Such a good point, Chrawnus. It was God that doled out the land to his people. He is the ultimate owner of it.
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.
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
-
"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)
-
Originally posted by Jesse View PostSuch a good point, Chrawnus. It was God that doled out the land to his people. He is the ultimate owner of it.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostYes, 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.
And presumably you have a reasoned argument against libertarian Joel's point of view?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostIn 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
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostThat'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?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostI think the proper view for a Christian is that we are stewards of that which God has entrusted to us.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostSo we don't actually legitimately 'own' anything, as per the modern understanding of ownership, right?
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?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostThat'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 Cow Poke View PostWrong. 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.
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.
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 PostIn 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostAnd 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...
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.
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 PostIn 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).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostYes. "Own". But you don't truly own, because all belongs to God.
Exactly. Despite what our human conventions say, we don't truly own anything.
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...
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.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Yesterday, 01:12 PM
|
4 responses
72 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Yesterday, 02:38 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-17-2024, 09:33 AM
|
45 responses
410 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Starlight
Yesterday, 05:05 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-16-2024, 10:43 PM
|
60 responses
390 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 03:09 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-16-2024, 06:47 AM
|
100 responses
454 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 03:52 AM |
Comment