Christianity-according-to-Jesus and government is a really complicated thing, I think.
Like I said earlier, I agree with much of what you say in this post. There are some points on which I'd like more discussion, though.
"Render unto Caesar" and all that is unlikely to apply to a government of Christians; the whole idea there was that Christians need to understand their relationship to a government that is not itself compatible with Christianity.
It's true that Christ's earliest followers were not exactly well-known in the halls of power. But why do you think that Christ's teaching regarding a government operated by Christians would have differed from His actual teaching? Why do you think He would have said something
other than "render unto Caesar" if those who controlled the government were counted among His followers?
I do think, though, that Jesus would clearly not have responded well to arguments like trickle-down economics.
I definitely agree with you to the extent that such arguments are used to shirk one's moral responsibility. To the extent that we're talking about public policy, though, I'm not sure how Christ would have responded to such arguments. As I said earlier today, He never specified whether His teachings should drive public policy.
At the very least it's clear that Jesus would think that the rich are badly failing in their obligation to care for the poor. I think everyone agrees that Jesus would be 100% on board with the rich massively ramping up their charitable giving.
I think that's true. I think it's especially true with respect to wealthy preachers--which is a class of persons I don't think should exist, to be frank.
So it seems hard to say that arguments about dependency are consistent with Christianity; that's not a reason for the rich not to spread the wealth voluntarily.
I agree, with the caveat that such thinking may inform
how a person helps the poor.
To the extent that Christianity is consistent with lots of inequality, it's got to be because the rich are evil bastards but we need them. Taking from them involuntarily causes them to work less hard, because they don't care about the poor and so on.
I don't think that's the only way to square inequality with Christianity. For instance, it could be that a Christian believes involuntary takings are immoral. It could be that a Christian
does believe that inequality is immoral, but doesn't wish to impose his or her moral views on the subject through government action.
Do we not have some reason to punish the evil rich if it is within our power to do so?
Here, you've lost me entirely. Is it the role of the government to punish people for failing to adhere to Christ's teachings? I certainly don't think so, and my point is that Christ's teachings do not compel a belief that it is.
But, again, either case fits my point.
I may not understand your point then. Could you restate it, please?
And the quote about jesus not having anything to say about those issues was me disagreeing with it.
I understand that. I was disagreeing with your characterization of such a statement as "obtuse and highly technical."
My main thrust was attacking the idea that when presented with a contradiction between the stated philosophy and political ideas they point out tiny flaws or other passages which they might be able to suss out their ideas even if the spirit of the passage can point in a different direction this is what is obtuse and frustrating. You see it all the time in religious debates. The idea that you have to "read it properly" or "you can't forget this passage" which usually means read it they way I want it read or read the selections I want read.
Without a specific example it's hard to respond to this. I agree, in principle, that other parts of the text may assist in interpreting whatever part is being discussed. But that doesn't mean that every verse has something to say on every subject, or helps interpret every other verse. For example,
the story (which begins in verse 13 of the linked chapter) of the dude wanting Jesus to demand that the dude's brother split his inheritance with the dude tells us nothing about how Jesus felt on the question of wealth redistribution, despite what Moseley tries to say. (In fact, under Moseley's interpretation, it would seem that Jesus believes that a "judge or arbiter" can make that determination--so that it is the role of such persons to redistribute wealth.)
You may have noted that I didn't respond to your complaints about the meaning of the "eye of the needle." I think it's silly that anyone would try to interpret that as saying anything other than that it is very hard for the wealthy to enter the Kingdom of God.
Are you suggesting that broader society is imposed on people through force rather than undertaken voluntarily? In other words, you think you are involuntary forced to accept the immense benefits that society affords you?
I'm impressed. You found me out. That wasn't a mere suggestion, though.
That was my secret meaning this entire time! I had thought I'd disguised it so well--using words that say nothing of the sort to convey utterly unrelated concepts--yet here you were able to ferret it out. I'm so pleased with you right now.
And yet, you missed my
other secret message, which disappoints me. You know, the one where I said, "to say He taught capitalism is anachronistic," and
secretly meant, "We could stop all of the volcanoes in the world from ever erupting if we just dumped a bunch of elephants down their gaping maws." Come on, man, it was
right there.
Jesus had a ton to say about politics and economics. He directly challenged the political order of his day.
The division of the text into chapters and verses exists for an occasion such as this one. Citations, please.
