Bill Gates: I don't pay enough tax!

ScottishJohn · Mar 19, 2012

mindlight said:
American conservatives and especially Christian ones do seem blind to the needs of poorer people. I would agree with them that there is no obligation on Christians to help non Christians in poverty. However like Scottish John I would support the existence of a welfare state not on grounds of compassion like him but on the grounds of efficiency.

I've used the efficiency argument too - purely from a practical point of view money talks the loudest to some people, and appealing to compassion is a waste of time. If the US spent twice per head on a national health system they would still have enough left over from their current spend to foot the UK's entire health bill.

I can't really believe or understand your stance on obligation to the poor. It is one of the clearest principles of Christianity. It is emphasised over and over, and assuming the stance you have requires explaining away a great deal. I know we've gone over this before but I have a clear memory of one of the last occasions coming down to the good samaritan passage, and you just not having any answer to it. Just to refresh your memory:

Luke 10 said:
25 Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus.* Teacher, he said, what must I do to inherit eternal life? 26He said to him, What is written in the law? What do you read there? 27He answered, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself. 28And he said to him, You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.

29 But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, And who is my neighbour? 30Jesus replied, A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. 31Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33But a Samaritan while travelling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. 34He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35The next day he took out two denarii,* gave them to the innkeeper, and said, Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend. 36Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers? 37He said, The one who showed him mercy. Jesus said to him, Go and do likewise.

This blows out of the water any attempt to argue that charity is confined to those who hold the same creed, that it is dependent on what faith you hold. It is a simple matter of whoever is in need - and a clear command to go and do likewise if we want any hope of salvation. It really can't get any clearer. But it isn't just the gospel. The old testament is chock full of references to the poor, and importantly also the alien. It is impossible to look at the whole cannon of scripture and reach any other conclusion.

Proverbs - which you also refer to in this thread has plenty to say about helping the poor. The parable of the talents does not get you off the hook either. Nor does the use of the word brother limit our Matthew 25 obligations, the word is Adelphos and has several meanings;

[1]a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
[2]having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
[3]any fellow or man
[4]a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
[5]an associate in employment or office
[6]brethren in Christ
his brothers by blood
all men
apostles
Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

Bearing in mind that this word can mean just everyone and anyone, why would we chose to limit it to meaning only christians in this situation? Or should we limit it only to literal brothers? Or just appostles? Or just people from the same country? When even the brothers in Christ definition can be defined as all men! What is your reason for choosing to understand it as only Christians? Particularly in the context of the good samaritan?

In the absence of any answer from you, I've done some reading, but I still have not found anything that justifies this. Some tenuous links between the word little and least that some people use to limit this not just to Christians, but specifically to the diciples alone. I'm not buying that.

I keep wanting to ask why do people want to get off the hook from taking care of the poor? Why are they so keen to avoid doing that? To find any other way of understanding these passages that will release them from such an obligation. Where does that come from? What motivates it?

If the reading I favour - if what feels most inline with God and how I understand God - is in fact wrong, then me and those like me are still motivated by a desire to serve - to mirror unconditional love as much as they can, and to take care of people around them as well as they can, and are acting out of things which are totally in accordance with what it means to be a Christian.

However if the other reading is wrong, what is it that they are acting from? I need some help on that because it is far to easy just to put it down to greed. I want to think there is something better there than that, but I don't get it.

mindlight · Mar 21, 2012

ScottishJohn said:
I can't really believe or understand your stance on obligation to the poor. It is one of the clearest principles of Christianity. It is emphasised over and over, and assuming the stance you have requires explaining away a great deal. I know we've gone over this before but I have a clear memory of one of the last occasions coming down to the good samaritan passage, and you just not having any answer to it. Just to refresh your memory:

This blows out of the water any attempt to argue that charity is confined to those who hold the same creed, that it is dependent on what faith you hold. It is a simple matter of whoever is in need - and a clear command to go and do likewise if we want any hope of salvation. It really can't get any clearer. But it isn't just the gospel. The old testament is chock full of references to the poor, and importantly also the alien. It is impossible to look at the whole cannon of scripture and reach any other conclusion.

Proverbs - which you also refer to in this thread has plenty to say about helping the poor. The parable of the talents does not get you off the hook either. Nor does the use of the word brother limit our Matthew 25 obligations, the word is Adelphos and has several meanings;

[1]a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
[2]having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
[3]any fellow or man
[4]a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
[5]an associate in employment or office
[6]brethren in Christ

his brothers by blood

all men

apostles

Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

Bearing in mind that this word can mean just everyone and anyone, why would we chose to limit it to meaning only christians in this situation? Or should we limit it only to literal brothers? Or just appostles? Or just people from the same country? When even the brothers in Christ definition can be defined as all men! What is your reason for choosing to understand it as only Christians? Particularly in the context of the good samaritan?

We have had this discussion so many times but here goes again.

The key word in all this is obligation. After Pentecost the believers gave freely to one another as they had need. Later on when famine struck Jerusalem they had to be bailed out by the wider church having no assets to fall back on themselves. There is a considerable difference between what God suggests to me I ought to be doing and the requirement of a socialist state to perform a certain action regardless of whether or not I consider it to be worthwhile.

The good Samaritan story talks about an independent business man who is well organised helping a traveller he finds beaten up and lying on the road. It is an act of personal kindness by one man to another. It implies no obligation to finance a welfare state system for all such people lying by the wayside. Indeed the implication is that the responsibility to help the person lying there more fittingly rests with the one who actually finds him. One can argue that an ambulance and trained team of paramedics will probably do a better job than the samaritan today- we all pay for that with our taxes and the expectation is that this kind of scenario should not really happen in the modern world. But of course we meet other kinds of needy people as we pass through life and are given the choice to act as God would have us act in each situation. An individual Christian meets situations of need within his sphere of influence in the way that seems fitting in those circumstances. This can include unexpected help to people even of other religions , or enemies in war etc

The book of Proverbs is written in the context of a Hebrew theocracy and all Hebrews being considered members of that community. The aliens are aliens within ones borders who therefore contribute to or require things from the direct community they are hosted in. An atheist husband or a Muslim living in a Christian house might be examples of this in the modern church era. The obligations of a secular state to immigrants are of a slightly different order of reality than those of a theocratic state to hosted aliens within it.

Most Christian commentators disagree with your interpretation of Matt 25 v 40. Basically its talking about Christians.

Basically Christians can have all sorts of reasons for not helping poor people in certain circumstances and Gods character is reflected in the decision not to help sometimes as much as it is in the decision to help on others.

1) They have proven to be deceitful about their conditions and have manipulated the Christians compassion to obtain a free lunch on innumerable occasions in the past.
2) The Christian does not think that the persons real need is what they asking for- e.g. better to give food to a drunk/junky than cash to buy alcohol or drugs.
3) Other people could do a better job in this circumstance and indeed the Christians help may do more harm than good. If help is given it will need to be done in a certain context to be effective.
4) By helping someone the Christian can jeopardise other things God has called him to support e.g. family etc
5) The Christian may be poorer than the person who is asking for help
6) The persons condition is a direct result from unrepented sins or outlook and helping them may only deepen the problem.
7) The Christian is called to hand certain people over to Satan so that they can experience the full consequence of their sin.
8) The Christian has good reason to believe that money given will not go to help the person in need but rather a gangleader or organised crime syndicate.
9) To help this poor person would be unfair to another person who did not commit all the mistakes this person made and who has worked hard for certain rewards due to them.

These are just off the top of my head but there are probably a whole host more. You do not need to hear reasons to help as it seems it is your nature to help anyway regardless.

ScottishJohn · Mar 21, 2012

mindlight said:
We have had this discussion so many times but here goes again.

The key word in all this is obligation. After Pentecost the believers gave freely to one another as they had need. Later on when famine struck Jerusalem they had to be bailed out by the wider church having no assets to fall back on themselves. There is a considerable difference between what God suggests to me I ought to be doing and the requirement of a socialist state to perform a certain action regardless of whether or not I consider it to be worthwhile.

Let's take the welfare state out of this - I'm not talking about politics now. I am talking about the obligation to the poor - however that is lived out. How you choose to interact with your obligation is up to the individual, although you have already stated that you consider some aspects of the wellfare state to be more efficient than the alternatives, but to state that the obligation does not exist is hard to understand.

mindlight said:
The good Samaritan story talks about an independent business man who is well organised helping a traveller he finds beaten up and lying on the road. It is an act of personal kindness by one man to another. It implies no obligation to finance a welfare state system for all such people lying by the wayside. Indeed the implication is that the responsibility to help the person lying there more fittingly rests with the one who actually finds him. One can argue that an ambulance and trained team of paramedics will probably do a better job than the samaritan today- we all pay for that with our taxes and the expectation is that this kind of scenario should not really happen in the modern world. But of course we meet other kinds of needy people as we pass through life and are given the choice to act as God would have us act in each situation. An individual Christian meets situations of need within his sphere of influence in the way that seems fitting in those circumstances. This can include unexpected help to people even of other religions , or enemies in war etc

There is no clear path in your argument. You begin by condemning a welfare state, and then go on to provide an example of where that is actually more effective than individual help and a service provided through taxation being more appropriate.

My point is not about the welfare state - it is a long step before we reach that discussion - it is about your statement that christians have no obligation to the poor. You say it was a personal act of kindness, and that there is no obligation to Christians to do the same, and you draw that from the parable itself. The obligation comes from the question which Jesus answers with the parable - what must I do to gain salvation and who is my neighbour? and the command Jesus places after the parable - go and do likewise. We can get onto how we go and do likewise afterwards. Acknowledging that we are obligated to go and do likewise is the first step - which should not be hard given it is there in black and white. Or if you have one of the versions which prints direct speach from Jesus in red - then it is in red and white!

mindight said:
The book of Proverbs is written in the context of a Hebrew theocracy and all Hebrews being considered members of that community. The aliens are aliens within ones borders who therefore contribute to or require things from the direct community they are hosted in. An atheist husband or a Muslim living in a Christian house might be examples of this in the modern church era. The obligations of a secular state to immigrants are of a slightly different order of reality than those of a theocratic state to hosted aliens within it.

The obligations of Christians to aliens remains the same though.

mindlight said:
Most Christian commentators disagree with your interpretation of Matt 25 v 40. Basically its talking about Christians.

Yeah thats about as sophisticated and convincing an argument as most commentators put forward.

mindlight said:
Basically Christians can have all sorts of reasons for not helping poor people in certain circumstances and Gods character is reflected in the decision not to help sometimes as much as it is in the decision to help on others.

1) They have proven to be deceitful about their conditions and have manipulated the Christians compassion to obtain a free lunch on innumerable occasions in the past.
2) The Christian does not think that the persons real need is what they asking for- e.g. better to give food to a drunk/junky than cash to buy alcohol or drugs.
3) Other people could do a better job in this circumstance and indeed the Christians help may do more harm than good. If help is given it will need to be done in a certain context to be effective.
4) By helping someone the Christian can jeopardise other things God has called him to support e.g. family etc
5) The Christian may be poorer than the person who is asking for help
6) The persons condition is a direct result from unrepented sins or outlook and helping them may only deepen the problem.
7) The Christian is called to hand certain people over to Satan so that they can experience the full consequence of their sin.
8) The Christian has good reason to believe that money given will not go to help the person in need but rather a gangleader or organised crime syndicate.
9) To help this poor person would be unfair to another person who did not commit all the mistakes this person made and who has worked hard for certain rewards due to them.

These are just off the top of my head but there are probably a whole host more. You do not need to hear reasons to help as it seems it is your nature to help anyway regardless.

1. I could say if someone asks for your shirt blah blah blah. However there are plenty of occasions when I have refused to give what has been asked for and have given something more appropriate. Advice rather than money. Or food. Or referral to an agency which has more targetted and appropriate help. I make a phonecall to benefits or housing or whoever instead of giving the hand out I've been asked for. There is still an obligation. I never said it was to ignore what is in front of you.
2. Not giving money to an addict and instead buying a grocery shop or putting money onto a gas or power key is still giving help. Still observing that obligation.
3.Referral to those who are more qualified whether that be a government employee or not - is still helping. Often we get involved in making sure that access works and in supporting people through their involvement with whoever they have been referred to in order to make it more likely to succeed. We are still observing our obligation.
4. Being part of a worshipping community means that you are never on your own. Finding someone else who is in a position to help if you happen to be short of time or money is still observing that obligation. The Samaritan paid the innkeeper and carried on with his journey.
5. It's not always going to be financial. Time is valuable - especially in making someone who has been dehumanised feel human. Poverty is not solely financial. The poverty truth commission I referenced is often about support coming from those who are in or have been in the same circumstances.
6. If you are helping someone then by definition you are not doing something that will deepen the problem. This is not about throwing money at people and hoping they go away.
7. Nonsense.
8. Not always about money.
9. You have a pretty one dimensional and lofty attitude to people living in poverty.

Most of these reasons are not about not helping anyone, but about being wise in what help you offer. None of them do anything to undermine the clear and often restated obligation to the poor we find in the Bible.

mindlight · Mar 23, 2012

ScottishJohn said:
Let's take the welfare state out of this - I'm not talking about politics now. I am talking about the obligation to the poor - however that is lived out. How you choose to interact with your obligation is up to the individual, although you have already stated that you consider some aspects of the wellfare state to be more efficient than the alternatives, but to state that the obligation does not exist is hard to understand.

There is no clear path in your argument. You begin by condemning a welfare state, and then go on to provide an example of where that is actually more effective than individual help and a service provided through taxation being more appropriate.

Christians have no obligations to any particular poor people and we are free of their criticisms and judgments for any perceived lack of giving. But we do have obligations to God that may involve helping poor people. The welfare state is a more efficient way to eliminate absolute poverty(which I regard as an evil) than individual initiatives alone. To support it is a matter of good stewardship and wisdom about giving in my view rather than a generic way to excuse myself from all acts of personal kindness.

So I did not condemn the welfare state but nor am I obliged to support it in all cases ( I think it would bankrupt many poorer countries for instance and may not be appropriate for their stage of development- in other cases inefficient versions of it have been chosen). I have a choice about this and consider it to be the wise one as well as in my case an obligation to the state (to pay taxes etc).

My point is not about the welfare state - it is a long step before we reach that discussion - it is about your statement that christians have no obligation to the poor. You say it was a personal act of kindness, and that there is no obligation to Christians to do the same, and you draw that from the parable itself. The obligation comes from the question which Jesus answers with the parable - what must I do to gain salvation and who is my neighbour? and the command Jesus places after the parable - go and do likewise. We can get onto how we go and do likewise afterwards. Acknowledging that we are obligated to go and do likewise is the first step - which should not be hard given it is there in black and white. Or if you have one of the versions which prints direct speach from Jesus in red - then it is in red and white!

The obligations of Christians to aliens remains the same though.

Yeah thats about as sophisticated and convincing an argument as most commentators put forward.

1. I could say if someone asks for your shirt blah blah blah. However there are plenty of occasions when I have refused to give what has been asked for and have given something more appropriate. Advice rather than money. Or food. Or referral to an agency which has more targetted and appropriate help. I make a phonecall to benefits or housing or whoever instead of giving the hand out I've been asked for. There is still an obligation. I never said it was to ignore what is in front of you.
2. Not giving money to an addict and instead buying a grocery shop or putting money onto a gas or power key is still giving help. Still observing that obligation.
3.Referral to those who are more qualified whether that be a government employee or not - is still helping. Often we get involved in making sure that access works and in supporting people through their involvement with whoever they have been referred to in order to make it more likely to succeed. We are still observing our obligation.
4. Being part of a worshipping community means that you are never on your own. Finding someone else who is in a position to help if you happen to be short of time or money is still observing that obligation. The Samaritan paid the innkeeper and carried on with his journey.
5. It's not always going to be financial. Time is valuable - especially in making someone who has been dehumanised feel human. Poverty is not solely financial. The poverty truth commission I referenced is often about support coming from those who are in or have been in the same circumstances.
6. If you are helping someone then by definition you are not doing something that will deepen the problem. This is not about throwing money at people and hoping they go away.
7. Nonsense.
8. Not always about money.
9. You have a pretty one dimensional and lofty attitude to people living in poverty.

Most of these reasons are not about not helping anyone, but about being wise in what help you offer. None of them do anything to undermine the clear and often restated obligation to the poor we find in the Bible.

Wisdom is crucial for the consideration of giving - true. But quite simply I have no obligation to any human being to help them except where I have made specific promises to God (e.g. in the case of my wife (marriage vows)and children (baptism vows)). Indeed many Christians would betray their callings if they were to divert their energies too much on just this one ministry. Saying no to needy people is sometimes necessary and if we are honest we all do it. I do not know how many times I have sat down in a discussion group whether Christian or secular and watched some needy wounded soul demand the attention of the group and try and monopolise the discussion with their problems. The needs of the others in the group often require silencing that person and opening the floor to someone else and then arranging one on one attention in a more appropriate setting. Very often this person will refuse the closer counselling as what they wanted was the attention and the audience. I have a sphere of influence in which God tests my heart as to how I behave with those in weaker positions to myself as well as those stronger. Yes I want to help more , but also when I help others I want to be more effective at it. So I will give time, money, advice, loan of my skills, love, compassion or just presence to people in need but not to everyone who asks me for this. I do not have to feel guilty about that and thankfully I am almost immune to the guilt trips that people like to play about this- particularly here where I often simply do not understand the subtle jibes they invest their language with. I am also a needy person , heavily dependent on my wifes German language skills for instance in this culture and I need to know when to be helped as much as when to help. Currently I am looking for work and a recipient of welfare so I take requests for help on me from the perspective of someone who very often just does not have the resources to help someone.

1 Corinthians 5 v 5 said:
- hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

You simply dismiss this verse as nonsense?

I do believe sometimes I am no help and have caused more problems by trying to be. Wisdom and compassion sometimes require someone with zero diplomacy, or imperfect language skills, to back off from a person in deep pain for instance and leave it to people better equipped.

ScottishJohn · Mar 26, 2012

mindlight said:
Christians have no obligations to any particular poor people and we are free of their criticisms and judgments for any perceived lack of giving.

God has placed an obligation to us to care for the poor.

I think it interesting that you go straight to the criticism and judgement from poor people towards the few Christians who have a different attitude towards the poor. Is this something you have encountered?

mindlight said:
But we do have obligations to God that may involve helping poor people. The welfare state is a more efficient way to eliminate absolute poverty(which I regard as an evil) than individual initiatives alone. To support it is a matter of good stewardship and wisdom about giving in my view rather than a generic way to excuse myself from all acts of personal kindness.

I agree with that 100%. Not all welfare programmes are well run, or well designed, and they need to be constantly monitored and evaluated to keep them delivering value for money. But in general a unified and national approach to eliminating some of the more severe causes and symptoms of poverty is a far more effective approach than relying on human kindness at an individual level. There are plenty of other ways that human kindness and contact on an individual level can bear fruit.

mindlight said:
So I did not condemn the welfare state but nor am I obliged to support it in all cases ( I think it would bankrupt many poorer countries for instance and may not be appropriate for their stage of development- in other cases inefficient versions of it have been chosen). I have a choice about this and consider it to be the wise one as well as in my case an obligation to the state (to pay taxes etc).

Do you feel like your stance on the wellfare state has changed at all in the past few years?

I agree that it is not always possible to roll out, and that some programmes are not appropriate to some circumstances.

mindlight said:
Wisdom is crucial for the consideration of giving - true. But quite simply I have no obligation to any human being to help them except where I have made specific promises to God (e.g. in the case of my wife (marriage vows)and children (baptism vows)).

What about your neighbour? I still don't follow what you take from Jesus saying go and do likewise.

mindlight said:
Indeed many Christians would betray their callings if they were to divert their energies too much on just this one ministry. Saying no to needy people is sometimes necessary and if we are honest we all do it.

No one person is going to solve poverty by themselves. Nor do I think that anyone could twist the obligation laid on us towards the poor to something which makes us unable to take care of those who are dependent on us. But there are always things that are possible to do without that level of sacrifice or indeed irresponsibility.

mindlight said:
I do not know how many times I have sat down in a discussion group whether Christian or secular and watched some needy wounded soul demand the attention of the group and try and monopolise the discussion with their problems. The needs of the others in the group often require silencing that person and opening the floor to someone else and then arranging one on one attention in a more appropriate setting.

Which is not refusing to help them, just diverting that need into a more appropriate place for it to be met.

mindlight said:
Very often this person will refuse the closer counselling as what they wanted was the attention and the audience.

But people refusing the help offered to them does not blot out the fact that appropriate help was offered, nor does it mean that we should give up before we have started.

mindlight said:
I have a sphere of influence in which God tests my heart as to how I behave with those in weaker positions to myself as well as those stronger. Yes I want to help more , but also when I help others I want to be more effective at it. So I will give time, money, advice, loan of my skills, love, compassion or just presence to people in need but not to everyone who asks me for this. I do not have to feel guilty about that and thankfully I am almost immune to the guilt trips that people like to play about this- particularly here where I often simply do not understand the subtle jibes they invest their language with. I am also a needy person , heavily dependent on my wifes German language skills for instance in this culture and I need to know when to be helped as much as when to help. Currently I am looking for work and a recipient of welfare so I take requests for help on me from the perspective of someone who very often just does not have the resources to help someone.

There nothing for me to disagree with here. I think where this bit of the discussion started was that you said Christians had no obligation at all to the poor and that's just not true. But finding an appropriate and achieveable way of serving that obligation is entirely possible without granting every single request you are faced with.

For example. I never - or very rarely give money to people who sit in the street and beg with cups and signs and so on. I give as sacrificially as I can, but I tend to give my money more to organisations which deal with the causes of that situation rather than just make sure that the people in them stay alive but don't move forward. There are occassions when I do feel moved to do something about someone I encounter in the street, but again this is not often about just handing them money.

mindlight said:
You simply dismiss this verse as nonsense?

Not the verse, just the application of it.

mindlight said:
I do believe sometimes I am no help and have caused more problems by trying to be. Wisdom and compassion sometimes require someone with zero diplomacy, or imperfect language skills, to back off from a person in deep pain for instance and leave it to people better equipped.

I think maybe I must have come over as if I am saying that you personally have to be the solution to the problems and that you have to help every single person you encounter. That is not what I believe and unfortunately the world we live in means we will always encounter far more need than we have the capacity to meet. However for me it is about seeing and recognising that need, knowing where I can help, and where I can refer onwards, making sure I am doing whatever I can. We are all called to different things and God places different burdens on each of us. I think the thing I take issue with is the idea that we as Christians do not have an obligation to people living in poverty. Every single Church and every single Christians has the capacity to do something either big or small to alleviate poverty, and has an obligation to do so.

mindlight · Mar 26, 2012

ScottishJohn said:
God has placed an obligation to us to care for the poor.....What about your neighbour? I still don't follow what you take from Jesus saying go and do likewise.

This is becoming a matter of assertion. But being a once saved always saved kind of guy I believe that having been given it I will still inherit eternal life even if I decide to tell my poor neighbour to take a hike.

I think it interesting that you go straight to the criticism and judgement from poor people towards the few Christians who have a different attitude towards the poor. Is this something you have encountered?

I am NOT rich but I know Christians who are quite intimately. Many of them of them are extremely generous and also smart in the way they use what God has given them and have helped countless people with what they have learnt about managing their finances. Yet I also hear the moans of poorer Christians who have been refused their help or from whom they have deliberately withheld the kinds of help these people were looking for. Mostly I have understood the reasons the help was withheld and agreed with them in the cases of the particular people I have had in mind. Also I have seen in the hearts of those who use this as grounds to attack them an envy and bitterness and even greed that is not of God.

Also I know of examples of churches that helped poor people with large debts to get out of debt only to find them turn up at the next service in a brand new 4 x 4 bought on debt finance. When questioned as to why they had merely repeated what the church had just rescued them from they replied that God told them to do it!

I agree with that 100%. Not all welfare programmes are well run, or well designed, and they need to be constantly monitored and evaluated to keep them delivering value for money. But in general a unified and national approach to eliminating some of the more severe causes and symptoms of poverty is a far more effective approach than relying on human kindness at an individual level. There are plenty of other ways that human kindness and contact on an individual level can bear fruit.

I agree with Rowan Williams comments on welfarism in this respect. We should have a more criticcal regard for the provision of state services. The initial version of this article included spelling mistakes so I guess it was written by someone who went to a state school ;-)

BBC News - Rowan Williams says state cannot solve all problems

Do you feel like your stance on the wellfare state has changed at all in the past few years?

Yes for better and for worse. My family has been a beneficiary and a victim of public services here. On occasions they are way too intrusive and overbearingly self righteous in their judgments which on a number of occasions have been deeply wrong and even harmful. I find the education system here for instance very slow at teaching the basic 3 Rs and most English kids are in advance of most German kids in the early stages of the education process in my view. But in other ways they have provided excellent support in trying times of sickness , unemployment etc.

No one person is going to solve poverty by themselves. Nor do I think that anyone could twist the obligation laid on us towards the poor to something which makes us unable to take care of those who are dependent on us. But there are always things that are possible to do without that level of sacrifice or indeed irresponsibility.

Which is not refusing to help them, just diverting that need into a more appropriate place for it to be met.

But people refusing the help offered to them does not blot out the fact that appropriate help was offered, nor does it mean that we should give up before we have started.

There nothing for me to disagree with here. I think where this bit of the discussion started was that you said Christians had no obligation at all to the poor and that's just not true. But finding an appropriate and achieveable way of serving that obligation is entirely possible without granting every single request you are faced with.

For example. I never - or very rarely give money to people who sit in the street and beg with cups and signs and so on. I give as sacrificially as I can, but I tend to give my money more to organisations which deal with the causes of that situation rather than just make sure that the people in them stay alive but don't move forward. There are occassions when I do feel moved to do something about someone I encounter in the street, but again this is not often about just handing them money. ...........I think maybe I must have come over as if I am saying that you personally have to be the solution to the problems and that you have to help every single person you encounter. That is not what I believe and unfortunately the world we live in means we will always encounter far more need than we have the capacity to meet. However for me it is about seeing and recognising that need, knowing where I can help, and where I can refer onwards, making sure I am doing whatever I can. We are all called to different things and God places different burdens on each of us. I think the thing I take issue with is the idea that we as Christians do not have an obligation to people living in poverty. Every single Church and every single Christians has the capacity to do something either big or small to alleviate poverty, and has an obligation to do so.

There is a lot of wisdom in this but I am also reading a works based sense of righteousness which I think is dangerous when it comes to living the Christian life. We are not saved in our own strength, we have not earned the gifts and resources we have been given, we cannot earn our salvation with the works we do. We fail others when we fail to communicate Gods grace and mercy. We are not our own advert but rather we reveal the one who has saved us. That we reflect his compassion and plans to some extent is our privilege not our task.

Not the verse, just the application of it.

Handing over the immoral brother - refusing fellowship and support for his lifestyle is a biblical principle relating to church governance (not salvation). One that the church neglects in the current age where people are all too tolerant perhaps.

ScottishJohn · Apr 29, 2012

Hey this conversation kind of halted because I had a lot on. But been thinking about what you said. thought I'd have a go at replying.

mindlight said:
This is becoming a matter of assertion. But being a once saved always saved kind of guy I believe that having been given it I will still inherit eternal life even if I decide to tell my poor neighbour to take a hike.

Yeah I'm not really sure how that works. Cos taking it to its logical conclusion, then you could just please yourself for the rest of your life and you'd be in the same place as someone who spent their whole life trying to live in accordance with what they had been commanded to do. I dunno. I see it as a response from what we have been given. And there is the whole thing of having to repent daily from all the things we do wrong, and seeking to serve. What does it mean to love God with all our heart mind soul and strength, before we even get on to loving our neighbour. Does that mean to take what we can get and do nothing, or to try to serve as well as we can?

mindlight said:
I am NOT rich but I know Christians who are quite intimately. Many of them of them are extremely generous and also smart in the way they use what God has given them and have helped countless people with what they have learnt about managing their finances. Yet I also hear the moans of poorer Christians who have been refused their help or from whom they have deliberately withheld the kinds of help these people were looking for. Mostly I have understood the reasons the help was withheld and agreed with them in the cases of the particular people I have had in mind. Also I have seen in the hearts of those who use this as grounds to attack them an envy and bitterness and even greed that is not of God.

I think there are specifics here that I would totally agree with. I think it is more the principle of how we love our neighbour that I'm not sure we agree on, and I'm not clear where that features in your theology.

mindlight said:
Also I know of examples of churches that helped poor people with large debts to get out of debt only to find them turn up at the next service in a brand new 4 x 4 bought on debt finance. When questioned as to why they had merely repeated what the church had just rescued them from they replied that God told them to do it!

Well, to my way of thinking there are two things here - one is appropriate levels of help, and throwing money at people without other work is not help. So helping someone out of debt, without helping them to understand how important it is to stay out of debt, just seems like wasting everyones time. The other is The kind of help that is given in the first place. If someone has worked themselves out of debt, then they are less likely to get back into it again. If they have just been bailed out then they have less of a sense of how much work has gone into that. CAP (Christians Against Poverty) are a good example of how engaging with debt problems can really work.

mindlight said:
I agree with Rowan Williams comments on welfarism in this respect. We should have a more criticcal regard for the provision of state services. The initial version of this article included spelling mistakes so I guess it was written by someone who went to a state school ;-)

BBC News - Rowan Williams says state cannot solve all problems

I think we are essentially looking at the same thing here. I said that welfare was appropriate for some of the severe causes and symptoms of poverty and Rowan Williams says that it is not a solution to every problem. But it is a solution and has been an effective solution to some pretty huge problems.

mindlight said:
I find the education system here for instance very slow at teaching the basic 3 Rs and most English kids are in advance of most German kids in the early stages of the education process in my view.

That's interesting, there is a kind of educational schism on that subject. The UK starts much earlier than a lot of European countries. However it doesn't deliver better results. I'm not that clear on the theories behind it, although my mum - who is a teacher talks about some of it sometimes. I am interested in how much of our education system and our approach to it has come from a purist approach to learning, and how much of it is about childcare and allowing people to work more. Obviously starting mainstream education at age 4 or 5 means that parents who cannot afford childcare are able to work sooner than if it started at 6 or even 7 as I believe it does elsewhere.

mindlight said:
There is a lot of wisdom in this but I am also reading a works based sense of righteousness which I think is dangerous when it comes to living the Christian life. We are not saved in our own strength, we have not earned the gifts and resources we have been given, we cannot earn our salvation with the works we do. We fail others when we fail to communicate Gods grace and mercy. We are not our own advert but rather we reveal the one who has saved us. That we reflect his compassion and plans to some extent is our privilege not our task.

I think there is that conversation taking place through the new testament. The relationship between faith and works. I think where I sit is that works should be a natural response to faith, that it should be almost impossible for anyone with a real grasp of the gift they have been given through grace to fail to change as a person and respond by seeking to live out a thoroughly as possible the role that they see described in the gospel in relation to following Christ. I think that there is no escaping the fact that any acceptance of grace is the beginning of a transformation, and a change of many behaviours, and there are so many calls to direct some of this effort towards those around us. I am thinking of some of the passages I have quoted - teacher what must I do to gain eternal life, but also stuff like - by their fruits they shall be known. and the fruits of the spirit. And so on.

mindlight said:
Handing over the immoral brother - refusing fellowship and support for his lifestyle is a biblical principle relating to church governance (not salvation). One that the church neglects in the current age where people are all too tolerant perhaps.

Yet many commentaries state that 2 Corinthians 2:7 also applies to this person. Where there is a hardness of heart and refusal to change or accept help then little can be done - in my experience it is less of a handing over to Satan, and more than they will walk away having not recieved what they were hoping for. However the vast majority of my experience is with people who are genuinely struggling, desperate for help and willing to take on advice and help in equal measures. I think it's kind of dangerous to set ourselves up as people who are handing people over to satan. I'm really not sure how you think that plays out. And I think there is a long journey to arrive anywhere near that place in relation to aid for those who are struggling.

Publius · Apr 30, 2012

ScottishJohn said:
I've not posted here for a long time. But I saw this and was interested to see what people would think. Often the debate here takes place in a fairly polarised manner, but this comment struck me as being quite interesting because it is not framed as a question of it being one thing or the other, it is an interesting middle place. If I can explain what I mean: often the debate about taxation, and public services and so on contains a postion which says withdraw from taxation, cut public services, rely on freewill giving and charity and then another position which says, increase the size of government, increase public services, and tax and spend more. I am simplifying a bit, but the reality is often just as polarised.

However, it strikes me that Gates is saying that those who are amongst the very rich need to do both. Need to fulfill what I understand as being a responsibility to their government and society by paying taxation which is proportionate to their ability to pay, AS WELL as being philanthropists and giving charitably to the causes which move their hearts.

I don't know an awful lot about Bill Gates, and I am aware that factions sieze and own personalities and then those people are tarnished for the other faction. However I am impressed by what Gates is doing in terms of his own fortune and giving. I think some issues need to become almost apolitical and not debated in the tired partisan way we approach so much of politics.

I'm interested to hear what everyone else has to say.

BBC News - Bill Gates: I don't pay enough tax

There actually is a mechanism in place for people to donate money to the government over and above what the government takes from them through taxation.

If people like Gates really believed they weren't being taxed enough, then why not donate more money to the government, rather than insist that the government take money from people who believe they are being taxed enough?

Clearly, it isn't that they don't believe they're being taxed enough, but that they want to change the culture from one where everyone is treated equally and expected to pay "their fair share", to one where the rich are considered the provider class and expected to pay more than their fair share in order to support those who aren't paying their fair share.

If they really want to talk about paying their fair share, then "fair share" should be defined as compensating the government consistent with the amount of services you receive from the government.

mindlight · May 1, 2012

Scottish John,

We are moving house, bit busy myself for next week. Will get back to you on this one.

ScottishJohn · May 3, 2012

Publius said:
There actually is a mechanism in place for people to donate money to the government over and above what the government takes from them through taxation.

If people like Gates really believed they weren't being taxed enough, then why not donate more money to the government, rather than insist that the government take money from people who believe they are being taxed enough?

Clearly, it isn't that they don't believe they're being taxed enough, but that they want to change the culture from one where everyone is treated equally and expected to pay "their fair share", to one where the rich are considered the provider class and expected to pay more than their fair share in order to support those who aren't paying their fair share.

If they really want to talk about paying their fair share, then "fair share" should be defined as compensating the government consistent with the amount of services you receive from the government.

All of that really comes down to how you define fair share. And how you you view your responsibility to those round about you. People who have a very individualistic outlook will obviously differ from those who have a more community based outlook.

I think what you are describing sounds unfair to me. It's like taking expecting a donkey and a carthorse to be able to pull the same load. Those with more financial muscle are capable of pulling more weight.

I don't think it makes much sense to me that everyone suggests that individuals donate when they feel like it. The whole nation walked into the deficit together. The whole nation have a responsibilty to get out of it. Bill Gates is saying that the rich can afford to help more than the poor.

Publius · May 3, 2012

ScottishJohn said:
All of that really comes down to how you define fair share.

I define it as a contribution consistent with what you take.

And how you you view your responsibility to those round about you.

Or whether or not you even believe you have a responsibility or you believe its the government's responsibility.

People who have a very individualistic outlook will obviously differ from those who have a more community based outlook.

True, but you're assuming that a private outlook equals an individualistic outlook. I can be involved in my community, but still believe it's my responsibility to help and not the government's.

I think what you are describing sounds unfair to me. It's like taking expecting a donkey and a carthorse to be able to pull the same load.

Not at all. I'm just suggesting that they each pull their own fair share.

Those with more financial muscle are capable of pulling more weight.

I don't think it makes much sense to me that everyone suggests that individuals donate when they feel like it.

Why? If they're compelled to pay, then it's not "donating" and its certainly not charity.

The whole nation walked into the deficit together.

Actually, some people exacerbated the problem. The more than 120 federal alleged "anti-poverty" programs contributed greatly to the deficit and yet, the poor still pay no taxes and are expected to give nothing back.

Meanwhile, average people like myself, who are not enrolled in any government programs and don't care to be are expected to pay their way.

The whole nation have a responsibilty to get out of it.

Then why are 40% not paying taxes?

Bill Gates is saying that the rich can afford to help more than the poor.

And I'm saying that the government already has a mechanism in place for Gates to pay without demanding the rest of us pay to assuage his guilty conscience. I'm also saying that asking those of us who actually do pay taxes to pay more will not help as long as the government refuses to use that money to go toward paying off the debt, but just pours them into more wasteful and Unconstitutional programs, agencies, and departments.

Yeah I think that's a pretty narrow definition. It doesn't take into account ability to pay, or who sets the costs of services.

If we're talking about "paying fair share", then ability to pay has nothing to do with it. It's about paying what is owed, not what you can afford.

The government is just a tool most people have forgotten to use, or never knew how to use in the first place.

But the government isn't a tool. It's the government. Nothing in our Constitution suggests that it's a tool and not only did the Founders not believe it should be used as a tool, they repeatedly warned that by using it as a "tool" to solve social ills, you open the door to tyranny.

What's more, nothing in the Constitution gives the government the authority or responsibility to be involved in such things.

And finally, Jesus was very specific that social issues were not the responsibility of the government, but of the Church.

It's actually a pretty efficient tool if used correctly. Case in point being the out of control cost of private healthcare in the US vs the much more efficient govt healthcare in much of the rest of the developed world.

I take it you're not from the US, because here, it's pretty well known that it was the government that drove up health care costs in the first place.

You spend much more but live shorter lives in poorer health.

Actually, the reason for our shorter life span has nothing to do with the cost or availability of healthcare.

well I realise this is contraversial for some, but the government is not in my view a seperate entity.

And if our government were based on "your view", you might have a point. But the Constitution makes it very clear that there is the federal government, the states, and the people.

And nationwide solutions tend to be better than patchwork solutions relying on there being people who accept a responsibility.

Actually, that's not true. During the Reagan years, there was a great deal of emphasis placed on sending these responsibilities back to the states and welfare roles dropped considerably.

You can be involved in your community and involved in your government, and recognise that some things government does better and some things individuals are better placed to do.

But what if the government doesn't do it better? What if it isn't the government's responsibility? What if the Constitution doesn't give the government the authority to do it?

Which is what Bill Gates is saying also.

I'm not sure how you got that out of what Gates said, but he actually said precisely the opposite: that the rich should pay more, simply because they're rich and regardless of what resourses they use.

So who are they? those some people?

Those who took from others through government programs.

and are you suggesting that pay the deficit off?

Are you suggesting they have no responsibility to pay their "fair share"?

And were those programmes the only expenditures in the federal budget?

They were significant portions of the budget, yes.

What about the wars fought over the past decade? How do they compare in cost? Money well spent?

Not at all, but the difference is that (a) unlike welfare and entitlement programs, the Constitution actually does give the government the authority to wage wars.

Do you not think there is a problem in setting up programmes to cater for people who cannot pay for services in the market, and then getting upset because they cannot pay for them? Doesn't seem like a very logical stance to me.

I agree. So let's abolish these services.

Perhaps it is fairer that way?

How is it fairer to make 60% pay for 40% who aren't paying anything?

I don't think he has a guilty conscience, just a more enlightened view of money than most of his peers. And also I thought you were average - in wealth terms - because Gates is not demanding that the rest of you assauge anything. He is suggesting that the rich do not pay as much as they could afford to without making any sacrifices.

No, he's not merely stating that the rich don't pay as much as they could, but that the government should take more money from them.

This is the second error you've made about what Gates said. Did you even bother to read it before you responded?

That really depends on whether fairness is important - offering equal chances, equal starts in life, the same treatment regardless of who your parents are and how much money they have. Or whether being allowed to keep your money in your pocket is more important.

The problem is that life does not guarantee us equal chances and if your solution is to make things equal by punishing those who have more, that's immoral.

ScottishJohn · May 5, 2012

Publius said:
I define it as a contribution consistent with what you take.

Yeah I think that's a pretty narrow definition. It doesn't take into account ability to pay, or who sets the costs of services.

publius said:
Or whether or not you even believe you have a responsibility or you believe its the government's responsibility.

The government is just a tool most people have forgotten to use, or never knew how to use in the first place. It's actually a pretty efficient tool if used correctly. Case in point being the out of control cost of private healthcare in the US vs the much more efficient govt healthcare in much of the rest of the developed world. You spend much more but live shorter lives in poorer health.

publius said:
True, but you're assuming that a private outlook equals an individualistic outlook. I can be involved in my community, but still believe it's my responsibility to help and not the government's.

well I realise this is contraversial for some, but the government is not in my view a seperate entity. If you vote - then you are part of the governing process, and so it's not quite as simple as my responsibility or government responsibility. And nationwide solutions tend to be better than patchwork solutions relying on there being people who accept a responsibility. You can be involved in your community and involved in your government, and recognise that some things government does better and some things individuals are better placed to do.

publius said:
Not at all. I'm just suggesting that they each pull their own fair share.

Which is what Bill Gates is saying also.

publius said:
Why? If they're compelled to pay, then it's not "donating" and its certainly not charity.

What difference does that make?

publius said:
Actually, some people exacerbated the problem. The more than 120 federal alleged "anti-poverty" programs contributed greatly to the deficit and yet, the poor still pay no taxes and are expected to give nothing back.

Meanwhile, average people like myself, who are not enrolled in any government programs and don't care to be are expected to pay their way.

So who are they? those some people? and are you suggesting that pay the deficit off? And were those programmes the only expenditures in the federal budget? What about the wars fought over the past decade? How do they compare in cost? Money well spent? Do you not think there is a problem in setting up programmes to cater for people who cannot pay for services in the market, and then getting upset because they cannot pay for them? Doesn't seem like a very logical stance to me.

publius said:
Then why are 40% not paying taxes?

Perhaps it is fairer that way? I'm not sure what figures you are referring to

publius said:
And I'm saying that the government already has a mechanism in place for Gates to pay without demanding the rest of us pay to assuage his guilty conscience.

I don't think he has a guilty conscience, just a more enlightened view of money than most of his peers. And also I thought you were average - in wealth terms - because Gates is not demanding that the rest of you assauge anything. He is suggesting that the rich do not pay as much as they could afford to without making any sacrifices.

publius said:
I'm also saying that asking those of us who actually do pay taxes to pay more will not help as long as the government refuses to use that money to go toward paying off the debt, but just pours them into more wasteful and Unconstitutional programs, agencies, and departments.

That really depends on whether fairness is important - offering equal chances, equal starts in life, the same treatment regardless of who your parents are and how much money they have. Or whether being allowed to keep your money in your pocket is more important.

mindlight · May 10, 2012

ScottishJohn said:
Hey this conversation kind of halted because I had a lot on. But been thinking about what you said. thought I'd have a go at replying.

Good to see you back- sorry I am late replying - been unwired for the last 2 weeks.

Once saved always saved said:
Yeah I'm not really sure how that works. Cos taking it to its logical conclusion, then you could just please yourself for the rest of your life and you'd be in the same place as someone who spent their whole life trying to live in accordance with what they had been commanded to do. I dunno. I see it as a response from what we have been given. And there is the whole thing of having to repent daily from all the things we do wrong, and seeking to serve. What does it mean to love God with all our heart mind soul and strength, before we even get on to loving our neighbour. Does that mean to take what we can get and do nothing, or to try to serve as well as we can?............

I think there is that conversation taking place through the new testament. The relationship between faith and works. I think where I sit is that works should be a natural response to faith, that it should be almost impossible for anyone with a real grasp of the gift they have been given through grace to fail to change as a person and respond by seeking to live out a thoroughly as possible the role that they see described in the gospel in relation to following Christ. I think that there is no escaping the fact that any acceptance of grace is the beginning of a transformation, and a change of many behaviours, and there are so many calls to direct some of this effort towards those around us. I am thinking of some of the passages I have quoted - teacher what must I do to gain eternal life, but also stuff like - by their fruits they shall be known. and the fruits of the spirit. And so on.

I think Gods taken a big risk on saving us and also he is genuinely interested in how we use our freedom. But theologically I hold to the view that my works will not save me and therefore I do not have to accumulate an impressive list of them to be saved. This could be considered selfishly convenient when it comes to helping poor people or it could be considered liberating in that the lack of obligation makes my decisions to help genuinely Christian ones when I make them.

Well, to my way of thinking there are two things here - one is appropriate levels of help, and throwing money at people without other work is not help. So helping someone out of debt, without helping them to understand how important it is to stay out of debt, just seems like wasting everyones time. The other is The kind of help that is given in the first place. If someone has worked themselves out of debt, then they are less likely to get back into it again. If they have just been bailed out then they have less of a sense of how much work has gone into that. CAP (Christians Against Poverty) are a good example of how engaging with debt problems can really work.

In this case this advice process was done. The shock is that you take a risk on helping someone, who then betrays your confidence in their ability to change for the better. Does that undermine the act of giving - no,but it is a lesson in reality.

That's interesting, there is a kind of educational schism on that subject. The UK starts much earlier than a lot of European countries. However it doesn't deliver better results. I'm not that clear on the theories behind it, although my mum - who is a teacher talks about some of it sometimes. I am interested in how much of our education system and our approach to it has come from a purist approach to learning, and how much of it is about childcare and allowing people to work more. Obviously starting mainstream education at age 4 or 5 means that parents who cannot afford childcare are able to work sooner than if it started at 6 or even 7 as I believe it does elsewhere.

Apparently a boys brain is wired so that school really does not do him much good until he is 6- Girls are apparently a year earlier on that. What I miss from the German system is the earlier cultivation of a love of reading that I obtained from the English system. Germans on the other hand suggest that there is a lack of thoroughness and method in the early stages of the Anglo-Saxon education systems which tends towards a certain sloppiness later on. My view is that the German system tends to push the majority of people into an above average state but since the thirties it has lacked the capacity to cultivate true genius which still exists in the British and even more the American systems. The British and American system produces a more unequal society in which more excel and fail. Is the German system simply more effective at picking up on learning disorders earlier on and resolving them or is it stifling the capacity for true individual expression with its straitjacket of rules and requirements and its overly rigid understanding of normality? I am still considering that one.

Yet many commentaries state that 2 Corinthians 2:7 also applies to this person. Where there is a hardness of heart and refusal to change or accept help then little can be done - in my experience it is less of a handing over to Satan, and more than they will walk away having not recieved what they were hoping for. However the vast majority of my experience is with people who are genuinely struggling, desperate for help and willing to take on advice and help in equal measures. I think it's kind of dangerous to set ourselves up as people who are handing people over to satan. I'm really not sure how you think that plays out. And I think there is a long journey to arrive anywhere near that place in relation to aid for those who are struggling.

Except the biblical language used was of a handing over to Satan. I think this must be done after a definite process of escalating warnings- clear explanations and by the authorities of the church rather than lay people. But lay people must respect the decisions of church elders on this when they are made. A great many churches see splits cause people cannot handle the strong nature of such judgments but they are none the less necessary and if done properly will produce good fruit in the long run.

KarateCowboy · May 28, 2012

chris4243 said:
Wouldn't necessarily work. First of all, a few individuals voluntarily paying higher taxes wouldn't add up to that much on a government scale. Second, eventually individuals die. Third, our politicians might decide that the new income merits more tax cuts.

Also, who wants to reward greed and penalize altruism?

gee, maybe if the government did not pee away trillions like its nothing then it would not be that way?

giving money to the government is not altruism. Its wasteful foolishness.

If Gates believes he owes money to the government he is free to pay that obligation. Why does he have to force his morals on everyone else just to pay what he claims is his debt to society?

wanderingone · May 31, 2012

Panzerkampfwagen said:
No.

If someone believes that he or she does not give enough money to the government, why does he or she need the government to force him or her to give more? Is that person incapable of acting on his beliefs?

I'm not sure what he donates on top of his taxes.. but I'd guess since he's not an idiot he comprehends that it will take more than himself and the few others willing to say they don't pay enough to make up for the years and years of tax breaks to people who don't need them (including all those corporate "people")

perplexed · Jun 14, 2012

Faithful Skeptic said:
That's because, like Bill Gates, you are working from the premise that taxes are perfectly permissible and therefore you deny the obligation and avoid the force inherent in it. If someone disagrees, however, and does not wish to be taxed, then that is where force/violence comes in. Say someone didn't want to pay their taxes and therefore chose not to. What do you call it when the IRS comes knocking on their door with guns and handcuffs? If it was me doing that to you without a uniform, wouldn't it be violence? Why does a uniform negate the violence that you would otherwise recognize?

Are you actually talking about Bill gates or are you making a general statement about anyone that suppports any person getting taxed for any reason whatsoever?

ScottishJohn · Jun 21, 2012

mindlight said:
Good to see you back- sorry I am late replying - been unwired for the last 2 weeks.

Like you I am finding it difficult to get a decent amount of time to give this kind of stuff proper thought and reply properly, got a lot on at the moment, but I don't mind working at a slower pace if you don't - gives more time for reflection in between.

mindlight said:
I think Gods taken a big risk on saving us and also he is genuinely interested in how we use our freedom. But theologically I hold to the view that my works will not save me and therefore I do not have to accumulate an impressive list of them to be saved.

Yes I can agree with that - and this really isn't about an impressive list of works. But in James it says that faith without works is dead - and gives a really direct example of how that plays out. I think the way I see this and understand this, is that as Christians our response to what we have received should be to give where we possibly can - insert all the caveats we already dicussed about leaving your kids without food etc - for me this is not about feeling good about myself, or accumulating a list, or any of that - it is more that I feel strongly that if I am not spurred on to do more, to help where I can, to give some of what I have recieved then I am dishonouring what has been done for me, I am not recognising the extent of it, and taking it for granted. The parable of the unforgiving servant is part of this too.

mindlight said:
This could be considered selfishly convenient when it comes to helping poor people or it could be considered liberating in that the lack of obligation makes my decisions to help genuinely Christian ones when I make them.

Yeah I still think we are coming head to head on the obligation thing. I think it is there and real - it still leaves room for us to decide where and how but there is an obligation.

mindlight said:
In this case this advice process was done. The shock is that you take a risk on helping someone, who then betrays your confidence in their ability to change for the better. Does that undermine the act of giving - no,but it is a lesson in reality.

Yeah, I know. It's funny actually, I was talking to the minister I work with the other day. We get a lot of very desperate people coming in to the church, some are honest, some not, some have very complicated stories (usually the dishonest ones) and some have very simple and painful stories. We always offer food, we sometimes offer money. But it is often difficult to work out who is genuine and who is on the make. And we were both saying that either you become very cynical and by doing so run the risk of passing over someone in real need, or you take the chance that every now and again someone will take you for a mug. And we both preferred the latter. But it's not a simple thing to work out. Especially when resources are limited and needs are large.

mindlight said:
Is the German system simply more effective at picking up on learning disorders earlier on and resolving them or is it stifling the capacity for true individual expression with its straitjacket of rules and requirements and its overly rigid understanding of normality? I am still considering that one.

I guess culture is something else to chuck in the mix, and that has an impact. I think from my own perspective where we really do fail is in the period from birth to 3 years when nursery places become available. That is such a crucial time for development, and really it's there that an affinity for language develops and other important developments in the brain and so on. The report Frank Fields did for David Cameron called the foundations years goes into this in detail and recommends that our investment in education would bear so much more fruit if we were more careful and intentional about the gap between anti natal care and nursery, because by the time a child hits 21 months - a lot of their brain pathways and their capacity to develop are already determined and in the best case that means a child ready to learn and soak up new stuff, but often it means a child who is going to need a lifetime of extra support and remedial help. Just for the lack of attention in those crucial months. Extra support for parents who are struggling can make a world of difference to the outcomes here.

mindlight said:
Except the biblical language used was of a handing over to Satan.

Yeah I've done a bit of thinking and reading on this, and I think what I was objecting to was the sense of power and judgement in this. I think how I would understand, and how some of the commentators seem to understand this, is that it is reflecting the fact that Satan is ruler of this world, and that in excommunicating someone you are placing them outside of the church, which feels different from the sense that you are actually consigning them to hell or given power to judge them once and for all. I guess in that context it makes more sense, and feels more appropriate, particularly when the same passage is linked to the following one where some commentators suggest that this process can be reversed in the face of repentance and accepting discipline. It's kind of unhelpful language tho.

mindlight said:
I think this must be done after a definite process of escalating warnings- clear explanations and by the authorities of the church rather than lay people. But lay people must respect the decisions of church elders on this when they are made. A great many churches see splits cause people cannot handle the strong nature of such judgments but they are none the less necessary and if done properly will produce good fruit in the long run.

It is pretty hard. And elders are as fallible as the next person. I don't know if I've ever seen this done well, although lots of people leave or are asked to leave churches, most of the time when I end up hearing the stories I end up sympathising more with those who have been excluded than with the leadership. Power is a dangerous thing to wield, and more often wielded poorly than well. But it is a good principle - it's more the working out of the practise where it comes unstuck.

mindlight · Jun 24, 2012

ScottishJohn said:
Like you I am finding it difficult to get a decent amount of time to give this kind of stuff proper thought and reply properly, got a lot on at the moment, but I don't mind working at a slower pace if you don't - gives more time for reflection in between.

This is one of the advantages of a forum format like this. It is good to hear what you have to say.

Yes I can agree with that - and this really isn't about an impressive list of works. But in James it says that faith without works is dead - and gives a really direct example of how that plays out. I think the way I see this and understand this, is that as Christians our response to what we have received should be to give where we possibly can - insert all the caveats we already dicussed about leaving your kids without food etc - for me this is not about feeling good about myself, or accumulating a list, or any of that - it is more that I feel strongly that if I am not spurred on to do more, to help where I can, to give some of what I have recieved then I am dishonouring what has been done for me, I am not recognising the extent of it, and taking it for granted. The parable of the unforgiving servant is part of this too.

This reminds me of conversations I have with my wife occasionally. She asks me why I haven't done so and so yet. I reply Oh I was thinking about that this morning but have not quite got round to it yet. She usually then goads me into immediate action. We do what we can, but energy and motivation are key. Sometimes there is a flood of activity and othertimes a complete lull. Slavery is probably the most effective way of compelling people to do things but not necessarily the right things. Solomon was the most effective of Israels kings but prepared the way for the split of his kingdom and its perpetual divided weakness relative to the enemies that would one day destroy it. Maybe we need the grand state plans of a Solommon to feel like we are organised and doing something but the long term cost of these plans and these lifestyles only becomes apparent in subsequent generations.

Yeah I still think we are coming head to head on the obligation thing. I think it is there and real - it still leaves room for us to decide where and how but there is an obligation.

Again this is like my wife nagging me for something I know I should be doing but just have not summoned the energy for right now. The roots of this passion to do what is right lie in a relationship with God but with a great many Christians there is little overflow into society.

Yeah, I know. It's funny actually, I was talking to the minister I work with the other day. We get a lot of very desperate people coming in to the church, some are honest, some not, some have very complicated stories (usually the dishonest ones) and some have very simple and painful stories. We always offer food, we sometimes offer money. But it is often difficult to work out who is genuine and who is on the make. And we were both saying that either you become very cynical and by doing so run the risk of passing over someone in real need, or you take the chance that every now and again someone will take you for a mug. And we both preferred the latter. But it's not a simple thing to work out. Especially when resources are limited and needs are large.

Also in the age of the welfare state certain issues are really not the churches primary concern. People may lose their cars but they will not starve in todays world. I sometimes think the church is too focused on stuff where it is not needed or where rather its agenda has already been implemented in the structures and instituitions of society. The churches core competencies if you like lie in the area of motivations, instruction about right and wrong, salvation, the root and branch transformation of personalities, counselling etc.

I guess culture is something else to chuck in the mix, and that has an impact. I think from my own perspective where we really do fail is in the period from birth to 3 years when nursery places become available. That is such a crucial time for development, and really it's there that an affinity for language develops and other important developments in the brain and so on. The report Frank Fields did for David Cameron called the foundations years goes into this in detail and recommends that our investment in education would bear so much more fruit if we were more careful and intentional about the gap between anti natal care and nursery, because by the time a child hits 21 months - a lot of their brain pathways and their capacity to develop are already determined and in the best case that means a child ready to learn and soak up new stuff, but often it means a child who is going to need a lifetime of extra support and remedial help. Just for the lack of attention in those crucial months. Extra support for parents who are struggling can make a world of difference to the outcomes here.

This is really true. In the USA many parents will be out working their jobs to pay for their kids, they will take virtually no holiday and thus spend virtually no time with their kids. These children grow up parentless and unguided. In the UK the cost of childcare is a major issue and one of the reasons we emigrated along with the cost of affordable family friendly housing. But in such a crowded island you might argue about whether we should be encouraging people to breed but they will anyway regardless. Also I do not know whether Bill gates taxes should be covering this or private initiatives or a combination of both. In Germany if you can get child care places then life can actually be quite comfortable and the culture here encourages a better work life balance. Privately owned kindergartens thrive or flounder based on how they handle the incomes they receive for their children from people and from the government. I think in practice that is probably the best balance. That taxes from rich single people should to some extent subsidise the childcare of kids, These single people will afterall be dependent on the taxes these children pay later which will support them in their retirements. Dodging taxes is an issue because in a sense it is unfair and ignores social resposnibilities. But so also are taxes that are too heavy.

Yeah I've done a bit of thinking and reading on this, and I think what I was objecting to was the sense of power and judgement in this. I think how I would understand, and how some of the commentators seem to understand this, is that it is reflecting the fact that Satan is ruler of this world, and that in excommunicating someone you are placing them outside of the church, which feels different from the sense that you are actually consigning them to hell or given power to judge them once and for all. I guess in that context it makes more sense, and feels more appropriate, particularly when the same passage is linked to the following one where some commentators suggest that this process can be reversed in the face of repentance and accepting discipline. It's kind of unhelpful language tho.

It is pretty hard. And elders are as fallible as the next person. I don't know if I've ever seen this done well, although lots of people leave or are asked to leave churches, most of the time when I end up hearing the stories I end up sympathising more with those who have been excluded than with the leadership. Power is a dangerous thing to wield, and more often wielded poorly than well. But it is a good principle - it's more the working out of the practise where it comes unstuck.

I would take this case by case. There are examples of good decisions and examples of really bad ones by elders. But the principle itself is there. Maybe the language has conotations today that hide the real meaning. Bt either way it is a harsh thing that people probably have always found hard to accept. Discipline hurts but people should learn from it.

PROPAIN · Jul 30, 2012

ScottishJohn said:
Originally Posted by publius
Why? If they're compelled to pay, then it's not "donating" and its certainly not charity.

What difference does that make?

A greater distinction could not be made within the realm of social science. Not recognizing this leaves one grossly ill-equipped to understand economics, sociology, etc.

Not only that, but your failure to make a moral discernment between giving away the fruit of one's own labor and it being taken away by the threat of force is deeply concerning.

ScottishJohn · Sep 21, 2012

PROPAIN said:
A greater distinction could not be made within the realm of social science. Not recognizing this leaves one grossly ill-equipped to understand economics, sociology, etc.

Not only that, but your failure to make a moral discernment between giving away the fruit of one's own labor and it being taken away by the threat of force is deeply concerning.

You've jumped in part of the way through the discussion and not really understood the conversation. If you go back through and read the whole exchange you'll see it is not the distinction between giving and taxation that is being questioned, but the circumstances where either is appropriate.

Having said that - I'm not sure there's much fruit likely to come out of that particular part of the discussion. To live in and benefit from a western state, and still view taxation as something akin to violence is a fairly extreme position.

For a state to function there must be taxation of some kind, so objecting to tax on a moral basis is in fact an objection to the existence of a state. The threat of force is a far more real and pressing issue in failed states where taxation cannot be collected, and the laws cannot be enforced. It then falls to each individual to look after them and theirs, the strongest and most violet prosper and the weakest and most vulnerable are left to perish. I've noticed that often in discussion with folk from the USA who are rightly proud of the pioneer history of their nation, this sense of we all look after ourselves, comes to the fore. However it is a romanticised version - the reality being that they live in what is in most ways a well developed country, with most of the safeguards provided by a modern state, and do not have to face the realities that Somalians for example have to live with from day to day. And would perhaps not cope very well with those realities - despite the fact that the ideals they describe have more in common with the de facto system in Somalia than the relative comfort and security of the USA.

Given that there must be some form of taxation, and laying aside the 'collection by force' nonsense, the argument then becomes about what is an appropriate level and distribution of taxation. Which is kind of where this discussion started.

Bill Gates: I don't pay enough tax!

Contributor

See in the dark

Contributor

See in the dark

Contributor

See in the dark

Contributor

Publius

Guest

See in the dark

Contributor

Publius

Guest

Contributor

See in the dark

Classical liberal

I'm not lost I'm just wandering

Senior Member

Contributor

See in the dark

Newbie

Contributor

Similar threads