While I don’t want to look like I’m going to bat for the Hobby Lobby people, this seems like a very convenient way for you to argue that everyone ought to agree with your policy positions, even when those policy positions are not explicitly biblical. How do you reconcile the welfare state with Thessalonians 3:10, or Matthew 7:6? How do you address the restoration of Job? Was God mistaken in awarding Job with material wealth?
Jesus was unambiguous. "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these." (Mark 12:30–31)
Or, even more explicit, Matthew 25:31-46.
"Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’"
Jesus is explicitly advocating welfare - providing food, drink, clothes, healthcare, and more to anyone in need.
Jesus was also unambiguous on wealth. Christians, who follow the teachings of Christ, should give greater merit to his words than to anything in the old testament which came before.
For more, consider 1 John 4:20 "Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen."
> Jesus is explicitly advocating welfare - providing food, drink, clothes, healthcare, and more to anyone in need.
There is nothing in this verse which says that property is to be expropriated for the purposes of assuring others a particular standard of living, and I don’t think you’ll be able to find one.
> Jesus was also unambiguous on wealth. Christians, who follow the teachings of Christ, should give greater merit to his words than to anything in the old testament which came before.
You’ve ignored my question. If Jesus is God, and God rewarded Job with material wealth in this world, how can Jesus be said to offer an unambiguous criticism of wealth?
You're the one who cited it, it's up to you to demonstrate that it's relevant in this context.
>There is nothing in this verse which says that property is to be expropriated for the purposes of assuring others a particular standard of living, and I don’t think you’ll be able to find one.
The verse is literally instructing that anyone in need is to be helped. It does not specify the source of the help. Anyone professing to be a Christian should be in favor of those with plenty providing for those in need.
>You’ve ignored my question. If Jesus is God, and God rewarded Job with material wealth in this world, how can Jesus be said to offer an unambiguous criticism of wealth?
Ignoring the theological debate on if "Jesus is God", Jesus' statements and commandments came later and supersede anything which came before.
Oh, and since I missed (or you later added) the Thessalonians verse, how convenient of you to leave out its context:
> We did this, *not because we do not have the right to such help*, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate.
> Anyone professing to be a Christian should be in favor of those with plenty providing for those in need.
That isn't what you originally claimed and is not what I'm taking issue with. What you said was: "Anyone who takes that message and instead lobbies to destroy healthcare and welfare and to push hate and attack anyone who doesn't agree with them [...] is not a Christian regardless of how they spend their Sundays."
What you're saying is that anyone who does not support the welfare state as an apparatus is not a Christian, and I am contesting that, because there have been plenty of moral theories developed by Christians who opposed state welfare. Consider that the device you are using to post is likely worth more than the majority of the world's population earns in a year. Does it stand to reason that I could justifiably take it away from you and give it to someone who needed it more? What if we formed a committee you had no part in and voted on it being the right thing to do?
> Ignoring the theological debate on if "Jesus is God", Jesus' statements and commandments came later and supersede anything which came before.
Denying the divinity of Jesus undermines the entire belief system. It seems to me that you can't reconcile the treatment of Job with your reading of the New Testament, so you've decided to disregard the story entirely. There is some basis to this (e.g. the mixed fabrics issue you addressed in another comment), but it isn't as simple as saying "We can disregard everything prior to the New Testament."
> We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate.
Young translates that line as authority, not "right." In the KJV (which is the version I originally read), it is translated as "power." That is, because the author has come to minister to the church, he has the authority to ask for bread without having to work for it, but he does not, because he does not want to burden those around him: "8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:"
The passage continues after this line: "10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. [...] 12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread."
> There is nothing in this verse which says that property is to be expropriated for the purposes of assuring others a particular standard of living, and I don’t think you’ll be able to find one.
You're right; we have the free will to be as miserly as we choose. But if you want to be of Christ, you'll give your 5% or 10%, at least.
Our societies also have the free will to choose to tax the rich to help the poor. A govt run by actual Christians would not let the rich trample the poor and our shared environment, our human family's inheritance and future.
Yes, everyone is free to be a selfish asshole -- "there is not compulsion in religion" is God's command, too -- but our govt should reflect the generosity of spirit we are called to manifest.
If you don't like the taxes, find another place to ply your wares.
> You’ve ignored my question. If Jesus is God, and God rewarded Job with material wealth in this world, how can Jesus be said to offer an unambiguous criticism of wealth?
If one has acquired it by cheating or abusing others or selling harmful products or without paying one's fair tax rate, then those are ill-gotten gains are bad for the person who chose to live that way and bad for the society they are parasitizing.
So, yes, God's Messengers of love can have whatever beneficience our Lord bestows upon them, but it will not be ill-gotten and it will not be for the selfish pleasure and will never be wasted, for "God does not love the wasters".
Most of all, what is important to remember is that we cannot love both God and money, i.e. we cannot serve two masters. We must be generous with others out of love for them, and be grateful to God that we have been granted God's generosity to have better circumstances.
To love someone means wanting them to be happy. Any kind of "love" that does not result in effortful action -- i.e. actual service -- for the other person is nothing but empty words, and we must live the truth of God's teachings of love.
"Love thy neighbor as your own self." Not more, not less. We are given the choice in money matters and it is a sore trial for most human beings. But God's teachings of love are clear as day to those with eyes to see, ears to hear, and a heart that understands.
> but our govt should reflect the generosity of spirit we are called to manifest.
The whole notion of state welfare necessarily involves the forcible expropriation of property, resistance to which is punishable by death. If I took $20 out of your wallet and gave it to someone else who I thought needed it more, it would not be charity, it would be theft.
> i.e. we cannot serve two masters
This was never suggested. Wealth is a tool. Where it becomes fetishized as an end in and of itself, it becomes objectionable. You'll note that the device you're using to post in this thread is in all likelihood worth more than most people on earth earn in a year. Is your soul in danger because you own a laptop, or is there more nuance to this issue than you're suggesting?
If you don't want to live in that society, move somewhere else. That's your free choice, too, but I counsel against it. Are you directly choosing to help maintain roads, and hospitals, and everything else that helps society function? No, but your taxes are.
> Is your soul in danger because you own a laptop, or is there more nuance to this issue than you're suggesting?
Nuance is lost on you, my friend.
If you think that the poor should just be left to their own devices, then you're bound to learn a painful lesson or three in this life. Those with no compassion should be prepared to deal with those who have no compassion for them.
Mayhaps you won't realize this until you are left with no other options but enduring the pain of being under the power of people who have no concern for your well-being. I hope you have a kinder fate than that, but you shall reap what you sow, my friend, as we all do, in time.
I am explaining these things for your benefit, not mine. You should reach beyond your current perspective and realize that I am only here for your benefit.
