|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The Social Gospel
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
OK Beeswax Altar, I've got a 7 year old Passat, a year old laptop, a five year old PC and a pension fund and savings of about two years net income.
I can walk away from it all and come and live with you then?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Why would you want to come to a rural part of the United States to form an intentional community? Any real intentional community here requires a farm. Farms can be had. Farmers willing to live on a Christian commune? Those are harder to find.
You would do much better staying where you are and finding a group of like minded socialists, combining your resources (share housing, pool your money and means of transportation), living among the poor and helping those in need.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I'm sure you know best mate. We have the Jesus Army and I have contemplated them, legalistic damnationist charismatics though they be. I've already given away my home (what a guy, eh?). Should I cut all ties too? And where is Jesus to be followed nowadays? Not with you obviously. And it's a 9 year Passat. Cuh. With only 60,000 miles on the diesel clock. It should see me out. But I've got to get rid of it haven't I? To be a true social gospeleer. Anything less would be hypocrisy of course. Obviously I must take the lead in all this. As no one else has. And no one will follow. Apart from those who have nothing. To serve the poor I must become destitute by living with them? The trouble is I really cannot liquefy my assets for years yet. If I walk out on my wife and ruin her life but keep my job until I get laid off and get a bedsit again, I've actually got a year's rent for one room in the bank. I've got lots of destitute friends who'd welcome me. Yeah. You've got it all worked out Beeswax Altar, thank you so much.
If we sent all the poor to Russia we could nuke two birds with one stone.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Surely other Christian Socialists are willing to join in Christian communalism like it says in Acts. The early church was a voluntary society. I hope they aren't waiting for another Constantine to impose their religion on everybody else for them.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Convents and monasteries can surely be described as intentional communities, no? Certainly vows of poverty and/or simplicity there too. And plenty of left-wing monastics there.
For socialism to be implemented by governments, it does require an actual socialist government and laws - I'm not sure why that is so hard to process. A number of communities doesn't equal laws and government - even if every single Christian lived in a socialist community, there would be many people living in a capitalist system outside of that. Christians can care for non-Christians, you know. Economic inequality is harmful - as a Christian I want people to not be harmed by it. Not hard to understand. Also, socialist community living is just not possible for everyone - it is possible for people to live according to the principles of the Apostles in Acts without turning it into 1st Century Palestine cosplay. Economic equality can exist outside of that. That's not wriggling out of Jesus' words by the way - just an acknowledging a need to follow them in our own lives, which means adapting them for 21st Century Westerners. Not giving up your possessions to the poor is a failing, that doesn't mean economic inequality caused by insufficient taxation isn't also a failing.
There is also a big leap from judging the spiritual practices of the wealthy by quoting Scripture against them, and calling people liars because you don't want to believe that they do actually put their money where their mouths are. Why, again, is it OK to suggest that I don't really do social action work when I do? Some of us actually do things because we believe in them - imagine that.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Those who benefit from poverty should pay for poverty. It really is as simple as that!
Oh it's hardly that simple. One person told me that I couldn't be a Christian if I didn't support the Robin Hood Tax. Another left winger told me that the Robin Hood Tax was a crazy idea. Now, if I accept that pure and undefiled Christianity is this, that we stick it to the rich on behalf of the poor; then, what political position must I hold regarding the Robin Hood Tax in order to be a faithful Christian.
You speak as though the rich have some right to their wealth, and the poor some right to their poverty. I think Jesus implies that this is not the case, however much the world expects us to accept it as fact.
The poor you will always have with you - the world will expect you to collude with the systems that make them poor.
We're in this together BA. Those who can play the systems and those who cannot, or fail to.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Just wondering where 'thou shalt not covet your neighbour's ass (or bank balance)' and 'thou shalt not steal' fit in with the idea that those who have worked hard to earn and save and now have a lot of money, should have it taken away from them in order to give it to those who want more money but aren't working.
Should we not rather be encouraging philanthropy rather than punitive taxes?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Just wondering where 'thou shalt not covet your neighbour's ass (or bank balance)' and 'thou shalt not steal' fit in with the idea that those who have worked hard to earn and save and now have a lot of money, should have it taken away from them in order to give it to those who want more money but aren't working.
Should we not rather be encouraging philanthropy rather than punitive taxes?
Mudfrog, just a small question: do you actually believe that poor people don't work as hard, if not harder, than rich people?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Just wondering where 'thou shalt not covet your neighbour's ass (or bank balance)' and 'thou shalt not steal' fit in with the idea that those who have worked hard to earn and save and now have a lot of money, should have it taken away from them in order to give it to those who want more money but aren't working.
Should we not rather be encouraging philanthropy rather than punitive taxes?
Mudfrog, just a small question: do you actually believe that poor people don't work as hard, if not harder, than rich people?
No no no! That's not what I'm saying.
What I'm asking is whether higher taxes on the rich - many of whom have worked hard for that money - might actually be stealing from them out of envy.
My suggestion is that the rich be encouraged into philanthropy - which AFAICS, is a much more Biblical model than taking their money off the unwilling!
Also, higher taxes are a disincentive and a burden on business, employment, etc.
If the wealth of the wealthy is drained too much job losses will occur and investment will go to countries where the tax burden is lower.
That's all I'm saying.
Look at Bill Gates.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No no no! That's not what I'm saying.
What I'm asking is whether higher taxes on the rich - many of whom have worked hard for that money - might actually be stealing from them out of envy.
Firstly, when you couple the phrases "work hard" and "rich", you're implicitly, if not explicitly, making that connection. Most poor, up to moderately well-off people I know, work very hard: long, anti-social hours for a reward that's not commensurate with their labour.
Contrast this with someone who owns a house: in some places in the country the house is earning more money per annum than the person living in it. A person's wealth is only sometimes, and often tangentially connected with their effort.
Secondly, taxes, while incremental, are not usually redistributive, unless you think paying a teacher or a doctor is redistributive. In-work benefits are a recent innovation, and are evil and pernicious, as they allow rich companies to pay poor people less, knowing that the tax payer will subsidise badly paid jobs: they should go. Taxes go on things we all need, rich and poor alike. Schools, hospitals, roads, the courts, police, fire, trading standards and food standards - none of these are moving wealth from rich people to poor people, unless you subscribe to the (frankly extreme view) that their is no such thing as society, and an educated, healthy workforce who can travel safely to and from their work is no concern of the rich.
Your wish for a more "Biblical" model is endearing. Shall we have a jubilee too, in a country where "0.6 per cent of the British people own 69 per cent of the land"? But perhaps they worked hard for that...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Mudfrog, just a small question: do you actually believe that poor people don't work as hard, if not harder, than rich people?
Part of it depends on what is meant by "hard" - there are two definitions that could apply to work. The first is the amount of effort being put in to the job, in which case there's no doubt that "hard work" applies to all rungs of the job ladder. But the second definition is about how difficult or complex the job itself is, and that does vary.
I can do data analysis really well. Could I run a major multinational corporation? Hell no. That doesn't mean I'm not working as hard as the CEOs, but it does mean my job is easier than theirs - which means they're doing harder work.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What I'm asking is whether higher taxes on the rich - many of whom have worked hard for that money - might actually be stealing from them out of envy.
Taxation under the Roman occupier was largely franchised theft and yet you have the the injunction to pay ones taxes twice (without any commentary on whether the tax was just or not).
If you want to talk about a 'Biblical' model of tax, then the taxation in OT Times was probably around 50-60% not counting any national taxes that would have been on top of that (there are additional references to a per head poll tax).
quote:
If the wealth of the wealthy is drained too much job losses will occur and investment will go to countries where the tax burden is lower.
If the first part is a reference to the Laffler curve, then any serious study would show that the point at which that occurs is a rate a lot higher than we have in any Western country. The second part is actually an argument for agreements on taxation between governments to stop a race to the bottom.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
And for a double post: most of the redistribution of wealth in this country is from the poor to the rich. I would contend that this is not a good thing.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Mudfrog, just a small question: do you actually believe that poor people don't work as hard, if not harder, than rich people?
Part of it depends on what is meant by "hard" - there are two definitions that could apply to work. The first is the amount of effort being put in to the job, in which case there's no doubt that "hard work" applies to all rungs of the job ladder. But the second definition is about how difficult or complex the job itself is, and that does vary.
I can do data analysis really well. Could I run a major multinational corporation? Hell no. That doesn't mean I'm not working as hard as the CEOs, but it does mean my job is easier than theirs - which means they're doing harder work.
I would concur. A brain surgeon has my undying admiration, and I'm happy throwing money at one. A CEO... well, I have a bit of a jaded opinion of them, considering their rewards seem totally uncoupled from the performance of the companies they purport to run. But we've been around the block on that a few times already.
That there are roles and skills that are more highly valued in a market economy than others is pretty much expected: some people work incredibly hard, do very well, and achieve greatness. But it's an independent argument from why, say, the minimum wage is so low that that tax payer has to top it up simply to stop people from being either homeless, cold or starving.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I think arguing about 'the rich' and 'the poor' is falling into a trap. There are plenty of people who are relatively wealthy because they work hard, but who at the same time ensure they use their wealth to the benefit of others less fortunate. In other words, not all the rich are selfish.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I think arguing about 'the rich' and 'the poor' is falling into a trap. There are plenty of people who are relatively wealthy because they work hard, but who at the same time ensure they use their wealth to the benefit of others less fortunate. In other words, not all the rich are selfish.
I don't think anyone here is arguing that "all the rich are selfish".
But since Jesus spent a lot of time discussing "the rich" and "the poor", it's either a trap the Son of God also fell into, or it's not a trap at all. I'm guessing the latter.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Just wondering where 'thou shalt not covet your neighbour's ass (or bank balance)' and 'thou shalt not steal' fit in with the idea that those who have worked hard to earn and save and now have a lot of money, should have it taken away from them in order to give it to those who want more money but aren't working.
Should we not rather be encouraging philanthropy rather than punitive taxes?
Poor people work hard and their income is taxed, either directly via income tax or indirectly via VAT (and the universal nature of VAT means that even the very poorest must pay it). At least tax those who can afford it.
Also it's not a case of 'those who want more money but aren't working', it's a case of enabling people to survive. A disabled people on disability benefits doesn't want more money from those poor oppressed rich people because they're selfish and just want it for the sake of it, they need it because they're currently having to choose between heating and eating and the stress is making their illness worse. But clearly, people's right to live doesn't matter if they can't work, because economic contribution trumps humanity ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by
Jade Constable: For socialism to be implemented by governments, it does require an actual socialist government and laws - I'm not sure why that is so hard to process. A number of communities doesn't equal laws and government - even if every single Christian lived in a socialist community, there would be many people living in a capitalist system outside of that.
Sounds like you want another Constantine impose your own version of Christendom upon the heathen capitalists. I'm opposed to theocracy and dominionism on both the right and the left. You know separation of church and state and all that. Don't tell me lefties only have a problem with conservatives try to impose their religious values on everybody. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Christians are free to help anybody they please. Christian charity is voluntary. Calling on the government to redistribute others wealth while holding on to your own is simply hypocrisy.
quote:
originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, socialist community living is just not possible for everyone - it is possible for people to live according to the principles of the Apostles in Acts without turning it into 1st Century Palestine cosplay. Economic equality can exist outside of that. That's not wriggling out of Jesus' words by the way - just an acknowledging a need to follow them in our own lives, which means adapting them for 21st Century Westerners.
Community living is possible for everyone provided they are willing to make the same sacrifices Jesus called the disciples to make. Socialists just aren't willing to make those sacrifices because rants and protests are both easier and a lot more fun than living in community and serving the poor. Also, why do you claim for yourself the right to follow Jesus in your own life as a 21st Century Westerner but not allow a person with more than you to do the same?
Being a 21st Century Western Social Gospel Christian seems like a pretty easy cross to bear.
quote:
originally posted by Jade Constable:
There is also a big leap from judging the spiritual practices of the wealthy by quoting Scripture against them, and calling people liars because you don't want to believe that they do actually put their money where their mouths are. Why, again, is it OK to suggest that I don't really do social action work when I do? Some of us actually do things because we believe in them - imagine that.
Please, I've been doing this for awhile. You think I haven't met my share of Christians preaching the social gospel? Let me assure you I have. Some do more than others to practice what they preach. None of them do as much as the Salvation Army does as an organization. Most of them send people who ask them for help to the Salvation Army and then lament how the government isn't doing enough. Heck, some of the mainline parishes in town send them to me even though those parishes are larger than my own. Of course, the social gospelers are more than happy to march and protest and feel all good about themselves for speaking out and being right on.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Hairy Biker:
You speak as though the rich have some right to their wealth, and the poor some right to their poverty. I think Jesus implies that this is not the case, however much the world expects us to accept it as fact.
The difference is Jesus was concerned with what we do with our own wealth. You seem more concerned with what others do with theirs. That is a big difference. Don't get me wrong. A case can be made to justify various forms of socialism. My only problem is when people start calling it Christian.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Also, why do you claim for yourself the right to follow Jesus in your own life as a 21st Century Westerner but not allow a person with more than you to do the same?
It appears to be the old chestnut of "the Good and Proper amount of wealth for anyone to have just happens to be exactly the amount I have right now".
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
You've noticed that too?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Actually, no. I don't think there is a right and proper level of wealth, I think there is a right and proper level of sharing that wealth. I have no issue with people having more wealth than others - I have an issue with some having lots and others having none and are therefore unable to survive. Yes, people should be encouraged to give out of personal compassion - but what happens when people don't do that? What happens when there is no voluntary support for people? Part of being a responsible government is caring for people when personal charity is not enough to do that. My point about non-Christians outside of Christian community living wasn't about wanting a theocracy - I don't - but simply considering non-Christians as important as Christians, and therefore they deserve economic equality too. They deserve it but I wouldn't force it in the sense you're talking about.
And I live in community living myself, so actually I am not being hypocritical at all. However, there are people unable to do that, eg people who need insitutional or 24hr care, including prisoners. Until society has a reformed attitude towards crime and punishment, community living for prisoners is certainly not going to happen. Yes, there is L'Arche for people with special care needs, but it's not a system that secular society is very interested in.
My objection to the SA is that they do not address the causes of poverty. Obviously they do lots of good social action (well, unless you're gay) but that doesn't mean they're somehow immune from criticism. Neither does the fact that I do less than the SA (because you know, I'm one person not an organisation) mean that my contribution doesn't count. It does count.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
If you want to talk about a 'Biblical' model of tax...
I'm not.
I'm talking about philanthropy.
People giving because they want to, rather than the state doing it all.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Just wondering where 'thou shalt not covet your neighbour's ass (or bank balance)' and 'thou shalt not steal' fit in with the idea that those who have worked hard to earn and save and now have a lot of money, should have it taken away from them in order to give it to those who want more money but aren't working.
Should we not rather be encouraging philanthropy rather than punitive taxes?
Poor people work hard and their income is taxed, either directly via income tax or indirectly via VAT (and the universal nature of VAT means that even the very poorest must pay it). At least tax those who can afford it.
Also it's not a case of 'those who want more money but aren't working', it's a case of enabling people to survive. A disabled people on disability benefits doesn't want more money from those poor oppressed rich people because they're selfish and just want it for the sake of it, they need it because they're currently having to choose between heating and eating and the stress is making their illness worse. But clearly, people's right to live doesn't matter if they can't work, because economic contribution trumps humanity
Let's not forget that VAT is not charged on food or children's clothing - which is the what the greatest part of a family's budget is spent on. The people that VAT really hits are those who buy luxury goods.
I think the mantra of 'heating v eating' actually describes a myth.
Studies have not shown that people die of cold in the winter due to not heating their houses.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
My objection to the SA is that they do not address the causes of poverty. Obviously they do lots of good social action (well, unless you're gay) but that doesn't mean they're somehow immune from criticism. Neither does the fact that I do less than the SA (because you know, I'm one person not an organisation) mean that my contribution doesn't count. It does count.
Here we go a-bloody-gain! What is the reason for your prejudice against The Salvation Army?? While some people are marching ste streets protesting about cuts we;'re actually serving the people who need us. We cannot do everything! You moan, we'll feed.
And are you accusing us of only helping straight people? If you are, I want your evidence and named examples here in the UK (seeing that you're so fond of reminding me that's where you live!)
[ 24. April 2014, 16:17: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Also, why do you claim for yourself the right to follow Jesus in your own life as a 21st Century Westerner but not allow a person with more than you to do the same?
It appears to be the old chestnut of "the Good and Proper amount of wealth for anyone to have just happens to be exactly the amount I have right now".
Straw man.
The existence of people who are richer than me, which, if you take personal annual income only into account, is (at the moment) pretty much everyone in the UK of working age and over, whether they're on benefits or not, bothers me not at all.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
My objection to the SA is that they do not address the causes of poverty. Obviously they do lots of good social action (well, unless you're gay) but that doesn't mean they're somehow immune from criticism. Neither does the fact that I do less than the SA (because you know, I'm one person not an organisation) mean that my contribution doesn't count. It does count.
Here we go a-bloody-gain! What is the reason for your prejudice against The Salvation Army?? While some people are marching ste streets protesting about cuts we;'re actually serving the people who need us. We cannot do everything! You moan, we'll feed.
And are you accusing us of only helping straight people? If you are, I want your evidence and named examples here in the UK (seeing that you're so fond of reminding me that's where you live!)
I serve people too, as I've pointed out, I don't just 'moan' (aka having the temerity to expect the root causes of poverty to be tackled as well as the symptoms). I don't have a prejudice against the SA, I just disagree with them - I wasn't aware I wasn't allowed to do that. How about tackling the government on things like the bedroom tax rather than turning a blind eye to your Tory mates so you stay in business? The SA's opinion being made publicly known would do a lot to help, but apparently the SA are not actually interested in eradicating poverty, just treating it.
I also wouldn't have to keep reminding you that I live in the UK if you didn't keep assuming I was American, despite my location being displayed on all my comments - it's not difficult to find. I wasn't aware that being part of the SA meant you couldn't read. I have the courtesy to check where others are located, I expect the same courtesy from you. Why is it OK to make assumptions about my country of origin? I wouldn't do that for you.
The SA's prejudice against LGBTQ people is well-known and they opposed the repeal of Section 28 in the UK. Section 28 contributed to the significant mental health problems and suicide rates amongst LGBTQ people, which is higher than that of the straight population. Clearly LGBTQ people's welfare is not worth protecting in law to the SA.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Just wondering where 'thou shalt not covet your neighbour's ass (or bank balance)' and 'thou shalt not steal' fit in with the idea that those who have worked hard to earn and save and now have a lot of money, should have it taken away from them in order to give it to those who want more money but aren't working.
Should we not rather be encouraging philanthropy rather than punitive taxes?
Poor people work hard and their income is taxed, either directly via income tax or indirectly via VAT (and the universal nature of VAT means that even the very poorest must pay it). At least tax those who can afford it.
Also it's not a case of 'those who want more money but aren't working', it's a case of enabling people to survive. A disabled people on disability benefits doesn't want more money from those poor oppressed rich people because they're selfish and just want it for the sake of it, they need it because they're currently having to choose between heating and eating and the stress is making their illness worse. But clearly, people's right to live doesn't matter if they can't work, because economic contribution trumps humanity
Let's not forget that VAT is not charged on food or children's clothing - which is the what the greatest part of a family's budget is spent on. The people that VAT really hits are those who buy luxury goods.
I think the mantra of 'heating v eating' actually describes a myth.
Studies have not shown that people die of cold in the winter due to not heating their houses.
VAT is charged on some food, just not all - fruit juice, for instance, has VAT on it. Things like sanitary towels also have VAT. VAT is still an inherently unfair tax.
And no, heating v eating is not a myth. When I was on Income Support I did indeed have to choose between heating and eating. My own personal experience is not a myth, unless you think I am lying. Of course people die of cold in winter! I suppose old people never get pneumonia....
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Yeah, and one of our Triangle guests didn't die of hypothermia sitting on the toilet.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
How far we've come in three and a half thousand years from those Bronze Age savages and their seven year debt release and return of all land to its original tribal apportioned and descended owners every fifty, the liberation of all slaves and prisoners. And other nasty Commie-Jew ways like leaving the corners of fields for the poor to garner. Interest free loans to the needy! I ask you!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Hairy Biker:
You speak as though the rich have some right to their wealth, and the poor some right to their poverty. I think Jesus implies that this is not the case, however much the world expects us to accept it as fact.
The difference is Jesus was concerned with what we do with our own wealth. You seem more concerned with what others do with theirs. That is a big difference. Don't get me wrong. A case can be made to justify various forms of socialism. My only problem is when people start calling it Christian.
No again. Jesus was not concerned with what we do with anyone's wealth. He was concerned with how we treat one another. I think he used the word "love". How does a rich/poor divide in any society speak of a love between neighbours?
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I suppose old people never get pneumonia....
Despite the pervasive myth, pneumonia is not caused by being cold. Its increased prevalence (as well as that of colds and flu) during the winter months is more closely related to the reduced amount of sunlight making it harder for the body to synthesise Vitamin D than the fact that winter is colder than summer.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
From a General Register Office for Scotland site:
quote:
In April 2002, GROS published an Occasional Paper entitled ‘The Raised Incidence of
Winter Deaths’. As well as reviewing the various definitions used to assess the extent of
increased winter mortality, this paper showed that additional winter deaths were
particularly associated with respiratory and circulatory diseases and that few deaths were
caused by hypothermia. It also demonstrated that, though not all increased winter mortality
is related to influenza, there was a clear link between the number of additional deaths and
the level of influenza activity.
I don't think that 'being cold' gives you influenza.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I don't think that 'being cold' gives you influenza.
But it does give you strokes, thromboses and heart attacks. Winter also means an increased risk of falls, broken bones, and subsequent death due to complications.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Actually, no. I don't think there is a right and proper level of wealth, I think there is a right and proper level of sharing that wealth. I have no issue with people having more wealth than others - I have an issue with some having lots and others having none and are therefore unable to survive. Yes, people should be encouraged to give out of personal compassion - but what happens when people don't do that? What happens when there is no voluntary support for people?
Sounds like a distinction without a difference. I also question how many people in the 21st Century Western Europe are dying because some people have too much. Put me with those arguing the number is 0.
quote:
How about tackling the government on things like the bedroom tax rather than turning a blind eye to your Tory mates so you stay in business? The SA's opinion being made publicly known would do a lot to help, but apparently the SA are not actually interested in eradicating poverty, just treating it.
So, you still maintain a person can't support a bedroom tax (whatever that is) and not be a Christian? Do we still have to support the Robin Hood Tax or are you backing off of that one? If the SA helps those in poverty and all their supporters are Tory, how can you then argue that you only want those with money to share? What are the rich who give to the Salvation Army doing? Is Sally Army Inc. a big profit generator?
quote:
originally posted by Hairy Biker:
No again. Jesus was not concerned with what we do with anyone's wealth. He was concerned with how we treat one another. I think he used the word "love". How does a rich/poor divide in any society speak of a love between neighbours?
Well, let's take that statement to its logical conclusion. Can I assume that you don't love those who have less than you because you have more than them? Shame on you for not loving your neighbor. Are we also to assume the Good Samaritan was acting under government compulsion when he helped the man found bleeding and dying on the Jericho road? I'm leery of calling any forced action love.
Again, the Social Gospel appears to be about guilt and envy. The social gospelers envy those with more than them. They feel guilt that some have less than them. To assuage the guilt they favor the government taking money from those with more than them and giving it to those with less than them. Ain't following Jesus easy!
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Mudfrog: quote:
I'm talking about philanthropy.
People giving because they want to, rather than the state doing it all.
Poor people give proportionately more of their income to charity than rich people - as somebody or other once pointed out (Mark 12: 41-44).
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Scripture does call for everybody to give an equal portion of their income to church or temple. According to the OT, what is owed the government is is significantly less. If you say tithe is owed the government, then you would support a 10% flat tax. Jesus was a Tea Partier! Who knew?
For the record, I don't believe the Tea Party is inherently Christian either.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Prior to Obamacare, there were certainly people in the US dying due to lack of medical insurance - essentially because people refused to fund medical care for others.
The argument that sharing wealth should be 100% voluntary essentially boils down to this - it's better for people to die because others don't want to financially support them than it is to compel people to financially support them. That's the crux of it - that being able to hang on to money is more important than people not dying. That seems inherently un-Christian.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Why do you hate the poor?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
BA - the bedroom tax in the UK is that people in social housing are fined for having a spare room. This is a huge problem for many disabled people as rooms used to store important healthcare equipment like kidney dialysis machines are still counted as 'spare', and foster children's bedrooms are also counted as 'spare' even though all foster children in the UK must legally have their own bedroom and foster parents aren't allowed to have them share rooms. I definitely think it's something a Christian could not in good conscience support. By 'Tory pals' I was referring to the government who brought in the bedroom tax, not saying that everyone who supports the SA is a Tory.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You're Father Jack aren't you? What was it he called the poor?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Jade Constable:
That's the crux of it - that being able to hang on to money is more important than people not dying. That seems inherently un-Christian.
Perhaps, but unless you are a Dominionist wanting to live in a Christian Theocracy expecting the government to impose your view of Christianity upon others then your concern should be about you and other Christians treat the poor. Again, I've noticed Christians who preach the social gospel will offer any number of poor excuses for why they can't do more with the resources they have. Amazing how much those excuses sound like the ones given by conservatives who oppose the welfare state.
Any way of rationing care means some people will likely die who could have been saved if another way was used.
quote:
originally posted by MartinPC and Not Ship's Biohazard:
Why do you hate the poor?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
When did you stop beating your wife?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
BA - I promise you that I do all I can with all my resources. Again, I live in community. Others may be hypocrites there, I am not.
Also, wanting there to be a bare minimum of care for the public is not wanting to impose a theocracy, because this is also (IMO) part of being a civilised society even in secular terms, it's just that they coincide with Christianity. The fact is that not everyone who should give voluntarily will do so, and there will be a shortfall. Putting people before money means some kind of taxation.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
And yet you say you can't do as much as the Salvation Army because you are an individual instead of an organization. The Salvation Army is nothing more than a denomination like any other Christian denomination. A church with more members could do even more than the Salvation Army. What are denominations but the cooperative work of local churches including those living in intentional community?
Arguing a civilized society should provide a certain level of care is one thing. Arguing that all good Christians will agree with you about the level of care and how is provided is another. The first is the purpose of politics in a democratic society. The second waters down Christianity by making it about politics instead of the sanctification of all regardless of wealth.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
And yet you say you can't do as much as the Salvation Army because you are an individual instead of an organization. The Salvation Army is nothing more than a denomination like any other Christian denomination. A church with more members could do even more than the Salvation Army. What are denominations but the cooperative work of local churches including those living in intentional community?
Arguing a civilized society should provide a certain level of care is one thing. Arguing that all good Christians will agree with you about the level of care and how is provided is another. The first is the purpose of politics in a democratic society. The second waters down Christianity by making it about politics instead of the sanctification of all regardless of wealth.
I do all I can with my resources - being an individual, that is less than that of an organisation that is a registered charity. I as an individual cannot register as a charity. I think it's completely right that the SA get to register as a charity and use those benefits, but they don't apply to me as an individual. With regards to my own church, it is not currently taking part in any social action projects, mostly due to expensive heating repairs. However the other church I attend for the young adult group has local social action projects and I am involved in those, along with regional ecumenical social action projects. Given that I have chronic disabilities and am in receipt of social action projects myself, I am not sure how that could be seen as an unreasonable level of action unless you wish to put me in hospital.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
"A bunch uh bastards".
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Far and far and few are the land where the Jumblies live.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
My little English village parochial church continues to blow me away by its open armed inclusion (of a gay couple), ecumenism (with Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and even Baptists!) and now generosity. I made an email appeal through correct channels on behalf of a former Christian, former class-A drug addict seeking to finance first aid training to work with addicts, with no hope, let alone expectation. A note was put in the printed notices on Sunday. My former 'missional' mega-church had already turned him down flat. Wouldn't even give him an on-stage interview. I know why. They are frightened that the poor in the congregation would respond.
In four days my local church (until they carry me out in a box I hope) more than paid for an accredited, certificated, three day Red Cross course which would have been impossible for him otherwise.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
