Is your religion making Americans poor.

RDKirk said:

Any careful bible reader knows that the Jews paid much more than 10% for social purposes. Not only were there two annual 10% tithes, but there was another tri-annual 10% tithe.

There was also the requirement to avoid efficient harvest methods and allow the poor to glean the resultant significant remainder. There was the requirement to lend without interest and then to forgive debts entirely every seven years. There was the requirement to return land that had been bought and paid for back to the original family every 50 years. There was the requirement to release all debt slaves every fifty years. All of those were "taxes" on the wealthy under the Mosaic Law.

Click to expand...

Oh absolutely, but were those something enforced (by force) by the state or the grievance would need to be taken to elders?

10% though is 10%; not 25-28%. Unless you're suggesting the effective tithe rate was equal or north of what we contribute in taxation; from sales tax, to property tax, to income tax, to SSI to Medicare.

GingerBeer said:

God gave laws to Israel to return the land to its inheritors and to prevent wealth being amassed in the hands of a few while the many suffered in poverty so you light try consulting those laws and then ask your legislators why they are not working to pass similar laws suited to the times and condition of Americans. Or do you think God is a socialist? If he is then why aren't you?

Click to expand...

I think that it is a good thing that the US is not a theocracy. Asking legislators to change it into one is a bad idea.

98cwitr said:

Oh absolutely, but were those something enforced (by force) by the state or the grievance would need to be taken to elders?

Click to expand...

This is the Mosaic Law we're talking about. There was no separation of religion and state.

10% though is 10%; not 25-28%. Unless you're suggesting the effective tithe rate was equal or north of what we contribute in taxation; from sales tax, to property tax, to income tax, to SSI to Medicare.[/QUOTE]

Two annual tithes would be 20%. If the third was due every three years, then annually it was another 3.3%. That's 23% in tithes alone.

Farmers were forbidden to harvest the corners of their fields and were forbidden harvest efficiently. That had to have been at least a 10% loss of yield.

And then, God expected widows and orphans to be supported regardless the additional cost.

GingerBeer said:

Yet for all that you say God nevertheless gave Israel laws enforced by the state and also by society to return the land to its inheritors, provide gleaning for the poor, to show kindness to strangers from foreign lands, and to remember how Israel itself was once in servile labour under Egyptian tyranny so that Israel would never treat its strangers from foreign lands so poorly. And Jesus taught that the last judgement would be about how one reacted to the hungry, thirsty, poor, naked, imprisoned and so forth (see Matthew 25:31-46) so maybe the idea that you gave is a mistaken separation of godliness from social justice.

Click to expand...

Of course. And we do that now, from an individual level all the way to federal. I don't find Jesus ever petitioning the Roman government to fulfill the needs of the poor; but charging believers with that task. So we need not leverage government for social securities and aid, but churches, charities, and people of the faith. But as Paul also said:

2 Thessalonians 3:10 [Full Chapter]
For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

And what do we hear from those pushing for more social programs?

A line on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's website supporting "economic security to all those who are unable or unwilling to work" triggered backlash this week and prompted mixed messages from her team about where the line came from.

Click to expand...

Outline - Read & annotate without distractions

So to answer the OP question in the title. It's not my religion, but it's our secular government that incentivizes poverty, and ensures that programs create systemic, generational poverty that discourages people from getting out of it.

RDKirk said:

Any careful bible reader knows that the Jews paid much more than 10% for social purposes. Not only were there two annual 10% tithes, but there was another tri-annual 10% tithe.

There was also the requirement to avoid efficient harvest methods and allow the poor to glean the resultant significant remainder. There was the requirement to lend without interest and then to forgive debts entirely every seven years. There was the requirement to return land that had been bought and paid for back to the original family every 50 years. There was the requirement to release all debt slaves every fifty years. All of those were "taxes" on the wealthy under the Mosaic Law.

Moreover, the extreme and consistent absolute denunciation by God of the Jews' failure to care for widows and the fatherless makes it clear that Jews with resources were expected to make sure those vulnerable populations were cared for over and above the legally required provisions.

Click to expand...

those 10% tithes were not earmarked for social purposes. They were to run the Temple and the state not to be shared with the poor. That is why all those other rules were in place not as additional help for the needy to the 10% tithe but as the only required assistance to the needy. But again, Israel was a theocracy the US is not. And as a secular state the US has an extremely large system of wealth redistribution. I would say it is much larger than anything biblical Israel ever thought of attempting.

RDKirk said:

This is the Mosaic Law we're talking about. There was no separation of religion and state.

10% though is 10%; not 25-28%. Unless you're suggesting the effective tithe rate was equal or north of what we contribute in taxation; from sales tax, to property tax, to income tax, to SSI to Medicare.

Two annual tithes would be 20%. If the third was due every three years, then annually it was another 3.3%. That's 23% in tithes alone.

Farmers were forbidden to harvest the corners of their fields and were forbidden harvest efficiently. That had to have been at least a 10% loss of yield.

And then, God expected widows and orphans to be supported regardless the additional cost.

Click to expand...

And if the farmers failed to pay their tithe?

RDKirk said:

This is the Mosaic Law we're talking about. There was no separation of religion and state.

10% though is 10%; not 25-28%. Unless you're suggesting the effective tithe rate was equal or north of what we contribute in taxation; from sales tax, to property tax, to income tax, to SSI to Medicare.

Two annual tithes would be 20%. If the third was due every three years, then annually it was another 3.3%. That's 23% in tithes alone.

Farmers were forbidden to harvest the corners of their fields and were forbidden harvest efficiently. That had to have been at least a 10% loss of yield.

And then, God expected widows and orphans to be supported regardless the additional cost.

Click to expand...

And yet we don't find the word "tithe" in the NT; we do find the following:

2 Corinthians 9:7 [Full Chapter]
Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Doesn't say: "What the state has forced you, under penalty of imprisonment, to give"

Again, I'm all for letting us (you and me), the church, the charities, and people of faith handle the needs of the poor. We have a much better way of creating relationships, addressing specific needs, and rooting out fraud and greed than the government does.

grasping the after wind said:

those 10% tithes were not earmarked for social purposes. They were to run the Temple and the state not to be shared with the poor. That is why all those other rules were in place not as additional help for the needy to the 10% tithe but as the only required assistance to the needy.

Click to expand...

That would have been only the tri-annual tithe. And monies collected for the temple would still be "social" purposes.

And it is disingenuous in the extreme to pretend "all those other rules" weren't just as effective as " wealth redistribution" as something explicitly called a "tithe."

But again, Israel was a theocracy the US is not. And as a secular state the US has an extremely large system of wealth redistribution. I would say it is much larger than anything biblical Israel ever thought of attempting.

Click to expand...

Probably not when, again, you remember that above all other specified requirements for income redistribution, the Jews were still required to make sure the needs of widows and orphans were met.

RDKirk said:

the Jews were still required to make sure the needs of widows and orphans were met.

Click to expand...

That's extremely specific. Are you advocating we get that specific when it comes to secular welfare?

98cwitr said:

And yet we don't find the word "tithe" in the NT; we do find the following:

2 Corinthians 9:7 [Full Chapter]
Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Doesn't say: "What the state has forced you, under penalty of imprisonment, to give"

Again, I'm all for letting us (you and me), the church, the charities, and people of faith handle the needs of the poor. We have a much better way of creating relationships, addressing specific needs, and rooting out fraud and greed than the government does.

Click to expand...

And in the New Testament we find this, even more extreme:

The goal is equality. As it is written, "The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little." -- 2 Corinthians 8

You desperately want to ignore that, just the way David Jeremiah skipped over it.

98cwitr said:

That's extremely specific. Are you advocating we get that specific when it comes to secular welfare?

Click to expand...

Most Americans still claim to be Christian and most of the poor also claim to be Christian.

Poverty in America--just like abortion, for that matter--is primarily a failure of people who call themselves Christian. Both would be only a fraction of their numbers if Christians behaved the way the Lord tells us to behave.

Or else we need to get tough and clear about who is really a Christian and who is not.

RDKirk said:

That would have been only the tri-annual tithe. And monies collected for the temple would still be "social" purposes.

And it is disingenuous in the extreme to pretend "all those other rules" weren't just as effective as " wealth redistribution" as something explicitly called a "tithe."



Probably not when, again, you remember that above all other specified requirements for income redistribution, the Jews were still required to make sure the needs of widows and orphans were met.

Click to expand...

In the US the needs are just the tip of the iceberg of what the government requires itself to deliver to not only widows and orphans and the homeless but to people who already have the means to take care of their basic needs without the government help.

RDKirk said:

And in the New Testament we find this, even more extreme:

The goal is equality. As it is written, "The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little." -- 2 Corinthians 8

You desperately want to ignore that, just the way David Jeremiah skipped over it.

Click to expand...

Well look at the verse right before that:

Entirely on their own, 4 they urgently pleaded with us for the privilege of sharing in this service to the Lord’s people.

Entirely on the own! Not coerced. Not threatened. Not assaulted. Not usurped. Freely gave.

13 Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. 14 At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need.

This is not the socialist narrative. The narrative of socialism results with everyone in poverty except the filthy rich and the politicians. How many times must history prove this to us? Only when everyone is poor with true equity be achieved.

RDKirk said:

Most Americans still claim to be Christian and most of the poor also claim to be Christian.

Poverty in America--just like abortion, for that matter--is primarily a failure of people who call themselves Christian. Both would be only a fraction of their numbers if Christians behaved the way the Lord tells us to behave.

Or else we need to get tough and clear about who is really a Christian and who is not.

Click to expand...

I advocate for the bolded portion.

98cwitr said:

I advocate for the bolded portion.

Click to expand...

And those not Christian would include those who are not striving to meet the needs of the poor.

QUOTE="GingerBeer, post: 73967338, member: 396516"]The USA is driven by corporate profit and governed by politicians who are in the pockets of corporate lobbyists and churches are busy making people believe that this is all good and godly and right and as things ought to be. When things go wrong how many pulpits are filled by men and women preaching
But the scriptures are not written to make people docile. Injustice is not to be accepted. Wealth and power are not to be taken by the strong and denied to the less strong, the old, widows, orphans, the weak, and the poor. The prophets railed against Israel's kings, nobles, and religious leaders when the poor were left homeless in poverty. How much more should churches be doing the same - railing against injustice and poverty and fighting to have it redressed. How much more should christian voters be voting to prevent wealth from being accumulated in the hands of a very small number of families while millions are in abject poverty? So is your religion making Americans poor?[/QUOTE
===================================================

Are Americans poor? Does it make any difference to anyone ?

The Ekklesia in the New Testament, first centuries, and later years, Anabaptists and others, were (and are today) voluntarily poor.

98cwitr said:

Well look at the verse right before that:

Entirely on their own, 4 they urgently pleaded with us for the privilege of sharing in this service to the Lord’s people.

Entirely on the own! Not coerced. Not threatened. Not assaulted. Not usurped. Freely gave.

13 Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. 14 At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need.

This is not the socialist narrative. The narrative of socialism results with everyone in poverty except the filthy rich and the politicians. How many times must history prove this to us? Only when everyone is poor with true equity be achieved.

Click to expand...

I keep giving you scripture and you keep talking about socialism.

That is the consistent and typical ploy of the American Christian who just doesn't want to do what the Lord clearly tells him to do.

RDKirk said:

Most Americans still claim to be Christian and most of the poor also claim to be Christian.

Poverty in America--just like abortion, for that matter--is primarily a failure of people who call themselves Christian. Both would be only a fraction of their numbers if Christians behaved the way the Lord tells us to behave.

Or else we need to get tough and clear about who is really a Christian and who is not.

Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question: Should we be caring specifically for widows and orphans moreso than able-bodied people? This insinuates the culture of the times, where widows did not and were not able to obtain gainful employment and income...now they can.

RDKirk said:

I keep giving you scripture and you keep talking about socialism.

That is the consistent and typical ploy of the American Christian who just doesn't want to do what the Lord clearly tells him to do.

Click to expand...

I give you Scripture clarifying your position and telling you it's not socialism. I don't support government forced socialism. It fails and hurts millions of people. I advocate and look forward to Godly socialism, where the kingdoms of the Earth are gone and we are all under Yahweh. There will be no more presidents, or politicians, or governments, and we wont need them because all the goats have been separated from the sheep and there is no evil left in the world. Under that singular instance can socialism work; all other ways are by fallible man and they fail at a rate of 100%.

GingerBeer said:

It seems to me that Jesus liked social justice enough to declare that the last judgement will pivot on what social justice Christians did and what social justice mere professors of Christ failed to do. That looks like the theme in Matthew 25:31-46.

Click to expand...

But there's a difference between calling the Church (the people of God) to be involved in social justice and calling churches (local organised communities) to be involved in that. The difference is that when we insist that local churches become social justice initiatives, then we begin to enrol churches into political movements.

And besides, I could argue that Matthew 25 does not actually refer to mainstream social justice as it is practiced today, which is politically motivated, as much as it is about the individual Christian or a collective group simply caring for others.

And furthermore, there's more to the Bible than Matt 25, which you do know. We are to also believe in Christ, preach the good news etc.

The thing is that your OP seems to have political tones, and I don't think calling local churches to political movements (social justice and otherwise) is a good thing. I think that works directly against Matthew 25 and the gospel. But I do think that Christians could (and in some cases should) be involved in politics, whether individually or collectively.