4 ms·

> Other humans are not "dogs" or "pigs". So why is the verse there? > Jesus is explicitly advocating welfare - providing food, drink, clothes, healthcare, and

• Arainach 2y ago
  >So why is the verse there? You're the one who cited it, it's up to you to demonstrate that it's relevant in this context. >There is nothing in this verse which says that property is to be expropriated for the purposes of assuring others a particular standard of living, and I don’t think you’ll be able to find one. The verse is literally instructing that anyone in need is to be helped. It does not specify the source of the help. Anyone professing to be a Christian should be in favor of those with plenty providing for those in need. >You’ve ignored my question. If Jesus is God, and God rewarded Job with material wealth in this world, how can Jesus be said to offer an unambiguous criticism of wealth? Ignoring the theological debate on if "Jesus is God", Jesus' statements and commandments came later and supersede anything which came before. Oh, and since I missed (or you later added) the Thessalonians verse, how convenient of you to leave out its context: > We did this, *not because we do not have the right to such help*, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate.
  • lurk2 2y ago
    > Anyone professing to be a Christian should be in favor of those with plenty providing for those in need. That isn't what you originally claimed and is not what I'm taking issue with. What you said was: "Anyone who takes that message and instead lobbies to destroy healthcare and welfare and to push hate and attack anyone who doesn't agree with them [...] is not a Christian regardless of how they spend their Sundays." What you're saying is that anyone who does not support the welfare state as an apparatus is not a Christian, and I am contesting that, because there have been plenty of moral theories developed by Christians who opposed state welfare. Consider that the device you are using to post is likely worth more than the majority of the world's population earns in a year. Does it stand to reason that I could justifiably take it away from you and give it to someone who needed it more? What if we formed a committee you had no part in and voted on it being the right thing to do? > Ignoring the theological debate on if "Jesus is God", Jesus' statements and commandments came later and supersede anything which came before. Denying the divinity of Jesus undermines the entire belief system. It seems to me that you can't reconcile the treatment of Job with your reading of the New Testament, so you've decided to disregard the story entirely. There is some basis to this (e.g. the mixed fabrics issue you addressed in another comment), but it isn't as simple as saying "We can disregard everything prior to the New Testament." > We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. Young translates that line as authority, not "right." In the KJV (which is the version I originally read), it is translated as "power." That is, because the author has come to minister to the church, he has the authority to ask for bread without having to work for it, but he does not, because he does not want to burden those around him: "8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:" The passage continues after this line: "10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. [...] 12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread."
• MrMcCall 2y ago
  > There is nothing in this verse which says that property is to be expropriated for the purposes of assuring others a particular standard of living, and I don’t think you’ll be able to find one. You're right; we have the free will to be as miserly as we choose. But if you want to be of Christ, you'll give your 5% or 10%, at least. Our societies also have the free will to choose to tax the rich to help the poor. A govt run by actual Christians would not let the rich trample the poor and our shared environment, our human family's inheritance and future. Yes, everyone is free to be a selfish asshole -- "there is not compulsion in religion" is God's command, too -- but our govt should reflect the generosity of spirit we are called to manifest. If you don't like the taxes, find another place to ply your wares. > You’ve ignored my question. If Jesus is God, and God rewarded Job with material wealth in this world, how can Jesus be said to offer an unambiguous criticism of wealth? If one has acquired it by cheating or abusing others or selling harmful products or without paying one's fair tax rate, then those are ill-gotten gains are bad for the person who chose to live that way and bad for the society they are parasitizing. So, yes, God's Messengers of love can have whatever beneficience our Lord bestows upon them, but it will not be ill-gotten and it will not be for the selfish pleasure and will never be wasted, for "God does not love the wasters". Most of all, what is important to remember is that we cannot love both God and money, i.e. we cannot serve two masters. We must be generous with others out of love for them, and be grateful to God that we have been granted God's generosity to have better circumstances. To love someone means wanting them to be happy. Any kind of "love" that does not result in effortful action -- i.e. actual service -- for the other person is nothing but empty words, and we must live the truth of God's teachings of love. "Love thy neighbor as your own self." Not more, not less. We are given the choice in money matters and it is a sore trial for most human beings. But God's teachings of love are clear as day to those with eyes to see, ears to hear, and a heart that understands.
  • lurk2 2y ago
    > but our govt should reflect the generosity of spirit we are called to manifest. The whole notion of state welfare necessarily involves the forcible expropriation of property, resistance to which is punishable by death. If I took $20 out of your wallet and gave it to someone else who I thought needed it more, it would not be charity, it would be theft. > i.e. we cannot serve two masters This was never suggested. Wealth is a tool. Where it becomes fetishized as an end in and of itself, it becomes objectionable. You'll note that the device you're using to post in this thread is in all likelihood worth more than most people on earth earn in a year. Is your soul in danger because you own a laptop, or is there more nuance to this issue than you're suggesting?