tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post7303871812540629280..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Victorian revisionismRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-18794556990896250552008-09-23T23:39:00.000-04:002008-09-23T23:39:00.000-04:00James provides the perfect example of someone who ...James provides the perfect example of someone who is clueless about every concept under the sun.<BR/><BR/>It is not required that "we must impose upon the masses the cost of assisting the impoverished" under any Christian scheme, and especially not under the Calvinist scheme. Simple common sense here: Wouldn't it be better to <I>treat the source of the problem?</I><BR/><BR/>That is, because men are sinners and would therefore refuse (except by common grace) to do good, the cure for that is <I>conversion</I>. We therefore <I>evangelize</I>.<BR/><BR/>This also touches a bit on something that Jugulum said, namely:<BR/><BR/>---<BR/>It gets tricky in that Christians ought to be generous.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>True; but the question is what is the best way for Christians to help those in need? Is it to have the government steal money from some and dispose of it as wastefully as possible on a few select poor individuals who happen to vote the correct way? Hardly.<BR/><BR/>Would it not be better to teach a poor man how to get out of his poverty rather than reward him with free money for remaining in it?<BR/><BR/>There is a difference between caring for someone's immediate and pressing need (i.e., someone is about to starve to death and therefore needs food now) and forcing them to become dependent upon you forever. It is generous to rescue someone from immediate danger when you are not obligated to do so; but it is not generous for you to enslave him to your purse.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53172016208623320542008-09-23T22:43:00.000-04:002008-09-23T22:43:00.000-04:00Welfare fits perfectly with the Calvinist ideology...Welfare fits perfectly with the Calvinist ideology. People, being naturally selfish, inconsiderate SOBs, cannot be relied upon to help their fellow man. Therefore, we must impose upon the masses the cost of assisting the impoverished. Otherwise, they would die in the streets, which in at least some cases, would be an injustice. (Now, I'm sure you don't think everyone who suffers financial misfortune is an uneducated, trailer-trash, Jerry Springer-watching, Spam-eating slime, right?)<BR/><BR/>There is no room in Calvinism for the sunny optimism that thinks that if man keeps ALL of his money, he'll naturally give it to 2 or 3 worthy souls who actually deserve assistance.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05387448864812957107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-964883011377216662008-09-23T22:03:00.000-04:002008-09-23T22:03:00.000-04:00Peter,I agree, "generous" was a loaded term.Re: ob...Peter,<BR/><BR/>I agree, "generous" was a loaded term.<BR/><BR/>Re: obligation<BR/>It gets tricky in that Christians <I>ought</I> to be generous. :)Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49565266387054996122008-09-23T17:43:00.000-04:002008-09-23T17:43:00.000-04:00Doesn't your last argument commit the fallacy of d...Doesn't your last argument commit the fallacy of division?Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34491701422362450032008-09-23T17:34:00.000-04:002008-09-23T17:34:00.000-04:00"Church has many obligations, such as spreading th..."Church has many obligations, such as spreading the Gospel throughout the globe"<BR/><BR/>Victor, I'd have to take issue with that line.<BR/><BR/>It should have read "the Church has one obligation, spreading the Gospel throughout the globe."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-60651812754667804592008-09-23T16:00:00.000-04:002008-09-23T16:00:00.000-04:00Add to this, the fact that my parents paid into so...Add to this, the fact that my parents paid into social security throughout their lives, and I do as well. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, I will be more than happy to retract the charge against Christians.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7746808409213311162008-09-23T15:56:00.000-04:002008-09-23T15:56:00.000-04:00I should simply correct my claim, when I said that...I should simply correct my claim, when I said that if Christians were generous enough we could avoid the need for government actions. I can see Steve's point that that implies that we could be generous enough, but are not. Now no doubt Christians, including myself, are less generous than they ought to be. And perhaps there would be less poverty if this were so. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, the Church has many obligations, such as spreading the Gospel throughout the globe, which I think means that the Church probably can't replace Social Security and Medicare. <BR/><BR/>I simply did not have the ability to replace what Social Security and Medicare provided for my parents. <BR/><BR/>Steve, I really do think you have run with a comment of mine, which I agree was not well-formed, and used it as a basis for a lot of attacks directed at me personally. At most I criticized the Christian Church, not some individual person, and I include myself in that criticism.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-35694536125181540112008-09-23T15:42:00.000-04:002008-09-23T15:42:00.000-04:00“Reppert is now attempting to reinterpret his init...“Reppert is now attempting to reinterpret his initial claims in a way that’s demonstrably at odds with his initial claims.”<BR/><BR/>Before leveling a charge like that, wouldn’t it be better to first ask him for clarification?<BR/><BR/>However clear his mental states might appear to you, he probably knows them far better.Jen H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06290048434399027113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-3297164983268867072008-09-23T15:13:00.000-04:002008-09-23T15:13:00.000-04:00Jugulum,That still doesn't get Reppert off the hoo...Jugulum,<BR/><BR/>That still doesn't get Reppert off the hook for the simple reason that "generous" itself is a loaded term. Indeed, your example of "I'm not so generous enough to my church..." doesn't work, because it's ludicrous to speak about lack of generocity when the real problem is lack of net worth in the first place.<BR/><BR/>In other words, generocity has nothing to do with it.<BR/><BR/>BTW, generocity also implies that you had no obligation to do it. Am I generous for paying my bills? I think not. But I am generous if I give to a hurricane relief fund at work.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-11779108693342033572008-09-23T15:07:00.000-04:002008-09-23T15:07:00.000-04:00"I did not say anyone was blameworthy for not help..."<I>I did not say anyone was blameworthy for not helping the poor.</I><BR/><BR/>Of course you did! You said that Christians aren’t generous enough. That’s a negative value-judgment. "<BR/><BR/>Hmm... I'm not with you there. He didn't say that Christians aren't generous enough; he said that Christians aren't "so generous enough so that government action was not necessary."<BR/><BR/>He's claiming that he meant it like this: "Christians are not so generous that..."<BR/><BR/>Similarly, I could say, "I'm not so generous enough to my church so that they can build a new building." That wouldn't be a criticism of me--I have no obligation (or ability) to give that much!<BR/><BR/>But he phrased it awkwardly. "so generous enough so that" doesn't quite make sense, however you read it. If he meant what he claims, he should have said, "not <B>so</B> generous that".<BR/><BR/>Do you not find it credible that he meant it that way? I do.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.com