Progressive tenets of Jesus Christ

I believe that what Jesus preached is more in line with libertarians than with the Rs or Ds.

Bet that made a couple of people bristle a bit

Jesus taught that we should care for the poor. "WE". Not Rome. We should give to the poor. We should give the downtrodden a hand up. What we do for the least of them, we do for him. But it has to come from us, our choice, not forced through a tax that's filtered through unimaginable bureaucracy until little of the original intent is left and all that remains is a few scraps used to encourage entitlement attitudes.

He also taught that we should lead by example. We should not be forceful in our evangelism. Jesus did not ever suggest the legal enforcement of his moral teachings. He invited people to believe in him and follow him. He opened his arms and let them come, he didn't beat them over the head with legislation until they followed the moral straight and narrow.

That's why I'm a fiscal conservative and social liberal.

By the way, I think the term "progressive" in the title is misleading given it's current use. Perhaps if more people thought like me, we could make progress towards smaller government interference in our lives, but when the goal is more freedom and less legislated morality both Rs and Ds are severely regressive.

OmniScience wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Pope Francis, a Jesuit, is bringing this to a head. This week he talked about the Vatican using more of their savings for the poor and he has complained about economic inequality more often.

Which will be very interesting now, Fred. How will the Vatican appropriate the recently found "millions that were tucked away"?

www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30339699

I am a little worried about Pope Francis. Not worried about his views, but concerned that the Vatican old guard might try to force him out for rocking the boat and going off message.

I'm going to respond to your links in reverse order. From this one: www.iiccworldview.org/individualism-and-...some-misconceptions/ - comes the money quote:

Convoluted financial arrangements are not uncommon in collective cultures where the group creates loyalty through the use of wealth. The seaming selflessness is, in fact, very destructive, causing tension between individuals, creating feelings of resentment and leading to extensive debt to outside organizations.

And from that statement you can see the basis in which rests the opposition to expanding the generous welfare state and the allegation that the party of Democrats is using the general treasury to purchase loyalty through the use of other people's wealth.

In scripture Christ confirms what Jefferson, Locke and others sought to express when they talked of natural law. Associations are voluntary in nature, even our association with our Creator is one that is voluntary. We are free to walk away from it, turn our back on Him who created us in His image and disavow any allegiance to Him or even acknowledge that He exists at all. The colloquial expression is "free will". Being a follower of Christ and His teachings means sacrificing yourself for the benefit of others. When our neighbor needs help, we show up, even if we want to sleep in that day. When one is ill we care for them, even if it means we get no sleep for our own body. When one is imprisoned we visit them so that they don't feel forgotten, or abandoned, or succumb to despair. When a cupboard is bare you share what you have, even if it means less for yourself.

But, and it is an important but, these decisions are ones you must make for yourself. Abandon your life so that it might be saved. Sell all you own, give it to the poor, and follow me. This is a recurring theme throughout the gospels.

Remember the story of the rich man that asked Jesus what he needed to do to inherit eternal life? I think it's in the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 10 IIRC if you want to look it up and refresh your memory. Anyway, Jesus said the man lacked one thing, that he needed to sell all he owned and give it to the poor, then he would have riches in heaven and to then come and follow Him. The question is why is that what the man needed to do? Is it because the rich have an obligation to the poor in a collective society, to provide for their welfare with the fruits of their efforts? Or was it because Jesus saw that even though the man had obeyed the law all his life, the one thing the man lacked was a love and devotion to God that superseded his love for his wealth; and that the only means of correcting that imbalance for that man was to get rid of everything he owned and learn what it meant to love God as opposed to simply obeying God?

Money isn't the problem, what one does with their money isn't the problem, it's what large amounts of wealth do to the spirit that separates God's children from their Creator. This is demonstrated in the teaching at the temple where the woman who put two small coins into the treasury while the rich put in large amounts. Mark again, Chapter 12 I believe. Jesus called his disciples to him and told them that the woman had given more than everything the rich had given because they gave of their surplus while she had given to others what she needed to live. She did that out of a love for others, a love for her God, that transcended even her love of her own life.

And I think both of these are examples of the iceberg analogy from your first link, where there is much more below the surface than one initially sees. Yes, when Paul was writing to those in Corinth, the you was plural and the temple singular. He wasn't writing to one Corinthian, he was writing to the Church in Corinth. However, salvation is an individual choice, it is one you must make for yourself. You must decide that your love for your Creator is greater than your love of your money, no one other than you can make that choice. Having your wealth taken from you by an outside force for the good of the collective doesn't accomplish the same goal as you giving of yourself for the benefit of others.

Salvation is never collective, it is always singular. Your salvation can't be accomplished by my actions, only by yours. You can lead a donkey to water, but you can't make it drink any, or something like that anyway. My deciding to sacrifice your wealth for the greater good doesn't bring you salvation because it accomplishes caring for the poor, the sick, the lonely, the imprisoned, the shoeless, the homeless, the hungry. Associations are, and must remain, voluntary for them to have any merit. What good is accomplished if I am forced to act in accordance with what society has deemed best? Does it soften my heart or harden it?

The answer, to bring this full circle, lies in the concept quoted at the beginning of my response. Charity, by its very definition, is a voluntary endeavor. Requiring your child to shovel the snow for the elderly neighbor might build character, but it is also just as likely to build resentment. Going out into the snow yourself and shoveling the snow for the elderly neighbor teaches your child that they have a societal obligation in the hopes that one day, when you grab your shovel, your child also grabs one and comes to help you help the elderly neighbor. When your child chooses to grab the shovel and help you help others they are being charitable. When you require your child to grab a shovel the end may be the same, but the way the end was achieved is wholly different and not nearly as beneficial to the child or to the community because once that child is no longer being required to help their elderly neighbor by you, they are not likely to continue to help.

Using the force of government to compel people to do something for the benefit of others at the expense of themselves is not a legitimate role of government. It takes from the person their ability to choose how they will act and destroys, not builds, a fond attachment to others in the society. There is a reason that charitable actions today are much rarer than charitable actions were prior to the rise of the welfare state. We don't give to charity, we don't participate in charity, we pay taxes so that others can address the problems and we don't have to worry about them. That doesn't build a community, that doesn't help unite us together into a single temple. What it does instead is allow us to be content with how much we tossed into the treasury.

It would seem that Pope Francis disagrees with the philosophy espoused by Printsmith.

“It is the responsibility of the State to safeguard and promote the common good of society, Based on the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, and fully committed to political dialogue and consensus building, it plays a fundamental role, one which cannot be delegated, in working for the integral development of all.”


“We are not simply talking about ensuring nourishment or a ‘dignified sustenance’ for all people, but also their ‘general temporal welfare and prosperity, this means education, access to health care, and above all employment, for it is through free, creative, participatory and mutually supportive labor that human beings express and enhance the dignity of their lives.”

“Economic activity cannot solve all social problems through the simple application of commercial logic,” “It has to be ordered to the attainment of the common good, which is the responsibility above all of the political community.



w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost...angelii-gaudium.html

Pope Francis, in his biography speaks of the necessity of society, not just the individual, to administer to the poor, and that wealth should be distributed among each of the people and social classes.” A society must care for the vulnerable. This care must include helping pregnant women and mothers, making sure children have enough to eat and basic health care throughout life. He calls providing children with an inadequate education “a kind of killing”

It would seem that Pope Francis is of the opinion that government, not just the individual, has the role of administering to the poor.

While Printsmith claims that Christ did not teach collectivism, that is just wrong. Indeed, the entire Christian religion is based on a collectivist act, that Jesus Christ died in order to save all of his followers. That collective act, placing the interests of the group over the interest of the individual is the basis for Christanity. Clearly the teachings of Christ included placing the interest of the vulnerable over the interest of the individual. Surely it is "collectivism" to encourage his followers to serve the poor and vulnerable rather than seek individual wealth. Perhaps Printsmith would care to quote the teachings of Christ against "collectivism"? Or where his teachings conflict with using the government as a vehicle to administer to the poor and vulnerable?

I find it interesting that Printsmith has no problem reconciling his embrace of the Catholic church with the fact that the charitable arm in the US of the Catholic church gets the majority of its funding from the U.S. Treasury. Since he claims that Christ would be opposed with using taxpayer funds for charitable acts, he should see about changing his particular religion from being a vehicle for the use of taxpayer funds for charitable acts.


What is clear is that Christ would not be at ease with conservatives. It is impossible to follow the teachings of Christ and follow the philosophy of conservative.

Well said, Dog.

Something the Dog Said wrote: It would seem that Pope Francis disagrees with the philosophy espoused by Printsmith.

“It is the responsibility of the State to safeguard and promote the common good of society, Based on the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, and fully committed to political dialogue and consensus building, it plays a fundamental role, one which cannot be delegated, in working for the integral development of all.”


“We are not simply talking about ensuring nourishment or a ‘dignified sustenance’ for all people, but also their ‘general temporal welfare and prosperity, this means education, access to health care, and above all employment, for it is through free, creative, participatory and mutually supportive labor that human beings express and enhance the dignity of their lives.”

“Economic activity cannot solve all social problems through the simple application of commercial logic,” “It has to be ordered to the attainment of the common good, which is the responsibility above all of the political community.
.

I don't know much about the bible or this pope... are these words a translation from scripture or are these words the opinion of the pope?

www.omargutierrez.com/11-responses-to-11-progressive-tenets/

Care to comment on these observations Dog, ZHawke?

And what Dog is missing while he attempts to spin the Pontiff's remarks to suggest that they support the expansion of a welfare state and using the force of government to subjugate the people to accomplish it, is that Pope Francis, like Christ, never suggests, let alone says outright, that such a course should be followed.

Part of what restricts the expansion of employment are the taxes levied on the workers to fund the welfare state. Part of what reduces the quality and value of the educational opportunities available to those with fewer economic means is failure to implement school choice so that an economically disadvantaged parent has a better opportunity to have their child enrolled in superior schools without increasing the burden placed on the shoulders of the taxpayers.

Part of increasing access to healthcare is opening up new ways of accessing it above and beyond torturing language to hide taxes and cost shifting policies. Many, if not most, of the hospitals were opened up by religious organizations and the vast majority of them treated without regard to ability to pay. This was accomplished with the voluntary actions of a religious people, who voluntarily supported these religious health providers with funds not confiscated from them by the government. The problems started to emerge when the heavy hand of government inserted itself into the daily operations of these religious facilities and started replacing voluntary charitable actions with mandatory taxation to provide it.

Did you miss the parable of requiring your child to shovel the snow for an elderly neighbor versus teaching by example that it is part and parcel of what we should expect of ourselves? That has direct application to the solution that has failed for the better part of 50 years now and has only grown both in cost and inability to provide what the funds resulting from ever increasing tax rates are supposed to be providing. It promotes apathy instead of involvement, promotes sitting inside of your own home because you pay taxes to provide those services instead of becoming an active and caring member of the community seeking a better future for everyone in the community.

Requiring that useful work be done which benefits the people who supply the individual welfare subsidies promotes self esteem and self worth for the recipients of that subsidy far in excess of what simply recharging a debit card in an effort to preserve dignity could ever hope to achieve.

No, the current welfare state is designed not to be selfless, not to provide what is most necessary to those with the least, it is an attempt to purchase loyalty with the expenditure of what others have worked for. One size fits none central solutions cannot begin to address the unique needs of those most in need of help. What is needed is for the people in the society to care enough about what those individuals need and to reach out to them and embrace them in the society instead of simply paying taxes to have more money added to their government issued debit card each month. This, then, is what the Pontiff speaks to when he talks of the society administering to the poor, not, as Dog suggests, that the central government implement ever more one size fits none solutions which do nothing to nourish the soul of the individuals most in need or the society for that matter.

HEARTLESS wrote: www.omargutierrez.com/11-responses-to-11-progressive-tenets/

Care to comment on these observations Something, ZHawke?

These appear to be "progressive" tenets as espoused by Senator Warren, not Jesus Christ - the OP of this thread.

In other words, oh s*** how do we avoid answering those comments?