Question(s) for Christians

[AKAK]

I'm an attorney.

It's okay.

there there....

Go get some Belgian Ale, it will be ok.

 

[sepia5]

It's okay.

there there....

Go get some Belgian Ale, it will be ok.

Drinking double IPA tonight, but I did just pick up some Duchesse De Bourgogne yesterday.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

The skepticism I refer to is of the government's ability to do the right thing, even when they are putting out the right PR and passing legislation which is purportedly doing the right thing. The follow-up question was posed, "why does politics trump religion?" and I think the answer is that the politics are bad enough that a particular religious person has a reasonable expectation that government simply cannot effect the kind of good that it says it can.

Simply passing a major healthcare reform bill isn't the "right result" if it's watered down with all the usual partisan and political garbage: if I believed this thing would be all for the good for the most people and not ultimately be a detriment to our economy and our nation, I'd support it, but I just don't believe the people who enacted it and who will implement it will make it so.

Fair enough, thanks for the response.

 

[cincibuck]

"Why are so many of you against entitlement/social programs and how do you justify it?"

A big question for sure.
There seems to be some question among Christians about what defines "need".

I think it's more a question of who is getting the help. Government "is good" when it promotes business interests - thus roads, airports, security - most schools - port facilities, are seen as "good" government spending. A great deal of money gets spent on corporate welfare and we hear little in the way of complaints about it.

But when gov spending goes to welfare cheats, inner city/rural schools, Pell grants, job training programs it's "bad government" spending and everyone seems to pick up on it. I understand Akak's desire to feel free to buy or not buy, but then you get into the concept of ala carte taxes, OK I'll pay for defense, cops, fire, streets, but I'm not paying for schools or health. Or the flower power folks who want to pay for OSHA, Schools, EPA, Parks, but not for police.

It's not like I'm so thrilled that some of my tax money will go to cover the problems of the obese, but I can see that having as many people as possible inoculated for polio, measles, mumps, flu improves the health of all of us and makes all of us safer. I'm hopeful that because health care is available we can move more GP care into clinics and out of the ER units, that programs that teach nutrition and birth control will reduce obesity and the need for abortions.

Finally, I did not cram religion into this Akak, but the original thread was a question about faith and government.

 

[MaxBuck]

Political positions are largely independent of depth of faith. It annoys me when people use their religion to justify one or another political position; it's quite possible to be Christian and to be conservative, liberal, or neither. That's all I have to say about this.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Something that occurred to me...

For those of you who have the inherent suspicion that the Government is incapable of running "charitable" programs at an appropriate level, and who cite waste, too much money being spent on overhead, etc..

Isn't it also true that private organizations are likewise not immune from this sort of spending ... and this is just a number I'm pulling from my ass .. 80 cents on the dollar on staffing, etc? Furthermore, isn't the private charity perhaps more open to out and out corruption. (ie, thinking about the Hannity thing)

Of course, this has little to do with the original question (the role of religion) just curious about the response.

 

[cincibuck]

And then there's this; The Parable of the Vineyard Workers, one where Jesus either goes Marxist or Adam Smith on us and creates a story that never fails to trouble in it's interpretation:

Matt 20:1-16"For the Kingdom of Heaven is like a man who was the master of a household, who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. When he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. He went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace. To them he said, "You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you." So they went their way. Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. About the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle. He said to them, "Why do you stand here all day idle?" "They said to him, "Because no one has hired us." "He said to them, "You also go into the vineyard, and you will receive whatever is right." When evening had come, the lord of the vineyard said to his steward, "Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning from the last to the first." "When those who were hired at about the eleventh hour came, they each received a denarius. When the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise each received a denarius. When they received it, they murmured against the master of the household, saying, "These last have spent one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat!" "But he answered one of them, "Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Didn't you agree with me for a denarius? Take that which is yours, and go your way. It is my desire to give to this last just as much as to you. Isn’t it lawful for me to do what I want to with what I own? Or is your eye evil, because I am good?’ So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few are chosen." [SIZE=-1](web)[/SIZE]

He seems to be saying two entirely different things,l that as a landowner he can do whatever he wants with his money, and that "fair" is not necessarily based on what we commonly accept as "fair."

 

[buckeyegrad]

And then there's this; The Parable of the Vineyard Workers, one where Jesus either goes Marxist or Adam Smith on us and creates a story that never fails to trouble in it's interpretation:

Matt 20:1-16"For the Kingdom of Heaven is like a man who was the master of a household, who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. When he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. He went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace. To them he said, "You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you." So they went their way. Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. About the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle. He said to them, "Why do you stand here all day idle?" "They said to him, "Because no one has hired us." "He said to them, "You also go into the vineyard, and you will receive whatever is right." When evening had come, the lord of the vineyard said to his steward, "Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning from the last to the first." "When those who were hired at about the eleventh hour came, they each received a denarius. When the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise each received a denarius. When they received it, they murmured against the master of the household, saying, "These last have spent one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat!" "But he answered one of them, "Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Didn't you agree with me for a denarius? Take that which is yours, and go your way. It is my desire to give to this last just as much as to you. Isn?t it lawful for me to do what I want to with what I own? Or is your eye evil, because I am good?? So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few are chosen." [SIZE=-1](web)[/SIZE]

He seems to be saying two entirely different things,l that as a landowner he can do whatever he wants with his money, and that "fair" is not necessarily based on what we commonly accept as "fair."

Anyone who thinks this parable has anything to do with economics really doesn't understand it.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Something that occurred to me...

For those of you who have the inherent suspicion that the Government is incapable of running "charitable" programs at an appropriate level, and who cite waste, too much money being spent on overhead, etc..

Isn't it also true that private organizations are likewise not immune from this sort of spending ... and this is just a number I'm pulling from my ass .. 80 cents on the dollar on staffing, etc? Furthermore, isn't the private charity perhaps more open to out and out corruption. (ie, thinking about the Hannity thing)

Of course, this has little to do with the original question (the role of religion) just curious about the response.

You are absolutely correct that charitable organizations can also be corrupt and inefficient. Part of the reason my wife and I never give to the United Way, but love to give to the Salvation Army.

The nice thing about this is we get to choose to give to the organization that we believe is more efficient, more beneficial, and uses our dollar the best. With the government, we get no such choice.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

You are absolutely correct that charitable organizations can also be corrupt and inefficient. Part of the reason my wife and I never give to the United Way, but love to give to the Salvation Army.

The nice thing about this is we get to choose to give to the organization that we believe is more efficient, more beneficial, and uses our dollar the best. With the government, we get no such choice.

Nothing wrong with that, I suppose. But, with that said - what programs do you have fundamental problems with? Fundamental meaning "I do not support that cause" .. and leaving aside any issues of how the program is administered ... not to make lite of those concerns, just setting it aside for the purposes of the question

For example, although not specific to social programs - I hate that my tax dollars are spent on implements of war... War is something I do not believe in and do not support. Nonetheless, I pay my taxes and don't think much about it.

As I have said recently on other threads - the healthcare thread in particular - I just don't take much issue with the Government behaving as a "pooled resource" - that is, giving benefits... conversely, I have a great deal of problem with the government expanding its ability to exercise coercive power beyond the limits of the Constitution.

 

[HineyBuck]

Anyone who thinks this parable has anything to do with economics really doesn't understand it.

Hoping not to take the discussion off topic for long. B-Grad, I occasionally teach a course on employee compensation. Most college level compensation textbooks incorporate this parable somewhere. I will be the first to admit that I don't understand the point of it. That is, I can usually manage a classroom discussion of its implications for compensation, but I always feel like I'm missing the larger point. If you've got a minute, can you enlighten?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

In that it's a parable, can't it be used as an analogy for anything? Not that the speaker of the parable intended it to be used for any reason... but.. if it teaches a lesson about business... why shouldn't it be used for business purposes?

 

[Florida Buckeye]

So you simply reject the concept of separation of church and state as memorialized in the United States Constitution's religous clauses?

The First Amendment does say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" which was meant to keep the U.S. government from establishing a national church like the Angelican church in England. It was designed to keep the government out of the Church business- the main reason our forefathers left England. The phrase "Separation of Church and State" came from President Thomas Jefferson in response to a letter from an Anabaptist Minister who was concerned the Congress was going to make the Methodist Church the national Church. The words appear no where in the Constitution.

My original point had nothing to do with the separation of Church and State, a principal I generally support though I think some people go to ridiculous extremes like removing "under God" from the pledge. My original point was basically there is an element of faith in God's provision when caring for those less fortunate and the government is incapable of such a thing for this very reason you state.

I read this as a direct, Biblical endorsement of the State's power to tax and spend. How do you read it?

That was my point. The Pharisee's were trying to trap Jesus by forcing to answer a question which seemingly had no right answer: Is it lawful (Jewish law) to pay taxes to Cesear? Answer "yes" and the crowd revolts because they don't want to pay taxes. Answer "no" and the Roman government would arrest him. He simply asked whose image was on the coin and said to give it to who it belongs. He doesn't say necessary how Cesear had to spend the tax.

Well said.

Thanks

 

[jadudley03]

And then there's this; The Parable of the Vineyard Workers, one where Jesus either goes Marxist or Adam Smith on us and creates a story that never fails to trouble in it's interpretation:

Matt 20:1-16"For the Kingdom of Heaven is like a man who was the master of a household, who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. When he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. He went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace. To them he said, "You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you." So they went their way. Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. About the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle. He said to them, "Why do you stand here all day idle?" "They said to him, "Because no one has hired us." "He said to them, "You also go into the vineyard, and you will receive whatever is right." When evening had come, the lord of the vineyard said to his steward, "Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning from the last to the first." "When those who were hired at about the eleventh hour came, they each received a denarius. When the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise each received a denarius. When they received it, they murmured against the master of the household, saying, "These last have spent one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat!" "But he answered one of them, "Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Didn't you agree with me for a denarius? Take that which is yours, and go your way. It is my desire to give to this last just as much as to you. Isn?t it lawful for me to do what I want to with what I own? Or is your eye evil, because I am good?? So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few are chosen." [SIZE=-1](web)[/SIZE]

He seems to be saying two entirely different things,l that as a landowner he can do whatever he wants with his money, and that "fair" is not necessarily based on what we commonly accept as "fair."

The Master did exactly what he said he would do for everyone, and some he chose to bless beyond that. If the "master" (i.e. government) did what they said they were going to do, we wouldn't all be on here having a conversation. There is a significant difference between being "fair" when you have done what you said you would do and both parties agreed to the terms, vs doing what ever you want including breaking agreements (such as spending Social Security money that belongs to the people who paid into it on whatever they feel they need the money for).

I have seen the word "religion" several times and would like to make the following two points:

1. Christian literally means "little Christ". Therefore, if someone is not regularly reflecting Christ's character/example given in the NT then it should raise a flag when they call themselves a Christian. No one does it perfectly, but there should be some consistency with their fruits (Galatians 5:22 defines Fruits of The Spirit).

2. I would argue that Biblical Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship and it is completely centered around relationships and community.

Religion is what man "does" for God; the gospel is what God does for man.
Religion is man's search for God; the gospel is God's search for man.

 

[cincibuck]

Religion is what man "does" for God; the gospel is what God does for man.
Religion is man's search for God; the gospel is God's search for man.

"The Church is mans' constant effort to put a roof over God's head." G.B. Shaw