Was Lazarus A 'Bum'?

[ok doser]

You know what's funny about all of this? It's all irrelevant. The Bible very clearly states that a 10% tax is tyrannical. We are currently taxed about 50%, with most of that going to one welfare program of some sort or another.

In addition, the Bible also states that a government's roles to perform are only three things, protecting it's citizens, infrastructure, and when possible, protecting other. It does not have the authority to take care of it's citizens.

So, basically, discussing what kinds of welfare programs are acceptable and what are not, and whether the motive is acceptable, is like discussing how far a rock is going to go inside a house when you throw it through the window.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

town only agrees with the parts of the Bible he can twist to support his leftist agenda - see abortion, homosexuality, welfare...

 

[Town Heretic]

You know what's funny about all of this?

I know what I find amusing about it, which is the way some people try to get around reason and fact by dressing feeling and declaration up as arguments...but I have a dry sense of humor, often enough.

It's all irrelevant. The Bible very clearly states that a 10% tax is tyrannical. We are currently taxed about 50%, with most of that going to one welfare program of some sort or another.

The last time I looked the highest federal tax bracket is just short of 40%. The highest state tax, Minnesota, is a little over nine. So, if you were wealthy and lived in Minnesota you might approach that 50%. I'd suggest that a) most people aren't and don't and b) those who are and do have any number of creative ways to avoid it (see: Trump).

And I'm weary of the abuse of 1 Samuel 8 by people with an agenda. What Samuel actually notes is a host of things that are a bit more than a simple 10% tax. That tyrant takes the children into his service, takes the best of everything the citizen has (fields, groves and orchards) to give to his favorites and THEN takes a tenth of your food and vintage to give to his supporters, and then takes your servants, your beasts of burden to use as he sees fit and THEN takes a tenth of your sheep. Now if you follow that, while a tenth is involved, the tyranny involves taking a good bit more and all of it is relating tyranny in parts to a people who would best understand the burden by relating it to their obligation under the law.

I'm not a slave to that obligation. As a Christian I'm compelled to do more (see: Matthew 5:41 for the idea).

In addition, the Bible also states that a government's roles to perform are only three things, protecting it's citizens, infrastructure, and when possible, protecting other. It does not have the authority to take care of it's citizens.

"[FONT=&quot]The Bible itself legislates several laws which are in effect a sort of tax for the benefit of the poor. Among these are [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]leket, shikhḥah,and pe'ah as well as the special tithe for the poor (see ma'aser ). The institution of the sabbatical year (see Sabbatical Year and Jubilee) was in order "that the poor of the people may eat" (Ex. 23: 11) as well as to cancel debts about which the warning was given: "If there be among you a needy man, one of your brethren, within thy gates, in thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thy heart nor shut thy hand from thy needy brother; but thou shalt surely open thy hand unto him and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need in that which he wanteth. Beware that there be not a base thought in thy heart, saying 'The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand'; and thine eye be evil against thy needy brother and thou give him nought; and he say unto the Lord against thee and it be sin in thee. Thou shalt surely give him, and thy heart shall not be grieved when thou givest unto him; because that for this thing the Lord thy God will bless thee in all thy work…." (Deut. 15:7–10)." Link

So, basically, discussing what kinds of welfare programs are acceptable and what are not, and whether the motive is acceptable, is like discussing how far a rock is going to go inside a house when you throw it through the window.

Only if you're a Jew waiting for the Messiah or you think we're living in a theocracy.

 

[ok doser]

"The Bible itself legislates several laws which are in effect...

when I see "in effect" i know i'm really reading "in my interpretation, which is often based on nothing more than wishful thinking"

it's often followed by another modifier:

...a sort of tax...

right - like that



iow town, your quote is "in effect a sort of" failure

 

[Arthur Brain]

when I see "in effect" i know i'm really reading "in my interpretation, which is often based on nothing more than wishful thinking"

it's often followed by another modifier:


right - like that



iow town, your quote is "in effect a sort of" failure

Ok, I'm just taking you off ignore to kindly request that you take your demented obsession with TH (you know, the one that's gotten you banned countless times) someplace else and to stop spamming up the thread with your disturbed and fixated crap. He isn't going to waste his time with an asinine, screwed up troll like yourself anymore so stop wasting your time fishing for reactions cos you ain't gonna get any. Haven't you gotten that yet? What kind of gormless nutcase stalks people on a debate forum anyway, especially when they know they aren't going to be met with response?

:AMR:

GET. A. LIFE.

And, now, back on ignore.

 

[ok doser]

Ok, I'm just taking you off ignore....

And, now, back on ignore.

 

[Stripe]

The Bible very clearly states that a 10% tax is tyrannical [and] ... that a government's roles to perform are only three things: protecting it's citizens, infrastructure, and when possible, protecting other.

It does?

Where?

No, it's just me making a posit offered in parts as an act of reason and sustained by authority (Merriam Webster).

Nope.

Webster's doesn't stipulate that it must be your narrative that holds sway.

Choice is a part of that process.

A necessary part.

It eliminates welfare as being charity.

The only difference is you think it can't be charity because every single individual doesn't mark a box that says, "Put X percentage of my tax payments, in sum, into charitable works to help those who are incapable in the moment or longer to help themselves."

Nope.

It's not charity, because it is coerced. And even if welfare was not coerced — which it has to be, regardless of a man's attitude toward it — many times it is not charity, because it is going toward people who do not need it.

And it is irrelevant to describe the nature of your government system. It doesn't matter where the government is that demands tax money for welfare, such action always removes choice.

That's a contrived litmus without any authority whatsoever.

Nope.

Fundamental to the whole process. You think it would be fine to take something by force if the man should be willing to give, but that is a complete perversion of what charity is.

Charity is a man who sees a need and meets it.

That definition covers everything. Your narrative is sunk.

The giving done by those who stand in our place is by extension our own.

If you buy into it, perhaps. But it's rather a cop-out, at best.

It is entered into voluntarily, both in the fashioning of the process at first and the budgeting for its continuance yearly.

Nope.

For those who disagree with welfare, it is most certainly not voluntary. It's not voluntary for those who do, either. And this discussion has nothing to do with a "voluntary" form of government. Charity is not a matter that can be institutionalized; it is a personal thing.

Beyond the clear fact of that and as pertains to the myth of motive, the odd idea that the people protesting welfare are not protesting the charity itself, but the lack of that box...well, it's as peculiar as suggesting that we would not allow our neighbor's house to burn to the ground if permitted the freedom to act, but we begrudge the fire department created to more efficiently and effectively act on our behalf.

Nope.

There are justified functions of government, emergency response being one of them.

You've conflated welfare and charity and you've conflated emergency response with welfare.

This peculiar notion you have that people only refrain from breaking the law under threat of prison is, I believe, largely unsupportable.

Making things up for me to believe will get you nowhere.

At no stage have I said anything remotely like this and nor does it play any part in what I have said. People do not only refrain from lawlessness because of fear of punishment.

People do what the law requires for the most part because a) a law is good and b) people desire to do good and to have good done to them. The root of law really isn't force and threat. The root of law is compassion mixed with a heady dose of self-interest. The harder part is essentially reserved for those who would in the general course of things be inclined to take and do what they want without regard for the rights and well being of others.

You've missed the two crucial factors regarding the law: The law is that which does not contravene God's standards and the first role of the law is to teach people.

Welfare is taking from taxpayers to fund those who will not work; also known as theft.

Hence, it is no law at all.

The right has recognized that for years when it comes to gun crimes, that if you proscribe or compel you don't really tend to impact the felon or the fellow with an evil grudge. You may dissuade lesser thugs or those in the throes of a temptation who can be tempered by reason, but for the most part you're simply prescribing the process for redress and consequence. Or, essentially good citizens follow conscience and that keeps them within the law while those on the margins may be helped, but essentially the law begins to tell everyone what may be done to the breaker and for those damaged by him.

Uhm, yes?

I think public charity is fine for a number of reasons. First, because it does a better job than we can as individuals, as a fire department does a better job than relying on neighbors to do their best as they see it. And secondly, because it does a real, tangible public good.

Conflating emergency response and welfare again. Bad form!

Also, an individual is far more capable of seeing a need and meeting it. A government has to employ people, run background checks, install a bureaucracy.

The man on the street can open his wallet and get it all done in a few seconds. Governments tie up thousands of people, create endless regulations and waste millions.

Welfare is not charity for the reasons given and met with a denial.

Some begrudge it and therefore remove the voluntary from it.

Nope. Anything done with legal consequences attached is coerced, not voluntary.

Well, that's met in my reasons to begin with. Beyond that is the case to be made that a) more people than not begrudge welfare and b) that leaders of government are failing their duty to represent that majority. To which I'd answer if and when that is the case the simple remedy is found in a ballot and everyone concerned has access to it.

This is just a cop-out. If you want the discussion, have it. Quit pretending I have to start voting to be part of this.

It's one form, again. And you can say as readily that when any man elects those to do his will and those men act charitably they have...wait for it....seen a need and met it, creating and addressing it as an act of public charity on our behalf and in our name.

Nonsense. Given this approach, you could literally vote for anyone and pretend you are being charitable.

No, your acting illustration of a man meeting a need does, but that was never a part of the contest except as you attempted to restrict charity to it, which neither Websters nor reason will.

I'm not dependent on Webster's restricting charity to my definition. My case is built upon a common-sense analysis — and my definition encompasses all of what Webster's might say — while the dictionary definition only helps you because it skirts ideas of the willingness of the participant.

I omit a problem of yours that were I to note it would distract and upset you.

 

[Town Heretic]

Nope. Webster's doesn't stipulate that it must be your narrative that holds sway.

That's not a counter on any particular set out, which meets the authority of charity by definition.

on choice:

A necessary part. It eliminates welfare as being charity.

No, it doesn't. I set out the voluntary nature of the creation and budgetary support by the representatives of government, the people. Your desire that charity only exists in the individual represented is your own fiction and one that has nothing to do with reason or the actual function and definition, which is set out in full in my post prior.

And even if welfare was not coerced — which it has to be, regardless of a man's attitude toward it — many times it is not charity, because it is going toward people who do not need it.

The fact that my taxes aren't coerced from me and mine puts the lie to the first part. That some people will lie and your individual or our public charity is abused has no bearing on the validity or legitimacy of the effort.

You think it would be fine to take something by force if the man should be willing to give.

Rather, I've said you'd never have to take by force a thing a man is willing to give.

Charity is a man who sees a need and meets it...Charity is not a matter that can be institutionalized; it is a personal thing.

It is to Stripe. It isn't in the actual definition set out and met.

There are justified functions of government, emergency response being one of them.

In my country we decide as a people what is justified as a function of government.

You've conflated welfare and charity and you've conflated emergency response with welfare.

Rather, I've demonstrated that welfare is a public charity, meeting the elements of definition. And I've noted, not conflated, that we do many things more effectively as a people than we would if we left the matter to individuals for any number of perfectly understandable reasons. I set out a few of them.

Making things up for me to believe will get you nowhere. At no stage have I said anything remotely like this and nor does it play any part in what I have said. People do not only refrain from lawlessness because of fear of punishment.

Let me help you then. When you argue that people are coerced you argue that there is a penalty at law that they fear and that motivates them to be law abiding.

You've missed the two crucial factors regarding the law: The law is that which does not contravene God's standards and the first role of the law is to teach people.

Your philosophy or interpretation of religious ideas about what government should or shouldn't do doesn't control the point you attempt to dispute.

Welfare is taking from taxpayers to fund those who will not work; also known as theft.

Well, no. Welfare is taking care of those who cannot provide for themselves. It's largely about the disabled, children, and the elderly. It also helps single parent households. And theft is an operation of law. Neither of your points are more than your feeling. I can provide statistics on who receives welfare and the statutes that define theft if you like, but you won't like either.

Also, an individual is far more capable of seeing a need and meeting it.

In any number of situations that's simply not true, to say nothing of whole neighborhoods where poverty is the rule and those with resources to meet needs might never venture, as I noted in my last.

A government has to employ people, run background checks, install a bureaucracy.

It's a good way to establish real need and diminish fraud.

The man on the street can open his wallet and get it all done in a few seconds. Governments tie up thousands of people, create endless regulations and waste millions.

We'd rather spend a little more to safeguard the intent of our charity. If it bothers you, by all means remain where you are.

I'm not dependent on Webster's restricting charity to my definition.

lain:

my definition encompasses all of what Webster's might say

No, you contravene Webster when you insist on a singular expression that isn't within that definition.

— while the dictionary definition only helps you because it skirts ideas of the willingness of the participant.

I agree that the dictionary is on my side, as is reason.

 

[Stripe]

Let me help you then.

No thanks.

How about you just have the discussion, respect my opinion and work with it instead of making things up for me to believe. :thumb:

Either that or just quit responding to me. :up:

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Stripe]

That's not a counter on any particular set out.

That's not a counter.

Webster's does nothing to either establish your narrative or deny my definition.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Crucible]

Depending on rigid definitions to make a point is inferior. Dictionaries consistently change, and define according to popular usage. You can find inconsistencies all the time.

For example, Webster defines Semitic as any culture native to the Semite language, such as the Jews and Arabs.
But then, if you look up 'Antisemitic', it states prejudice, exclusively, of the Jews.

'Rape' used to mean 'to seize'- it was common usage for things such as monopolies or stripping heirs of a land- but Webster has made it exclusively sex related.

Which is funny because in a divorce, when a woman assumes the children and household, the husband has been literally raped.
Let that gem sink in

Democracy, even, is defined as something very different than what it was.

So, when a person resorts to dictionaries, they are simply resorting to popular bias.

 

[Stripe]

Your desire that charity only exists in the individual represented is your own fiction and one that has nothing to do with reason or the actual function and definition.

Nope.

I don't have a "desire" that charity only exists in the individual. Charity is a man seeing a need and responding to it. That in no way limits action to a single person. His response might be to call others to action.

It looks like you're just not thinking.

The "reason" he acts in a good manner is irrelevant. The "function" is also irrelevant. It looks like you're just padding your posts with words that make it look like you've explained something profound.

And the definition I provided is contradicted not at all by Webster's.

Your narrative requires that choice does not play a part in charity and you've a bunch of excuses as to why taxation for welfare is a choice, but the simple test is: Try not paying and see what happens.

How you got these rules put in place is irrelevant.

My taxes aren't coerced from me and mine.

Try not paying them; see how far you get.

That some people will lie and your individual or our public charity is abused has no bearing on the validity or legitimacy of the effort.

Way to miss the point. :up:

Are you even trying to consider the other side's point of view?

Rather, I've said you'd never have to take by force a thing a man is willing to give.

Taxes are always taken by the threat of force.

It looks like you've simply lost all sense of perspective.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Stripe]

Your philosophy or interpretation of religious ideas about what government should or shouldn't do doesn't control the point you attempt to dispute.

What does that even mean? I'm not controlling a point? :AMR:

I didn't dispute anything. You left out the two most crucial aspects of what the law is.

God's standards determine what is and is not law, and its primary role is to teach people.

Or were you expecting we should just accept your description of what the law is as the be all and end all?

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Stripe]

When a person resorts to dictionaries, they are simply resorting to popular bias.

I think in this case it was because Town need more words.

I defined what I meant by charity; for the sake of a rational conversion he could have simply worked with that or provided some other definition we might agree on.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Crucible]

'Charity' is a word invented by the Apostles. It is an exclusively Christian word with a following Christian meaning.

This is a perfect example, come to think of it, of why one shouldn't be so dependent on modern dictionaries- Webster defines it an institution that raises money for others in need.

But 'charity' was coined by the Apostles as a term to describe a primary sector of Christian practice- almsgiving, tolerance, compassion, and otherwise an inward motive of grace.

 

[Stripe]

Welfare is taking care of those who cannot provide for themselves. It's largely about the disabled, children, and the elderly. It also helps single parent households.

And it has sucked in millions.

Theft is an operation of law.

I'm sure this was meant as a profound way of saying something that aims to promote your narrative, but nobody has a clue what it means. It looks like you're saying policemen should be taking bags off little old ladies. :chuckle:

Neither of your points are more than your feeling.

I can provide statistics on who receives welfare and the statutes that define theft if you like, but you won't like either.

Oh, you want to talk statistics, do you? Great. My specialty.

Tell us: What is the tax bill to pay for welfare? Now subtract the total amount paid to the "needy." What's the difference?

In any number of situations that's simply not true.

But you won't name one.

It's a good way to establish real need and diminish fraud.

Nope. It increases fraud.

Every time you make a new regulation, you create more crime.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Stripe]

In my country we decide as a people what is justified as a function of government.

Nope.

You don't get to establish definitions by divine fiat.

Governments exist in every nation. Their actions are all held to the same standard, and that standard ain't set by what you think.

Nor is it set by how you vote.

There are necessary functions of government. Welfare ain't one of them.

There are justified functions of government. State welfare in it's normal incarnation ain't one of them.

And you can quit bringing my location into this as if it had any bearing on what I say, ya bigot.

I make a conscious effort to keep my points generalized and stay away from partisan politics.

What you need to do is show a little respect.


Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Stripe]

You contravene Webster when you insist on a singular expression that isn't within that definition.

I don't insist on a singular expression. If you can show how my definition is lacking in some way, let's hear it. :thumb:

And even if I do start insisting on my definition, it is not contradicted by Webster's.

My expression could be used in this thread so the conversation is clearly delineated, but your narrative relies on the notion that charity need not involve the agreement of the giver.

The dictionary is on my side, as is reason.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Stripe]

[There are] whole neighborhoods where poverty is the rule and those with resources to meet needs might never venture.

This is just you showing that you have no imagination.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[JudgeRightly]

It does?

Where?

1 Samuel 8 is where the tax part is.
I'm not sure where the rest is, but Pastor Enyart just finished a series where he talks about what a good government would look like. I'm planning on getting it as soon as I can so that I can start using it.

I'll also be talking to Bob on Wednesday, possibly, and we'll be talking about government and law.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Stripe]

1 Samuel 8 is where the tax part is.

Ah. OK.

I think a lot of what we get from the Bible about how a government should work comes via an understanding of the big picture that are illustrated in seemingly obscure details.

I'm not sure where the rest is, but Pastor Enyart just finished a series where he talks about what a good government would look like. I'm planning on getting it as soon as I can so that I can start using it.

I'll also be talking to Bob on Wednesday, possibly, and we'll be talking about government and law.

Cool. Are you going to be on the radio?

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app