Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Impending Minimum Wage hike causing restaurants to close

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Such a good point, Chrawnus. It was God that doled out the land to his people. He is the ultimate owner of it.
    "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Jesse View Post
      Such a good point, Chrawnus. It was God that doled out the land to his people. He is the ultimate owner of it.
      And He obviously wanted to keep it under the control of His people, based on the distribution to the various tribes.
      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        Yes, but is it right for that third-party to force a change in a good-faith agreement against the will of one or both parties? I contend that it's not.
        Jubilee law.
        And presumably you have a reasoned argument against libertarian Joel's point of view?
        He changed his mind after dialoguing with me. What do you think?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
          Jubilee law.


          (I actually laughed out loud when I saw this)
          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
            In other words, it's not even clear to me that you can claim that the original "owners" can be said to own the land in the modern sense of the word. In fact, the one thing The Pixie does seem to get right is that the rationale behind the reverting of rights to usage back to the original "owners" is that it is ultimately God who owns the land. Given this fact it could be argued that Lev 25 does not support redistribution of wealth, given that the Hebrews did not own the land they occupied (not even their ancestral land), instead God granted them rights of usage to that land. In contrast, in modern society when someone buys something, it is usually seen as legitimately his property, to do with what he wants
            That's the view of modern society. But is that necessarily the case, that what is 'bought' is legitimately one's property, given that all things come from Him and by Him?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
              That's the view of modern society. But is that necessarily the case, that what is 'bought' is legitimately one's property, given that all things come from Him and by Him?
              I think the proper view for a Christian is that we are stewards of that which God has entrusted to us.
              "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                I think the proper view for a Christian is that we are stewards of that which God has entrusted to us.
                So we don't actually legitimately 'own' anything, as per the modern understanding of ownership, right? And it's not just a private view: if God is the Lord of all reality then no mortal truly owns anything, does he?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                  So we don't actually legitimately 'own' anything, as per the modern understanding of ownership, right?
                  Wrong. I "own" my house, because I have the deed that proves that I have ownership of it. I am legally the owner of my house, and the land it sits on. As well as my trucks, cars, and ranch equipment. Bought and paid for.

                  HOWEVER, in my Christian understanding, I have these things by God's grace, and I am a steward of them.

                  And it's not just a private view: if God is the Lord of all reality then no mortal truly owns anything, does he?
                  Legally, yes - we own things. (At least, those of us who bought things ) It's silly to ignore the fact that the law of the land (to which we are to be subject) doesn't play a part here.
                  "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                    That's the view of modern society. But is that necessarily the case, that what is 'bought' is legitimately one's property, given that all things come from Him and by Him?
                    In the ultimate sense, no, nothing we buy is legitimately our own property, as everything that exists ultimately belongs to God. But that would IMO only justify us to exhort those more well-off to provide help to those who are subject to poverty. I do not see how it could be justified to legalize the redistribution of property, unless you first redefine the modern legal concept of property so that it is first more in line with how the Mosaic law understood it. And that would require changing laws on a religious basis, something I'm pretty sure many people in the US, with their assertion that the law must have a secular basis, would be quite opposed to doing. And even then it would only establish the fact that a redistribution like this is not impermissible, it would not make instituting such a law mandatory.
                    ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      Wrong. I "own"
                      Yes. "Own". But you don't truly own, because all belongs to God.

                      my house, because I have the deed that proves that I have ownership of it. I am legally the owner of my house, and the land it sits on. As well as my trucks, cars, and ranch equipment. Bought and paid for.

                      HOWEVER, in my Christian understanding, I have these things by God's grace, and I am a steward of them.
                      Exactly. Despite what our human conventions say, we don't truly own anything.

                      Legally, yes - we own things. (At least, those of us who bought things ) It's silly to ignore the fact that the law of the land (to which we are to be subject) doesn't play a part here.
                      The law of the land is not ignored; the law of the land just doesn't come into play at this level of the issue.

                      And this is so not least because of the moral arguments surrounding ownership. For example, some might say that it is immoral to forcibly take wealth that belongs to someone despite what the law may say. Hence there is an appeal to something beyond the law of the land. However, if no one truly owns anything...

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        In the ultimate sense, no, nothing we buy is legitimately our own property, as everything that exists ultimately belongs to God. But that would IMO only justify us to exhort those more well-off to provide help to those who are subject to poverty. I do not see how it could be justified to legalize the redistribution of property
                        It justifies a reexamination of modern concepts of 'ownership' - which tends to be individualistic rather than communalistic.

                        unless you first redefine the modern legal concept of property so that it is first more in line with how the Mosaic law understood it. And that would require changing laws on a religious basis, something I'm pretty sure many people in the US, with their assertion that the law must have a secular basis, would be quite opposed to doing.
                        Whether such a change is practical is irrelevant to whether the changed concept is true. And the discussion is thus far about what ownership is, not whether a specific conception can ever be accepted in the US within the next few centuries.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                          And this is so not least because of the moral arguments surrounding ownership. For example, some might say that it is immoral to forcibly take wealth that belongs to someone despite what the law may say. Hence there is an appeal to something beyond the law of the land. However, if no one truly owns anything...
                          You're still not justified in forcibly taking the wealth that belongs to someone else. In fact, given that God is the ultimate owner of all that exists it could be argued that what you're doing is setting yourself above God in deciding that you (or the persons you intend to "redistribute" it to) have more right to enjoy the wealth that ultimately belongs to God, rather than the person whom currently has it in it's possession.

                          What we see consistently in the OT and NT is that rich people are exhorted to freely provide help to those who are less fortunate than themselves, we never see any permission for those who are less fortunate to forcibly take the wealth that rich people possess and distribute it amongst themselves.
                          ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

                          Comment


                          • For those who are interested, here is how my conversation with Joel went, to the best of my memory:

                            Joel maintained that all taxation is immoral: it was forcibly taking from the people of what belonged to them by the government, and so it was theft, which was immoral.

                            My counter was that it was clear from Romans 13 that some taxation was condoned by God. And this makes sense because we don't actually own what is taxed, God does; so if God ordains that one steward take from another that is hardly theft.

                            So Joel now is of the view that not all taxation is immoral.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              In contrast, in modern society when someone buys something, it is usually seen as legitimately his property, to do with what he wants (except in some irrelevant cases, such as when you buy a movie or videogame).
                              I wish that were true, but in reality it doesn't seem like it is. The government forced my grandfather to sell a huge chunk of his farmland (land that had been in the family since the early 1800s) so they could build a highway. My grandfather fought it as hard as he could, but to no end. Ultimately the land in America really seems to belong to the US government, and our ownership of it is more of a stewardship of sorts.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                                Yes. "Own". But you don't truly own, because all belongs to God.
                                Go down to the courthouse in my county and tell them you want my ranch because I don't truly own it. They'll laugh at you.

                                Exactly. Despite what our human conventions say, we don't truly own anything.
                                My lawyers would beg to differ. I have the paperwork.

                                The law of the land is not ignored; the law of the land just doesn't come into play at this level of the issue.
                                You're playing goofy games.

                                And this is so not least because of the moral arguments surrounding ownership. For example, some might say that it is immoral to forcibly take wealth that belongs to someone despite what the law may say. Hence there is an appeal to something beyond the law of the land. However, if no one truly owns anything...
                                I have dual citizenship. I am a citizen of the United States, but also a citizen of Heaven. The legal authorities don't recognize my citizenship in Heaven, and it would be silly for me to attempt to get them to see things that way.

                                Deut 15 is about GRACE, not legalism. I am generous with what has been entrusted to me ("owned outright" in the legal sense - "stewardship" in the spiritual sense) because of the GRACE of God, not because I am forced to give.
                                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Reepicheep, 07-27-2021, 10:22 AM
                                50 responses
                                415 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post NorrinRadd  
                                Started by seer, 07-26-2021, 12:04 PM
                                65 responses
                                404 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cerebrum123  
                                Started by rogue06, 07-26-2021, 07:21 AM
                                11 responses
                                102 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Ronson, 07-25-2021, 07:36 PM
                                23 responses
                                146 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Gondwanaland, 07-24-2021, 01:18 PM
                                7 responses
                                188 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X