The idea that the government should run off of some merciless view that the principles of free market capitalism dictate who eats and who doesn't is completely bizarre.
I have nothing against capitalist Christians who think that the principles of capitalism are generally fine and that, otherwise, we have an obligation as Christians to feed the poor and it just so happens to not be the role of government, but any explicitly Christian state has to feed the poor.
I don’t consider myself Christian purely because of the word’s connotation, but I am absolutely on board with everything Yeshua taught… including full-blown pre-Marx communism.
You mean with a magic potion of dirty water that should not by any mechanism cause an abortion that doubled as a paternity test because God would only cause the abortion if she cheated.
Realistically this probably mostly served to cow men into accepting that their wife's child is theirs regardless of any suspicions because God said so. There's a reason being Jewish is matrilineal.
Not just dirty… the temple was meticulously maintained, so that “dust” was myrrh, which was used as incense day and night. Not surprisingly, myrrh can cause miscarriage when taken orally.
So what the scripture actually says is “If the husband is jealous, try to induce a miscarriage. If it doesn’t work, well, then it’s God’s will.”
Obligation doesn't mean they'll ever apply it. They only ever mention such when it's convenient, to make themselves look like better people. All Abrahamic religions are this way(doesn't mean any other religion's any better either). I live in a muslim country, it's just another tool of the state & the ultra rich to control people.
There are five key practices that all Muslims are obligated to fulfil throughout their lifetime. These practices are referred to as pillars because they form the foundation of Muslim life. The five pillars of Islam are Shahada, Salah, Zakat, Sawm (fasting), and Hajj. Four categories of people do not pay Zakat: the poor, the indigent, the debt-ridden, and the unfree.
And charity is one of the virtues. Their point is that almost allreligions, and definitely the abrahamic ones, say that charity and altruism are core doctrine. Nobody actually follows through tho unless it's convenient.
"You don't actually read the bible, you just cherry picked some bits out of the atheist meme book" - actual response I've gotten when I've brought this up.
Funny, the whole thing is supposed to be applicable. They can't just ignore the parts that fit your terrible atheist agenda. And these points certainly aren't a matter of ignored context.
I've actually had other Christians argue against the message of love preached by Jesus, saying it's inapplicable here or there. Of course, I can't be a true Christian if I want equal rights for "the gays," healthcare for all, or any of the other various far left (for the US) views I hold.
Note: I'm a Christian who firmly supports the separation of church and state, sooooo...
In many historical societies including ancient Christian, Jewish, and Islamic societies, usury meant the charging of interest of any kind, and was considered wrong, or was made illegal.[3]
BTW chrishitery should be the next capitalist McCarthyism. Muhh! red hats!
Deuteronomy 23:19-20 – “^19^ You shall not charge interest to your countrymen: interest on money, food, or anything that may be loaned at interest. ^20^ You may charge interest to a foreigner, but to your countrymen you shall not charge interest, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land which you are about to enter to possess.”
Exodus 22:25 – “^25^ If you lend money to My people, to the poor among you, you are not to act as a creditor to him; you shall not charge him interest.”
Deuteronomy 15:1-3 – “^1^ At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release of debts. ^2^ And this is the regulation for the release of debts: every creditor is to forgive what he has loaned to his neighbor; he shall not require it of his neighbor and his brother, because the Lord’s release has been proclaimed. ^3^ From a foreigner you may require it, but your hand shall forgive whatever of yours is with your brother.”
This sounds good in theory, but is relatively bad in practice. Without interest, no one will loan the government money. Municipalities would need to rely on huge tax increases to fund large projects, instead of bonds funded by small tax increases over time.
No one will loan money to businesses either, and you are not getting any money to buy a house. It would favor those who already own established businesses, as they can just use profits from one to invest in another one.
I don’t think anyone is saying this is sound economic theory, just that Christianity has a lot of kooky shit that modern Christians are ignorant of and are contradictory to the theocracy they envision.
I think the idea is that you give loans to the needy, and do so out of generosity, hoping to get your money back but not relying on it. It's one of those things where the law does not work without the spirit.
That would mean rich donors end up "lending" money to the government for "no interest". I'm sure in return they would receive zero favors or benefits of any kind.
Like a lot of things in the Bible, it may work for goat herders lost in the Bronze Age desert. But it definitely doesn't literally work today. It didn't even work under the Romans during Jesus's time.
He was like "not a word shall be changed", but also don't worry about tiny details. Regarding keeping Kosher He said, "it's not what goes into your mouth that defiles you, but what comes out." The point is to keep yourself clean, not details about shellfish.
That would mean rich donors end up “lending” money to the government for “no interest”. I’m sure in return they would receive zero favors or benefits of any kind.
Exactly, and no it can't "just happen under any system". Right now the US government is giving out 5.1% interest on risk free Treasury Bills. There's literally no way to bribe the Treasury with free money because everyone and their dog is rushing to lend the government money at those rates.
You realise that the government can (and does) just make new money? There is no need for the government to borrow any money (but it does it anyways for other more complex reasons). And if done in moderation the resulting inflation is in effect identical to taxes, except that it automatically "taxes" the rich more and incurages further investments.
And with sufficient inflation, businesses will have no problem to attract investments as people will want to have investments that retain their value, no interest needed.
Similarly, investing money in houses is sound business when inflation is relatively high, both individually and for housing companies.
But the real problem is anyways not basic interest, but compound interest that forces the borrower to repay the lend amount many times over and still be in debt afterwards.
And if that person finds motivation in the possiblilty of something after death, and that brings a light to their life that they would otherwise succumb to existential dread over? Then they deserve to burn?
That's not at all what I said. For some people, the thought of oblivion leads to existential dread. It's a belief in something more that keeps them going.
Are you saying that not being able to handle that makes you a bad person?
Your position in this argument sounds more like religion hurt you and you're lashing out than anything else.
If you can't morally allow religion to represent something positive for people, the problem is you, not religion.
Although I'm not religious myself, I'm capable of seeing how it affects positive change in some people. Deciding for them that they are childish/evil/stupid/whatever because you don't agree with their mode of motivation is frankly a lot more childish and petty than you're trying to paint them.
Anyway, thanks for showing us that you aren't a good person. It literally doesn't matter what you think about the subject.
Uhh it means the hungry person is no longer hungry. That's pretty meaningful to the hungry person.
If you mean it doesn't mean anything to you, then that's your deal.
I'm not so sure. That smells a bit of entitlement if I'm being honest. If an unhoused person or a single parent in a food insecure household get food assistance/school meals for example, I'm sure the help meant a lot to them. It doesn't seem like it means anything to you because you have the luxury/security to worry about ethics and other more abstract things. But if you're hungry, food is food. Help is help. And if you were forced to give the food...those people still get to eat at the end of it all
It's still meaningful because it is helping people, but it's probably not going to count in your favor spiritually. Unless you're supporting getting the system set up or keeping it in place I guess.
"For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles’ feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need."
Somehow that translates to you have to give 10% of your income to Pastor Brian. Any other form of charity is great but you should still give Pastor Brian his 10% because he's doing a lot by telling you to give him 10% of your income.
The vast majority of pastors are volunteers or bi-vocational. And yes there are abuses. But also lots of them giving their time and resources to care for the under-resourced. My church''s sr. pastor is going from full time to bi-vocational this year because inflation hit the church and his family. But our church distributed 12 million pounds of food since covid
The tithe doesn't go to a pastor, it goes to fund the whole ministry. People working full time deserve a living wage, he's no different. Most Christians don't tithe anyway, it's usually 15% of the people giving 85% of the funds.
Our church distributed those millions of pounds of food on a $350k total budget each year which includes still paying mortgage on an under-maintained property. The total payroll and benefits for two full time and four part time staff was $165k last year. I don't think they're robbing people who chose to support that.
I really not sure your point. Does acts tell you that God requires you to give 10% of your income?
Your church sounds like an outlier. Many of the church I've seen have been seeded by larger churches and ministries which they are then indebted to. Most of which would not be so forthcoming with their financials.
Thats not the question though. Why is it a church would say that tithing 10% of your income is a requirement?
Because it's a tradition from the old testament that some (by no means all) churches use. It's nowhere near as universal as your own anecdotal references seem to imply.
Maybe try researching church finances instead of going by the assumption that they're greedy because they're asking for money and look like your enemy.
EDIT: Sorry, I forgot it's a not-good to ask someone to do research without demonstrating my own. Unfortunately, I have other things I should be doing than research right now.
The vast majority of religious workers are akin to workers at a scam call centre. Selling you "thoughts and prayers" and guilt tripping you to give them money. Basically fooling you into something non-existent.
Scammers also give a lot of their time and resource and work full-time. I guess they deserve a living wage too, huh?
The only thing they need is run a pretend-charity, community service and food drives?
You sure seem to like your make-belief system where you think they are net-positive to the community. I'm sure a you would feel the same about scam call centres, if only they could upgrade their PR with some charity. All that without all the violent history.
But oh no, they're brown people in a third-world shithole… so that's a pass. I love my own pretend-charity cult with supreme people.
Christian communism is a theological view (with some historic precedent) that believes Jesus and his apostles were the first communists, so the overlap is clearly there.
Jesus didn't use taxes to heal anyone. Why can't we use divine magic? It still has the benefit of being free for all; but it also works better and faster.
And that's relevant how? Am I Ananias in your imagination and you're God who's putting me to death for omitting the pickle? Or could it be that I am the poor because I carelessly forgot to mention it and you're witholding grace and mercy from me in the course of your attempts at corrective measures for the sake of Old Testamentarian fire and brimstone punishment?
Come on man, I know it's difficult for you Germans but at least TRY to smile for once in your life. Just imagine the pickles were always there to begin with, and it's at least a half decent joke. But whether or you like it or not, it does remain a fact that Germans call a concoction that MAINLY consists of sausage, pickles and mayo a "salad", and I think that's kinda funny (at least it is to Americans).
And just to be clear, I'm by no means knocking the dish itself, I myself was a huge enjoyer of it during the time I lived in Germany. I honestly admire the kinda of audacity it takes to make a mixture that largely consists of slices of meat and barely any veggies and have everyone agree to call it a salad. Even in a country as obsessed with meat as America is this is simply totally unheard of.
So please accept my apology if I ruffled your feathers, but you were giving such a great example of German pettiness that I couldn't resist to roast you for it. And perhaps that's also an Americanism I picked up during my time here, but that's what people do with their friends, they pull them through to cocoa as you would call it.
Even in a country as obsessed with meat as America is this is simply totally unheard of.
Never heard of crab salad? Tuna salad? Chicken salad? All of these are mainly meat, lots of mayo, and sparce non-salad vegetables, and all things Americans buy at the supermarket.
Yes, you are right of course. Although tuna and crab aren't technically meat, and those salads exist in Germany as well. At least tuna salad definitely does, except it's generally made with vinaigrette instead of mayo and might have things like bell peppers, tomatoes, or (gasp) actual lettuce in it.
But yes, the chicken salad. That certainly IS a thing (and probably the closest analogue to Fleischsalat that's available here). My bad. Seems like I can't help but offend someone, somewhere, even when I'm tried to make amends with others. Please excuse my careless oversight. I just don't eat that very often because honestly, it's not even half as good as Fleischsalat.
Exactly! People keep confusing Christianity with the bible but the former is a patriotic American religion and the latter is middle eastern leftist propaganda
But seriously, most of the bloodthirsty bits of the Christian Bible are bits carried over from the Torah. Hell, a lot of them are specifically about Joshua conquering everyone around.
