[open] For those of us who are liberal, why?

[razzelflabben]

We don't see it as "compulsory giving", but something we willingly do through the government. The way I, and I think the others in this conversation, see the government is that it is not exempt from following the commands of scripture because the people in governments are given the same commands as everyone else: love God and love your neighbor as yourself. I think that when the rules of a nation do not provide for their people things like affordable healthcare and education, livable wages, welfare for when things go wrong, etc. they are not loving their neighbor as themselves.

This has nothing to do with the church, and it is not saying that the church does not need to step up to the plate, the church should step up to the plate. I think that ideally, it should be both the church and society, which includes the government, taking care of the poor and less fortunate.

well, I have to say thank you this helps me understand...I wholeheartedly disagree but I better understand just not fully but that is my problem....

How is it NOT compulsory giving when it is the law of the land....oh, long ago I was talking to someone about this and the question that comes out of this is do you take every exemption you can when you file your taxes? If so, how is it a willing heart? How is it not compulsory to make a law and punish anyone who does not conform? What scripture shows any kind of law that demanded giving? This will further help to clarify it for me...

 

[hedrick]

In the OT there was a tithe. That was really a tax: the amount was fixed. It was used to support Levites, and parts of it for the poor. See Deut 14:28, which says that every third year the tithes should be used for resident aliens, orphans and widows. There were other provisions for the poor, such as the right to glean. In Tobit 1:6-8 a description is given for a post-OT period. It was actually 2/10 of the produce, each year, with slightly varying distributions in different years.

Jesus spoke about it in Mat 23:23. I’d say he considered it a minimum, since he said that without neglecting the tithe, we should be concerned about justice, mercy, and faith. (Jesus was actually speaking more about people who were excessively scrupulous with legal obligations, while ignoring larger ones, since he spoke of tithing trivial amounts. But he did accept the principle of the tithe.)

I think there’s ample precedent with having society care for the poor and helpless.

Generally I take ethics from Jesus teaching. However given his situation it's not surprising that his teaching doesn't really tell us how to run a country. It does, however, tell us what our goal should be, which is to care for others. The OT gives us the only example of running a whole nation.

 

[razzelflabben]

In the OT there was a tithe. That was really a tax: the amount was fixed. It was used to support Levites, and parts of it for the poor. See Deut 14:28, which says that every third year the tithes should be used for resident aliens, orphans and widows. There were other provisions for the poor, such as the right to glean. In Tobit 1:6-8 a description is given for a post-OT period. It was actually 2/10 of the produce, each year, with slightly varying distributions in different years.

Jesus spoke about it in Mat 23:23. I’d say he considered it a minimum, since he said that without neglecting the tithe, we should be concerned about justice, mercy, and faith. (Jesus was actually speaking more about people who were excessively scrupulous with legal obligations, while ignoring larger ones, since he spoke of tithing trivial amounts. But he did accept the principle of the tithe.)

I think there’s ample precedent with having society care for the poor and helpless.

okay...again helpful to my understanding your position but I have to wholeheartedly disagree...so another question of your stand...if the tithe is equal to our taxes today why do we pay more than 10% and where is the year of jubilee?? as per the law.

 

[hedrick]

okay...again helpful to my understanding your position but I have to wholeheartedly disagree...so another question of your stand...if the tithe is equal to our taxes today why do we pay more than 10% and where is the year of jubilee?? as per the law.

20%, remember.

You really expect that 2500 years later the taxes will be identical? Among other things, taxing produce would mean the farmers have to pay it all, but it made sense in an agricultural society. Militaries today are more expensive. They didn't have many aircraft carriers in Israel. I'm only trying to get from the OT the principle that nations should care for their people.

 

[razzelflabben]

20%, remember.

You really expect that 2500 years later the taxes will be identical? Among other things, taxing produce would mean the farmers have to pay it all, but it made sense in an agricultural society. Militaries today are more expensive. They didn't have many aircraft carriers in Israel. I'm only trying to get from the OT the principle that nations should care for their people.

so...you believe that we can pick and choose which laws we accept today? I have serious problems with that...I mean you might be able to convince me eventually to accept the tithe as "tax" today but to justify more than "10/20%" and the letting go of the year of jubilee etc. you know, the rest of the law is a problem for me...it's all the law or none of it...isn't there a scripture that talks about that?

 

[hedrick]

so...you believe that we can pick and choose which laws we accept today? I have serious problems with that...I mean you might be able to convince me eventually to accept the tithe as "tax" today but to justify more than "10/20%" and the letting go of the year of jubilee etc. you know, the rest of the law is a problem for me...it's all the law or none of it...isn't there a scripture that talks about that?

Take a look at how Jesus treats the Law in Mat 5. He rejects the specific laws in the 10 commandments. But he replaces them by the principles behind them. E.g. do not murder becomes a concern about anger, do not commit adultery becomes concern about lust, etc. Acts 15 is similar. It replaces Jewish laws with a few basic moral principles that are still based on the OT. (In fact Acts 15 cites a set of principle developed by Jewish interpreters from the Noah story.) Paul similarly says that we aren't under Law, but his letters are full of basic moral principals, almost all of which appear in the OT.

No Christian that I know thinks that the municipal law of ancient Israel is binding upon modern nations. But the goals of a nation are still similar: justice, support of people who can't support themselves, etc. To say that it's not the job of the US to care for the poor flies in the face of the prophets. Jesus and Paul unfortunately can't be cited because they don't deal with the purposes of nations, for obvious reasons. They speak of individuals and obligations within the Church. Those are certainly voluntary.

 

[razzelflabben]

Take a look at how Jesus treats the Law in Mat 5. He rejects the specific laws in the 10 commandments. But he replaces them by the principles behind them. E.g. do not murder becomes a concern about anger, do not commit adultery becomes concern about lust, etc. Acts 15 is similar. It replaces Jewish laws with a few basic moral principles that are still based on the OT. (In fact Acts 15 cites a set of principle developed by Jewish interpreters from the Noah story.) Paul similarly says that we aren't under Law, but his letters are full of basic moral principals, almost all of which appear in the OT.

No Christian that I know thinks that the municipal law of ancient Israel is binding upon modern nations. But the goals of a nation are still similar: justice, support of people who can't support themselves, etc. To say that it's not the job of the US to care for the poor flies in the face of the prophets. Jesus and Paul unfortunately can't be cited because they don't deal with the purposes of nations, for obvious reasons. They speak of individuals and obligations within the Church. Those are certainly voluntary.

the law is the very reason I strongly disagree with you. In the NT, the OT law and the 10 commandments gave way to the Law of Love I can provide several scriptures if you want. And yes, the OT law and the 10 commandments informs us as to what the law of Love looks like however, that Love we are called to have is always about the individual and never about the nation as you try to claim here.

Now, the topic of the thread is NOT to debate who is right and who is wrong and where I love having this conversation I do NOT want to be guilty of taking this off topic. You clarified your position for me and I better understand now, not totally but much better and for that I am grateful....unless you want to take our discussion to PM or another thread dedicated to the debate I am afraid that at this point we will have to agree to disagree and leave it there. Again I thank you for clarifying your position.

 

[Fantine]

As I gradually became more and more politcally and theologically liberal, I would say that the two things that influenced me most were:

• moving to different parts of the country due to job losses and learning how unfair and unjust "the system" was in many parts of the country and how little was being done to level the playing field.
• theologically, it came from trying to reconcile a loving God who created billions of people with different challenges and gifts and abilities (and faith backgrounds) with black and white concepts of "sin" and "salvation." Dealing with a faith that didn't grow or change as human knowledge did. Finally, my prayer life and how I believed God was speaking and acting in my life.

 

[razzelflabben]

As I gradually became more and more politcally and theologically liberal, I would say that the two things that influenced me most were:

• moving to different parts of the country due to job losses and learning how unfair and unjust "the system" was in many parts of the country and how little was being done to level the playing field.
• theologically, it came from trying to reconcile a loving God who created billions of people with different challenges and gifts and abilities (and faith backgrounds) with black and white concepts of "sin" and "salvation." Dealing with a faith that didn't grow or change as human knowledge did. Finally, my prayer life and how I believed God was speaking and acting in my life.

you said something that confuses me, can you please clarify..."Dealing with a faith that didn't grow or change as human knowledge did." If faith is in Christ/God who does not change and as such is always about Love how do you think our faith should change with knowledge?

 

[Fantine]

I think that throughout history our understanding of God and the world has changed as our knowledge has grown.

We now know, for example, that there are not only many planets but many universes, and that the universe is constantly expanding, and some contemporary theologians, such as Jesuit Pierre deChardin, have addressed this.

We now know more about the human mind and psychology, and i believe that this knowledge makes us see God in a different way.

We can control more aspects of our environment, so the idea of a punitive God waving his arm and causing earthquakes to punish us, a God we have to appease, has changed as well.

God is the same--ultimately unknownable while we are on this earth. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob didn't know the whole picture--neither do we. So yes, "God didn't change," but we never knew him completely--and we never will.

 

[razzelflabben]

I think that throughout history our understanding of God and the world has changed as our knowledge has grown.

We now know, for example, that there are not only many planets but many universes, and that the universe is constantly expanding, and some contemporary theologians, such as Jesuit Pierre deChardin, have addressed this.

We now know more about the human mind and psychology, and i believe that this knowledge makes us see God in a different way.

We can control more aspects of our environment, so the idea of a punitive God waving his arm and causing earthquakes to punish us, a God we have to appease, has changed as well.

God is the same--ultimately unknownable while we are on this earth. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob didn't know the whole picture--neither do we. So yes, "God didn't change," but we never knew him completely--and we never will.

scripture has never been about appeasing God so could you provide another example appeasing God was all about the "heathen" gods not the God of the bible.

 

[Fantine]

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[razzelflabben]

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

so no example then?

 

[Fantine]

No. Arguments of this type bore me.

 

[razzelflabben]

No. Arguments of this type bore me.

sorry, I just wanted to understand you position....I'm not sure what is boring about that but such is life...have a great day.