Could perhaps a charitable interpretation of the song be that there are some people on welfare who could work but choose not to (sloth) and choose to eat excessively when they could choose otherwise (gluttony), and that the musician is complaining about these specific people, and not people who may simply be overweight due to poisoning or unemployed due to bad luck?
Again, this isn't Jesus being "pro-taxes" but for prudence: He was saying if people are going to force you to pay taxes, well what are you going to do? If you don't pay that makes you a criminal, so just to pay it to avoid trouble
Ok, and what we're saying is in none of those passages is Jesus saying to force people to hand over money using the government so that people can collect it in welfare; the difference between a nonprofit or giving someone who is homeless on the street $20, versus a government agency fining someone and forcing them to be taxed for whatever purpose the government may see fit
However, that is not to say Christians may not advocate for such a view (for government welfare), I would simply state it is not the "Christian position" that Jesus is positively requiring something like government welfare to exist
superfluous wealth (beyond one's needs) is morally the possession of the poor, in the theological tradition (although not one that is much talked about?) - hence you might advocate for wealthy people to give charitably under pain of present or future punishment by God (unless they feel they should retain such funds for some reason - some may need less than others, and some wealth is capital, like if a person owns a boat they can't break up the boat to feed people)
Care for the poor is a positive virtue, but welfare is simply forcing taxpayers to pay, and allows people to indiscriminately collect; it's not particularly moral or immoral, it's kind of amoral in a way (when abused, immoral?)
Thank you for this conversation, I think it is an important one to continue (I may be out for a bit, I could try to further elaborate on different passages if requested. Whether government or corporations or individuals are in charge of doing certain things, I do agree we should care for the poor for sure and would enjoy seeing more discussion of how to meet the needs of those in most need when possible)
voluntary socialism if you want to look at it that was isn't necessarily the issue (taking handouts people want to give privately), welfare is forcible socialism through taxes and government coercion - it's a different thing
a lot of people oscillate in their arguments, like they wouldn't say it's ok a guy assaulted a woman just because she was wearing inappropriate clothing? but here personal responsibility for avoiding unhealthy food is not promoted?
I can see how the jabs at vices of sloth and gluttony might trigger those who struggle with such sins, however I think in the balance he was venting frustrations that are broadly bipartisan about poor wage rates and political leaders who may be failing the average person
I do think it's justified, but it can seem impractical
I don't like innocent people getting that punishment, and I think capital punishment litigation is more costly than just the penalty of life in prison
for those reasons I'm kind of against capital punishment
to that point I don't think prison should necessarily be a place of vigilante justice either (as some people comment that she will either take her own life or another inmate will); we should agree as to what punishments should exist and that's what people should get and they should be protected from deviations from that
Yeah I often see people discussing minimum wages and living wages, this was a different concept I stumbled upon for people to think about, which makes sense for society to consider because if workers have families they're not simply trying to earn a "living wage" (enough for them) but also enough for kids and/or spouse, etc.
family wage: enough to support a whole family by one breadwinner (traditionally thought of as an individual male; even with dual breadwinners you could still have an idea of how much a "family wage" would be that pays for the costs of the whole family)
living wage: enough to support an individual
minimum legal wage: legally allowed minimum to pay per hour (I don't know how common it has been for a minimum wage to be enough to raise a family)
if you try "leftists (or liberals) more likely to be mentally ill" in a search engine you see things like:
American adults who identify as politically liberal have long reported lower levels of happiness and psychological well-being than conservatives, a trend that mental-health experts suspect is at least partly explained by liberals’ tendency to spend more time worrying about stress-inducing topics like racial injustice, income inequality, gun violence, and climate change.
the sun: it was me lol
> a correct understanding of Catholic doctrine allows for change over time
> dogma : a fixed, especially religious, belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts
looks like Francis is wrong, and not a Catholic nor a pope
Could perhaps a charitable interpretation of the song be that there are some people on welfare who could work but choose not to (sloth) and choose to eat excessively when they could choose otherwise (gluttony), and that the musician is complaining about these specific people, and not people who may simply be overweight due to poisoning or unemployed due to bad luck?
yes, feeding those in need is the clear teaching; no, this is not necessarily through welfare and taxation
Again, this isn't Jesus being "pro-taxes" but for prudence: He was saying if people are going to force you to pay taxes, well what are you going to do? If you don't pay that makes you a criminal, so just to pay it to avoid trouble
Ok, and what we're saying is in none of those passages is Jesus saying to force people to hand over money using the government so that people can collect it in welfare; the difference between a nonprofit or giving someone who is homeless on the street $20, versus a government agency fining someone and forcing them to be taxed for whatever purpose the government may see fit
However, that is not to say Christians may not advocate for such a view (for government welfare), I would simply state it is not the "Christian position" that Jesus is positively requiring something like government welfare to exist
superfluous wealth (beyond one's needs) is morally the possession of the poor, in the theological tradition (although not one that is much talked about?) - hence you might advocate for wealthy people to give charitably under pain of present or future punishment by God (unless they feel they should retain such funds for some reason - some may need less than others, and some wealth is capital, like if a person owns a boat they can't break up the boat to feed people)
Care for the poor is a positive virtue, but welfare is simply forcing taxpayers to pay, and allows people to indiscriminately collect; it's not particularly moral or immoral, it's kind of amoral in a way (when abused, immoral?)
Thank you for this conversation, I think it is an important one to continue (I may be out for a bit, I could try to further elaborate on different passages if requested. Whether government or corporations or individuals are in charge of doing certain things, I do agree we should care for the poor for sure and would enjoy seeing more discussion of how to meet the needs of those in most need when possible)
What examples of Jesus are coming to mind for you
voluntary socialism if you want to look at it that was isn't necessarily the issue (taking handouts people want to give privately), welfare is forcible socialism through taxes and government coercion - it's a different thing
a lot of people oscillate in their arguments, like they wouldn't say it's ok a guy assaulted a woman just because she was wearing inappropriate clothing? but here personal responsibility for avoiding unhealthy food is not promoted?
I can see how the jabs at vices of sloth and gluttony might trigger those who struggle with such sins, however I think in the balance he was venting frustrations that are broadly bipartisan about poor wage rates and political leaders who may be failing the average person
> I don't want to work at this company anymore so I quit, I just don't feel like working here anymore
Seems ok for the employee to quit "at will" so why not for the employer?
It's sincere, I don't think people are thinking through what they're asking for
I do think it's justified, but it can seem impractical
I don't like innocent people getting that punishment, and I think capital punishment litigation is more costly than just the penalty of life in prison
for those reasons I'm kind of against capital punishment
to that point I don't think prison should necessarily be a place of vigilante justice either (as some people comment that she will either take her own life or another inmate will); we should agree as to what punishments should exist and that's what people should get and they should be protected from deviations from that
I'm not particularly "vindictive" but these are the kinds of cases where capital punishment / death penalty seem justified
That should be fine though, that's freedom of association, why force people to work together who don't want to do so?
the "valid reason" is you don't like them, why would we want to force people to work together who don't like each other?
Yeah I often see people discussing minimum wages and living wages, this was a different concept I stumbled upon for people to think about, which makes sense for society to consider because if workers have families they're not simply trying to earn a "living wage" (enough for them) but also enough for kids and/or spouse, etc.
family wage: enough to support a whole family by one breadwinner (traditionally thought of as an individual male; even with dual breadwinners you could still have an idea of how much a "family wage" would be that pays for the costs of the whole family)
living wage: enough to support an individual
minimum legal wage: legally allowed minimum to pay per hour (I don't know how common it has been for a minimum wage to be enough to raise a family)
I do think it's good to create a healthy culture that respects workers, but I don't understand why being able to fire an employee is a bad thing
Imagine you're not allowed to fire people you don't like who you think are doing a bad job at work
if you try "leftists (or liberals) more likely to be mentally ill" in a search engine you see things like:
https://magazine.columbia.edu/article/why-depression-rates-are-higher-among-liberals