richardhutnik said:
outlawauron said:
Mr Khan said:
mrstickball said:
Neither, necessarily.
However, the Bible outlines social welfare as being a key component of Christianity, not government. Even during the Levitical government, God specifically outlined how social welfare was to be taken care of - the people were to take a portion of their income, and give it to the poor and needy.
In the New Testament, you find a similar situation. Social welfare was one of the first issues tackled by the early church in Acts 5.
To take that away from Christians and make it part of government isn't entirely "Satan", but it certainly allows for the breeding of complacency among Christians, and is vastly inefficient compared to people giving of their time and money to help the needy. |
And for government "of the people," welfare becomes part of the Christian mandate, if the state is the expression of the will of the people, it is the will of Christian people that the poor be cared for.
|
But the Christian mandate is for the church, not for a governing body. The state does not and most will never be a expression of the will of the people, otherwise, we wouldn't be a republic.
|
I am reminded of the following comment said: "It isn't a Democracy, it is a Republic" when reading the above. I have to ask this though: If a Republic doesn't reflect the will of the people, then is it nothing more than a dictatorship, with a ruling class on top that doesn't do what the people want? Why would the people turn to it, and there being semblance of governance, if the government wouldn't reflect the wishes of the people?
|
We're differing on semantics. I think it is the job of elected officials in my republic to represent me in Congress and act on my behalf so that the best outcome may be reached for society. They are to do what is best for whom they represent, and sometimes what people want isn't feasible. Due to that, they can't always be that expression of will.
