GhostWriter16
Deity
If I were to rob you and give all of that money to homeless people, would you call me a saint or a thief?
Finally sick of this: Minimal-state Jesus
- Thread starter Angst
- Start date
If I were to rob you and give all of that money to homeless people, would you call me a saint or a thief?
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
First off: Christianity is not a governmental form. Communism works in small scales.
Secondly: Democracy does not work on a large scale either.
Third: The human condition guarantees that no one will be satisfied with one centralized form of government unless they give up self centered ideas, and join together in agreement. Forcing people into one mold is impractical to say the least.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Both, probably. That's not really relevant as we're talking taxation, not robbery.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
I think that was his point, athough he would not call it being a saint.
Robin Hood?
But as LJ points out, this goes back to the silly taxation is theft thing. Jesus is only a libertarian if you make him so in your head.
Berzerker
Deity
i suspect many jews of the time considered paying taxes to caesar a form of theft, but what was jesus supposed to do? get his followers killed by the romans? reading into that an endorsement of propping up butchers with "taxes" - the very taxes used to butcher jesus - is more ideological than practical.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Actually Jesus paid the tax from gold found in a fishes mouth. Now work was involved, but would that have been hard work or just a miracle? Jesus also explained that tax was normally extracted from subjected people to pay for the luxuries of those imposing the tax. Normally kingdoms in the past, did not raise taxes to help out the poor. It was to further the subjection of others or make life easy for a few. It was not until modern times, that any humanitarian usage was even thought of.
If anything about Jesus, it may be said that eventually governments would not be neccessary at all. While they were a neccessary evil, the due extended them was necessary. If harmony could be reached without violence, it would have to come from a change in ideals within the human spirit. It would never be accomplished by force, but a change of heart to give up self interest for the interest of the group as a whole.
I'm not so much interested in the nitty-gritty politics of a couple millenia ago as told by the Completely, Totally Not-Biased Bible (TM), but rather whether it is "Christian" to use the modern system of welfare and taxation to provide for the poor.
I'm in favour of turning the Bible into a series of falsehood.
Genesis said:
Mark said:
1 Corinthians said:
ArneHD
Just a little bit mad
Well, people do call Robin Hood a hero.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
What is the modern definition of "Christian" then? I do not think that what it means has evolved in any way. It has been corrupted, but I doubt any one can add any more value to it than how it started out.
The original meaning would not invalidate a system of welfare and taxation. If one rebels and feels like they are being taxed without representation of where their hard earned money is going, they can always attempt at revolt. I doubt that would fit the definition of Christian though.
If one wants to raise more money to help the poor then going outside the church and getting that money from the pockets of hard working people through an income tax would be more efficient or at least provide for more money than a small group of people who call themselves Christian. I doubt it would make the christian feel less of a christian.
It seems to me more of an issue with relying on other people as to not wanting to help people. There will always be people in need of help. And it does not even matter to me if the system is abused. I think that the christian viewpoint can be taken too far, because God really does not help those who help themselves. So thinking that one is too proud for help is also wrong. If the government can help people without forming a sense of entrapment, then welfare through state means is not wrong. Being a slave to the government can also mean unable to exist without it.
Peck of Arabia
Sociable Recluse
I certainly don't. A man turns to banditry, terrorizing the local area and overworked Sheriff (Sheriffs I believe at this time were essentially one-man county councils) vainly trying implement unpopular taxes levied by "Bad" King John to pay off debts left to by his spendthrift brother fighting quixotic battles in the Middle East. c.800 years later we name an airport after this man? Bah!
I feel I may have gone a little OT, among other things
I certainly wouldn't call you a tax collector.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
GhostWriter16 said:
Why not both?
GhostWriter16
Deity
I don't necessarily think Jesus was a libertarian, or a liberal. We don't really know what his politics would have been, if he did indeed have any views at all. Jesus' focus was on personal behavior the kingdom of God, salvation, that sort of thing, not politics.
That said, I find it silly when liberal pundits say that since Jesus hung out with sinners, said to pay taxes, and healed sick people that he supported high taxes UHC and welfare or whatever absurd concoctions that liberals will come up with. Jesus didn't say "Government do this" he said "You do this."
I refuse to use the government to steal in order to help the poor. That is MY position. Whether Jesus would agree with me or not I guess I'll find out in heaven. But I don't think Jesus is going to judge me based on my political views so much as what I, personally, do for his kingdom. Politics were just not Jesus' concern.
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
Yes, but the Jesus myth took place in a time where the average person's agency did not extend into the political sphere, and now it does.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Your guidelines are nonetheless absurd though since Jesus rarely if ever specifically condoned the use of force for any purpose.
There is nothing in the Bible that supports the liberal welfare state. Nothing whatsoever.
There is nothing in the Bible that supports the liberal welfare state. Nothing whatsoever.
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
Right, but what you're missing is that He said "you" in the second person plural. He provided direction to the whole of His flock with the understanding that we would work together to achieve His ends.
Government is simply the most expansive form, to date, of social interaction. Consequently, it is useful for the Christian to utilize as a means to execute the goals Christ set forth for us. Utilization of governmental resources enables better care given to others.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
There is nothing that supports libertarianism either. Quite the contrary really. And that's where your issue is. I mean, sure, I'll give up claiming Jesus preached a welfare state. However, there is no Christian grounds for supporting a political system which will doom the poor. Libertarianism does not go well with Christianity; rather, it is, as a moral and political system, contradictionary. So you'd have to look elsewhere in the political sphere when voting in order to be a good Christian.
