, their loyalty - and hence their votes - would be with you.
...to put it bluntly, no 'socialists' in Rome.
No one acted on behalf of the poor, but rather sought to gain poor votes.
Also, I was wrong to use the word "All" when talking about the righteous. Ezekiel comes to mind. as well as some of the firmer examples Mousethief pointed out. As for voting- if you consider voting as an expresion of "the will of the people", then there examples in the bible. Three that come to mind are:
- when the jews tired of the governmental system of priests and judges that God set up and desired to have a king "like all of the other nations".
- When the jews voted for Barabas rather than Jesus
- When the apostles "drew lots" to determine who would replace Judas.
These are all examples of people 'voting', and they don't turn out well. God allowed these things to manifest, so you could say it was all according to God's will, but that doesn't mean he wanted things to turn out the way they did. Indeed, concerning the first example, he warned them not to go that route, and in the last example he simply chose his own replacement.
I like Bush and feel he is getting hazed a lot more than he deserves, but I will not vote for him. I didn't vote for him in the previous election despite my extreme dislike for Gore ( though I was tempted to register just to vote against Gore). Whatever happens may be God's will, but sometimes his will is to let us suffer from our foolish actions. The government God set up was rejected -and would still be rejected by people today. Through majority vote.
God allows us complete freedom to vote everyday, in everyway - that doesn't mean he encourages it.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
- When the jews voted for Barabas rather than Jesus
- When the apostles "drew lots" to determine who would replace Judas.
These are all examples of people 'voting', and they don't turn out well.
1. If the Jews had voted to release Jesus instead of Barrabbas then he wouldn't have died for our sins and we'd all go to Hell.
2. What bad result came out of the drawing of lots for the replacement of Judas?
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
- when the jews tired of the governmental system of priests and judges that God set up and desired to have a king "like all of the other nations".
- When the jews voted for Barabas rather than Jesus
- When the apostles "drew lots" to determine who would replace Judas.
These are all examples of people 'voting',
Voting? Drawing lots is voting? A mob out for blood is voting?
You've got a funny definition of the word.
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
1. If the Jews had voted to release Jesus instead of Barrabbas then he wouldn't have died for our sins and we'd all go to Hell.
2. What bad result came out of the drawing of lots for the replacement of Judas?
1. Maybe if they had voted for Jesus, he wouldn't have had to have died for us...
2. Nothing terrible, I suppose -but what was his name again?
Josephine: There are three ways you can interpret the casting ( I errantly used "drew") of lots:
1) Casting a vote, ala greek style democracy.
2) an attempt at divining God's will - which to my mind turned out to have failed. God's will was obviously Paul. Besides, divination is an abomination-unless God changed that rule just for this instance.
3) A system of random chance, which would be an incredibly poor way to decide who is the most deserving of what was one of the higher offices in the "church". Is that how the Pope gets chosen?
A vote is when you express your desire or will when presented with choices. The governor presented the "mob" with a choice, and the individuals spoke up and let him know which they preferred. If that isn't a vote, then I haven't the foggiest idea what one is. Please educate me.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
nonpropheteer, I'm not sure I read your earlier post correctly. It sort of implied that you don't vote in Presidential elections, or may you don't vote at all. Is that what you said?
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
quote:
2) an attempt at divining God's will - which to my mind turned out to have failed. God's will was obviously Paul.
Hmmmm - possible tangent here, but I can't think of any Bibilcal passages where Paul (or anyone else) claims that he was the 12th Apostle. The word "apostle" is used for a fair few people, including Paul, but the 12 were a smaller group. If anything, I think Paul takes pride in not belonging to it.
Posted by Grits (# 4169) on
:
I have always considered Paul an apostle, as one who saw the risen Christ and was specially commissioned by Him. (His vision of Christ was on the road to Damascus, of course.) The word is used other places in the NT to mean "messengers", such as II Cor. 8:23, John 13:16, Heb. 3:1, and Paul was certainly commissioned by Jesus to win souls and establish churches (I Cor. 15:9-10).
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Ah, yes, communitarian arguments don't appeal to rights, they appeal to duties, which are much less appealing, don't you think? We all want to make sure we get whatever we have a right to have, but are much less concerned about doing whatever it is that we have a duty to do. Nevertheless, I think that reframing political discussion from rights to duties would be helpful.
[etc...]
That was extremely well put, josephine. Thank you.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Nonpropheteer- you might be interested to learn that some Popes (of Alexandria, that is, if not of Rome) are elected by lot. If my memory serves me well, names of monks nominated by the Holy Synod are placed in a chalice, and one is selected by a child.
A quick review of the members of the House of Bishops raises questions on whether or not Anglicans might not usefully imitate this procedure.
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
quote:
2) an attempt at divining God's will - which to my mind turned out to have failed. God's will was obviously Paul.
Hmmmm - possible tangent here, but I can't think of any Bibilcal passages where Paul (or anyone else) claims that he was the 12th Apostle. The word "apostle" is used for a fair few people, including Paul, but the 12 were a smaller group. If anything, I think Paul takes pride in not belonging to it.
There is a passage, don't know the verse offhand (I Corinthians I think) where Paul claims to be the "least of these" [apostles]. He alo established the guidelines for who can or cannot be Apostles.
Alan: - I do not, nor will I ever, vote in federal elections, and I move around so much (rarely more than three years in one community) that I don't feel qualified to vote in local elections.
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
Sorry I got tangital here - I was paying attention to three different threads and perhaps posted the above on the wrong one. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Augustine: When you say the Popes are picked by 'lots', how does it work? Is it a voting mechanism?
Given that some liberal voices are responsible for things such as removing the 10 commandments from public view,attempts to remove christ from christmas, christian clubs from schools, etc - I would think that God liked conservatives better. However, those same liberal voices are also concerned with helping the poor and protecting the environment.
So I think God likes some things liberals and conservatives do, and hates other things they do(or don't do). But all in all, I think he loves the people based on christian charity rather than political ideology.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Patriarchal elections in Alexandria have had a few variations over the years, partly due to interference by the authorities (Byzantine, caliphal, Ottoman, British, Egyptian etc etc).
My understanding of the current process is that names of eligible monks are written on ballots inserted in capsules and placed in a chalice. After prayers, a child approachs the altar, is blessed, and then removes one of the capsules and the name is read to the Holy Synod, which then acclaims the choice indicated by the Holy Spirit.
An Ethiopian friend informs me that this method was sometimes used in his homeland (which he now calls his former homeland as he believes that a country with a Christian monarch has a greater claim on him, despite our abominable weather and the fact that his daughters pay no attention to him and wear revealing swimwear in the summer, the nature of which would give his mother a heart attack and causes him unending anguish etc etc etc) in disputed elections in monasteries. This conversation took place last year when members to the Citizens Assembly in British Columbia (which is being summoned to consider possible electoral reforms), were chosen beginning with a computerized random selection from the electoral rolls, as a means of avoiding partisan bitterness in the selection process (http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public/inaction/process/selection).
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Alan: - I do not, nor will I ever, vote in federal elections
You take no part in choosing who will represent you in the federal sphere (would that include Senate and Congress? it clearly includes the President who represents the nation in the world). Logic says that you, therefore, take no interest in how you are represented ... no interest in foreign policy, federal economic policies etc. Is this true?
Posted by hermit (# 1803) on
:
I agree that we as a society have duties to help those who would die otherwise ... but we don't have a duty to provide luxuries.
Concerning Paul as apostle, apparently the designation became a bit more fluid than only 12, since Matthias disappeared, then Barnabas and Paul appeared - apparently there were apostles and superapostles (NIV) or cheifest apostles (KJV):
(NIV)Acts 14:14
But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting:
Romans 1:1
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God–
Romans 11:13
I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry
1 Corinthians 1:1
Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,
1 Corinthians 15:9
For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
2 Corinthians 12:11
I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it. I ought to have been commended by you, for I am not in the least inferior to the "superapostles," even though I am nothing. 12 The things that mark an apostle–signs, wonders and miracles–were done among you with great perseverance.
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on
:
St. Matthias's feast day is February 24.
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You take no part in choosing who will represent you in the federal sphere (would that include Senate and Congress? it clearly includes the President who represents the nation in the world). Logic says that you, therefore, take no interest in how you are represented ... no interest in foreign policy, federal economic policies etc. Is this true?
I am not represented no matter who gets elected to any federal office. For example, I would like to see more governmental support of religious (okay, Christian) charities - such as Christian message based homeless shelters and soup kitchens as a means of helping the poor rather than secular based organizations. I would like to see more choice in paying your taxes: In the US, when you file your tax returns, you are given the option of donating to the "Presidential Election fund" (or something like that). Iwould like to see similar options for "donating" (instead of forced taxation) to the military, social programs, etc. I also believe in strong local/state governments and a (at least domestically) weaker federal government.
The federal government here has no legitimate power over things such as speed limits or drug laws, but they use tax dollars forcibly stolen from me to blackmail the state governments into following "federal guidelines" and don't care what the citizens of a particular state want or think. In virtually every case, no matter who I voted for, the result of those actions would be the same.
Additionally, federal elections are kinda rigged: We claim that the reason a candidate won't take a firm stand on an issue such as "legalization of marijuana" is because the people wouldn't elect him/her. The sad truth is that it doesn't matter whom we would or wouldn't elect - if a politician makes a stand against his party line he loses political support, not necessarily the support of the people (i.e. John McClain). And political support is what gets you elected on the federal level, not 'votes'. If you don't have political support, your name won't even make it onto the ballot.
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on
:
You can give money to whatever charitable cause you like, and deduct it from your taxes.
Also, though I don't care for Bush, he has been outspoken in favor of what he calls "faith-based organizations" receiving federal benefits for the good works they do. I should think you would wish to support that in view of your comments.
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on
:
Hard to talk about forms of government and political trajectories with somebody who doesn't believe in government
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Raspberry Rabbit
Penicuik, Midlothian
Posted by ptarmigan (# 138) on
:
I think that by and large liberal policies are more in accord with Godly values.
A society in which the law of the jungle applies, in which the strong flourish and the weak are trodden on, is rightly thought of as primitive. In fact it is hardly a society at all. It seems to me that many conservative values (and especially the way they deride the "nanny state" and dislike taxation) are a step back towards the law of the jungle.
Liberals believe that there is such a thing as society, that humanity works best when some resources are shared, and when there is some diversion of resources to those who would otherwise lose out, that some things are better done communally than in individually, that we shuold never stop learning, that people should have the opportunity to acheive their potential, that we should work towards a society of justice, harmony and love.
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
I am not represented no matter who gets elected to any federal office...etc, at some length.
Oh dear Lord in Heaven, I agreed with that entire post. Just shoot me now.
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on
:
We still love you, but we don't respect you any more, so sorry. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on
:
The federal funding of "faith-based organizations" sounds dangerous to me. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
If a church agency (child care center, e.g.) were to accept such funding, and become dependent on it (and you know that can very easily happen) then it would cease to be _faith_ based.
Yes, I know the Bushies say that will never happen. They also say that there were WMD in Iraq, too.
I am very sceptical of federal funding for "faith-based organizations" We all know the golden rule - "He who has the gold, makes the rules."
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on
:
I don't like it either, I was just using it as an example of what NP said he wanted.
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
Continuing the Paul tangent if I may. I don't think anyone has ever doubted that Paul was an apostle. Lots of evidence for that, as quoted above. What I don't see anywhere in the Bible is the claim that Paul was really the 12th of the 12, and Matthias was a mistake. (In fact, I seem to remember that Acts - which is pretty pro-Paul - doesn't call Paul an apostle at all, in order to keep the distinction clear between the 12 and other Christian leaders.)
Posted by Grits (# 4169) on
:
Oh, yes, I agree with that. I have never heard that concept of Paul as the "twelfth". I think his position as an apostle was unique.
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ptarmigan:
A society in which the law of the jungle applies, in which the strong flourish and the weak are trodden on, is rightly thought of as primitive.
Damn.
I knew one day a liberal would get ahold of our secret handbook, "The Conservative's Guide to Screwing the Poor". We really should be more careful about leaving those things laying around.
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
quote:
Given that some liberal voices are responsible for things such as removing the 10 commandments from public view,attempts to remove christ from christmas, christian clubs from schools, etc
I'm glad to see nonpropheteer found the heart of the matter. Liberalism should be a free market of ideas, as was expressed on another thread. By its very nature it should exemplify the notion of liberty. It does is not, at least in our country. Liberalism as it functions now is a comprehensive idealogy. Its implacable enemy is dogmatic religion, which it ironically seeks to curtail and relegate to the private domain because it undermines the liberal idea of freedom.
Posted by JimT (# 142) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Its implacable enemy is dogmatic religion, which it ironically seeks to curtail and relegate to the private domain because it undermines the liberal idea of freedom.
Wally, your post implies that dogmatic religion belongs in the public sector, but that Liberalism wants to relegate it to the private domain.
Doesn't dogmatic religion belong in the private sector, not the public? No one has outlawed dogmatic religion nor freedom of speech; dogmatic religion has simply been taken out of the public sector, to prevent the public sector from biasing one dogmatic religion at the expense of others. But they all can do or say whatever they wish. So can secularists and everyone else.
You can lament the erosion of our purely Christian history as we move toward more of a pluralist and secular society, but it would be a greater erosion of our heritage if we were to allow dogmatic religion in the public sector. Allowed, yes. "Public" as opposed to secret and illegal, yes. But supported by tax dollars, which is the common meaning of the "public sector," no.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
I do find it annoying that the school can have a chess club and a black student's club and an atheists' club but not a christian students' club.
Removing the 10 commandments from the courthouse, on the other hand, works okay for me.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
Oh, yes, I agree with that. I have never heard that concept of Paul as the "twelfth". I think his position as an apostle was unique.
In Orthodox iconography, Paul is virtually always shown as one of the Twelve Apostles. The icon of Pentecost, for example, shows the Twelve in the upper room, with Paul there, along side Peter and the rest. Likewise, the icon of the Ascension shows Paul looking up at our Lord with Peter and the others.
We know, of course, that Paul wasn't actually there for either event. He wasn't even a Christian yet! But icons are intended to show the spiritual reality, not the historical reality -- and the reality was that Paul was the Twelfth Apostle.
From our POV, of course. YMMV and all that.
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zeke:
You can give money to whatever charitable cause you like, and deduct it from your taxes.
Also, though I don't care for Bush, he has been outspoken in favor of what he calls "faith-based organizations" receiving federal benefits for the good works they do. I should think you would wish to support that in view of your comments.
Yes, I could. But after paying 20% to the government, 10% to the church, and 5-9% state sales tax, I have little left. And you have to give a certain percentage of your income to charity in order for it to effect your taxes anyway.
I like Bush and think he gets bashed on things that are not his fault/beyond his control/not bash-worthy from a democrat president. However, just because I like a few of his policies and have some respect for him based on what I know about him doesn't mean I am willing to claim him as "daddy" (my name for the office of President).
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
I am not represented no matter who gets elected to any federal office. For example, ...
So, I take it, because those who get in don't support policies you would like to see enacted you don't vote at all. If someone ran on a platform you did agree with would you vote for them? Except that no one has every run on a platform that anyone has ever agreed with 100%, there is a need to assess the various candidates in relation to your preferences and vote accordingly for the candidate closest to your position. I would add, even if that candidate is not going to win, no vote is a wasted vote ... if enough people vote for the minority candidate that stands for some particular position then the major parties will notice. Those votes need to be cast on every opportunity, at local and national elections. It happened here with votes for Greens (in local elections) resulting in the main parties putting a greater emphasis on environmental policies.
quote:
Additionally, federal elections are kinda rigged: <snip> The sad truth is that it doesn't matter whom we would or wouldn't elect - if a politician makes a stand against his party line he loses political support, not necessarily the support of the people (i.e. John McClain). And political support is what gets you elected on the federal level, not 'votes'. If you don't have political support, your name won't even make it onto the ballot.
If someone feels so strongly about an issue "his party" doesn't support, then either he works from within the party to change the party attitude or he goes and stands as an independant or in another party which will allow his position within their platform. As I said, votes for minor parties and independants are fairly effective. If someone runs on a platform of, say, "legalise cannabis" but otherwise noncontraversial and picks up a few hundred votes the major parties will notice ... because there were probably a large number of other people who would have agreed with that position but are loyal to their party.
Have you ever considered standing yourself, if you so dislike the other options you have. I'm sure there are a number of others with similar views who would be willing to support you. Not to win (you wouldn't have a chance), but just to demonstrate whether or not your position has popular support that the guy who does win would be advised to take notice of ... politicians will do many things to get more votes.
Posted by Autobailer (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
Oh, yes, I agree with that. I have never heard that concept of Paul as the "twelfth". I think his position as an apostle was unique.
In Orthodox iconography, Paul is virtually always shown as one of the Twelve Apostles. The icon of Pentecost, for example, shows the Twelve in the upper room, with Paul there, along side Peter and the rest. Likewise, the icon of the Ascension shows Paul looking up at our Lord with Peter and the others.
We know, of course, that Paul wasn't actually there for either event. He wasn't even a Christian yet! But icons are intended to show the spiritual reality, not the historical reality -- and the reality was that Paul was the Twelfth Apostle.
From our POV, of course. YMMV and all that.
So Paul was the next Judas? Sounds good to me. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
And what do you do about Matthias? Who actually was an apostle and I know of nothing that should deny him this- or do the icons show thirteen apostles. (Who even has a gospel- although there is a very good reason that that's apocryphal)
The reality, both historical and spiritual would seem to me to be that Paul was not one of the twelve but something else entirely (and in many ways a good argument against an insistance on apostolic succession being either necessary or desirable).
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Have you ever considered standing yourself, if you so dislike the other options you have.
Campaign slogans I've been considering:
"Vote for Nonpropheteer, I don't know you, you don't know me."
"NP: Better the devil you don't know than the one you do."
"More Pot in every kitchen"
"No more taxes, federal military, or social programs."
I agree that the other stuff you posted is how it should work, I just think it naive to believe that is how it does work. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I still believe that voting says "I believe the government has an inalienable right exercise authority over me" - and I simply do not believe that. I'm not part of this system except to the degree necessitated by survival - Joseph and Mary didn't go to Bethlehem for the census to show their support of the Roman government, they went because if they didn't everything they had would have been taken from them. Survival would have been impossible.
Paul says (TMK) that we should obey the government to whatever degree is necessary to avoid legal hassles provided the government isn't forcing us to do something that God considers sinful. I find the fact that he (and others) had the power of the vote, yet didn't consider it important enough to mention rather telling - given, what it tells is largely a matter of personal interpretation.
We could probably debate this from now till doomsday without reaching an agreement, Alan. I believe that all things will work out according to God's will, despite my personal exercise of civic 'duty' (or lack thereof). I'm not saying that you or anyone else shouldn't vote, I'm only saying I don't feel led to vote, and until I feel convinced that God wants me to support a candidate, I will refrain from voting.
Besides, no President has ever won an election based on the ballot of a single citizen. Nor will it ever happen as long as we have the electoral college.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
by liberal I mean lefties who want the State to become a gigantic, obese, Robin Hood with nanny tendencies ... taking more money from those who earn it and throwing it at the poor.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
And by "conservative" I mean tight-arsed Tories in pin-stripe suits who still haven't come to terms with married women being allowed to work outside the home and think that things were better when the Working Man (salt of the earth, dontcha know?) Knew his Place, and was happy to keep to it, and Bring Back National Service, it Made a Man of Me.
And by "socialists" I mean beer-dazed long-haired pseudo-intellectual tankies who never did a day's work in their lives and spend their evenings fantasising about bringing the capitalist system down in an ocean of blood and fire - as soon as this pub closes, the Revolution starts!
And by "anarchists" I mean thin sensitive young men with dodgy accents, all dressed in black who meet with left-over 1970s earth-mothers in paisley skirts, wooden jewelry, and worn donkey jackets to smoke cheap rollups and drink pastis and cheap red wine and discuss the ideational aspects of the construction of sexual practices as deviational within heirarchical consensus realities.
And by "libertarians" I mean coked-up redneck robber-baron gunwankers who live in booby-trapped survivalist enclaves out in the hills; never leaving their front doors but spending their time in their locked darkened basement rooms, drooling over their share portfolios on the Net, buying first editions of von Mies, Heinlein, and (Ayn) Rand on ebay; and who think the only desirable function of the State is to supply them with armed police that they can use to bloodily massacre any of their workers who dare to form a Union.
And by "Hermit" I mean a mildly sneaky kind of troll, with a childish love of exagerration, commonly found under damp rocks in supposedly Christian websites.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Host
By ken quote:
And by "Hermit" I mean a mildly sneaky kind of troll, with a childish love of exagerration, commonly found under damp rocks in supposedly Christian websites.
ken, Purgatory. Remember? Please apologize. Take Hermit to Hell if you are aggrieved. That is what it is for, among other things.
/Host
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
JimT
quote:
Doesn't dogmatic religion belong in the private sector, not the public? No one has outlawed dogmatic religion nor freedom of speech; dogmatic religion has simply been taken out of the public sector, to prevent the public sector from biasing one dogmatic religion at the expense of others. But they all can do or say whatever they wish. So can secularists and everyone else.
That's not true Jim, and you know it. Free speech is limited. Do you think I could walk into a public school now and talk about God in a high school assembly for instance? What about an after school prayer meeting on school grounds?
Freedom of choice is limited as well. You and I pay into a public school system whether we like it or not, yet we are not offered the choice of an alternative or a share of the money back to be redirected at our discretion.
Ask people around you if traditional religion is compatible with secular values and if protection of those secular values requires suppressing public expression of religious views. Think about Howard Dean saying that our own private religious morality has no place informating our actions on public policy.
There's a difference between advocacy and toleration, and this is not about bias towards one view or another.
[ 26. January 2004, 12:51: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Host
By ken quote:
And by "Hermit" I mean a mildly sneaky kind of troll, with a childish love of exagerration, commonly found under damp rocks in supposedly Christian websites.
ken, Purgatory. Remember? Please apologize. Take Hermit to Hell if you are aggrieved. That is what it is for, among other things.
/Host
But... but... sir... he started it!
Actually I was assuming that what he wrote was a joke and I was following up in the same style.
Had it not been a joke presumably this thread would have been moved to hell already?
If it wasn't a joke then Hermit doesn't need to apologise to me, because I'm not a liberal I'm a socialist. (& therefore was much nastier to myself and my fellow socialists than I was to Hermit - bing called a troll is mild, especially when the post obviously was at least a little trollish, but being called a pseudo-intellectual is very nasty & if I thought I meant it I woudl ahve to call myself to Hell and demand an apology of myself) But if Hermit meant what he said seriously - which I assume he didn't - then he surely would beed to apologise to any liberals on board?
But he doesn't, because he was making a joke, right? Or at least exagerating for effect?
This is purgatory, and meant for discussion, but is there a rule that says that attempts at humour are not allowed as part of discussion?
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Dear ken;
You know I am quite fond of you. I respect your opinions and enjoy your sense of humor.
As I have said elsewhere, I have a prosaic mind which may, from time to time manifest itself as apparently lacking in a sense of humor. I am also a Host of a website with some 5,400 members. That means that personal remarks which can be taken as funny, as your could, and taken as personal slurs, as your could, need to be addressed by me.
The difference between what Hermit did and what you did was the personal nature of the remark. You are free, as you did, to post about conservatives, anarchists, socialists and libertarians in derogatory terms because they were not addressed to a particular shipmate, not because they were funny. (They were funny, BTW.)
There was nothing personal about what I did. Personal remarks that contain derogatory reference are simply not part of the vocabulary of Purgatory.
Any further discussion will have to be taken to the Styx.
Tortuf
Purgatory Host
Posted by JimT (# 142) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
There's a difference between advocacy and toleration, and this is not about bias towards one view or another.
Wally, you specified dogmatic religion. You implied that dogmatic religion belongs in the public sector and should not be limited to the private sector. Do you really meant that? All dogmatic religions, all supported by tax dollars, all should have equal access to high school assemblies to make a pitch for their dogmatic religion?
Dogmatic religions can invite people onto their private property for a free and open discussion of the correctness of their dogma over all others. I can't see that this is some kind of repression.
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
Jim - The same schools that don't allow christian clubs have been known to allow Wiccan, Buddhist, and Muslim speakers to address the students. Not saying all of them or often...but its happened enough to be worrisome. Actually, just once is enough to get my pressure cooker going.
How is it that a government has the right to supress the (christian) religious expression (in 'public' buildings) of a society in which 50% or more of the people claim to be christian, but does not disallow the free expression of the various nth% religions in the same areas? Its not right, its not good. I really don't see how any christian can find this acceptable.
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
Jim
quote:
You implied that dogmatic religion belongs in the public sector and should not be limited to the private sector. Do you really meant that? All dogmatic religions, all supported by tax dollars, all should have equal access to high school assemblies to make a pitch for their dogmatic religion?
Just a note, I'm using dogmatic religion as shorthand for religious beliefs likely to collide with liberal secular mores.
Anyway, you're jumping straight from toleration of religious belief to advocation of religious belief. Essentially what you're saying is that if I talk about my belief in God in a public school, just as part of my own individual freedom of expression (or part of a prayer group on school grounds), that becomes tantamount to the state advocating religion.
This is what I think is at work in this country. That faith and the public sector must be completely compartmentalized. The comments Howard Dean made about stem cell research seem to go down to the level of anyone involved in public policy must do this within their own minds.
Posted by hermit (# 1803) on
:
Well, first of all it's not illegal in this country to have student-sponsored Christian clubs, although quite often school administrators mistakenly think it is, and need to be sued.
Ken, if you'll read past my opening post I agreed with Autobailer that the infamous Robin Hood line was too exaggerated, and gave a more sedate description of liberalism.
Concerning Paul, I showed that he considered himself an apostle but in a slightly different class than the "superapostles" or "chiefest" apostles, depending on translation. Also Barnabas apparently joined the lesser class of apostles in Acts. I suppose the term kept loosening up over time.
Augustine, if I took everything Jesus said literally I would be stripped naked and become impoverished by the time I walked down three city blocks in San Francisco .... he used hyperbole.
Ptarmigan wrote: quote:
I think that by and large liberal policies are more in accord with Godly values.
A society in which the law of the jungle applies, in which the strong flourish and the weak are trodden on, is rightly thought of as primitive. In fact it is hardly a society at all. It seems to me that many conservative values (and especially the way they deride the "nanny state" and dislike taxation) are a step back towards the law of the jungle.
Liberals believe that there is such a thing as society, that humanity works best when some resources are shared, and when there is some diversion of resources to those who would otherwise lose out, that some things are better done communally than in individually, that we should never stop learning, that people should have the opportunity to acheive their potential, that we should work towards a society of justice, harmony and love.
I don't disagree with these ideas so much in an abstract way, but disagree with forcibly taking money from people who usually work hard to earn it, in order to further these aims beyond NECESSITY. So beyond a minimum of taxes needed for national defense, police, fire, roads, water, electricity, a minimal safety net for people who need it rather than people who just don't want to work, and a fair amount for education .... I say let anything much beyond that be the choice of the people who actually earned the money.
And I don't believe that my stance is contrary to what Jesus summarized as "love your neighbor as yourself," since giving beyond the point of necessity harms most people IMO. They have no reason to develop or become self-reliant. And some taxpayer-funded institutions are positively evil.
For an example, if some want to fund the murder of unborn children for women who can't afford abortions, that should be up to them on an individual basis rather than stealing taxpayer money for it.
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Jim - The same schools that don't allow christian clubs have been known to allow Wiccan, Buddhist, and Muslim speakers to address the students. Not saying all of them or often...but its happened enough to be worrisome. Actually, just once is enough to get my pressure cooker going.
How is it that a government has the right to supress the (christian) religious expression (in 'public' buildings) of a society in which 50% or more of the people claim to be christian, but does not disallow the free expression of the various nth% religions in the same areas? Its not right, its not good. I really don't see how any christian can find this acceptable.
NP what you've described sounds very odd to; indeed more than that, unjust and crying out for correction. But how are you going to change the situation if you refuse to vote? ISn't that the main opening for you to bring about change in your own country?
Josephine - what you said about Orthodox iconography and Paul fascinated me. Could you say a bit more about why he is included in the 12, or at least point me in the direction of some information? And what do you think of Matthias? Does he count, and does he get his own feast day?
Posted by JimT (# 142) on
:
Wally, thanks. I can live with what you said in your last post a lot easier than with this:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
By its very nature it should exemplify the notion of liberty. It does is not, at least in our country. Liberalism as it functions now is a comprehensive idealogy. Its implacable enemy is dogmatic religion, which it ironically seeks to curtail and relegate to the private domain because it undermines the liberal idea of freedom.
I saw that as a little over the top and way too broad. You brought up schools as a specific example and while I think it's true that militant atheists can make political hay out of a traditionally "liberal" position that schools should be "neutral" on religion, I'd say there is a form of liberal thought that says, "specific religious instruction of children is most properly done by parents and associated private institutions."
As to Dean's political rhetoric, the whole Presidential campaign arena can make people puke on both sides. The minute one tries to court the religious vote with, "I'm proud to say privately that I'm deeply religious," someone is going to come along and say, "If my opponent is deeply religious, he's going to shove it down your throat." That way, the respondent can court the religious vote outside the opponent's specific religious group, and all secularists as well. I see politicians as inherently more evil than their political ideologies.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
Well, first of all it's not illegal in this country to have student-sponsored Christian clubs,
Nowhere? You've investigated the laws of all 50 states, the D of C, Puerto Rico, and Guam? All the municipalities, counties, parishes, cities, villages and towns?
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
Jim
quote:
I saw that as a little over the top and way too broad.
I know. Sometimes I just like the sound of the keys as I hit them.
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
Well, first of all it's not illegal in this country to have student-sponsored Christian clubs,
Nowhere? You've investigated the laws of all 50 states, the D of C, Puerto Rico, and Guam? All the municipalities, counties, parishes, cities, villages and towns?
If anecdotal evidence helps, I can attest that as a young fundie in high school, I requested permission to hold a Bible study on school grounds after hours, fully expecting to be persecuted.
Instead they said, "Sure! No problem!"
I was crushed. It's just not easy to be a persecuted Christian in the USA these days.
(Nonetheless we held the study for a few weeks but I soon realized that I was in over my head.)
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Josephine - what you said about Orthodox iconography and Paul fascinated me. Could you say a bit more about why he is included in the 12, or at least point me in the direction of some information? And what do you think of Matthias? Does he count, and does he get his own feast day?
Yes, Matthias is an apostle, and a saint, and he has his own feastday, the 9th of August.
I'm not entirely sure why Paul is always included with the Twelve. Part of it, I think, is to emphasize the out-of-timeness, as it were, of the events in the icons, and of Divine Providence -- St. Paul wasn't there, he wasn't yet an apostle, wasn't yet even a Christian, but he would become so, and so, in a mystery, we see him there already. The Ascension and Pentecost are events in the life of the Church, and the Church transcends time and place. Perhaps Paul being there, in the icons, is in part to remind us that those are our events, too, as they were Paul's.
I'm sure there's more to it than that, but I'm not sure where you'd go to find more. Sorry I can't be more help.
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
I'm not entirely sure why Paul is always included with the Twelve.
My own take on this is that Christ chose the original 12 apostles, and chose Paul; whereas the 11 disciples chose (in whatever manner)Matthias.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Another possibility (and I've no idea how much water it holds) is that Paul doesn't start his missionary journeys (ie: behave like he is an apostle) until after Herod has James executed. Could Paul be the apostle to replace James rather than Judas?
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on
:
quote:
I think I've heard that Australians have different meanings of what liberals and conservatives are, so by liberal I mean lefties who want the State to become a gigantic, obese, Robin Hood with nanny tendencies ... taking more money from those who earn it and throwing it at the poor.
How very non-inflamatory. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I think the people that please God most are the ones who are full of faith in and love for God.
That has nothing to do with their politics whatsoever.
Yes, God is probably closest to those who lives lives or faith and love, or at least try to. That won't be me then.
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
I think the people that please God most are the ones who are full of faith in and love for God.
That has nothing to do with their politics whatsoever.
Survey say: dingdingdingding Good Answer!
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I still believe that voting says "I believe the government has an inalienable right exercise authority over me" - and I simply do not believe that...
I'm astonished that no one's picked up on this one.
And there was me with the sincere belief that voting in a representative democracy was the act of taking part in the exercise of the authority of the people over the government.
quote:
Besides, no President has ever won an election based on the ballot of a single citizen. Nor will it ever happen as long as we have the electoral college.
Yes, but it isn't just you, is it? There are, presumably, others who feel the same way. No one, no matter how dearly they would like to think otherwise, exists in a state of disagreement with everyone. The act of voting allows you to ally your own opinion with that of others. The one with the most people agreeing wins (although, obviously, some of the systems created to keep representative democracy alive in a large state inevitably create anomalies, like dear old Dubya, who, although it appears otherwise to many, legally elected, and who, apparently, was arguably elected in 2000 on a minority).
The authority of the citizenship in a democracy is immense; if you want to create a state where the laws you so deplore don't exist, you have to work to create a situation where you stand a chance. To say that your vote doesn't make a difference is to so fundamentally miss the point that you might as well be holding the blunt end of the pointy thing. On its own, one man's vote doesn't make a difference. But no vote is ever on its own.
I'm a believer in the old saw that we get the government we deserve. For example: while I would rather live under a democratically elected socialist government than a democratically elected capitalist government, I'd rather tolerate democratically elected capitalism (which is probably why I haven't started a revolution) than a socialist dictatorship any time.
Posted by Hel (# 5248) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
I think the people that please God most are the ones who are full of faith in and love for God.
That has nothing to do with their politics whatsoever.
Survey say: dingdingdingding Good Answer!
But Jesus said (I'm paraphrasing) when you clothe the naked you clothe me, when you leave them be, you leave me be.
So if your politics mean you effeictively say, I don't want my taxes going into wealth redistribution, you are saying you refuse to clothe the naked, and therby refuse to clothe Jesus.
What I have taken from all the posts in this thread so far, is that some people do not wish to pay (high) taxes, but wish to direct this money themselves through charity. This appears to be a satisfactory way of clothing the naked/Jesus, albeit perhaps a bit embarassing for the naked ones themslves, who then have to claim on charity.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hel:
But Jesus said (I'm paraphrasing) when you clothe the naked you clothe me, when you leave them be, you leave me be.
So if your politics mean you effeictively say, I don't want my taxes going into wealth redistribution, you are saying you refuse to clothe the naked, and therby refuse to clothe Jesus.
Belief in lower taxes and a strong dislike of wealth distribution means you refuse to give anything to charity? This is blatantly wrong, and you know it:
quote:
What I have taken from all the posts in this thread so far, is that some people do not wish to pay (high) taxes, but wish to direct this money themselves through charity.
That's more like it.
quote:
This appears to be a satisfactory way of clothing the naked/Jesus, albeit perhaps a bit embarassing for the naked ones themslves, who then have to claim on charity.
Why is claiming on charity any more embarassing than claiming on welfare?
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hel:
So if your politics mean you effeictively say, I don't want my taxes going into wealth redistribution, you are saying you refuse to clothe the naked, and therby refuse to clothe Jesus.
Much as I agree with your philosophy (I do believe that as citizens we have a responsibility to our communities; as Christians, doubly so) I suspect that this doesn't follow anywhere near as neatly as you think it does.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why is claiming on charity any more embarassing than claiming on welfare?
Because welfare is a right, that in turn when the claimant is earning money they also contribute to for the benefit of others. Charity is dependant on the generosity of the giver.
Another difference is that charity will always be able to help the more socially acceptable cases (new hospital wings for childhood cancer, or whatever), but there will always be people as much in need as those people are willing to give charity too who are helped by a well run welfare system (though, in all welfare systems there will be people who fall through the cracks, no one and nothing being perfect)
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
What Alan said.
One of the big drives behind the refounding of the Welfare State in the 1940s in the UK was the feeling of a lot of poorer people that recieving private charity was shameful and demeaning and humiliating.
However benefits, paid for out of your own contributions, were a right. It wasn't called "welfare" or "charity" it was called "National Insurance" and it was supposed to be honourable and dignified. If, due to the accidents of life, some gave more than others, and others recieved more, that was part of the point. It was thought of of as insurance, a safety net, a common provision of a basic standard of life for all.
An attitude which many older lefties like my Dad still preserved into the 1980s - he was convinced that it was wrong to give money to things like medical charities, that the money and the effort would be better spent trying to achieve political reform that improved life for everyone.
Posted by angloid (# 159) on
:
Good point ken. But what happens when the government (be it in capitalist USA or New Labour neo-capitalist Britain) has so cut back national welfare provision that charities have to step in to fill the gap? While I believe we should continue campaigning for eg. decent housing for the homeless etc, that shouldn't mean it's wrong or a diversion from the main task to support charities such as Shelter.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
My biggest problem with National Insurance is that there isn't a "No Claims Bonus".
Posted by hermit (# 1803) on
:
OK ... let's assume we all agree on basic welfare including medical benefits for people who actually need it, due to disability or being the only parent. But what about healthy people with no dependants, who simply don't want to work? Does your country have a Christian obligation to support them?
And what about things like funding abortion, or other nonessential programs that don't contribute to education or national security and aren't essential to life?
Mousethief asked, quote:
Nowhere? You've investigated the laws of all 50 states, the D of C, Puerto Rico, and Guam? All the municipalities, counties, parishes, cities, villages and towns?
Not necessary, since the Supreme Court decided that no school may refuse use of the building for religious clubs (regardless of religion) if it opens doors to any outside organization AFTER classes end. LINK
Well, I'll try again on the subject of apostles: please recall that "apostle" and "the Twelve" aren't always the same thing.
Alan said, quote:
Another possibility (and I've no idea how much water it holds) is that Paul doesn't start his missionary journeys (ie: behave like he is an apostle) until after Herod has James executed. Could Paul be the apostle to replace James rather than Judas?
Sounds good to me, maybe Barnabas got in the same way, replacing some other martyred apostle (acts 14:14)
Papio, while I've been known to take a chance and skip reading posts as threads get longer, it's usually best to read them all before raising an objection, in case your concerns have been answered several times.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
OK ... let's assume we all agree on basic welfare including medical benefits for people who actually need it, due to disability or being the only parent. But what about healthy people with no dependants, who simply don't want to work? Does your country have a Christian obligation to support them?
Well, I'm not sure the country has a Christian obligation to do anything ... we're a secular country to all intents and purposes. Unemployment benefit and income support are dependant on showing that you're actively seeking work, or doing some sort of vocational education to further your chances of employment.
quote:
And what about things like funding abortion, or other nonessential programs that don't contribute to education or national security and aren't essential to life?
Well, there is considerable debate on what constitutes essential. As I understand it, abortions and IVF treatment are currently available on the NHS ... though there are moves to tighten things up on those fronts.
quote:
Alan said, quote:
Another possibility (and I've no idea how much water it holds) is that Paul doesn't start his missionary journeys (ie: behave like he is an apostle) until after Herod has James executed. Could Paul be the apostle to replace James rather than Judas?
Sounds good to me, maybe Barnabas got in the same way, replacing some other martyred apostle (acts 14:14)
It is a possibility. But if the logical is followed there are currently 12 apostles, each appointed by God as an early apostle went to be with Him. I'm sure there are churches that teach that, but it seems odd to me. Maybe another thread is called for?
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
I think we need to make a distinction here between different usages of the word "apostle". In the Pauline, and sub-Pauline, literature it is used to mean church founder/missionary/church leader, and is applied to quite a number of people. In Acts the word is only used of the 12, never applied to Paul, and the criteria used when a 12th apostle is chosen to replace Judas is someone who had seen Jesus in the flesh. This last criteria would not only rule Paul out, but restrict possible apostleship to pre-Crucifixion followers of Jesus (so there could be no apostles today). Paul's own use of the word is much wider, could apply to anyone who feels God has called them, and makes modern day apostles possible.
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Nonpropheteer- you might be interested to learn that some Popes (of Alexandria, that is, if not of Rome) are elected by lot. If my memory serves me well, names of monks nominated by the Holy Synod are placed in a chalice, and one is selected by a child.
A quick review of the members of the House of Bishops raises questions on whether or not Anglicans might not usefully imitate this procedure.
Of course, it all boils down to who the Holy Synod puts into the chalice. Doesn't it?
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hel:
...So if your politics mean you effeictively say, I don't want my taxes going into wealth redistribution, you are saying you refuse to clothe the naked, and therby refuse to clothe Jesus.
Puts me in mind of a steaming pile of overcooked cauliflower.
Jesus did not command us to go steal money from other people and use it to feed and clothe the poor, which is exactly what re-distribution of wealth is.
Who are you to tell someone else how to spend their money? What gives you the right to determine how much I should give to charity? If God has seen fit to give me the ability and good fortune to become wealthy, then isn't it between he and I what I do with the wealth he gives me?
We are supposed to tackle these problems face to face as individuals and collectively as christians (jews and muslims are also implored to this end). Rome had taxation and food benefits to the poor, but Jesus did not say: "As long as you are paying your taxes, you've met your obligations to the poor." He did say "Pay your taxes AND feed and clothe the poor."
So if you want to give 50% of your income to the government and blindly hope they do a good job of feeding the poor, go ahead. But keep your hands out of my wallet.
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
Well, first of all it's not illegal in this country to have student-sponsored Christian clubs,
Nowhere? You've investigated the laws of all 50 states, the D of C, Puerto Rico, and Guam? All the municipalities, counties, parishes, cities, villages and towns?
The US Supreme Court has ruled on this issue. A public school cannot place more restrictions on student-led relgious clubs than club for other purposes.
As a result of this, some school districts have decided to not permit any extra-curricular clubs of any sort. It is a whole lot les messier that way, and can be justified on educational grounds in some cases.
This discussion can devolve into a tangent totally unto itself. It will never be solved on the Ship because we cannot know the circustances that each school board and school administration is dealing. Besides, I really think that Jesus does not need the US public school system to spread the gospel.
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on
:
Interesting that the Orthodox church has St. Matthias in August. My Episcopal calendar has him on February 24.
Nonpropheteer, you indicated that your donating to charity is impossible for you, as you (among other things) give 10% to your church. Are you not aware that this is considered a deductible donation? I would be very surprised if 10% of your income wasn't enough to make any difference whether you claim it or not.
You seem to claim the right to decide exactly how much the government may spend on the services you expect it to provide. This is, again, something people vote about.
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zeke:
Interesting that the Orthodox church has St. Matthias in August. My Episcopal calendar has him on February 24.
Nonpropheteer, you indicated that your donating to charity is impossible for you, as you (among other things) give 10% to your church. Are you not aware that this is considered a deductible donation? I would be very surprised if 10% of your income wasn't enough to make any difference whether you claim it or not.
You seem to claim the right to decide exactly how much the government may spend on the services you expect it to provide. This is, again, something people vote about.
I do donate to charity, both through financial contributions and free labor. I don't claim the right to decide how much the government may spend, but you claim the right to determine how much of MY money the government may spend. I also don't keep track of how much I donate to charity, nor do I feel its any of the governments, or your, business.
I don't claim to be Mother Teresa, but I do what I can - and I could do more if I wasn't robbed of a significant amount of the fruits of MY labors by the government. I pay out a lot of money to the government for extremely little benefit.
I work for a non-profit, so one would think I would be all for robbing people of their cash and redistributing it. However, I know how little government money most nps recieve, how difficult it is to get it, and extremely tiresome and demanding it is to remain in compliance with (clear as mud) gov regulations once you start getting it. Having worked for a christian homeless shelter where 95% of the budget was provided by churches and private contributions shows me two things: The good hearted charity of people in general, and that it is possible to succeed and grow without the government dollar-sometimes even easier.
Note that the christian homeless shelter I worked for was located in a state well known for its poverty -yet those who could stepped up the plate and gave us money, while those who couldn't volunteered their time.
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
There are a few passages that refer to Paul as an Apostle to the gentiles. There is also one where he refers to himself as an apostle "not chosen by men but by the Lord Jesus" (prob a very bad paraphrase). Makes me wonder if that was a jab at Matthias...
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
you claim the right to determine how much of MY money the government may spend.
How many people actually consider the taxes they pay as "my money"? I keep reading it, and somehow it always seems to look very odd to me. Maybe it's because I never see that money, having it deducted before my wages get into my bank account. Maybe it's because of the way contributions to the welfare system is called "National Insurance" (and that I've benefited from the system in the past). But, whatever I've never thought of it as the government spending my money ... I consider it much more that it's our money, spent on our behalf by the people we've chosen to spend it (and be accountable for spending it).
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
you claim the right to determine how much of MY money the government may spend.
How many people actually consider the taxes they pay as "my money"? I keep reading it, and somehow it always seems to look very odd to me. Maybe it's because I never see that money, having it deducted before my wages get into my bank account. Maybe it's because of the way contributions to the welfare system is called "National Insurance" (and that I've benefited from the system in the past). But, whatever I've never thought of it as the government spending my money ... I consider it much more that it's our money, spent on our behalf by the people we've chosen to spend it (and be accountable for spending it).
I don't know about your job, but I'm the only one at work here right now. Nobody from the government is helping me do my job. They don't help me shave in the morning, they don't help me muddle my way through office politics, they aren't helping me compile all these freaking statistics at 4 in the morning. I am working for MY money, but I never recieve all that I earn from my labor. 20% of what I earn is gone before I recieve my check. The politicians don't help me pay my rent - indeed, this area is so thick with section 8 certificates (public housing certificates) that it makes it difficult to find a reasonably priced dwelling.
Landowners know exactly how much the government will pay, and know that payment is guaranteed. In a town of 20,000 people or so, with no major industries, shopping centers etc (Front page news when McDonald's opened its doors) a small studio apartment goes for $477. A (small) three bedroom apartment goes for $798. These numbers may seem like averages, but they are not. They are exact figures, and commonly seen, because that is what section 8 vouchers pay in this area for those apartments.
So you see, all of this social spending, besides taking money out of my pocket through taxes also costs me more in the long run to live. The house I live in now is not Section 8 approved because there is no railing on the stairs, the heater is not up to code, part of the porch is dangerously rotting, and the yard is full of deep 'chug' (one measures 2 1/2 feet deep) holes.
I pay $600 for a non-approved 4 bedroom house.
I am working 40+ hours per week and cannot afford to live as safely and comfortably as someone who does only 20 hours a week community service, if that. And I, along with the rest of the working stiffs, are paying for this disservice. I really don't see how you can say that is right.
And before you say I should report him to somebody, let me remind you: If he makes the repairs, replaces the heating unit and gets to where his house is section 8 approved, I'll see a sharp increase in the rent come my lease renewal - so I'll have no choice but to find another crap house and let some non-working section 8 recipient move into the one I live in now.
Posted by thursday (# 5264) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Jesus did not say: "As long as you are paying your taxes, you've met your obligations to the poor." He did say "Pay your taxes AND feed and clothe the poor."
Just wanted to ditto this. Thanks.
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
There are a few passages that refer to Paul as an Apostle to the gentiles. There is also one where he refers to himself as an apostle "not chosen by men but by the Lord Jesus" (prob a very bad paraphrase). Makes me wonder if that was a jab at Matthias...
Now that is an interesting thought. I don't think I agree with you here, but I'm going have to go away and chew the idea over for a bit. Thank you for raising the idea.
Posted by Hel (# 5248) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by thursday:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
[qb] Jesus did not say: "As long as you are paying your taxes, you've met your obligations to the poor." He did say "Pay your taxes AND feed and clothe the poor."
That wasn't a point I was trying to make. But we can ensure people pay taxes, and we can't enusre people give to charity, so if we cut taxes (in the UK anyway, I know you Americans are a lot better at giving to charity in general) to their bare minimum and relied on everyone giving to charity, ther is no way the same amount of revenue would be raised.
Also, a lot of Brits tend to ignore people and give all their money to fluffy animal charities, so homeless dogs would be living in luxury, whereas people whith non-picturesque cancer would be dying in agony.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
How many people actually consider the taxes they pay as "my money"? I keep reading it, and somehow it always seems to look very odd to me. Maybe it's because I never see that money, having it deducted before my wages get into my bank account. Maybe it's because of the way contributions to the welfare system is called "National Insurance" (and that I've benefited from the system in the past). But, whatever I've never thought of it as the government spending my money ... I consider it much more that it's our money, spent on our behalf by the people we've chosen to spend it (and be accountable for spending it).
I definitely see it as my money. I am paid roughly Ł950 per month, of which I only ever see about Ł790. Yet all financial institutions (such as the IRS and Student Loans Company) only ever look at gross income when they work out when you should start paying them more.
Also, the minimum wage is gross, so essentially the government say "here's how much is the bare minimum you need", then take their 20% of it afterwards!
Posted by Hel (# 5248) on
:
I always look at net income only (I actually don't even count what goes in my penison or my student loans repayment, because they come out before I see them). I find people who look at net tend to be less bitter about taxes, so that's why I chose to look at it like that!
PS I had a life threatening illness age 5 which was treated entirely freely on the NHS. My mum stayed in hospital with me (we were 300 miles awy from home at the time)for free. I was unemployed for 5 weeks in 2002, for which I was paid benefits. I had a higher education which only cost Ł3000 at point of contact.
Perhaps this is why I don't (often) begrudge my taxes. I can quite imagine if you'd got not a lot out of them, that they would seem pretty crap.
Posted by thursday (# 5264) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hel:
Also, a lot of Brits tend to ignore people and give all their money to fluffy animal charities, so homeless dogs would be living in luxury, whereas people whith non-picturesque cancer would be dying in agony.
This is very true, and one of the stranger things about the British. The NSPCC was originally an offshoot of the RSPCA (charities looking after children and animals respectively), and you'll notice that the latter is "Royal", whereas the former is only "National". So strange.
I think if I earn the money it's mine, but I don't object to paying tax because firstly, it pays for things like hospitals and schools, and it's easier for me if the state just takes it out of my paycheque, rather than me having to do anything about it (most unChristian, I know). Secondly there's nothing to be done: I can't stop the state taking my money if they want it. That's just something one has to accept.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Well, NonPropheteer, assuming those figures are correct all I can say is not only are rents really cheap where you live - I wish I could rent or mortgage a house for as little as 600 dollars a month! - but contrary to popular blah-blah your welfare state is a lot more generous than ours.
And Hel, snap. I've spent a lot of time in hospital & on anti-asthma stuff. And I was unemployed for 2 years once - along with a few million other of Thatcher's rejects.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hel:
Perhaps this is why I don't (often) begrudge my taxes. I can quite imagine if you'd got not a lot out of them, that they would seem pretty crap.
In the UK at least I'd be surprised if there was any more than a few dozen people who haven't benefitted from the tax paid by others at one time or another. Everyone born in an NHS hospital (not to mention NHS midwives, health visitors, GPs when feeling not all that great ... let alone relatively serious illnes), how many people pay for all their medical expenses privately? Then there's everyone who's been to school and university, not very many of them paid their own way entirely (or just with help from daddy). Or driven on roads built and maintained (well, sort of) by the state. Most people spend some short periods of time unemployed (I managed to clock up about 6 months, in between assorted temping jobs over a 2 year period after uni). Then there are state pensions, child benefits etc. Then there are issues of security, paying police and firefighters. Not to mention the debatable value of using our money to bomb the shit out of countries like Iraq.
Posted by Wibble (# 5441) on
:
Surely it stands to reason that if there is to be a central government organising welfare and services then money is required to run it (at least in a society that is supported by trade) and this money must be obtained from somewhere.
If government and services were not supported from general taxation there are two options: voluntary donations to government (sadly would never raise enough), or privatise everything in sight.
Privatisation can only increase the gap between the rich and poor as only the rich get educated, only the rich get healthcare, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wibble:
Surely it stands to reason that if there is to be a central government organising welfare and services then money is required to run it (at least in a society that is supported by trade) and this money must be obtained from somewhere.
If government and services were not supported from general taxation there are two options: voluntary donations to government (sadly would never raise enough), or privatise everything in sight.
Privatisation can only increase the gap between the rich and poor as only the rich get educated, only the rich get healthcare, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
My personal pjilosophy is that the governments sole legitimate purpose is to protect its citizens from fraud and force. For those thing I am willing to pay taxes. Yet I am opposed to a huge federal military - and if you think about, if we had a military set up the way it was in the 1700s, America wouldn't have a large enough army to undertake many of the actions it has taken in the past 150 years. A well armed and regulated militia would be available for defense against attack with the federal military as a full time watchdog.
Of course, you Brits would be speaking German right now, but thats an entirely different discussion.
A large central government in control of socially oriented funds may be a good idea on paper, but one has to realize that a big car uses much more gas. Money could be spent more effectively and more efficiently on a local level and the tax payers could easily see the benefit of their labors - plus they would have more control ove the programs they could offer, who could accept and use the funds, etc.
And Ken, thats why I laugh at people who claim Bush is leaving children behind. As a single male (or female), I would not be eligible for anything other than $143 a month in food stamps(assuming I had no income). Once you bring children into the picture, the benefits sky rocket. Free medical and dental, housing vouchers, practically free prescriptions, etc. Welfare benefits have been cut (I can only imagine how high they were prior), not by Bush but by Clinton. His policies required parents on public assistance who needed child care while attending school to carry 18 credits (something young, unattached college students are advised against) per semester, and would not allow children born after you were on public assistance to recieve further benefits.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.
--from Matthew 22
I understand how a case can be made for not paying taxes, but it is a secular case not a specifically Christian one.
[ 28. January 2004, 14:10: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
Posted by Wibble (# 5441) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
A large central government in control of socially oriented funds may be a good idea on paper, but one has to realize that a big car uses much more gas. Money could be spent more effectively and more efficiently on a local level and the tax payers could easily see the benefit of their labors - plus they would have more control ove the programs they could offer, who could accept and use the funds, etc.
Agreed. (That allowed in purg?!). But even with genuine local government the money to run services would have to be obtained from somewhere, presumably the electorate, and some of the money would still be spent in areas that would be unpopular and the taxation would still be resented. So, is there an alternative to tax?
Out of interest, how much do people think we should give away to church, charity etc? Should Christians give away all their money to follow Christ or keep enough to live on or keep enough to enjoy? Is enjoying buying things a barrier to God?
Maybe I should shut up now....
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
My personal pjilosophy is that the governments sole legitimate purpose is to protect its citizens from fraud and force. For those thing I am willing to pay taxes.
And when you found your own country on an island somewhere, you are free to fashion it on exactly those lines.
THIS country, however, in which you live and in the blessings of which you partake, has different purposes. They are specifically enumerated, to wit:
...to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...
Write me when you get your new country up and running. I'm dying to see what your stamps will look like.
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I understand how a case can be made for not paying taxes, but it is a secular case not a specifically Christian one.
I think that had more to do with them trying to trick him into saying something that would give the Romans an excuse to kick his ass.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
I think that had more to do with them trying to trick him into saying something that would give the Romans an excuse to kick his ass.
Ah, so you reckon he lied to worm his way out of it? Or was what he said the truth?
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wibble:
Agreed. (That allowed in purg?!). But even with genuine local government the money to run services would have to be obtained from somewhere, presumably the electorate, and some of the money would still be spent in areas that would be unpopular and the taxation would still be resented. So, is there an alternative to tax?
Out of interest, how much do people think we should give away to church, charity etc? Should Christians give away all their money to follow Christ or keep enough to live on or keep enough to enjoy? Is enjoying buying things a barrier to God?
Maybe I should shut up now....
Welcome aboard Wibble.
Yes agreeing is allowed in Purg, especially if you are agreeing with me.
I dont think christians are expected to give away everything, but I do believe they are expected to be willing to give away everything if God calls them to a purpose which would require it, or if keeping it causes you or other christians to "stumble".
God requires 10%, but it doesn't do you any good if you don't do it out of love. (IMO).
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
I am opposed to a huge federal military <snip> A well armed and regulated militia would be available for defense against attack with the federal military as a full time watchdog.
Of course, you Brits would be speaking German right now, but thats an entirely different discussion.
And, you'd likely be speaking Japanese. Unless you can think of a way for a minimal federal military to have maintained the Pacific fleet (with all those aircraft carriers) that beat the Japanese at Midway.
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, you'd likely be speaking Japanese. Unless you can think of a way for a minimal federal military to have maintained the Pacific fleet (with all those aircraft carriers) that beat the Japanese at Midway.
Ah, but I've heard that the japanese attacked us because they knew that would eventually enter the war. Through Pearl Harbor they hoped ( and somewhat succeeded) to gain a strategic advantage.
Would they have attacked us if our military depended upon domestic militia for defense?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
It was just a not-very-serious response to yours. "What if?" historical analysis is great entertainment, but not really all that conclusive. I can't say whether Japan would have attacked the US if they hadn't been a significant military power. No more than you can say whether Britain would have eventually beaten Germany without US intervention (remember, though there was significant US aid prior to the end of 1941 there was no US troops engaged and Britain had already defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain, and the Afrika Corps at El Alamain).
Ultimately it was just a question as to how minimal a minimal federal military needs to be. I'd guess most US citizens would likely have that larger than you seem to. Of course, you can always vote for the guy who wants to cut federal expenditure on the military, welfare and anything else you think shouldn't be centrally funded. Oh, except you don't vote.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Actually the USA didn't have a very impressive navy in the pre-war peace. The British navy was number one by a long gap, then Japan, then France. The USA was somewhere round about equal 4th with Italy and the Soviet Union.
But their large-scale industry and ready access to raw materials enabled them to tool up quickly once they were in the war - to some extent they had already started of course, building convoy defence vessels & so on.
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course, you can always vote for the guy who wants to cut federal expenditure on the military, welfare and anything else you think shouldn't be centrally funded. Oh, except you don't vote.
...and which candidate would that be?
There is hope for me voting in the future - I am a member of the Free State Project
Posted by Astro (# 84) on
:
continuing off topic
if the USA had not had major forces in WWII then I don't think that Britian would be speaking German but France might be speaking Russian.!
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
Waht is the topic here? I forgot.
Posted by hermit (# 1803) on
:
quote:
Out of interest, how much do people think we should give away to church, charity etc? Should Christians give away all their money to follow Christ or keep enough to live on or keep enough to enjoy? Is enjoying buying things a barrier to God?
Wibble, it depends on how many "crowns" you want to earn, I suppose. Giving away everything to join a monastery or become a hermit in the desert is one way Christians have gone to the extreme of seeking perfection in the eyes of God, but generally speaking perfection on earth is very different from simple salvation. So for average ordinary people simply keeping your faith in Christ and trying as best you can to live up to his commands in your ordinary life should be enough.
Nonpropheteer, did I know you over at Frugal's? I spent over a year hanging out there, lots of Free Staters there. For those who haven't guessed, the Free State folks are mostly Libertarians or Constitutional Christians rather than Republicans, and tend to be much further along to the right fiscally. They've recently chosen to move to New Hampshire to concentrate their political influence.
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
Nonpropheteer, did I know you over at Frugal's? I spent over a year hanging out there, lots of Free Staters there. For those who haven't guessed, the Free State folks are mostly Libertarians or Constitutional Christians rather than Republicans, and tend to be much further along to the right fiscally. They've recently chosen to move to New Hampshire to concentrate their political influence.
Sorry Herm, never been to Frugal's. There are also a lot of classical liberals, i.e believing in freedom from undue governemental control/influence as opposed to the preversion of "liberal" that is so well known here in the states. Unfortunately, membership has seemed to cap at around 6,000 so far - we need 14000 more people to set any further plans into action.
Posted by Bongo (# 778) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
I do not, nor will I ever, vote in federal elections.
I'm speechless.
If only you were a woman, then I could rant at you about the suffragettes. But you're not. (Are you?)
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bongo:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
I do not, nor will I ever, vote in federal elections.
I'm speechless.
If only you were a woman, then I could rant at you about the suffragettes. But you're not. (Are you?)
I thought we ended women's sufferage a long time ago? If its still going on, we should put a stop to it!
I probably shouldn't have said I will never vote in a fed election - if the FSP takes off, I may have a candidate to vote for...
Posted by Autobailer (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
My personal pjilosophy is that the governments sole legitimate purpose is to protect its citizens from fraud and force. For those thing I am willing to pay taxes.
In order to protect its citizens from fraud and force, a government must be capable of fielding an army larger than any of the constituent parts can provide, must be capable of either breaking or running any monopoly (which means that the "natural monopolies" must be run by the state (possibly through subcontraction)- see water, electricity, the roads) and must be essentially the largest entity around.
quote:
Yet I am opposed to a huge federal military - and if you think about, if we had a military set up the way it was in the 1700s, America wouldn't have a large enough army to undertake many of the actions it has taken in the past 150 years.
No. That's because with the advance of technology, professional soldiers are necessary for any war. (Even the Russians had problems using pure numbers in WWII, and technology and training count for much more now than they did then). You could always model your army on the Israeli pattern, I suppose, with two or three years military service each- but less than six months and someone is considered as doing more harm than good (the Swiss army is something different entirely).
quote:
A well armed and regulated militia would be available for defense against attack with the federal military as a full time watchdog.
So you want an even bigger army? More spending? More and more inept troops? That works well when people are limited by technology but not when the technology is limited by the people- a switch which happened to the backbone of the army in the American Civil War with the breechloading rifle making packed formations obselete (although it took a while for people to notice).
quote:
Of course, you Brits would be speaking German right now, but thats an entirely different discussion.
Russian, but let's not quibble about the details. Somehow I doubt that they would have stopped with us.
quote:
A large central government in control of socially oriented funds may be a good idea on paper, but one has to realize that a big car uses much more gas.
Of course. But that assumes both are trying to carry the same amount. If the small car would need two trips then the large car becomes far more economical.
quote:
Money could be spent more effectively and more efficiently on a local level and the tax payers could easily see the benefit of their labors - plus they would have more control ove the programs they could offer, who could accept and use the funds, etc.
I'll leave this one alone- US states are too big anyway.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
My personal pjilosophy is that the governments sole legitimate purpose is to protect its citizens from fraud and force. For those thing I am willing to pay taxes.
I hate it when people think they should be able to pick and choose like this.
Pay up and put up - or at least vote or leave.
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I hate it when people think they should be able to pick and choose like this.
Pay up and put up - or at least vote or leave.
...and I hate when people think they have a right to infringe on my freedom to pick and choose.
Posted by Timothy (# 292) on
:
God loves all his children, conservative and liberal, equally.
This is proof that God himself is a liberal, and particularly squishy sort of relativist at that...
Timothy
Posted by hermit (# 1803) on
:
Even though I may disagree with his political philosophy, Sharkshooter is certainly a very handsome man.
Autobailer commented that quote:
In order to protect its citizens from fraud and force, a government must be capable of fielding an army larger than any of the constituent parts can provide, must be capable of either breaking or running any monopoly (which means that the "natural monopolies" must be run by the state (possibly through subcontraction)- see water, electricity, the roads) and must be essentially the largest entity around.
That was well said, and one reason I don't to the extreme of libertarianism. Environmental protection is another. But I think we do need to examine every little spending bill item carefully to determine whether our society genuinely needs it to "promote general welfare" as the Constitution says, or whether it isn't clearly necessary and thus stealing from the pockets of those who earn the money.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy:
God loves all his children, conservative and liberal, equally.
Yes, but the question was does he like them equally?
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
My favourite t-shirt (which I've never had the courage to wear): quote:
Jesus loves you - everyone else thinks you're a cunt.
And some of you were worried by FCUK.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I hate it when people think they should be able to pick and choose like this.
Pay up and put up - or at least vote or leave.
...and I hate when people think they have a right to infringe on my freedom to pick and choose.
You wouldn't have any freedoms at all if it wasn't for taxes.
(Of course, I wouldn't have a job if it wasn't for taxes, but that is another story.)
Posted by Corfe (# 633) on
:
I'd love to know why we Brits in general resent taxation so much less than those from the US.
Are NP, hermit and others raised with the idea that taxation is theft and the government is incompetent and wasteful and shouldn't be allowed to control anything important? Where do Canadians, Australians and others stand?
I am interested in how the difference arises and intend no offence at all and hope none is taken.
I see the idea of voting for a taxation level sufficient to support the poor and needy as logically following from Jesus' command to care for the needy.
If I can vote to improve the support of the poor, and I pay my part of that, the poor will be better off. Alternatively, voting for lower taxes, knowing that the poor will be poorer, seems to me to be further from this command. Anything wrong with my thinking?
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Corfe:
I see the idea of voting for a taxation level sufficient to support the poor and needy as logically following from Jesus' command to care for the needy.
I don't remember Jesus' command to force other people to care for the poor and needy. Perhaps you could point me in that direction?
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
[meek voice]pls notice she used the word FORCE [/meek voice]
Forget giving out of our hearts...forcing peeps is always good and cheesy feel good stuff.
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
What good does it do the government to tax me so heavily that I am left too poor to support myself; or worse, work all week to not be able to live as well as those my tax dollars are supporting?
Why is it when a company gets too much power to influence prices, the government breaks them up and is more than willing to establish price contriols (like they did with rental property during the depression and in big cities with apartments). But when the cost of medical care and perscription drugs skyrockets so high that the average person can't afford them, the governemnts only answer is to throw money at it? Couldn't have anything at all to do with the amount of money the pharmeceutical companies and medical organizations throw into re-elction campaigns , could it?
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Actually, NP, medical costs are so high because of a cost shift due to the piss-poor Medicare reimbursement rates. So you can thank the federal government for that mess, too.
Posted by Corfe (# 633) on
:
Erin, I think your seeing this as a matter of you being forced to contribute to help others, rather than giving willingly, as central to a cultural difference between our countries. Most people here I think see tax as the necessary cost of running a society we find acceptable.
I can give you no biblical reference to Jesus telling us to force others help the needy.
Consider an intermediate example. I walk down a street with a friend and we see someone in need. I am willing to help but don't have enough to meet the need. If I encourage the friend to help, the need can be met. Is this good or bad? If I bring moral pressure to help, how about that? What if there is a group of us and some are very willing to contribute, some are willing but wouldn't have stopped if they were alone and a few who are not supportive. The consensus is that we should help and we agree to all make a contribution, though some are still reluctant. Isn't this how a community or society works?
Do you (NP,hermit, Erin) see personal property and the right to do what you want with it as one of the very highest principles of life? I don't want my property taken away but see helping the poor, sick, elderly etc as a greater good. If we are all giving, even those who would not choose to and those who would if they thought about it, more can be achieved than if only those who wanted to give and actually did something about it.
Hermit said much earlier, on page 1
quote:
Jesus exhorted [individual] people to give [their excess] property to poor people in [great] need [of the basics of life].
I have added bracket to leave what I believe he said.
Apology: I won't be around for the next 48 hours but I'll be back to continue and defend myself.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Corfe:
Do you (NP,hermit, Erin) see personal property and the right to do what you want with it as one of the very highest principles of life?
Nope. But I do regard personal freedom to be a complete shithead if the mood strikes me to be one of the very highest principles of life. That means that I must make the decision to willingly abide to Jesus' commands to care for the poor and needy. No one has the right to make that decision for me.
Posted by hermit (# 1803) on
:
quote:
Do you (NP,hermit, Erin) see personal property and the right to do what you want with it as one of the very highest principles of life? I don't want my property taken away but see helping the poor, sick, elderly etc as a greater good.
You can't really lump me in together with NP, since I believe in a limited but adequate safety net and he probably doesn't. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be excessive, for example extending to healthy people who simply don't want to work. Nor should it be so generous as to provide numerous luxuries such as recreational drugs or late-model cars.
Even that much may stem from my Christian beliefs, but is a common goal that most civilized of any belief can agree on. But tax beyond that agreed-upon bare minimum and you'd be stealing from other people to fulfill Christ's commands, which doesn't seem to be what he was asking for.
We seem to be arguing in circles now, I probably won't be commenting further unless someone asks me a question.
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Corfe:
Consider an intermediate example. I walk down a street with a friend and we see someone in need. I am willing to help but don't have enough to meet the need. If I encourage the friend to help, the need can be met. Is this good or bad? If I bring moral pressure to help, how about that? What if there is a group of us and some are very willing to contribute, some are willing but wouldn't have stopped if they were alone and a few who are not supportive. The consensus is that we should help and we agree to all make a contribution, though some are still reluctant. Isn't this how a community or society works?
Your example falls apart on the word encourage. The more accurate example would be: You walk down the street with a friend and see someone in need. You can't afford to meet the need by yourself, so you take money out of your pocket, then take money out of your friend's pocket (screw if he doesn't have enough to pay his bills afterward). Then instead of giving it to the person in need, you give it to somebody else who insists they are better able to use your money to the benefit of the needy than you are.
But on future walks, you still continue to see the same person, in the same place, and still in need. You also continue to insist that money be taken out of your pocket, your friend's pocket, and the pockets of millions of people you'll never know.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I'm supposed to like this system? This is what Christ wanted? You can't seriously believe that.
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
Well I can't speak for Corfe, but that is what I believe. Seriously. But this is another example of the enormous chasm that, at times, divides British and American thinking and I'm afraid this thread is unlikely to bridge it.
Posted by angloid (# 159) on
:
Taking my life in my hands and throwing caution to the winds, a tentative question of Erin quote:
That means that I must make the decision to willingly abide to Jesus' commands to care for the poor and needy. No one has the right to make that decision for me.
Just how is it easy as an individual to 'care for the poor and needy'? Handing out money to drug addicts begging on the streets? Or contributing to corporate, community, OK socialist if you like, programmes for health and support services for them? And if they can be more effectively and efficently provided through taxation, why not?
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by angloid:
And if they can be more effectively and efficently provided through taxation, why not?
First off, that's an a priori assumption. Not everyone believes that taxation is effective or efficient.
Second, again, if you want to opt into a socialist taxation scheme, I have no intention of stopping you. I'm just curious why you think you should force me.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by angloid:
And if they can be more effectively and efficently provided through taxation, why not?
First off, that's an a priori assumption. Not everyone believes that taxation is effective or efficient.
That's for sure. In fact the opposite is more often true.
However, sometimes if we wait for people to volunteer/give/donate, we will be waiting for a long time.
I suggest the answer is a combination of the two. Some services provided by government, funded through taxation, and some services provided by charities/individuals, funded by those willing and able to give.
Some tax systems are better in encouraging this than others. This is not to say that it is the tax system which should promote being a "neighbour".
Although I have heard it said that while God loves a cheerful giver, He prefers a grudging giver over a miser.
Posted by Corfe (# 633) on
:
If taxation is inefficeient, which is probably true, why not let people have complete choice as to whether to support anything that the government does?
We could have completely optional donations to defence/defense budgets for example. How far would that take the military?
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Although I have heard it said that while God loves a cheerful giver, He prefers a grudging giver over a miser.
I think that can be biblically challenged, though I don't know the verses off-hand.
I've already demonstrated that Rome, at the time of Jesus, had a tax system in place to help the poor - they were motivated by the prospect of political power rather than social conscience, but still, they had a "welfare" system. Its also easily demonstrated that Jesus and the disciples set up an independent system to feed the poor - that of giving a tithe to the church. That is what Jesus wants, and he wants us to give freely, with a loving heart. So if we are forced by someone else to give then we are not giving in a manner that Jesus stipulated.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Corfe:
We could have completely optional donations to defence/defense budgets for example. How far would that take the military?
They'd probably be able to afford a new pea-shooter every year.
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
So not all bad news then?
The only problem is trying to ensure the rest of the world takes the same line.
There is a totally unrealistic part of me that would long to see a day when hospitals can afford kidney machines, and the army has to run jumble sales to buy missiles, but there you go...
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Its also easily demonstrated that Jesus and the disciples set up an independent system to feed the poor - that of giving a tithe to the church.
OK, demonstrate it. I know there's lots of evidence of the disciples and early church sharing and collecting money for the benefit of the poor (at least within the Church ... did the giving in Acts extend significantly beyond the Church?) ... but I can't think of any NT teaching on tithing.
Posted by angloid (# 159) on
:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer
quote:
Although I have heard it said that while God loves a cheerful giver, He prefers a grudging giver over a miser.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that can be biblically challenged, though I don't know the verses off-hand.
Matthew 7.21 and 21.28-31 imply the former - it's not what you say (or how you say it) but what you do, that is important.
Posted by Hari Seldon's Walking Stick (# 5293) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Corfe:
They'd probably be able to afford a new pea-shooter every year.
Sounds a bit like the current state of the British military from what I hear on the radio. In fact, the MoD manages to spend money which, according to deparmental budgets, doesn't even exist. This is very impressive accounting. I believe there _is_ a precedent for this in the NT somewhere...
Posted by Hari Seldon's Walking Stick (# 5293) on
:
hmmm. Credit where credit's due, actually.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
They'd probably be able to afford a new pea-shooter every year.
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
OK, demonstrate it. I know there's lots of evidence of the disciples and early church sharing and collecting money for the benefit of the poor (at least within the Church ... did the giving in Acts extend significantly beyond the Church?) ... but I can't think of any NT teaching on tithing.
quote:
Luke 11:42 "But woe to you Pharisees! For you pay tithe of mint and rue and every kind of garden herb, and yet disregard justice and the love of God; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.
Jesus did not do away with tithing, he specifically says that this is something that should have been done, but that there are other things they are negelecting that should also be done. In a nut shell, he's saying "Tithing is the only thing you got right."
quote:
Luke 3:11
And he would answer and say to them, "The man who has two tunics is to share with him who has none; and he who has food is to do likewise."
This is not a matter of giving to the church or the government, it is an example of direct giving.
quote:
Luke 14:13
"But when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind,
Romans 15:26
For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem.
15:27
Yes, they were pleased to do so, and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things.
Giving is hand in hand with ministering. Giving to the government adn allowing them to take care of it is giving of your excess so that other men can get the credit, rather than God.
quote:
1 Corinthians 16:1
Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also.
16:2
On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come.
16:3
When I arrive, whomever you may approve, I will send them with letters to carry your gift to Jerusalem;
I think its pretty clear that a system was established and functioning - it wasn't a new teaching or new system, simply an extension of the OT tithing principle. Clearly the churches were directed to keep giving in a manner that didn't need a whole lot of further explanation.
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by angloid:
Matthew 7.21 and 21.28-31 imply the former - it's not what you say (or how you say it) but what you do, that is important.
quote:
Mt 6:2 -
"So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.
Lu 14:12 - And He also went on to say to the one who had invited Him, "When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, otherwise they may also invite you in return and that will be your repayment.
If you give hoping for reward of some kind, whether that be acknowledgement of your giving or repayment, it profits you nothing in God's eyes, for you are recieving your reward here.
I think that does imply that how you give is important.
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on
:
Poke about in the Greek... God loves an hilarious giver.
Guess that means we need to wear a red rubber nose and rainbow fright wig when we give.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Jesus did not do away with tithing, he specifically says that this is something that should have been done, but that there are other things they are negelecting that should also be done. In a nut shell, he's saying "Tithing is the only thing you got right."
Which is how I read that too. But, it says nothing about the purpose of tithing and where the money is spent. My understanding, and I'm a bit short of time just now to go and hunt out references to check it but can do tonight if you wish, is that the tithe was primarily to provide for the needs of the Temple - its upkeep and to feed and clothe the Priests and Levites so they could concentrate on the ritual stuff rather than have to tend crops and trades as well. Jesus seems to be saying "you give your tithe to support the church ... good, but also give to the poor as well".
quote:
quote:
Luke 3:11
And he would answer and say to them, "The man who has two tunics is to share with him who has none; and he who has food is to do likewise."
This is not a matter of giving to the church or the government, it is an example of direct giving.
... again (also with the Luke 14 verse you quote next) personal giving not through a system of tithing to go through the church.
quote:
quote:
Romans 15:26
For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem.
15:27
Yes, they were pleased to do so, and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things.
Giving is hand in hand with ministering. Giving to the government adn allowing them to take care of it is giving of your excess so that other men can get the credit, rather than God.
quote:
1 Corinthians 16:1
Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also.
16:2
On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come.
16:3
When I arrive, whomever you may approve, I will send them with letters to carry your gift to Jerusalem;
I think its pretty clear that a system was established and functioning - it wasn't a new teaching or new system, simply an extension of the OT tithing principle. Clearly the churches were directed to keep giving in a manner that didn't need a whole lot of further explanation.
These passages talk about giving for the saints in Jerusalem ... clearly the implication seems to be that this is rich churches giving to support poor churches. There's no indication here that the money raised was going to support any "welfare system" for those outwith the Church. What you have demonstrated is that the early Church recognised the need for richer members to give to help poorer members and maintain their own work. This was often through regular giving, and I don't doubt that a redirection of the traditional tithe from Temple to Church occured.
Still, a long way from what you said ... namely
quote:
Its also easily demonstrated that Jesus and the disciples set up an independent system to feed the poor - that of giving a tithe to the church.
And, if we take Jesus' reaction to being annointed with expensive perfume (and the suggestion that it should have been sold and the money given to the poor) as indicative of anything then it seems that Jesus and the early Church considered that the resources of the Church be expended on other things other than just caring for the poor.
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Still, a long way from what you said ... namely
quote:
Its also easily demonstrated that Jesus and the disciples set up an independent system to feed the poor - that of giving a tithe to the church.
And, if we take Jesus' reaction to being annointed with expensive perfume (and the suggestion that it should have been sold and the money given to the poor) as indicative of anything then it seems that Jesus and the early Church considered that the resources of the Church be expended on other things other than just caring for the poor.
Okay, you are right - Jesus and the disciples did not set up the tithing system. But Jesus was of the opinion that tithing was the right thing to do.
Numbers, Chapeter 18 is a good place to start. God did establish a maintenacne program for the poor including a tithe that would be used to feed the poor and the stranger. They are told to be kind to the slave and the stranger, "...for once you were slaves and strangers in the land"(or something like that).
So my statement is in error, but still - there are mechanisms in the church set up for the benefit of the poor. That of the tithe as well as that of direct giving. Jesus suggests that the tithe is important, but direct giving with a free heart is just as important and necessary.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0