to paraphrase public enemy, "its a catholic thing and you got to understand!" im pretty sure catholicism is the only christian religion to have a concept like purgatory. i was raised in a strict catholic household, but i always found it to be odd that there would be some kind of probation-period before you could enter heaven.
Is this because you start sizzling upon the application of holy water? After all, you are a soulless lawyer, right?
Interesting thread: But didn't Jesus say "Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's and render unto God what is God's." in response to the question of whether taxes were just? My understanding of that phrase was that Jesus didn't have a problem with taxes and saw that as governmental matter apart from a spiritual matter. On a side note I was listening to a talk by an Irish priest who wrote a book called "God and Empire" and according to him the Christian Gospels are against big government, empire, but rather than advocating small government conservatism adviocates Leftist radicalism where the state and capitalism are seen as holding down the people.
I don't believe this applies to all Buddhist denominations as some practice things like chanting and meditation with the aim of providing metaphysical comfort to benefit all beings.
Yes, but the teachings of Christ state to give alms to the poor as a matter of conscience-a way to be more Christ-like. To render unto Caesar your alms by compulsion belies the desire to follow the teachings of Christ. Perhaps someone more eloquent than I could express this better.
The Jews were arguing that because Israel was established by God, they should resist paying taxes to an occupying government. Jesus basically told them (us) that they should follow the law, regardless. (Although you can use the Acts and the epistles to show that civil disobedience for the religion is acceptable.) The Book of Acts definitely shows socialism in the early church (communal living, selling property and giving to the church), but the church backs off of it later, when funding became a problem. Anyone trying to argue for any particular type of government endorsed by the New Testament typically has to make some huge leaps in logic.
Only to the extent that government has stepped into the role of almstaker for social programs and thus disabled the middle class from giving alms of their own accord.
How are they disabled? Why don't Christains complain as much about their money going to nuclear warheads etc as much as social programs?
I agree with you politically, but I don't think you can defend any of this biblically. And if you're a middle-class American, you can afford to pay taxes and give significantly.
Because the so-called "Religious Right" has brainwashed everyone into thinking humanitarian goals are secondary to issues like Gay Marriage. I certainly am not religious because I feel religion is used as political tool. The fact anyone could justify a religious movement whose #1 priority is not humanitarian aid and compassion for the poor is completely disengenuouis. What greater cause is there for mankind?
The wealthy could certainly afford to pay taxes to feed the poor but I guarantee you the "Religious Right" and so called Chritsian Conservatives would be against it. Why? Seriously, why? The idea that wealthy people would stop working is ridiculous. I guarantee you that anyone making over $1,000,000 would not stop working because they paid an extra $10k in taxes.
I know I'm joining this discussion late, but I'm just curious to hear other people's views. If the need to help the poor should be mostly handled on a personal level and not through government, doesn't that also go against the idea of legislating against abortion or defining marriage legally, and things like that? It seems like it would argue that people should individually be against abortion or gay marriage or whatnot, but not get government involved with that.
Im not sure I follow. The term liberal is a political ideology as is conservative. The term "Religious Right" implies some religious attribute. To say "Religious Right" = conservative means they are equating religious principles to a political ideology. I assume the "Religious Right" believes they are more "pious" or more closely follow God's teachings. There is no "Religious Left" organization that tries to affect political outcomes. And if there are universal good and bad (helping others= good, murder=bad), I assume helping those less fortunate would be on top of any list, certainly above issues like border control, gay marriage, and less gun control.
I'm sure that most of the Religious Right believes very much in helping the poor. (Charity surveys agree with me.) But since they are conservatives, they don't believe that it's the government's job. The growing Religious Left do believe that it's the government's job to help the poor. Regardless of what either side says, neither is more or less Christian.
