Liberal Christians

[Major1]

I do not recall seeing the tithe being a redistributive social welfare tax as in the Levites running a welfare system for the poor, giving them foodstuffs, vouchers, etc., versus perhaps these being money-lenders at no interest?

If that was the case then why was not this appeal to bureaucratic application and enlistment in welfare rolls to receive government income the recourse when Israelites become poor, rather than things such as,

• selling themselves (or being sold) into servanthood, (Leviticus 25:39,47ff) with the owner giving generous severance pay in the seventh year (Deuteronomy 15:9-15) thus stopping a cycle. And;
  
• not harvesting the corners of the field, (Lv. 19:10; 23:22) and also;
  
• letting the land rest the 7th year with the poor being the harvesters (meaning work: Exodus 30 23:11). And;
  
• at the end of every seven years making a release of every creditor of his neighbour, or of his brother, excluding foreigners. (Deuteronomy 15:1-3) And;
• giving to every family per tribes a portion of the conquered land by lot for an inheritance forever. (Numbers 33:53,54)
  
• ever fiftieth year proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants to return every man unto his possession (in case they sold it, such as out of need), and every man unto his family. (Leviticus 25:10)
  
• And personal charity to brethren who waxed poor, and with loans having no interest, (Leviticus 25:35,36; Deuteronomy 15:7,8; cf. 1 Timothy 6:17,18; 1 John 3:16,17) and;
• not keeping overnight what he placed down as collateral/pledge (Deuteronomy 24:12) and;
• paying workers daily. (Deuteronomy 24:15) And with;
• the same flat tax for rich and poor for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation. (Exodus30:15,16)?

In any case, while you might find support in principal for "redistributive social welfare tax," the devil is in the details, and if you want to use the theocracy of Israel for support and to make it applicable today, you need deal with it as part a whole system, which was opposed to,

1. a welfare system which subsidizes having children due to rampant continued fornication. And fosters;
   
2. absentee fathers, and;
   
3. able persons/recipients who would not seek to be productive. And
   
4. a vast penal system, and;
   
5. redundant overlapping (federal and "tribal") programs providing $ignificant aid for a whole host of issues from childhood up (autism, etc.). Including
6. funding the cost of treatment for a disease primarily caused by a sinful activity the Scriptures only condemn,and even funding so that they may engage in it without becoming infected. And;
   
7. with the support largely being an impersonal means in the mail or similar, And;
   
8. administered by a vast bureaucracy largely staffed by supporters of said system;
   
9. many of who are naive idealistic student of secular schools choosing this employment in order to obtain forgiveness of their remaining significant debt. And with political powers;
   
10. fostering a victim-entitlement mentality, in which all those lack benefits others earned are told they are victims of injustice, and have the right to benefits others earned, and who are generally portrayed as oppressors who need to have more taken from them to provide what the victims are told is their right (thus working against the concept of mercy and grace and acts of gratitude), and by which Communist-type seduction said political powers obtain their power (in the end resulting in dictatorships and the most extreme economic discrepancy), all of which is
    
11. funded by approx. just half the adult population, and;
    
12. with certain benefits for the working poor effectively being a disincentive to work, since recipients quickly lose more benefits for each additional dollar they earn.

And i am sure the list could go on. If this is not what you are defending, then what hypothetical system is it that you condemn conservatives for opposing? Or are the conservatives you condemn hypothetical? If not, where are their posts?

I did not read this before I responded with the above. But before you condemn those who condemn redistributive social welfare taxes you need to objectively understand what manner of animal they are condemning. How would Moses fare in today's elections?


But "poor" needs to be defined. In the OT, a poor man is described as was one who needed his wages (not welfare check) daily, and his cloak (only having one). "Poor" is a relative term and today, "cumulative spending on means-tested federal welfare programs, if converted into cash, would equal $167.65 per day per household living below the poverty level. By comparison, the median household income in 2011 of $50,054 equals $137.13 per day."

And earning too much (and or getting married) can result in substantial loss of benefits:

(Source: Gene Steuerle, blog.governmentwedeserve.org, from A misleading chart on ‘welfare’ spending

Thus, as,

scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, “The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.”[3] In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4] In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

The home of the typical poor family was not overcrowded and was in good repair. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. The typical poor American family was also able to obtain medical care when needed. ...Their living standards are far different from the images of dire deprivation promoted by activists and the mainstream media. - Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?

In addition,

Because to believe in the Lord Jesus, with the faith which is counted for righteousness, (Rm. 4:5) and not simply believe a promise abstract from who and what the One who made it is and says, effects characteristic obedience, and such negative disobedience as ignoring the needy (as well as fostering a indolence) is contrary to saving faith, which is to seek "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:4)

Again, what "poor" means and the conditions and means of providing help is the issue.

So you think America's founders were renegades who made a mistake?

You have yet to show that OT governmental power the OT describes is that which the conservatives you rail (nothing new here) against are opposing.

I missed this admonishment of you for pointing out God's law. Perhaps now you will include me in that list.

Again, where are the Levites mailing out checks and ebtd cards, and the other means I numbered, vs what i bulleted, and how does the latter correspond to what conservatives oppose? It seems you are reading an awful lot into that the 10% tithe meant. And if the gov. decided to only take 10% (though this was more than just money) with the welfare taken out of that, do you think conservatives would oppose it or celebrate?

Before you issue such a sentence, have you shown that they oppose is what the OT teaches in dialog with them?

Or that since it can be Godly, that the form conservatives oppose it just that.

Who are these believers you speak of?

Excellent presentation. There was not a TV, phone or A/C in my fathers house until 1958.

What our friend is proposing is nothing more that "socialism" and that is the 1st step in communism.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Excellent presentation. There was not a TV, phone or A/C in my fathers house until 1958.

You are dating yourself.

What our friend is proposing is nothing more that "socialism" and that is the 1st step in communism.

And I have seen people try to use Acts 2+4 as support for communism, which again, uses only certain aspects which form an incomplete analogy which ignores the distinctions which exclude it as being valid support for what they use it for.

 

[Major1]

You are dating yourself.

And I have seen people try to use Acts 2+4 as support for communism, which again, uses only certain aspects which form an incomplete analogy which ignores the distinctions which exclude it as being valid support for what they use it for.

Agreed. And the real concern here is that Communism id an ANTI-CHRIST religion based in Atheism.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Agreed. And the real concern here is that Communism id an ANTI-CHRIST religion based in Atheism.

(Note: see changes in edited post to Vicomte13] Yes, and the issue is not whether the required OT system of tithes which was used for the Levites and for the poor can correspond in principle to government taxes being used for admin support and to help all, including the poor, but what that means,

Taxes pay for infrastructure, including roads, sidewalks, parks and public buildings which benefit all, regardless of how much they paid in support of them, and which could be considered welfare since some can benefit from them more than other who paid into them more. And today even those who pay no income tax must pay (I assume) excise taxes on their vehicles, property taxes on and sales tax on certain purchased items in many states. Sadly it also pays for excessive salaries for public "servants" who vote for themselves what they will be paid, as well as a vast extensive system of welfare and waste, which neither the OT or the related communal living of the prima NT church as an organic community truly supports, despite whatever aspects they may have in common (they both wore clothes and ate food as well).

In addition to what I provided before in response to what Vicomte13 said: ↑, there was,

• A yearly tithe of produce, dough, etc. for the Levites to do the service of the Tabernacle (Numbers 18:20,21; Leviticus 27:30-31)
• The yearly tithe of their increase of the field (being an agrarian-based society) for the feasts, to eat (or buy food if one came from far away, who could sell their increase) at the feast unto the Lord in the place which He would choose to place his name. (Deuteronomy 14:22-26)
  
• The free-will offerings by inviolable vows, of persons, cattle, houses, or land, (Leviticus 27:2-25) according to administrative estimation based on value and ability.
  
• The tithe of thine increase at the end of three years, thus, "the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest." (Deuteronomy 14:28,29)

It is the latter from which attempted support for the liberal welfare system might be extrapolated, yet this occurred only 3 times per decade, and would not be that of the a system described in my numbered list. Under OT law, non-betrothed unwed mothers would be married to the father who defiled her (and which was a social contract that included accountability to kin (as seen in Jacob's dealings with "bait-and-switch" uncle Laban), while adulterers and rapists of betrothed and married would to be executed. As were (among other violators) rebellious intractable impenitent youth, and those who dissented from the judgments of the supreme court, and with perjurers receiving the punishment their false testimony caused, while thieves were required to pay back what they stole by servant labor (thus note the absence of much of any penal system in the OT). And those who would not obey Genesis 3:19 were held in reproach, not told they were victims who were entitled to what others labored for.

Which is only part of the contrast btwn OT system and the modern wasteful institutional system of welfare that conservatives oppose.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

so tell me why would a president who has all the money anyone could possibly want ALREADY, want to become president at age 71? the man is not "out for himself", he is genuinely wanting to help the country. also, the key word you used is "media", yes of course the media portrays trump to be entirely awful - BECAUSE the media is hugely liberal bias. dont get your hopes up, the man will never be impeached... pray for him as a decision maker, that he should make the right decisions. it is not your job to decide who is or isn't president by praying for him to be impeached. trump is a human being, he sins, just like us. yes he messed up a couple times by not being perhaps polite. but who hasn't?

You have no idea that Trump has all the money he could want. I think he wants far more. He would like to be the richest man in the world. Then he would declare himself smartest and greatest businessman of all time.

 

[Major1]

You have no idea that Trump has all the money he could want. I think he wants far more. He would like to be the richest man in the world. Then he would declare himself smartest and greatest businessman of all time.

How do you know what he or anyone wants?

And what is wrong with that?

Do you remember a man named John F. Kennedy. In 1960 he was one of the richest men to be president and he got that from his father who was a bootlegger of whiskey.

You do understand that a man with money then stands above the ability to be bribed as happens in places like lets say, Greece and Italy and Germany.

What is your point?

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

How do you know what he or anyone wants?

And what is wrong with that?

Do you remember a man named John F. Kennedy. In 1960 he was one of the richest men to be president and he got that from his father who was a bootlegger of whiskey.

You do understand that a man with money then stands above the ability to be bribed as happens in places like lets say, Greece and Italy and Germany.

What is your point?

I was giving my opinion, as I stated. If you read post I was replying to, you will understand the point.

 

[Major1]

I was giving my opinion, as I stated. If you read post I was replying to, you will understand the point.

In fact, in comment #525, you did NOT say that it was your opinion. You just made a statement and I in fact understood your point very well. We all did.

I do not agree with it and that is my opinion my friend.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

In fact, in comment #525, you did NOT say that it was your opinion. You just made a statement and I in fact understood your point very well. We all did.

I do not agree with it and that is my opinion my friend.

I started with "I think..." so I thought this made it clear that this is my opinion. Sorry to have confused you.