Jesus and Government

[nolongerhome]

One sentiment that I see regularly on this forum can be summarised like this:

In the Bible Jesus tells us to show compassion for the downtrodden, give them aid when they are unable to give it to themselves - in fact, he says that when we help such people we are actually helping him (I was hungry and you gave...). However, he says that we personally should help them, he doesn't talk about the government! Therefore, it is wrong for the government to act in the way that Jesus would have us act as individuals.

This has always confused me, and I have a few questions:

In democratic countries in which the government is of, by and for the people, that is it is representative of the people, why is there such a distinction?

If the government, as the amalgamation of the wealth (in various senses of the word) of the people, is better able to help others in the way Jesus would have us help others than individuals alone, due to efficiencies of scale for instance, why shouldn't it take on that role? Surely all together acting in unison through the government is a better way to offer help to as many people as possible, rather than disparate individuals doing good with no overall organisation?

Why do the same people that argue that the USA in particular is a "Christian Nation" argue that the government should not act in a way that follows Christ's teachings?

 

[rambot]

Conceptually speaking, I find people that espouse that opinion tend to have an improperly balanced perspective that lends them to love/hoard their money. Too much concern for their funds (how many of these complainers have food, shelter, and clothing I feel they need more) starts to give me the impression they solely want the work of men done and not the work of God (spend money on defense, not social security). Tax issues are only important issues when the money is spent how they do not want the money spent.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Jesus(PBUH) did say that we should give to the poor; however, he did not say it should be mandatory. Government's imposing taxation on it's citizens in order to feed the poor and homeless is not what he had in mind. Yes, we as a society should do more for these people, but it's a voluntary basis.

Mixing religion with politics is never a good thing, especially since men are so susceptible to evil. Take the Crusades, or the perversion of Islam in some MidEast and African nations today. These examples are not what any of the prophets had spoke about.

 

[Axioma]

Jesus(PBUH) did say that we should give to the poor; however, he did not say it should be mandatory.

Funny, I thought that he said that if you wanted to follow him, you should give away everything you own.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Funny, I thought that he said that if you wanted to follow him, you should give away everything you own.

Maybe, but that doesn't mean he made it mandatory for governments to impose this upon the people.

 

[Lokke]

Funny, I thought that he said that if you wanted to follow him, you should give away everything you own.

överens med,this was in time of Jesus you give everything you own.i f you do this today you will be in the street and people will not help you. people will laugh at you.

 

[clirus]

One sentiment that I see regularly on this forum can be summarised like this:

In the Bible Jesus tells us to show compassion for the downtrodden, give them aid when they are unable to give it to themselves - in fact, he says that when we help such people we are actually helping him (I was hungry and you gave...). However, he says that we personally should help them, he doesn't talk about the government! Therefore, it is wrong for the government to act in the way that Jesus would have us act as individuals.

This has always confused me, and I have a few questions:

In democratic countries in which the government is of, by and for the people, that is it is representative of the people, why is there such a distinction?

If the government, as the amalgamation of the wealth (in various senses of the word) of the people, is better able to help others in the way Jesus would have us help others than individuals alone, due to efficiencies of scale for instance, why shouldn't it take on that role? Surely all together acting in unison through the government is a better way to offer help to as many people as possible, rather than disparate individuals doing good with no overall organisation?

Why do the same people that argue that the USA in particular is a "Christian Nation" argue that the government should not act in a way that follows Christ's teachings?

I believe the fatal flaw in this concept is, "If the government, as the amalgamation of the wealth..." The Bible says God owns everything and not the government.

If your dependence is on the government then you will worship the government. If your dependence is on God you will worship God.

I believe there must be a distinction between needy and self inflicted needy the same way there needs to be a distinction between good and evil. Since the government cannot make those distinctions in a pluralistic society, the government should stay out of health care/welfare that tends to benefit the self inflicted needy.

In too many cases, the self inflicted needy are because of willful rejection of the commandments/doctrines of the Bible. Until there is an acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and a commitment to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible, health care/welfare will do little good.

Another fatal flaw is that America is a Christian Nation. America was a Christian Nation, but now the government has legalized inappropriate contentography, abortion and homosexuality. The New Testament is for Christians and has meaning only in terms of Christians. New Testament concepts cannot be applied to Atheists. Atheists are still under the law of the Old Testament.

When the American government returns to being controlled by Christians, then health care/welfare can be considered, but an American government controlled by Atheists will abuse health care/welfare.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I believe there must be a distinction between needy and self inflicted needy the same way there needs to be a distinction between good and evil. Since the government cannot make those distinctions in a pluralistic society, the government should stay out of health care/welfare that tends to benefit the self inflicted needy.

In too many cases, the self inflicted needy are because of willful rejection of the commandments/doctrines of the Bible. Until there is an acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and a commitment to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible, health care/welfare will do little good.

You have previously exhibited a striking incapacity to understand the causes of poverty, which are numerous, and not simply the causal result of this apparent 'willful rejection of Christ'. If your hypothesis, that poverty is the result of 'willful disobedience' were to hold, then we would expect that religious peoples would not experience poverty and that every rich individual and corporation attained its wealth because of its faith and obedience to Scripture. Reality obscures this hypothesis, for quite often the contrary is true.

In addition, see post #524

Another fatal flaw is that America is a Christian Nation. America was a Christian Nation, but now the government has legalized inappropriate contentography, abortion and homosexuality.

False. You already know why. See the Treaty of Tripoli.

The New Testament is for Christians and has meaning only in terms of Christians. New Testament concepts cannot be applied to Atheists. Atheists are still under the law of the Old Testament.

One law for me another law for my neighbor? Sounds highly hypocritical. Besides which, that claim possesses no Scriptural basis. Jesus didn't say treat one neighbor this way and treat another in a different way.

A society based on this kind of thinking is a society that segregates and oppresses.

When the American government returns to being controlled by Christians, then health care/welfare can be considered, but an American government controlled by Atheists will abuse health care/welfare.

In the same way that you abuse Scripture for your ideological designs?

 

[nolongerhome]

överens med,this was in time of Jesus you give everything you own.i f you do this today you will be in the street and people will not help you. people will laugh at you.

So we shouldn't follow Jesus' instructions literally? We should have some conception of a contextual difference in applying them? How do we work that out?

 

[nolongerhome]

I believe the fatal flaw in this concept is, "If the government, as the amalgamation of the wealth..." The Bible says God owns everything and not the government.

Can the government not act as a terrestrial amalgamation of wealth under the auspices of God? Can it not act as a community of Christians?

If your dependence is on the government then you will worship the government. If your dependence is on God you will worship God.

Following from my last response, I don't beleive that this necessarily follows.

I believe there must be a distinction between needy and self inflicted needy the same way there needs to be a distinction between good and evil. Since the government cannot make those distinctions in a pluralistic society, the government should stay out of health care/welfare that tends to benefit the self inflicted needy.

Did Jesus make these kinds of distinctions?

In too many cases, the self inflicted needy are because of willful rejection of the commandments/doctrines of the Bible. Until there is an acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and a commitment to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible, health care/welfare will do little good.

I don't think warrants much of a response because it is ridiculously false.

Another fatal flaw is that America is a Christian Nation. America was a Christian Nation, but now the government has legalized inappropriate contentography, abortion and homosexuality. The New Testament is for Christians and has meaning only in terms of Christians. New Testament concepts cannot be applied to Atheists. Atheists are still under the law of the Old Testament.

When the American government returns to being controlled by Christians, then health care/welfare can be considered, but an American government controlled by Atheists will abuse health care/welfare.

So... to summarise your position:

The government should be involved in looking after all its citizens, but only when those citizens are all Christians (how far does this definition go? Catholics ok?) and the government is all Christian. Until such a time as that is true, the government should not care for its citizens, Christian and non-Christian alike, because of the chance that non-Christians will benefit.

Do you really think that if Jesus came down to Earth today, that is the kind of attitude he would take?

Personally, I think he would be disgusted by it.

 

[ReverendDG]

Personally, I think he would be disgusted by it.

i think he would be too, rejecting those who aren't christian is a great way to not get them more accepting of christianity.
i believe the goal of christians is to make disciples of people right? also helping those that need help would be considered fruit of the spirit right?

unless magically jesus's commandments now have "except if they don't already believe in me" on the end, i'd say clirus is just flat out wrong on every count.

 

[neutronium_alice]

I would recommend reading Thomas Woods, Jr.'s book The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy. I am not a Christian myself, so I will refrain from commenting on issues of theology, but I found his book to be a very interesting and thoughtful look at Christianity and the economy. I specifically mention this because I think the 'economy' is in essence the whole of politics, in my view there are no rights without property rights.

 

[Quasicentennial]

I can imagine God's kingdom to arrive on a new planet Earth in the future. Christians are ambassadors who all at the same level. There is no high class, middle class and low class. As perfect human beings, we can share our ideas and communicate each other with no problems of understanding each other. Christians know that staying young and alive forever is only possible by accepting Jesus Christ but not through science of advanced health such as mutivitamins, or cosmetics. Christians - who don't have to worry about losing their lives in accidents, from disease and violence - can accomplish their plans in education and work. False religions such as Scientology cannot solve violence and disease because they are evil spiritual attacks and not just psychological or body chemical attacks.

 

[nolongerhome]

I specifically mention this because I think the 'economy' is in essence the whole of politics, in my view there are no rights without property rights.

I don't particularly want to derail this thread, but I would love to hear the justification for this. While there is something to the first half of the sentence, I think the second half is quite clearly flawed.

 

[neutronium_alice]

I don't particularly want to derail this thread, but I would love to hear the justification for this.

All conflicts in reality are over the disposition of material resources. If a person does not have private property, they have no freedom whatsoever. No government has ever made anyone 'freer'.

 

[nolongerhome]

I think I need to come at this from another angle to get a productive conversation - what do you consider to be the definition of "a right"?

 

[Verv]

One sentiment that I see regularly on this forum can be summarised like this:

In the Bible Jesus tells us to show compassion for the downtrodden, give them aid when they are unable to give it to themselves - in fact, he says that when we help such people we are actually helping him (I was hungry and you gave...). However, he says that we personally should help them, he doesn't talk about the government! Therefore, it is wrong for the government to act in the way that Jesus would have us act as individuals.

Yes, separation of Church and State for the USA.

This has always confused me, and I have a few questions:

In democratic countries in which the government is of, by and for the people, that is it is representative of the people, why is there such a distinction?

Because we do not want to impose our religion on all of the inhabitants and/or the inhabitants did not want us to impose our religion on them.

If the government, as the amalgamation of the wealth (in various senses of the word) of the people, is better able to help others in the way Jesus would have us help others than individuals alone, due to efficiencies of scale for instance, why shouldn't it take on that role? Surely all together acting in unison through the government is a better way to offer help to as many people as possible, rather than disparate individuals doing good with no overall organisation?

Because a giant, powerful government often simply becomes corrupt or uses its power for improper ways; it is best to have a weak government that allows the people to have more power sot hat they can act in the ways that they see fit; rather than have the government force things upon us, we ought to do what we want with our freedom.

The maximization of individual liberty leads to greater happiness and also to harder work as people learn they cannot be dependent on a handout.

Why do the same people that argue that the USA in particular is a "Christian Nation" argue that the government should not act in a way that follows Christ's teachings?

Because the role of the government is to protect us, not to be a charity or to be our Church.

We have learned that when we combine religious and political institutions both institutions look the worst for it.

 

[neutronium_alice]

I think I need to come at this from another angle to get a productive conversation - what do you consider to be the definition of "a right"?

For one, I only take 'right' to be metaphorical language, since the only meaningful use of the term 'right' I have ever heard is the corollary of a duty which is established by contract. That being said, my views on justice are (somewhat) simple. I take the view that justice is, and can only coherently mean (abuse of language aside) 'to each his own', and that these can only be defended epistemically in terms of liberties being bounded by specific torts, interference with liberties requires justification on the part of those who would interfere in each and every circumstance. Property is simply liberty, that is the liberty to do what you please naturally includes the liberty to do so with material objects. When a dispute between property claims arises the presumption of liberty exists on both sides, and it can only be arbitrated according to some coherent ontological connection between the actor and the disputed object, either by contract or by proof of normal and antecedent liberty to act toward the claimed property, IE "finder's, keepers" and "first come, first serve".

It is my view that so called 'social' justice, and the various redistributionist and statist authority regimes simply can not stand an epistemic test of this sort and are simply arbitrary declaration and coercion, and whatever they may be (you may even think they are 'moral') they are quite simply not 'justice', and no one can be normatively required to comply with them against his will.

 

[Matthew_18:14]

In response to the poster. Here is my take on what Jesus said. Jesus wants us to do things on an individual scale to help others. In some instances government is the best way to get things done. Defense, infrastructure (e.g. roads, bridges, etc...), and protection (e.g. police and fire) would be the three biggest that I can think of. But when it comes to other services we have to start looking at things from a different perspective. Money is power and with power comes freedom. By giving a large portion of our money to government we give our freedom away. Eventually you end up with a government that is so power hungry that they become morally corrupt and will stop at nothing to keep control (i.e. China - a fascist state now).

So we have to decide, do we give the government all of our money, so they can take care of us and tell us what to do, or do we keep control of our money and work in other ways to help the poor/sick/homeless. I see socialism as the wrong way to go because it forces individuals to give over there money to help others out. By doing this you give control of your freedom over to the state, which is something that I don't want to do.

If we all lived as Jesus and his disciples did then we wouldn't have the problems we have, but of course, that is why Jesus died on the cross for us.

 

[nolongerhome]

For one, I only take 'right' to be metaphorical language, since the only meaningful use of the term 'right' I have ever heard is the corollary of a duty which is established by contract. That being said, my views on justice are (somewhat) simple. I take the view that justice is, and can only coherently mean (abuse of language aside) 'to each his own', and that these can only be defended epistemically in terms of liberties being bounded by specific torts, interference with liberties requires justification on the part of those who would interfere in each and every circumstance. Property is simply liberty, that is the liberty to do what you please naturally includes the liberty to do so with material objects. When a dispute between property claims arises the presumption of liberty exists on both sides, and it can only be arbitrated according to some coherent ontological connection between the actor and the disputed object, either by contract or by proof of normal and antecedent liberty to act toward the claimed property, IE "finder's, keepers" and "first come, first serve".

It is my view that so called 'social' justice, and the various redistributionist and statist authority regimes simply can not stand an epistemic test of this sort and are simply arbitrary declaration and coercion, and whatever they may be (you may even think they are 'moral') they are quite simply not 'justice', and no one can be normatively required to comply with them against his will.

This interest me, because in another thread you stated that society doesn't exist, but now you are framing the concept of a right, including your fundamental right to property, as a socially constructed relationship relating duties/obligations/privileges, and I would agree that we need to understand rights as such. I'm not sure if you can have it both ways like this - if there is no society, how do we socially construct our rights discourse?

The fact you go down this definitional path also, I believe, disproves your claim that the fundamental right is the right to property. I would suggest you read some Hannah Arendt, particularly when she discusses the notion of "the right to have rights". Arednt agrees that the discourse of rights is an intrinsically social discourse, the conception and enforcement of the discourse depends on agreement within a society about what its rights will be and how they will be enforced. What all this demonstrates to Arendt, and I agree with her on this point, is that the fundamental right must the "right to have rights", which basically means the right to belong to a society such that is capable of maintaining a rights discourse.

Thus, the right to be a part of society is the fundamental right. Any further rights stem from how that society chooses to operate itself. The fact that in a capitalist economy money = power = freedom doesn't mean that the same equation would work in a society that chose to emphasise different rights and a different conception of freedom. That doesn't mean that people in a different system are necessarily less free, they may just be free in a different way. You claim that for the society to chose a path of redistribution or statism is "arbitrary coercion". I make the counter claim that the decision to use the right to property as the fundamental rule of a society simply involves a different, indeed inverted, form of arbitrary coercion.

In the end, a society that uses the right to property as the basis for its rights discourse is a society that allows true freedom for the few at the expense of the many. It is a society that accepts, or rather enshrines, the fact that might is right. It isn't a society that I would chose to live in.