@Nathaniel No one told the church they can't charity (yeah, it's a verb now). There's rare instances, such as orphanages. Churches aren't allowed to run those anymore.
If the church is less charitable, they have only themselves to blame.
@Nathaniel I'm confused at your reply. In what way do these persons trust their guns more than God?
@curiousdannii A better way for me to have put this would have been to ask at what point does a state become illegitimate and Romans 13 not apply. There's the example of Acts 5:29, but what if the state has ruled that terminally ill people are to be killed.
If I am terminally ill, may I resist, or would resistance be a violation of Romans 13? Acts 5:29 doesn't clearly apply.
@fredsbend To some extent, yes
But what if one my congregation's members has a need and goes to the government instead of to the church for help. Is the church necessarily culpable for lack of charity? If it is not aware, it has lost the chance to show charity
In many cases it may still be culpable for not being sufficiently open about its desire to help. But not in all cases.
@fredsbend It's giving created things more glory than they deserve. A gun is not a magical talisman that wards off evil; it is merely a tool that can do some good if used properly.
And I'd say that rebellion for the sake of rebellion is idolatry as well... Owning a gun simply to be rebellious is a waste and isn't God-centered
I've learned about how Luther's 95 Theses were extremely important to the Protestant Reformation and how they really defined the beginnings of Protestantism. According to History.com's article on "Martin Luther and the 95 Theses", the two main points of the theses were "that the Bible is the cent...
@Nathaniel Is there a reason it's not better from the state? Perhaps the state simply does better at it? Perhaps getting it from the state is viewed as a right (because your taxes cover it, like insurance), rather than charity, a humbling thing to accept. Would you choose a humbling experience over an entitled or indifferent one if they were materially identically?
@Nathaniel How much is too much? Something measurable.
The current response we give to Pastoral questions is the following:
Hello <username> and thank you for your question.
The [mission](https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1380) of our site is to
answer factual questions about Christianity. We are not able to answer
[more personal que...
@Nathaniel Here you're giving the state a power it doesn't have ;) And can't everything you're saying apply equally to the state taking over international security concerns? It's just as invalid to say that trusting the state to provide medical care means you're not trusting God and his people as it would be to say that trusting the state to defend you from foreign armies means you're not trusting God and his people.
@fredsbend True, but anyone who focuses on individual liberties over pragmatic concerns of the public good has been influenced by libertarianism.
@Nathaniel To some extent I'm not so concerned about definitions here. From prototype theory, I think it is legitimate to say that "state" means "something like the prototypical states which are recognised without dispute."
@curiousdannii That's basically the societal contract. "You recognize that societal concerns may outweigh your individual concerns." What's not clear and varies greatly among groups and cultures is how heavily these concerns are weighed. "Pragmatic concerns of the public good" is not really helpful. We'd just have to argue about pragmatic here. Instead, we can discuss exactly what you have in mind, at the risk of becoming grossly off topic?
I assume you have something specific in mind regarding gun control that you believe is perfectly pragmatic.
@fredsbend No, it's a highly complex issue and I don't think the best way forward. Probably gun control and reduction of guns would help though.
One of the big problems the US has isn't that it's a hard problem to solve, but that there is a substantial minority of people with a large political sway who say that attempting to solve the problem is illegitimate if there is even the slightest cost to personal liberties
@LeeWoofenden There's no Biblical support because you didn't draw your argument nor conclusions in any logical manner from Bible verses. Even if you quoted more you would still need to show how your conclusions follow.
@Birdie I already said that article was not intended to provide a biblical basis for the points it makes. And if you wish not to believe it, that's your choice. I won't try to convince you. You'll find out when you get there.
@curiousdannii It doesn't have the power to care for the poor and the elderly?
@curiousdannii We're probably talking past each other again. Libertarians believe that the public good is best served by libertarianism. As opposed to libertines, who just want to have fun.
@curiousdannii I think the Bible gives some guidance on the roles of each, and that modern states go far beyond their realm. For example, 1 Timothy 5:8 doesn't say "the government will take care of your family, don't worry." But the civil magistrate gets capital punishment.
@fredsbend The church is better equipped to address all the true needs of the person, which may be manifesting themselves in material ways. When the state throws band-aids on things by giving welfare to spiritually broken people, it encourages them to stay in that state, whatever it might be.
The classic example of this is that single moms in the US get more welfare than they would if they were married. So it's a much better financial decision to have a live-in boyfriend, or sleep around, than to get married.
@fredsbend It's a heart issue. Someone could have a hundred guns and not make an idol out of them (e.g., gun store owner); another guy could have one or none and make an idol out of them.
@Nathaniel Certainly, this is an issue, but libertarianism need not be realized to remedy it. The government as is could incentivize family more than "not family". But they don't.
@Nathaniel Maybe I'm just a cynical heathen, but it sounds like your true complaint is lost opportunity to fill the pews.
I'm of the opinion that food, water, and shelter are needed more than spirituality. Remember when Elijah ran from Jezebel. He was burned out. He needed rest. Did God give him a sermon or escape and food and water?
I'm of the further opinion that "spiritual crisis" is entirely internal. Your own thoughts subject you to such turmoil. If you are in spiritual crisis, you'll seek out resolution.
Conversely, Christianity teaches that all are in spiritual crisis perpetually.
@fredsbend Yeah, we probably won't get very far towards agreement when we have such different views of the church. I strongly believe that the family and church are better equipped to identify the root causes of problems, and thus more likely to be able to resolve them, than the state and its bureaucrats.
In many cases food, water, and shelter are indeed needed most. And the church can and does provide those things – it's called relief work. But if all you do is relief work (which is primarily what the state does), you create dependence and low self-esteem.
There's a huge body of literature on this problem in church contexts, most of which I haven't read, but one book that helpfully deals with this is When Helping Hurts.
Spiritual problems have outward symptoms. Secular society typically considers those symptoms to be "bad luck" or the result of oppression. Sometimes those are the causes, but usually there's a spiritual issue too/instead.
@fredsbend Yes, the state can make some remedies, and it often does. But the problem is so ubiquitous. Public education incentivizes nationalist, secular education. Social security incentivizes not caring for the elderly. Welfare incentivizes not caring for the poor. The state's incentives are almost always anti-family and anti-church.
@Nathaniel I would say a lot of people view it as charity through the state. We all recognize it's paid via taxes. We all further recognize that these things exist because we voted for people who support them.
It's further charity that's disenfranchised, because people honestly don't know if social security was enough charity for them. They just have an idea that you're already receiving it.
@Nathaniel Can you expand on this? Do you believe prosperity doctrine? That holiness begets blessings and wickedness curses?
@fredsbend I know people use this as a rationalization, but I don't think that anyone actually views taxes as charity. If they did, they would voluntarily overpay their taxes.
@Nathaniel I've read many comments on forums where people say they'd happily pay X more taxes if it meant Y happened, where they may not directly benefit from Y. Universal healthcare is where I see this frequently.
Maybe. The statements I see by rich people in the news are "I don't pay enough in taxes, so they should be raised," not "I don't pay enough in taxes, so I'll give some extra."
@Nathaniel Maybe they do donate to causes. But state programs provide sweeping benefits, not just the few any individual charity can handle. In this light, the state looks more capable.
No one donates to the state treasury, because there's no circumstance where they use it for anything particular. I suspect they'd just send you a refund.
Yes, I won't disagree that an inability to earmark gifts generally dampens giving. It would be interesting if taxpayers were allowed to do that, if only for informational purposes :)
@fredsbend Prosperity doctrine teaches that God promises material blessings in this life to those that follow him. I don't believe that. But I do believe that there is truth to the proverbs that prosperity gospel preachers claim are promises.
Spare the rod, spoil the child. Doesn't happen that way all the time, but the principle is true.
@LeeWoofenden I'll head to your blog for the marriage in the afterlife article, but the questin here ... might it be better asked "other than the Swedenborgians, who does?
I am worried that the scope is still a bit too broad.
The current response we give to Pastoral questions is the following:
Hello <username> and thank you for your question.
The [mission](https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1380) of our site is to
answer factual questions about Christianity. We are not able to answer
[more personal que...
