Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I know I've been vocal about pro-life and pro-choice before (often in the practical stance of pro-choice because that's where the argument leads me, not because that is my actual belief), but as someone who is reasonably against abortion, I happen to agree with Const and Maineiacs. If we want to deal with abortion as Christians, we have to provide relief for single mothers and poor families. And we have to because doing otherwise is completely self-contradictory and immoral for us as Christians to want otherwise, and it does nothing to solve the problem. Yes, I oppose abortion, but I could never call myself pro-life, at least, not in the sense American politicians use "pro-life", because that is NOT pro-life.

Charity, sadly, does not solve the problem. When you base a problem around voluntaryism, because it lack the enforcement and spread of resources of the state, it happens to go severely unaddressed or not addressed at all as the larger problem it is, but rather as a local problem. Which is why I am with Const., even if I am a capitalist out of practice, that the enforcement of the state in making us pay taxes for this is needed, because the government has a hell of a lot of more resources, influence, and ways to manage certain problems than just a few charities specialized in these problems. It's good to think that charities can solve the problem, but that only makes you feel good and like you don't have any responsibility, that you're doing it out of the kindness of your heart.

No, if you have a kind heart you should see your part in helping those who are poor and destitute as a responsibility, not as an option or as a voluntary thing, and so you should be okay with a government that is capable and competent enough to carry out your agenda and not only want them to carry them out, but be perfectly okay with providing the resources to the government to solve the problem from the root.

In other words, your actions do not define how much of a good person you are. "Even the worst criminal still loves their mother", as we say where I come from. Your character as a good person, on the other hand, should be the one guiding your actions.

[Kannap]

Why does it constantly seem that most Christians don't care about environmental conservation? It appears that various denominations and churches acknowledge the idea the conservation is Biblically rooted and that God created the world and everything in it and we need to be stewards protecting it. However, it seems that when that needs to translate to actual practice most Christians - especially those currently leading the environmental agencies of the nation - subscribe to an anthropocentric view of the world rather than the ecocentric view of the world that we need to have as Christians.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Why does it constantly seem that most Christians don't care about environmental conservation? It appears that various denominations and churches acknowledge the idea the conservation is Biblically rooted and that God created the world and everything in it and we need to be stewards protecting it. However, it seems that when that needs to translate to actual practice most Christians - especially those currently leading the environmental agencies of the nation - subscribe to an anthropocentric view of the world rather than the ecocentric view of the world that we need to have as Christians.

I cannot speak for everyone else, but in my opinion, there's a difference between conservation of the ecosystem, and ecocentrism.

I mean, am I with you that the environment needs to be protected? Yes. But to what extent do people push this conservatism is the question, because you're not going to treat your dog better than you do your son.

[Kannap]

Why does it constantly seem that most Christians don't care about environmental conservation? It appears that various denominations and churches acknowledge the idea the conservation is Biblically rooted and that God created the world and everything in it and we need to be stewards protecting it. However, it seems that when that needs to translate to actual practice most Christians - especially those currently leading the environmental agencies of the nation - subscribe to an anthropocentric view of the world rather than the ecocentric view of the world that we need to have as Christians.

I cannot speak for everyone else, but in my opinion, there's a difference between conservation of the ecosystem, and ecocentrism.

I mean, am I with you that the environment needs to be protected? Yes. But to what extent do people push this conservatism is the question, because you're not going to treat your dog better than you do your son.

Of course not, I don't expect anybody should do that. That's why I suggested I believe Christians should live by an ecocentric worldview rather than a biocentric one. Though while I subscribe fully to ecocentrism, I would find it acceptable for Christians to find a safe middle ground between ecocentrism and anthropocentrism. We have to be able to understand that every organism in nature has a right to live, just like we do, rather than the planet just being a resource for us to rob from while we're here.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I cannot speak for everyone else, but in my opinion, there's a difference between conservation of the ecosystem, and ecocentrism.

I mean, am I with you that the environment needs to be protected? Yes. But to what extent do people push this conservatism is the question, because you're not going to treat your dog better than you do your son.

Of course not, I don't expect anybody should do that. That's why I suggested I believe Christians should live by an ecocentric worldview rather than a biocentric one. Though while I subscribe fully to ecocentrism, I would find it acceptable for Christians to find a safe middle ground between ecocentrism and anthropocentrism. We have to be able to understand that every organism in nature has a right to live, just like we do, rather than the planet just being a resource for us to rob from while we're here.

While we do have a duty to the planet, Christianity is fairly anthropocentric because the focus of the religion is the salvation of mankind.

[Luminesa]

Why does it constantly seem that most Christians don't care about environmental conservation? It appears that various denominations and churches acknowledge the idea the conservation is Biblically rooted and that God created the world and everything in it and we need to be stewards protecting it. However, it seems that when that needs to translate to actual practice most Christians - especially those currently leading the environmental agencies of the nation - subscribe to an anthropocentric view of the world rather than the ecocentric view of the world that we need to have as Christians.

I think it comes from the fact that environmentalism has been heavily politicized into a "left-wing" issue, for many people. People who care about animals and the earth are often seen as "hippies" and whatnot. While I myself have not been the most supportive of environmentalist causes, I do support taking care of the environment and helping people, especially in poor countries, to be able to sustain their economies. Most poor countries, after all, run on farming. There are also many endangered animals that need to be protected.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Your bias towards economic republicans terribly obvious in your laughably skewed view of the economic Republican philosophy. "If asking people to pay taxes", this here is where your entire argument falls apart. "Asking" implies that taxes are voluntary. that one can say no. They aren't, taxes are mandated and enforced through law. The description "legalized theft" is not unwarrented. Thus that quote should read "forcing people to pay taxes."

You're arguing semantics.

9/10ths of religion and law is semantics.

I was using a common figure of speech - referring to mandatory obligations as people being "asked to" do something. Of course paying taxes isn't voluntary. And carrying an unwanted child to term wouldn't be voluntary either, if we had anti-abortion laws like both of us want. Hence the comparison between the two.

But sure, I can certainly rephrase my earlier statement:

If you have the right to refuse to pay taxes to support life-saving medical treatment for someone, then surely you also have the right to refuse to provide your body as life-support for a child you don't want. If asking forcing people to pay taxes to save lives is going too far, then surely asking forcing women to go through the pain and suffering of childbirth to save lives is also going too far.

That doesn't change anything about the argument.

Except it does. The term, "asking people" is not used in the manner you are suggesting. It is used to describe conditions in which a contractual obligation exists, "In lieu of payment were asking people to give to X charity." This is does not exist in the example you are giving.. Asking people to give money to the poor, and forcing them to, are two very different concepts. One is charity, one is robbery. If you can't see the difference, well...

You might think I'm being overly pedantic, but we must be very particular about the language we use, especially when discussing the intersection of Faith and Law. English unlike Greek or Latin, is a highly idiomatic and nuanced language. It's not as specific in common dialect.

The economic Republican does not believe that one has no obligation to aid said person, but rather they have no legal obligation. Charity, is a personal and voluntary affair.

And that is why I could never, ever be an economic Republican.

This distinction between legal and ethical obligations is nonsensical, and I utterly reject it at a basic, almost instinctive level. I find it self-evident that if X is an ethical obligation, then, in most cases, X should also be a legal obligation. The law exists for the very purpose of enforcing ethical behaviour, in order to create a good society.

The Law has nothing to do with morality, much as people might like to think it does. The law keeps a society functioning, whether that law is moral or not. In the West, legal protection is based in natural rights, not Christian ethics. And those rights only apply to you if the law says it does. For instance, the law prohibiting theft and murder? Sure moral. The law requiring Northern State Law enforcement agencies to return run away slaves to the Southern States? Immoral. The law does not exist to enforce ethical behavior, and is more often than not, applied unethically.

Morality is a personal affair, and is between the individual and God. God in his position as the truly Right and Just Judge and Master of all creation, has the right to command moral edicts, and judge those who do not follow them. You as creature, do not. That is where the distinction between legal and moral requirements exists. "While I recognize a moral way of doing things, I do not have the right to mandate morality in a way that violates the rights of others." We can outlaw murder, because doing so protects the right of an individual to not be murdered. Forcing people to pay for another's medical services, however violates the right of the individual to keep their property.

I honestly do not understand those who believe that X is good, but that the government should not be trying to get people to do X. Or those who believe that Y is evil, but the government should not be trying to get people to stop doing Y.

Because we don't believe we have the right to control people, only to enforce reasonable boundaries. The law is prohibitive, not prescriptive. You're advocating for a prescriptive law.

This mindset makes absolutely no sense to me. I find it hard to even wrap my head around the fact that some people actually support such an absurd principle. I always suspect that people who say this sort of thing don't actually believe that X is good, or don't actually believe that Y is evil.

(and that would be called the Incredulity Fallacy)
Because you apparently feel you have a right to control people, to make them conform to your moralist paradigm. But if I don't agree with your moralist paradigm, what gives you the right to force your paradigm on to me? Your God? And if I don't recognize your God, what then? Will you kill me? Jail me? Behead me on live television as warning others not to defy your God?

One may have have an ethical requirement to help someone in need, but that is not one that should be enforced by law.

In general, all ethical requirements should be enforced by law, except in cases where a compelling reason exists to do otherwise. The default stance should be that if we agree that X is an ethical requirement, then we should agree to have a law enforcing X.
Of course, exceptions can and should be made. Sometimes it is not feasible to try to legally enforce X in practice. Other times it simply costs too much to legally enforce X, and that money would do more good if spent on something else. So, for a number of reasons, there are some ethical requirements that we'll have to refrain from enforcing by law.
But those should be the exception, not the rule.

The problem is there's a difference of conflicting rights, the right of the individual to receive aid, vs the right of the individual to keep their property. The ethics are not cut and dry.
Also, who get's to decide what is an ethical requirement? The Majority? That's just mob rule. God? Alright who's God? The Christians? Which Christians? You? Us?

Western Liberal Democracy, is defined by the notion of individual rights, protecting individual rights against the tyranny of the mob. You're not advocating for liberal Democracy. You, like every other communist dictator, are arguing for an autocracy, where you get absolute control over the people.

If someone doesn't help then they're a shitty person, but that does not justify legal force to someone to give up their assets. Because while one may be in need of charity, one also doesn't have an intrinsic right to it. Otherwise it would not be charity, it would be what you're owed. One person does not have an intrinsic right to another persons assets. It's that simple.

Yes they do. And people who believe that the needy do not have a right to another person's assets, are despicable and immoral themselves.

No they aren't. Nobody is entitled to the fruits of another persons labor. This is where your communist nonsense falls apart. You claim you have a right to the fruit of someone else's labor, and then punish them through violent force of law if they don't give it up. There's a word for that:theft. Commandment number 8. You (along with some of the saints) are conflating a moral obligation to give charitably, with a right to receive it. Charity is a voluntary act of giving. One is not entitled to Charity, the same way we are not entitled to Grace. God gives grace because his nature mandates that he does so. We give Charity because Christian morality mandates that we do so. However, such an act must remain voluntary and not be enforced by law, for as soon as it becomes enforced by law, it's no longer charity but theft. One may have a moral obligation to give to those in need, but if one refuses to give it, those in need do not then have the right to take it. That's called theft. I'll keep driving this point as long as it takes.

To believe that we should not use the state to stop the evil of those "shitty persons" you mentioned, makes you a defender of evil and complicit in their crimes.

They have committed no crime, they have committed sins. Sins are between them and God, not you.

No one has any right to be a "shitty person".

You have no right to stop them in this case.

We are forced to tolerate shitty persons because it would be impractical to try to have laws against every kind of shitty behaviour, but that doesn't mean they have any right to do what they are doing.

No we tolerate shitty people because they have rights too, even if they are shitty people.

They have the privilege of being allowed to be shitty persons, and that privilege can be revoked if circumstances change. It's that simple.

In this case they have a generally understood right to keep their property. You are the one attempting to deprive them of that right, and take their property through the force of law. That's called..wait for it...any guesses.. that's right: THEFT. It's not that simple, because what you are proposing is tyranny. You are proposing that any behavior you find immoral, should be punished by criminal law. To quote, Demolition Man "you can't take away people's right to be assholes." If I don't want to give my money to charity, and spend it on something else for me. That is my right. You can consider me an asshole, and God may judge me for it, but you have no right to enact force on me to give that money to charity instead of spending it on myself. That's called theft

And yes, the poor are owed the money of the rich. To quote Saint Basil the Great:

"When someone strips a man of his clothes we call him a thief. And one who might clothe the naked and does not - should not he be given the same name? The bread in your hoard belongs to the hungry; the cloak in your wardrobe belongs to the naked; the shoes you let rot belong to the barefoot; the money in your vaults belongs to the destitute. You are committing as many injustices as there are things you could give away."

"If it is true that you have kept the law of charity from your childhood, as you claim, and that you have done as much for others as for yourself, then where does all your wealth come from? Care for the poor absorbs all available resources... So whoever loves his neighbor as himself owns no more than his neighbor does. But you have a great fortune. How can this be, unless you have put your own interests above those of others?"

Or, in the words of Saint John Chrysostom:

"The rich are in possession of the goods of the poor, even if they have acquired them honestly or inherited them legally. [...] Do not say 'I am using what belongs to me.' You are using what belongs to others. All the wealth of the world belongs to you and to the others in common, as the sun, air, earth, and all the rest."

And that's a great lesson for Christians, and how they should conduct themselves. The world might indeed be a better place if more Christians did conduct themselves in such a manner. But teaching is a far cry from using law to make them conform to your teachings. You're supplanting your moralist paradigm over theirs, and seizing their property for your own uses. There's a word for that, theft. While a man who keeps his assets from the poor may be called a thief, the one who steals from him is also a thief. That is why these lessons are instructions for how one should conduct themselves, not advocacy for stealing from the rich. While these saints give good lessons, they don't advocate influencing them by force. They condemn the wicked, they don't command the righteous. These are personal instructions of morality, and for failing to uphold them, one will have to contend with God with later on for sure, for He has that right as the Right and Holy Judge, but that's still doesn't give you the right to seize their property for redistribution. Christ never advocated such a thing. Christ never advocated theft, even from the wicked.

Irrelevant. There is no ethical distinction between causing someone to die through action and causing someone to die through inaction. If you know how to swim, and you see someone accidentally falling into a lake and yelling "help, help, I can't swim", and you walk by without jumping in to save that person, you are precisely as guilty as if you had murdered him.

Morally, possibly. Legally, not necessarily.

Failure to act to save someone - when you could have acted without significant risk to yourself - carries very high moral guilt,

From a Christian standpoint, sure. But such moral guilt is between them and God, not you.

and should be punishable by law in most cases (and it is punishable by law, in certain countries and jurisdictions).

False, what you're referring to is called duty to rescue, and is not formally enshrined in law in most countries. Generally there is tort law on the subject in many countries, but these are considered civil offenses. If I were to see a man drown, and did absolutely nothing no criminal recourse could be taken against me. I could however find myself sued by the family of the offended party, but again this is matter of civil dispute not criminal law. Basically it's arbitration.

Furthermore, the belief that causing harm through inaction is less bad than causing harm through action, is a thoroughly anti-Christian philosophical stance. Christianity does not excuse inaction. It mandates action. Remember the apocalypic sermon delivered by Christ in Matthew chapter 25:

"Then the King will say to those on His right, `Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
`For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;
naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.'
Then the righteous will answer Him, `Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink?
`And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You?
`When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?'
The King will answer and say to them, `Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'
Then He will also say to those on His left, `Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;
for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;
I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'
Then they themselves also will answer, `Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'
Then He will answer them, `Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'
These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
-- Matthew 25:34-46

Notice that every single sin which causes the damned to go to hell, is a sin of inaction. They are condemned not because of anything they did, but because of what they did not do. Because they did not feed the poor, did not give shelter to strangers, did not clothe the naked, did not visit and comfort the prisoners or the sick.

That is how important the sins of inaction are. They are so important that Christ, when describing the Last Judgment, mentioned only sins of inaction.

And that's great Christian teaching. And I'll even contend that it's the Truth. Dante, in his inferno enumerated on the numerous ways that inaction causes harm, and how each of them will face perdition. But there is a BIG difference between teaching that to people, and forcing people to conform through the law. One is education, the other is tyranny, a tyranny which you have no right to enact on them. Only God possess that right.

So, to reiterate: There is almost no difference between killing someone and letting someone die when it would have been easy for you to save them (where "easy" can be defined as "not requiring you to risk life or limb, or to give up your lifestyle").

Almost none, but yet there is. And that slight difference is oh so important, because while I might have a moral obligation to act, you have no right to compel me to act. This is why, "failure to act" is really only enforceable under "liability" and "special relationship" circumstance. If I see a person stabbed in the street and do nothing, there are only a few courts in the world that could potentially even bring charges against me, let alone convict me. And those few who could, would very arguably be violating my rights.

AND even if every court in the world did punish me for failure to act, It STILL would not justify forcing me to pay for another persons medical care.

For example, if I were to find someone dying in the desert, and I had a camel-back full of water, said person does not have a right to my water. It would be horribly evil of me to not give them some, and by rights I would and should be condemned to hell by God, but it still is my water. And that person, who even with the spectre of death looming, if they take it without my consent, that is theft. Understandable theft, but theft none the less. The same concept applies to medical care. Money is property. If you take money from someone to pay for another's medical care, that is theft.

Is it easy for the rich to save the poor from death by providing them with money for health care and basic necessities? Yes. It does not require the rich to risk their lives or physical safety, or to give up their lifestyle. So it can be classified as "easy". Therefore, to the extent that the rich do not do it, they are guilty of a form of murder. And the law should treat them accordingly.

Arguably easy, but not without sacrifice. Again, Money=Property. That money is the property of the individual who possesses it. To steal it from them constitutes theft. We might teach that someone has a moral obligation to sacrifice their property to help others, but such surrender is a voluntary act. It is done in the spirit of charity. What you are proposing is not charity, it is theft

And abortion can be treated as a form of murder for the exact same reasons.

No actually it can't. Abortion is murder because it is also a voluntary act. An involuntary abortion, aka miscarriage, is not murder. Further more, if said person doesn't act, the child will presumably go on living. In this case, inaction will not lead to death.

Actually, a pregnant woman has more of an excuse to abort than a rich man to ignore the poor, because pregnancy can sometimes threaten one's life or health. It is less easy to carry a child to term, then to pay taxes. So the selfish capitalists are more murderous than women who abort, because they have less of an excuse to avoid their moral responsibility.

Except, again abortion is an action while not paying, is inaction. Christian morality might claim them both to be immoral, but they're not both the same thing. Not preventing someone from being shot, is not the same as shooting someone. For the woman, pregnancy is the current state they're in and thus getting abortion would constitute voluntary commission of murder, by ceasing that state.

In short your post has less to do with abortion, and more just your own farcical bias against capitalists.

I have a bias against evil, yes. I believe it is the duty of the state to combat evil, yes.

Oh come off it. Capitalism isn't inherently evil. Shit, communism killed more people in the 20th century than any other ideological related cause. 94 million people dead to communism. Not to mention every communist country was and/or is led by despotic tyranical and autocratic governments. Hell even, Castro (who you actually praised openly) killed around 73,000 of his own people, countless other human rights violations, and to top it off, died with over $900 million in assets, while the median income of Cuba is just $25 dollars a month. And you could claim this is the rule, if it didn't happen in nearly every other iteration of the policy.


In theory, Communism might be about "helping each other out" and I'll even say it might even, on the surface, be the embodiment of Christian Ideals. But in practice, it is antithetical to Christian doctrine, simply because it requires the use of force to implement. Communism is less about "helping people" so much as it is about controlling people. Capitalism might not be, the embodiment of Christian ideals, but it is more Christian than communism ever will be, because it allows people to make the choices for themselves.

And at this point, I'm probably hijacking the thread.

[Nordengrund]

So, could one be Eastern Orthodox and a dispensationalist or Zionist, or is that a no-no? I'm

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I know I've been vocal about pro-life and pro-choice before (often in the practical stance of pro-choice because that's where the argument leads me, not because that is my actual belief), but as someone who is reasonably against abortion, I happen to agree with Const and Maineiacs. If we want to deal with abortion as Christians, we have to provide relief for single mothers and poor families. And we have to because doing otherwise is completely self-contradictory and immoral for us as Christians to want otherwise, and it does nothing to solve the problem. Yes, I oppose abortion, but I could never call myself pro-life, at least, not in the sense American politicians use "pro-life", because that is NOT pro-life.

Charity, sadly, does not solve the problem. When you base a problem around voluntaryism, because it lack the enforcement and spread of resources of the state, it happens to go severely unaddressed or not addressed at all as the larger problem it is, but rather as a local problem. Which is why I am with Const., even if I am a capitalist out of practice, that the enforcement of the state in making us pay taxes for this is needed, because the government has a hell of a lot of more resources, influence, and ways to manage certain problems than just a few charities specialized in these problems. It's good to think that charities can solve the problem, but that only makes you feel good and like you don't have any responsibility, that you're doing it out of the kindness of your heart.

No, if you have a kind heart you should see your part in helping those who are poor and destitute as a responsibility, not as an option or as a voluntary thing, and so you should be okay with a government that is capable and competent enough to carry out your agenda and not only want them to carry them out, but be perfectly okay with providing the resources to the government to solve the problem from the root.

In other words, your actions do not define how much of a good person you are. "Even the worst criminal still loves their mother", as we say where I come from. Your character as a good person, on the other hand, should be the one guiding your actions.

Even if you have a "kind heart" and see your part in helping as a responsibility that you have, that does not give you the right to assert that responsibility onto others through the theft of their money. That's the fundamental problem with yours and const's position: The belief that you are entitled to other peoples money, that you have the right to force people to give up their money, so that you can give it to people you think deserve it. It's inherently theft.

To be clear, I'm not against taxes as a rule, nor am I opposed to the much ired income tax. The tax system essentially follows the idea of "the house gets a cut." Any money one earns in a country does so because they operate within the facilities and markets provided by said country. Therefore the country, aka "the state" is within its rights to mandate a cut of said profits which then is put back into maintaining said facilities and markets. With regards to infrastructure, military, emergency services, and facilitation costs, this is pretty cut and dry. However, it gets much murkier when it comes to entitlement spending, as money is no longer being spent on the "public good" but rather as services paid from people to other people. Entitlement spending is essentially, redistribution of wealth. Now much of this is equivocated away as a sort of "safety net" ideal, in which everybody pays into entitlement spending. But the justification for this is that the receipt of such benefits is supposed to be temporary, to help you get back onto your feet. For those who use these services in these ways, they payed into the system and thus get out of the system. In that regard such a tax is not theft, but a mutual investment akin to insurance. However, the problem is not those who use the services in these way, but those who leach the system. Who don't work, and use entitlements as their livelihood. They don't pay into the system, and thus are stealing from those who do.

I am not personally against an entitlement system geared towards helping single mothers take care of their children and get out of poverty, but "get out of poverty" is the key component there. Such aid must be a temporary lift up to the point they can support themselves. Such aid fits the ideal of the mutual investment, as well as a service that serves the public interest, thus an ethical tax If such people have no desire to support themselves, then they must rely on the charity of others, and not the forced redistribution of wealth by autocrats.

[Salus Maior]

So, could one be Eastern Orthodox and a dispensationalist or Zionist, or is that a no-no? I'm

Well, Zionism is a political idea so, sure I guess you could. Whether or not it's a widely accepted idea in the Orthodox community is another thing altogether.

[The Alma Mater]

Likewise, if you are aware of a person whose life is in danger and who needs $100 to survive, yet you choose to buy a useless trinket instead, then you are as bad as a murderer. But that doesn't mean you always have an obligation to donate all your excess money just in case it might help to save someone's life somewhere at some point.

Lack of knowledge of other people's needs (and lack of knowledge regarding how you could help) is a valid defense.

Ah, but everybody knows about "the dying kids in Africa". There is no ignorance, just a choice not to save them and buy a new mp3 player or whatever.

But the rich cannot claim that they don't know how a few billion dollars could help save anyone's life. The more excess wealth you have, the more obvious it is that it could be used to save lives, and the more guilty you are for using it selfishly on yourself.

Actually, it just means they could save MORE people than you and I can. But "he could save 100.000 people and chooses not to !" does ofc not excuse my own choice to not save 2 or 3 in favour of useless trinkets.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Likewise, if you are aware of a person whose life is in danger and who needs $100 to survive, yet you choose to buy a useless trinket instead, then you are as bad as a murderer. But that doesn't mean you always have an obligation to donate all your excess money just in case it might help to save someone's life somewhere at some point.

Lack of knowledge of other people's needs (and lack of knowledge regarding how you could help) is a valid defense.

Ah, but everybody knows about "the dying kids in Africa". There is no ignorance, just a choice not to save them and buy a new mp3 player or whatever.

At this point, Const is making near the same argument that Judas Iscariot did in his indictment of Mary Magdalene.

[Nordengrund]

So, could one be Eastern Orthodox and a dispensationalist or Zionist, or is that a no-no? I'm

Well, Zionism is a political idea so, sure I guess you could. Whether or not it's a widely accepted idea in the Orthodox community is another thing altogether.

Well, I'm exploring Eastern Orthodoxy as a potential home, but I've always agreed with the dispensationalist view that God isn't finished with national Israel yet, and that it's refounding is part of eschatological prophecy and significance. I was never fully committed to dispensationalism as a whole as I see no compelling reason to take the Millennium as being a literal 1,000 years, though I'm open to such evidence.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Well, Zionism is a political idea so, sure I guess you could. Whether or not it's a widely accepted idea in the Orthodox community is another thing altogether.

Well, I'm exploring Eastern Orthodoxy as a potential home, but I've always agreed with the dispensationalist view that God isn't finished with national Israel yet, and that it's refounding is part of eschatological prophecy and significance. I was never fully committed to dispensationalism as a whole as I see no compelling reason to take the Millennium as being a literal 1,000 years, though I'm open to such evidence.

Hey you can be Catholic, who don't even really believe in an end to the world.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Even if you have a "kind heart" and see your part in helping as a responsibility that you have, that does not give you the right to assert that responsibility onto others through the theft of their money. That's the fundamental problem with yours and const's position: The belief that you are entitled to other peoples money, that you have the right to force people to give up their money, so that you can give it to people you think deserve it. It's inherently theft.

To be clear, I'm not against taxes as a rule, nor am I opposed to the much ired income tax. The tax system essentially follows the idea of "the house gets a cut." Any money one earns in a country does so because they operate within the facilities and markets provided by said country. Therefore the country, aka "the state" is within its rights to mandate a cut of said profits which then is put back into maintaining said facilities and markets. With regards to infrastructure, military, emergency services, and facilitation costs, this is pretty cut and dry. However, it gets much murkier when it comes to entitlement spending, as money is no longer being spent on the "public good" but rather as services paid from people to other people. Entitlement spending is essentially, redistribution of wealth. Now much of this is equivocated away as a sort of "safety net" ideal, in which everybody pays into entitlement spending. But the justification for this is that the receipt of such benefits is supposed to be temporary, to help you get back onto your feet. For those who use these services in these ways, they payed into the system and thus get out of the system. In that regard such a tax is not theft, but a mutual investment akin to insurance. However, the problem is not those who use the services in these way, but those who leach the system. Who don't work, and use entitlements as their livelihood. They don't pay into the system, and thus are stealing from those who do.

I am not personally against an entitlement system geared towards helping single mothers take care of their children and get out of poverty, but "get out of poverty" is the key component there. Such aid must be a temporary lift up to the point they can support themselves. Such aid fits the ideal of the mutual investment, as well as a service that serves the public interest, thus an ethical tax If such people have no desire to support themselves, then they must rely on the charity of others, and not the forced redistribution of wealth by autocrats.

I don't see is as theft, personally. There's no reason why the government cannot assist people in poverty through other people's money if said people are aware of the fact that the state, as it is, can address a problem far more effectively than their own will alone. It's why we came together in societies and the creation of states arose, because we as humans derive our strength through congregation of groups, not as individuals. The larger problem with your argument is that you're equivocating the fact that one can recognize the state can reach more people in need than the individual with theft.

I don't think other people have a right to my money. I do believe that, for my money to have far more effects than it otherwise would, a form of state that carries out a collective agenda is best. This is the fundamental inefficiency I see behind the position of "personal responsibility" and, to an extent, the position of "taxation is theft" from Libertarianism. It presupposes that an individual's might is larger than the state's, and that's just not true. A large group of people's might can influence a nation-state, but no single individual can claim that their might is more important, more valuable, or stronger, than that of the state.

Also, I see the equivocation that people who live from the system are leeches of the system as a false dichotomy. It makes no sense to compare people who benefit from a safety net system to the same level of function in society as leeches because not everyone is physically or mentally capable of earning money, so for you to say that people who don't contribute to the system are leeches, you have to also take the position that the mentally and physically handicapped to the point of having to live off of the system themselves are leeches, and that is not just wrong, that's the path where lack of empathy lies. And if you are of the thought that the elderly and the handicapped are deserving of getting help from the state, then all you're really doing is haggling over the borderline which you decide who deserves it and who doesn't, just like myself and Const.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Even if you have a "kind heart" and see your part in helping as a responsibility that you have, that does not give you the right to assert that responsibility onto others through the theft of their money. That's the fundamental problem with yours and const's position: The belief that you are entitled to other peoples money, that you have the right to force people to give up their money, so that you can give it to people you think deserve it. It's inherently theft.

To be clear, I'm not against taxes as a rule, nor am I opposed to the much ired income tax. The tax system essentially follows the idea of "the house gets a cut." Any money one earns in a country does so because they operate within the facilities and markets provided by said country. Therefore the country, aka "the state" is within its rights to mandate a cut of said profits which then is put back into maintaining said facilities and markets. With regards to infrastructure, military, emergency services, and facilitation costs, this is pretty cut and dry. However, it gets much murkier when it comes to entitlement spending, as money is no longer being spent on the "public good" but rather as services paid from people to other people. Entitlement spending is essentially, redistribution of wealth. Now much of this is equivocated away as a sort of "safety net" ideal, in which everybody pays into entitlement spending. But the justification for this is that the receipt of such benefits is supposed to be temporary, to help you get back onto your feet. For those who use these services in these ways, they payed into the system and thus get out of the system. In that regard such a tax is not theft, but a mutual investment akin to insurance. However, the problem is not those who use the services in these way, but those who leach the system. Who don't work, and use entitlements as their livelihood. They don't pay into the system, and thus are stealing from those who do.

I am not personally against an entitlement system geared towards helping single mothers take care of their children and get out of poverty, but "get out of poverty" is the key component there. Such aid must be a temporary lift up to the point they can support themselves. Such aid fits the ideal of the mutual investment, as well as a service that serves the public interest, thus an ethical tax If such people have no desire to support themselves, then they must rely on the charity of others, and not the forced redistribution of wealth by autocrats.

I don't see is as theft, personally. There's no reason why the government cannot assist people in poverty through other people's money if said people are aware of the fact that the state, as it is, can address a problem far more effectively than their own will alone. It's why we came together in societies and the creation of states arose, because we as humans derive our strength through congregation of groups, not as individuals. I cannot influence Texas politics alone, I need a group of like-minded people large enough to vote, legislate, and drive my agenda.

If every person willfully agrees to said process then sure. But remember, the US isn't predicated entirely on mob rule, but rather on protecting the rights of the individual.

I don't think other people have a right to my money. I do believe that, for my money to have far more effects than it otherwise would, a form of state that carries out a collective agenda is best. This is the fundamental inefficiency I see behind the position of "personal responsibility" and, to an extent, the position of "taxation is theft" from Libertarianism. It presupposes that an individual's might is larger than the state's, and that's just not true. A large group of people's might can influence a nation-state, but no single individual can claim that their might is more important, more valuable, or stronger, than that of the state.

No not might, "Right." Might does not make right. The right to property is a fundamental building block of Western Liberalism. Thus, though the "might" of the state might prevail in levying said taxes, it cannot do so without trampling one's "right" to property. Thus in that regard, taxation can be considered theft. I have explained that I don't think taxes are theft, necessarily but there can definitely be instances when taxation does constitute theft.

Also, I see the equivocation that people who live from the system are leeches of the system as a false dichotomy. It makes no sense to say people who benefit from a safety net system as leeches because not everyone is physically or mentally capable of earning money, so for you to say that people who don't contribute to the system are leeches, you have to also take the position that the mentally and physically handicapped to the point of having to live off of the system themselves are leeches, and that is not just wrong, that's the path where lack of empathy lies.

There are obviously reasonable exceptions that are made in regards to systemic welfare. I've not heard anyone from the right or the left, make the such an equivocation about them. The indictment here is of people who can work, but don't.


As an aside: Unfortunately, the only truly Christian economic system would be post scarcity,..which is impossible.

[Salus Maior]

At this point, Const is making near the same argument that Judas Iscariot did in his indictment of Mary Magdalene.

Capitalists always use their money to glorify the Son, then?

Because that was the point of what Jesus was saying to Judas, not "Hey, she can use her money however she wants regardless of whether needy people exist or not".

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I don't see is as theft, personally. There's no reason why the government cannot assist people in poverty through other people's money if said people are aware of the fact that the state, as it is, can address a problem far more effectively than their own will alone. It's why we came together in societies and the creation of states arose, because we as humans derive our strength through congregation of groups, not as individuals. I cannot influence Texas politics alone, I need a group of like-minded people large enough to vote, legislate, and drive my agenda.

If every person willfully agrees to said process then sure. But remember, the US isn't predicated entirely on mob rule, but rather on protecting the rights of the individual.

I don't think other people have a right to my money. I do believe that, for my money to have far more effects than it otherwise would, a form of state that carries out a collective agenda is best. This is the fundamental inefficiency I see behind the position of "personal responsibility" and, to an extent, the position of "taxation is theft" from Libertarianism. It presupposes that an individual's might is larger than the state's, and that's just not true. A large group of people's might can influence a nation-state, but no single individual can claim that their might is more important, more valuable, or stronger, than that of the state.

No not might, "Right." Might does not make right. The right to property is a fundamental building block of Western Liberalism. Thus, though the "might" of the state might prevail in levying said taxes, it cannot do so without trampling one's "right" to property. Thus in that regard, taxation can be considered theft. I have explained that I don't think taxes are theft, necessarily but there can definitely be instances when taxation does constitute theft.

Also, I see the equivocation that people who live from the system are leeches of the system as a false dichotomy. It makes no sense to say people who benefit from a safety net system as leeches because not everyone is physically or mentally capable of earning money, so for you to say that people who don't contribute to the system are leeches, you have to also take the position that the mentally and physically handicapped to the point of having to live off of the system themselves are leeches, and that is not just wrong, that's the path where lack of empathy lies.

There are obviously reasonable exceptions that are made in regards to systemic welfare. I've not heard anyone from the right or the left, make the such an equivocation about them. The indictment here is of people who can work, but don't.


As an aside: Unfortunately, the only truly Christian economic system would be post scarcity,..which is impossible.

While I can see the US as having a more individualistic attitude, I don't think it helps on the long run with social order. I am not a Hobbesian, myself, who thinks that without the state we will all die. That's not really the point. But the point is that groups do tend to have more power than the individual alone, and the state, as the enforcer of the will of the people, can, and should be used for helping out everyone.

While the individual should have rights, no question, the entire notion behind abortion (which is where this conversation started), particularly among American Christians, is that we are justified in infringing on the right of an individual to their own body because it is right, even if we're infringing on said person's right to do whatever they want with their body which is part of the fundamental system of property behind the Libertarian movement and in many aspects behind the notion of property behind Classical Liberalism.

This is the problem that you yourself are falling into when you say "if everyone agrees with it". If you agree that routine abortions should be banned because it is the right thing to do, then you should also agree that taxes that go to supplemental services and benefits for single mothers and poor families is also right, and necessary, in order to help them, because what difference is there between depriving you of your body autonomy for the sake of someone else, and depriving you of your property for the sake of someone else? In my opinion, there's none, at least, if we want to keep a logically consistent position.

If you are comfortable with using the state to deprive people of their right to their own body autonomy for the sake of the unborn then, of course, you should also be comfortable with using the state to deprive people of their property through taxation for the sake of the born. There's not a lick of difference between both positions.

The problem with the position of "I oppose abortion but I also oppose taxes" is the fundamental conflict which you, and many Christians who think in the way you have exposed, are stuck into: that you can't really say one form of deprivation of rights is right while the other isn't. Either both are right or both are wrong. If you think one is a form of deprivation of rights, why is the other one not? Why is it an affront of your rights in a Liberal/Libertarian society in one case but "doing the right thing" in another?

This is the contradictory position the pro-life movement in America finds itself into, and it is why I cannot stand behind them as an ally, because if we can justify the deprivation of one right (that is, the individual's own bodily autonomy for the sake of another person) then we can justify the deprivation of the other right under the same circumstances: that your right to property is invalidated the moment another person needs of your property to live.

In the case of there being exceptions in regards of systemic welfare, all you're really saying is the same you accuse me of doing: Believing "that you are entitled to other peoples money, that you have the right to force people to give up their money, so that you can give it to people you think deserve it". If you think anyone deserves help from the state, then you're not really arguing against helping people via the state, you're just drawing an arbitrary line over who you believe deserves said state's help and who doesn't. You're essentially telling me that, in your opinion, welfare is okay as long as it goes out to the people you think deserves it, and in that case, me, Const, and your position are inherently equal, and we're just haggling over who deserves help, not about the help itself.

As for the aside, true, Christianity does rely on an Utopian conception of the economy. Although, it does emphasize groups over the individual. The Church, as a group, is considered as a single body in which everyone pitches in for each other's sake and for the weakest among us' sake. In that sense, Christianity is practically diametrically opposed to the concept of Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism, in which the individual matters more than the group.

[Pasong Tirad]

Why does it constantly seem that most Christians don't care about environmental conservation? It appears that various denominations and churches acknowledge the idea the conservation is Biblically rooted and that God created the world and everything in it and we need to be stewards protecting it. However, it seems that when that needs to translate to actual practice most Christians - especially those currently leading the environmental agencies of the nation - subscribe to an anthropocentric view of the world rather than the ecocentric view of the world that we need to have as Christians.

Environmental stewardship is a moral and ethical issue. Pope Francis himself has been very vocal about his stance regarding the environment and I'd like to think that third world nations are more concerned because we feel the effects of environmental degradation more.

[United Muscovite Nations]

So, could one be Eastern Orthodox and a dispensationalist or Zionist, or is that a no-no? I'm

Not really; we tend to hold that, when the Jews betrayed Christ, they ceased to be Israel, and were replaced by the Church as the new Israel.

[Gim]

So, could one be Eastern Orthodox and a dispensationalist or Zionist, or is that a no-no? I'm

Not really; we tend to hold that, when the Jews betrayed Christ, they ceased to be Israel, and were replaced by the Church as the new Israel.

Replaced by the Church?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Not really; we tend to hold that, when the Jews betrayed Christ, they ceased to be Israel, and were replaced by the Church as the new Israel.

Replaced by the Church?

The Jews are no longer the Chosen People, because they betrayed God, now, Christians are the Chosen People.

[Nordengrund]

I know I've been vocal about pro-life and pro-choice before (often in the practical stance of pro-choice because that's where the argument leads me, not because that is my actual belief), but as someone who is reasonably against abortion, I happen to agree with Const and Maineiacs. If we want to deal with abortion as Christians, we have to provide relief for single mothers and poor families. And we have to because doing otherwise is completely self-contradictory and immoral for us as Christians to want otherwise, and it does nothing to solve the problem. Yes, I oppose abortion, but I could never call myself pro-life, at least, not in the sense American politicians use "pro-life", because that is NOT pro-life.

Charity, sadly, does not solve the problem. When you base a problem around voluntaryism, because it lack the enforcement and spread of resources of the state, it happens to go severely unaddressed or not addressed at all as the larger problem it is, but rather as a local problem. Which is why I am with Const., even if I am a capitalist out of practice, that the enforcement of the state in making us pay taxes for this is needed, because the government has a hell of a lot of more resources, influence, and ways to manage certain problems than just a few charities specialized in these problems. It's good to think that charities can solve the problem, but that only makes you feel good and like you don't have any responsibility, that you're doing it out of the kindness of your heart.

No, if you have a kind heart you should see your part in helping those who are poor and destitute as a responsibility, not as an option or as a voluntary thing, and so you should be okay with a government that is capable and competent enough to carry out your agenda and not only want them to carry them out, but be perfectly okay with providing the resources to the government to solve the problem from the root.

In other words, your actions do not define how much of a good person you are. "Even the worst criminal still loves their mother", as we say where I come from. Your character as a good person, on the other hand, should be the one guiding your actions.

Even if you have a "kind heart" and see your part in helping as a responsibility that you have, that does not give you the right to assert that responsibility onto others through the theft of their money. That's the fundamental problem with yours and const's position: The belief that you are entitled to other peoples money, that you have the right to force people to give up their money, so that you can give it to people you think deserve it. It's inherently theft.

To be clear, I'm not against taxes as a rule, nor am I opposed to the much ired income tax. The tax system essentially follows the idea of "the house gets a cut." Any money one earns in a country does so because they operate within the facilities and markets provided by said country. Therefore the country, aka "the state" is within its rights to mandate a cut of said profits which then is put back into maintaining said facilities and markets. With regards to infrastructure, military, emergency services, and facilitation costs, this is pretty cut and dry. However, it gets much murkier when it comes to entitlement spending, as money is no longer being spent on the "public good" but rather as services paid from people to other people. Entitlement spending is essentially, redistribution of wealth. Now much of this is equivocated away as a sort of "safety net" ideal, in which everybody pays into entitlement spending. But the justification for this is that the receipt of such benefits is supposed to be temporary, to help you get back onto your feet. For those who use these services in these ways, they payed into the system and thus get out of the system. In that regard such a tax is not theft, but a mutual investment akin to insurance. However, the problem is not those who use the services in these way, but those who leach the system. Who don't work, and use entitlements as their livelihood. They don't pay into the system, and thus are stealing from those who do.

I am not personally against an entitlement system geared towards helping single mothers take care of their children and get out of poverty, but "get out of poverty" is the key component there. Such aid must be a temporary lift up to the point they can support themselves. Such aid fits the ideal of the mutual investment, as well as a service that serves the public interest, thus an ethical tax If such people have no desire to support themselves, then they must rely on the charity of others, and not the forced redistribution of wealth by autocrats.

Idk if taxation is theft, because Jesus never spoke out against it, but rather said to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, so He may be affirming that money belongs to the government.

I'm fairly conservative on fiscal issues, and low taxes are nice to have, I just don't think it is theft. I especially think that there is nothing wrong with taxation if it is going to a good cause like fighting abortion.

[Gim]

Replaced by the Church?

The Jews are no longer the Chosen People, because they betrayed God, now, Christians are the Chosen People.

Church as in the body of Christ. Okay.

You did respond to me quite quickly. Kudos to you on that.

[Nordengrund]

Replaced by the Church?

The Jews are no longer the Chosen People, because they betrayed God, now, Christians are the Chosen People.

What about a mass conversion of Jews to Christianity in the future?