I don't believe I am suppose to meet every need. I do believe God will give me the resources needed to meet the needs of those I can reach. While i cannot pay your grandmother's medical bills...maybe there is someone close who can. The idea of caring for the needy as a "society"...cannot work unless we begin as individuals caring for the needy. A society cannot have compassion if it is comprised of individuals who do not have compassion. When individuals are driven by compassion first...then a society will be compassionate...it cannot work the other way around.
I agree and disagree. I agree in that compassion must be a personal value.
However, I also have experienced from personal experience that “vision” is necessary for a body of people. Often those with compassion feel, “What can I do? The need is so great. I’m just one person?” However, with a sacred social vision of compassion all who have compassion can come together and form a very broad based platform from which to do works of compassion. This was the way the early church functioned. They gathered together and took up offerings to relieve churches in famine, the needy, and widows. Why didn’t the church just focus on theology and doctrine? Why didn’t the church just become internalized and ascetic? It appears that the first century church had a vision for social compassion wherein the entire body was responsible for one another and those in desperate need. Their dedication to this vision was so great none of them felt that they owned anything exclusively; they shared ALL that they had. For example, if we lived according to the early church if a brother had need of a lawn mower he’d not have to beg an unsaved family member to borrow one. Nor would he have to beg a brother in the church to borrow one. Brothers in the church with lawn mowers would believe that their lawn mowers belonged to the entire body. Once our brother expressed his need provision of the mower would be readily provided and the mower returned to its steward. In the first two centuries those who weren’t Christian often wrote of Christians as being the most generous and united body when it came to helping those in need.
Also this social vision is prophetic. If you perform a search on the word “poor” on biblegateway.com you’ll discover that the Bible, namely the prophets, had A LOT to say about provision for the poor and often rebukes were issued not to individuals… but the entire nation. Therefore we see the principle that a society is responsible for it’s poor and hurting.
Quote:
Regarding God's Law...I only find 2....love God with every part of my being...and love my neighbor as my own flesh. no mention of "tithe" at all.
The tithe was an agrarian income tax on the land’s increase. Only land owners who were farmers and herders were bound by the tithing law. Craftsman and tradesmen weren’t. No Christian is bound by a “tithe” law. However, the tithe does demonstrate the principle that a society should contribute to those measures providing the basic sustenance of the poor and needy. Socialists want to achieve this through taxation and government programs. Distributists want to achieve this through generous financial support, volunteer time, and advocacy for private entities that can meet these needs.
It’s also important to note that Jesus didn’t say that those were the ONLY two laws. Let’s look at the text,
Matthew 22:34-40
{22:34} But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put
the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.
{22:35} Then one of them, [which was] a lawyer, asked
[him a question, ]tempting him, and saying, {22:36}
Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law?
{22:37} Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy
mind. {22:38} This is the first and great commandment.
{22:39} And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself. {22:40} On these two commandments
hang all the law and the prophets.
Jesus didn’t dismiss the Law of God. Jesus simply explained that these two laws embody the two primary principles found in the Law of God. Here’s a break down:
How do you love God will all your heart?
Put God before every thing in your life.
You don't adore idols or dabble in the occult.
Reverence the name of Jesus.
Remember the Sabbath rest as a time of worship.
How do you love your neighbor as yourself?
Starts with the home, love and honor your parents. A child who cannot love and honor parents will not love and honor others.
You value life and refuse to murder in word or deed.
You honor your vows by loving your wife and not committing adultery.
You respect the property of others and don't steal.
You're truthful and honest with your neighbors.
You're thankful for what you have and not consumed with attaining that which belongs to your neighbor.
.
These principles are best articulated as follows:
I
Thou shalt have no other gods before Me
II
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
III
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord
thy God in vain, for the Lord will not
hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain
IV
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy
V
Honor thy father and thy mother,
that thy days may be long upon the land
which the Lord thy God giveth thee
VI
Thou shalt not murder
VII
Thou shalt not commit adultery
VIII
Thou shalt not steal
IX
Thou shalt not bear false witness
against thy neighbor
X
Thou shalt not covet
Notice that the Law of God hangs on the two commandments of Christ. You can’t just say love God and your neighbor without defining what that entails.
Quote:
what happens when a "tithe" is not enough...Christ's law compells me to give all...not just 10%.
The idea of stewardship and even community escapes the American psyche, at times .... He owns it all ... the gold, the silver, the cattle of a thousand hills.
BTW, I'm more of a capitalist than all of you combined.
Capitalism as it is practiced today reduces the masses to being "wage slaves" and enthrones monopolistic conglomerates that control markets and squelches competition. Too much "capitalism" as practiced today will lead to very few capitalists because wealth and the power of production will be agregated into the hands of a select few.
The answer is Distributism. Break up corporations, bring back laws that our Founders put in place to control and limit corporate power. Empower the family business owner who is being driven into being a wage slave by massive corporations he can't compete with.
A man is only free if he has both the ability and means to sustain himself.
Capitalism as it is practiced today reduces the masses to being "wage slaves" and enthrones monopolistic conglomerates that control markets and squelches competition. Too much "capitalism" as practiced today will lead to very few capitalists because wealth and the power of production will be agregated into the hands of a select few.
The answer is Distributism. Break up corporations, bring back laws that our Founders put in place to control and limit corporate power. Empower the family business owner who is being driven into being a wage slave by massive corporations he can't compete with.
A man is only free if he has both the ability and means to sustain himself.
God is clearly a Distributist.
Yep. And economies are far more alive when everyone prospers some rather than a few prospering in extremis.
My experience as a wage slave is that I always seem to have enough to barely scrape by, but never enough to actually get ahead. And that is exactly how the corporate moguls want it.
SOmebody has to run the machines and do the paperwork. And best not to let them somebodies have it too good...
Wow... I just sounded like a socialist....
__________________
Last edited by John Atkinson; 03-24-2010 at 08:40 AM.
Yep. And economies are far more alive when everyone prospers some rather than a few prospering in extremis.
My experience as a wage slave is that I always seem to have enough to barely scrape by, but never enough to actually get ahead. And that is exactly how the corporate moguls want it.
SOmebody has to run the machines and do the paperwork. And best not to let them somebodies have it too good...
Wow... I just sounded like a socialist....
No. You sounded like a Distributist. Government's role should be to protect life, liberty, and property. How can government be said to protect liberty if we are slaves to corporate America with it's unchecked power and enfluence? Consider these laws that our Founding Fathers and the states supported...
* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
Think about this... our founders and early Americans understood that we have two enemies. Socialists who would give the state total power over wealth distribution and the means of production and total Capitalism wherein corporate powers and banks control wealth and the means of production. Distributists understand these threats to human liberty.
No. You sounded like a Distributist. Government's role should be to protect life, liberty, and property. How can government be said to protect liberty if we are slaves to corporate America with it's unchecked power and enfluence? Consider these laws that our Founding Fathers and the states supported...
* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
Think about this... our founders and early Americans understood that we have two enemies. Socialists who would give the state total power over wealth distribution and the means of production and total Capitalism wherein corporate powers and banks control wealth and the means of production. Distributists understand these threats to human liberty.
The bolded bit is a one sentance definition of the constitutional limits placed on the Government.
With the founders corporate interests didn't have the power that came with industrialization. And the people who inherited the founder's jobs figured out they could get in on some of the perks... and so here we all are.
I swing the direction of libertarianism. I used to be constitutionalist, whose platform is close to the libertarian one only with a scary religious angle that I got real uncomfortable with.
It all really is as simple as... "the more people who have more, the better it is for everyone. And when more people have more, things all these healthcare woes and poverty would start to go away.
But, the folks who hold the power hold it tight, and they aren't about to let it go. And when 90% of the world's wealth is held in a death grip by 10% (or less...that is probably a generous percentage) of the population, nothing will happen beyond the 90% or more just having tougher times having to do more with less and it will never change.
No. You sounded like a Distributist. Government's role should be to protect life, liberty, and property. How can government be said to protect liberty if we are slaves to corporate America with it's unchecked power and enfluence? Consider these laws that our Founding Fathers and the states supported...
* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
Do you even know what this means? This was and remains the law. A corporation cannot do things it was not chartered to do. If the charter says that the corp exists to make donuts, and they sell T-shirts well they have violated the charter.
* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Is there a statute for this? Can you give an example?
* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
I don't know if this was ever the case, but if so it is stupid. Individuals are responsible for criminal activities, not owners. So If a Pizza delivery guy shoots and kills a customer because he didn't tip him you would punish the owner?
* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
Can you cite the statute for this?
Think about this... our founders and early Americans understood that we have two enemies. Socialists who would give the state total power over wealth distribution and the means of production and total Capitalism wherein corporate powers and banks control wealth and the means of production. Distributists understand these threats to human liberty.
Do you have any idea what you posted?
What you just posted is comical.
__________________
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." ~Aesop
1st...i understand what the early 1st century believers did & why they did them. I personally dont see where we are suppose to be the 1st century believers...we are suppose to be believers today...and that is different. the "society" and "church society" of the 1st century could be found in 1 major city in the U.S. today. They dealt in 10's/100's/1000's...we deal in 100,000's, millions, billions. big difference.
2nd...if all the law & the prophets hang on those 2...then i'll focus on keeping & fulfilling the 2. whenever men start "defining" what Christ said...we usually get a mess(religion/cults/etc..). Yes I do believe that I can say "Love God with everything you are and love your neighbor as your own flesh"...without defining for people what to do & what not to do. Why stop at the 10 laws? Why not include the entire 613 laws?
3rd...i do not have the insight to define for anyone what it means for them to love God with all they are...that is for them & Him. I believe if we allow ourselves to be led by the Holy Spirit...He will make sure we have plenty of oppurtunity to demonstrate.
If I give Him ALL....then I don't have anything left to give to religious foundations/organizations (that will probably take a fee).
Hybrid Mode
