Social Justice Jesus

[jasoncran]

thats why many christians i know dont vote they would rather skip the liars and help the person's in need.

knowing that to them and i am near to going this route. its pointless to give money via "charities" to support them. yes i will pay taxes but they will be by law taking it.

however i seriously doubt you nor drew actually run to the tax collectors giving extra. serious if i posted my income i would be poor to some yet i am wealthier then to the the haitian etc and that is why i find it hard to say only the rich give. rich compared to whom? americans, canadians.

when i give its too the church that properly has the means and uses them to assist. my pastor and other in the area do that. the govt doesnt and wont care. i dont for the life of me cant figure that you all seem to think that a nine to five charity worker on union benefits would care in any christian manner for the lost like a christian should. yes its possible that some do but remember , a job is one thing and volunteerism is a job that is a sacrifice and also a joy.

some paid jobs are both, ie teacher and police and soldiering. God wants giving to be a sacrifice. taxes to me arent that. in my mind i dont even write the checks or hand them they are taken from me and i live off the rest. i have heard christians living of 10k a year while making triple that and giving the rest to the charities in need.

the problem with yours and drews style of giving is that one can never give nor care and yet by that logic their are right with god as they vote socialist.

do you see that? i do.whereas the person who does care will address the need however possible. i find this whole thread ironic as the us isnt going to be able to assist the poor much longer. the dollar will fail and we will have to either suffer or learn to work together and help each other. reba and also my grandfather state the same thing in the depression men would barter and often gave to each other in the time of need. no social programs do that. its taken. and the later was a die hard democrat who did all that he could for the poor till death, both him and his wife my grandmother. they were liberal but they did care.

but you dont have to care at all if taxation of the rich is the way to give and yet feel good as "i donate by voting for the socialist programs that help via taxes".

my father in law was so poor in the depression era that his dad rented mules and having a glass of milk if i recall was added bonus. he worked hard and didnt want that in his life. he has a heart. yet is one of them evil republicans that you all hate.

we have a lot of junk that we need dont need that costs money, how many "poor" do you know have tvs etc? a ton. does one need cable to survive? no. if it comes to a home or the streets the internet and cable are gone and i aint asking the govt to subsidize that. one doesnt need the gadgets.

and i as a kid while on tanf at times didnt have cable and while not on it due to parents bad spending habits power or cable. so i do know what its like.

 

[theLords]

Address issues, not people please.

 

[jasoncran]

giving from the christian view is neither nor was compulson nor was meant to be. sure God commands it but he would much rather have us give so that we do it in love to bless him not for fear of hellfire damnation. if all we do is love him for fear of hell most likely we are babes in christ as we mature in him and are blessed and also see that he is mericiful only then do we learn to give in the heart of love and compassion.

taxation eliminates that process. you neither sign the the checks to give to the irs unless its to pay what by law you owe. giving to the govt is debt, tithing and or offerings arent debts. we may owe god but giving must be done cheerfully not by force for its by force then might i state the church should then have strong men who by force take wallets and empty them into the plate.

that isnt what the bible says.drew makes the mistake of implying that by taxation by vote that we are giving. we arent, jesus never by force makes one serve him. he warns us of the consequences but forced love simply isnt love at all.thats like saying inprisonment is freedom.

 

[Rhea]

i have prayed for the lost when i did help them or ministered to them. but if i did that while in a govt uniform the aclu would sue me and my job.

Only if you prayed out loud, "as the hypocrites do". You can pray to your god any time you like and no one will care unless you plan to force them to listen by doing it out loud when they can't get away such as during your official government duties.

 

[Rhea]

Everyone,

Please answer these two questions:

1. When someone is hungry/thirsty/homeless/sick do you feed/clothe/shelter/care for them; or do you tell them to apply for food stamps/section 8/Medicaid?

2. Do you consider your tax liability as tithing?

1. I feed/clothe/shelter/assist *AND* I help them use government services if those are appropriate, AND willingly pay to make sure these services are available for those who do not need assistance right in front of me.

2. I consider my tax liability to be what is necessary to live as a cooperative society which can help the least of its brothers stay alive and healthy. YOu could call that "tithing", I guess.

Which is not to say that I don't have sharp scrutiny for the efficiency of these programs! There is waste and fraud all over that should be arrested and corrected. But the premise of having a social safety net is absolutely moral, IMHO.

 

[jasoncran]

Only if you prayed out loud, "as the hypocrites do". You can pray to your god any time you like and no one will care unless you plan to force them to listen by doing it out loud when they can't get away such as during your official government duties.

so in essence. you made my point.

never as ministry, thus why i cant support that, its two and two together. you can give the poor and never tell them about christ and they die and go to hell full of food and riches that they neither can take to the afterlife. thus as handy says pointless.


god wants the glory and he will use him as his hands and feet thus body and feet aka the body of christ.

of course if said athiest rants on christianity and the evils out loud the aclu wont defend me. and of course if one needs a job and has to take a drug test to do so the aclu has no problems yet if one that has kids and need tanf and.

Some say new welfare drug testing bill is unconstitutional

the drug tests i have taken and take in the military are random but for iniital entry and or employment all are tested. thus in a sense a violation of the 4th amendment.

 

[Rhea]

giving from the christian view is neither nor was compulson nor was meant to be.
[...]

taxation eliminates that process. you neither sign the the checks to give to the irs unless its to pay what by law you owe. giving to the govt is debt, tithing and or offerings arent debts. we may owe god but giving must be done cheerfully not by force for its by force then might i state the church should then have strong men who by force take wallets and empty them into the plate.

See, I don't see my taxes as "forced" because I am willing to give (pay a share) to enable our cooperative society. The law only comes into play for those unwilling to "give".

I *want* all Americans to be able to get basic health care and I realize that not all of them live in places where a charity can provide it and I see no reason to condemn them to sickness and death because of their location.

that isnt what the bible says.drew makes the mistake of implying that by taxation by vote that we are giving.

I agree with Drew that our votes give us great power over what is done with our contributions to society. Not complete control, no, but it does give control.

we arent, jesus never by force makes one serve him. he warns us of the consequences but forced love simply isnt love at all.thats like saying inprisonment is freedom.

You might give this lecture to all those who will vote to FORCE Christian law on people who are not Christians, then. Those who believe that homosexuality is not a crime/sin/wrong and those who hold other beliefs that the Christians would outlaw by their votes, forcing people to serve Jesus. Let them know that Jesus never intended them to FORCE people to adopt Christian principles.

 

[jasoncran]

See, I don't see my taxes as "forced" because I am willing to give (pay a share) to enable our cooperative society. The law only comes into play for those unwilling to "give".

I *want* all Americans to be able to get basic health care and I realize that not all of them live in places where a charity can provide it and I see no reason to condemn them to sickness and death because of their location.


I agree with Drew that our votes give us great power over what is done with our contributions to society. Not complete control, no, but it does give control.



You might give this lecture to all those who will vote to FORCE Christian law on people who are not Christians, then. Those who believe that homosexuality is not a crime/sin/wrong and those who hold other beliefs that the Christians would outlaw by their votes, forcing people to serve Jesus. Let them know that Jesus never intended them to FORCE people to adopt Christian principles.

so if said country kills every black person or whomeever and declares it legal our bible says thats wrong. yet ? we shouldnt force them to change and stop right based on what? if the bible isnt the basic moral source of right or wrong. then tis a free for all. men sets what is right. you cant argue this and then state that the above is wrong too. because if any govt says that moral then it is. murder or any law is ok to follow by your logic if said state says so. ie abortion isnt murder.

so therefore if this reason does ever come up then i wont support any military action against said muslim nation or any athiest nation such as china and n.korea and the former ussr. they declared it moral legal to mass murder therefore it is.

seperation of church and state eh, well here you wanted it now then you got it. you cant have the church going allong and supporting your redefinition of sin and also at the same supporting your moral fights. especially when its wrong. ie abortion.all laws are based on morel views.

so it in essence for christians dont dare live that life out loud and in office and on the job do steal and lie as well if they aint a specefic law on that that makes it illegal its ok. i know you may not say that or are but. society in general does just that. i have been told to way away from my overpriced house as i pay too much for it. legal yes but not moral. i can afford the payments for now.

 

[jasoncran]

i do, i dont support the war on iraq after i read into the reasons. bush made an error and i dont support the invasion of lybia as we basically and oh i know this as fact. nato doesnt have the budget to anything without us so when nato does any large op its the us paying the other nations to do that. so even when we stopped the direct action we still financed it.

havent you followed the news lately. we cant afford much anymore. i will say the military is broke. far more then is let out. i cant state why but it is. never have i seen what i have just seen.
yes govt is needed but to say that i am giving to the state to support things that i dont isnt charity. if i dont like my chruches action i can just stop giving after talking to my pastor and or leave. one cant do that with the govt. obama ran on a promise to exit iraq by.
from abc news in 2008

As for Obama's stated plan to bring home the troops within 16 months, Austin said, "I'd have to see the entire plan. I'd have to understand the strategic objectives of the leadership, and based on those strategic objectives, come up with operational objectives. It's very difficult to comment on one way or the other, whether one plan would work or one plan wouldn't work. Right now, we are helping the Iraqis achieve sustainable security, and helping them to increase the capability of the Iraqi security forces, and we are making great progress along those lines."

yet we are still there. i knew that it wasnt going to happen as i being the military know that one can plan but sometimes things happen that you cant control.many peace supporters fell for that, yes to be fair he withdrew some troops but nothing like he said.

 

[Drew]

I have read most of your posts Drew. You make clear and convincing arguments. The terminology "redistribution of wealth" is a bad spin on charity. Those who invoke such terms should consider they are being deceived and deceiving others. No doubt it can honestly be said that corruption in government diminishes the results while agreeing with the intent. Why then spin charity however into a bad thing? Properly address the issue forthrightly. There are also good people in government trying to take care of the basic needs of others. A crook lies. Quite voting for the crooks. Whoever gives up the baby is the true Mother. The ones who want to see government fail and undermine it are therefore deceived.

Thanks for your kind words. And I agree with the points you raise - aspects of this issue I had not thought of. As I believe you suggest, it is important to not "throw the baby out with the bathwater". Yes, there is corruption in government. However, the proper solution is not to give up on government altogether as an institution to be involved in the kingdom project, but rather to get rid of the corruption.

 

[Rhea]

the govt doesnt and wont care. i dont for the life of me cant figure that you all seem to think that a nine to five charity worker on union benefits would care in any christian manner for the lost like a christian should. yes its possible that some do but remember , a job is one thing and volunteerism is a job that is a sacrifice and also a joy.

Is it accurate to impugn the motives of so many in one stroke? (Not to mention that many of those union workers are Christians as well, doing good in a secular setting) I see many tens of millions of people who are honest, good-hearted and secular, yet this comment says they can't possibly be as good as a christian? Where is the charity of thought, at the least?

the problem with yours and drews style of giving is that one can never give nor care and yet by that logic their are right with god as they vote socialist.

There's no need to invoke "socialist" here as a buzzing bee of accusation. They are talking about voting for social services, not for Socialism - there is a HUGE difference. Bringing up the term "socialist" to denigrate their ideas is a distraction. The existence of firefighters and health care workers does not make "Socialism".

do you see that? i do.whereas the person who does care will address the need however possible.

Yes. However Possible. Both by individual caring as well as group caring. By individual action as well as group action.

You keep making statements that claim those who advocate group care are therefore shirking individual care. Yet why would that be true? And does the data bear it out? No. It is false and misleading to say it is either/or and never both.

Because it is BOTH that is being advocated, and BOTH that are needed. And that is Drew's Premise, that BOTH are clearly promoted by the words of the bible.

i find this whole thread ironic as the us isnt going to be able to assist the poor much longer. the dollar will fail

This is a distraction. And it is something that those against cooperative, caring society have always claimed. They claimed it in 1939 when Social Security was first introduced. They have claimed it in every decade since then. "The dollar will fail! Too much Socialism!" But it has not failed, and there is no reason to think it will now - to the degree that there will be no "society" left. So this is a distraction and a dramatic threat. We will assist the poor. No doubt as we did in the 1930s, through public programs.

but you dont have to care at all if taxation of the rich is the way to give and yet feel good as "i donate by voting for the socialist programs that help via taxes".

Here again is a false dichotomy (an untrue claim that only two possibilities exist). The bible quotes show that Jesus said the rich AND the poor should all give (and the middle class), but the excess means of the rich oblige them to give more, morally.

my father in law was so poor in the depression era that his dad rented mules and having a glass of milk if i recall was added bonus. he worked hard and didnt want that in his life. he has a heart. yet is one of them evil republicans that you all hate.

No one here has called republicans evil nor said we hate them. Why do you paint us with this brush? What is gained? Does it advance the argument that Drew is wrong by poisoning the well and making people think he is a hater? He has never said that, he has been kind and open throughout.

we have a lot of junk that we need dont need that costs money, how many "poor" do you know have tvs etc? a ton. does one need cable to survive? no. if it comes to a home or the streets the internet and cable are gone and i aint asking the govt to subsidize that. one doesnt need the gadgets.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. We do not need gadgets. I would much MUCH rather the aid to poor come in the form of goods and services than money. BUt I am adamant that our society prospers when all have those basic goods and services.

 

[Christ_empowered]

I think Christians should support just government, and just government to me means a government that makes life bearable for the masses, not one that helps the rich get ever richer while everyone else's life goes to hell.

 

[Drew]

sigh, no i dont, i prefer to do it with the body of christ. what the point of church to listen to each other?

We are, of course, to give through the church.

But that does not change the fact that people - even all those who are not Christians - vote freely to be taxed, knowing full well that a significnant fraction of those taxes will be used to help the poor. In no way should this be discouraged. If people want to collectively act in this way - gather from the rich and give to the poor - that is most certainy a kingdom of God act and should in no wise be disparaged. It is clearly a false either / or for anyone to suggest (and I not saying that you are doing so) that its "either give through the church or give through taxation".

 

[Drew]

I think Christians should support just government, and just government to me means a government that makes life bearable for the masses, not one that helps the rich get ever richer while everyone else's life goes to hell.

I certainly agree with the essence of what I think you are saying here.

 

[turnorburn]

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

25:38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

25:39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

 

[Drew]

taxation eliminates that process. you neither sign the the checks to give to the irs unless its to pay what by law you owe. giving to the govt is debt, tithing and or offerings arent debts.

This is simply not correct, as has explained to you many times before.

Do you vote freely to be taxed? Yes you most certainly do! If enough people wanted their government to get out of the "taxation to help the poor" business, they would vote for a party that would not use tax dollars to help the poor.

Please stop spreading this manifestly false idea that "taxation to help the poor" is "forced giving". It is obviously no such thing in the sense that is relevant. It is the members of the society agreeing freely, as a collective, to support the poor. Does everyone want to help the poor this way? Obviously not - there are going to the greedy and mean-spirited people who want no part of such a noble and sacrificial enterprise. In a country like the USA, people are free to vote to not be taxed in this way. Thankfully, most people are not so mean-spirited and they willingly embrace taxation to help the poor.

that isnt what the bible says.drew makes the mistake of implying that by taxation by vote that we are giving. we arent, jesus never by force makes one serve him. he warns us of the consequences but forced love simply isnt love at all.thats like saying inprisonment is freedom.

The mistake is not mine here. People vote freely to be taxed, knowing full well that much of the $$ go to the poor.

 

[Drew]

There's no need to invoke "socialist" here as a buzzing bee of accusation. They are talking about voting for social services, not for Socialism - there is a HUGE difference. Bringing up the term "socialist" to denigrate their ideas is a distraction. The existence of firefighters and health care workers does not make "Socialism".

Indeed. The term "socialism", like the term "liberal" is sometimes used carelessly to try to win the argument through smearing rhetoric.

 

[jasoncran]

This is simply not correct, as has explained to you many times before.

Do you vote freely to be taxed? Yes you most certainly do! If enough people wanted their government to get out of the "taxation to help the poor" business, they would vote for a party that would not use tax dollars to help the poor.

Please stop spreading this manifestly false idea that "taxation to help the poor" is "forced giving". It is obviously no such thing in the sense that is relevant. It is the members of the society agreeing freely, as a collective, to support the poor. Does everyone want to help the poor this way? Obviously not - there are going to the greedy and mean-spirited people who want no part of such a noble and sacrificial enterprise. In a country like the USA, people are free to vote to not be taxed in this way. Thankfully, most people are not so mean-spirited and they willingly embrace taxation to help the poor.


The mistake is not mine here. People vote freely to be taxed, knowing full well that much of the $$ go to the poor.

Stop misrepresenting the truth about this, please.

really i am not drew, when you openly state that by voting for a warmonger president ie gwb that they suport the war.

simply not true. people vote yes but many tax use arent what they agree too. can you find me any amount of tanf funds that are stating jason paid this much to help the poor? probably not. so giving to the poor is a job that one volunteers to do. i dont think some work for the tanf agency with the idea of hey this is charity.

voting for a candidate that does openly something and takes your money to do that which you dont agree with. so by reversal i will say with confidence that buy voting said pm of canada that you didnt vote for this last election on one that did in office that supported the invasion of afghanistan that you and others in america being peacelovers are in support off.

you cant have it both ways drew , vote for pro welfare etc and not say that buy voting for those that support welfare and also declared war on countries that you arent responsible for that action, if you claim what Good they do then you also must claim the bad actions as well.


for the record most tea partiers merely want to control what and to whom gets assistance not to cut off the poor. that i agree with the the left seems to think oh all of them arent bad.

 

[Drew]

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:p</O:p
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.
<O:p</O:p
What they would instead do is to choose (read “elect”) some people who share their concern to do the job of matching dollars with poor people for them. To delegate this task to a set of people with the time, skill, knowledge, to determine “who should get what” is the efficient, intelligent 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”.
<O:p</O:p
So all the members of this society freely make a commitment 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 binding, the members of the society freely 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 you to do the hard work of figuring out who needs what, so to help you out, we each commit to paying our 10 % share”. And in so doing, they recognize and accept that, in order to plan disbursements appropriately the administrators need certainty that people will follow through on their commitment.
<O:p</O:p
So everybody agrees to be legally bound to follow through on their commitment.
<O:p</O:p
Of course, this is precisely what happens when a government “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.
<O:p</O:p
And if the collective will of the people is to help the poor, then this is decidedly a “<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

kingdom</st1:PlaceType> of <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">God</st1:PlaceName></ST1:p” action.

 

[jasoncran]

for the record drew since 2006 i have been voting. if i didnt vote before i was being made to pay for things i didnt vote for and for the the record i havent voted for any pro entitilement n pushers.

if you then say well by being an american or westerner that still isnt forced then can i see that you are wrong?neither can you say the pushers of war that you are against are forcing you to pay for it if you say that you by charity are supporting that effort.

any elected official whether you elected them does things you dont like and if taxation is charity then what they do while in office is something you support.

you are giving them, your money to do something that you disagreee with and have no say in the matter.