Wealth disparity

[tango]

Wow. Some of you here are getting very testy. Just a little defensive, eh?

Testy? You could always try answering the questions about where in the Bible it tells us to set up central social programs, or where it tells us we should force others to do the things Jesus told us to do.

I am not "begging" but I live in a very small, old, modest home and when I am done with possessions, I donate them to thrift. I pay my taxes - some of which goes to infrastructure (such as the bridge under which people die), some to social programs such as the healthcare program in which I work, income assistance, disability income, old age security, employment programs, corrections and reintegration programs, childcare programs, rental assistance programs, and more. I am very generous, even though until less than a year ago, I hardly had to quarters to rub together. Why? Because I know what it's like to be on the edge of homelessness. Maybe every capitalist and rich person here should go live for a year under the bridge without food or warmth.

All this is great. You get to live however you choose. We get to live however we choose. It's not difficult to understand.

Capitalism and greed too often rob people of compassion and generosity.

How exactly does capitalism rob people of compassion? In a free market you are free to be as compassionate as you choose. You are free to work for a non-profit, you are free to work as a volunteer, you are free to spend your life chasing whatever goals you choose. Just because some choose to chase ever-more financial wealth doesn't mean you have to. Isn't freedom wonderful? Maybe that's why God gave it to us.

You people here focus too much on the idea that giving should be voluntary. The problem is that most people don't teach generosity to their children, so no one is giving enough to save lives, to provide shelter and food and clean water. If it is not done voluntarily, then yes, it should be managed through some institution, agency or system. Canada is a "capitalist" and greedy country too, but I sure am proud of the social programs available here. Focus on the biblical principles. Generosity is a biblical value. Distributing wealth was a social program that worked, whether it is voluntary or not. People are not doing it voluntarily and people are dying so yeah... if you value life, you need to value ALL life - even the lives of those who are on the streets starving or freezing to death. But you don't. You value the life of the unborn child but find the life of a dying homeless man or woman meaningless. Shame on y'all.

Now you're just making silly assumptions. You're assuming that "generosity should be voluntary" implies "we are not generous". Remember that whole thing about when the rich young man walked away from Jesus, and Jesus ran after him and forced him to sell what he had? No? Maybe that's because Jesus never did that. He left the rich man to make his own decisions.

Making our own decisions whether to give....
Ananias and Sapphira getting to decide whether to give...
"Each should give as he purposes in his heart...."

Wow, it's almost as if the Bible says giving should be voluntary. What a radical concept.

I'm glad I don't play the lottery. I'd never want to win. I'd never want to be that rich. Money ruins people's hearts.

Honestly, at this point you're just sounding self-righteous. Nobody is forcing you to play the lottery. It's another one of those freedoms - you know, you can punt your dollar into the wind if you want and maybe it will disappear and maybe you'll become a multimillionaire overnight.

If you win the lottery, take a guess what happens next? You get to decide what to do with the money. So if you want a shiny new Lamborghini you get to go and buy one. If you want to buy an entire apartment block and house as many homeless people as you can fit in it at no cost to them you get to to that too. You even get to gripe about what you speculate someone else might have done with the money, even as you make whatever choices you see fit regarding what you're going to do with it.

Incidentally, money doesn't ruin peoples' hearts. Remember the people in Acts who had money and who shared it? If you're a nice person money makes you a nice rich person. If you're a jerk money makes you a rich jerk.

 

[tango]

Rich people can afford life-saving surgery. Poor people can't. So in the US, poor people die and rich people get to live. Iow, poor people's lives don't matter; they have no value. I feel for the poor people who can't afford the babies they are forced to have because abortion is abolished. Those unborn babies have value only until they die under bridges, unable to afford life-saving surgeries or food.

Did you know....? Babies are made by people having sex. In the vast majority of situations having sex is a voluntary act. Not to put too fine a point on it but keeping your legs closed is a pretty solid method of making sure you don't have babies.

Incidentally abortion hasn't been "abolished", it's just more restricted in some states than it used to be.

In the US if you go to the emergency room they are required to treat you even if you can't pay. But hey, keep spouting the left-wing babble as if it were gospel truth while avoiding the issue of what Jesus actually told us to do.

Did you know...? Every year people give to places like homeless shelters and soup kitchens and food banks. All the money that is donated to making those places run could instead be pooled and it could be used to house all those homeless people who use those services. Once a person has an address, they are more likely to use other services such as addictions assistance, employment programs, etc. Once they have an address, they are able to receive income assistance cheques so they can buy their own food. Shelters would no longer exist and people would have homes. This is why social programs are so necessary. They help people to actually live independently.

If all that money were pooled how much more of it would get soaked up in administration and general waste?

I don't see that anybody is disputing the benefits of having an address. You're spinning the discussion away from your original claim, which is demonstrably false, that Jesus told us to set up social programs. Whether a social program is useful or not isn't relevant to the question of whether or not Jesus told us to set them up. But, you know, you can push your concept of utopia even if you can't point at a single verse in the Bible that says it's expected that we work towards your vision.

Just out of curiosity, without some form of capitalist system who is going to build the homes you're expecting to put people into? Are you proposing central government control over absolutely everything, with some official deciding who gets to live in which house? (That couldn't possibly lead to corruption, right?) Or are you hoping that construction firms will magically rustle up some land and enough material to build however many thousand homes would be required, and then hand them over for nothing so selected people can live in them courtesy of welfare checks?

 

[ValleyGal]

Hmm. Now I remember why I don't do forums anymore. Some people simply twist things others try to say, don't even bother to focus on any other words than their own, pick and choose which Bible verses to use against someone else, and don't bother to have genuine discussions. Thanks for the reminder, fellas.

 

[Jason76]

For the Christian, the Sermon on the Mount shows the way to having needs met by God: Matthew 6:24-34. I made a successful career from this. Knowing God is your source gives you great freedom.

I think the big problem is people simply don't want Christ. God said he would meet our needs. If we say government should help, we are saying God can't.

However, though, I have been dependent on welfare and I'm not cutting down people on welfare, necessarily. Many people simply haven't had time to be blessed by God and others still need mercy - even if they don't want God. I don't see how I should hope for a fall of welfare - simply cause it's not the most ideal situation.

 

[Albion]

Jesus answered, “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.” Mt 19:21

Jesus did not say what you claimed earlier, then.

There is no doubt whatsoever that this verse that you yourself chose to present to us shows Jesus telling an individual person to engage in voluntary charitable giving.

There is not even a hint of him recommending, urging, or supporting the idea of his listeners working towards having the government take over from individuals and compel them to finance whatever programs the government chooses to install.

As a matter of fact, doing that would be a way for the individual to avoid doing what Christ recommended by simply shifting the job onto the shoulders of someone else.

 

[Jason76]

Jesus did not say what you claimed earlier, then.

There is no doubt whatsoever that this verse that you yourself chose to present to us shows Jesus telling an individual person to engage in charitable giving.

There is not even a hint of him recommending, urging, or supporting the idea of his listeners working toward having the government take over from individuals.

As a matter of fact, doing that would be a way for the individual to avoid doing what Christ recommended by simply shifting the job onto the shoulders of someone else.

God is certainly a socialist - in the "Kingdom of God" sense. That is tough for a lot on the religious right to accept. Well, he did allow Solomon to amass a lot of wealth. However, maybe he used it for God in some way, or maybe the hardening of his heart caused wealth - he wasn't supposed to have.

 

[Albion]

God is certainly a socialist - in the "Kingdom of God" sense.

There is no "Kingdom of God" sense to the words socialism and socialist.

You mean to compare the Kingdom of God to something else.

Well, he did allow Solomon to amass a lot of wealth. However, maybe he used it for God in some way, or maybe the hardening of his heart caused wealth - he wasn't supposed to have.

Either way, that still isn't socialism. Socialism is a specifically political program in which the government takes the wealth from some people and redistributes it to others, not necessarily equally, in order to further whatever it may be that the government administrators consider to be "fair."

 

[Jason76]

There is no "Kingdom of God" sense to the words socialism and socialist.

You mean to compare the Kingdom of God to something else.


Either way, that still isn't socialism. Socialism is a specifically political program in which the government takes the wealth from some people and redistributes it to others, not necessarily equally, in order to further whatever it may be that the government administrators consider to be "fair."

Well, God determined it fair to take away from the Rich Young Ruler. He thought it was fair that Zacchaeus, the tax collector, should give half his goods to the poor.

 

[Albion]

Well, God determined it fair to take away from the Rich Young Ruler.

That's God's right to do. It still isn't Socialism, which is a purely political concept of government.

He thought it was fair that Zacchaeus, the tax collector, should give half his goods to the poor.

Still has nothing to do with Socialism. Or Fascism. Or Naziism.

 

[tango]

Hmm. Now I remember why I don't do forums anymore. Some people simply twist things others try to say, don't even bother to focus on any other words than their own, pick and choose which Bible verses to use against someone else, and don't bother to have genuine discussions. Thanks for the reminder, fellas.

Wow. Just wow. You claim Jesus said something, constantly dodge and weave when asked to indicate where he said anything of the sort, but everybody else is twisting stuff?

Wow.

 

[tango]

God is certainly a socialist - in the "Kingdom of God" sense. That is tough for a lot on the religious right to accept. Well, he did allow Solomon to amass a lot of wealth. However, maybe he used it for God in some way, or maybe the hardening of his heart caused wealth - he wasn't supposed to have.

God isn't anything of the sort.

There's a huge difference between people freely sharing their surplus with others who have needs (what the Bible indicates in many places) and people having their stuff confiscated by government to give to people who may have needs but may just be lazy.

Socialism isn't usually about people freely sharing with others that they choose.

 

[tango]

Well, God determined it fair to take away from the Rich Young Ruler. He thought it was fair that Zacchaeus, the tax collector, should give half his goods to the poor.

God took precisely nothing from the rich young ruler. Not a single bean. Jesus told him to sell his possessions and give the proceeds to the poor, he chose not to do it, and Jesus respected his decision.

Zaccheus voluntarily decided to give to the poor and return multiples of what he cheated people.

Remember that verse about "let each give as he purports in his heart"? Not a word about a minimum amount to give, or being forced to give, or anything else.

 

[ValleyGal]

Wow. Just wow. You claim Jesus said something, constantly dodge and weave when asked to indicate where he said anything of the sort, but everybody else is twisting stuff?

Wow.

And you have done exactly what you accuse me of doing. You and others keep dodging and weaving by detracting from the principles of the matter and asserting your own agenda without any attempt to understand the downside of capitalism. I have hit a soft spot and I recognize that as these are deeply ingrained American values. However, research shows that it doesn't work. And now I am busy once again and will take my leave. I don't have time to come here and spend five minutes only to leave with a headache. I have boundaries.

 

[tango]

And you have done exactly what you accuse me of doing. You and others keep dodging and weaving by detracting from the principles of the matter and asserting your own agenda without any attempt to understand the downside of capitalism. I have hit a soft spot and I recognize that as these are deeply ingrained American values. However, research shows that it doesn't work. And now I am busy once again and will take my leave. I don't have time to come here and spend five minutes only to leave with a headache. I have boundaries.

Your assertion was that Jesus told us to set up social programs. You have dodged and weaved when asked where he said anything of the sort.

The issue isn't whether social programs are good or not, but whether Jesus told us to set them up. If you could prove with 100% certainty that social programs are universally good, don't waste a single dime and correctly target assistance exactly where it's needed, that doesn't indicate that Jesus told us to set them up.

Whether capitalism is good or bad isn't the issue either. It's a perfectly valid discussion and, as with most other systems, it has upsides and downsides. That is also utterly irrelevant to the question of what Jesus told us to do. He told us to help the poor. He didn't tell us to pass legislation to force other people to help the poor, he didn't tell us to set up a centralised system so the poor get government handouts, he told us to help them ourselves.

If you can show where Jesus said we should be setting up social programs by all means do so. If you want to have a discussion on the merits or otherwise of capitalism and socialism we can do that too, although it would work better in a different thread. If you want to claim Jesus expects one of them you need to be ready to back up your assertion - chapter and verse would be a good start.

Incidentally, I'm not an American so comments about "deeply ingrained American values" kinda miss the mark.

 

[Jason76]

The Bible didn't teach on social programs as they didn't exist on those days. Well, slavery existed and the Bible didn't condemn it.