Respecthelect
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,470
- Reaction score
- 969
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The Bible must not be as clear about individual rights and responsibilities vs collective rights and responsibilities as one might like? The difference is in there, but so many miss the distinction, one must conclude the church has failed to teach the difference. Even the pope himself missed the very important distinction this week, when he advocated government redistribution of wealth. "What gives you the right to lecture the pope, RTE?" I merely point out the pope is wrong on the merits, it's nothing personal.
Liberals argue government is an extension of our collective will, but it never is. Virtually nobody agrees with their government on every subject. If everyone did agree, there would be no need for laws. Laws are force. Laws say to the citizen, "do what we tell you to do or we will jail you." Pure force and nothing but force. Each and every law, backed by threats and coercion. Far from the "free-will of the collective," law compels conformity.
Jesus never advocated taking another's property and giving it to the poor. Not once. Every contribution was sought through free-will of the individual. Jesus even went so far as to point out who's picture was on the coin - forever separating state from individual (souls).
Asking government to take from the individual, that which he did not give freely, to attempt whatever proclaimed "good," violates God's law twice. First it robs man of his labor. The labor it took to pay the tax that the government wouldn't have otherwise charged. While Jesus points out the coin does have the emperor's picture on it, he was referring to taxes rightly paid to caesar, not in regards to the portion left to the individual. The individual's portion is the product of his labor and is his to do with as he will - especially in America.
Second, the do-gooder liberal seeks to offer the stolen property to the poor. In who's name? Not in the name of the individual who may or more likely, may not agree with how it's spent. After all, the individual doesn't need the state, if his contribution goals matched the state's, he can simply give on his own? Is it offered in the name of the congressperson who passed such a law? Or the emperor? They claim to be doing good, but the theft taints the offering. Only the individual may righteously offer the product of his labor. No man or government on earth may rightly give it in his name. God cares very much about offerings and the purity of motives, ask Cain vs Able? Ask the poor widow who gave her last penny?
So, government would steal the property, then offer it to God in the collective name of the people? Unfortunately, this isn't how it works. Mr Pope, you are tainting the offering and I'm tipping over your money-changing table right here and right now, in Jesus name and memory.
_________
To top it all off, government redistribution is the road to poverty, misery and squalor, as one might expect from tainted offerings. Communism never works. Just because a pope sees a big pile of money, doesn't mean he gets to dive in and give it away for others either. This desire to conglomerate offerings is nothing more than coveting. At best, the liberal refuses to give, unless his neighbor gives too. This is jealousy, pure and simple. Every liberal motivation to aggregate funds is based in the evils of greed, jealousy and coveting, regardless the proclaimed "good." If the individual wants to give, let him give - not take from others to give.
Not even a pope may give in another's name. His advocacy for the initial theft will be measured and his misguided re-gifting in the church's name is doomed to failure. God wants individual contribution through his grant of free-will. Only the individual who earned it may offer untainted property. Not even a mighty pope can clean the stink off stolen or communal offerings.
I would invite the pope to stick to requesting donations freely given by the individuals who earned it and not advocating the use of government force to compel "contribution." Yes, government force leads to bigger piles of cash, but coerced piles of money is not really the proper goal of the pope, is it? Nor should it be any of our goals, no matter the stated "good" bigger piles of money might provide. Regardless their temptation.
I invite more biblical examples of individual vs collective. It seems to me, virtually the entire Bible is focussed on the roadmap for individuals. We don't collectively succeed or fail (except in a few cases, such as Sodom and Gomorrah, where nations are judged). The vast majority of the Bible guides individual action. The framers of America saw it, why don't we? Why doesn't the pope?
Liberals argue government is an extension of our collective will, but it never is. Virtually nobody agrees with their government on every subject. If everyone did agree, there would be no need for laws. Laws are force. Laws say to the citizen, "do what we tell you to do or we will jail you." Pure force and nothing but force. Each and every law, backed by threats and coercion. Far from the "free-will of the collective," law compels conformity.
Jesus never advocated taking another's property and giving it to the poor. Not once. Every contribution was sought through free-will of the individual. Jesus even went so far as to point out who's picture was on the coin - forever separating state from individual (souls).
Asking government to take from the individual, that which he did not give freely, to attempt whatever proclaimed "good," violates God's law twice. First it robs man of his labor. The labor it took to pay the tax that the government wouldn't have otherwise charged. While Jesus points out the coin does have the emperor's picture on it, he was referring to taxes rightly paid to caesar, not in regards to the portion left to the individual. The individual's portion is the product of his labor and is his to do with as he will - especially in America.
Second, the do-gooder liberal seeks to offer the stolen property to the poor. In who's name? Not in the name of the individual who may or more likely, may not agree with how it's spent. After all, the individual doesn't need the state, if his contribution goals matched the state's, he can simply give on his own? Is it offered in the name of the congressperson who passed such a law? Or the emperor? They claim to be doing good, but the theft taints the offering. Only the individual may righteously offer the product of his labor. No man or government on earth may rightly give it in his name. God cares very much about offerings and the purity of motives, ask Cain vs Able? Ask the poor widow who gave her last penny?
So, government would steal the property, then offer it to God in the collective name of the people? Unfortunately, this isn't how it works. Mr Pope, you are tainting the offering and I'm tipping over your money-changing table right here and right now, in Jesus name and memory.
_________
To top it all off, government redistribution is the road to poverty, misery and squalor, as one might expect from tainted offerings. Communism never works. Just because a pope sees a big pile of money, doesn't mean he gets to dive in and give it away for others either. This desire to conglomerate offerings is nothing more than coveting. At best, the liberal refuses to give, unless his neighbor gives too. This is jealousy, pure and simple. Every liberal motivation to aggregate funds is based in the evils of greed, jealousy and coveting, regardless the proclaimed "good." If the individual wants to give, let him give - not take from others to give.
Not even a pope may give in another's name. His advocacy for the initial theft will be measured and his misguided re-gifting in the church's name is doomed to failure. God wants individual contribution through his grant of free-will. Only the individual who earned it may offer untainted property. Not even a mighty pope can clean the stink off stolen or communal offerings.
I would invite the pope to stick to requesting donations freely given by the individuals who earned it and not advocating the use of government force to compel "contribution." Yes, government force leads to bigger piles of cash, but coerced piles of money is not really the proper goal of the pope, is it? Nor should it be any of our goals, no matter the stated "good" bigger piles of money might provide. Regardless their temptation.
I invite more biblical examples of individual vs collective. It seems to me, virtually the entire Bible is focussed on the roadmap for individuals. We don't collectively succeed or fail (except in a few cases, such as Sodom and Gomorrah, where nations are judged). The vast majority of the Bible guides individual action. The framers of America saw it, why don't we? Why doesn't the pope?
Last edited:
