Finally sick of this: Minimal-state Jesus

[Archbob]

They count charity as giving to the building funds of their church. It is a load of crap.

Churches are many times more effective then secular organizations at actually giving to the poor. I remember reading a report that says even without tithes, conservatives tend to give more, I'll have to try to find it.

 

[JollyRoger]

Churches are many times more effective then secular organizations at actually giving to the poor.

And often not, especially when they want a new shiney building.

 

[Archbob]

And often not, especially when they want a new shiney building.

I'd say on average, they are just as good so it really doesn't matter if you give to a secular charity or a religious institution. A huge part of what goes to support missionaries goes to buying food and medical supplies for the people they are ministering to.

 

[Crezth]

Obligatory statement about the Vatican being extremely expensive.

 

[classical_hero]

And often not, especially when they want a new shiney building.

So how are they going to run the program, just have pie in the sky faith? You do realise that buildings are great resource to help further the ministry.

 

[Camikaze]

So how are they going to run the program, just have pie in the sky faith? You do realise that buildings are great resource to help further the ministry.

The property my church owns is worth ~$4 million. The annual budget is ~$100k, of which about $15k is left after expenses for pure charitable/missional activites. Income is dropping, so discretionary spending has to as well. Expenses aren't discretionary (they are to an extent, in that we could not employ a minister, but that would require structural change that we don't want to go for at the moment), but charity is, so it suffers. I often find it hard to reconcile the maintenance of this $4 million worth of property with the purported aim to act in a charitable manner. Of course, there needs to be some sort of meeting place to sustain the congregation, but couldn't it just be at someone's house or in a local park? Wouldn't it be more worthwhile selling the property and using the interest (at 5%, that's $200k a year!) to expand missional activities? The question essentially seems to be, is the value of the property to our congregation over $100k a year? I'm not entirely sure the need for a meeting place amounts to that much money.

Moreover, I think the point about building funds is true as well. Donations for building maintenance and similar stuff are necessary to an extent, but are completely unnecessary and pretty unjustifiable when they exceed fairly minimum requirements. Luxury spending is not evil or anything, but it's not charity either.

 

[Dachs]

That's not all true. Without our standard form of government, humans naturally go back to tribal formats or Lord and servant formats of social structure where there are Kings and Lords, Knights, and Peasants. He could be one of the Lords or Knight, in which case, he'd be better off than he is now. The strong win out, the weak lose without an organized government.

that sounds like an organized society to me

 

[BvBPL]

I didn't claim that you CAN'T be a liberal Christian, or a theocrat Christian, or anything else. What I said is that Jesus did not specifically advocate for those ideologies.

I would make the argument that Jesus himself had very little to say about politics.

You are wrong.

Dissonance in Duty to One's Self Versus Duty to Others​

The principles of Libertarianism are self-reliance and the freedom to succeed on a personal level by your own merits and hard work. Those values are not inconsistent with Christ's teachings. Indeed, the Parable of the Talents can reasonably interpreted to suggest that Christ calls upon His followers to reach for personal excellence and not to squander their gifts.

However, the instruction for personal excellence is obviously less important that His instructions to care for other people. Christ says time and time again, in parable and in sermon, and demonstrates through His actions that He expects His followers to care for each other. Indeed, not just for each other, but for all Man. He tells us to go and clothe the naked, feed the hungry, etc. He tells us that what we do to the least of our fellows we visit upon Him, and reinforces that relationship by calling upon us to love each other has He has loved us.

And just as He cared more for us than His own corporal interests so too does he call upon us to place others' needs ahead of our own when He tells us to give ours coats to those who sue us.

How to Best to Execute Care for Others​

The takeaway is that care to others is a higher duty to which more is owed than pursuing excellence. As such, we must examine what the best way is to provide care to others. I'm going to use standard of living as quick and dirty measure for care for others. Populations with higher standards of living live longer, happier lives, and generally have more access to the Word than those with lower standards of living. Given the application of standard of living as a measure for care for others, liberal democracy seems to be a pretty good way to ensure care for others, generally.* People living under liberal democracies generally have higher standards of living than those under other forms of government, and consequently provide superior care to others. I think that the value of a liberal democracy is something we can generally agree upon.

The question then turns to what style of governance best suits the values of Christ, in this case Liberal or Libertarian styles of government. The Libertarian government values individual hard work and individual determinism highest. In contrast, the Liberal government values protection of the general welfare. Protection of the general welfare broadly includes ensuring that the least capable of those in society have food, shelter, and the necessities of life. Now neither of these virtues are in conflict, by themselves, with His message, but the Liberal value holds to the higher duty of care to others and subordinates the responsibility of the individual to himself. This value determination is in line with the message of Christ that individual excellency is important, but not as much as caring for your fellow man.

The General Versus the Specific​

One may argue that Christ's message was one of personal responsibility and therefore the collective, in itself, does not have a responsibility to execute care for others. I reject this. Assuredly, His message is a call to personal action, but it is also a call to communal action. This is demonstrated by the fact that He came for all the nations of the world and regularly gave His directions to us as a flock, rather than as individuals. As such, we are called to work together utilizing social institutions to execute our duty to care for others. This is tacitly understood by most churches that provide charity on behalf of the congregation, rather than in the name of individual members.

Having established a communal duty to care for others, consider that government is the highest and most far reaching social institution in existence. As such, it makes sense to utilize the government as a means to provide care to others. Doing so makes use of economies of scale and other benefits that large institutions have over smaller groups. Consequently it is just and right for governments to provide care for others as doing so furthers His instructions to us. In order to do so, a government obviously needs revenue coming from taxes. As demonstrated by His statements that those who have much should extend their wealth to those with less, it is appropriate that we tax from the haves to give to the have-nots.

*(Note that I mean "liberal democracy" in the technical sense, not on a conservative-liberal, right-left scale.)

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Conservatives(at least the religious ones) are generous in opening up their personal wallets and giving to charity(far more than Liberals) but when it comes to policies, they will fight tooth and nail to make sure policies favorable toward the poor don't happen.

Liberals are just the opposite. They want policies that help the poor but when it comes to open up their own wallet for Charitable giving, they suck at it.

It is true that those with conservative political leanings tend to me more charitable, but that is probably not a relevant factor in and of itself. When you break down the demographics by both politics and religious devotion then you get a rather different picture. The statistics show that members of the Religious Right and the Religious Left are equally charitable when it comes to donating their own own money (and also their own time). The Religious Right gives more overall, but that is only because it is larger. The percentage difference is statistically insignificant, less than the margin of error. Conservatives appear more generous only because a much higher proportion of them are religious. Among the irreligious, those who lean Left are far more charitable than those who lean Right. They are still much less charitable than religious individuals of any political affiliation though.

I've actually heard it discussed whether or not Solomon went to heaven or not (I think he did, but I've seen it debated.) I've never seen anyone deny that David was a man after God's own heart though. How did the Samaritans consider David wicked? Did they have a different Old Testament?

Surely you know about some of David's sins, like the whole episode with Bathsheba? He seduced and impregnated her while her husband Uriah the Hittite was away fighting his wars. He tried to call Uriah back to spend a night with his wife so that me might believe that the child was his, and when that didn't work he sent him on a suicide mission. He quickly married the widow, even though Jewish law does not allow an adulteress to marry her adulterer. (Their first son died as an infant, but Solomon himself was born from this invalid marriage.) David did repent after this though, and it is by no means the main reason why the Samaritans dislike him.

Samaritans do not accept any part of the Old Testament except the Torah. They take Deuteronomy 34:10 ("there hath not arisen a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom YHWH knew face to face") so seriously that they do not accept the authority of any prophet but Moses. They do accept the messianic prophecy that there will someday come another prophet like Moses who will make a new covenant though.


The Samaritans also use a different version of the Torah. Most of the differences are minor, likely due to transcription errors. (It may be worth noting that the Samaritan Torah is still written in the Paleo-Hebrew script that the original Torah would have used, while Jews use a stylized Aramaic calligraphy that was first adopted a couple centuries before Christ.) The Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are much older than Masoretic text most Jews rely upon, are actually closer to the Samaritan Torah in many these. Some differences are more significant though, almost all of which deal with the subject of Mount Gerizim. (The most significant difference I've heard of not pertaining to Gerizim is that the Samaritan version forbids polygamy, in a verse where the Jewish one only forbids being married to two sisters at once. Both Torahs are clear that rulers are forbidden from using their power to take extra wives, yet it seems all the King of Israel were terrible polygamists.) The Samaritans (and some older Jewish texts) say that Gerizim is the mountain of Blessing and Ebal is the mountain of Curses, whereas the Masoretic text reverses this. They say that the first alter was built on Gerezim, and the Jews say it was a natural slab on Ebal. The Samaritans consider Mount Moriah (the site where Isaac was almost sacrificed) to be same as Mount Gerizim rather than the same as Mount Zion. (This actually makes much more sense, as Moriah was in the wilderness and Jerusalem was already a city, ruled by Melchizedek.) The Samaritan version of the 10 Commandments include the command to keep Mount Gerizim holy. It requires that the Ark of the Covenant be kept on Mount Gerizim and that all priestly rituals be performed in the Tabernacle there. Samaritans claim that it was kept there (Jews say it was kept as Shiloah) until David moved it and made preparations for building the Temple in Jerusalem (which was actual constructed under Solomon). Samaritans consider the act of building the temple and moving the center of worship to Jerusalem to be a very serious sin.

 

[WindFish]

Charity exists because SOME people give money, Welfare exists because MOST don't.

 

[Global Skeptic]

...

The richest class has only one person in it, yet due to their hard work and ingenuity, owns 20% of the resources in the town. He's saved, been wise, lived a healthy lifestyle so he hasn't had to spend a lot of money on medical bills, and has worked hard to accumulate enough money to invest. After earning this money, he made wise investments and earned even more money, until this point.

...

You mentioned health only in the positive sense and only as for lifestyle diseases. You did not account for the negative impact for social factors and psychological, mental and physical diseases. Lazy people get diseases because they are lazy OR lazy people can be lazy because of diseases. Further some people are drug-addicts, because they are ill.

Let me show you another way to do it.
The landslide part of your population tells the rest that they effective from now will not trade with them any more...

 

[kochman]

You, Sir, are an idiot. You mentioned health only in the positive sense and only as for lifestyle diseases. You did not account for the negative impact for social factors and psychological, mental and physical diseases. Lazy people get diseases because they are lazy OR lazy people can be lazy because of diseases. Further some people are drug-addicts, because they are ill.

Let me show you another way to do it.
The landslide part of your population tells the rest that they effective from now will not trade with them any more...

Your point was much better without leading with the blatant personal attack...

So, to summarize...
So, the top dog gets cancer and can pay for it.
What about the guy who wasn't born into wealth, worked hard and lived healthily, but had some bad breaks? He gets cancer... who's paying? He can't afford it.

 

[Global Skeptic]

Your point was much better without leading with the blatant personal attack...

You have a point.

So, to summarize...
So, the top dog gets cancer and can pay for it.
What about the guy who wasn't born into wealth, worked hard and lived healthily, but had some bad breaks? He gets cancer... who's paying? He can't afford it.

The other is part is the idea about "going on strike".

 

[Formaldehyde]

Churches are many times more effective then secular organizations at actually giving to the poor. I remember reading a report that says even without tithes, conservatives tend to give more, I'll have to try to find it.

The obvious problem with that approach is that many churches discriminate against those whom they are willing to help.

I'd say on average, they are just as good so it really doesn't matter if you give to a secular charity or a religious institution. A huge part of what goes to support missionaries goes to buying food and medical supplies for the people they are ministering to.

Again, with quite obvious strings attached. Or they do so in order to better proselytize the population.

What is your objection to the US government acting like any other modern society in this regard? Why are you apparently so opposed to non-discriminatory charity which would help everybody instead of those who must first swear allegiance to a god in many cases?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, I watched it, Ziggy. Green shirt or not. Skipping bits to save some data. The native voice wasn't heard until 1 hr 23 minutes, though. Rick Hall is OK. Funny in parts. Anyway, the clip I posted wasn't funny at all. But it's strange how we can post things that we think might make some of us pause for a minute, only for it to get ignored completely. Heigh-ho!

Anyway, what was your point? That the native American is the rich one? Spiritually, anyway.

Noting as philosophical as that I'm afraid.

Just that the guy is called Rich, that's about the full extend of my wit when you said some guys are rich.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Surely you know about some of David's sins, like the whole episode with Bathsheba? He seduced and impregnated her while her husband Uriah the Hittite was away fighting his wars. He tried to call Uriah back to spend a night with his wife so that me might believe that the child was his, and when that didn't work he sent him on a suicide mission. He quickly married the widow, even though Jewish law does not allow an adulteress to marry her adulterer. (Their first son died as an infant, but Solomon himself was born from this invalid marriage.) David did repent after this though, and it is by no means the main reason why the Samaritans dislike him.

Samaritans do not accept any part of the Old Testament except the Torah. They take Deuteronomy 34:10 ("there hath not arisen a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom YHWH knew face to face") so seriously that they do not accept the authority of any prophet but Moses. They do accept the messianic prophecy that there will someday come another prophet like Moses who will make a new covenant though.


The Samaritans also use a different version of the Torah. Most of the differences are minor, likely due to transcription errors. (It may be worth noting that the Samaritan Torah is still written in the Paleo-Hebrew script that the original Torah would have used, while Jews use a stylized Aramaic calligraphy that was first adopted a couple centuries before Christ.) The Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are much older than Masoretic text most Jews rely upon, are actually closer to the Samaritan Torah in many these. Some differences are more significant though, almost all of which deal with the subject of Mount Gerizim. (The most significant difference I've heard of not pertaining to Gerizim is that the Samaritan version forbids polygamy, in a verse where the Jewish one only forbids being married to two sisters at once. Both Torahs are clear that rulers are forbidden from using their power to take extra wives, yet it seems all the King of Israel were terrible polygamists.) The Samaritans (and some older Jewish texts) say that Gerizim is the mountain of Blessing and Ebal is the mountain of Curses, whereas the Masoretic text reverses this. They say that the first alter was built on Gerezim, and the Jews say it was a natural slab on Ebal. The Samaritans consider Mount Moriah (the site where Isaac was almost sacrificed) to be same as Mount Gerizim rather than the same as Mount Zion. (This actually makes much more sense, as Moriah was in the wilderness and Jerusalem was already a city, ruled by Melchizedek.) The Samaritan version of the 10 Commandments include the command to keep Mount Gerizim holy. It requires that the Ark of the Covenant be kept on Mount Gerizim and that all priestly rituals be performed in the Tabernacle there. Samaritans claim that it was kept there (Jews say it was kept as Shiloah) until David moved it and made preparations for building the Temple in Jerusalem (which was actual constructed under Solomon). Samaritans consider the act of building the temple and moving the center of worship to Jerusalem to be a very serious sin.

I am of course well aware of David's sins. The Bible still says he was a man after God's own heart though, in spite of these.

As for all the other stuff, good info!

The obvious problem with that approach is that many churches discriminate against those whom they are willing to help.

Again, with quite obvious strings attached. Or they do so in order to better proselytize the population.

What is your objection to the US government acting like any other modern society in this regard? Why are you apparently so opposed to non-discriminatory charity which would help everybody instead of those who must first swear allegiance to a god in many cases?

What is your objection to churches proselytizing to those they give charity to?

At least it doesn't involve the use of violent force.

 

[galdre]

What is your objection to churches proselytizing to those they give charity to?

At least it doesn't involve the use of violent force.

There is a level of coercion (and therefore force/violence) involved when an organization connects its message to its charity - help should be offered by itself

 

[Mr. Dictator]

I am of course well aware of David's sins. The Bible still says he was a man after God's own heart though, in spite of these.

So, for clarification:

It is ok for me to impregnate another man's wife?

 

[timtofly]

So, for clarification:

It is ok for me to impregnate another man's wife?

Are you ok with loosing 4 of your offspring?

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Are you ok with loosing 4 of your offspring?

Depends, will one of them perish so that others may have everlasting life?