As best as I can tell, God is all for taking away the property of the rich and giving it to the needy - i.e. redistributionary taxation. I would refer you to Deuteronomy 24:19-22 and Deut. 26:12-13, for instance.
Not that this scores any points in this debate, but you seem to have a rather antagonistic attitude towards such actions, and I think your wrong understanding leads you astray with respect to questions of good and evil.
Income and profit and property are created by the law and society. It isn’t an unassailable right to prevent the public from taking a portion of it for the public benefit. I don’t think anyone thinks seriously that the founding fathers thought that taxation was theft or that it always outweighed other concerns. One of the first significant acts that George Washington engaged in during his presidency was using military force to enforce a tax.
No, but it’s pretty clear to me that the complaint above is not one that was leveled using the same standards applied to both favored and disfavored speakers.
Do you disagree?
Deut 24:19-22:
Sure. But notice the lack of, “…and as you do these things, so shall you form a government to force your neighbor to do likewise.”
Charity that comes from a personal desire to help is what God speaks of here, not the creation of a framework of laws which compel it. Compelled charity is no charity at all. And it does NOT amount to obeying God’s abjurations.
It’s always interesting to see how people contort and squint to get scripture to say what they want to do anyway.
No, this was the government, and this was its Law.
I already rebutted this, thanks:
How so? It was Moses speaking to his people before they even entered Canaan. It may well be that a later government sought to use these as a basis for its law, but those words are not God telling Moses to make a government and the government to make charity its law. They are instead God telling Moses to tell his people how to act in their own, proper person.
That’s not a rebuttal. It’s your own interpretation of how the thinking should go. How can you possibly imagine what God is thinking? “Where were you when He made the world?” Perhaps the message is that each person, rich or poor, is a part of God’s plan, and the opportunity to choose grace is the critical thing. Remember Mark 12:41? Jesus doesn’t stop the poor woman from giving her two copper coins. He doesn’t say, "No, dear, take these back; My plan is that the richer among us take care of you. To the contrary: He exalts her choice of sacrifice.
What is important in God’s lesson is the CHOICE of charity, far more than the amount or the source or the result.
Of course, you disagree. But that proves my point: you and I do NOT share a common authority, even though we are reading the same words.
Why would I want to spend my personal time and money on charity?
In other words, you’re wrong. I believe Scripture calls on me, personally, to expend my time and my money helping others. But I don’t see why that’s something I wanted anyway and merely contorted Scripture to say.
If you’re the decent sort, then that’s a pretty easy question to answer 
I never figured you for a biblical literalist. Non-fundie scholars (including most - hell, probably just about all - Catholic Biblical scholars) regard Deuteronomy as having been written at a time when the things that the law applied to existed for Israelites. For instance, tents didn’t need a rail around the roof to keep people from falling off.
You crack me up.
Well, sure, it’s an interpretation, based on the choice presented - but the choice seems hard to avoid: is God more concerned about the actual well-being of those actual poor people, or is he more concerned with the state of mind of the potential giver?
You really do have to face that choice, you know. And throughout the Bible, God’s pretty clearly concerned with the well-being of the down and out. So no, I don’t see the second choice being particularly defensible.
Well, there is this Bible thingy that we believe gives us some clues. First ya gotta read 'em, then ya gotta heed 'em, you never know when you’re gonna need 'em.
No, Jesus didn’t ever rain on the parade of anyone’s generosity of spirit, even when his own disciples suggested he should.
But these two things are complementary, not contradictory.
Yeah, what happened to the actual poor people was secondary in the heart of a loving God.
Glad I never had a pastor who thought like that. And FWIW, can you see your Pope concurring with that? I sure can’t.
You’re sure right about that. Sure seemed to me to be pretty clear and straightforward what the words meant, but whatever.
Because in this interpretation, it’s all about you.
What you wanted anyway, is to assert that Jesus, the guy you claim to love and follow, doesn’t want your taxes raised to feed the poor.
Which is weird, because if private donations could handle the problem of poverty, there would never have been a need for a social safety net.
It’s funny that the creator of the universe is so inept that He doesn’t know that private charity simply isn’t up to the task. Mysterious ways, huh?
Well, as it happens, I do – I spend anywhere between ten and twenty hours per month at charitable work.
My point was in rebuttal to the strawman Lobohan created.
What strawman is that?
Your rebuttal shows you didn’t even understand what I meant.
(bolding mine)
No, the bible text that you quoted DOES NOT talk about charity coming from “a personal desire to help”; it specifically admonishes people to leave some for the less fortunate instead of taking it all for themselves. It actually REMOVES personal desire and choice from the equation and directs individuals on what they must do; it compels people to give to the needy.
In fact, it pretty much says the opposite of what you claim it says.
And you don’t? You make no such claims?
And I’m pretty sure the Big Guy said nothing whatever along the lines of “Let the children go hungry; it’s good for their souls.” Pretty much the opposite, in fact.
Well, he did say “suffer the little children,” but only when he was speaking in King James English. (The disciples must’ve thought he was speaking in tongues.)
I’m sure you know this, but others may not: “suffer” in this context means “permit” as in, put up with.
Tru dat. But I admit I was relying on Dopers knowing that, since the joke wouldn’t work otherwise.