Finally sick of this: Minimal-state Jesus

[GoodGame]

The idea that Jesus would not accept wealth redistribution or taxes is patently not supported by the Biblical record. Indeed, the Gospels suggest quite the opposite. Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple (wealth distribution); gave unto Caesar Caesar's (taxes); and instructed His followers to feed the sick, clothe the hungry, etc (establishment of the welfare state).

I'm a bit confused with some of your examples.

Basically Jesus accepted statism exists and is unavoidable, poverty and iniquity always arises, but spiritual betterment comes from not being focused on those, nor material gain. I also think it's a fundamental mistake to think Jesus was some kind of communist materialist dialectic. Instead he was advocating minimizing the impact of materialism in people's lives, and being generous in ways that individual chooses to be. A spiritual libertarian to some degree, but largely one denouncing materialist focus.

Jesus definitely was NOT trying to create a welfare state; Caesar can do that if he wants.

OP:

Know that I am not a socialist, it merely boggles my mind that I can't be a supporter of a strong, balanced state without being anti-Christian or that my virtue in faith is not recognized by some self-declared "Christian" libertarian going on about how salvation is attained only through voluntary charity while his food and clothing is produced in child-poisoning toxic waste.

I don't think it's a question of whether or not a Christian can have statist tendencies, nor are statists automatically anti-Christian, nor necessarily reviled by Christians. Also definitely one has to examine flavors of Christianity before claiming this as a central trend of all Christians. Some fundamentalists will revile any state that disagrees with their prescribed beliefs, but NOT all Christians are fundamentalists. And not all fundamentalists are anti-statist.

@GW - Do you consider exercising gleaning rights stealing?

It could be considered barter for services. Is this something that the priest classes had?


Did the Isrealites press their own coinage?

 

[El_Machinae]

How could gleaning be 'payment for labour'?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Gleaning is basically the gleaner paying himself for the labor of harvesting land that does not belong to him.

Priests had Gleaner's Rights, but so did everyone else (except the owner of the land in question), even non-Israelites who happened to be passing through.

Tithes were separate from gleaner's rights. There were actually multiple tithes, all taken only from the first fruits of a harvest. (Tithes did not apply to income from non-agricultural sources.) One tithe went to the priests to distribute to the Levites (the priestly tribe, all of whose members were forbidden to ow any land). There was an additional tithe which the priests were supposed to distribute to anyone, including foreigners, who did not have land. There was another tithe which was not given to any outside agency to distribute, but which one was supposed to spend on himself in order to have something to be thankful for. They were encouraged to spend this tithe of lavish parties, and invite the poor and the Levites to party with them. It seems that these last two tithes did not apply during the same years though.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, I know how the gleaner benefits. I just cannot see how it is a service to the landowner. Is there some benefit to the landowner to have his fields gleaned?

 

[JollyRoger]

Not getting smited.

 

[Peck of Arabia]

Religion, Politics and Economics mixed into one thread? Can this just be the thread, the one thread where we discuss these three contentious issues where nobody wins, nobody's convinced and we all go away feeling a little emptier inside? I think I'd like that.

The rest of the forum we can all be friends!

 

[WindFish]

Are you ok with loosing 4 of your offspring?

I like my daughters to be secure

 

[trader/warrior]

Edit: Nevermind. I need to think more about this first.

 

[BvBPL]

I'm a bit confused with some of your examples.

Basically Jesus accepted statism exists and is unavoidable, poverty and iniquity always arises, but spiritual betterment comes from not being focused on those, nor material gain. I also think it's a fundamental mistake to think Jesus was some kind of communist materialist dialectic. Instead he was advocating minimizing the impact of materialism in people's lives, and being generous in ways that individual chooses to be. A spiritual libertarian to some degree, but largely one denouncing materialist focus.

Jesus definitely was NOT trying to create a welfare state; Caesar can do that if he wants.

I would certainly agree with you that Christ was not trying to establish a welfare state. However, it is clear that Christ's message to His flock is that they must attend to the care of the less fortunate. The welfare state of the modern liberal democracy is the best means, at this time, to achieve that end. 300 years ago it wouldn't have been possible because our social development was insufficient to support a liberal democracy, and, maybe, in 300 years the liberal democracy will be succeeded by a superior system which we cannot imagine at this time. As such, a liberal democracy with a welfare state is the system of governance that is most in line with His values at this time.

While material concerns were not necessarily the most important part of His message, we should keep in mind that Christ routinely directs His flock to care for the temporal needs of others. As such, you cannot divorce Christ's directives to care for those needs from the rest of His ministry. The idea that one can "choose," to use your word, the level of care that one provides to others is completely absurd. Christ said not just to care for strangers, but to turn one's cheek to one's enemies and give them the shirt off your back. That is a clear, direct, and overt statement of the level of care He expects of His followers, and it doesn't allow for any choice of how much care should be provided to others.

Since the welfare state of the liberal democracy is the best way to care for others and since Christ calls upon His flock to provide a very high level of care to others it follows that a Christian should support a liberal democracy with a welfare state that attends to the temporal needs of others.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think it's obvious that God does not care about the starving poor. The in-edibility of grass and the fact that there're only ~70 calories in an apple prove this.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

No, God does care. He tells us to feed them. Commands us. But since no one actually really believes in God or cares what he said they starve.

Except for them gays! They will not be married darnit! That makes God mad!

 

[Kaitzilla]

Link to video.

 

[kochman]

No, God does care. He tells us to feed them. Commands us. But since no one actually really believes in God or cares what he said they starve.

Except for them gays! They will not be married darnit! That makes God mad!

Clearly what goes on behind the privacy of closed doors is of more importance than people starving in public... jeez.

 

[Antilogic]

I would certainly agree with you that Christ was not trying to establish a welfare state. However, it is clear that Christ's message to His flock is that they must attend to the care of the less fortunate. The welfare state of the modern liberal democracy is the best means, at this time, to achieve that end. 300 years ago it wouldn't have been possible because our social development was insufficient to support a liberal democracy, and, maybe, in 300 years the liberal democracy will be succeeded by a superior system which we cannot imagine at this time. As such, a liberal democracy with a welfare state is the system of governance that is most in line with His values at this time.

While material concerns were not necessarily the most important part of His message, we should keep in mind that Christ routinely directs His flock to care for the temporal needs of others. As such, you cannot divorce Christ's directives to care for those needs from the rest of His ministry. The idea that one can "choose," to use your word, the level of care that one provides to others is completely absurd. Christ said not just to care for strangers, but to turn one's cheek to one's enemies and give them the shirt off your back. That is a clear, direct, and overt statement of the level of care He expects of His followers, and it doesn't allow for any choice of how much care should be provided to others.

Since the welfare state of the liberal democracy is the best way to care for others and since Christ calls upon His flock to provide a very high level of care to others it follows that a Christian should support a liberal democracy with a welfare state that attends to the temporal needs of others.

My thinking largely conforms to these lines. Put quite simply, why would Jesus command his followers to care for the poor, but simultaneously insist that you avoid using a tool or creating a society that helps them? Wouldn't building a better society that implemented his principles be considered A Good Thing? It is a strangely modern nuance exception that seems to be carved out solely for personal politics.

 

[Angst]

To be fair, anti-Jesus(ist?) political ideas have existed for as long as he has been politically implemented; because his ideas are akin to hippies that do not manage states well. Things like helping your enemies and not hitting back... It's not really implementable in political systems if we are to expect political or international opponents are greedy for power or influence. European Christian history has been very bloody - and not just the Crusades that are repeatingly stated as an example of violent Christianity; the tendency is present in all aspects of society, not just the Inquisition, the violent trials of early scientists, the colonization which practically wiped out a whole continent in the name of God; but indepth subpolitical spheres, peer-to-peer relations, peasant surpression, inhuman punishments of prisoners...

My point is that evil Jesus is not a modern thing. I do however think that now we exist in a modern world, we have the capabilities to shape our states in a way that would please him, so there's really no excuse not to do that. If you are a Christian.

 

[Cutlass]

My thinking largely conforms to these lines. Put quite simply, why would Jesus command his followers to care for the poor, but simultaneously insist that you avoid using a tool or creating a society that helps them? Wouldn't building a better society that implemented his principles be considered A Good Thing? It is a strangely modern nuance exception that seems to be carved out solely for personal politics.

That's more or less where my thinking is on it as well. Christians are supposed to care for the needy. Government is overwhelmingly the best way of doing so. So that's the way they should go about it.

 

[WindFish]

When I feed the poor, they call me a saint, but when I ask why the poor are hungry, they call me a communist.

Dom Helder Camara

 

[Borachio]

Oooh. Robust christianity.

Without justice and love, peace will always be the great illusion.

spiral-of-violence

 

[trader/warrior]

My thinking largely conforms to these lines. Put quite simply, why would Jesus command his followers to care for the poor, but simultaneously insist that you avoid using a tool or creating a society that helps them? Wouldn't building a better society that implemented his principles be considered A Good Thing? It is a strangely modern nuance exception that seems to be carved out solely for personal politics.

Pretty much this is what I wanted to say in the post I edited out.

In the end though I think the issue is not at all related to religion, but only what sort of demographics the religious belong to in each particular country. In Europe the various explicitly christian parties are often supporters of stronger welfare measures for the weakest in society, in america the most political christians are situated in areas with very individualistic political leanings in a country with already individualistic traditions.

This leads to another point I wanted to make; The way many christians seem to interprit morals in the bible would lead to the collective impact of welfare on helping people would not count as a good thing that would lead an individual christian to heaven, while the act of the state taking money from that person would be a direct evil inflicted upon him. And then that supporting abolishing the welfare state would not be an evil leading that person hell even though alot more people will suffer from it. The "evil" of taxes is the only thing that counts, even though it is structured to inflict the least possible harm on those paying it while helping the most disadvantaged.

Still hate the wording of this but I'll leave it up.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, practicing Christianity, as preached in the early church, is actually incredibly hard. I'd say that it's nearly impossible to maintain the Christianity that was originally envisioned - it's not a sustainable lifestyle. The interpretations and the practices would need to mutate to become more benign and more 'easy to do' for the faith to have survived 2000 years