God is: a libertarian? An economic populist? Something else? None of the above?

Great Debates
21

Well, He supported the payment of taxes (Mat: 17,4 lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee. ) enough to give Peter a miracle to pay for both of them. And enough that His heavenly Father caused his earthly foster father to pay them as well. 9Luk 2:3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.)

The concept of from each according to his resources, and to each according to his need was not foreign to Him. (Luk 3:11 He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise. ) Graduated income taxation would seem to be entirely in accordance with His teachings. (Mar 12:41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. 42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. 43 And he called [unto him] his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: 44 For all [they] did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, [even] all her living. )

The rights of property seemed of little importance to Him. (Mat 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.) He left no word on how he viewed the right to bear arms, own guns, and shoot other people in defense of one’s self, or property, but he does not seem much concerned with self defense. (Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. )

He is not running for office, and doesn’t want votes, or desire appointment to power. Our politics are Ours. Don’t smear them on Him. (Jhn 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world)

<P ALIGN=“CENTER”>           Tris </P>
<HR></P>
***<FONT FACE=“Webdings” SIZE=5 COLOR="#ff00ff">

-</FONT></P>***

22

A tiny quibble, Tris:

My translation says “enrolled,” like in the census. Does anyone have this in greek?

Otherwise, a great assortment of verses.

Lib, while Christ might have behaved in a manner which coincides with your Libertarian beliefs, it doesn’t necessarily mean He would have been a political Libertarian today, right? I mean, he acted in a manner which happened to coincide with some socialist beliefs, some liberal beliefs, some theocratic beliefs. Doesn’t mean He’d be classifiable as a socialist, liberal, or theocrat.

-andros-

23

It is truly fascinating that we each read into the Gospel our own sociopolitical agenda. I tend to agree in large measure with RT. But I’m noticing my own understanding of the text coloring my views.

A couple of quick thoughts:

  1. On the evidence of the text, God tends to have compassion and assist those in need, or at least to expect this of his followers. (Feel free to dispute this, but notice that I’m going on what scripture claims.) [Points to the social justice folks.]
  2. As discussed at length here lately in other threads, God tends not to compel. [Points to the libertarians.]

May I respectfully suggest that God is far greater than what we can envision, and like the elephant and the “differently-visioned persons,” we each see what we want to see in Him. As that leading theologian Paul Simon once said, “Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”

24

Good point, Tris - Jesus certainly expressed the logic behind graduated taxation here - that a widow’s mite, to the widow, is a far greater sacrifice than a major pile of money to the rich man.

I think it’s implicit in your other comments, though, that this doesn’t mean we can say, “see - God’s in favor of a graduated tax structure.” While I find it compelling to my heart, and I find graduated taxation consistent with the words of Jesus in this story and elsewhere, it’s still a step or two shy of a proof: Jesus said this, therefore we should have graduated taxes. IMO, that tends to be the case overwhelmingly, when it comes to applying the sayings of Jesus to the politics of today.

And a good thing, too - He’s nobody’s household God. :slight_smile:

Lib, one question about the ‘render to Caesar’ story: If what you say is true, Jesus was catching the Pharisees with a graven image of the god-emperor on the denarius. The Pharisees would have been quite aware that they weren’t supposed to have such images, right? They weren’t born yesterday. (If they were, they’d been doing the Time Warp again. ;)) So why didn’t they just say, “Sorry, pal, we don’t have one of those on us,” or words to that effect. If he was trying to catch them out like that, it makes no sense that they would have just let him do it.

And Tinker’s right - even if your point about the graven image is correct, that doesn’t negate the direct meaning. If any hack poet can get two levels of meaning into one line, our Lord ought to be able to pull it off, too. :slight_smile:

My friends say I should act my age, what’s my age again? - Blink 182

25

“And there’s reason to believe we all will be received in Graceland.” - P. Simon

Poly, does this mean our theologian, Paul Simon, is arguing for universal salvation? :wink:

26

Also, and self-evidently, everyone can interpret every story in the Bible as they personally see fit, but as far as the “render unto Caesar” not meaning something other than “given Caesar his money and give God your hearts,” that’s not how I learned it, and that’s not the spin that either of my annotations (to the NIV and the King James) puts on it.

Jodi

Fiat Justitia

27

:::frantically searching John 14:::

Well, I don’t think Graceland was quite what he meant by “In my father’s house are many mansions.” :smiley:

28

Did Jesus pay His taxes?

Of course He did. I pay mine too. I know what happens to me if I don’t.

Do you believe He came down through the ages to be crucified for tax evasion?

Did Jesus ask that His disciples help the poor? Of course he did. I am rich by no means, but I give all I can to help others.

But did Jesus act like Robin Hood? Did He take the property of the rich by force and give it to the poor?

Had He done so, I would not worship Him.

Would you?

Politicians love twisting Jesus’ message into a call to altruism. That way, they can call upon you for sacrifices to help The State (read: the politicians).

Need I remind you of the story about the oil poured on His feet?

It is missing the lesson, in my opinion, to say, “The rights of property seemed of little importance to Him.” It was the property itself, and not the rights, that He valued little.

Had He so disparaged the rights He Himself gave to us, He would have set the example and asked us not only to give up our cloak, but to take someone else’s.

I think you give too much credit to those who would try to trick our Lord. Their manifest mission was to unravel Him, and set Him up for Roman censure. That alone qualifies them as fools.

Again, he could have simply answered, “Yes.” But He did not. Instead, He said what the Romans (and evidently some Americans) could take to mean yes, but what the spies sent to Him knew meant something else altogether: give Caesar what is Caesar’s (worship from idolaters) and give God what is God’s (worship from His people).

Jesus was pretty smart.

29

Well, I believe he was a king. But not exactly crowned yet. Soon enough…

30

Arguing over a supreme being’s political philosophy seems a little…bizarre. It seems like anthropomorphizing God a bit too strongly; like asking whether God likes chocolate. I don’t really like it when people get such a concrete idea of God that they can start to descibe His politics; I think it will lead to a lack of acknowledgment of other people’s viewpoints, because, well, you know what God wants, so the other viewpoints must be completely wrong. I find it terribly convienient when people’s Gods have the exact same philosophies and predjudices that they do. Phelp’s God hates fags (or at least hates what they do), Libertarian’s God is a libertarian (no offense intended to Lib by putting him in such “illustrious” company), every Christian I’ve known who was bigoted had a God that endorsed their predjudices…I think if your God agrees with you too much, you might need to look at Him a little closer; you might just be seeing only yourself.

I agree with the “pay your taxes” reading of the “render unto Caesar” bit. It just seemed like the plain meaning of the text.

31

I believe God Does like chocolate.

32

Will Jesus pay My taxes?

J
“We should have as high a regard for the church so as to keep it out of as many things as possible”

Fluther Good -the Shadow of a Gunman.
Sean O’Casey

33
34

Surely even the enigmatic Paul would concede that those who opposed the holocaust carried out by the Nazi government did not oppose the ordinance of God.

Wouldn’t you agree?

The plain meaning of the text? Yes, as I explained, if the text is lifted out of its context.

I could say, for instance, that Gaudere teaches that people’s gods should have “the exact same philosophies and predjudices that they do”. I could even dwell on the literary intent of her word “terribly” to modify “convenient”, because she might have meant “extremely” or “terifyingly” or “awesomely” or “difficultly” or “greatly” or “obnoxiously”, according to the definitions at Merriam-Webster. I could argue that she meant “greatly convenient” and therefore desirable, at least to hedonists.

But that would be ignoring the entire context of her post, just as dragging “pay your taxes” out of “Give Caesar what is Caesar’s” would be ignoring the entire context, not just of the particular scenario, but Jesus’ whole teaching, which is concerned not with Rome, but with God.

As I said before, politics is not just “the art or science of government”, but also “the total complex of relations between people living in society”.

Jesus routinely dealt with relations between people. That’s what the Golden Rule is all about. That’s the whole love your neighbor thing.

Libertarianism is simply opposition to coercion. It is volunteerism. If you will convince me that Jesus forces you to believe in Him, and that He seeks anything other than volunteers, then I will change my mind right here on the spot.

Genuine intellectual caution is a laudible thing.

But to dismiss a man as a bigot, who has never shown (and never will) the slightest sign of bigotry, simply because He recognizes that God seeks volunteers, seems terribly dogmatic. :wink:

35

Lib, I said Jesus was a socialist because he told the rich young man that in order to get into heaven he needed to sell all that he had, give the money to the poor, and follow him. This sounds like he advocated complete redistribution of the wealth. I don’t know what army he ever used to collect taxes - isn’t Ebeneezer in the OT?

36

Lib, as Jesus does, I do not force anyone to believe in me. Also as He does, I would strongly recommend that people pay their taxes and help out those less fortunate. So I act in similar ways to Jesus in these instances, yet I am not a libertarian. I do not coerce (AFAIK), but I do recognize that sometimes, within limits the needs of the many can outweigh the needs of the few–as perhaps Jesus did when He to took away that farmer’s pigs to avoid destroying the demons immediately.

I find the statement “God is a libertarian” as shocking as I would the statement “God is a Democrat” or “God is a Republican”, not because I have any particular problem with the political philosophies per se, but because of the apalling hubris. I am not calling you a bigot, but I fear you are putting God into a box; one that allows you to think all other people who follow different political philosophies are going against God Himself.

37

Socialists don’t redistribute wealth among volunteers, Cooper.

Gaudere, a tree is known by its fruit.

You might be an atheist alibertarian, but you positively inspire me. :slight_smile:

38

I believe God thinks very highly of wine - at least, Scripture supports that position. :slight_smile:

Lib, Poly - the Torah passages that I cited earlier do count as compulsion, IMO - that’s why they’re called ‘commandments’ rather than ‘advisories.’

But, as I’ve pointed out, His Father did, through the power of the Law, which counts as force, I’d say.

I’m not sure what you have in mind. I’ve already discussed my interpretation of that story in the J.C.: A Collaborative Biography? thread; I’m not sure what it has to say here, other than that it’s bad to squeeze out all room for individual generosity.

In a spiritual sense. But it hardly means they were so retarded that they wouldn’t have said, “Nope - no graven images on us.” Craftiness and spiritual blindness are hardly mutually exclusive.

That seems disingenious to me - kinda like the argument that the South had little interest in keeping slaves; they just didn’t want a bunch of Northerners forcing them to free them.

Still, given the Deuteronomy passage I’ve cited, it’s clear that the Law saw property rights as less than absolute. And the tithe - which, for all intents and purposes, was a tax - was not seen as incongruent, by the Law itself, with ‘thou shalt not steal.’ (Nor did Jesus or Paul seem to see contradiction between the Commandment and the taxes of their day.)

39

RT:

A fine argument! (I’m still laughing heartily from the Austrian thing…)

I give you that you have reasonable cause to stand on your argument, but I disagree with it so fundamentally that a point-counterpoint with you would be pretty meaningless. If I ever gave you my interpretations of old testament scripture — not to mention Pauline — you would probably think I was possessed by demons. :slight_smile:

So, I will spare you.

40

Amos, chapter 4:

Throughout the Bible, God seems to figure that the rich can look after themselves - all too well, at times. But as long as there are rich and powerful people, and as long as there are poor and powerless people, God will need to speak up for the destitute and defenseless.

Luke, Chapter 1:

Does it seem like God has a class bias here? Or is it just me? :slight_smile: