By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 13 June 2012
Edit Thread
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
 

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?


Again.  It's the collective will of the people.  Which is a totally different thing from Christianity which focuses on the will and actions of the individual.

If free will and choices weren't important, we wouldn't have them.

What you stated there I believe is a very stripped down version of what Christianity is about.  In Christianity, there is also a focus on people collectively doing things.  Christianity isn't just a religion of individuals wishes and whims and wants, and commands.  There is a respect for individuals, but in a framework of community.  The American expression of Christianity is not the full expression of Christianity.  There is ample scripture of this.  This focus even turns charity into something to show the worth of the giver, rather than a way to help the person in need.  This focus is hard pressed to fit into a Christian framework at all.  If you want to get into scripture, tradition, or post-scriptural writings that show that Christianity is something focused on individual as its main thrust, please do so.  I could do otherwise here.  

And this does connect to the initial issue which looks theologically at the role of government. 

I will also say, according to Reform theology, free will and choice can be myths.  Things are the way they are, because God makes it so, right down to someone being part of the elect.  And in this, Christian beliefs can still function.  

Except, you totally miss the forest from the trees in your analysis.

The focus turns charity in somethign to show worth to the giver rather then a way to help the person in need.

That's exactly my point.

When you are specifically forcing people to donate to charity, you specifically get rid of said distinctions.

Is Joe Selfish dude suddenly a better person because he pays taxes to help the poor when if he wasn't forced to pay those taxes he wouldnt' do so?

Of course not!

In no way would it foward the judgement of a person, and furthermore if anything could hinder a person's spirtual development because they tend to start looking at taking care of the poor as "the governments job..." and then you get arguements where people suggest that supporting more government charity is the same as giving of yourself, which ignores the point that the reason it shows off the worth of the giver... it's because THEY sacrifice.

I mean, what's a sign of sacrifice, giving of yourself without thought for yourself.

 

Also, if your going with the "Everything is predestined and God's plan" view of Christianity then everything from welfare to the fucking holocaust was god's plan.  So I mean... pointless thread.