Remember when Reagan asked...

[kj]

Grace62 wrote:
[quote=kj]
>>Also looking at the parables, I would disagree with kj that he was mostly talking about individual relationships and not society as a whole. Very frequently he was talking about the latter.

I'd agree he was talking about society as a whole, as in every individual in existence, but I don't think he was talking about how institutions (economic/political) should "behave", as in how they should operate and be built. Individuals within the institutions for sure, but not the institutions themselves. There's a lot of guidance about how churches should be set up, but I'm not aware of any guidance related to types of governments (again, guidance for leaders as individuals, etc.). kj.

I wasn't referring to any "guidance for setting up government."
Jesus (and the Bible in general) refer to justice a lot. Think of Martin Luther King jr and the civil rights movement, his faith was his guide in calling for sweeping societal changes, and he needed gov't on board to do that. Likewise a century before the abolitionists were inspired by their Christian faith to fight for the end of slavery, an institution supported by gov't and whose end had to be mandated by gov''t. It's impossible to separate these things and say that the gospel is only about relationships between individuals, it's not.
Yeah, that's the justification that I have heard, and all I can say is that for sure I consider that a valid point (I probably 75% agree), but there's a personal responsibility for us to make sure our faith is in God, not the gov't. I'm afraid (I won't say I know) that Christians forget that. He asks us to be generous, not only for what it does for others, but what it does for us. If taxes were the majority of our generosity, I think we'd be missing out on a lot. I recognize this is complex, fuzzy stuff, but I think that's actually part of the "struggle" we're supposed to engage in. I'm glad it's not algorithmic. kj.

[kj]

rjmacs wrote:
[quote=kj]
I'd agree he was talking about society as a whole, as in every individual in existence, but I don't think he was talking about how institutions (economic/political) should "behave", as in how they should operate and be built. Individuals within the institutions for sure, but not the institutions themselves. There's a lot of guidance about how churches should be set up, but I'm not aware of any guidance related to types of governments (again, guidance for leaders as individuals, etc.). kj.

Do you mean Biblical guidance? The general recommendations to early Christians in the Bible (from both Jesus and the apostles) were to withdraw from broader society, form communities of believers, evangelize and await the imminent return of the messiah. Not much room in that plan for rebuilding governments, etc. They truly didn't expect that those institutions would be around much longer; the task of adapting Christianity to a world awaiting the Second Coming for decades, centuries, and millenia fell to the Church (used generically here to describe organized Christianity). That was a difficult and contentious task, in no small part because the Bible doesn't offer much direct guidance. In that sense, it's possible to say that Christianity is concerned with individuals. There's a tension here, though, because this same Christianity was really not concerned with a world in which Christians would need to wait so long that they'd need to make governments, build institutions (other than the Church), etc. Only after it became clear that Christ's return was not imminent did Christians turn - often reluctantly - to these tasks.
I haven't come across anything that emphasizes the effect of imminent return of messiah to the extent that you do, so I'll keep that in mind. But I think if Christ had been intending for politics to be the main vessel of change, he would have been a politician. Of course, this presupposes faith, I think, so I understand why you might not see it that way. Thanks, kj.

[kj]

Spock wrote:
[quote=kj]

I'll just give you the abridged version of my argument (that's expanded ad nauseam elsewhere) that the separation of church and state goes both ways, and that there's the very real threat that the gov't could use taxation as a tool of oppression against religions. kj.

What makes church's so special? I don't see any constitutional support for your two way argument.

The government already use taxation as a tool of oppression against citizens.
No doubt! Although I gave away a ton of money this year, so it wasn't as oppressive as usual. I've always thought that separation of church and state was as much to protect the church as to protect the state, but maybe I've just assumed that. kj.

[Grace62]

kj wrote:
I recognize this is complex, fuzzy stuff, but I think that's actually part of the "struggle" we're supposed to engage in. I'm glad it's not algorithmic. kj.

I like that a lot kj. None of the important stuff in life really is algorithmic, is it?

[kj]

Grace62 wrote:
[quote=kj]
I recognize this is complex, fuzzy stuff, but I think that's actually part of the "struggle" we're supposed to engage in. I'm glad it's not algorithmic. kj.

I like that a lot kj. None of the important stuff in life really is algorithmic, is it?
It sure isn't. kj.

[Spock]

kj wrote:
[quote=Spock]

What makes church's so special? I don't see any constitutional support for your two way argument.

The government already use taxation as a tool of oppression against citizens.

No doubt! Although I gave away a ton of money this year, so it wasn't as oppressive as usual. I've always thought that separation of church and state was as much to protect the church as to protect the state, but maybe I've just assumed that. kj.
Separation of church and state protects the citizens right to practice, or not, whatever religion they choose. It doesn't give church's a free pass not to pay taxes. Render unto Caesar .....

[Grace62]

Spock wrote:
[quote=kj]

I'll just give you the abridged version of my argument (that's expanded ad nauseam elsewhere) that the separation of church and state goes both ways, and that there's the very real threat that the gov't could use taxation as a tool of oppression against religions. kj.

What makes church's so special? I don't see any constitutional support for your two way argument.

The government already use taxation as a tool of oppression against citizens.
The reason that churches aren't taxed is based on the constitutionally protected freedom of religion. The founders believed that churches could not survive if they were taxed, and the gov't intentionally causing them not to survive would in effect be depriving citizens of their freedom to practice religion.
I will state for a fact that my little church would not survive if we had to pay property taxes, which on our property would be around $25K a year. Our entire operating budget is only $80K/year. We are open to anyone and do a lot of good in our community. I think we deserve not to be taxed. Even if you think a particular church is not doing good, if they are practicing a constitutionally protected religion, they should be allowed to do so.
Pastors and other church staffers do pay tax on their incomes.
Churches are prohibited from using the church to do politics, and that's where some have run afoul of the IRS. (Interesting free speech argument you could have there, but there's a natural conflict between taxation of political activities and churches doing politics. Big, complicated subject. I could argue both sides.) Individuals who amass personal wealth from church donations should also be scrutinized very closely because they are clearly abusing the law.

[August West]

kj wrote:
christianity is not just an ideology to a christian

"not just" does not mean it is not an ideology. Many Christians I know can and will discuss it in the context of an ideology. This type of analysis should be welcome by anyone with a vested interest in any religion. I suppose some people just practice religion because they were taught by their parents, but a little understanding goes a long way.

Grace62 wrote:
None of the important stuff in life really is algorithmic, is it?

I'm betting that's not the first thought that came to mind when the boys left the toilet seat up in the middle of the night. mile:


rjmacs is correct in his approach, as I believe someone else mentioned, you have to understand Biblical literature in relation to the context in which it was produced. I think he and kj touch on some common ground about the individualist nature of Jesus' teachings. Jesus didn't believe that anyone was going to see another generation. Government was not a worry. The son of man was coming to rock the house, please note that IMHO Jesus did not understand himself to be the son of man, and the kingdom of god was going to deliver the jews from their long suffering under foreign occupiers.

[August West]

kj wrote:
I haven't come across anything that emphasizes the effect of imminent return of messiah to the extent that you do, so I'll keep that in mind

Mark 13
Matthew 24
Luke 17
Luke 21

Note that as the apocalypse's mark is missed, timing predictions become more and more vague. This has happened through history.

[Spock]

Grace62 wrote:

The reason that churches aren't taxed is based on the constitutionally protected freedom of religion. The founders believed that churches could not survive if they were taxed, and the gov't intentionally causing them not to survive would in effect be depriving citizens of their freedom to practice religion.
I will state for a fact that my little church would not survive if we had to pay property taxes, which on our property would be around $25K a year. Our entire operating budget is only $80K/year. We are open to anyone and do a lot of good in our community. I think we deserve not to be taxed. Even if you think a particular church is not doing good, if they are practicing a constitutionally protected religion, they should be allowed to do so.
Pastors and other church staffers do pay tax on their incomes.
Churches are prohibited from using the church to do politics, and that's where some have run afoul of the IRS. (Interesting free speech argument you could have there, but there's a natural conflict between taxation of political activities and churches doing politics. Big, complicated subject. I could argue both sides.) Individuals who amass personal wealth from church donations should also be scrutinized very closely because they are clearly abusing the law.

I thought the church was its congregation not real estate. If you can't afford the building, sell it. It won't stop you practicing your religion.