Social Justice Jesus

[jasoncran]

its funny but those so called taxes to rich are passed to the other classes in price raises of less hiring.

case in point as a youth in the state of la.whenever the law would raise the minimum wage all prices at least at the fast food joints went up, and i think elsewhere so that any wage benefit was negated.

go figure, and by borrowing like mad it also affected the elderly and retired in that prices go up with the dollar weakened.policies that strengthen the dollar would do well as kiss that ss raise goodbye and many other retirement funds dont increase each year. i live in essence a retirement community where its safe to say that average is 50 plus. and most of them are hurting if they aint upper middle or upper class.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

All true, but none of this is any kind of argument that we should "re-distribute" wealth from the rich to the poor.

Assuming you didn't mean "shouldn't" I am in full agreement. So where in Scripture does Jesus preach wealth redistribution as opposed to charity by all for the glory of God? I agree that the majority of people, regardless of income status, are more willing to hoard material wealth rather to sacrifice. However, should not we depend on God, rather than depend on the government? That is my main objection to social justice, that we are quick to turn to human works to alleviate suffering instead of the Almighty God. I agree that it is our obligation as the body of Christ to love & serve one another but, how does public spending fulfill this obligation when inevitably our taxes are spent on ways that conflict with the will & commands of God? I also agree that Jesus calls his disciples to "move mountains" i.e. Christianize societal institutions, specifically governing bodies. However, should we not, as disciples, be in unison on the Biblical principles established towards this end? However, if one of the means to this end is the elimination & redressing of suffering by humans works, is that not a Scripturally conflicting principle?

 

[Drew]

I would like to know what the rich give.

Taxes are not gifts.

Actually, taxes that get funneled to the poor are indeed "gifts", at least in the sense that they reflect the free will decision of the members of a society to collectively use their resources to assist the poor.

For those who think that taxation to help the poor is really "forced giving", I ask you to please read post 99 and respond to the arguments.

 

[jasoncran]

sigh, would drew if his church took his offerings and killed babies support such a thing and called a tithe by him or the church agreeing to such a thing by legal paperwork, and yes some church at one time did take money from your check (so i hear)

i will not vote for any politician who says i will help the poor and yet is pro abortion. they by law not by my vote get the money

by that wonderful giving logic. do we christians, yes i itemise to minimuse taxes given to the govt, nick pick and reduce gifts. what i mean is if its legal to say. deduct legal and needed expenditures from the irs tax 1040 ez or what not. that isnt what God would approve i dont go to god house and op 10 percent less because i gave to the guy walking down the street or gas money.

also if by law it is passed that you a citizen are required by law not to attend church and its forced if they make you not attend church and jail you. was that not by force? and said law was passed by vote in the congress.

 

[reba]

Taxes are not gifts.

Gifts are 'freewill'

Taxes are levied.

Rhea

Reba - taxes can be gifts to the needy if one thinks of it that way.

This small part of your post is why i dont like the guys in DC. They the, liberal side, have tried to changed the meaning of words.

–noun gift 1. something given voluntarily without payment in return, as to show favor toward someone, honor an occasion, or make a gesture of assistance; present.



–noun Tax 1. a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.

 

[reba]

For those who think that taxation to help the poor is really "forced giving", I ask you to please read post 99 and respond to the arguments

Drew i would loose a discussion with you no doubt but what i know in my heart does not change because some one can out word me.

Taxes are taxes and gifts are gifts.


Should we all help each other sure. Lets start with some basic truth taxes are taxes and gifts are gifts.

 

[jasoncran]

lol. bribery as charity.

i would ask rhea if said country mandated that she and hers serve without regard to choice in any branch of the military would she? if not and its a law why then not do that duty that is after all a charity(time can be a charitable thing).


primiarily to drew,
i have, by being a male in the us from age 18 to 26 you are obligated to the selected service register, but i have enlisted and i am in the military, albeit national guard. so therefore to drew, since i know he is a pacifist, this wouldnt forced now would if it your country made you serve against your believes.

i know the answer and i understand nor would i want you in my military, you arent the type for it.but given the chance that as you say we all by voting oblidge ourselves to the charities. what then is the difference if said country said all citizens must serve as its a duty to serve?

if you choose to remain in said country then you have agreed to that.

 

[Rhea]

Rhea
This small part of your post is why i dont like the guys in DC. They the, liberal side, have tried to changed the meaning of words.

–

My post was not to say, because I do not think it, that the "guys in DC" should think this way. I think the people in DC and the state houses should handle the people's money with reverence, humility and the good stewardship that one would expect from a person handling one's gifts to others.

The fact that they do not do this is not something I support or that I fail to actively try to change. I do not support poor stewardship and I do try to actively change that poor stewardship.

MY quote about seeing it as a gift is from *ME*. That I see it as a gift to you when I voluntarily pay my taxes. You live in texas, so you live in a state that receives more in federal dollars than it pays. I live in a state that gives more in federal dollars than it receives. So literally, *my* voluntarily paid taxes go to *you* quite directly.

*I* view my tax obligation as a gift, in part. Part of it is for national upkeep and that is my "share" or "obligation" to pay for my parts of what I want my country to be able to provide (roads, military, power grid, etc); my share of the benefits that I and everyone receives. The rest of it is my *gift* to places like Texas that need more than they can afford. And to individuals who need food, shelter and health care.

I never said, and certainly never meant, that politicians should view my gift as a gift to them. No, they should view it as they are stewards of my gifts to others, and that is a trust. I have always been active about getting that trust to be even better handled. It is far from perfect.

But your reply that you don't think of it as a gift because you haven't freely given it gets to the difference between us. Not a bad difference, just a difference. I do give freely to those in need. The government is a way to reach ALL those in need, not just the ones around the neighborhood. It reaches to the ones in need who have no good parents, who have no good role models, who do not live in areas wealthy enough to be charitable, who are not served by local programs. You feel that churches are very efficient. I don't see that evidence. I see the evidence that the government program, as inefficient as they are, are still better at reaching ALL of the needy than local programs alone.

So you don't think of your taxes as a gift (the portion beyond infrastructure), and I gather from your comments that it's because you think government is bad at it. I disagree, the data seems to show otherwise.

But I will argue that you're following a false logic if you say my statement above is what's wrong with DC politicians. Because my statement was not ABOUT DC politicians, it was about me and my outlook. It would be incorrect for you to assume I think DC politicans either should expect me to want to give OR that I think they do a perfect job and that I sit back and take it. My comment did not imply either meaning. DC politicans should indeed be (nearly infinitely) more humble with my money AND I will continue to be a constant activist to try to drive that home, so that my gift to my fellow Americans can be used in ways that promote the public good and not be wasted.

 

[reba]

When i give a gift to some one I dont hand the store clerk $100.00 and say gift a gift.

A gift is a gift and taxes are taxes

I will remove the "DC" and just say any politician, any place. The government in general should not give gifts to any one.

The little water board i served for 12 years could not, by law, give a gift of flowers to our secretary while she was in the hospital. So the board chipped in to send the flowers.... But for some reason the 'gifts' of entitlements are good?

I wouldn't trust government data one minute....

Your well written words dont change what is right. ( that is in my mind)

 

[theLords]

Second warning: Address issues, not people. Infractions will follow for those who don't comply.

 

[Drew]

Drew i would loose a discussion with you no doubt but what i know in my heart does not change because some one can out word me.

Taxes are taxes and gifts are gifts.

Please address the arguments that I put forward in post 99.

I appreciate that you think I am a relatively good "debater" - I really do.

But whether that is true or not, post 99 is what it is - an argument that taxes are not really "forced" or "levied", at least in the sense that's important.

 

[jasoncran]

rhea that wasnt adressed at you.on whom is or isnt worthy to be in the military, so i edited

odd, that was meant to state at drew. drew without disrespect is a pacifist.

i apologise if rhea took that wrong way.
i was in a rush and though i also typed in drew.

i would and dont support any draft as men like drew shouldnt be made to serve and theres no exmeption for him. he or those like him may apply for the status of consciensus objector but the govt doesnt have to grant it. unlike the law for the mennites that is in the us constitution.

the point to that is by using legal procedures to make one "give" is tantamount to that forced military service. there are a ton of things which by my tax dollars do.

i wont hide nor cheat the govt but what is spent isnt voted on by me directly.yes that is the nature of the republic(america isnt a democracy) and i understand that but.. nor would if i had any choice to control my money give to the programs that support things i dont believe in.

at current few dollars are spent on abortion but in the larger and crime ridden cities of new york etc there are programs where by condomns and needles are given to the drug addicts at no charge.

so depending on how they collect that its not by those christians that didnt vote for that. its either levied in the form of sales tax or local city tax that pays for that.

 

[jasoncran]

ah given they way it was read i can understand why you said that.

lets move on shall we. you may go back and re read it and then comment.

 

[reba]

<!--[if !mso]> <style> v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]--> Many posters assert that God does not want us to give “under force” and use this line of reasoning to oppose taxation to support activities that might be reasonably understood to be “charity”. I will now argue that fundamentally taxation is not stealing or “forced” giving, but really a practical way to implement the population’s free will-based determination to engage in communal activities, including those of a charitable nature.

Simply your opinion I do not see practicality in the programs here in the USA
<ofile: c:="" docume%7e1="" becky="" locals%7e1="" temp="" msohtml1="" 01="" clip_image001.gif[="" img]<="" o[img]file:="" clip_image002.gif[="" font="">
[FONT=Verdana]Suppose that many people in a particular society have empathy for the plight of the poor and wish to be involved in ensuring that these poor get money. What would they do? Would they all get together every day and listen to the petitions of individual poor people and then “pass a hat”. Of course not, that is wildly impractical. Nor do people want or need to be burdened with the time-consuming task of identifying poor people and then giving them money directly. Again, wildly impractical. Besides, there may be many poor people that nobody knows about.[/FONT]

[COLOR=blue][FONT=Verdana]Why not pass the hat? Again just your opinion. Impractical? My opinion? no it is not Impractical it is the better way of funds getting to the ‘real’ needy[/FONT]. Maybe because of the numbers of people [/COLOR]
[FONT=Verdana]<o[img]file: c:="" docume%7e1="" becky="" locals%7e1="" temp="" msohtml1="" 01="" clip_image001.gif[="" img]<="" o[img]file:="" clip_image002.gif[="" font="">
[FONT=Verdana]What they would instead do is to [B]choose[/B] (read “elect”) some people who share their concern to do the job of matching dollars with poor people [B]for them[/B]. To [B]delegate[/B] this task to a set of people with the time, skill, knowledge, to determine “who should get what” is the [B]efficient[/B], [B]intelligent[/B] thing to do. And it might be perfectly appropriate to pay these people to do this “wealth re-distribution” service. Let’s call this chosen set of people the “administrators”.[/FONT]


[COLOR=blue]I wouldn’t Why pay some one to do something you can do yourself? Instead of creating a ‘job’ that only ‘sucks’ funds as in no real product do it your self.[/COLOR]
[FONT=Verdana]<o[img]file: c:="" docume%7e1="" becky="" locals%7e1="" temp="" msohtml1="" 01="" clip_image001.gif[="" img]<="" o[img]file:="" clip_image002.gif[="" font="">


[FONT=Verdana]So all the members of this society freely make a [B]commitment[/B] to each pay, say 10%, of their income to this project. And since, of course, it is the administrators who have the job of vectoring this money to where it is most needed, the members of the society give their money to the administrators. In order to make their commitment [B]binding[/B], the members of the society [B]freely[/B] consent to being “forced” to pay their share. Let me explain this key point a bit more. The members of the society are making a kind of contractual agreement with the administrators – they are saying “we want [B]you[/B] to do the hard work of figuring out who needs what, so to help you out, [B]we[/B] each [B]commit[/B] to paying our 10 % share”. And in so doing, they recognize and accept that, in order to [B]plan[/B] [B]disbursements appropriately[/B] the administrators need [B]certainty[/B] that people will [B]follow through[/B] on their commitment.[/FONT]

[COLOR=blue][FONT=Verdana]If folks choose to support the red cross that is free will and freely chosen. Taxes on the other hand don’t fit your scenario. Jail is the option to not pay taxes Taxes are not freely given. I have no say in what/where my tax $$$ go that is not freely given. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[FONT=Verdana]<o[img]file: c:="" docume%7e1="" becky="" locals%7e1="" temp="" msohtml1="" 01="" clip_image001.gif[="" img]<="" o[img]file:="" clip_image002.gif[="" font="">
[FONT=Verdana]So everybody agrees to be [B]legally bound[/B] to follow through on their commitment.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]<o[img]file: c:="" docume%7e1="" becky="" locals%7e1="" temp="" msohtml1="" 01="" clip_image001.gif[="" img]<="" o[img]file:="" clip_image002.gif[="" font="">
[FONT=Verdana]Of course, this is precisely what happens when a [B]government [/B]“forces” you to pay taxes to support charity. All the rhetoric you see in this thread misses the key point – when people in a society decide to collectively help the poor, “taxation” is an efficient, practical way to implement the collective will of the people.[/FONT]

[COLOR=blue][FONT=Verdana]It is not what government does. They take the $$$ and build bridges to nowhere. The ‘pork ‘ is over the top. They create more no product jobs. Empty jobs, jobs of no real value. [/FONT][/COLOR]



[COLOR=blue]The proof that this does not work is the growing number of poor folks… The good ol ‘war on poverty’ [/COLOR][COLOR=blue]we lost.[/COLOR]

[FONT=Verdana]<o[img]file: c:="" docume%7e1="" becky="" locals%7e1="" temp="" msohtml1="" 01="" clip_image001.gif[="" img]<="" o[img]file:="" clip_image002.gif[="" font="">


</o[img]file:>[/FONT]</o[img]file:>[/FONT]</o[img]file:>[/FONT]</o[img]file:>[/FONT]</o[img]file:>[/FONT]</o[img]file:>[/FONT][FONT=Calibri][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]And if the collective will of the people is to help the poor, then this is decidedly a “kingdom of God” action.[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Verdana]<o[img]file: c:="" docume%7e1="" becky="" locals%7e1="" temp="" msohtml1="" 01="" clip_image001.gif[="" img]<="" o[img]file:="" clip_image002.gif[="" font="">[FONT=Verdana]<o[img]file: c:="" docume%7e1="" becky="" locals%7e1="" temp="" msohtml1="" 01="" clip_image001.gif[="" img]<="" o[img]file:="" clip_image002.gif[="" font="">[FONT=Verdana]<o[img]file: c:="" docume%7e1="" becky="" locals%7e1="" temp="" msohtml1="" 01="" clip_image001.gif[="" img]<="" o[img]file:="" clip_image002.gif[="" font="">[FONT=Verdana]<o[img]file: c:="" docume%7e1="" becky="" locals%7e1="" temp="" msohtml1="" 01="" clip_image001.gif[="" img]<="" o[img]file:="" clip_image002.gif[="" font="">[FONT=Verdana]<o[img]file: c:="" docume%7e1="" becky="" locals%7e1="" temp="" msohtml1="" 01="" clip_image001.gif[="" img]<="" o[img]file:="" clip_image002.gif[="" font="">[FONT=Verdana]<o[img]file: c:="" docume%7e1="" becky="" locals%7e1="" temp="" msohtml1="" 01="" clip_image001.gif[="" img]<="" o[img]file:="" clip_image002.gif[="" font="">
[FONT=Verdana]
[COLOR=teal]Luk 20:25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
[/COLOR]

I am only speaking of things here in the USA. Should those of us that are blessed share YES.
To me the government sticks a gun to my head and says you will pay this disability check to Bud it does not matter that his disability is phony or it is because he chose to do drugs you will pay for him... nothing freely given
[/FONT]

Dont beat me up too bad :)
[FONT=Verdana]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]
[/FONT]</o[img]file:>[/FONT]</o[img]file:>[/FONT]</o[img]file:>[/FONT]</o[img]file:>[/FONT]</o[img]file:>[/FONT]</o[img]file:>[/FONT]

 

[Drummer4Christ]

Where in Scripture does Jesus make the distinction between sacrifice to lift up God vs sacrifice to lift up men?

Where in Scripture does Jesus equate giving back to Caesar as giving back to God?

Where in Scripture does Jesus equate the works of men with providence from God?

 

[Drew]

<STYLE> v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </STYLE>Many posters assert that God does not want us to give “under force” and use this line of reasoning to oppose taxation to support activities that might be reasonably understood to be “charity”. I will now argue that fundamentally taxation is not stealing or “forced” giving, but really a practical way to implement the population’s free will-based determination to engage in communal activities, including those of a charitable nature.

Simply your opinion I do not see practicality in the programs here in the USA

I did not merely assert my "opinion" - I provided an accompanying argument, which, by the way, you reproduced in your post.

<STYLE> v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </STYLE>Suppose that many people in a particular society have empathy for the plight of the poor and wish to be involved in ensuring that these poor get money. What would they do? Would they all get together every day and listen to the petitions of individual poor people and then “pass a hat”. Of course not, that is wildly impractical. Nor do people want or need to be burdened with the time-consuming task of identifying poor people and then giving them money directly. Again, wildly impractical. Besides, there may be many poor people that nobody knows about.

Why not pass the hat? Again just your opinion. Impractical? My opinion? no it is not Impractical it is the better way of funds getting to the ‘real’ needy. Maybe because of the numbers of people

It is, I suggest, self-evidently true that some form of careful organization is indeed needed to implement proper re-distribution of wealth. You have not responded to the the main relevant point here: it is simply too logistically complicated to have people acting individually to ensure that all the needy people are taken care of. That is, of course, is one of the main reasons why we need government in the first place - to act comunally in some ordered fashion to implement shared goals.

Are you seriously suggesting that some form of organized behaviour is not necessary to ensure that the right amount of "charity" goes to the right people at the right time?

It would be chaos otherwise - there would be no "big picture", no way of optimizing the re-distribution of wealth.

 

[Drew]

Where in Scripture does Jesus equate the works of men with providence from God?

You appear to be implying that God never uses human beings (in this case, generous Christians) to implement His provenance.

Do you really want to be seen as holding that position?

Please -the argument "we do not need to help the poor since that's God's job" is a non-starter.

 

[reba]

Are you seriously suggesting that some form of organized behaviour is not necessary to ensure that the right amount of "charity" goes to the right people at the right time?

No am suggesting the the US government is not the organization to do the job. Take a look at recent history there in is my argument.

Drew I am blessed to live in a very small place... I know who and why folks here do with out... When i lived in the city i knew which neighbours were in need. We acted accordingly.

Mike down the street he gets some form of $$ disability because he is a drugy and alcoholic. I do not believe he should get any kind of public funds. He get some form of $$$ and also works here and there for cash the classic case of abuse.. same with Walter, Allen and Linda

Sharon is ok $$ wise but she has Alzheimers her meds keep them on the edge. Because of all the red tape the government pays the bad guys and Sharon is almost on her own... This is in my town of 50 people....

His kingdom is righteous peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost. so says His Word.

What is righteous, peaceful, or joyful about the US government?


The Churches should step up and do their job. But no they take the easy way out and give up their obligations, responsibility to the easy out.

Jas 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.




Some of what you say just flies over the top i dont get it.... But thanks for trying

 

[Drummer4Christ]

You appear to be implying that God never uses human beings (in this case, generous Christians) to implement His provenance.

Do you really want to be seen as holding that position?

Please -the argument "we do not need to help the poor since that's God's job" is a non-starter.

That's not what I've said and you know it. Please answer the questions.

 

[Zinc]

Many posters assert that God does not want us to give “under force” and use this line of reasoning to oppose taxation to support activities that might be reasonably understood to be “charity”. I will now argue that fundamentally taxation is not stealing or “forced” giving, but really a practical way to implement the population’s free will-based determination to engage in communal activities, including those of a charitable nature.
<o</o

I would deny that Western countries are actually that democratic. "Democracy" in the West is very much: which group of elites do you want to rule over you? (And probably ignore the people on various issues.)

Does society have the right to set taxes and implement social programs? Sure.

But in the West this stuff isn't really under the control of the people. Actually, I doubt the left wing would want real democracy. Too many people could have the "wrong" values for them.

And we know that there are dangers with this type of thing. If the state provides assistance to teen girls who get themselves knocked up, it can easily become a "reward" for irresponsible behaviour.

And then you are actually helping to CREATE a social problem. And quite possibly you are stealing off of more responsible people (tax) who have a hard enough time paying for their own family.