Government benevolence is not Christian

[Carnivorous]

Originally Posted by Reeek

His commandments are not directed at a government. Just because a government states that they are one nation, under God, doesn't mean that said nation has accepted Him as their Lord and Savior for all people. A nation is not judged before God in order to get to Heaven or be banished to hell. A person is.

Well... yes and no. Governments are created by God. The people IN government owe the same duties to God that you and I do---and, given the endless complaints we have on this board about the government, we should also remember that the people in government are just as sinful and fallen as the rest of us.

As Paul says:

Originally Posted by Romans 13:1-7

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Originally Posted by Reeek

My government speaks for me as a nation on earth but they do not speak for me to God.

If your relation to the government is tied into your fealty to and relation to God (see above, and 1 Peter 2:13-14), then the government that you help create DOES speak for you to God, at least partially. As does your obedience or lack of obedience to that government.

Originally Posted by Reeek

What's scary to me is a government accepting any God as it's Lord and Savior because they may end up on a campaign much like the islamic terrorists.

...and this is where we get back to the books of Kings, Judges, etc. as a perfect example of why theocratic government is not going to work. Theology ends up being compromised for political ends.

[akhimark]

Since we are talking about gubment, I think we also need to stir things up with politics. It has been shown time after time that Republicans personally give more to charity than do Dems. I think the Dems feel guilty. They want to give, they just prefer to give other people's money rather than their own. Could this be one of the reasons Dems want to expand dependence on the gubment?

[Carnivorous]

Originally Posted by akhimark

Since we are talking about gubment, I think we also need to stir things up with politics. It has been shown time after time that Republicans personally give more to charity than do Dems. I think the Dems feel guilty. They want to give, they just prefer to give other people's money rather than their own. Could this be one of the reasons Dems want to expand dependence on the gubment?

Democrats who are Christian claim that their politics are inspired by Jesus' teachings on social justice and help for the needy. Republicans who are Christian claim that their politics are inspired by Biblical teachings on fiscal responsibility and moral accountability. Both sides fall short of their own beliefs (but remember, ALL have fallen short), and both sides fall prey to the same idea that laws should be passed to enforce God's commands. If you criticize one, you must criticize the other.

If you want to talk about Democrats being personally stingy (and you should cite studies instead of saying "it has been shown"), then you should also talk about Republicans being morally corrupt.

I know this is a very Republican board, but seriously: we can criticize all the "morals-based" laws for the same reasons that the OP criticizes government-mandated charity. Government mandated morality is not true Christian morality.

[akhimark]

Originally Posted by Carnivorous

If you want to talk about Democrats being personally stingy (and you should cite studies instead of saying "it has been shown"), then you should also talk about Republicans being morally corrupt.

Conservative Philanthropists Are More Generous, Experts Say, by Arthur C. Brooks -- Beliefnet.com

[Reeek]

Originally Posted by akhimark

Conservative Philanthropists Are More Generous, Experts Say, by Arthur C. Brooks -- Beliefnet.com

To all causes or religion affliated? Forgive me for not reading the article.

[Reeek]

Well I was half right - from a religious web site. I read it . . .

[Carnivorous]

Originally Posted by akhimark

Conservative Philanthropists Are More Generous, Experts Say, by Arthur C. Brooks -- Beliefnet.com

Thank you for the study.

I did some quick google-ing and, as with any statistic-based study, there are some heavy critiques. Namely, that the calculations are extremely biased against wealthier states:

The Generosity Index ranked Massachusetts and each state by subtracting its “giving rank” (average itemized charitable contributions) from its “having rank” (average adjusted gross income). The difference, or “ranks relation,” determined a state’s place on the index.
However, the CWP researchers found this method to be “severely biased” against wealthier states. Consider the rankings in 2004, a year that found Mississippi at the top of the generosity list. Massachusetts had a high “having rank” of 3 that year. Even if its citizens had given 10,000 times more to charity than did any other state, their “giving rank” could have gone no higher than 1, meaning a “ranks relation” of 2 and, in comparison with other states, a generosity rank of 23. Meanwhile, if everyone in Mississippi had donated nothing to charity, its “having rank” of 50 would have yielded a “ranks relation” of 0—enough to keep it from sliding any lower than 26 in generosity.

That doesn't even come close to being a fair comparison of states. I think a more important questions that comes out of this is "why are the wealthier states liberal and the poorer states conservative"?

But anyway. More critiques, and the source for the quote above, here:

Boston College Magazine Winter 2006 Inquiring Minds What gives?

Really not worth archiving. November 7 - 12, 2004.

Stanford Social Innovation Review : Opinion Blog : Lies, Damned Lies, and the Generosity Index (December 1, 2005)

[OKMatt]

Originally Posted by Carnivorous

Interesting comparison to Matthew 4:7 ("Jesus answered him, 'It is also written: Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"), and Deuteronomy 6:16 ("Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah").

True but as this is the ONLY matter, tithing, God asked to be tested on.

Originally Posted by Carnivorous

But, I forgot my 2 Corinthians 9:7: "Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver."

Old testament tithe- 10% vs. New testament offerings -that may or may not = 10%

Originally Posted by Carnivorous

I personally ascribe to the view that good works are evidence of faith, and a living out of faith, but not required.

I ascribe similarly.
If one weighs the clarity of the gospel it seems, at least as I recall,
saved by faith alone apart from works
v
works required for salvation
Faith for salvation comes out the most clear.
I know, (IMO) as a Christian if I don't do as Christ did, or if I live in a sinful way, my access to Gods blessings and grace are limited. But my salvation , if it were genuine, is secure.
I also know the enemy is out there trying to thwart Christians from serving God.(1 peter 5 chp. 8 ) If he is successful with some does he ,in fact, make them loose there salvation?

Originally Posted by Carnivorous

Also, you should re-read Luke 10:25–37; I know I'm skewing this a little out of context, but it could be interpreted to read that Jesus says you HAVE to love your neighbor as yourself and take care of those less fortunate than you in order to inherit eternal life.

One could interpret, this is prior to the crucifixion and salvation by faith is not established yet.

Originally Posted by Carnivorous

But you let politicians force you to do a bunch of things. Some things you are ok doing yourself (disciplining your children, for example) but object to the government making you do it. The problem, though, is that in order for government to function, we have to do things that we don't necessarily want to do (pay taxes, obey traffic laws, etc.) in order to survive as a society.

And, there's some scripture reference saying that's a GOOD thing: Matthew 22:21 ("Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's.") and Romans 13:1 ("Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.").

Right . The ultimate governing authority in THIS country is the Constitution.
If our politicians actually adhered to it I would have no complaint.