this post was submitted on
89 points (76% like it)
130 up votes 41 down votes
shortlink:
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own!

88
89

Regarding Obama saying Jesus is where he gets his economic views from... (self.Libertarian)

submitted ago by plasmatic

Jesus didn't go to Rome to spread a message about government. Jesus said "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

The rich man he said this to actually turned away because he did not want to sell his possessions. That was this man's choice. Jesus didn't tell us "if you want to be perfect, go to your neighbour, take all his possessions by the sword, and give them to the poor"

Giving to the poor is our personal responsibility. Jesus' message was about grace, not stealing from people.

Apparently the rest of the Bible doesn't matter to Obama:

2 Thessalonians 3:6-15:

. . . But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you; nor did we eat anyone's bread free of charge, but worked with labour and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us. For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread . . . And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

1 Samuel 8:6-18:

But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. And the LORD told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”

Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you in that day."

all 60 comments
sorted by:
best
hot
new
controversial
top
old

[–]conn2005 34 points35 points ago

[Suzanne Bass:] “How would your religious beliefs, if you’re elected, impact the decisions that you make in the office of the presidency.” [Wolf Blitzer:] “Congressman Paul?” [Ron Paul:] “Well, my religious beliefs wouldn’t affect it. My religious beliefs affect my character in the way I treat people and the way I live. The only thing it would affect … [interrupted by a long seven second outburst of applause] The only thing that would affect me in the way I operate as a president or a congressman is my oath of office and my promises that I’ve made to the people.”

How come liberals & the MSM attack conservatives for the way their religious beliefs affect politicians governing? Obama has made the same comments but they blatantly ignore it. Ron Paul is the only real candidate offering separation of church and state, isn't that what they want?

[–]deaglebro 14 points15 points ago*

Well, I don't think the liberals of reddit want separation of church and state, I think they want abolition of the church. Seriously, separation of church and state is not making any laws in favor of or in disfavor of any religion, but then when Ron Paul says he supports private prayer in public institutions that's not mandated by the institution they say he doesn't support the separation of church and state. They either don't understand what separation of church and state is or they do not support it.

[–]conn2005 5 points6 points ago

You got something there, my liberal friend was furious the other day when the Supreme Court ruled religious schools could discriminate against teachers of other faiths. Why the hell is he bent on forcing schools to hire teachers they don't want? Especially if they are teaching Christian/Jewish/Muslim classes to their student?

[–]beard_ 0 points1 point ago

I want separation of church and state and I want churches to go away. I certainly don't want the government to take away anybody's right to worship whatever they want, but I want people to realize it's bullshit and give it up on their own.

[–]BetYouCanNotTellMe -1 points0 points ago

Ron Paul is the only real candidate offering separation of church and state

He supports something he doesn't believe exists?

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. -- Ron Paul

[–]conn2005 6 points7 points ago

I think just about anyone in this subreddit will admit that the term "separation of church and state" is not in the constitution but in fact in Jefferson's letters. That being said, I don't see a conflict between RP pointing out that the government is hostile to religion while at the same time saying his religious beliefs wouldn't interfere with the way he would conduct his presidency.

[–]BetYouCanNotTellMe -4 points-3 points ago

He said notion.

And how is being anti-government subsidy of a specific religion the same as being hostile to religion? You people amaze me - can't tax people to pay for basic science research because the use of force is wrong but suddenly the use of force to pay for religious displays, as long as they are the right form of Christian, is just great!

[–]CowGoezMoo 0 points1 point ago

I guess you can't read very well?

[–]mariox19 0 points1 point ago

Do you remember where this is from, and is this clip on YouTube anywhere?

[–]conn2005 5 points6 points ago

One of the CNN debates. Not sure which one. I'm sure you could google the text a little till you find the transcripts, date and location.

[–]mariox19 2 points3 points ago

It's from the Jacksonville, FL debate.

[–]anxiousalpaca -2 points-1 points ago

double-standard

[–]redwar 17 points18 points ago

As a Christian and Anarcho-Capitalist, I am doubly annoyed when people use Jesus' teaching to further their political beliefs. Even if the state wasn't completely immoral, using Jesus's teachings to push an agenda he did not have is despicable. Furthermore, if you are a believer in Jesus, it should be plain to see that what he called us to do(mostly make disciples) is vastly and infinitely more important than anything in the political realm.

[–]krugmanisapuppet 13 points14 points ago*

the problem is that, nearly 2,000 years later, people are still lying about what his actual teachings were, whether it's Bush, Obama, or the Pope.

that's a crucial part of being a politician - lying enough to make it seem like the dominant religious beliefs in your region justify your crimes. if Obama went into detail about how the Roman government crucified Jesus under the charge that he was a tax protester:

http://jesus-on-taxes.com/Page_2.html

THE WORST LIE EVER UTTERED ABOUT JESUS BY THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW HIM IS THAT "RENDER UNTO CAESAR" MEANS PAY YOUR TAXES. PREDICTABLY, THE PRIMARY PROMULGATORS OF THAT LIE COLLECT OR BENEFIT FROM TAXES.

In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus denounced the use of force--even in self-defense. He also vividly stated that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Thus, in accordance with Jesus' principles, taxes, which depend on force for their collection, cannot produce anything good.

Some will protest, "But taxes go to feed the hungry, succor the poor, and what's more, America could never have put a man on the moon or developed the Internet without taxes. Besides who, if not government, will build and maintain the roads, bridges, schools, hospitals and other critical components of modern society's infrastructure?"

Answer: If mankind's ability to think is so limited as to be unable to create such "goods" without resorting to force (viz., taxation), then either Jesus didn't know what he was taking about, or we aren't worthy of the redeeming principles for living that he preached. This "who-but-government" mind set is a form of idolatry. It is the worship of state force. One of the greatest minds of the twentieth century dubbed it "statolatry."

The abominable lie that there is a moral or religious duty to pay taxes to the state most likely first emanated from the unholy alliance of the Christian church and the Roman empire. After that church-state merger, Bible scholars who were financially supported by government taxes interpolated words of praise for taxes and the state into the mouth of Jesus where they had never before been uttered. Now, seventeen-hundred years later, it is time to rescue Jesus' reputation from the minions of the church-state conspiracy, who to this day have the temerity to claim that Jesus endorsed paying taxes. He did not! In fact it is likely that Jesus was crucified for opposing the payment of taxes to Caesar and influencing others not to pay.

The man who executed Jesus was a Roman procurator (or prefect) of imperial taxes for Judea, which is the equivalent of an IRS district director of taxation for an area of the United States. Mr. District Director Pontius Pilate had Jesus brutally flogged and mocked and hung on a cross in a form of death reserved for those who dared to threaten Rome's tax-funded hegemony over its vassal territories. The sanction of taxation attributed to Jesus by many church-state scholars would sound plausible if attributed to Pontius Pilate, but would never have been uttered by Jesus.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+23&version=NIV

1 Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. 2 And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Messiah, a king.”

[–]redwar 4 points5 points ago

while I agree with some of that article, I don't see evidence that Pilate actually crucified him for not paying taxes:

Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, and said to them, "You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. Therefore, I will punish him and then release him." But the whole crowd shouted, “Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us!"(Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.) Wanting to release Jesus, Pilate appealed to them again. 21 But they kept shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!”

IMO, Pilate just gave in to the will of the mob for the sake avoiding further unrest or unpopularity. If he could not maintain order in his region, there would be consequences from his superiors.

[–]krugmanisapuppet 1 point2 points ago

as the man responsible for collecting taxes from Judea, while it was under Roman military rule, i find it extremely unlikely that he had Jesus crucified for any other reason. the fact that Jesus had been condemned by Herod - the vassal king of Judea - is a strong indication that Jesus was condemned, for one particular reason or another, as a political dissident, and not for any other reason.

this is the only logically consistent interpretation of the New Testament as a partially historical document. otherwise there is no explanation for his crucifixion that's consistent with the evidence presented.

[–]E7ernal 1 point2 points ago

Fascinating. Are you Christian or merely theologically knowledgeable? I'm an atheist but I find the historical nature of the Bible to be quite fascinating, and I think it's possible to reconcile Judio-Christian morality with the NAP, at least enough to be convincing to followers of those religions. I don't know enough about Islam to make the claim there.

[–]krugmanisapuppet 1 point2 points ago

Fascinating. Are you Christian or merely theologically knowledgeable?

a short question, but so complicated to answer. i've been an agnostic for as long as i can remember.

i basically believe Jesus/Yeshua (likely his real name) was basically a slightly more worldly version of most redditors. scientifically curious, with a belief system strongly rooted in social justice. the "worldliness" comes in when you talk about what were clearly his political beliefs.

a lot of people end up with these same conclusions (as the centuries and centuries of compiled Christian history demonstrate) - that Jesus was nothing like media/Catholic Church/etc. figures portray him - that he was a political dissident in Rome who made a stand on principle and was killed for it. as support rallied around his cause, the Roman government first tried to suppress it (the Christian persecutions), and then eventually adopted an insane version of it as the state religion.

what's more, i find it very likely that he took the same approach to the idea of "God" as most redditors - that the question is fundamentally unprovable. and i think that, seeing this, he rejected the influence of what he viewed as a corrupt religious system, on politics (including both Hellenistic religion - Jupiter, Neptune, Apollo, etc. - and the Judaism that was so present in his home country, as practiced by the Pharisees), due to the clearly immoral consequences of the actions of those religious authorities.

i think that is the very obvious answer to why Christianity is a mix of both superstition (resurrection, virgin birth, etc.) with the stories of Jesus's life that are also in the Bible - in which he condemned immorality and religious authorities in specific. and i've met quite a few people with the same thoughts. this seems to be the only rational explanation for how Christianity came into existence.

i think Jesus's philosophy was extremely similar to the NAP (non-aggression principle). Jesus condemned force:

http://aramaic-plain-english.scripturetext.com/john/8.htm

and is only recorded as having used it once - against the money changers in the temple, who profited from the exchange of currency that people had to engage in to pay their temple taxes. he apparently thought this was a massive sin.

these same things appear to be true about Islam, from what i've seen. i'm no expert on Islam, though.

[–]omegaflux 5 points6 points ago

Jesus and taxes from a libertarian perspective. Probably one of the best assessments I've read.

Render Unto Caesar: A Most Misunderstood New Testament Passage

[–]plasmatic[S] 3 points4 points ago

That is awesome!

[–]omegaflux 2 points3 points ago

I agree. My mind was kind of blown when I first read it when it was published. I'm not a Christian, but it gave me a whole new insight into the New Testament.

[–]KickapooPonies 2 points3 points ago

Wow, that was a great read. Thanks for sharing.

[–]Zerkabaius 0 points1 point ago

That was very informative. I need to save that link for anytime I get in an argument with someone concerning Jesus and taxes

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points ago

Wow a libertarian saying jesus was a libertarian

I bet I can find socialists saying he was a socialist too

[–]omegaflux 2 points3 points ago

Where did I identify as a libertarian? Where did I or the author say Jesus was a libertarian? Any other nonarguments you'd like to throw out there?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points ago

Never said anything about you? Very quick to take it personally though I see

And if you dont get a "jesus was a libertarian" vibe from that entire essay, then we didnt read the same thing

[–]baddox 1 point2 points ago

Out of curiosity, how does your Christianity inform your views (if at all) on the immorality of the state? In my "research" about different socio-economic systems, I've encountered both Christian anarchy and Christian socialism (both of which have much more specific definitions than their names would suggest, e.g. the former is pacifist).

Do you think anarcho-capitalism is something all Christians should accept, or do you just consider it compatible with Christianity? The Old Testament mostly deals with Hebrew monarchy/theocracy, and it seems to mostly approve (although I recall at one point God not wanting there to be a king, but the people did). The New Testament is mostly in the Roman Empire, although Jesus certainly doesn't talk much about the government, other than to urge people to pay their taxes.

[–]redwar 3 points4 points ago

Here is my opinion so far. My political and religious beliefs have been shaped a lot in the last 5 years and reconciling them has been a big part of that process. While I will not "play the Jesus card" and say that Jesus would be an anarchist, I certainly find there to be no conflict with my beliefs and Jesus's teachings; if there were, I would have to reconcile them as my relationship with Christ is the most important thing to me.

Personally, I do not see anywhere that Jesus or Paul's teaching support the use of physical violence to redistribute wealth. It was all voluntary. The two passages usually used are the "give to Ceasar" and Romans 13. I believe that if you consider both of those passages within their context and read the text surrounding it(especiall with Romans 13), you would find that they are not about advocating physical violence but about living in harmony with society, even if it is wrong.

That said, my religious beliefs have shaped my political beliefs as follows. When I first moved from minarchism to anarcho-capitalism I was much more prone to advocate tax evasion and other forms of avoiding state coercion that would be considered illegal. As I became more serious about my spiritual walk I began to wrestle with new testament teachings and seek how they could be reconciled. Today, I stick to submitting peacefully to government authority as much as possible. I pay my taxes, I pay for my vehicle registraiton, even though I'm against those things. It's a tricky thing, as I believe there is a certain level of protest that is allowed without running contrary to Jesus's teachings. If for example, reading your Bible was outlawed, I wouldn't abide by that law.

It's a difficult question. I strive to find a stance that is neither hypocritical nor immoral. To answer your question about "is somethign all Chrstians should accept", I don't know. I think if we looked only at the example of Jesus, we'd see a politically apathetic pacifist, but then again Jesus' purpose on this earth wasn't of a political nature, also he didn't speak directly against the existence of the state, and if he were an anarcho-capitalist you'd think he would have. Though he did speak against violence, and we know the state is violence.

tl;dr; I'm still shaping my views and there are difficult questions to ask.

other tl;dr; Love > all.

[–]baddox 0 points1 point ago

I think I mostly agree, although I haven't yet put as much thought into it as you clearly have. The "give to Caesar" thing doesn't necessarily advocate taxes, but it seems to advocate cooperation rather than (violent) revolution. Could this be similar to the rules in the Old Testament about slavery?

I've always wondered about Christianity and law-breaking (especially civil disobedience) in a democratic republic like the USA (where I live). Obviously, the Bible advocates following laws which don't immediately break God's laws. But I've always felt that in our society, there's almost a duty to not follow laws which are unjust or unconstitutional.

[–]jasonofcompsci 1 point2 points ago

May I upvote you more. The point about government being a form of idolatry is something I wish more people understood or at least would consider in my own religion. There is a lot that suggests the millennial period, I don't know what your thoughts on that are, would lack the type of government correctly identified as idolatry that we are so used to. To quote Isaiah, "The government should be on his shoulders." The question then remains would the decision to give men their agency continue? Methinks it would. It would be consistent with doctrine and with God's interaction with men sense forever including premortal existence. Especially premortal existence. If we are to have agency and there is no government but Christ we essentially have anarchy. I do believe there may remain judicial systems but some of us would not consider that government. And I do believe there will be a structure to this government, the body of the church, but interactions with it, all work for it, and monetary support of it will be entirely voluntary. So it would be more of an organization and not really a government. I'm LDS if that is of any use for reference.

[–]OHhokie1 9 points10 points ago

Jesus would absolutely want people to give to the poor, he just wouldn't want a group of people to use guns to force other people to give them their money, some of which would go to the poor while the rest would go to unrelated stuff.

What do you think Jesus (if you're religious) would say to a dead rich man on the steps of heaven who said, "Jesus, I didn't give my money to the government because I didn't want to pay for war. Instead, I gave a large portion of my money to private charities every year"?

[–]nedtugent -1 points0 points ago

What do you think Jesus (if you're religious) would say to a dead rich man on the steps of heaven who said

He would say, "fuck your couch Buffett".

[–]vagabondvet 8 points9 points ago

Regardless, Jesus is certainly not where he gets his foreign policy views from.

[–]vigilantpa1adin 5 points6 points ago

Don't forget 2 Corinthians 9:7, that's the best verse in the Bible about this:

Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

[–]dmahan 2 points3 points ago

Actually, Jesus was pretty much an anarcho-capitalist, so Obama is silly, as is most politicians when they say they are doing it for Jesus.

http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html

for a very, very tl;dr golden rules applies to everyone, even rulers.

[–]jacekplacek 3 points4 points ago

He will take a tenth of your grain

I would be ecstatic if our king took only tenth of my paycheck... :(

[–]ChaosMotor 1 point2 points ago

Herein is the lesson that politicians don't believe what they say, and lie to advantage themselves.

[–][deleted] ago*

[deleted]

[–]plasmatic[S] 1 point2 points ago

Thanks for this!

[–]polost 2 points3 points ago

post this in r/atheism

[–]ct_liberty 1 point2 points ago

rage will ensue

[–]Guns-Cats-andRonPaul 1 point2 points ago

We should put this on r/politics...oh wait they will just ignore it!

Maybe r/atheism? Oh wait...they think Obama relates to them.

[–]echoes_1992 0 points1 point ago

What Obama actually said: “Our goal should not be to declare our policies as biblical. It is God who is infallible, not us.”

[–]KickapooPonies 1 point2 points ago

Thanks for posting this!

[–]ShamAbram 0 points1 point ago

All You Zombies...

[–]nobody25864 0 points1 point ago

The giving to the poor rule to be perfect doesn't even apply to everyone. The Bible is full of people, both in the old and new testaments, who are stated as being rich and are not condemned for it at all, and even condemned. There is an important point of making sure that you value God more than gold however, and I think that's the primary message Jesus was trying to give when he told him to sell his possessions.

[–]Cryptic0677 -2 points-1 points ago

It's irrelevant because you shouldn't be taking economic advice from a thousands of year old book written by bronze age sheep herders.

[–]neilmcc 5 points6 points ago

I must remind you the greatest era of philosophy in Greece was a few centuries before Jesus. Moreover, I don't think this is an economic problem but an ethics problem.

Elsewhere in Jesus' teachings run contra to many of things Obama is pursuing. If you didn't pay your taxes, would Jesus come to your house and drag you to jail? Would he kill you if you resisted? Would Jesus start unilateral wars? Would Jesus assassinate American citizens without a trial? Would Jesus authorize drone strikes pursuing a war of aggression murdering innocent people? Regarding violence:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you do ye even so to them..." (Matt. 7: 12). "When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7)

[–]WhirlwindMonk 7 points8 points ago

And you shouldn't be learning physics from the century old writings of a patent office cubicle slave.

Note that I am not making any claims either way about the economics advice of the Bible. I am simply pointing out that arguing against the advice based on the personal qualities of those who wrote it is an ad hominem fallacy.

Plus, Jesus was a carpenter and several of his disciples were fishermen and tax collectors, among other things.

[–]Cryptic0677 -2 points-1 points ago

Your argument is fallacious in itself. It is disingenuously hiding the fact that that cubicle slave has peer reviewed papers published, it was real science. Those bronze age writers did no such thing.

[–]WhirlwindMonk 4 points5 points ago

You need to learn what a fallacy is. And I didn't hide anything. I criticized Einstein on the exact same points you criticized the writers of the Bible: how old it was and what their job was. If that is enough to discredit the writers of the Bible, it's enough to discredit Einstein. Because it isn't enough to discredit Einstein, it isn't enough to discredit the writers. If you think they are wrong, argue against what they said, not against who they were.

[–]jthen 1 point2 points ago

My reading of the Bible suggests no form of earthly justice whatsoever. It does not support ANY form of government, because the assumption is that God will deal out punishments and rewards after death. Suffering is valued, so victims are to be envied. Jesus was not a libertarian, a democrat, or a republican. He was an ascetic anarcho-theocrat.

[–]Matticus_Rex 4 points5 points ago

anarcho-theonomist*

[–]neilmcc 2 points3 points ago

Experiential (as opposed to institutional which is not self-taught) Christianity I believe will lead one to question authority and the fabric of society itself. When one sees the spiritual/divine as a metaphysical backdrop, one does not take any material institution as sacred as many statists do. The social contract which statistics inevitably fall back on is their ultimate given- hence the strong strain of atheism since the earliest beginnings of socialism.

In fact, I'm aware of at least one Christian movement which was decidedly anarchist. Experiential religions like gnosticism tend to have this effect- eastern religion for instance was probably the earliest form of anarchist thought. Hence it was pertinent for the PRC to stamp this out- hence, secular humanism seeks to stamp out religion in the west.

[–]jthen 0 points1 point ago

Let me be clear, I don't support any philosophy based on the idea that the most important aspect of life is unobservable and occurs after death. Ascetic wizard worship is ascetic wizard worship to me.

[–]bo1024 -1 points0 points ago

For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.

That makes sense if everyone has the opportunity to work....

[–]WhirlwindMonk 5 points6 points ago

Notice the use of the word "will" rather than the word "can't." Someone who does not have a job but is actively seeking one is someone who will work but currently can't work. Living off the work of others so you do not have to do any is wrong. Living off the work of others while you are struggling to improve your lot in life is not. And, since Jesus condemns the use of force, regardless of whether you are struggling or being lazy, using an instrument of force to live off the work of others, rather than relying on their charity, is wrong.

[–]hemingsoft 1 point2 points ago

You have an interesting view of "can't." These that you speak of still can work, they choose to not work a set of jobs. Most anyone could try to cultivate a garden to produce vegetables to eat. That would be considered work. Now you can say to me, "What if there is no land to do such or no home to reside." In that case, the government already gives assistance so what would be the argument for more then?

[–]WhirlwindMonk 1 point2 points ago

You have an interesting view of "can't." These that you speak of still can work, they choose to not work a set of jobs.

If someone is truly in need, and they refuse or ignore a job because it's not the kind they want, I would say they will not work, not that they can't work. People who have savings built up so that they don't need help are free to be picky about the job they take.

Most anyone could try to cultivate a garden to produce vegetables to eat. That would be considered work.

Absolutely. Sustenance farming is a perfectly acceptable way to live, Biblically speaking. Until the farm is up and running, they are working and thus deserving of charity. And once it's up and running, they are working, eating, and need no more assistance. This is, of course, assuming they have the funds necessary to start a farm that large, which is questionable, since in the hypothetical situation they are unable to afford to feed their family.

Now you can say to me, "What if there is no land to do such or no home to reside." In that case, the government already gives assistance so what would be the argument for more then?

The government gives assistance through money taken by force from other people, which is immoral by Biblical standards. Following a Biblical model, the charity would be instead of government assistance, not in addition to it.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]krugmanisapuppet 1 point2 points ago

i think he meant "Jerusalem."

[–]plasmatic[S] 1 point2 points ago

He didn't go to Rome. That's the whole point of what I was saying. Going to Rome would have been more of a political action since the Jews were under Roman rule.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 3290 on app-07 running 86c9e1d.