Would Jesus Be a Democrat or a Republican?

[Oats]

You're right Oats. Paying taxes is something that ought to be done. It is a crime to do otherwise. But paying taxes should never be seen as a substitute or even the same as charity.

One is done from the heart, the other is done from obligation.

Charity is the utmost form of love. It is the willing gift of X to someone who is sorely lacking X. Charitable donations take all forms, and I think some people are forgetting this.

Money is but a single form of donation. In fact, I'd suggest that money is the lowest type of donation that one can give. What does the giving of money really do? Not much. Money is easy to spend and giving it is easy to do.

Now let's talk about real forms of donation. Food. Perhaps not as hard to give as others, but food is a thing we need.

How about time? Time, unlike money, cannot be returned. It is a thing that can never be made back. If I give a $100 away, I can make $100 back easily enough. But if I give 10 hours of time I will never see those ten hours again. To me that is real charity, and that is the thing that the government will never ever be able to give.

EDIT

Upon thinking about it I must thank you, Oats.

By posting those passages of scripture we can clearly see that taxation is a separate thing from charity! The government can only tax, and thus they can never ever be the facilitator of charity!

Well from the way you replied I can tell you see charity as more of a thing of the heart rather than some arbitrary physical action...

So if I have the right heart, can't I just do my charity through taxes?

It's only forced If I don't agree with it in the first place


I wish we didn't do that in that way however I just thought I'd add that...

 

[Pard]

I'd counter:

"Where are your tax dollars going?"

The funny thing about taxes is that of your total tax statement, probably less than 5$ is going into those who really and honestly need it. It just seems like an excuse.

 

[Drew]

You're right Oats. Paying taxes is something that ought to be done. It is a crime to do otherwise. But paying taxes should never be seen as a substitute or even the same as charity.

One is done from the heart, the other is done from obligation.

Taxation is not really done from oblgation. At least not in the sense that matters for this discussion.

Yes, people are "forced" to pay their taxes. But, as I will argue in more detail in a future post, the "forced" collection of taxes is a necessary matter of practicality - people most certainly want to have bridges, hospitals, medicare, airports, etc. and they freely vote to be taxed. So when a society votes in a government that promises to, say, use tax money to help the poor, this most certainly is an act of charity by the society as a whole.

As I will explain shortly, the "forced" aspect of taxation "to give to the poor" is unavoidable for practical reasons and does not change the fundamental truth that the members of the society freely vote to have some of their tax dollars to go to the poor.

And this is indeed "charity".

 

[Oats]

I'd counter:

"Where are your tax dollars going?"

The funny thing about taxes is that of your total tax statement, probably less than 5$ is going into those who really and honestly need it. It just seems like an excuse.

With charity you can never be sure, the funny thing we can only take so much until we get convicted, especially in born again Christians...

I mean if I think Charity is paying taxes, and my heart tells me I should do more, it would be hard for me from faith to give that and not be convicted by my selfishness

On the same token, If I saw a homeless on the street and the Holy Spirit through my heart instructs me to give, and I don't using the unknowns as an excuse, I will probably will get convicted.

So if it is not of faith it is sin

 

[Drew]

By posting those passages of scripture we can clearly see that taxation is a separate thing from charity! The government can only tax, and thus they can never ever be the facilitator of charity!

Please explain to us precisely how the text demonstrates that charity is a "separate thing" from taxation?

 

[Theofilus]

Second, since this really doesnt translate well to our era, I would add that your example is interesting in that it is not based on Israel or the Low of Moses, but a pagan empire.

That's exactly why it does tranlate well to our era. Whatever various constitutions may say and whatever individual Christians may believe, there is no country anywhere today that has a truely Christian government. All the money that Nebuchadnezzar had was gotten through taxes, and here we see God, through Daniel, tell him to use part of those taxes to help the poor.

 

[Pard]

Please explain to us precisely how the text demonstrates that charity is a "separate thing" from taxation?

It isn't obvious?

In the Bible we clearly see talk about taxation, and we clearly see talk about charity, but never is it mentioned together*.

*, the exception being in parts of the Tanakh. If I had more time I'd talk on this now, but suffice to say, the Hebrew tribes are vastly different than any government of today.

 

[Drew]

Many posters seem to think 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 “charityâ€. 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 hatâ€. 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.

What they would instead do is to choose (read “electâ€) some people who share their concern to do the job matching dollars with poor people for them. At this point, I probably should not need to complete the argument, but I will. 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 “administratorsâ€.
<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 % shareâ€. 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 simple-minded 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 <ST1:p<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

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

 

[Drew]

It isn't obvious?

In the Bible we clearly see talk about taxation, and we clearly see talk about charity, but never is it mentioned together*.

Not a good argument.

You seem to make the very unreasonable presumption that every time taxation is mentionned, the speaker (or writer) is expected to then go into a lengthy explanation of what the purpose of that taxation is. Deeply unrealistic.

 

[Pard]

I know the purpose of taxation, it's clearly outlined in the Constitution. (I know that doesn't apply to you, but you know what I mean) And no where in it do I see for taxes to be used for entitlement programs.

You know, while taking a shower, just now, it occurred to me that this (and the "Charity" thread) thread is 100% useless. This is an ideological issue, and knowing a thing or two about such issues, I promise you this thread will continue on until a staff member comes along and performs a mercy kill on it. :fullauto

I'm not going to even continue down this anymore because it's everyone v. Drew and Drew isn't going to change his mind and no one is going to be swayed by Drew.

Drew is obviously a liberal and he is sticking to his party line. I'm obviously a conservative and I am sticking to my party line... It's like trying to take down the Berlin wall with a plastic mallet...

Anyways, I never did answer the OP...

Jesus would be a libertarian with social conservative leanings.

 

[Drew]

I know the purpose of taxation, it's clearly outlined in the Constitution. (I know that doesn't apply to you, but you know what I mean) And no where in it do I see for taxes to be used for entitlement programs.

I do not even know what you mean by an entitlement program. But I think the argument I made shows that "taxation for charity" is entirely legitimate.

Drew is obviously a liberal and he is sticking to his party line. I'm obviously a conservative and I am sticking to my party line... It's like trying to take down the Berlin wall with a plastic mallet...

Anyways, I never did answer the OP...

Jesus would be a libertarian with social conservative leanings.

Did you read my argument? If so, where is the "error" in it? I find labels like "liberal" and "conservative" to be distracting - I would rather deal with each issue in terms of the Biblical picture.

 

[Pard]

Did you read my argument? If so, where is the "error" in it? I find labels like "liberal" and "conservative" to be distracting - I would rather deal with each issue in terms of the Biblical picture.

I tell you Drew, I was more than happy to leave you with your ideas but if you honestly want to go down this road...

What "error"? I never mentioned any "error", unless you are referencing your entire premise in this thread...

Listen, you're a liberal leaning man. That's all there is too it. Call it a label if you'd like, but it's what it is.

And this is what I mean by you being liberal. I have seen your other views on issues and all of them take left leaning slants. So you may not want to label yourself as a "liberal", Lord knows I would never label myself as one of them... but you are a very liberal leaning person.

And "entitlements" is the official term, in the United States, for social welfare programs and "social justice" programs.

 

[Hitch]

Taxation is not really done from oblgation. At least not in the sense that matters for this discussion.

Yes, people are "forced" to pay their taxes. But, as I will argue in more detail in a future post, the "forced" collection of taxes is a necessary matter of practicality - people most certainly want to have bridges, hospitals, medicare, airports, etc. and they freely vote to be taxed. So when a society votes in a government that promises to, say, use tax money to help the poor, this most certainly is an act of charity by the society as a whole.

As I will explain shortly, the "forced" aspect of taxation "to give to the poor" is unavoidable for practical reasons and does not change the fundamental truth that the members of the society freely vote to have some of their tax dollars to go to the poor.

And this is indeed "charity".

Drew what scripture gives you the right to anyone elses money?

When Joe pays gas tax he supports the roads. When he pays income tax he supports proper government functions. Comparing the forced collection of tax money for charity to infrastructure is just another dishonest hipocritical tactic so common among lefties.

Had you real concern for the poor you would shrink from the unbibilcal and therefore failing programs of government. Government grows itself more than anything else and that is one of the reason God intened something as important as charity to remain as a function of the church.

 

[Drew]

Drew what scripture gives you the right to anyone elses money?

My lengthy recent post speaks directly to this issue in quite some detail.

When Joe pays gas tax he supports the roads. When he pays income tax he supports proper government functions. Comparing the forced collection of tax money for charity to infrastructure is just another dishonest hipocritical tactic so common among lefties.

Its unfortunate that you choose to play the rhetoric card, carpet-bombing those who do not share your view with characterizations like "hypocrite" and "leftie". Perhaps this satisfies something in you to do this. But I suggest your argument will be more convincing to people who really want to think this through properly if you deal with my detailed argument. My detailed argument speaks directly to this observation of yours.

Had you real concern for the poor you would shrink from the unbibilcal and therefore failing programs of government. Government grows itself more than anything else and that is one of the reason God intened something as important as charity to remain as a function of the church.

Begs the question - please engage my argument.

 

[Drew]

I tell you Drew, I was more than happy to leave you with your ideas but if you honestly want to go down this road...

What "error"? I never mentioned any "error", unless you are referencing your entire premise in this thread...

Listen, you're a liberal leaning man. That's all there is too it. Call it a label if you'd like, but it's what it is.

And this is what I mean by you being liberal. I have seen your other views on issues and all of them take left leaning slants. So you may not want to label yourself as a "liberal", Lord knows I would never label myself as one of them... but you are a very liberal leaning person.

And "entitlements" is the official term, in the United States, for social welfare programs and "social justice" programs.

Did you read the argument or not. The responsible reader will (hopefully) not be satisfied with the "you're a liberal so you believe this, I'm a conservative so I believe that" kind of line.

I went to some considerable effort to make a detailed argument defending "taxation for charity." If the argument is flawed, please tell me, and the other readers, where the flaw is.

 

[Pizzaguy]

My lengthy recent post speaks directly to this issue in quite some detail.

I've read your post, it was lengthy, for sure. Ok, I'l respond directly to it...

 

[Pizzaguy]

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 hatâ€. 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.

What they would instead do is to choose (read “electâ€) some people who share their concern to do the job matching dollars with poor people for them. At this point, I probably should not need to complete the argument, but I will. 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 “administratorsâ€.
<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 % shareâ€. 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 simple-minded 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 <st1>:p<st1:placetype w:st=" border=" 0="" alt=""></st1:placetype>kingdom of <st1:placename w:st="on">God </st1:placename></st1>:paction.<o>:p</o>:p

Emphasis mine. What you describe in the underlined paragraph would be wonderful. But it is my (our?) position that such is not what we have. What we have is an inefficient, politically driven, ineffective welfare state - not a functioning charity.

We can all go along with HELPING people. But paying "the poor" more and more to have kids they can't support is WRONG.

If ya don't work (in one form or another) you should not eat - at least, not eat on someone else's money.

 

[Hitch]

My lengthy recent post speaks directly to this issue in quite some detail.

And it didnt answer this question

Its unfortunate that you choose to play the rhetoric card, carpet-bombing those who do not share your view with characterizations like "hypocrite" and "leftie". Perhaps this satisfies something in you to do this. But I suggest your argument will be more convincing to people who really want to think this through properly if you deal with my detailed argument. My detailed argument speaks directly to this observation of yours.

Your ' detailed argument' is leftist plant growth enhancer whether you like labels or not, it is anti-logic,and anti-biblical

Begs the question - please engage my argument.

Its been done # 94

 

[Pard]

Oh I read it one and a half times. You see I read it here and then went to check you post in the "Charity" thread and began reading and then half way through I was like "Hey now... I've read this somewhere before."

You yourself admit that once it is done people are "legally bond" that is one definition of forced... So in giving your view you prove what you are arguing against. This is like the second time you've done this today, maybe you should get some sleep...

I have a much better solution to the problem those people face...

Buck up and go to church and put your money in the basket as it comes by. Guess what, tithing goes to those who need it, and it gives them more then a blanket or food, it gives them the spiritual drink and the spiritual warmth that only Jesus can give. I'd take that over a dinner any day!

The church already fills in this means, so do other charities that exist. No need for the government to try to do it to, because governments always fail at everything they try to do (with one or two exceptions).

Furthermore, there is a HUGE difference between Christian charity and "charity". The charity that those people are acting upon is guilt based charity. They see poor people and go "ah, I feel bad because I own a 10 acre plot of land with a 10,000 sq.foot, 3 floor mc-mansion and I drive one of four different German cars to my plush corner office every day and on my route to work I see a homeless man standing over a trashcan fire. So I will give that man money so I don't have to feel guilty anymore."

Charity should NEVER be done because you want to rid yourself of guilt, it should be done because you want to show your fellow man the utmost love and only a Christian would ever want to show the utmost love, and I know for a fact that the majority of the people voting for these entitlement programs are not Christians...

 

[Drew]

Emphasis mine. What you describe in the underlined paragraph would be wonderful. But it is my (our?) position that such is not what we have. What we have is an inefficient, politically driven, ineffective welfare state - not a functioning charity.

That is a separate, albeit related, issue. Yes, government is inefficient and imperfect. But the answer is certainly not to abandon the clearly noble intent of members of society to act collectively in order to help the poor.

Jesus is lord of all, including government. So we should be working and advocating for the integration of Kingdom of God principle into government, not abandoning our vocation to build the kingdom.

Besides, I suggest that the government is at least somewhat effective in vectoring money to the poor.

We can all go along with HELPING people. But paying "the poor" more and more to have kids they can't support is WRONG.

If ya don't work (in one form or another) you should not eat - at least, not eat on someone else's money.

These are unfortunate and almost certainly incorrect generalizations. Of course, it makes us feel good to think that the poor are lazy and shiftless. But this is generally not the case. The overwhelming majority of the poor are not poor by their own choosing.

However, it makes us feel justified in enjoying our wealth - and not sharing it - if we choose characterize the poor the way that you are doing here.