Social Justice Jesus

[Drew]

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?

You pose a false either / or here - one can, and should, do both these things.

Do you consider your tax liability as tithing?

I do - since I understand that taxation is not "forced giving" (this is easy to understand), I would see it as an expression of the tithing principle. In saying this, I am not asserting that "once you have given 10 % through taxation, this does not mean you should not give more"

 

[jasoncran]

since rhea brought this up. drew in the us we cant speak about christ while in office. i cant on my job use it as ministry to the recievers of my work. i cant tell the citizen ask i work on the trucks on the street while in uniform if he or she doesnt want to hear it about jesus.

in many ways i agree with that idea. i dont make them listen to christ but i will if lead to tell them when the time is right if they dont recieve it i leave it alone. delagation of the poor would mean that when the poor come to recieve help, there wont be any to tell them this isnt forever or have hope in christ.
that is what i meant by caring for the poor agian what good is it to be full and die and not know christ., vanity.

"social justice simply makes the world a better place from which to go to hell from" pastor adrian rogers whom also taught that one ought to help the poor.handy is very correct. when you blurr the lines of the seperation of church and state then you must also allow other faiths to prosletise while on the job.

would you mind ,drew, if said govt allowed muslims etc but not christians to witness and or proseltise.

i wouldnt ask them to come to my church for funds if they didnt want to they should be allowed their own charities. the poor seldom come to church if their needs are met. why is it.

 

[Drew]

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

I concede that some of the issues here are perhaps a tad complicated. People need to organize themselves and act collectively. Otherwise there will be chaos.

I agree with - to vote for GWB is not necessarily to endorse the war.

But I suggest these facts are "self-evident":

1. Most human beings understand that collective "helping the poor through taxation" is both noble and practical (although strangely and sadly there are many Christians who apparently do not);

2. They therefore freely vote to be taxed.

You are mixing issues here - when someone decides for GWB, that person might indeed disagree with many of his policies. So, a vote for GWB is not necessarily a vote for war. Or a lot of other things.

But this all misses the point which is this: (1) most people, thankfully, are generous enough to want to assist the poor; (2) most people are smart enough to understand that "taxation to help the poor" is an efficient, practical way to achieve this - pragmatic considerations which I, and perhaps others, have outlined demand group level action with voluntary commitments being "converted" into legal obligations for very practical, sensible reasons.

 

[jasoncran]

I concede that some of the issues here are perhaps a tad complicated. People need to organize themselves and act collectively. Otherwise there will be chaos.

I agree with - to vote for GWB is not necessarily to endorse the war.

But I suggest these facts are "self-evident":

1. Most human beings understand that collective "helping the poor through taxation" is both noble and practical (although strangely and sadly there are many Christians who apparently do not);

2. They therefore freely vote to be taxed.

You are mixing issues here - when someone decides for GWB, that person might indeed disagree with many of his policies. So, a vote for GWB is not necessarily a vote for war. Or a lot of other things.

But this all misses the point which is this: (1) most people, thankfully, are generous enough to want to assist the poor; (2) most people are smart enough to understand that "taxation to help the poor" is an efficient, practical way to achieve this - pragmatic considerations which I, and perhaps others, have outlined demand group level action with voluntary commitments being "converted" into legal obligations for very practical, sensible reasons.

i disagree with that as i have stated painfully why. to me which is more important salvation or being feed if i had the two as choices i choose the salvation. your soul is more important to God then the food or clothing. yes he will provide as that is my testimony

for i came to christ on the promise as i asked him to fix me after i repented. i couldnt socialise and i couldnt hold a job them and also had a host of issues

few if any secular program helped me. only God alone and few brethren did know that i was being healed save i told them. i applied for section 8 and got it , but if i took it i maynot have come to christ. sometimes bottoming out is the only way to get saved even if that means homelessness and or jail time. the threat of the later was what drove me to the cross.


which is better,drew, pawning of blood kin such as my own daughter when she was in dire need for help . and i offered to even pay for her moving here to my house and not have her pay for rent as she was being kicked out of her trailer by her own biological grandmother. she declined not on the fact that i wouldnt take care of her but rather of my wife's ex to whom she had to take a loaded shot gun and threaten to kill if he did stop beating her mother. this man has stalked me and my wife numerous times. the law cant protect you till they are caught and that is why she and the older one wont stay in florida.

so saying that which is better that i who isnt rich but has the space pawn her off to the hud homes? where crime is high and i can if interested post the stats if i can find them or take care of her? the later is what i think is best.

 

[Rhea]

since rhea brought this up. drew in the us we cant speak about christ while in office. i cant on my job use it as ministry to the recievers of my work. i cant tell the citizen ask i work on the trucks on the street while in uniform if he or she doesnt want to hear it about jesus.

in many ways i agree with that idea. i dont make them listen to christ but i will if lead to tell them when the time is right if they dont recieve it i leave it alone.

I'm curious about your meaning here. When you "are led" to tell them, but "they don't receive it" are you saying you felt like you should preach even though they didn't ask to hear it? I'm trying to tell if you mean that you find out after you preach whether the person wanted to hear it? And whether this is something you feel is a good goal while you are working for (representing) the government of that person?

delagation of the poor would mean that when the poor come to recieve help, there wont be any to tell them this isnt forever or have hope in christ.that is what i meant by caring for the poor agian what good is it to be full and die and not know christ., vanity.

Are you saying that Christian Charity should be contingent upon a preaching opportunity? Do you have a scripture to say one must - or even should - depend upon the other?

Why not just give without preaching, and then preach when the listener is not humbled by need? Why not seek an open and dignified time to preach?

"social justice simply makes the world a better place from which to go to hell from" pastor adrian rogers whom also taught that one ought to help the poor.

This is bad? Making the world a better place?
Preach also, all through your churches, but why would that keep you from making the world a better place? How is that even related?

Aren't all Christian principles to be shown as "fruit" regardless of the recipient's willingness to accept Jesus?

handy is very correct. when you blurr the lines of the seperation of church and state then you must also allow other faiths to prosletise while on the job.

But creating group charity does not blur those lines, only preaching does. Go ahead and be as good and giving as you want to. No one will stop you from that. But preaching, in a multicultural society, should not come from the government.

would you mind ,drew, if said govt allowed muslims etc but not christians to witness and or proseltise.

i wouldnt ask them to come to my church for funds if they didnt want to they should be allowed their own charities. the poor seldom come to church if their needs are met. why is it.

Not sure what you mean here - that your charity should not go to infidels? If they are muslim, let them get their own food pantries?

 

[jasoncran]

people seldom come to God for this reason. if you are rich and not lonely and totally fulfilled why then would you repent of anything. if the trials of life arent enought to bring you to christ and you never hear them in the charities of the govt why then would you know

i have never heard any rich man and who was happy say lets go to church.

genesis one

¹⁷And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

<sup id="en-KJV-74" class="versenum">18</sup>Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; <sup id="en-KJV-75" class="versenum">19</sup>In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return

thy curse of sorrows and suffering right here says that its caused by adam's sin and eve's as well and that the curse was for their sakes. why? to make them realise what they lost and to beg for mercy from God.

also here:matthew 25

³¹When 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:

<sup id="en-KJV-24041" class="versenum">32</sup>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:
<sup id="en-KJV-24042" class="versenum">33</sup>And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
<sup id="en-KJV-24043" class="versenum">34</sup>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:
<sup id="en-KJV-24044" class="versenum">35</sup>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:
<sup id="en-KJV-24045" class="versenum">36</sup>Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
<sup id="en-KJV-24046" class="versenum">37</sup>Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
<sup id="en-KJV-24047" class="versenum">38</sup>When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
<sup id="en-KJV-24048" class="versenum">39</sup>Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? <sup id="en-KJV-24049" class="versenum">40</sup>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.]

if you did it take note to his brethren so by being poor that makes on saved? that isnt what makes one saved btw

and this and should i define what good works is?
matthew 5

¹⁵Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
<sup id="en-KJV-23251" class="versenum">16</sup>Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

jesus later says and in that whole verse what good works are who are they love him are to do.

no, you misunderstand me

i have prayed this God lead a sinner to me so that they can told of you or i find myself in the time of assistance and they tell me there stories

i have heard this. man my life is a wreck and what a day to have a flat or such like. that is the best oppurtunity to tell them of the hope they have. by their answer i know when to shut up. all you offer as i have had athiests here tell me when i presented the vanity of american and western lifestyles to those that have served. yes war does that. you realise how much of crybaby americans are. and they are. i include myself at times in that as well.

i have been afflicted in the past with ptsd. sometimes no words are the best but if you have been there and know what its like then why keep silent. i had a vet tell me what i was thinking and he by my body language as i was upset over a christian statement that was directed to me.

you compare those that upset to see if they could hack in war and that if they could or couldnt make it.

that is something i was doing. he and i to this day still chat or txt.

he knows that i denied having it and in part he is why i finally accepted that i did have it( i was told both by the va and also cleared by the shrink that i had to see in order to stay a military police) that was last yr. something i knew already as God told me that he healed me of the flashbacks and also anger issues.

i also have a soldier that i overheard talking to another staff sergeant that he has ptsd and depression. his anger and outbursts are quite common ,he acted out as he was pushed by another nco.before i could ask that we be lenient no punishment was meeted per the first sergeant. it takes one to know what another goes through. that is what i meant by being led sometimes i am led to ask and i find myself not able to say much so i dont.

on islam , i neither said that but if they come to my church which has a pantry they come to be hearing if they lord leads some asking or invatation to church. most churches wont deny them food but they are going to ask them to come to hear the gospel.

so if the sinners dont want that then they are free to form their own charities.not all the time are sinners asked to come but i dont like the idea of being made by law to be silent.

the govt here in my county doesnt help the homeless, only two ministries do. i believe one is a christian one and the other isnt to my knowledge a christian one but the they work with each other.

the christian one was stopped by the county in that effort to assist the homeless via drug rehab. sorry homeowners blocked this effort and the state back that up in an appellate court.

there is also the christian group for teens that were and are hooked on drugs called teen challenge , that is a total christian thing and these teens often have commited crimes and the founder of this international organisation recently passed on.

 

[Rageprophet]

Mark 12:17

King James Version (KJV)


<SUP id=en-KJV-24691 class=versenum>17</SUP>And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.


It is all summed up here pay your taxes according to your government and if they take 99% of your money you are commanded to submit it, but you are still required to help the poor if the government gives 98% of that money to the poor as the scripture says, you will still have poor people among you and are required to help them. No matter how many of you think that God believes giving money to your government and rendering Ceaser what is his somehow excuses you from your responsibility to help the poor and less fortunate you are not rooted in a biblical concept. Let me keep as much of what I have sown for myself and render Ceaser what is his and then I can help the poor on my own accord as the Holy spirit leads me.

THERE WILL NEVER BE A GOVERNMENT THAT WILL BE ABLE TO ERADICATE POVERTY it would go completely against Jesus Christ's own words. You are not relieved of your responsibility to help the poor because of something your government did because if that was the case we would all go straight to hell in every single country on the planet, for the atrocities inflicted upon manking by government and America is no better with the rampant outright serial slaughtering infanticide going on every day in this country subsidised by this government. Government is not your savior. When you stand before God and he says why did you not help my poor when you saw them why did you not help the less fortunate you will not be able to say, "well thats not true God I was pro socialism and the Country I lived in had programs for that". You think about that, and think about what possible reaction God would have when you tell him something like that. Will he say well done? Or will he say I don't even know you?

 

[Drew]

Government is not your savior. When you stand before God and he says why did you not help my poor when you saw them why did you not help the less fortunate you will not be able to say, "well thats not true God I was pro socialism and the Country I lived in had programs for that". You think about that, and think about what possible reaction God would have when you tell him something like that. Will he say well done? Or will he say I don't even know you?

I think I agree with the basic idea you are setting forth here, namely that even if government uses your tax dollars to help the poor, you should still make further donations to assist the poor. I would agree that this a noble sentiment.

But I would also want to underline that, to the extent that the government funnels tax dollars from the rich to the poor, a rich person is indeed "helping the poor" that way as well. So "its all good" - helping the poor through taxation and helping the poor through "direct giving".

 

[jasoncran]

I think I agree with the basic idea you are setting forth here, namely that even if government uses your tax dollars to help the poor, you should still make further donations to assist the poor. I would agree that this a noble sentiment.

But I would also want to underline that, to the extent that the government funnels tax dollars from the rich to the poor, a rich person is indeed "helping the poor" that way as well. So "its all good" - helping the poor through taxation and helping the poor through "direct giving".

uh let me correct you on taxation here as you stated that the gov helps the poor and few that arent on social security dont know this truth.

save money to retire and when you retire you OWE the govt. yes that is true,. if you make with retirement say over 32 k a year as a couple its taxed, to include your own ss. i know. i fall into that category with my wife. she is disabled and by me well working so that i can live on my own and not on assistanvce or in poor crime ridden hoods. i must pay more then i would if i didnt work as much.

and i dont make enough to be called "rich" low middle class isnt rich here.

i match myself when it comes to fica,ss and also the 14.9% taxes on my independent contractor job that i do daily.

 

[Drew]

I have been reading a book by economist Robert Reich. Part of his argument is this: when the rich get too rich, (i.e. they are not taxed 'enough'), their dollars do not circulate enough in the economy to stimulate it - they simply cannot spend their money fast enough. If the wealth of an economy is more evenly distributed, the money gets injected into the economy making things better for everyone.

Now I suspect what I have written here is not as clear as it should be, so I hope to refine it later. Plus, there are several other key points that need to be made.

But my overall point is this: there are, if Reich is to be believed, solid economic reasons (i.e. reasons that are grounded not in high level moral imperatives per se, but rather in the technical details of how an economy actually works) to support increasing taxation of the rich to help the poor. In short, such a strategy "works" in terms of reducing debt, increasing employment, and overall social stability.

I hope to post more on this later. For any who are interested, the book I have been reading is called "Aftershock" - Robert Reich.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

I have been reading a book by economist Robert Reich. Part of his argument is this: when the rich get too rich, (i.e. they are not taxed 'enough'), their dollars do not circulate enough in the economy to stimulate it - they simply cannot spend their money fast enough. If the wealth of an economy is more evenly distributed, the money gets injected into the economy making things better for everyone.

Now I suspect what I have written here is not as clear as it should be, so I hope to refine it later. Plus, there are several other key points that need to be made.

But my overall point is this: there are, if Reich is to be believed, solid economic reasons (i.e. reasons that are grounded not in high level moral imperatives per se, but rather in the technical details of how an economy actually works) to support increasing taxation of the rich to help the poor. In short, such a strategy "works" in terms of reducing debt, increasing employment, and overall social stability.

I hope to post more on this later. For any who are interested, the book I have been reading is called "Aftershock" - Robert Reich.

Let's debate economic theory in another thread.

Please address the points made in the OP, namely:
Why did the poor widow give up her last two coins (the only money she had to live on) instead keep her money and have the rich folk distribute their wealth to her?

 

[Drew]

Let's debate economic theory in another thread.

Please address the points made in the OP, namely:
Why did the poor widow give up her last two coins (the only money she had to live on) instead keep her money and have the rich folk distribute their wealth to her?

I, and others, have already shown the error in the arguments that you have put forward.

You basically make the following invalid argument:

1. Jesus commends the widow for giving;
2. Since Jesus did not also explain at that exact "teaching moment" that the rich should "distribute their money to the poor, Jesus therefore does not support wealth re-distribution.

This is clearly not a correct argument.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

I, and others, have already shown the error in the arguments that you have put forward.

You basically make the following invalid argument:

1. Jesus commends the widow for giving;
2. Since Jesus did not also explain at that exact "teaching moment" that the rich should "distribute their money to the poor, Jesus therefore does not support wealth re-distribution.

This is clearly not a correct argument.

I'm asking a simple question: why did the poor widow give instead of receive?

 

[Drew]

I'm asking a simple question: why did the poor widow give instead of receive?

She gave because she understood that generosity is a virtue for all.

But the fact that she did so does not in any way whatsoever imply that the rich should not also be generous to the poor.

 

[Rhea]

I'm asking a simple question: why did the poor widow give instead of receive?

Perhaps she gave at that moment because she had something to give.

The passage makes no mention that she does not also receive at another time. She might give on Sunday and still visit the soup kitchen. I never supposed the giving happened at the church service? What would she receive at that time?

Many people on Welfare also tithe to a church.

 

[Drew]

Let's debate economic theory in another thread.

But what I have posted is clearly relevant to the very issue that you have raised - the question of whether re-distribution of wealth is Biblical.

To the extent that it can be shown that such re-distribution is best for all, it adds important credibility to the position that wealth re-distribution is a "good" thing, and is therefore something we would expect Jesus to endorse.

But, in a sense you are right - we do not need economic theory to understand what is manifestly clear in both Testaments - wealth re-distribution is a Kingdom of God act.

 

[Rageprophet]

I have been reading a book by economist Robert Reich. Part of his argument is this: when the rich get too rich, (i.e. they are not taxed 'enough'), their dollars do not circulate enough in the economy to stimulate it - they simply cannot spend their money fast enough. If the wealth of an economy is more evenly distributed, the money gets injected into the economy making things better for everyone.

if you or I decided to do this without the government would it be considered theft?

 

[Drummer4Christ]

She gave because she understood that generosity is a virtue for all.

But the fact that she did so does not in any way whatsoever imply that the rich should not also be generous to the poor.

Why was she not on the receiving end of the rich folks generosity?

 

[Free]

Why was she not on the receiving end of the rich folks generosity?

To say that she did or didn't is to go beyond what Scripture states. Jesus was making a point about her giving, that is all.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

To say that she did or didn't is to go beyond what Scripture states. Jesus was making a point about her giving, that is all.

The text clearly states that she gave two coins of which was all she had to live on. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the poor widow receives anything, other than commendation from Jesus. Why, in this specific instance where the only place in Scripture this woman is ever mentioned, is she not on the receiving end of wealth distribution?