By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Theological political question: Is government welfare of God or Satan?

richardhutnik on 10 June 2012
mrstickball said:
richardhutnik said:
Now, if one does look to the Old Testament, the government of Israel was pretty much a theocracy, for all practical purposes.  It was an anarchist one with the Judges running about, and no natural king, to the more normal view of a theocracy when Israel got a King.  In this, the government did the role of the church there, and people's tithes and offerings were roughly equivalent to taxes we have now.  The tithes and offerings ran the government of Israel, and was used to pay the priests and other offerings.  If one wants to argue that this model is Biblical for government, then one can argue taxes collective and given in welfare (redistribution of wealth and income) is Biblical.  If one wants to argue more for a separation of church and state, and view it as more New Testament favored, then one could say this isn't so.

I figured I would run this thread here, to see what people of religious belief on here had, and then see people come out, if they were opposed to any form of government run welfare, as to what they saw as the alternative, even flat out arguing that those who are poor deserve to be where they are, because it fit God's will.

1. Very much agree with the first paragraph. I was going to include a citation of 1 Timothy 2:2 as a reference to such a state. As per the New Testament, there is really no argument for church involvement in the affairs of the state. Having said this, I would go further as to argue that when welfare is incorporated into the workings of the government, they have (arguably) usurped the affairs and goals of the church in one aspect of Christianity. It'd be no different if the state were to create or promote its own religion in opposition to Christianity.

2. The thing about the Old Testament and social welfare is that God's commandment in Deuteronomy actually avoids the Theocratic government entirely. This is a very unique aspect of social welfare in the OT. Almost every commandment was given with the authority of the Temple to execute judgements from the laws of the Pentatuch.

Here's the citation in Deuteronomy 26:12-13:

_______________

 

12 When you have finished setting aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give it to the Levite, the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied. 13 Then say to the Lord your God: “I have removed from my house the sacred portion and have given it to the Levite, the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, according to all you commanded. I have not turned aside from your commands nor have I forgotten any of them.

_______________

You'll notice that no authority was given to the government to execute the order - it was a command directly from God to the Israelites, and for them to act upon it. No funds were given to a central entity to re-distribute, but directly from the halves to the halve-nots. Additionally, if you read the context, it outlines where tithe is to go: two years of tithe to the government/church, and one directly to the needy and the Levites. Therefore, the Biblical model of welfare is a full separation of the government and actual re-distribution.

I hope I wrote what I wrote correctly.  What I said was that the pre-Kings era of Israel was a Theocracy in an anarchist sense.  It was literally God on top as the King of the people, with some Judges going about.  It was not done through men administering, but between God and men.  It isn't what people normally think as a theocracy, which is the later period, which consist of middlemen in the name of God doing everything.

Applied today, questions arise in regards to the application.  If the people of a nation elect to use government to practice the redistribution of income to help the poor, is this for or against the will of God?  I am not sure if much thought is even given to this, based on how the political talk goes about.



Around the Network
Mr Khan on 10 June 2012
richardhutnik said:
mrstickball said:
richardhutnik said:
Now, if one does look to the Old Testament, the government of Israel was pretty much a theocracy, for all practical purposes.  It was an anarchist one with the Judges running about, and no natural king, to the more normal view of a theocracy when Israel got a King.  In this, the government did the role of the church there, and people's tithes and offerings were roughly equivalent to taxes we have now.  The tithes and offerings ran the government of Israel, and was used to pay the priests and other offerings.  If one wants to argue that this model is Biblical for government, then one can argue taxes collective and given in welfare (redistribution of wealth and income) is Biblical.  If one wants to argue more for a separation of church and state, and view it as more New Testament favored, then one could say this isn't so.

I figured I would run this thread here, to see what people of religious belief on here had, and then see people come out, if they were opposed to any form of government run welfare, as to what they saw as the alternative, even flat out arguing that those who are poor deserve to be where they are, because it fit God's will.

1. Very much agree with the first paragraph. I was going to include a citation of 1 Timothy 2:2 as a reference to such a state. As per the New Testament, there is really no argument for church involvement in the affairs of the state. Having said this, I would go further as to argue that when welfare is incorporated into the workings of the government, they have (arguably) usurped the affairs and goals of the church in one aspect of Christianity. It'd be no different if the state were to create or promote its own religion in opposition to Christianity.

2. The thing about the Old Testament and social welfare is that God's commandment in Deuteronomy actually avoids the Theocratic government entirely. This is a very unique aspect of social welfare in the OT. Almost every commandment was given with the authority of the Temple to execute judgements from the laws of the Pentatuch.

Here's the citation in Deuteronomy 26:12-13:

_______________

 

12 When you have finished setting aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give it to the Levite, the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied. 13 Then say to the Lord your God: “I have removed from my house the sacred portion and have given it to the Levite, the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, according to all you commanded. I have not turned aside from your commands nor have I forgotten any of them.

_______________

You'll notice that no authority was given to the government to execute the order - it was a command directly from God to the Israelites, and for them to act upon it. No funds were given to a central entity to re-distribute, but directly from the halves to the halve-nots. Additionally, if you read the context, it outlines where tithe is to go: two years of tithe to the government/church, and one directly to the needy and the Levites. Therefore, the Biblical model of welfare is a full separation of the government and actual re-distribution.

I hope I wrote what I wrote correctly.  What I said was that the pre-Kings era of Israel was a Theocracy in an anarchist sense.  It was literally God on top as the King of the people, with some Judges going about.  It was not done through men administering, but between God and men.  It isn't what people normally think as a theocracy, which is the later period, which consist of middlemen in the name of God doing everything.

Applied today, questions arise in regards to the application.  If the people of a nation elect to use government to practice the redistribution of income to help the poor, is this for or against the will of God?  I am not sure if much thought is even given to this, based on how the political talk goes about.

If the state truly functions with the will of the people, which is the ideal of the modern state, i should say so. The question is if this is an achievable reality.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Kasz216 on 11 June 2012
Mr Khan said:
richardhutnik said:
mrstickball said:
richardhutnik said:
Now, if one does look to the Old Testament, the government of Israel was pretty much a theocracy, for all practical purposes.  It was an anarchist one with the Judges running about, and no natural king, to the more normal view of a theocracy when Israel got a King.  In this, the government did the role of the church there, and people's tithes and offerings were roughly equivalent to taxes we have now.  The tithes and offerings ran the government of Israel, and was used to pay the priests and other offerings.  If one wants to argue that this model is Biblical for government, then one can argue taxes collective and given in welfare (redistribution of wealth and income) is Biblical.  If one wants to argue more for a separation of church and state, and view it as more New Testament favored, then one could say this isn't so.

I figured I would run this thread here, to see what people of religious belief on here had, and then see people come out, if they were opposed to any form of government run welfare, as to what they saw as the alternative, even flat out arguing that those who are poor deserve to be where they are, because it fit God's will.

1. Very much agree with the first paragraph. I was going to include a citation of 1 Timothy 2:2 as a reference to such a state. As per the New Testament, there is really no argument for church involvement in the affairs of the state. Having said this, I would go further as to argue that when welfare is incorporated into the workings of the government, they have (arguably) usurped the affairs and goals of the church in one aspect of Christianity. It'd be no different if the state were to create or promote its own religion in opposition to Christianity.

2. The thing about the Old Testament and social welfare is that God's commandment in Deuteronomy actually avoids the Theocratic government entirely. This is a very unique aspect of social welfare in the OT. Almost every commandment was given with the authority of the Temple to execute judgements from the laws of the Pentatuch.

Here's the citation in Deuteronomy 26:12-13:

_______________

 

12 When you have finished setting aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give it to the Levite, the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied. 13 Then say to the Lord your God: “I have removed from my house the sacred portion and have given it to the Levite, the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, according to all you commanded. I have not turned aside from your commands nor have I forgotten any of them.

_______________

You'll notice that no authority was given to the government to execute the order - it was a command directly from God to the Israelites, and for them to act upon it. No funds were given to a central entity to re-distribute, but directly from the halves to the halve-nots. Additionally, if you read the context, it outlines where tithe is to go: two years of tithe to the government/church, and one directly to the needy and the Levites. Therefore, the Biblical model of welfare is a full separation of the government and actual re-distribution.

I hope I wrote what I wrote correctly.  What I said was that the pre-Kings era of Israel was a Theocracy in an anarchist sense.  It was literally God on top as the King of the people, with some Judges going about.  It was not done through men administering, but between God and men.  It isn't what people normally think as a theocracy, which is the later period, which consist of middlemen in the name of God doing everything.

Applied today, questions arise in regards to the application.  If the people of a nation elect to use government to practice the redistribution of income to help the poor, is this for or against the will of God?  I am not sure if much thought is even given to this, based on how the political talk goes about.

If the state truly functions with the will of the people, which is the ideal of the modern state, i should say so. The question is if this is an achievable reality.


A government logically CAN'T serve the will of all people.  Forcing people to "donate to charity" is really not christian no matter how big a majority christians are.

Hell, even christianity itself doesn't FORCE people to be charitable.  It just says people should.  It's laws are more recommendations then anything else since you've got the forgiveness of christ "in your back pocket."

The whole point of Christianity is an individuals struggle to struggle to do right and accept their own flaws.

To force people to follow christian law, by law is meaningless.

Hence why such a distinction is made between Man's law and God's law.

It's also why I believe "real" christian groups should be against laws that try and mandate christian laws that don't hurt others.  (IE no anti adultery or sodomy or whatever laws.)



Jumpin on 11 June 2012

It's not God or Satan, it's economics.  Although:

 

 

    There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 
    (Acts 4:34-37)

 



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

richardhutnik on 11 June 2012
Jumpin said:

It's not God or Satan, it's economics.  Although:

    There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 
    (Acts 4:34-37)

The although is important I believe, because to say "it is not God or Satan", but just economics, can be seen as saying God has nothing to do with economics.  Considering how important economics is, I would end up questioning that.

Also, if you go further into Acts, you can end up seeing the story of Anaias and Sapphira, who end up dropping dead because they said they would sell off land and give it all away, and then held onto some of the money:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ananias_and_Sapphira

That consequence is far worse than falsely reporting charitible contributions to the IRS.



Around the Network
richardhutnik on 11 June 2012
Kasz216 said:


A government logically CAN'T serve the will of all people.  Forcing people to "donate to charity" is really not christian no matter how big a majority christians are.

Hell, even christianity itself doesn't FORCE people to be charitable.  It just says people should.  It's laws are more recommendations then anything else since you've got the forgiveness of christ "in your back pocket."

The whole point of Christianity is an individuals struggle to struggle to do right and accept their own flaws.

To force people to follow christian law, by law is meaningless.

Hence why such a distinction is made between Man's law and God's law.

It's also why I believe "real" christian groups should be against laws that try and mandate christian laws that don't hurt others.  (IE no anti adultery or sodomy or whatever laws.)

How exactly does issues regarding adultry not hurt anyone?  Undermining the trust of someone you are married to does hurt them, and the relationship.  Adultry is all about that.  Now, whether or not it is the job of government to get into that, is an entirely different issue of course.

As far as "forcing" people do anything, there is more than enough scripture, Old and New Testament, that speak of paying taxes, and obeying authorities, as if they were representatives of God (how one acts in regards to them is how one acts towards God).  This doesn't mean other principles can't come into play that may cause one to not obey the authorities, but paying taxes is one of them, as is following the laws.  One can say a Christian would be blessed when they are allowed to do the will of God and authorities don't get in the way.  But then, there is the case, which gets to this queston of whether nor not, the government officials decide to actually try to help the poor (do welfare) if doing such should be opposed.

I would also say "the point of Christianity" is FAR more than:  an individual's struggle to struggle to do right and accept their own flaws.

One can say Christianity isn't about the individual at all, but about what God wants, not them.  It isn't even about a person accepting one's own weakenesses.  If one were to go to what the Bible says, that even remotely hints at it, you have the following:

* Ecclesiastes 12:13: The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person.

* Matthew 22:37-39: 37Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’b 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’c 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

*Galatians 5:14: The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 

* James 1:27: Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

* 1 John 5-7: 5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth.  7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all[b] sin.




Strategyking92 on 12 June 2012

I would say that in a perfect world run by perfect christians communism would be possible. I think that's what Jesus would have wanted: People i.e. the faithful being pure enough to actually use that system of no government without screwing each other over.

But people aren't perfect. We lie, we scheme, we murder. Additionally not everyone is a christian, not even everyone that says they're a christian "walks the walk" either, so to speak!
Social welfare and programs have nothing to do with god. I think it's wrong though because people should be able to support themselves, without them having to be lazy and leech off of the government. Self sustainment. In a world without these programs, if you don't support yourself you die off, simple as that. Now that's motivation to work, work hard, and try your best. That same motivation is simply gone otherwise.

So is it satanic? No, no it's not. It's human. Do I agree with social programs? Hell no. It erodes society by disrupting the natural order of things while allowing parasites to hurt the people who do try to better themselves.



And that's the only thing I need is *this*. I don't need this or this. Just this PS4... And this gaming PC. - The PS4 and the Gaming PC and that's all I need... And this Xbox 360. - The PS4, the Gaming PC, and the Xbox 360, and that's all I need... And these PS3's. - The PS4, and these PS3's, and the Gaming PC, and the Xbox 360... And this Nintendo DS. - The PS4, this Xbox 360, and the Gaming PC, and the PS3's, and that's all *I* need. And that's *all* I need too. I don't need one other thing, not one... I need this. - The Gaming PC and PS4, and Xbox 360, and thePS3's . Well what are you looking at? What do you think I'm some kind of a jerk or something! - And this. That's all I need.

Obligatory dick measuring Gaming Laptop Specs: Sager NP8270-GTX: 17.3" FULL HD (1920X1080) LED Matte LC, nVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M, Intel Core i7-4700MQ, 16GB (2x8GB) DDR3, 750GB SATA II 3GB/s 7,200 RPM Hard Drive

richardhutnik on 12 June 2012
Strategyking92 said:
I would say that in a perfect world run by perfect christians communism would be possible. I think that's what Jesus would have wanted: People i.e. the faithful being pure enough to actually use that system of no government without screwing each other over.

But people aren't perfect. We lie, we scheme, we murder. Additionally not everyone is a christian, not even everyone that says they're a christian "walks the walk" either, so to speak!
Social welfare and programs have nothing to do with god. I think it's wrong though because people should be able to support themselves, without them having to be lazy and leech off of the government. Self sustainment. In a world without these programs, if you don't support yourself you die off, simple as that. Now that's motivation to work, work hard, and try your best. That same motivation is simply gone otherwise.

So is it satanic? No, no it's not. It's human. Do I agree with social programs? Hell no. It erodes society by disrupting the natural order of things while allowing parasites to hurt the people who do try to better themselves.

Currently, civilization has moved beyond people having plots of land which people farm, that enables them to totally self-sufficient, because they have land to produce.  Today, you have very complex interdependencies, that enable some in the financial sector to take too much risks, and totally take down the economy, bankrupting millions, and ruining towns that function. 

Well, based on what you wrote above, I am hard pressed to find Jesus would approve.  So, it sounds like, since you don't believe Christian communal ideals are possible, you go for social Darwinism.  Problem with this approach is that, if you advocate it, it is possible you will be the one dying.



Strategyking92 on 12 June 2012
richardhutnik said:
Strategyking92 said:
I would say that in a perfect world run by perfect christians communism would be possible. I think that's what Jesus would have wanted: People i.e. the faithful being pure enough to actually use that system of no government without screwing each other over.

But people aren't perfect. We lie, we scheme, we murder. Additionally not everyone is a christian, not even everyone that says they're a christian "walks the walk" either, so to speak!
Social welfare and programs have nothing to do with god. I think it's wrong though because people should be able to support themselves, without them having to be lazy and leech off of the government. Self sustainment. In a world without these programs, if you don't support yourself you die off, simple as that. Now that's motivation to work, work hard, and try your best. That same motivation is simply gone otherwise.

So is it satanic? No, no it's not. It's human. Do I agree with social programs? Hell no. It erodes society by disrupting the natural order of things while allowing parasites to hurt the people who do try to better themselves.

Currently, civilization has moved beyond people having plots of land which people farm, that enables them to totally self-sufficient, because they have land to produce.  Today, you have very complex interdependencies, that enable some in the financial sector to take too much risks, and totally take down the economy, bankrupting millions, and ruining towns that function. 

Well, based on what you wrote above, I am hard pressed to find Jesus would approve.  So, it sounds like, since you don't believe Christian communal ideals are possible, you go for social Darwinism.  Problem with this approach is that, if you advocate it, it is possible you will be the one dying.

You can make it a blame game or you can take action. People who blame their problems on everything else but them are parasites. There are always opportunities. Jesus can't approve of anything we are doing here. But then again, who's to say what Jesus would think? Circumstances and such always alter decisions and why they should be made, after all.



And that's the only thing I need is *this*. I don't need this or this. Just this PS4... And this gaming PC. - The PS4 and the Gaming PC and that's all I need... And this Xbox 360. - The PS4, the Gaming PC, and the Xbox 360, and that's all I need... And these PS3's. - The PS4, and these PS3's, and the Gaming PC, and the Xbox 360... And this Nintendo DS. - The PS4, this Xbox 360, and the Gaming PC, and the PS3's, and that's all *I* need. And that's *all* I need too. I don't need one other thing, not one... I need this. - The Gaming PC and PS4, and Xbox 360, and thePS3's . Well what are you looking at? What do you think I'm some kind of a jerk or something! - And this. That's all I need.

Obligatory dick measuring Gaming Laptop Specs: Sager NP8270-GTX: 17.3" FULL HD (1920X1080) LED Matte LC, nVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M, Intel Core i7-4700MQ, 16GB (2x8GB) DDR3, 750GB SATA II 3GB/s 7,200 RPM Hard Drive

richardhutnik on 12 June 2012
Strategyking92 said:
richardhutnik said:
Strategyking92 said:
I would say that in a perfect world run by perfect christians communism would be possible. I think that's what Jesus would have wanted: People i.e. the faithful being pure enough to actually use that system of no government without screwing each other over.

But people aren't perfect. We lie, we scheme, we murder. Additionally not everyone is a christian, not even everyone that says they're a christian "walks the walk" either, so to speak!
Social welfare and programs have nothing to do with god. I think it's wrong though because people should be able to support themselves, without them having to be lazy and leech off of the government. Self sustainment. In a world without these programs, if you don't support yourself you die off, simple as that. Now that's motivation to work, work hard, and try your best. That same motivation is simply gone otherwise.

So is it satanic? No, no it's not. It's human. Do I agree with social programs? Hell no. It erodes society by disrupting the natural order of things while allowing parasites to hurt the people who do try to better themselves.

Currently, civilization has moved beyond people having plots of land which people farm, that enables them to totally self-sufficient, because they have land to produce.  Today, you have very complex interdependencies, that enable some in the financial sector to take too much risks, and totally take down the economy, bankrupting millions, and ruining towns that function. 

Well, based on what you wrote above, I am hard pressed to find Jesus would approve.  So, it sounds like, since you don't believe Christian communal ideals are possible, you go for social Darwinism.  Problem with this approach is that, if you advocate it, it is possible you will be the one dying.

You can make it a blame game or you can take action. People who blame their problems on everything else but them are parasites. There are always opportunities. Jesus can't approve of anything we are doing here. But then again, who's to say what Jesus would think? Circumstances and such always alter decisions and why they should be made, after all.


If you seriously want to get into what Jesus thinks and the way of Christ/Christianity, you can then reference the Bible, where NOTHING is ever promised people get rich.  God is said to be able to help those in need, and supply needs.  There is nothing about building up a ton of riches and so on.  And there is ample exhortation that people are supposed to help the poor.  It is ample there.

Not only do people blame others, people happen to act delusionally, believing they are destined for riches and so on.  

Reading what you said, what is written in James 4 comes to mind:

13Now listen, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.”14Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.15Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.” 16As it is, you boast and brag. All such boasting is evil.17Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.

 

And there are these verses to:

Proverbs 27:1 Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do not know what a day may bring forth. Luke 12:18 "Then he said, 'This is what I'll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. James 5:1 Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you.