I don't know that it would be. There is a good, doctrinal discussion that could be had regarding the intermingling of government and religion as well as the impact of government co-opting religion for its own purposes.
I would be interested in hearing peoples' scriptural reactions on that.
It is scary. I think for a theocracy to work, the people would have to believe, without a doubt, that their "ruler" was called of God, and walked with God, as they believed Moses was. Yet, in order for him to be believed, Israel needed to see miracles, which he provided. Hey, won't the antichrist do the same thing someday?
Without a true, called of God leader, a theocracy will quickly turn into creulty and death. Witness the Inquisition, Islam where it rules - any place where the leader walks with God, if you do not obey, since you will burn in hell or not enter into paradise, than the civil authorities have the right to torture and kill you since God hates you for not keeping his precepts - you are worthless to God. A natural man theocracy is always hell - although, people do seem to appreaciate the law and order aspects of it. Many times, that's how those religious leaders rise to power - promises of law and order.
I too believe religion should stay out of government.
That's also why no school prayer has never bothered me. Jesus said, pray privately in your closet, not in public for all to see. I think prayer is something personal and private, why a kid should be forced to pray in a public situation in school or whereever always puzzled me.
John Calvin had no problem with those disagreed with him. They were quickly and efficiently banished or executed. Michael Servitus, who was basically a Unitarian (not believing Jesus was God) was burned at the stake with green wood, so it would take a lot longer. Calvin's government decided what food was placed on the table and how much, what colors were to be worn, and could enter into private homes at least once a year for inspections. Laughing in public was prohibited. Naming children after saints was against the law.
He basically had a "Christian" Taliban in place in the 16th century.
Without a true, called of God leader, a theocracy will quickly turn into creulty and death. ... A natural man theocracy is always hell ...
Can you name us _any_ theocracy that has never been a 'natural man theocracy'? ... Didn't think so. Oh by the way, naming the one where Christ comes back, is naming one that is in 'promise' only. Ie., according to your religious teaching. ... And its been around 2,000 years since the time of Christ.
Maybe that's why we keep hearing of all these End Times prophecies of Christ's return being Just Around the Corner, again and again. People kinda get tired after waiting and waiting, and "He hasn't come back yet.", so they start to disperse from the teaching, only to have the preachers get their attention back by going "Ohh look! According to such-and-such Prophecy, He's coming back Real Soon Now!", and everybody comes back to church.
Garth, knock off the smug self-righteous attitude. We all know you hate God, Christ, the Bible - we get it. You've let us all know, you've made no bones about it.
You always come and drop you little hate bombs in the doctrinal threads.
Read my post again.
I used Moses as someone, who, if the Bible is true - and I believe it is, was the head of a theocracy, but had the "signs" to back it up. Thus, the people followed.
Other then him, every theocracy has been man, playing God. I then gave some examples of results that happen when men play god.
As for the one to come, I believe He will. You, on the other hand agree with those Peter mentions - they scoff, and wonder where is his coming, its been so long... Good for you. He's either coming or he isn't. I believe he will someday, you believe its a myth. Fine. I don't hate you or come on with a nasty attitude towards you - but for some reason you feel you must.
So, continue to rage against the machine Garth, just quit taking it out on everyone who believes differently than you.
Tolerance. . . an interesting concept. . . not often displayed toward the Christian(it is still PC to Christian bash). . . . but, on the other hand there are some groups claiming Christianity as their faith who really do invite it. . . .
Here in the doctrinal forum one would think we would be somewhat isolated from this on threads designated for the serious discussion of Christian issues. As long as I have been here this has never been the case.
As long as the topic's don't invite it. . . I don't think tolerance need mostly be reserved for the non-Christian. . .
This threads topic was "Oops" . . . . hardly controversial. . . .
_________________________________
We have ammendments in place within our Constitutions which protect us from a theocracy. . . . Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The term "separation of church and state" doesn't appear in the constitution. Neither does "right to privacy". But, the concept and ideas are there. . . . just like the term trinity is not in the bible. . .or rapture. . . but, we see the concept and ideas. We use theology to express them. . .and we have the judiciary to interpret the concepts within the constitution. . . . to rule on the constitutionality of an issue.
In recent history. . . I think the closest we have come to something akin to a theocracy is GWB, whose foreign policy decisions where based in large part on his personal beliefs about God. That his orders came straight from God and that he was on a mission from God.
Your point Sunesis, ". . . . for a theocracy to work, the people would have to believe, without a doubt, that their "ruler" was called of God, and walked with God.. . . . " Is right on IMO.
Isn't that what happened in part with GWB? The far Christian right did believe he was called of God and was doing God's will? What a mess! So many people. . . women and children have died because this one man thought his mission was from God almighty. It appears his faith was often the guiding force in his decision process. . . without the aid of reason or empirical evidence. . . the ends justifying the means and outright lies part of his arsenal.
Is that really what is happening with Obama? I have to wonder. After 8 years of war and the systematic dismantling of our constitution and economy. . . . someone new comes along. He offers hope to a really weary nation. . . (I am surprised the misery index wasn't trotted out more). . . .He is young, he energizes, he offers change. . . . and he is seen as a saving grace for our country. The first African American President in a country whose recent history includes segregation. . . it is a huge historical event. . . we have changed. . . evolved and it is evident in his election. We can fix this mess.
He is viewed as a savior of sorts. . .as was Reagan, FDR, Lincoln and others. Hopefully, the right man at the right time. . . . desperately needed.
I just don't think it is remotely in the same category as GWB and his mission from God.
As far as reaching out to Muslims. . . . wouldn't that be a good thing. This is a population we have persecuted for the last eight years. . . . we have not really been tolerant of Islam as a whole. . . . despite GWB saying we were not at war with a religion. . . it really seems we have been on a crusade.
As far as Obama not yet having a church(I didn't know this). . . . given what happened at his last church. . . the scrutiny. . . the judgments. . . is he really free to worship where he wants without subjecting an entire congregation to public inspection? Seems almost kind on his part.
And what if he is fond of the Muslim faith? It is part of the tradition he grew up with. . . He has the right in this country to worship as he wishes. But, he is not attending mosque, just reaching out. That is no threat to us as a nation. . . .
Is he really using religion as a platform or basis for making decisions? Romans 13:1 says God is control. . . once Obama thinks his secret mission starts coming directly from God like GWB. . . then we need to start worrying. . . .
I get your points. . . I just look at it differently. :)
The concept of a wall of separation between church and state comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church.
The letter was written to reassure a religious minority in the new state of Connecticut that their rights were not something that was conveyed to them by a legislative body; rather, those rights were immutable.
The letter itself says:
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that
their
legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
[
Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.
] Adhering to this exp​ression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
The first amendment, itself, says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You can judge for yourself, in this particular context, whether Jefferson's letter is a good exposition and an accurate representation of the text that is actually in the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment or not. I don't particularly see any conflict when reading the entire context of Mr. Jefferson's short note to these people.
However, do I see any basis for the current way that the "wall of separation between church and state" has been applied in modern days? I absolutely do not see that.
((placing hands over head waiting on the onslaught from Garth & Co))
The Establishment Clause is not the subject of this thread, though (the way I see it), the subject is the intermingling of Church and State. Looking at it from a doctrinal point of view.
Consider the famous quote from Jesus, as recorded in Mark 12:17, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." It seems that Jesus clearly understood the roles of a non-religious government and that of the religious establishment. (look at the context of that verse to see what I mean)
Consider social justice efforts in the Bible. You will see no examples of where a secular state is charged with looking after the poor. For example, in Leviticus 19:10, And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God.
There was no commandment to turn over part of the harvest to the government for government redistribution of wealth. Those who owned fields and vineyards were told to leave a bit behind. It was an individual call to charity, not a call for government action.
Consider in the New Testament. Acts 4:34-35, There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need.
Who effected distribution? Not the government, but the church. Likewise, there was no compulsion to sell the surplus and pay the proceeds as a tax: it was voluntary.
Then you have the other passage that is frequently used by the "social justice" types:
Mat 25:34-36 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'
Mat 25:37-39 Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?'
Mat 25:40 And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'
You will, again, note that there was not a call to be taxed and to have a government, either earthly or spiritual, make the distribution. There was an obligation laid for each person to take action.
Knowing this, it amazes me that the churches would want to be intertwined with government.
One would think they would be familiar with the verse, No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." (Luke 16:13)
When they compromise themselves by acceptance of government money, and the government terms and conditions that go along with that government money, they compromise themselves.
I take it you don't consider yourself a "social justice type"? Yet, I think I am safe in concluding you are a Christian? How do you separate the two? Do you not embrace the ideal of social justice? Isn't that what you look for in part at the return? The last will be first?
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great. . . .
A society embracing the care and concern for citizens unable to care for themselves is a noble, right and Godly thing. Because Jesus didn't say it was the role of government through taxation it is somehow a misguided societal and governmental responsibility? On what planet?
Our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. . . . our society is governed. . . . Wow. . . talk about missing the forest for the trees.
That does not prohibit the responsibility of churches and Christian individuals. . . who should be at the forefront setting examples, but our social welfare programs reflect the guiding principles with which our society functions. GOOD principles.
Those who are able to give . . . those who have been given the most. . . and all good gifts are from God. . . have the GREATER responsibility to care for those in need. And as you say. . . we cannot serve two masters. . . God and mammon.
God is a bit socialist in this respect. . . take another look.
And. . . . He takes care of all the sparrows. . . not just the Christian ones.
I believe those in our society who self-identify with a major concern for social justice have seriously misinterpreted, if not perverted, two thousand years of social teaching. I believe they have co-opted social justice teaching to promote a socialist agenda. That is not a universal condemnation, just the general norm for the past 75-80 years.
Therefore, since I have no desire to be associated with those doctrinal perversions, I prefer to separate myself from identifying with them. I will perform labor with those groups from time to time, as some of them do perform worthy work; however, I refuse to support the positions they take on political issues. In fact, I have actually used a "lobbying night" to lobby for positions that correspond to authentic social doctrine rather than the perversions they promote.
You see, my position on social issues is that it is a personal responsibility of Christians (and other people of good will) to perform both corporal (physical) acts of mercy and spiritual acts of mercy. This is not something that can be delegated to a centralized governmental bureaucracy. Take, for example, feeding the poor. It is my personal responsibility to feed the poor, not the government's. Therefore I work from time to time in the local soup kitchen, deliver groceries to the homebound, and stock my local food bank. It is my pleasure to do so, because I feel that I get some variety of blessing for it and believe that I impart some sort of blessing to those whom I serve. And, oh, by the way, we don't ask the religion of somebody when they get fed, get groceries delivered, or pull food out of the food bank (just thought I should say that). Assistance can be tailored to what is needed in a given individual circumstance. Paying my taxes does not relieve me of that responsibility, but it strips me of my resources needed to properly carry out that responsibility. (When, after taxes, I take home only about 60% of my gross income, I am severely hampered in my ability to share with the poor)
Even Dorothy Day believed in a voluntary poverty, not a State-imposed one. If you look up the name Dorothy Day, you will find her to be as radical a social justice champion as there is, but she comes from an era that was before the current one where State controlled charity became the preferred option.
You said, God is a bit socialist in this respect. . . take another look.
One area that is often misunderstood is that society does not equal the State. Socialism makes that mistake. So do most "social justice" types.
I have studied the subject intently for years. God is in no way a socialist. God wants His people to depend on Him and Him alone. Socialism substitutes God with the State as the source. Socialism is a grave moral evil.
God wants us to depend on Him and Him alone. Socialism substitutes God with the State as the source. Socialism is a grave moral evil.
Thank you. Well said.
wG
I am not a socialist nor do I advocate a socialist state. God wants us to depend on Him and Him alone. . . . okay. . . at the end of your work week. . . tell your employer God has you covered and say no thanks to your pay check.
Who are we to tell God how He will provide for those in need?
Everyone must submit to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist are instituted by God. 2 So then, the one who resists the authority is opposing God's command, and those who oppose it will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do good and you will have its approval. 4 For government is God's servant to you for good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, because it does not carry the sword for no reason. For government is God's servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong. 5 Therefore, you must submit, not only because of wrath, but also because of your conscience. 6 And for this reason you pay taxes, since the [authorities] are God's public servants, continually attending to these tasks. 7 Pay your obligations (to everyone: taxes to those you owe taxes, tolls to those you owe tolls, respect to those you owe respect, and honor to those you owe honor.
Government does not take the place of God. . . but God uses governments. . . for His purposes. In our society. . . which is governed. . . we have social welfare programs in place to help care for the needy. Thank God.
What version of the Bible is that? Romans 13:1,2 etc refers to being subject to the higher powers in the church (who have not so far in the 21st century been worthy of it IMO)
Most of us pay taxes whether we want to or not.
Paying taxes that are used to supposed social welfare programs takes all the choice out of charity.
My one brush with the system was when I was a receptionist for a year at a former orphanage which was then billed as a "residential treatment facility for troubled adolescent females." I have absolutely no sympathy for these kids. They did as they pleased - stole, beat the crap out of each other and the counselors, ran away, turned tricks whenever they could. And there was no discipline in place, for they were poor innocent children according to the all-knowing State, and under no circumstances should they be taught right from wrong or even accountability. "IT'S NOT MY FAULT" was their battle cry. They were schooled on grounds, got an allowance, and pretty much lounged around the rest of the time, when they weren't threatening murder and mayhem. One of the pitiful little darlings decided to commit suicide by setting her room on fire, changed her mind, and wandered off to play. Three people who crawled into her room to rescue her suffered smoke inhalation, while she was out enjoying volleyball with her friends. Another little lady threw a plugged in radio into the shower where a girl was bathing whom she didn't care for.
The problem, as I see it, with this "charity" was that there was no godliness in it, no accountability, no real caring. Most of the counselors were just babysitters in bedlam. I think it would be much better if such charities were privately run. Like George Mueller. These chicks were turned loose on society with no skills, no home, no clue how to take care of themselves. The State should have just taken all the money it poured into that place and had a nice bonfire with it.
It is the HCSB(Holman Christian Standard Bible) the version I use . . . Romans 13:1 is about civil obedience. Some theories have it as an interpolation. . . I don't think so. . . but that is me.
Taxes don't take the choice out of charity. . . you can still give to whomever you wish. :)
Sounds like a tough place you worked. . . I am sorry you have no sympathy for these kids. Most of them sure as heck break my heart. That is no way to grow up. No way to live.
The point was not sympathy; the point is are they really being helped, and in my opinion only one or two of them were. Throwing money and sympathy at a problem isn't a solution. Those girls needed to learn accountability and responsibility. They learned neither. They learned that they were pitiful, helpless, victims and that society owed them. They were taught that they were not responsible for their problems, nor were they responsible to learn any skills, support themselves or care for themselves in any way. I can think of two who very well may be independent right now, but most of them are probably still living off taxpayer money.
I believe in helping those who cannot help themselves, but I do not have any interest in helping those who will not help themselves. And that's Biblical.
Here's an example from that particular place: A teenage girl was in a class in the school and decided to spend the hour or so looking out the window. When she was asked, very politely and respectfully, to please kindly take her seat, she flew into a rage. How dare that &*()_()_^&*^())( tell her what to do? She flew upon the instructor, a big hulking young man, and had to be restrained. Even while her teeth were grinding the flesh in his forearm, this young man is saying, "Now, _____, you're really not angry at me you are angry at the person who hurt you when you were a child. That is the person you are biting, not me, not really."
No accountability there. The guy had to get stitches and probably a tetanus and a rabies shot. But she was not responsible for harming him, oh no, she was a victim.
I think it's time for people in this country to grow up, take responsibility for their own actions, and stop depending on the government. I believe in being as charitable as possible, but I would rather give my time and money and goods to those who really need help and want to help themselves.
I used to work in a place where I was routinely thrown around. :) By 200-300 lb men!! I had to restrain them more than once with applied non-violence. That is the rule. . . applied non-violence. Sometimes it worked. . . . . sometimes I booked and sometimes took a few punches! I was no match size and strength wise.
Yet, I loved that job. These men could not help themselves. . . had anger issues and the cognitive ability of a three year old. One guy broke someone's neck.
We were partially state funded. Respected their rights and tried to treat them with dignity. . . it is a fine line when you are giving the most basic care.
Sometimes it is about keeping people, clean, dry, fed, and having a place to lay their heads at night. Who would care for them if there was not gov't money? Their own families could not keep them. . . state hospitals closed. . . and they would be dead if not for these funded homes.
We agree then that those who cannot help themselves are a given?
How do you judge those who will not help themselves? What is the criteria? Does past mental abuse and trauma count or is it just able bodied that makes one capable?
What about anger issues in those adolescents? Does that come from willfulness or something deeper?
Is it evident to the untrained eye and can we be the ones to make these snap judgments? Should we leave it to the trained professionals and in place systems to judge? Can we work within those systems to better them?
Helping those who maybe really can't help themselves. . . not everything is so black and white.
". . . . . but I do not have any interest in helping those who will not help themselves. And that's Biblical." Is that really a biblical sentiment? Let us hope God's compassion goes beyond that . . . . because we didn't save ourselves. . .1 Thess 5:14 And we exhort you, brethren, admonish the disorderly, encourage the fainthearted, support the weak, be longsuffering toward all.
I am not a socialist nor do I advocate a socialist state. God wants us to depend on Him and Him alone. . . . okay. . . at the end of your work week. . . tell your employer God has you covered and say no thanks to your pay check.
Who are we to tell God how He will provide for those in need?
Everyone must submit to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist are instituted by God. 2 So then, the one who resists the authority is opposing God's command, and those who oppose it will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do good and you will have its approval. 4 For government is God's servant to you for good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, because it does not carry the sword for no reason. For government is God's servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong. 5 Therefore, you must submit, not only because of wrath, but also because of your conscience. 6 And for this reason you pay taxes, since the [authorities] are God's public servants, continually attending to these tasks. 7 Pay your obligations (to everyone: taxes to those you owe taxes, tolls to those you owe tolls, respect to those you owe respect, and honor to those you owe honor.
Government does not take the place of God. . . but God uses governments. . . for His purposes. In our society. . . which is governed. . . we have social welfare programs in place to help care for the needy. Thank God.
First of all, I know a lot of people who work a full work week and don't expect to be paid a dime for it. They are members of religious orders.
Who are we to tell God how He will provide? Well, it seems to me if the model of charitable giving extolled throughout the entire Bible is followed, we are not actually telling God how He will provide, rather, we are simply following the guidelines He set forth. On the other hand, if we set up an example that is nowhere even hinted at and require the poor to follow that example, at that time we begin telling God how Hw will provide.
Your quote from Romans 13 is an interesting one. In the context of your post, the message I'm receiving from you is that we should all shut up and submit to the government. I don't know if that's what you intended to communicate, so if I got that wrong, please clear it up a bit. Thanks.
Let's carry out the logic of that a bit, though. We should just shut up and pay our taxes, tolls, and give respect to the government. OK, fine. Using that line of thinking, Poland's domination by the USSR should not have been opposed in the 1980s, because their domination was of God. The countries of Africa should not have risen up and thrown off their French and English colonial masters during the 1960s. Mahatma Gandhi should have just concentrated on Yoga, rather than leading the Indians out of Colonial rule in the 40s. As with Iraq in the 20s. Turkey should have never thrown off Ottoman rule and become a secular state. And, finally, the US should still be a British colony.
So perhaps that understanding of Romans 13:1-7 needs some tweaking.
First of all, I know a lot of people who work a full work week and don't expect to be paid a dime for it. They are members of religious orders.
Who are we to tell God how He will provide? Well, it seems to me if the model of charitable giving extolled throughout the entire Bible is followed, we are not actually telling God how He will provide, rather, we are simply following the guidelines He set forth. On the other hand, if we set up an example that is nowhere even hinted at and require the poor to follow that example, at that time we begin telling God how Hw will provide.
Your quote from Romans 13 is an interesting one. In the context of your post, the message I'm receiving from you is that we should all shut up and submit to the government. I don't know if that's what you intended to communicate, so if I got that wrong, please clear it up a bit. Thanks.
Let's carry out the logic of that a bit, though. We should just shut up and pay our taxes, tolls, and give respect to the government. OK, fine. Using that line of thinking, Poland's domination by the USSR should not have been opposed in the 1980s, because their domination was of God. The countries of Africa should not have risen up and thrown off their French and English colonial masters during the 1960s. Mahatma Gandhi should have just concentrated on Yoga, rather than leading the Indians out of Colonial rule in the 40s. As with Iraq in the 20s. Turkey should have never thrown off Ottoman rule and become a secular state. And, finally, the US should still be a British colony.
So perhaps that understanding of Romans 13:1-7 needs some tweaking.
Taxes are not charity. How they are dispersed is not charitable giving. Do you understand the difference?. . . . Taxes do NOT impede charitable giving required of a Christian. Perhaps your understanding of this needs tweaking.
Even the most dictatorial governments prevent lawlessness. . . even or especially the most tyrannical ones.
What's next. . . Hitler? Like I didn't see that coming. Hubby owes me five. Pharoah, Pilate, Caiphas (Who prophesied!) Did God use them? He used all of them. . . . for HIS purpose and they were bad men. . . He used the most TRAGIC of events. . . . the death of His Son for good. . . for His glory. It is not about us, but about God. His purpose which may not be ours. Should be.
Persecuted Christians in dangerous countries submit to laws and governments. . . .even to the point of death, but still perfectly obeying God. . .
Did Jesus perfectly submit to God's will? Did He overthrow the Romans? Isn't that what they were crying for Him to do? Was God's providence and sovereignty what happened?
Just as it is in the examples you presented.
For the LORD Most High is awe-inspiring,
a great King over all the earth.
He subdues peoples under us
and nations under our feet.
He makes nations great, then destroys them;
He enlarges nations, then leads them away.
Ah, Lord GOD ! You Yourself made the heavens and earth by Your great power and with Your outstretched arm. Nothing is too difficult for You!
Who should not fear You,
King of the nations?
Let the heavens be glad and the earth rejoice,
and let them say among the nations, "The LORD is King!"
From one man He has made every nation of men to live all over the earth and has determined their appointed times and the boundaries of where they live. . .
God chose Israel and then raised up Egypt to enslave them. . . then delivered them and drown the Egyptians! God is sovereign over nations. . . nothing happens that He does not ordain.
2 Thess 3:10: For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
This verse refers to those who are able but not willing. It is unfortunate that many churches have fallen down on the job and do not care for the unfortunate ones in their midst, but I doubt that ever changes, since the government does it for them. No wonder people think church is boring; you go Sunday for a couple of hours and there's not much else to do. The people in the first century church didn't just say it; they lived it. The Romans considered them to be inferior people; they weren't too interested in lending a helping hand to the Jews or the new church.
Am I supposed to apologize that I never got beat to a pulp by one of those girls? I did get cursed a lot because of the color of my skin. Does that count?
2 Thess 3:10: For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
This verse refers to those who are able but not willing. It is unfortunate that many churches have fallen down on the job and do not care for the unfortunate ones in their midst, but I doubt that ever changes, since the government does it for them. No wonder people think church is boring; you go Sunday for a couple of hours and there's not much else to do. The people in the first century church didn't just say it; they lived it. The Romans considered them to be inferior people; they weren't too interested in lending a helping hand to the Jews or the new church.
Am I supposed to apologize that I never got beat to a pulp by one of those girls? I did get cursed a lot because of the color of my skin. Does that count?
WG
I have no idea what you mean by the last part of this. . . I was just sharing part of MY life with you.
We are to love our neighbor as ourselves. . . if your neighbor or enemy is hungry do you check their employment status first? I would just read the specific context of the verse you quote and why Paul said this. . . or not.
God looks on the heart and I don't think Jesus is going to be mad at us if our worst sin is we were too kind.
I don't question your heart in the least. . . as I have told you before. . . you have helped me. :)
((snickers)) Look who's talking, lady. Look who's talking. And many times you don't even see it.
I used Moses as someone, who, if the Bible is true - and I believe it is, was the head of a theocracy, but had the "signs" to back it up. Thus, the people followed.
And the same arguments for supernatural occurances could be said re: other characters in the Bible. Or other characters in other religions, and the respective followers believe in them just as much as you do yours.
You, on the other hand agree with those Peter mentions - they scoff, and wonder where is his coming, its been so long... Good for you. He's either coming or he isn't. I believe he will someday, you believe its a myth. Fine. I don't hate you or come on with a nasty attitude towards you - but for some reason you feel you must.
Uuhhmmm, ... you don't? (For an example of why I voice my doubt about this, check out your posts re: Obama, ... then come back and lie to me again.)
So, continue to rage against the machine Garth, just quit taking it out on everyone who believes differently than you.
Tell ya what. You look at the critter you see in the mirror, and tell her exactly that, m-kay?
Mark, ((here comes the onslaught, ... ;) ))
You, no doubt, have read in that letter where Jefferson explains _why_ there is the 1st Amendment. So that it supports separation of church and state. And, (IMNSHO) for it to be effective, that wall must go _both_ ways. Has to, or else that 'wall' is a sham.
And frankly, if your church (or any other) _needs_ the support of the government in order for it to carry out its doctrine, well, as Ben Franklin once said:
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obligated to call for help of the civil power, it's a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."- Benjamin Franklin
Think about that one for a moment. How about _that_ as being a proper usage of said wall.
You, no doubt, have read in that letter where Jefferson explains _why_ there is the 1st Amendment. So that it supports separation of church and state. And, (IMNSHO) for it to be effective, that wall must go _both_ ways. Has to, or else that 'wall' is a sham.
And frankly, if your church (or any other) _needs_ the support of the government in order for it to carry out its doctrine, well, as Ben Franklin once said:
Think about that one for a moment. How about _that_ as being a proper usage of said wall.
You and I agree on that one. Shocking. Churches should steer way clear of any government influence...and the lack of doing so is one of my biggest problems with liberal-leaning churches, even moreso than the problem with the government for allowing it.
My issue with those who take the Establishment Clause and attempt to create a hostile environment to the public expression of religion by individuals. For example, there are those who would want to prohibit my high school daughter from gathering with a couple of other Catholic kids and praying the Rosary during their lunch break at school, citing 'the wall of Separation' as justification. There are those who would prohibit Federal employees from having a Bible Study group in an unused conference room during their lunch break or after work hours, citing that same wall. There are those who would apply a religious litmus test to elected / appointed officials, not that they wanted to require a religion, but that being a member of a religion would be a disqualifier (once again, the same old tired "too many Catholics on the court" thing came up in some circles with the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to SCOTUS, as a recent example...to say nothing of Sarah Palin's membership in a Pentacostal type of denomination being an utter disqualification for VP). And, of course, who can forget about the case last spring at a Florida high school where Mary Allen, senior class president, as forbidden to speak at the class's graduation because of fears she might mention something about God. One quote about it is sort of funny: "Mr. Staver said the district also agreed to forbid senior class President Mary Allen from speaking at the school's May 30 graduation ceremony on the chance that the young woman, a known Christian, might say something religious. "
When it gets to that extreme, I think the pendulum may have swung a bit too far. Of course, I would never expect you to agree with me on that one.
Taxes are not charity. How they are dispersed is not charitable giving. Do you understand the difference?. . . . Taxes do NOT impede charitable giving required of a Christian. Perhaps your understanding of this needs tweaking.
Had you understood my post, you would recognize that I fully agree that taxes are not charitable giving.
But perhaps you don't quite understand charitable giving that a Christian is called to do, so let me lay it out for you in a granular fashion.
Let us assume, for this example, you make a gross salary of $6,000 per month. $2,000 is paid for taxes (federal, state, local, sales, property, etc.). $600 for a tithe (which is really not charity), $3,000 a month for expenses (mortgage/rent, gas, food, etc.), leaves $400 to put away for savings (rainy day fund, retirement, kid's college, etc.). And nothing left over for charity.
Now, let us assume that the government did not perform social assistance spending and taxes were adjusted accordingly:
$6,000 per month for income, $1,000 for taxes, $600 for tithe, $3,000 for expenses, $400 for savings, and all of a sudden, you have $1,000 that can be given to charitable causes.
If you assert that taxes do not impede charitable giving, that is ridiculous. If you don't have the money, you can't give it. If you pay less in taxes, you have more money that you can dispose of, including to charity. Would I attempt to assert that everybody would then give all of their excess to charity? Of course not. But there are those of us who would give a whole lot more if there was less taken from us through taxes. And I would assert that this number would be more than we would think, once people were to realize that it is up to them to help keep people from being homeless or to keep folks from starving.
Even the most dictatorial governments prevent lawlessness. . . even or especially the most tyrannical ones.
What's next. . . Hitler? Like I didn't see that coming. Hubby owes me five. Pharoah, Pilate, Caiphas (Who prophesied!) Did God use them? He used all of them. . . . for HIS purpose and they were bad men. . . He used the most TRAGIC of events. . . . the death of His Son for good. . . for His glory. It is not about us, but about God. His purpose which may not be ours. Should be.
Persecuted Christians in dangerous countries submit to laws and governments. . . .even to the point of death, but still perfectly obeying God. . .
Did Jesus perfectly submit to God's will? Did He overthrow the Romans? Isn't that what they were crying for Him to do? Was God's providence and sovereignty what happened?
Just as it is in the examples you presented.
For the LORD Most High is awe-inspiring,
a great King over all the earth.
He subdues peoples under us
and nations under our feet.
He makes nations great, then destroys them;
He enlarges nations, then leads them away.
Ah, Lord GOD ! You Yourself made the heavens and earth by Your great power and with Your outstretched arm. Nothing is too difficult for You!
Who should not fear You,
King of the nations?
Let the heavens be glad and the earth rejoice,
and let them say among the nations, "The LORD is King!"
From one man He has made every nation of men to live all over the earth and has determined their appointed times and the boundaries of where they live. . .
God chose Israel and then raised up Egypt to enslave them. . . then delivered them and drown the Egyptians! God is sovereign over nations. . . nothing happens that He does not ordain.
Caution: <marquee width=500><blink><font color=red><b>Godwin's Law has been triggered needlessly</b></font></blink></marquee>
I did not cite the European example you mentioned because those people did not throw off a dictatorial and unjust ruler. The others did.
But try answering the question: should those countries I did cite have just sucked it up? Did those countries, including the United States, commit sin by revolting against their rulers? Should we, morally, still be a British colony?
You are not seriously telling me that taxes impede charitable giving are you? Because of net and gross? Well, I guess you are. . . not much I can say to that kind of logic. I think you really miss the heart of the matter.
One thing is not the same as the other and God does not say if your taxes are too high. . . don't give. He says pay your taxes. He says give. And he tell us do to things without whining or grumbling, moaning and complaining. Do you think God actually NEEDS your money?
Money is a great heart indicator. Render unto the government what is theirs and to God what is His. . . doesn't get much simpler than that. . . . Jesus did not say if your taxes are being used this way don't give. . . if it has an effect on the net don't give. If you want to give 10% of your income. . . you know what you earned. . . give it.
________________________________________
As for the examples you cited about countries that overthrow despotic government. . . did you read the verses I gave you? Did you follow my line of reasoning? God is Sovereign over nations and NOTHING happens that He does not allow. God does not carry out His will in spite of man. . . we are ALL subject TO His will. . . . and if He has a purpose for something. . .
Forget it. . . it is not worth more of my time. . . you figure it out.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
10
19
19
8
Popular Days
Aug 26
15
Aug 25
14
Aug 28
11
Aug 30
10
Top Posters In This Topic
Watered Garden 10 posts
markomalley 19 posts
geisha779 19 posts
Bolshevik 8 posts
Popular Days
Aug 26 2009
15 posts
Aug 25 2009
14 posts
Aug 28 2009
11 posts
Aug 30 2009
10 posts
Popular Posts
Sunesis
Garth, knock off the smug self-righteous attitude. We all know you hate God, Christ, the Bible - we get it. You've let us all know, you've made no bones about it. You always come and drop you littl
geisha779
Mark, Since your post is so long I didn't want to copy and paste. . . . God's providence does not exempt you from civil obedience. . . nor from paying your taxes or from obeying the laws of the land.
GarthP2000
Sunesis, ((snickers)) Look who's talking, lady. Look who's talking. And many times you don't even see it. And the same arguments for supernatural occurances could be said re: other characters in t
markomalley
I don't know that it would be. There is a good, doctrinal discussion that could be had regarding the intermingling of government and religion as well as the impact of government co-opting religion for its own purposes.
I would be interested in hearing peoples' scriptural reactions on that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
There's a thread on Calvinism in this forum. Calvin firmly believed that church and state should be intermingled. Scary, scary, scary.
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
It is scary. I think for a theocracy to work, the people would have to believe, without a doubt, that their "ruler" was called of God, and walked with God, as they believed Moses was. Yet, in order for him to be believed, Israel needed to see miracles, which he provided. Hey, won't the antichrist do the same thing someday?
Without a true, called of God leader, a theocracy will quickly turn into creulty and death. Witness the Inquisition, Islam where it rules - any place where the leader walks with God, if you do not obey, since you will burn in hell or not enter into paradise, than the civil authorities have the right to torture and kill you since God hates you for not keeping his precepts - you are worthless to God. A natural man theocracy is always hell - although, people do seem to appreaciate the law and order aspects of it. Many times, that's how those religious leaders rise to power - promises of law and order.
I too believe religion should stay out of government.
That's also why no school prayer has never bothered me. Jesus said, pray privately in your closet, not in public for all to see. I think prayer is something personal and private, why a kid should be forced to pray in a public situation in school or whereever always puzzled me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
John Calvin had no problem with those disagreed with him. They were quickly and efficiently banished or executed. Michael Servitus, who was basically a Unitarian (not believing Jesus was God) was burned at the stake with green wood, so it would take a lot longer. Calvin's government decided what food was placed on the table and how much, what colors were to be worn, and could enter into private homes at least once a year for inspections. Laughing in public was prohibited. Naming children after saints was against the law.
He basically had a "Christian" Taliban in place in the 16th century.
Nice guy.
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Can you name us _any_ theocracy that has never been a 'natural man theocracy'? ... Didn't think so. Oh by the way, naming the one where Christ comes back, is naming one that is in 'promise' only. Ie., according to your religious teaching. ... And its been around 2,000 years since the time of Christ.
Maybe that's why we keep hearing of all these End Times prophecies of Christ's return being Just Around the Corner, again and again. People kinda get tired after waiting and waiting, and "He hasn't come back yet.", so they start to disperse from the teaching, only to have the preachers get their attention back by going "Ohh look! According to such-and-such Prophecy, He's coming back Real Soon Now!", and everybody comes back to church.
Talk about your ultimate scams! <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Garth, knock off the smug self-righteous attitude. We all know you hate God, Christ, the Bible - we get it. You've let us all know, you've made no bones about it.
You always come and drop you little hate bombs in the doctrinal threads.
Read my post again.
I used Moses as someone, who, if the Bible is true - and I believe it is, was the head of a theocracy, but had the "signs" to back it up. Thus, the people followed.
Other then him, every theocracy has been man, playing God. I then gave some examples of results that happen when men play god.
As for the one to come, I believe He will. You, on the other hand agree with those Peter mentions - they scoff, and wonder where is his coming, its been so long... Good for you. He's either coming or he isn't. I believe he will someday, you believe its a myth. Fine. I don't hate you or come on with a nasty attitude towards you - but for some reason you feel you must.
So, continue to rage against the machine Garth, just quit taking it out on everyone who believes differently than you.
Edited by SunesisLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Tolerance. . . an interesting concept. . . not often displayed toward the Christian(it is still PC to Christian bash). . . . but, on the other hand there are some groups claiming Christianity as their faith who really do invite it. . . .
Here in the doctrinal forum one would think we would be somewhat isolated from this on threads designated for the serious discussion of Christian issues. As long as I have been here this has never been the case.
As long as the topic's don't invite it. . . I don't think tolerance need mostly be reserved for the non-Christian. . .
This threads topic was "Oops" . . . . hardly controversial. . . .
_________________________________
We have ammendments in place within our Constitutions which protect us from a theocracy. . . . Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The term "separation of church and state" doesn't appear in the constitution. Neither does "right to privacy". But, the concept and ideas are there. . . . just like the term trinity is not in the bible. . .or rapture. . . but, we see the concept and ideas. We use theology to express them. . .and we have the judiciary to interpret the concepts within the constitution. . . . to rule on the constitutionality of an issue.
In recent history. . . I think the closest we have come to something akin to a theocracy is GWB, whose foreign policy decisions where based in large part on his personal beliefs about God. That his orders came straight from God and that he was on a mission from God.
Your point Sunesis, ". . . . for a theocracy to work, the people would have to believe, without a doubt, that their "ruler" was called of God, and walked with God.. . . . " Is right on IMO.
Isn't that what happened in part with GWB? The far Christian right did believe he was called of God and was doing God's will? What a mess! So many people. . . women and children have died because this one man thought his mission was from God almighty. It appears his faith was often the guiding force in his decision process. . . without the aid of reason or empirical evidence. . . the ends justifying the means and outright lies part of his arsenal.
Is that really what is happening with Obama? I have to wonder. After 8 years of war and the systematic dismantling of our constitution and economy. . . . someone new comes along. He offers hope to a really weary nation. . . (I am surprised the misery index wasn't trotted out more). . . .He is young, he energizes, he offers change. . . . and he is seen as a saving grace for our country. The first African American President in a country whose recent history includes segregation. . . it is a huge historical event. . . we have changed. . . evolved and it is evident in his election. We can fix this mess.
He is viewed as a savior of sorts. . .as was Reagan, FDR, Lincoln and others. Hopefully, the right man at the right time. . . . desperately needed.
I just don't think it is remotely in the same category as GWB and his mission from God.
As far as reaching out to Muslims. . . . wouldn't that be a good thing. This is a population we have persecuted for the last eight years. . . . we have not really been tolerant of Islam as a whole. . . . despite GWB saying we were not at war with a religion. . . it really seems we have been on a crusade.
As far as Obama not yet having a church(I didn't know this). . . . given what happened at his last church. . . the scrutiny. . . the judgments. . . is he really free to worship where he wants without subjecting an entire congregation to public inspection? Seems almost kind on his part.
And what if he is fond of the Muslim faith? It is part of the tradition he grew up with. . . He has the right in this country to worship as he wishes. But, he is not attending mosque, just reaching out. That is no threat to us as a nation. . . .
Is he really using religion as a platform or basis for making decisions? Romans 13:1 says God is control. . . once Obama thinks his secret mission starts coming directly from God like GWB. . . then we need to start worrying. . . .
I get your points. . . I just look at it differently. :)
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
The concept of a wall of separation between church and state comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church.
The letter was written to reassure a religious minority in the new state of Connecticut that their rights were not something that was conveyed to them by a legislative body; rather, those rights were immutable.
The letter itself says:
The first amendment, itself, says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You can judge for yourself, in this particular context, whether Jefferson's letter is a good exposition and an accurate representation of the text that is actually in the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment or not. I don't particularly see any conflict when reading the entire context of Mr. Jefferson's short note to these people.
However, do I see any basis for the current way that the "wall of separation between church and state" has been applied in modern days? I absolutely do not see that.
((placing hands over head waiting on the onslaught from Garth & Co))
The Establishment Clause is not the subject of this thread, though (the way I see it), the subject is the intermingling of Church and State. Looking at it from a doctrinal point of view.
Consider the famous quote from Jesus, as recorded in Mark 12:17, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." It seems that Jesus clearly understood the roles of a non-religious government and that of the religious establishment. (look at the context of that verse to see what I mean)
Consider social justice efforts in the Bible. You will see no examples of where a secular state is charged with looking after the poor. For example, in Leviticus 19:10, And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God.
There was no commandment to turn over part of the harvest to the government for government redistribution of wealth. Those who owned fields and vineyards were told to leave a bit behind. It was an individual call to charity, not a call for government action.
Consider in the New Testament. Acts 4:34-35, There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need.
Who effected distribution? Not the government, but the church. Likewise, there was no compulsion to sell the surplus and pay the proceeds as a tax: it was voluntary.
Then you have the other passage that is frequently used by the "social justice" types:
You will, again, note that there was not a call to be taxed and to have a government, either earthly or spiritual, make the distribution. There was an obligation laid for each person to take action.
Knowing this, it amazes me that the churches would want to be intertwined with government.
One would think they would be familiar with the verse, No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." (Luke 16:13)
When they compromise themselves by acceptance of government money, and the government terms and conditions that go along with that government money, they compromise themselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
markomalley,
I take it you don't consider yourself a "social justice type"? Yet, I think I am safe in concluding you are a Christian? How do you separate the two? Do you not embrace the ideal of social justice? Isn't that what you look for in part at the return? The last will be first?
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great. . . .
A society embracing the care and concern for citizens unable to care for themselves is a noble, right and Godly thing. Because Jesus didn't say it was the role of government through taxation it is somehow a misguided societal and governmental responsibility? On what planet?
Our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. . . . our society is governed. . . . Wow. . . talk about missing the forest for the trees.
That does not prohibit the responsibility of churches and Christian individuals. . . who should be at the forefront setting examples, but our social welfare programs reflect the guiding principles with which our society functions. GOOD principles.
Those who are able to give . . . those who have been given the most. . . and all good gifts are from God. . . have the GREATER responsibility to care for those in need. And as you say. . . we cannot serve two masters. . . God and mammon.
God is a bit socialist in this respect. . . take another look.
And. . . . He takes care of all the sparrows. . . not just the Christian ones.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Geisha,
I believe those in our society who self-identify with a major concern for social justice have seriously misinterpreted, if not perverted, two thousand years of social teaching. I believe they have co-opted social justice teaching to promote a socialist agenda. That is not a universal condemnation, just the general norm for the past 75-80 years.
Therefore, since I have no desire to be associated with those doctrinal perversions, I prefer to separate myself from identifying with them. I will perform labor with those groups from time to time, as some of them do perform worthy work; however, I refuse to support the positions they take on political issues. In fact, I have actually used a "lobbying night" to lobby for positions that correspond to authentic social doctrine rather than the perversions they promote.
You see, my position on social issues is that it is a personal responsibility of Christians (and other people of good will) to perform both corporal (physical) acts of mercy and spiritual acts of mercy. This is not something that can be delegated to a centralized governmental bureaucracy. Take, for example, feeding the poor. It is my personal responsibility to feed the poor, not the government's. Therefore I work from time to time in the local soup kitchen, deliver groceries to the homebound, and stock my local food bank. It is my pleasure to do so, because I feel that I get some variety of blessing for it and believe that I impart some sort of blessing to those whom I serve. And, oh, by the way, we don't ask the religion of somebody when they get fed, get groceries delivered, or pull food out of the food bank (just thought I should say that). Assistance can be tailored to what is needed in a given individual circumstance. Paying my taxes does not relieve me of that responsibility, but it strips me of my resources needed to properly carry out that responsibility. (When, after taxes, I take home only about 60% of my gross income, I am severely hampered in my ability to share with the poor)
Even Dorothy Day believed in a voluntary poverty, not a State-imposed one. If you look up the name Dorothy Day, you will find her to be as radical a social justice champion as there is, but she comes from an era that was before the current one where State controlled charity became the preferred option.
You said, God is a bit socialist in this respect. . . take another look.
One area that is often misunderstood is that society does not equal the State. Socialism makes that mistake. So do most "social justice" types.
I have studied the subject intently for years. God is in no way a socialist. God wants His people to depend on Him and Him alone. Socialism substitutes God with the State as the source. Socialism is a grave moral evil.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
Mark said,
God wants us to depend on Him and Him alone. Socialism substitutes God with the State as the source. Socialism is a grave moral evil.
Thank you. Well said.
wG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I am not a socialist nor do I advocate a socialist state. God wants us to depend on Him and Him alone. . . . okay. . . at the end of your work week. . . tell your employer God has you covered and say no thanks to your pay check.
Who are we to tell God how He will provide for those in need?
Everyone must submit to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist are instituted by God. 2 So then, the one who resists the authority is opposing God's command, and those who oppose it will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do good and you will have its approval. 4 For government is God's servant to you for good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, because it does not carry the sword for no reason. For government is God's servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong. 5 Therefore, you must submit, not only because of wrath, but also because of your conscience. 6 And for this reason you pay taxes, since the [authorities] are God's public servants, continually attending to these tasks. 7 Pay your obligations (to everyone: taxes to those you owe taxes, tolls to those you owe tolls, respect to those you owe respect, and honor to those you owe honor.
Government does not take the place of God. . . but God uses governments. . . for His purposes. In our society. . . which is governed. . . we have social welfare programs in place to help care for the needy. Thank God.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
What version of the Bible is that? Romans 13:1,2 etc refers to being subject to the higher powers in the church (who have not so far in the 21st century been worthy of it IMO)
Most of us pay taxes whether we want to or not.
Paying taxes that are used to supposed social welfare programs takes all the choice out of charity.
My one brush with the system was when I was a receptionist for a year at a former orphanage which was then billed as a "residential treatment facility for troubled adolescent females." I have absolutely no sympathy for these kids. They did as they pleased - stole, beat the crap out of each other and the counselors, ran away, turned tricks whenever they could. And there was no discipline in place, for they were poor innocent children according to the all-knowing State, and under no circumstances should they be taught right from wrong or even accountability. "IT'S NOT MY FAULT" was their battle cry. They were schooled on grounds, got an allowance, and pretty much lounged around the rest of the time, when they weren't threatening murder and mayhem. One of the pitiful little darlings decided to commit suicide by setting her room on fire, changed her mind, and wandered off to play. Three people who crawled into her room to rescue her suffered smoke inhalation, while she was out enjoying volleyball with her friends. Another little lady threw a plugged in radio into the shower where a girl was bathing whom she didn't care for.
The problem, as I see it, with this "charity" was that there was no godliness in it, no accountability, no real caring. Most of the counselors were just babysitters in bedlam. I think it would be much better if such charities were privately run. Like George Mueller. These chicks were turned loose on society with no skills, no home, no clue how to take care of themselves. The State should have just taken all the money it poured into that place and had a nice bonfire with it.
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Hey WG,
It is the HCSB(Holman Christian Standard Bible) the version I use . . . Romans 13:1 is about civil obedience. Some theories have it as an interpolation. . . I don't think so. . . but that is me.
Taxes don't take the choice out of charity. . . you can still give to whomever you wish. :)
Sounds like a tough place you worked. . . I am sorry you have no sympathy for these kids. Most of them sure as heck break my heart. That is no way to grow up. No way to live.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
The point was not sympathy; the point is are they really being helped, and in my opinion only one or two of them were. Throwing money and sympathy at a problem isn't a solution. Those girls needed to learn accountability and responsibility. They learned neither. They learned that they were pitiful, helpless, victims and that society owed them. They were taught that they were not responsible for their problems, nor were they responsible to learn any skills, support themselves or care for themselves in any way. I can think of two who very well may be independent right now, but most of them are probably still living off taxpayer money.
I believe in helping those who cannot help themselves, but I do not have any interest in helping those who will not help themselves. And that's Biblical.
Here's an example from that particular place: A teenage girl was in a class in the school and decided to spend the hour or so looking out the window. When she was asked, very politely and respectfully, to please kindly take her seat, she flew into a rage. How dare that &*()_()_^&*^())( tell her what to do? She flew upon the instructor, a big hulking young man, and had to be restrained. Even while her teeth were grinding the flesh in his forearm, this young man is saying, "Now, _____, you're really not angry at me you are angry at the person who hurt you when you were a child. That is the person you are biting, not me, not really."
No accountability there. The guy had to get stitches and probably a tetanus and a rabies shot. But she was not responsible for harming him, oh no, she was a victim.
I think it's time for people in this country to grow up, take responsibility for their own actions, and stop depending on the government. I believe in being as charitable as possible, but I would rather give my time and money and goods to those who really need help and want to help themselves.
WG
Edited by Watered GardenLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I used to work in a place where I was routinely thrown around. :) By 200-300 lb men!! I had to restrain them more than once with applied non-violence. That is the rule. . . applied non-violence. Sometimes it worked. . . . . sometimes I booked and sometimes took a few punches! I was no match size and strength wise.
Yet, I loved that job. These men could not help themselves. . . had anger issues and the cognitive ability of a three year old. One guy broke someone's neck.
We were partially state funded. Respected their rights and tried to treat them with dignity. . . it is a fine line when you are giving the most basic care.
Sometimes it is about keeping people, clean, dry, fed, and having a place to lay their heads at night. Who would care for them if there was not gov't money? Their own families could not keep them. . . state hospitals closed. . . and they would be dead if not for these funded homes.
We agree then that those who cannot help themselves are a given?
How do you judge those who will not help themselves? What is the criteria? Does past mental abuse and trauma count or is it just able bodied that makes one capable?
What about anger issues in those adolescents? Does that come from willfulness or something deeper?
Is it evident to the untrained eye and can we be the ones to make these snap judgments? Should we leave it to the trained professionals and in place systems to judge? Can we work within those systems to better them?
Helping those who maybe really can't help themselves. . . not everything is so black and white.
". . . . . but I do not have any interest in helping those who will not help themselves. And that's Biblical." Is that really a biblical sentiment? Let us hope God's compassion goes beyond that . . . . because we didn't save ourselves. . .1 Thess 5:14 And we exhort you, brethren, admonish the disorderly, encourage the fainthearted, support the weak, be longsuffering toward all.
Take Care. . . :)
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
First of all, I know a lot of people who work a full work week and don't expect to be paid a dime for it. They are members of religious orders.
Who are we to tell God how He will provide? Well, it seems to me if the model of charitable giving extolled throughout the entire Bible is followed, we are not actually telling God how He will provide, rather, we are simply following the guidelines He set forth. On the other hand, if we set up an example that is nowhere even hinted at and require the poor to follow that example, at that time we begin telling God how Hw will provide.
Your quote from Romans 13 is an interesting one. In the context of your post, the message I'm receiving from you is that we should all shut up and submit to the government. I don't know if that's what you intended to communicate, so if I got that wrong, please clear it up a bit. Thanks.
Let's carry out the logic of that a bit, though. We should just shut up and pay our taxes, tolls, and give respect to the government. OK, fine. Using that line of thinking, Poland's domination by the USSR should not have been opposed in the 1980s, because their domination was of God. The countries of Africa should not have risen up and thrown off their French and English colonial masters during the 1960s. Mahatma Gandhi should have just concentrated on Yoga, rather than leading the Indians out of Colonial rule in the 40s. As with Iraq in the 20s. Turkey should have never thrown off Ottoman rule and become a secular state. And, finally, the US should still be a British colony.
So perhaps that understanding of Romans 13:1-7 needs some tweaking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Taxes are not charity. How they are dispersed is not charitable giving. Do you understand the difference?. . . . Taxes do NOT impede charitable giving required of a Christian. Perhaps your understanding of this needs tweaking.
Even the most dictatorial governments prevent lawlessness. . . even or especially the most tyrannical ones.
What's next. . . Hitler? Like I didn't see that coming. Hubby owes me five. Pharoah, Pilate, Caiphas (Who prophesied!) Did God use them? He used all of them. . . . for HIS purpose and they were bad men. . . He used the most TRAGIC of events. . . . the death of His Son for good. . . for His glory. It is not about us, but about God. His purpose which may not be ours. Should be.
Persecuted Christians in dangerous countries submit to laws and governments. . . .even to the point of death, but still perfectly obeying God. . .
Did Jesus perfectly submit to God's will? Did He overthrow the Romans? Isn't that what they were crying for Him to do? Was God's providence and sovereignty what happened?
Just as it is in the examples you presented.
For the LORD Most High is awe-inspiring,
a great King over all the earth.
He subdues peoples under us
and nations under our feet.
He makes nations great, then destroys them;
He enlarges nations, then leads them away.
Ah, Lord GOD ! You Yourself made the heavens and earth by Your great power and with Your outstretched arm. Nothing is too difficult for You!
Who should not fear You,
King of the nations?
Let the heavens be glad and the earth rejoice,
and let them say among the nations, "The LORD is King!"
From one man He has made every nation of men to live all over the earth and has determined their appointed times and the boundaries of where they live. . .
God chose Israel and then raised up Egypt to enslave them. . . then delivered them and drown the Egyptians! God is sovereign over nations. . . nothing happens that He does not ordain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
2 Thess 3:10: For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
This verse refers to those who are able but not willing. It is unfortunate that many churches have fallen down on the job and do not care for the unfortunate ones in their midst, but I doubt that ever changes, since the government does it for them. No wonder people think church is boring; you go Sunday for a couple of hours and there's not much else to do. The people in the first century church didn't just say it; they lived it. The Romans considered them to be inferior people; they weren't too interested in lending a helping hand to the Jews or the new church.
Am I supposed to apologize that I never got beat to a pulp by one of those girls? I did get cursed a lot because of the color of my skin. Does that count?
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I have no idea what you mean by the last part of this. . . I was just sharing part of MY life with you.
We are to love our neighbor as ourselves. . . if your neighbor or enemy is hungry do you check their employment status first? I would just read the specific context of the verse you quote and why Paul said this. . . or not.
God looks on the heart and I don't think Jesus is going to be mad at us if our worst sin is we were too kind.
I don't question your heart in the least. . . as I have told you before. . . you have helped me. :)
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Sunesis,
((snickers)) Look who's talking, lady. Look who's talking. And many times you don't even see it.
And the same arguments for supernatural occurances could be said re: other characters in the Bible. Or other characters in other religions, and the respective followers believe in them just as much as you do yours.
Uuhhmmm, ... you don't? (For an example of why I voice my doubt about this, check out your posts re: Obama, ... then come back and lie to me again.)
Tell ya what. You look at the critter you see in the mirror, and tell her exactly that, m-kay?
Mark, ((here comes the onslaught, ... ;) ))
You, no doubt, have read in that letter where Jefferson explains _why_ there is the 1st Amendment. So that it supports separation of church and state. And, (IMNSHO) for it to be effective, that wall must go _both_ ways. Has to, or else that 'wall' is a sham.
And frankly, if your church (or any other) _needs_ the support of the government in order for it to carry out its doctrine, well, as Ben Franklin once said:
Think about that one for a moment. How about _that_ as being a proper usage of said wall.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
You and I agree on that one. Shocking. Churches should steer way clear of any government influence...and the lack of doing so is one of my biggest problems with liberal-leaning churches, even moreso than the problem with the government for allowing it.
My issue with those who take the Establishment Clause and attempt to create a hostile environment to the public expression of religion by individuals. For example, there are those who would want to prohibit my high school daughter from gathering with a couple of other Catholic kids and praying the Rosary during their lunch break at school, citing 'the wall of Separation' as justification. There are those who would prohibit Federal employees from having a Bible Study group in an unused conference room during their lunch break or after work hours, citing that same wall. There are those who would apply a religious litmus test to elected / appointed officials, not that they wanted to require a religion, but that being a member of a religion would be a disqualifier (once again, the same old tired "too many Catholics on the court" thing came up in some circles with the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to SCOTUS, as a recent example...to say nothing of Sarah Palin's membership in a Pentacostal type of denomination being an utter disqualification for VP). And, of course, who can forget about the case last spring at a Florida high school where Mary Allen, senior class president, as forbidden to speak at the class's graduation because of fears she might mention something about God. One quote about it is sort of funny: "Mr. Staver said the district also agreed to forbid senior class President Mary Allen from speaking at the school's May 30 graduation ceremony on the chance that the young woman, a known Christian, might say something religious. "
When it gets to that extreme, I think the pendulum may have swung a bit too far. Of course, I would never expect you to agree with me on that one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Had you understood my post, you would recognize that I fully agree that taxes are not charitable giving.
But perhaps you don't quite understand charitable giving that a Christian is called to do, so let me lay it out for you in a granular fashion.
Let us assume, for this example, you make a gross salary of $6,000 per month. $2,000 is paid for taxes (federal, state, local, sales, property, etc.). $600 for a tithe (which is really not charity), $3,000 a month for expenses (mortgage/rent, gas, food, etc.), leaves $400 to put away for savings (rainy day fund, retirement, kid's college, etc.). And nothing left over for charity.
Now, let us assume that the government did not perform social assistance spending and taxes were adjusted accordingly:
$6,000 per month for income, $1,000 for taxes, $600 for tithe, $3,000 for expenses, $400 for savings, and all of a sudden, you have $1,000 that can be given to charitable causes.
If you assert that taxes do not impede charitable giving, that is ridiculous. If you don't have the money, you can't give it. If you pay less in taxes, you have more money that you can dispose of, including to charity. Would I attempt to assert that everybody would then give all of their excess to charity? Of course not. But there are those of us who would give a whole lot more if there was less taken from us through taxes. And I would assert that this number would be more than we would think, once people were to realize that it is up to them to help keep people from being homeless or to keep folks from starving.
Caution: <marquee width=500><blink><font color=red><b>Godwin's Law has been triggered needlessly</b></font></blink></marquee>
I did not cite the European example you mentioned because those people did not throw off a dictatorial and unjust ruler. The others did.
But try answering the question: should those countries I did cite have just sucked it up? Did those countries, including the United States, commit sin by revolting against their rulers? Should we, morally, still be a British colony?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Mark,
You are not seriously telling me that taxes impede charitable giving are you? Because of net and gross? Well, I guess you are. . . not much I can say to that kind of logic. I think you really miss the heart of the matter.
One thing is not the same as the other and God does not say if your taxes are too high. . . don't give. He says pay your taxes. He says give. And he tell us do to things without whining or grumbling, moaning and complaining. Do you think God actually NEEDS your money?
Money is a great heart indicator. Render unto the government what is theirs and to God what is His. . . doesn't get much simpler than that. . . . Jesus did not say if your taxes are being used this way don't give. . . if it has an effect on the net don't give. If you want to give 10% of your income. . . you know what you earned. . . give it.
________________________________________
As for the examples you cited about countries that overthrow despotic government. . . did you read the verses I gave you? Did you follow my line of reasoning? God is Sovereign over nations and NOTHING happens that He does not allow. God does not carry out His will in spite of man. . . we are ALL subject TO His will. . . . and if He has a purpose for something. . .
Forget it. . . it is not worth more of my time. . . you figure it out.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.