Madmax, a very worthy reply. I might add a great thread. I'm not in the thinking mode right now. I will say that when I write my check to the IRS, I'm not doing it with a spirit of giving. I'm doing it because if I don't, I go to jail Max, it is not the thought, the "spirit of giving" that alone counts when helping the disadvantaged. I frankly don't see why you can't write your check to the IRS with the "spirit of giving". Maybe you should work on this. Are you going to say that no matter how many times you are hit up for money by Christians or church, you always give equally cheerful. There is a never a grudging, "well it is for a good cause" type of thought. For many of us, the fact that 25% of our taxes or so goes toward unnecessary weapon systems does hurt the "spirit of giving" when writing checks to the IRS. That is why there are left wing Christians who withold that portion of their taxes that they deem the "war tax". does He smile on creating a society where incentives to work and be productive are removed...does He smile on the inefficiencies of governments? I would say no In a similar vein, does he smile on laziness and inefficiency in the military, or in corporations? Does he say it is ok for waste in the corporations. Does he say that is ok because it isn't tax payer money. Does he say that is ok to have policies such as the inheritance tax that gives such an disincentive to work for the children of the rich. Should we use this a theological reason to support raising the inheritance taxes to give rich children the incentive to work and cutting the military budget so that they will use their resources more wisely?
glynch -- i think you're right on both counts...there is no reason why i couldn't write that check with a spirit of giving...that's about MY focus...and if it's misplaced then I'm missing a blessing. you're exactly right, there. agreed, i don't think he smiles on waste in the private sector, either. particularly from those who profess a faith in Him. i'm not sure where i am on the military stuff in relation to God. i do think governments have to defend those they serve....particularly when they have compacts/constitutions binding them to do so. i guess where we might disagree is on the extent to which it's necessary to protect. i do think that God can use governments as instruments of his justice and his grace. and i don't discount the possibilty that could be through war.
I'm trying to be a good boy scout....so: If Jesus wanted Christians/The Church (even though there wasn't one during the time he purportedly made his statements) to provide for the poor does this mean that, ~2000 years later, The Church & Christians are failures? The sheer number and wealth of Christians should be able to provide much more and, most likely, eradicate the very poorest in the world (and not by killing them all). Selling off all of the gold/art/wealth of the tiny Vatican would also do a great deal of good, not to mention all of the other opulent Cathedrals, etc.. And, yes, my wife and I give more to charity than is fiscally responsible (for us) each year so I am not being a hypocrite.
the church has failed time and time again..on this count and on every other. we have all fallen short.
No I'm not. I prefer to think of it as "precise." As you indicated, I don't think Jesus ever used the word "church" as reference to a body of believers. That Church didn't exist until His Gospel was spread which occurred after His death and Resurrection. He spoke to humans as the Children of God. He appealed to their spiritual being and of their capacity to love.
Where is grizzled when you need him? Personally, the Bible always read to me that Jesus said we should be servants to our fellow man (and woman). Everything he taught was about sacrifice and love without condition. He healed lepers - people no one else would go near. He welcomed tax collectors - people the rest of society considered the lowest of the low. He made friends with beggars, fishermen and protitutes. He advocated for not retaliating against those who would steal from you or harm you. I'm not sure he would advocate big government, but would he want PEOPLE to do the right thing? Absolutely. Since government isn't some inanimate institution, but rather an organization made up of those same PEOPLE, I'd like to believe Jesus would want us all to compel our government to put goodwill towards men above ALL else. Unfortunately, that doesn't always seem like it is the case.
Texas has no state or local income tax; just a sales tax, which is a more repressive sales tax. Also, we have high property tax rates because we have no income tax. Why is it political death for a candidate to propose dumping the sales tax, in exchange for an income tax, and lower property tax rates? Even though it would, in theory, benefit a larger percentage of Texans? I guess the poor don't vote.
Sure, you are also "talking" without saying anything. Christians, as individual and collective "people" are failures because they are not "charitable" enough (both "financially" and "emotionally") within their "communities," "countries," and "world."
Why do you so that? I made a simple statement that got challenged. I re-asserted it. That is all. I didn't try and never intended to do a treatise on the topic.
i'm with you..i'm just pointing out this is a very human problem. not coincidentally, that human problem is exactly what Christ came to address. it's putting ourselves before God and others. self-interest to selfishness.
I think if you are living for yourself correctly, you simultaneously live for the benefit of all creatures. Living exclusively for the benefit of others can be very harmful for you. It can be used as an escape mechanism, like drugs etc. The problem lies with having the wrong kind of desires for ourselves....
I don't remember Jesus saying much about economic and political systems. Just because he wanted people to be very charitable and help the poor doesn't mean he advocated some misguided ideology created almost 2000 years later. There is also a passage in the Bible where he makes a distinction between God's law and the state's law and he said to follow both, I think. His point was not to cause some sort of state revolution.
In social issues there is no such thing as truth, just points if view. My point of view as an atheist/humanist is that the life and words of Jesus Christ teach us that we should strive to overcome our more basic natural instincts, aggression, gluttony, sloth, unchecked sexual gratification etc. to live in a more selfless manner that serves the greater good. One could say that this communal focus is communism, christianity, humanism or any other word. The semantic problem with the word "communism' is that was subverted by post-war propaganaists as being synonomous with the totalitarian regimes of the Soviet Union and Red China. To me it is not only conceivable but actually required to have a democratic governmental system with a communal society. The problem is of course that we humans are still driven by our evolutionary imperatives and can't be trusted to yield to altruism. Therefore we must introduce a system of rewards and punishments to control behavior beit heaven and hell, money or gulags. So it goes.
That should be the definition of socialism. Strictly speaking, communism does not equate with Christianity, simply because Communism is concerned with property, whereas Christianity is concerned (in its essence, there are some whacko's out there) with the salvation of your soul, i.e. coming to love God and man correctly. Best argument against communism, Dr. Zhivago, damn that's a good movie.
