posted
You don't as far as I am concerned have anything for which to apologize. But thanks.
I am getting the impression that you got the impression that either I or the President or both think that "making Jesus happy" is sufficient reason to legislate something. I think that is dangerous.
However, when we do right things - individually or as a community - I think that makes Jesus happy. Result not motivation. I think that a more equitable distribution of resources, especially in favor of the poor and sick is a Jesus happy-making thing to do (which was all I was saying to Jeff) and provided scriptural and theological support for why I think so.
Is that clearer?
And my apologies for getting so cranky.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Scott, What indicates that you aren't arguing in good faith is not that you continue to disagree, it's that keep asking repeating the same question, ignoring the answers people have given already and using that same question as a response when it's irrelevant to what was said. Do you understand the difference?
I think I've addressed pretty much everyone-- or others have shared their input and that has sufficed for me (as in Hobbes' questions to kmboots). Where there have been questions asked directly to me, I think I've responded. It's possible I haven't responded to the satisfaction of the individual; in such a case, I'd expect them to say so.
I've asked you several questions that you've never responded to so by making this claim you've just reinforced my perception that you aren't actually even reading my posts let alone trying to understand what they said. If you haven't made a reasonable effort to understand someones responses, I don't think you are arguing in good faith.
quote:We have recent history of a political party coopting Christianity for their own cynical purposes. In many parts of the country, saying, "I'm a Christian," is cognate for "I'm a Republican," and "I'm a capitalist." The ignorance of Christians about their own religion, and the slick marketing efforts of GOP propagandizers have effectively altered the perception of what the Bible actually teaches. (Ditto the Book of Mormon)
I've no inclination to see that effect furthered by the Democratic Party for their own political ends.
Once again, this comment seems to be a knee jerk response against something nobody, including Obama, has actually said.
What I said, exactly, was this.
quote:If we do not support Government involvement (of some kind) in caring for each other, I think we are shirking that collective responsibility. I think there is plenty of room for discussing what might be the most effective type of government involvement -- but I think Christianity does in fact require us to support some type of government involvement.
That isn't an argument that's being used to support a particular partisan policy. I was simply saying that concern for the well being of the most vulnerable members of society, is something that should influence the way Christians participate in government.
Your sole response was a terse "why?"
Well the most obvious answer to that is because all government policies affect people. That means that ethical people, of any stripe, should be concerned about how policies affect everyone, not just themselves. But for Christians, the obligation goes beyond that. The gospel teaches that we have a special obligation to care for and about the most vulnerable members of society, the poor, the sick, the very young and the very old. The gospel elevates our obligation to help the needy above the more general obligation to help everyone. Those teachings are supposed to inform ALL the aspects of our lives. It's not something we can check at the door when we participate in secular life. If we aren't considering that obligation when we participate in government, we are shirking that obligation. That isn't an argument that supports any particular political agenda, policy or party. I'm simply saying Christian teachings about our moral obligations to the needy should influence the way Christians participate in all aspects of our communities -- including government.
quote:I've no inclination to see that effect furthered by the Democratic Party for their own political ends. Thus, sticking point: there is little scriptural support for the idea that states should be empowered to enforce charitable giving through taxation (as recently hawked by President Obama). There is much scriptural support for individual and collective giving, with intention and agency fully operative.
There are plenty of social and economic reasons for raising taxes in order to better fund programs that assist the needy-- let the Democrats, or whomever, use those rather than false appeals to scripture. [/QB]
I understand the reasoning, but I think your conclusion is flawed. It is precisely because Christianity has been hijacked by GOP propaganda machine that people who feel inspired by Christian teachings to work against the GOP agenda need to speak about what inspires them. It's not just about winning political battles. It's about defending our faith. People need to be reminded that Christianity is about far more than abortion, sexual morality and protecting the nuclear family.
I think if you actually read the Obama speech that Jeff C was talking about, you'd see that this is what he's doing. In fact he repeatedly says that he isn't arguing that people should support his policies because Jesus said so. They should support them the kinds of social and economic reasons you mention. But he wasn't speaking at a campaign rally -- he was speaking at a National Prayer breakfast. So he augments those broad political arguments, with a personal perspective about on how his understanding of Christianity influences him as he makes political decisions. Then he calls other people of faith to use the values they have learned through their faith when they participate in government.
[ February 17, 2012, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is much scriptural support for individual and collective giving, with intention and agency fully operative.
Scott, Can you please give examples where the scriptures support that collective efforts to help the poor should be "with intention and agency fully operative"?
The only scripture that has been cited here, thus far, that says anything about whether or not community efforts to help the poor should be voluntary or compulsory, is the one you cited from the Book of Mormon, which supports the opposite position from the one you have taken. Are there other scriptural references which indicate community efforts should be voluntary.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've asked you several questions that you've never responded to
I've looked through the thread and I don't see evidence for this. There have been times where you've asked questions that I thought I answered by referring back to the topic we're discussing (for example, your analogy about family prayer I answered by stating that it was not the principle (charitable giving) I had a problem with, but the enforcement of the principle by state authority).
If you'll specify which questions you think I haven't answered, I'll do my best to do so.
quote: If you haven't made a reasonable effort to understand someones responses, I don't think you are arguing in good faith.
How do you go about gauging someone else's "reasonable effort to understand someone's responses"?
quote:I think if you actually read the Obama speech that Jeff C was talking about, you'd see that this is what he's doing. In fact he repeatedly says that he isn't arguing that people should support his policies because Jesus said so. They should support them the kinds of social and economic reasons you mention. But he wasn't speaking at a campaign rally -- he was speaking at a National Prayer breakfast. So he augments those broad political arguments, with a personal perspective about on how his understanding of Christianity influences him as he makes political decisions. Then he calls other people of faith to use the values they have learned through their faith when they participate in government.
It's true. When I first heard the president's comments (out of context, flipping through the channels), I was taken aback. When they were brought up here, I thought I'd explore the topic a bit.
I'm not sure I trust the language entirely, but yeah-- definitely I'll be getting the whole story next time.
quote:Can you please give examples where the scriptures support that collective efforts to help the poor should be "with intention and agency fully operative"?
Sure:
D&C 58:26-29-- Not meet to be commanded in all things. Mosiah 4:21-25 Alma 1-- Describes the law of consecration in use among members of a community as opposed to members of society (despite the society's being governed by members of the Church-- specifically, the high priest) D&C 42:30-34-- Describes the consecration of personal belongings to the church.
quote:The only scripture that has been cited here, thus far, that says anything about whether or not community efforts to help the poor should be voluntary or compulsory, is the one you cited from the Book of Mormon, which supports the opposite position from the one you have taken.
I assume when you say "here" you mean "scriptures regarding the topic of collecting taxes to pay for welfare services" and not "there have been no scriptures referred to at all in this thread."
Yeah-- I remembered that particular verse from my reading in the BoM from a while ago. I referred to it because to do so seemed an honest and open thing to do, given the discussion.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:D&C 58:26-29-- Not meet to be commanded in all things.
Yes, but clearly we are commanded in some things and caring for the poor is one of them. While the scriptures are clear on the importance of individual agency, they are also quite clear (for example D&C 134 and Romans 13) that civil governments do have the right to compel us to do certain things, like pay taxes. There is no place in scripture which would suggest that civil laws that compel us to keep commandments are contrary to the principle of agency.
quote:Mosiah 4:21-25
I don't see anything in Mosiah 4:21-25 that addresses community efforts to aid the poor. Nor do these verses say anything regarding whether or not its justifiable to compel people to participate in efforts to help the poor. It is clear that people should desire to help. That does not in imply anything about whether they should be forced to help if they don't want to.
quote:Alma 1-- Describes the law of consecration in use among members of a community as opposed to members of society (despite the society's being governed by members of the Church-- specifically, the high priest) D&C 42:30-34-- Describes the consecration of personal belongings to the church.
There are several other places in the scriptures (Acts, Moses, 4th Nephi) that describe followers of Christ living the law of consecration. Where there is enough detail to tell, these are all voluntary. I will agree that there is no indication in scripture that people should be legally required to enter into the law of consecration. But the law of consecration goes far beyond anything being proposed as law in this country.
There are examples in scripture where people are legally compelled to give to the poor. You mentioned the example in the Book of Mormon. The law of Moses also required people to pay a tithe. In every 3rd and 6th year a tithe was paid to assist the needy. As I understand it, in ancient Israel the tithe played a similar role to taxes in modern societies and Levites has the legal authority to collect the tithes. Offerings were to be given voluntarily, but tithes were legally required. On average, the Law of Moses required people to give 3.33% of their increase to the poor.
As for your assertion that the people in the Book of Mormon were "governed" by the high priest -- you are oversimplifying the case. The people were governed by an established code of law and judged by Alma, the high priest. Alma did not have the ability to make laws. So his example can not be used to tell us much about how gospel teachings should influence the kind of laws we make. We are told very little about the laws of that society but it is reported that they were based on the law of Moses. It's entirely possible that the laws that Alma enforced as a judge in Alma 1, included a mandatory tax for the poor for everyone. We don't know. Any opinion on that would be highly speculative and not something I'd use to support the case for or against a "poor tax". I'm just trying to point out the difficulty of interpreting scripture in the way you are trying to do.
The simple fact is that there are no examples of democratic societies in ancient scripture. There are no examples in those scriptures where righteous people lived in secular societies where they could influence the civil laws. As a result, we are highly unlikely to find anything directly addressing the question of what kind of laws righteous people should support.
What we can learn from scripture is the kind of attitudes righteous people have toward their communities. And its clear, at least to me, that the scriptures teach us that we have an obligation to be concerned about the well being of all the members of our community and that the needy should be foremost in our concern. There isn't anything to indicate that we should ignore that obligation for any reason, or that we can forget about it when we are participating in secular government.
It's also clear to me, that scriptures acknowledge that civil governments should have the right to force people to do stuff they'd rather not -- like taxes. If God found it acceptable for Rome to tax people to support war and occupation -- it hardly seems likely that He'd be displeased by a democratic country choosing to tax people to help the poor.
quote:I assume when you say "here" you mean "scriptures regarding the topic of collecting taxes to pay for welfare services"
If you assume that, you misunderstand. I meant "scriptures regarding whether community efforts to help the poor should be strictly voluntary".
I've said repeatedly I am not talking about collecting taxes to pay welfare services. I don't think Christianity says anything directly about what tax structures and welfare laws would best serve the poor. I'm saying that Christians have a special obligation to consider how laws, like tax structures and welfare programs, will affect the poor and to promote laws we believe will serve the needy. That doesn't apply exclusively or even primarily to things that are usually considered "welfare". It's a general guiding principle. Almost all kinds of laws, from tax codes, to zoning laws to education to public lands or penal codes, affect the poor differently than the rich. I think that the gospel obligates us to consider that and to work for laws that we believe will protect and aid the needy.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: There is no place in scripture which would suggest that civil laws that compel us to keep commandments are contrary to the principle of agency.
Lucifer's plan was to compel everyone to keep the commandments. In light of this doctrine, how do you justify the statement above?
quote:I don't see anything in Mosiah 4:21-25 that addresses community efforts to aid the poor. Nor do these verses say anything regarding whether or not its justifiable to compel people to participate in efforts to help the poor. It is clear that people should desire to help. That does not in imply anything about whether they should be forced to help if they don't want to.
Well, that's partly my point. King Benjamin was both a secular and religious authority. Furthermore, we're told that he was exceptionally righteous. If he did not compel his people to give to the poor-- and it's clear from the text that he's talking about voluntary actions to aid the needy-- it can be derived that a righteous religious or secular leader does not do so either. I'll point out that the people of King Limhi were in dire straights that were completely out of the ordinary for a society; indeed, their situation (not his righteousness, or the righteousness of his people) is given as the impetus for his command to distribute the wealth of the masses to the needy.
quote:The simple fact is that there are no examples of democratic societies in ancient scripture. There are no examples in those scriptures where righteous people lived in secular societies where they could influence the civil laws.
It depends on what you mean by democratic. The leaders of the Nephites, post King Mosiah, were elected by the people (some might say confirmed by the voice of the people, given that there also seemed to be an element of inheritance). Their laws were also assented to by popular vote (thinking here of the conflict between the kingmen and the freemen).
So your evaluation of the governance of the Nephite nation (over which Alma was chief judge) is missing a few elements. What I find apparent in Alma 1 is the distinction between two cultures living in the same society, ruled by the same set of laws: the people of god, who gave freely of their property to each other and who prospered; and the non-believers who persecuted the poor and the needy and the believers. That distinction implies that the government did not provide for the needy. (Which, understandably, does not mean WE should not)
You are correct that the people of the Church lived under the law of Moses; I'm not sure that it's apparent that their society lived under the same law, after the judges took control of things. If the law of Moses had been in force, would the voice of the people have been contemplated in the election of judges? Or in the establishment of law? (See Alma 2) This is not rhetorical-- I'm not actually sure.
The meat of your argument is this:
quote:I've said repeatedly I am not talking about collecting taxes to pay welfare services. I don't think Christianity says anything directly about what tax structures and welfare laws would best serve the poor. I'm saying that Christians have a special obligation to consider how laws, like tax structures and welfare programs, will affect the poor and to promote laws we believe will serve the needy. That doesn't apply exclusively or even primarily to things that are usually considered "welfare". It's a general guiding principle. Almost all kinds of laws, from tax codes, to zoning laws to education to public lands or penal codes, affect the poor differently than the rich. I think that the gospel obligates us to consider that and to work for laws that we believe will protect and aid the needy.
I don't really have much a disagreement here, honestly. But a lot leans on what we're calling "protection" and "aid" (and I recognize that you've touched on this point before). While I agree somewhat with kmboots that God is pleased at societies where the poor are given assistance, I feel that He is better pleased at societies that give assistance to the poor through conscious, intentional effort. I stand by the idea that people helping other people is more in line with God's will than programs helping people.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lucifer's plan was to compel everyone to keep the commandments. In light of this doctrine, how do you justify the statement above?
I suspect she would dispute that redistribution of wealth via representative government taxation of people who are free to vote with ballots or feet could strictly be called compulsion;)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: There is no place in scripture which would suggest that civil laws that compel us to keep commandments are contrary to the principle of agency.
Lucifer's plan was to compel everyone to keep the commandments. In light of this doctrine, how do you justify the statement above?
Satan's plan was to "destroy the agency of man." I don't think laws can be said to destroy agency. If they did, then all forms of law and government would be contrary to God's plan. But the twelfth Article of Faith says that we believe in "obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." Why would a civil law that coincides with or supports God's law be part of Satan's plan?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Laws also compel us to obey the commandments not to murder, steal, and give false witness. In some places, there are laws which also compel (or at least encourage) you to keep the Sabbath holy and not to commit adultery. (which is still a crime under the UCMJ, for example) What's the difference between those and laws which compel us obey the commandments to care for the poor, widowed, and orphaned?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: There is no place in scripture which would suggest that civil laws that compel us to keep commandments are contrary to the principle of agency.
Lucifer's plan was to compel everyone to keep the commandments. In light of this doctrine, how do you justify the statement above?
Satan's plan was to "destroy the agency of man." I don't think laws can be said to destroy agency. If they did, then all forms of law and government would be contrary to God's plan. But the twelfth Article of Faith says that we believe in "obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." Why would a civil law that coincides with or supports God's law be part of Satan's plan?
posted
I should say that by this point, I'm more than a little out of my depth due to my lack of knowledge about Mormonism. (I've pretty much only read 1 Nephi and a few short passages) So I should be clear that any statements I make refer to Christianity in general. I can't really argue with, or for that matter, understand the last few posts.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dogbreath: The Book of Mormon wouldn't be the best place to get a sense of Mormonisms attitudes towards civil law. The governments detailed in it are not democracies, and while some political discussions takes place, it isn't portrayed as relevant to what the United States does.
If you wanted a primer on Mormonism's attitude towards civil government, this thread has linked several excellent quotations. You could also read Joseph Smith's writings on the subject. He often struggled with the idea of building God's kingdom from within the United States. But since he died very young, I don't think he ever really came to a conclusion on the matter, and it's (as this thread clearly demonstrates) a topic still very much open to debate amongst Mormons to say nothing of Christians.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lucifer's plan was to compel everyone to keep the commandments. In light of this doctrine, how do you justify the statement above?
I think Jon Boy already answered this question. Our agency is not something people can take from each other. I would add that D&C 134 says
quote:We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.
That section goes on to say that it is unjust for governments to enact laws regarding faith and worship or laws which foster a particular religious society or proscribe the individual rights of citizens based on their religion. I don't think forcing people to help the needy does either of those things. I can imagine that some particular law intended to help the needy might give advantage to one religion and its members -- but that would be a flaw in a particular law and not a general reason to avoid all government involvement in protecting and helping the needy.
[ February 19, 2012, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:While I agree somewhat with kmboots that God is pleased at societies where the poor are given assistance, I feel that He is better pleased at societies that give assistance to the poor through conscious, intentional effort. I stand by the idea that people helping other people is more in line with God's will than programs helping people.
Scott, You talk about these as though they are mutually exclusive options. But they simply are not. I think this is the source of most of our disagreement. People can help each other individually, participate in programs to help others and support laws that will help others -- all simultaneously. Choosing one does not exclude the others. I don't know about you, but I pay taxes to help the need and I give individually to people in need and I give money and time to my church and other organizations that help the needy. It's not a question of which one is best -- what's best is doing all of the above. Some problems are better addressed by programs, others are better served by individual person to person contact, and others are best met by government. I think God is most pleased when we are doing all of these things as I believe all are necessary if we actually want to solve problems.
You look at the Book of Mormon and say "Alma and King Benjamin encouraged people to give individually, therefore there clearly were no laws compelling them to do so. That simply does not logically follow. In our modern society, we have laws that force people to pay taxes to help the poor. Despite that, we are encouraged to give voluntarily of our time and money to help people both individually and through programs. The question is not whether we should help the poor individually and voluntarily or support government programs to help the poor -- we can a should do both.
[ February 19, 2012, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: [QUOTE] I think God is most pleased when we are doing all of these things as I believe all are necessary if we actually want to solve problems
posted
I admit, Jon Boy's references seem pretty decisive to me, if that's your source material, but then I'm biased. Laws arrived at by a representative system of government such as ours simply don't destroy or even harm agency. Again, especially when so few people out of the whole even avail themselves of the means to help make the decisions they later complain about.
I still don't understand your opposition to what seems to me to be a pretty straightforward line of thought. Perhaps you could explain what, in your view, is compulsion and what is cooperation, in more detail?
To me the situation we have is this: plenty of people are deeply unhappy with the decisions our government makes, and can enforce by, well, force. However damn near every single one of those people can, if they would actually avail themselves of it, participate in that decision-making process. Very few do, and in fact few do even in the most publicized, spend-money-est elections we've got. So perhaps you're right-perhaps a representative system of government does compel as opposed to utilize cooperation. But I don't think anyone can, after looking at the American political system, say that's what's happening here. Most people aren't even showing up to the meeting where the discussions are held about what decisions to decide on. How then can they complain they don't have a say?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, I have one more question for you. A few posts back I stated that the primary reason Christians should be concerned about how government policies affect the poor is that government policies do affect the poor. Since you haven't responded to that point, can you tell me what you think of the follow hypothetical.
Four different Christian citizens of the USA all give equally of their time and money, voluntarily, both to needy individuals and to programs that help the poor. In their community, several different government policies are being considered.
1. There is a proposal to change a zoning ordinance that would allow commercial development and luxury housing in an area that is currently low income housing.
2. There is a proposal to change tax codes in a way that would shift the tax burden to different income groups.
3. There is a proposal that would change the way taxes are used for education.
When considering each of these proposals,
Person A supports the proposal they believe will best protect and aid the most vulnerable members of society.
Person B supports the proposal they think will maximize individual freedom, without regard to how it will affect the poor.
Person C supports the proposal they think is most likely to benefit themselves and their family.
Person D doesn't get involved.
Do you think there is anything in the scriptures that would suggest Jesus would be more or less pleased with any of these voters?
[ February 19, 2012, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you think there is anything in the scriptures that would suggest Jesus would be more or less pleased with any of these voters?
I can't think of anything offhand that would indicate that one individual is more in line with God's will than the others (with the exception of Person D).
I have a hard time taking analogies seriously, to be honest with you.
Rakeesh:
I'm not sure I can describe my point of view regarding cooperation any better. Hm...if I can use kmboots, who has (IIRC) spoken about this before, she disagrees with the use of tax money to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would say that is compelled to pay for something she apparently dislikes through the fiat of law.
I still support our military action in Afghanistan; at the beginning of the campaign in Iraq, I supported the action there. So although I was compelled to pay the same taxes as kmboots, I would say that in a sense, I cooperated with the war effort (and am thus somewhat responsible for the war there). As I became more aware of the facts involved in the war, I became less cooperative with the idea that it was a just and righteous path. In a sense, I withdrew my cooperation, and was until recently, compelled to support the war.
I don't believe that being compelled to give of your time and money entitles you to any sort of divine approbation. Like I stated early on, compulsion robs the giver of the opportunity for spiritual growth. So...while government programs may provide for the needy, I think the Lord does not necessarily count taxes used for the support of the poor as charity. (And I'm not sure that fast offerings, for Mormons, or alms are exactly charity either, now that I think of it. That particular opinion may need to be revised... )
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure I can describe my point of view regarding cooperation any better. Hm...if I can use kmboots, who has (IIRC) spoken about this before, she disagrees with the use of tax money to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would say that is compelled to pay for something she apparently dislikes through the fiat of law.
I still support our military action in Afghanistan; at the beginning of the campaign in Iraq, I supported the action there. So although I was compelled to pay the same taxes as kmboots, I would say that in a sense, I cooperated with the war effort (and am thus somewhat responsible for the war there). As I became more aware of the facts involved in the war, I became less cooperative with the idea that it was a just and righteous path. In a sense, I withdrew my cooperation, and was until recently, compelled to support the war.
So to clarify, in your point of view, individuals in our society are only ever compelled to obey the law, rather than cooperating with it, yes? That would necessarily go for all laws, even the ones we agree with-the compulsion must still be there, even in cases we agree with.
To take it a step further, is cooperation only possible between people when person or group A asks a specific service of person or group B, and the latter agrees with total knowledge and free will to give that service to the former? It's just...it seems like you're stripping the term 'cooperate' of most of its meaning here. I mean, in your example, you cooperated, sure, with the Iraq war, but that was after the fact. Your indirect service in support of that effort was mandatory.
Can there be cooperation when the outcome is anything other than what a person expected going in to the exchange? Suppose I sign a contract without reading carefully, and it turns out I owe a few hundred extra bucks for, say, lawn care. Will I be able to complain when forking over the money that I am compelled to pay, even though I agreed in advance (unknowingly, but with a chance to have known) to cooperate?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't believe that being compelled to give of your time and money entitles you to any sort of divine approbation.
Do you think that obtaining divine approbation is the primary reason people should help the poor? I don't. I think the primary reason we should help the poor is because the poor suffer when we don't. We should help the needy because we love them as we love ourselves.
quote:Like I stated early on, compulsion robs the giver of the opportunity for spiritual growth.
How? You have stated that you initially "cooperated" willingly in the Iraq war effort but when you withdrew your support for the war, you were then compelled. If I understand you correctly, the difference between voluntary cooperation and being compelled was determined solely by your attitude toward the law and not the law itself. How then would a law that required you to help the poor rob you of the opportunity to cooperate willingly? Would you not still be free to pay your taxes willingly instead of grudgingly?
Furthermore, as I said the first time you made this argument, no government has ever been so effective at caring for the needy that individuals never had the opportunity to help each other directly. Certainly our society is not in an danger of this happening any time soon.
If you are concerned about people having the opportunity to choose freely to serve and help each other, then you ought to be more concerned about how poverty robs people of the ability for spiritual growth than how government programs might. Grinding poverty limits peoples ability to help others far more than raising taxes on the well to do.
quote:So...while government programs may provide for the needy, I think the Lord does not necessarily count taxes used for the support of the poor as charity.
I don't think any kind of giving to the poor counts as charity. Charity is the pure love of Christ. It's an attitude of genuine love we have towards our fellow men that permeates all our actions. If love and concern for all our fellow men is not reflected in all parts of our life, including how we participate in government, we don't have charity. How much any particular act "counts as charity" is a determined by our inner motives for performing the act far more than the nature of the act itself. That's true whether the act is volunteering at a soup kitchen, giving to a beggar, paying a fast offering or supporting a government program. If we are acting out of genuine love and concern for our neighbors, its real charity. If we are motivated by anything else, it's not.
[ February 19, 2012, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Do you think that obtaining divine approbation is the primary reason people should help the poor? I don't. I think the primary reason we should help the poor is because the poor suffer when we don't. We should help the needy because we love them as we love ourselves.
I think this is much of the reason why God cares so much about helping the poor, to the point where the Prophets read like a broken record in that respect. It's a reminder that the poor are also human beings, created in the image of God, and that they have worth and dignity. I think it angers God when we, as individuals, communities, and as a nation, ignore the pain and suffering of those less fortunate than us. Nonetheless, the purpose of giving to the poor should be to help the poor, not to score brownie points for ourselves. We act as ambassadors for Christ, and as such are conduits for his love and mercy. Any personal, spiritual gain we receive for the act of giving to the poor is secondary to the primary purpose thereof - that the poor are taken care of.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I believe we should help the poor because it is an economic investment in the future. Cuts down on crime rates, reduces prison expenses and increases gdp when we have more individuals who contribute to society, who can contribute. Giving them food and orange juice doesn't cut it. They need home, skills, education etc.
To which only a national government through its ability to raise and collect taxes and statistical metrics can effectively achieve.
IP: Logged |
quote:How then would a law that required you to help the poor rob you of the opportunity to cooperate willingly?
That's not what I said. I said that compulsion robs the giver of the opportunity for spiritual growth.
My thinking is tied to the idea that only volitional acts are counted toward (personal) good or evil. It's the idea that a gift given grudgingly is the same as a gift not given (in terms of benefit to the giver).
quote:Do you think that obtaining divine approbation is the primary reason people should help the poor? I don't.
Earlier, I noted:
quote: I think that the impetus for charity though, should be love of others (or a sense of duty to God, if you can't manage love), rather than an observed need. Love and duty rarely fail to instruct, whereas observation is more frequently fooled.
Rabbit said:
quote:If you are concerned about people having the opportunity to choose freely to serve and help each other, then you ought to be more concerned about how poverty robs people of the ability for spiritual growth than how government programs might. Grinding poverty limits peoples ability to help others far more than raising taxes on the well to do.
There's some question about the validity of that notion. Note that I still think taxes should be raised on the wealthy in order to provide services for the needy; but at least one study finds that the needy are more likely to assist other people than the rich.
quote: If love and concern for all our fellow men is not reflected in all parts of our life, including how we participate in government, we don't have charity.
There are a lot of subjective, squishy terms here (love, concern, participate in government), ending in a finality that feels...hasty to me. I don't think it's quite so binary as that.
quote:That's true whether the act is volunteering at a soup kitchen, giving to a beggar, paying a fast offering or supporting a government program. If we are acting out of genuine love and concern for our neighbors, its real charity. If we are motivated by anything else, it's not.
I'm not sure that's true, Rabbit. It feels a bit too...hard line and definitive for me to be comfortable with it.
quote:Any personal, spiritual gain we receive for the act of giving to the poor is secondary to the primary purpose thereof - that the poor are taken care of.
I'm not sure this is the case, either. God loves us all equally; the instruction that a rich man receives from giving away all his worldly goods to follow Christ can be as equally precious as the bread given to sustain a beggar.
Can you judge which is more valuable?
King Benjamin, in the Book of Mormon draws this parallel: we are all beggars before God; even as He does not turn away from us, so we should not turn away from the beggar who asks us for aid.
Rakeesh, I'm afraid that there's not much more I can elaborate on the subject of cooperation and compulsion. Sorry.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:How then would a law that required you to help the poor rob you of the opportunity to cooperate willingly?
That's not what I said. I said that compulsion robs the giver of the opportunity for spiritual growth.
My thinking is tied to the idea that only volitional acts are counted toward (personal) good or evil. It's the idea that a gift given grudgingly is the same as a gift not given (in terms of benefit to the giver).
That doesn't change my question. How do government programs to aid the poor rob individuals of the opportunity for spiritual growth. I don't see any shortage of opportunities for people to grow spiritually by helping the less fortunate.
quote:Do you think that obtaining divine approbation is the primary reason people should help the poor? I don't.
Earlier, I noted:
quote: I think that the impetus for charity though, should be love of others (or a sense of duty to God, if you can't manage love), rather than an observed need. Love and duty rarely fail to instruct, whereas observation is more frequently fooled.
I think you misunderstand my comment. If we are charitable people, we help because help is needed. If we are helping to earn points in heaven -- we aren't doing charity.
Rabbit said:
quote:If you are concerned about people having the opportunity to choose freely to serve and help each other, then you ought to be more concerned about how poverty robs people of the ability for spiritual growth than how government programs might. Grinding poverty limits peoples ability to help others far more than raising taxes on the well to do.
There's some question about the validity of that notion. Note that I still think taxes should be raised on the wealthy in order to provide services for the needy; but at least one study finds that the needy are more likely to assist other people than the rich.[/quote]
No argument here, but you still aren't addressing my question. How do government programs rob people of the opportunity for spiritual growth? Since you haven't addressed the question, I was guessing you were thinking that people didn't have money to give because of high taxes. If the poor are more likely to give than the rich, it seems unlikely that a lack of means is not the major barrier to giving (at least in the US). I really can't see how government programs rob people of an opportunity to grow spiritually by serving each other. There is no shortage of such opportunities.
quote:
quote:That's true whether the act is volunteering at a soup kitchen, giving to a beggar, paying a fast offering or supporting a government program. If we are acting out of genuine love and concern for our neighbors, its real charity. If we are motivated by anything else, it's not.
I'm not sure that's true, Rabbit. It feels a bit too...hard line and definitive for me to be comfortable with it.
It's not nearly as hardline as what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13:3.
Note, I didn't say that it wasn't good to help people unless you were motivated by love. I said it wasn't charity. Charity is the pure love Christ. Pure is an absolute. It is hardline and it's not my definition -- it's the one found in scripture.
That doesn't mean that any other reason for helping the poor is bad. On the contrary, helping the needy for any reasons is better than not helping. But helping the poor is not, in and of itself, ever real charity. Charity is an inner attitude that motivates us to act. It is not the actions. Paul and Moroni are both unequivocal on this.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do government programs to aid the poor rob individuals of the opportunity for spiritual growth. I don't see any shortage of opportunities for people to grow spiritually by helping the less fortunate.
Keep in mind that I am NOT arguing for the cessation of government programs to aid the poor. I am saying that such programs-- good as they are for the needy (and I wish they were better)-- are applied in such a way that individuals are not assisting in a way that allows the individual to receive the benefit of showing charity.
Otherwise, there's not much that I can add to this, Rabbit. It ties back into the idea of volition and intention.
Can people still aid the poor if the government uses tax money to support the needy? Absolutely; I believe that such behavior is required for salvation. Nonetheless, I believe that we should be absolutely engaged in the PASSIVE removal of the need for government intervention-- by acting as individuals and communities to resolve the problem of poverty by our own will and personal effort.
quote:If we are charitable people, we help because help is needed. If we are helping to earn points in heaven -- we aren't doing charity.
The reason why I'm reluctant to commit here is because I dislike examining individuals' motives and coming to such a definitive conclusion. While I tentatively agree with the statement, I don't think it's proper to direct at anyone.
I know you haven't said any such thing-- but that's why I'm hesitant about your declarations here.
quote: If we are acting out of genuine love and concern for our neighbors, its real charity.
...
Charity is an inner attitude that motivates us to act. It is not the actions. Paul and Moroni are both unequivocal on this.
(Pretty sure you mean Mormon-- Moroni was quoting his father in Moroni 7 and 8, not writing his own words-- were you thinking of somewhere else, maybe? Maybe Moroni 10? Moroni 7 is where most folks tie Mormon and Paul's thoughts on charity together... Just checking...)
I'm not sure it's quite so clear cut, Rabbit. Moroni 7 is one of the sources I use for my beliefs on the subject. The early verses of the chapter speak specifically about the connection between action and attitude; so does James. So does Christ, for that matter, in the parable of goats and sheep.
[ February 24, 2012, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have government structures regarding theft even though we are commanded not to steal. I don't see why supporting our duty to charity with government structures is fundamentally different. I don't think that religion should necessarily be supported by government but when the two have the same goals, I don't think that the one negates the good of the other. I don't think that we all should deny that we have kept the commandment not to steal because government agrees with it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are probably not seeing it because I am not making it very clear. I will try again.
You seem to be saying that government enforcement of charity weakens or sullies it and keeps us from being charitable of our own volition.
If we are to obey the command of charity of our own volition and it doesn't "count" if we are compelled shouldn't we also keep the commandment against stealing (for example) without government intervention? Do I not get credit for keeping that commandment even though we, as a community, have decided to enforce that one through the power of law?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If we are to obey the command of charity of our own volition and it doesn't "count" if we are compelled shouldn't we also keep the commandment against stealing (for example) without government intervention?
We should be able to keep all the commandments without government intervention.
quote:Do I not get credit for keeping that commandment even though we, as a community, have decided to enforce that one through the power of law?
Hm... I haven't given it a lot of thought so let me open with this: I don't think we're considered good simply by deeds of omission. I think our goodness or worthiness (or wickedness or immorality) or whatever is shown by our deeds.
Unless one is specifically tempted to break a 'thou-shalt-not' commandment, I'm not sure that one is ever blessed for obedience to it. I mean, I don't think there are a bunch of angels in Heaven lined up to slap you five just because you never killed anyone.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So is it boiling down to an omission/commission thing for you?
I think that we get extra high fives for doing what is difficult for us whether that is not stealing or giving when we aren't feeling particularly generous. Or working for a society that does either of those things when we don't particularly feel like it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So is it boiling down to an omission/commission thing for you?
I think that we get extra high fives for doing what is difficult for us whether that is not stealing or giving when we aren't feeling particularly generous. Or working for a society that does either of those things when we don't particularly feel like it.
I don't disagree. But the key words I pick out of your last paragraph are "doing what is difficult" and "working for a society" both which imply a level of volition.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm...but working for a society can mean voting for or against something. Doing what is difficult can be refraining from something - giving something up, fighting an addiction. Those are positive "omission doing". If that makes sense.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Hmm...but working for a society can mean voting for or against something. Doing what is difficult can be refraining from something - giving something up, fighting an addiction. Those are positive "omission doing". If that makes sense.
Deeds of omission that I meant relate to the example you gave: not stealing, not killing, etc. For most of us, we don't think about not stealing; it's not a problem. We aren't tempted to murder.
The examples you gave above deal with people making intentional choices. Even if the result is to not do something, the volition is present.
That said, I'm not sure we're in disagreement on the substantive things.
Did you want to disagree about something? Chicago style pizza is an abomination, and one day God will smite those who love it.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You simply can't think of Chicago style pizza as the same kind of food as thin pizza. Call it something other than pizza if you like. It is wondrous. MMmm.
(Oooo...maybe I'll order veggie pizza tonight instead of the tuna casserole I was planning.)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We've disagreed a lot over the years, but I'm flummoxed at the idea of any human being actually planning to make tuna casserole.
I mean, tuna casserole is beyond abomination. It's senseless, absolute evil, in a way that even Cthullhu cannot fathom. Cthullhu dreams of tuna casserole, and it ain't just because he's stuck under the sea: it's because he aspires for it, longs for it, seeks it with insane probings and pryings.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I quite like tuna casserole, but I'm the only person in my family who does and consequently I can't get enough of it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I quite like tuna casserole, but I'm the only person in my family who does and consequently I can't get enough of it.
This is the real reason why you're one of the 4 horsemen.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, I really feel like we are just talking past each other. None of your responses seem particularly relevant to arguments I'm trying to make.
Our exchange really started when I said.
quote: . . . in modern American society, the government is the only organization to which we all belong. It is the only body through which we can act 'As the American People'. If we do not support Government involvement (of some kind) in caring for each other, I think we are shirking that collective responsibility. I think there is plenty of room for discussing what might be the most effective type of government involvement -- but I think Christianity does in fact require us to support some type of government involvement.
You asked "Why?"
You keep talking as though I've said that Christianity required us to support forcing people to give to the poor. I did not say that. I said Christian teaching require us (members of a democratic, secular society) to support "some type of government involvement" in caring for people.
Why do I believe that? As I said once before, the most simple and obvious reason is because everything the government does affects people and most everything government does affects the weak in different ways than the strong. Government can't be uninvolved in how we care for our neighbors because everything government does, from military policy to zoning ordinances, affects our neighbors.
In D&C 134:1 it says
quote:We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.
If God is going to hold us accountable for how we participate in making and administering laws, then certainly, since He is a just God, the things He has revealed in the scriptures must be relevant to making and administering laws. Ancients Prophets weren't speaking to people who had a voice in civil government so we shouldn't expect them to say anything directly about making and administering civil laws. But we ought to expect the scriptures to teach us the kinds of righteous values and priorities that should be the foundation of our political views. So let's look at the kind of priorities we find in scripture that might be applicable to politics.
Let's start with how Jesus prioritized the commandment. He taught that the first great commandment was that we love God, but D&C 134 is quite explicit that laws governing worship and other spiritual affairs are unjust. We honor that first commandment in our political activities by supporting a strict separation of church and state and by promoting laws that maximize the freedoms of conscience. We honor that commandment in politics when we ensure that no one will be disadvantaged because of how, what or if they choose to worship. That ensures that those who desire to love God with all their heart, might, mind and strength are free to do so.
Jesus taught that the second most important commandment is that we love our neighbor as ourselves. It seems then self evident that unselfishness and compassion should be the foundation for all our interactions with other people. I have never found anything in scriptures that would imply our actions in relation to government are exempt from that commandment.
The express purpose of civil government (as defined in D&C 134) is to "regulate our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man". Our unmitigated obligation to care for the most vulnerable members of society (i.e. the poor, the sick, the very young and very old) stands out like the light of 10,000 suns in the scriptural teachings. As Dogbreath put it "the prophets read like a broken record" in this respect. If the scriptures teaches us anything at all about what values and priorities should regulate the way we interact with our community, caring for the needy is right at the top.
Therefore, Christians should make it a top priority to consider how the laws and policies we support will affect the most vulnerable members of society. If we do not, I can not see how we could possibly be meeting the obligations that are quite clearly defined in scripture. I think there is plenty of room for Christians to disagree about what kinds of government laws, regulations and policies will best help and protect the most vulnerable members of society. But I don't think its remotely consistent with scriptural teachings if Christians don't consider the well being of the needy as a top political priority because of the simple fact that political decisions affect the needy.
[ February 28, 2012, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, I see circles in your argument. I know you don't like analogies, but lets see if this clears things up.
Bob is poor and needs food. Right now he gets $100 from the government to buy food.
Tom pays his taxes, and assumes $100 of his taxes goes to feed poor Bob.
If Tom were to take that $100 and donate it directly to Bob, then Tom would gain spiritually from the act of charity.
Since Tom is forced to pay his taxes, and pay that $100, then Tom does not get the spiritual growth. You don't get spiritual growth for doing things you are forced to do.
The counter argument is, if the Government does not pay Bob that $100, then Bob goes hungry and suffers unless Tom sees Bob suffering and decides to give him the money.
More people reduce their suffering under governmental programs than under a hodge-podge of random individual charity giving.
Should others suffering continue for the opportunity that a few luckier individuals may gain spiritual growth? How can there be spiritual growth by forcing others to suffer?
One can have ego growth.
One can have that fun feeling of "I just gave a dollar to the beggar and he said thanks." The tax man doesn't say Thanks, or doesn't mean it.
The Bible doesn't say a word about the ego.
Your argument is about what is best for you, not what is best for the recipient of the charity. That is a bit of a self-centered way of looking at charity, which is why you have received so many arguments.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, we pay our taxes and make sure we have a say in how they're used so that they are used for the greater good, and we also give all we can on top of that directly to the needy. Along the way we do our best to give in the correct spirit of giving. We don't stop giving while we quibble about whose good we are doing it for. Hopefully what we give is received as readily and is as useful for the recipient regardless of our mindset when we gave it. Whether or not we need to do a bunch of personal introspection to align our own attitude, if we don't stop our giving in the process then what we give will still be welcome and useful. One fulfills the directive to not neglect the poor and needy. The other addresses our own spiritual development.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I really feel like we are just talking past each other. None of your responses seem particularly relevant to arguments I'm trying to make.
I'm not sure what to say.
I think I've been pretty clear from the outset that I've been talking about government-enforced charity, especially as represented by the support of welfare programs through taxation.
quote:I think there is plenty of room for Christians to disagree about what kinds of government laws, regulations and policies will best help and protect the most vulnerable members of society. But I don't think its remotely consistent with scriptural teachings if Christians don't consider the well being of the needy as a top political priority because of the simple fact that political decisions affect the needy.
I don't have any real disagreement with this, I don't think; I'm wary of its implementation. As a theory, it's okay; in practice, I'm concerned.
I'll point out that a libertarian is as justified as a bleeding heart liberal in using D&C 134 to prop up their political action.
quote:Your argument is about what is best for you, not what is best for the recipient of the charity. That is a bit of a self-centered way of looking at charity, which is why you have received so many arguments.
Can you show why you think that this is the way that I believe? I think it's evident from what I've written that my belief is more nuanced than your analogy and your analysis describe.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think I've been pretty clear from the outset that I've been talking about government-enforced charity, especially as represented by the support of welfare programs through taxation.
And I think I've been clear from the start that I have not yet you direct your questions and responses to me as though I'm claiming Christianity teaches that government should force people to give to the poor. You are talking past me and not actually addressing what I'm saying.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'll point out that a libertarian is as justified as a bleeding heart liberal in using D&C 134 to prop up their political action.
Libertarians argue all kinds of irrational nonsense. So what?
If someone would like to explain what scriptures support the idea that protecting private property rights should be the highest priority of government, I'd be happy to address the flaws in their arguments.
The fact that people can wrest scriptures to support their pet political ideology is not evidence that scriptures cannot provide legitimate guidance on political issues.
Are there any specific scriptures you think I'm ignoring when I conclude that concern for how laws will affect the weakest members of society should be a top priority for Christians?
[ February 29, 2012, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think I've been pretty clear from the outset that I've been talking about government-enforced charity, especially as represented by the support of welfare programs through taxation.
And I think I've been clear from the start that I have not yet you direct your questions and responses to me as though I'm claiming Christianity teaches that government should force people to give to the poor. You are talking past me and not actually addressing what I'm saying.
:shrug:
At this point, I'm afraid further discussion on this particular topic with you, Rabbit, is counter-productive. And I'm not sure our disagreement is substantive-- maybe you're a bit more willing to throw religious underpinnings to legislation than I am. I think we're both committed to helping the poor, both from an individual effort and collective effort standpoint.
Can't complain about that.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, it sounds like your view implies that if poverty were somehow eradicated (let's say through a variety of government programs), that would be a bad thing. Because then we'd be robbed of any chance to better ourselves through charity.
Or maybe you'd say it would be a good thing overall, but there would still be a downside to it, in terms of a diminished opportunity to be virtuous?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
