Ethics for Supporting the Helpless in Public

um sorry I haven't been following all the posts as they long and make my eyes hurt but I want to add something to the discussion, well in my country they have GST which is goods and services tax on almost all consumer goods, so everytime you buy something, 12.5% goes to the govt.

We didn't always have this it came in as a way to get tax money.
Now I know Jesus didn't like tax collectors and they HATED their jobs. But he knew they didn't like doing that and if I recall in the Bible he converted quite a few of them.

If we follow the world system it will tax us, and it encourages greed cos its serving mammon.

I don't like how this has crept into the church and corrupted it with this nonsense about tithing.

If we come out of this system, share everything we have, barter, exchange etc we can do without money. I mean in the old days they didn't even have money, in paradise certainly Adam and Eve did not have money. In places like some south sea islands you can live on nothing but the sea and fresh air and whatever you can grow or catch.

Um yeah so just wanted to put that out there. I'm not advocating any kind of communism or hippie thing here. But that's how it was and will be in heaven I suppose where God gives everything freely. You don't need this extra thing, money, to live.
 
I think you should tithe to help out the church. As wished I can bring more than 10%. As also want to try to help out the church in any and all ways possible. Which God will give us as it is better to give than receive. But you are receiving the blessings you are giving.
 
I don't like how this has crept into the church and corrupted it with this nonsense about tithing.

Is it possible that tithing was the first "legitimate" monetary sacrifice?

If we come out of this system, share everything we have, barter, exchange etc we can do without money. I mean in the old days they didn't even have money, in paradise certainly Adam and Eve did not have money. In places like some south sea islands you can live on nothing but the sea and fresh air and whatever you can grow or catch.

Um yeah so just wanted to put that out there. I'm not advocating any kind of communism or hippie thing here. But that's how it was and will be in heaven I suppose where God gives everything freely. You don't need this extra thing, money, to live.

What is "real money?" - It is a "commonly used medium of exchange, typically something that has measurable and divisible intrinsic value"
(dollars are not real money)

If you did live on an island where there were no fiat dollars, yet there were berries on the island that everyone loved to eat, you might pick the berries in order to make a trade. You could then trade a fisherman "a basket of berries for two fish;" the fisherman then may take your berries and divide them in half in order to trade the half-amount for another persons "coconut." Berries is then "money." Thus in this natural trading process and "divisions" of exchange, its easy to understand why gold is the six thousand year old champion for being "real money." For gold is intrinsic, fungible, divisible, portable and durable.

For what if two fish was worth 1.35 coconuts? How hard would the coconut farmer have to work in order to break apart the right amount of coconut to purchase the two fish? Thus coconuts might be considered to be "inferior money” than the island berries.
 
If “compulsory taxation” is a trespass against property from Natural Rights Theory, yet it is my Christian ethic by salvation to pay my taxes, then ethical action for response is challenged?
Is this correct?

Yes. It is a dichotomy of “do what you are told” versus “do what is right”. Nat Rts Theory could be summed up by “do right by others and God”. The Chr Ethic directs to do what you are told to do, even if it harms you, as long as you are doing it for God. Any harms to you or others could be deemed “character building”. A harsh view of it, yes, and not a complete view, either. I hope you see the point I am making.
We are indeed close to a real-world scenario and that may be your postulation. Thus a question could be asked, “If I feel that taxation is unethical according to scripture and since I do pay taxes being obedient according to Roman 13; then shouldn't I at least “speak up for where and how the taxation money should go?” If I say yes then that would constitute me “getting involved with unjust Socialism as a voting citizen,” yet if I say no that all violence is to be rejected, then I am removing what little influence I have as a voting citizen to remove unjust law. Its a difficult decision that moves to ethics and is indeed why so many Christians compromise.

Your last paragraph could be reflected by this dilemma. For example: if I am required to pay taxes and the city is operating with arbitrary power, then how am I ethically effective to cause justice to be established in Smith-Town? Does this give me a right to vote the lesser of two evils, or must I remain rigid according to Natural Rights?

I could according to your context “vote” to have the businesses moved, since the City has already force-expropriated money from me (by taxation) and in earnest could make a public grievance to have the businesses be reimbursed by the expropriated money the city took? Thus is that moral or should I say, no “all violence is rejected” thus I must not support or participate in any Socialistic action at all?

I find that this “compromise” is what causes us as the church to be caught in the most difficult decisions with endless circumstances. For if no participation dis-empowers us and participation is a compromise to support the lesser of two evils to do its deadly work, then any action that Smith-Town does that abandons Natural Rights Theory causes us this dilemma.

In any discussion over a hypothetical, I usually attempt to apply the ramifications to the real world. Maybe that is just my “concrete” personality. I have paid attention to many public policy initiatives over the years, and how the ideas were born, and what the agendas of the propositioners were. History is replete with “that could never happen”, and then, guess what happens.


To analyze this “compromise” of partial empowerment by taking part in a system of Socialistic taxation versus the refusal to take part in such a system, we should look at real world examples.


In today’s world, in Pennsylvania and Ohio, as well as a few other states in the U.S., the Amish communities live according to the “all violence is rejected” Natural Rights view. They have: no electricity from the outside world, drive horse and buggy or ride bicycles for transportation, dress plainly, plow fields with horses or ox instead of a tractor, have their own schools and they don’t pay income taxes, although they possibly pay property taxes. Visiting them gives you a look into the past all the way back to the Protestant Reformation years in Germany. They speak a version of German and it is often referred to as Pennsylvania Dutch. This is all possible through the freedom here in the U.S. provided by God through our Constitution.


In Jesus’ time, the Roman Empire controlled the region He lived in, so I would assume He paid taxes at some point, since the repercussions for not doing so were severe. It is recorded that He paid the temple tax with coins from the fish’s mouth, although He stated that He was not required to pay it since the Son is not required to pay tax to the Father.


There is consternation over the meaning of “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”. Is it to be understood that (A.) since the government has its name and likenesses on the money, that it is due the government at any time required of its choosing? Or is it, (B.) give to the government (Caesar) because you serve the government as opposed to give to God because you serve God? This view demonstrates that those Jesus was talking to gave proprietorship over their lives to Caesar, not God the Father. Or does Jesus mean (C.) it is up to the person to make a choice as to whom it belongs. I’ve seen even more possibilities stated in other commentaries on the web.


I do have one proposal to ponder.

What if the government, I’ll use the U.S. version, were to institute a system as follows:

The governed, you and I, would no longer vote for a particular candidate, per se, but sign up, (vote), to be governed by the party and its platform that is campaigned for during the election. Right now we have Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Green Party, etc.

Let’s say I sign up to be governed by the Republican Party ideals. My tax rate would be what the Republican Party would set. Those who sign up for the Democratic Party would be taxed by the rate the Democrats would set. This would settle much of the squabbling over tax rates, for the people would gravitate to the party whose ideals and tax code fit those of the constituency. This would use market forces to maintain a more humane confiscation of ownership (taxation).
 
If “compulsory taxation” is a trespass against property from Natural Rights Theory, yet it is my Christian ethic by salvation to pay my taxes, then ethical action for response is challenged?
Is this correct?
Yes. It is a dichotomy of “do what you are told” versus “do what is right”. Nat Rts Theory could be summed up by “do right by others and God”. The Chr Ethic directs to do what you are told to do, even if it harms you, as long as you are doing it for God. Any harms to you or others could be deemed “character building”. A harsh view of it, yes, and not a complete view, either. I hope you see the point I am making.

Thats a good way to communicate the differentiation and does define how most Christians in society respond, for most Christians are moved to obey government even-though they may find many precedents to be evil. I agree with your explanation

I also agree that its reflected in scripture with Christ responding to the temple tax (which you bring up down below as well.)

Do you believe this is contextually sound using deduction?
  • Deduction 1 - As Christians we are according to (Romans 13) (1 Pet 2:13–17) (Titus 3:1) required to be good obedient Christians subjecting ourselves to ruling authority “good government.” (not despotic government, even though Paul did obey despotic government, yet Paul commissions us in scripture to obey “good government”)

  • Deduction 2 – As Christians we are according to (Acts 5:29) (Acts 4:19-21) are to obey God rather than men.

  • Deduction 3 – The Bible “is” the foundation for “Gods Commands”

  • Deduction 4 – If human law is in conflict with the Bible then we are obey the Bible over human law.

  • Deduction 5 – If (Genesis 9) in the Bible says we individually own (as vicegerents) our life, liberty and honest property (Natural Rights) and all of scripture condemns theft in every covenant, then harm or theft to any person or property is to be “ethically” rejected by our obedience by Gods commands from the Bible.

  • Deduction 6 – Thus if government harms person or property they are no longer “good,” and we as Christians are to “ethically reject them” as Christ rejected them.

  • Deduction 7 – Revelry, arbitrary disobedience, rudeness, hostility and public hatred is rejected in scripture, therefore our “rejection to unjust law” is to be delivered in a manor that is consistent with Christ's behavior. However, Christ at times would get angry (money changers) and would label those in the Sanhedrin puppet government as “snakes.”

  • Deduction 8 – Jesus demonstrated “obedience to despotic taxation” the temple tax, not because it was “ethical to pay them” but because it was “strategic to not cause offenses”

  • Deduction 9 – Romans 13 is therefore a commission that says, “we are to be strategic to pay taxes to despotic government, but its only mandated that we pay taxes to a “just or good government.”

  • Deduction 10 – We are required as individual servants to be led of the Spirit and the Spirit may require us to obey despotic government to our death or may lead us to defend the innocent from despotism.
If we can agree that this line of deduction is accurate (please object if needed), then we can apply the scenario that you brilliantly differentiated above. If a person in Smith-Town is torn to support the City or reject the City because they have “failed to no longer be good” then the Christian can choose to “obey a set of unjust ordinances” to prevent “offenses with their government.” This also to your point can become a “personal constructive process” as the Christian remains subject to demonstrate a loving response of obedience to unjust law.

To further support, I also believe that when Jesus paid the Temple tax with the coin from the fish, (again you mentioned this below) that this act demonstrates support for your explanation by means of "strategy." For Jesus did admonish peter that we are not required to suffer conquering compulsion but in order to prevent offense Jesus paid the tax. Thus to your wise point its better to sometimes obey and do what you are “told to do” rather than what is “right to do” if its self sacrificial. (yet we cannot do this harming another)

Is this correct?
That was an incredible point Big Moose, and I think we are in alignment!
This is a most complex variable from scripture, is it not?

Is it possible that Christian “strategy” is also not to move our governments to anger with our attitudes? Also that scripture admonishes us to “respect authority” which will bring respect to the body of Christ? Ultimately we are His ambassadors and the Christian that runs out to defy government moves to folly: for our precedent is to obey the law in a spirit of love.

In any discussion over a hypothetical, I usually attempt to apply the ramifications to the real world. Maybe that is just my “concrete” personality. I have paid attention to many public policy initiatives over the years, and how the ideas were born, and what the agendas of the propositioners were. History is replete with “that could never happen”, and then, guess what happens.

To analyze this “compromise” of partial empowerment by taking part in a system of Socialistic taxation versus the refusal to take part in such a system, we should look at real world examples.

In today’s world, in Pennsylvania and Ohio, as well as a few other states in the U.S., the Amish communities live according to the “all violence is rejected” Natural Rights view. They have: no electricity from the outside world, drive horse and buggy or ride bicycles for transportation, dress plainly, plow fields with horses or ox instead of a tractor, have their own schools and they don’t pay income taxes, although they possibly pay property taxes. Visiting them gives you a look into the past all the way back to the Protestant Reformation years in Germany. They speak a version of German and it is often referred to as Pennsylvania Dutch. This is all possible through the freedom here in the U.S. provided by God through our Constitution.

In Jesus’ time, the Roman Empire controlled the region He lived in, so I would assume He paid taxes at some point, since the repercussions for not doing so were severe. It is recorded that He paid the temple tax with coins from the fish’s mouth, although He stated that He was not required to pay it since the Son is not required to pay tax to the Father.

There is consternation over the meaning of “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”. Is it to be understood that (A.) since the government has its name and likenesses on the money, that it is due the government at any time required of its choosing? Or is it, (B.) give to the government (Caesar) because you serve the government as opposed to give to God because you serve God? This view demonstrates that those Jesus was talking to gave proprietorship over their lives to Caesar, not God the Father. Or does Jesus mean (C.) it is up to the person to make a choice as to whom it belongs. I’ve seen even more possibilities stated in other commentaries on the web.

By the Amish example, are you saying that “disconnection” serves a kind of “operational secession” from political management? Thus if you have no “ties to governance or utilities provided” then there is no obligation, save reactions to crime?

Rendering - I am moved to believe that (A.) is the most relevant since “governments today” have monopolies over the fiat currencies, however I feel the monopolies themselves are immoral.

May I be allowed to add (D.) to (A.)?
(D) Jesus differentiated “real money” from the Roman compulsory currency. Real-money being “exchangeable non-compulsory commodities that has intrinsic value (Hebrew money by weight).” He separated out the compulsory idolatrous Roman money (en-graven images) to be subject to Rome. He also separated out “honest property” to be Gods: for we are His servants and all that “we own is His by contract.”

I think a great study would be to discover if Jesus was opposed to the Jews operating with the Roman currency?

I do have one proposal to ponder.

What if the government, I’ll use the U.S. version, were to institute a system as follows:

The governed, you and I, would no longer vote for a particular candidate, per se, but sign up, (vote), to be governed by the party and its platform that is campaigned for during the election. Right now we have Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Green Party, etc.

Let’s say I sign up to be governed by the Republican Party ideals. My tax rate would be what the Republican Party would set. Those who sign up for the Democratic Party would be taxed by the rate the Democrats would set. This would settle much of the squabbling over tax rates, for the people would gravitate to the party whose ideals and tax code fit those of the constituency. This would use market forces to maintain a more humane confiscation of ownership (taxation).

That would shake up the political landscape for sure.

However I would question, what is a party if you remove the unjust law that empowers them to exist? I would say a plethora of grass-roots movements in variance. If grassroots exist in variance, then how would compulsory expropriation be managed? I would contend with more unjust law.
 
Last edited:
God provides is with our daily bread.
He does not say, make more than enough and sell it in exchange for something else.

In the book of revelation, the whore of babylon is the one who sells herself out for cash. She will give pleasures, but for a price.
 
God provides is with our daily bread.
He does not say, make more than enough and sell it in exchange for something else.

God says this:

2 Corinthians 9:8
And God will generously provide all you need. Then you will always have everything you need and plenty left over to share with others.
 
God provides is with our daily bread.
He does not say, make more than enough and sell it in exchange for something else.

Is it possible that “quantitative amounts of money” in of itself is not a compulsory mandate in scripture one way or the other? Instead is it possible that we are forbidden to love it, to seek it as an end, or trust it as our security; also can it be agreeable that we are to be content, obedient and faithful with what the Lord provides us?

For where is the scripture that condemns money or ownership in of itself? For if one is poor, moderate or wealthy and that person is obedient to Christ, then is it rational by scripture to ascertain that each obedient person will be used as the Lord sees fit?

Who is qualified but God to know the motivations of the heart?

In the book of revelation, the whore of babylon is the one who sells herself out for cash. She will give pleasures, but for a price.

What eschatological position from scripture supports what you are saying my good friend? Meaning what hermeneutic (method of interpretation) do you use for Rev. 17?

example: do you believe.....
  • The harlot is a “literal physical description” (natural world)

  • The harlot is a “literal spiritual description” (spiritual world)

  • The harlot is a “literal spiritual and physical description” (bi-dimensional)

  • The harlot is a “type” an abstract for a life-lesson” or “life experience”

  • The harlot is “symbolic (allegory)” to literal things (natural world)

  • The harlot is “symbolic (allegory)” to spiritual things (spiritual world)

  • The harlot is “symbolic (allegory)” to natural and spiritual things (bi-dimensional)

  • The harlot is a “literal physical description” (natural world) but has a correlated relationship with the spiritual world.

  • The harlot is a “literal spiritual description” (spiritual world) but has a correlated relationship with the natural world.

  • The harlot is “symbolic (allegory)” to literal things (natural world) but has a correlated relationship with the spiritual world.

  • The harlot is “symbolic (allegory)” to spiritual things (spiritual world) but has a correlated relationship with the natural world.
By using one of these “methods of interpretation” what “context” do you apply it?” To the whole book of Revelation, just chapter 17 or just the first paragraph in 17?

Would you agree that if one can determine a sound interpretive hermeneutic then one can understand the harlots relationship with kings, many waters, inhabitants, decadent apparel, cup of blood, and with the scarlet beast?

Thus to your comment what is “cash” in context to this scriptural depiction?
 
Pray and ask God to give your wisdom when reading the bible and his Holy spirit will give you 'hermenautics' or intepretation, but you must read the entire chapter.
 
This also to your point can become a “personal constructive process” as the Christian remains subject to demonstrate a loving response of obedience to unjust law.
For Jesus did admonish peter that we are not required to suffer conquering compulsion but in order to prevent offense Jesus paid the tax.

This is a most complex variable from scripture, is it not?
Yes, complex and difficult for mere humans to obey. Although if powerless, what else can one do?
Working within the system so as to not offend would be the proper course. The question becomes when and where do you make your stand against despotic governmental action?
Take the clearly evil Nazi regime. You must break man's law to stay true to God's.
But if you take your stand, you will cease to be able to help those who need it.
We look to Jesus as the example, and He did escape capture and stoning by high-tailing it through the crowds, also He showed up late for the Passover feast because the theocrats were expecting Him. This I get from John chapter 7.
So, Jesus takes His stand, in public only, knowing at some point His hour would be up.

As far as His approval of Roman money, I think it would be based mostly on conjecture. He didn't seem concerned about money, other than people who loved money(mammon). He was impressed by the widow giving her last two mites. He said blessed be the poor, woe to the rich. He said the poor you will always have with you.

Your deductions were well thought out and reasonable. It is late and brain fog is overcoming me, so I will let it go at that.
 
King James Bible
Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
I believe we should always give as we are able. It may be a smile, a kind word, food and in some cases money. We should always react as if an angel was in front of us, even if the angel smells and has ragged clothes.

Thank you for the insightful perspective; for your comment puts the Smith-Town analogy in a "pure-perspective."

Though I have made justice a center-focus in the analogy, I must agree quickly that a just-substrate cannot exist without Agape love, which is our Christian commission to emulate. I must agree that any member of society may have an unknown origin regarding their corporeal form.

Would you agree that justice is only possible because of Christ's love? Also that justice is the delegation from the confines of Agape love?

thank you again for the contributing assertion my friend
 
In Biblical symbolism a "harlot" is a false religion/church, an institution which is not faithful to it's husband (Christ).
The beast she rides is the world's political system. 23 The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. 24 The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom.

The "ten kings" will likely be UN administrators, it is no coincidence that the UN has divided the world into 10 administrative districts.
And like other bureaucrats we have now (EU is a good example) they wield complete authority and are not in any way responsible to the people.
 
In Biblical symbolism a "harlot" is a false religion/church, an institution which is not faithful to it's husband (Christ).
The beast she rides is the world's political system. 23 The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. 24 The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom.

The "ten kings" will likely be UN administrators, it is no coincidence that the UN has divided the world into 10 administrative districts.
And like other bureaucrats we have now (EU is a good example) they wield complete authority and are not in any way responsible to the people.

Glomung, are you saying that Smith-Town can analogously be a representative of the forth beast in Daniel?

If so then all analogous Smith-Town citizens may become helpless. :)
 
The church stands their ground, saying they have a “right” to help the helpless, and even fear that some of the helpless souls could suffer severely if they are forced to stop.

The businesses also stand their ground saying they have a “right” to not have their businesses harmed by having helpless folks standing around on the sidewalks and street. For they are able to confirm that when the homeless are on the street and side-walks, their business traffic becomes obsolete, and endangers their ability to economically survive.

Here is the challenge - “Ethically according to scripture” what should autonomous Smith-town do to solve the problem?

Let us have a dialectical exchange to resonate scripture; as a caveat, this is not a debate. If comments are given to “win” then you missed the point, yet if you use scripture and reason to shed light on the hypothetical problem, then we are all beneficiaries to understand ethics from scripture. I of course will also offer scriptural perspective for contribution in variance.
Jesus fed 5 000 on a mountain away from the city. The church must not disrupt business. The homeless can be fed anywhere.

Keep in mind that most cities do not consider scripture in the real world, yet we as Christians are given scriptural grounds on how we should “support” the law in society. According to scripture, how should we “support the law.”
I think we need to discuss what laws exactly we will not support. That list is imo short and centers around bowing to Nero / unable to preach the word.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top