What is the United States' responsibility to mankind (1 Viewer)

[Guido Merkins]

To give you a little of my story, I have always been a Republican.  I am still pretty much a financial conservative in that I believe we should have a plan fiscally and that regulations should not be overly burdensome on businesses.

However, about 5 years ago, I started studying at Notre Dame Seminary here in New Orleans.  Understanding Scripture and understanding the Church's teachings on social issues really started to give me some issues in terms of what I believed as a social conservative.  For example, if you believe that all life is sacred, it's easy to be against abortion, but you also need to recognize that capital punishment is wrong.  So, yes, criminals, even the worst of them, have an inherent human dignity that cannot be violated by killing them.   

As the worlds richest nation, the United States has a responsibility to try and help lift humanity.  For example, George W Bush, who many would list as a failed President used the influence and riches of the US (along with Dr Fauci) to save millions of lives in Africa from AIDS.  This is an example of a leader using his Christian faith to help others.  IMO, this includes helping people coming to the border who are running from oppressive governments.  We cannot have an open border, but we need to be Christ to those people who do come and do the best we can to determine why they are here and help if we can.

So, what do you think?  Do we do enough?  Can we do more?  Should we do more??  Should we do anything??

 

[supermike80]

Ohhh...Now this is a good thread.  

Man whats a question and a good one.  I think we should try to lead when it comes to the overall health of the world.  And I am referring mostly to being the leader to make sure completely preventable diseases such as malaria, polio, and heck now maybe even covid, are removed from the landscape.   

That's top of my head answer. There is more but I will start with that.  

Oh and not to disparage your religion at all, but I have no religious inclinations, I'd just want this to happen for the betterment of the world.

 

[John123]

To give you a little of my story, I have always been a Republican.  I am still pretty much a financial conservative in that I believe we should have a plan fiscally and that regulations should not be overly burdensome on businesses.

However, about 5 years ago, I started studying at Notre Dame Seminary here in New Orleans.  Understanding Scripture and understanding the Church's teachings on social issues really started to give me some issues in terms of what I believed as a social conservative.  For example, if you believe that all life is sacred, it's easy to be against abortion, but you also need to recognize that capital punishment is wrong.  So, yes, criminals, even the worst of them, have an inherent human dignity that cannot be violated by killing them.   

As the worlds richest nation, the United States has a responsibility to try and help lift humanity.  For example, George W Bush, who many would list as a failed President used the influence and riches of the US (along with Dr Fauci) to save millions of lives in Africa from AIDS.  This is an example of a leader using his Christian faith to help others.  IMO, this includes helping people coming to the border who are running from oppressive governments.  We cannot have an open border, but we need to be Christ to those people who do come and do the best we can to determine why they are here and help if we can.

So, what do you think?  Do we do enough?  Can we do more?  Should we do more??  Should we do anything??

1)  Your abortion/death penalty comparison fails.  Killing an INNOCENT, unborn baby is not the same as killing a depraved murderer.  And, to be clear, I think "depraved murderer" is the standard we should be using when talking about the death penalty.  But, in any case, these two examples are nothing alike and I wish the comparison would stop being made.  That being said, I'm pro choice.

2)  As I noted in the other thread where you posed this question, The US is the most generous nation in the world and does the most good, and it's not even close. 

3)  I believe that we should help other countries better themselves.  I don't believe the answer is to import anyone who wants to come here in to this country.  There's no reason we have to show our compassion by lowering the standard of living in this country. 

 

[Guido Merkins]

And and not to disparage your religion at all, but I have no religious inclinations, I'd just want this to happen for the betterment of the world.

That's fine.....but even this is a Christian concept even though you may not be totally aware of it.
 

The dignity of the human person wasn't really a complete thought until the advent of Christianity.  The Greeks, Romans, and Jews all had some concept of human rights, but it didn't apply to everyone.  It didn't apply to women.  It didn't apply to slaves.  It didn't apply to Gentiles (if you were a Jew).  Christianity spread like wildfire in the Roman Empire because the Apostles, and their followers preached a message that said that in the eyes of God, the slave was the same as the Emperor.  It was a very attractive message.  And though the Church itself and Christians around the world have often fallen short of their own teaching, the concept of human rights and dignity of all people has it's roots in the Gospel and in Christianity....

 

[supermike80]

That's fine.....but even this is a Christian concept even though you may not be totally aware of it.
 

The dignity of the human person wasn't really a complete thought until the advent of Christianity.  The Greeks, Romans, and Jews all had some concept of human rights, but it didn't apply to everyone.  It didn't apply to women.  It didn't apply to slaves.  It didn't apply to Gentiles (if you were a Jew).  Christianity spread like wildfire in the Roman Empire because the Apostles, and their followers preached a message that said that in the eyes of God, the slave was the same as the Emperor.  It was a very attractive message.  And though the Church itself and Christians around the world have often fallen short of their own teaching, the concept of human rights and dignity of all people has it's roots in the Gospel and in Christianity....

Oh its a HUGELY attractive message and definitely a massive reason why it became so popular so quickly.  

 

[Guido Merkins]

1)  Your abortion/death penalty comparison fails.  Killing an INNOCENT, unborn baby is not the same as killing a depraved murderer.  And, to be clear, I think "depraved murderer" is the standard we should be using when talking about the death penalty.  But, in any case, these two examples are nothing alike and I wish the comparison would stop being made.  That being said, I'm pro choice.

2)  As I noted in the other thread where you posed this question, The US is the most generous nation in the world and does the most good, and it's not even close. 

3)  I believe that we should help other countries better themselves.  I don't believe the answer is to import anyone who wants to come here in to this country.  There's no reason we have to show our compassion by lowering the standard of living in this country. 

As far as #1, the comparisons ARE MADE because both are created in the likeness and image of God.  Both lives are sacred.  Society may have decided that the murderer has lost his human dignity, but he has not.  Not according to the teachings of Christ.

#2.  we agree.  Is it enough?  You apparently think it is.  I'm not sure.  And the overall attitude that prevails especially among the Trump folks about how generous we should be is problematic.  I'm specifically thinking about the "America first" crowd.  Yes, we need to take care of ourselves, but we can do both and we should.  Shouldn't be a question

#3. I agree to a certain extent.  we should not have completely open borders.  As far as your comment about "lowering our standards", to me that's a problematic statement.  These are human beings.  They are equal to you.  Human standards of what people are is not what we should base our decisions on.  These decisions should start out with the proposition that these people are equal to us.  Because according to the founders, they are.  And according to the Gospel, where the founders got their opinion on this, they are

 

[dgreen]

1)  Your abortion/death penalty comparison fails.  Killing an INNOCENT, unborn baby is not the same as killing a depraved murderer.  And, to be clear, I think "depraved murderer" is the standard we should be using when talking about the death penalty.  But, in any case, these two examples are nothing alike and I wish the comparison would stop being made.  That being said, I'm pro choice.

2)  As I noted in the other thread where you posed this question, The US is the most generous nation in the world and does the most good, and it's not even close. 

3)  I believe that we should help other countries better themselves.  I don't believe the answer is to import anyone who wants to come here in to this country.  There's no reason we have to show our compassion by lowering the standard of living in this country. 

Just curious, are you coming at this from a Christian faith and Gospel perspective? That was built into the OP, but it's not clear to me whether that's how you're approaching your response.

 

[timschochet]

We are the leader of the free world .

 

[John123]

Just curious, are you coming at this from a Christian faith and Gospel perspective? That was built into the OP, but it's not clear to me whether that's how you're approaching your response.

While the starter of this thread may have come to his stance due to his studies, the title is "What is the United States' responsibility to mankind" and as far as I know he isn't asking people to approach this from a religious standpoint.  He can clarify that if he wants.

For me, no, I'm not coming at this from a religious perspective.  While I was religious at one time in my life, I am currently agnostic.  But I think my beliefs would be the same regardless.

 

[Navin Johnson]

We are the leader of the free world .

In what context?

 

[Guido Merkins]

Just curious, are you coming at this from a Christian faith and Gospel perspective? That was built into the OP, but it's not clear to me whether that's how you're approaching your response.

Well, it colors my opinion on what our responsibility is, but it doesn't have to color yours....

 

[Apple Jack]

In what context?

Firearms and trans fat consumption?

 

[Apple Jack]

Do unto others as you'd have done to you if you were in their shoes.

 

[Navin Johnson]

Firearms and trans fat consumption?

I'd add military spending (duh), incarceration rate (duh again)

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I go to a church where just about every Sunday (at least pre-pandemic) the words "we should at all times and in all places worship, praise, and magnify the glory of your holy name" is stated by the pastor just before communion.  There is kind of a running joke where I preface my beliefs with "well there is a time and place for worship and praise, I think pastor mentions it from time to time, but...".

On the other side of that "but" I like to say that the so called greatest Pharisee of all time was asked to summarize scripture about fifty years or so before the birth of Jesus (this is from one of @timschochet's threads by the way).  His answer was that scripture can be summarized as "Do unto others... and everything else is just commentary."   Now Jesus comes along and answers the question just a bit different with "Love thy neighbor".  I usually get interrupted that there are two parts to the greatest commandment - sure, but I'm pretty sure from the text of the bible that the way that one loves God with all your heart and with all your soul, the way that you worship and praise and magnify the glory is by taking care of his children.  Our neighbors. 

But who are our neighbors?  That is the tricky part.  Sure the Good Samaritan was a good neighbor in this parable, but like it or not those that "looked away" are also our neighbors.  Our neighbors are next door and half a world apart.  They are people we know, people we know of, and those that we will never know at an individual level even exist.  How do we love these?  How do we care for all of these?  We cannot.  That is why we are sinners.

But then how.  Except for the fact that it falls short and is inefficient and whatever we could just let the government do it.  Except for the fact that it falls short and tends to end up localized (even when global) we could leave it to private charity.  Ultimately we cannot just leave it to anything.  We should let and encourage talented individuals do their thing.  We should let and encourage "worker bees" do their thing.  We should let and encourage charities to do their thing.  We should let and encourage government to do its things.  We should be yes for helping our neighbors in any and all ways.

Except that we often get ourselves into situations where helping one neighbor is harming another.  So it is all so simple in concept to just take care of one another it can be so hard at times in practice.  And discouraging.

I also go to a church where the words "we have sinned against you in thoughts, words, and action; by what we have done and by what we have left undone".   When (and if) I ever have to answer for my life I am not really concerned too much by what I have done, but I'm going to struggle justifying some of the things left undone.  The times I conveniently just looked away, or even when I somehow was innocently oblivious to opportunities to be that Good Samaritan.  I think that what is best for me and my happiness and well being is to be strong enough to seize those chances when they present.  (I fail more often than not.)   And I think that all of this is true whether or not God, or any god is real or just a personification or more accurately deification of our inner voices.  

 

[The Commish]

To give you a little of my story, I have always been a Republican.  I am still pretty much a financial conservative in that I believe we should have a plan fiscally and that regulations should not be overly burdensome on businesses.

However, about 5 years ago, I started studying at Notre Dame Seminary here in New Orleans.  Understanding Scripture and understanding the Church's teachings on social issues really started to give me some issues in terms of what I believed as a social conservative.  For example, if you believe that all life is sacred, it's easy to be against abortion, but you also need to recognize that capital punishment is wrong.  So, yes, criminals, even the worst of them, have an inherent human dignity that cannot be violated by killing them.   

As the worlds richest nation, the United States has a responsibility to try and help lift humanity.  For example, George W Bush, who many would list as a failed President used the influence and riches of the US (along with Dr Fauci) to save millions of lives in Africa from AIDS.  This is an example of a leader using his Christian faith to help others.  IMO, this includes helping people coming to the border who are running from oppressive governments.  We cannot have an open border, but we need to be Christ to those people who do come and do the best we can to determine why they are here and help if we can.

So, what do you think?  Do we do enough?  Can we do more?  Should we do more??  Should we do anything??

I think my answer depends on who "we" is to you.  Is it us as individuals or us as a country?

I'm firmly of the opinion that if the individuals did as Jesus instructed, our federal government wouldn't have to.  Individuals have plenty of resources to shine that beacon and support other individuals just fine.  From my view, the problem is selfishness and/or lack of self awareness.  So if "we" here is the individuals, I don't think we do enough.  That's not to say that "we" as individuals are off the hook if your "we" above is the country though.  If it's the country perspective you're after, our representatives are a direct reflection of "we" the people, so it's STILL on us to appoint people who reflect the standard of Christ.  Let's be honest, we are failing miserably on that front.  So if that's not going to happen, then it falls back on us as individuals and it's with that context that I answer your questions as follows:  No, we don't do enough.  Yes, we can EASILY do more.  Yes, we should do more.  Yes we should do as much as we possibly can.

 

[Guido Merkins]

I'd add military spending (duh), incarceration rate (duh again)

Military is another one.  People complain about the minuscule amount of waste in welfare, but we spend 10 times more than the next country on military and nobody bats an eye

Yes, we need to have an advanced and powerful military.  Yes, it has to be far and away the best in the world.  But no, we don't need to spend 10 times more than the next country to accomplish this.  But the military industrial complex is almost a country unto itself and answers to nobody.  And to say what I just said out loud is political suicide because "he doesn't support the troops."  

It's not even a conversation we can have because we are "weakening our military."

 

[Guido Merkins]

I think my answer depends on who "we" is to you.  Is it us as individuals or us as a country?

I'm firmly of the opinion that if the individuals did as Jesus instructed, our federal government wouldn't have to.  Individuals have plenty of resources to shine that beacon and support other individuals just fine.  From my view, the problem is selfishness and/or lack of self awareness.  So if "we" here is the individuals, I don't think we do enough.  That's not to say that "we" as individuals are off the hook if your "we" above is the country though.  If it's the country perspective you're after, our representatives are a direct reflection of "we" the people, so it's STILL on us to appoint people who reflect the standard of Christ.  Let's be honest, we are failing miserably on that front.  So if that's not going to happen, then it falls back on us as individuals and it's with that context that I answer your questions as follows:  No, we don't do enough.  Yes, we can EASILY do more.  Yes, we should do more.  Yes we should do as much as we possibly can.

Ideally, you are correct.  The government would just be a support system for what the individuals are doing.  But of course, that's not the case.  The US is the most generous nation on earth, but it's not nearly enough and it's the same probably 20% of the population that does it.  The other 80% don't or can't....

 

[Guido Merkins]

I go to a church where just about every Sunday (at least pre-pandemic) the words "we should at all times and in all places worship, praise, and magnify the glory of your holy name" is stated by the pastor just before communion.  There is kind of a running joke where I preface my beliefs with "well there is a time and place for worship and praise, I think pastor mentions it from time to time, but...".

On the other side of that "but" I like to say that the so called greatest Pharisee of all time was asked to summarize scripture about fifty years or so before the birth of Jesus (this is from one of @timschochet's threads by the way).  His answer was that scripture can be summarized as "Do unto others... and everything else is just commentary."   Now Jesus comes along and answers the question just a bit different with "Love thy neighbor".  I usually get interrupted that there are two parts to the greatest commandment - sure, but I'm pretty sure from the text of the bible that the way that one loves God with all your heart and with all your soul, the way that you worship and praise and magnify the glory is by taking care of his children.  Our neighbors. 

But who are our neighbors?  That is the tricky part.  Sure the Good Samaritan was a good neighbor in this parable, but like it or not those that "looked away" are also our neighbors.  Our neighbors are next door and half a world apart.  They are people we know, people we know of, and those that we will never know at an individual level even exist.  How do we love these?  How do we care for all of these?  We cannot.  That is why we are sinners.

But then how.  Except for the fact that it falls short and is inefficient and whatever we could just let the government do it.  Except for the fact that it falls short and tends to end up localized (even when global) we could leave it to private charity.  Ultimately we cannot just leave it to anything.  We should let and encourage talented individuals do their thing.  We should let and encourage "worker bees" do their thing.  We should let and encourage charities to do their thing.  We should let and encourage government to do its things.  We should be yes for helping our neighbors in any and all ways.

Except that we often get ourselves into situations where helping one neighbor is harming another.  So it is all so simple in concept to just take care of one another it can be so hard at times in practice.  And discouraging.

I also go to a church where the words "we have sinned against you in thoughts, words, and action; by what we have done and by what we have left undone".   When (and if) I ever have to answer for my life I am not really concerned too much by what I have done, but I'm going to struggle justifying some of the things left undone.  The times I conveniently just looked away, or even when I somehow was innocently oblivious to opportunities to be that Good Samaritan.  I think that what is best for me and my happiness and well being is to be strong enough to seize those chances when they present.  (I fail more often than not.)   And I think that all of this is true whether or not God, or any god is real or just a personification or more accurately deification of our inner voices.  

This is my struggle as well, probably everyone's

 

[John123]

I also want to point out that the OP seems to be focusing on monetary awards and/or immigration.  But the US does the most research and has improved the lives of just about everyone on the planet as a result.  You can't just look at how much money we give to poor people and/or how many people we let in to our country to define what good we are doing for the rest of the world.

 

[dgreen]

Well, it colors my opinion on what our responsibility is, but it doesn't have to color yours....

Agree. It does color mine, but I think it's helpful to know whose opinion it does color. I think I'd approach those discussions differently.

 

[wikkidpissah]

to lead the world in the democratization of souls as thoroughgoingly as all other aspects of life

 

[dgreen]

I think my answer depends on who "we" is to you.  Is it us as individuals or us as a country?

I'm firmly of the opinion that if the individuals did as Jesus instructed, our federal government wouldn't have to.  Individuals have plenty of resources to shine that beacon and support other individuals just fine.  From my view, the problem is selfishness and/or lack of self awareness.  So if "we" here is the individuals, I don't think we do enough.  That's not to say that "we" as individuals are off the hook if your "we" above is the country though.  If it's the country perspective you're after, our representatives are a direct reflection of "we" the people, so it's STILL on us to appoint people who reflect the standard of Christ.  Let's be honest, we are failing miserably on that front.  So if that's not going to happen, then it falls back on us as individuals and it's with that context that I answer your questions as follows:  No, we don't do enough.  Yes, we can EASILY do more.  Yes, we should do more.  Yes we should do as much as we possibly can.

My first reaction in my mind to the OP was: Since we are human, we can always do more. And, we can't do enough. Only God can do enough. But, obviously, we do have a role here. We are called to give.

The widow giving two copper coins is said to have given more than the wealthy giving large sums of money. I think I tend to want to view these things as solving problems. In our view, the gifts from the wealthy probably solved more problems. More mouths were fed, more people clothed, etc . The two copper coins likely did nothing from the perspective of solving a worldly problem. But, an individual did what she thought God wanted her to do and Jesus used that an example to teach his followers. In that sense, the two copper coins had great impact.

 

[BladeRunner]

While the starter of this thread may have come to his stance due to his studies, the title is "What is the United States' responsibility to mankind" and as far as I know he isn't asking people to approach this from a religious standpoint.  He can clarify that if he wants.

For me, no, I'm not coming at this from a religious perspective.  While I was religious at one time in my life, I am currently agnostic.  But I think my beliefs would be the same regardless.

Well, he actually IS clarifying it with Christian teachings (i.e. "image of God", etc...)

 

[The Commish]

Ideally, you are correct.  The government would just be a support system for what the individuals are doing.  But of course, that's not the case.  The US is the most generous nation on earth, but it's not nearly enough and it's the same probably 20% of the population that does it.  The other 80% don't or can't....

I'm not sure that's true at all.  Any (dare I say EVERY?) study I've seen on charitable giving in this country points to the fact that the poorest of this country are the most generous in terms the percentage they give of what they have.  It might not be "every", but it's damn close (and I make this comment solely for the usuals who will latch on to "every" and ignore the rest).

 

[Guido Merkins]

I'm not sure that's true at all.  Any (dare I say EVERY?) study I've seen on charitable giving in this country points to the fact that the poorest of this country are the most generous in terms the percentage they give of what they have.  It might not be "every", but it's damn close (and I make this comment solely for the usuals who will latch on to "every" and ignore the rest).

I haven’t seen any studies so I’ll defer to you on that. My statement was more personal observations in my own little parish. Certainly not a representative sample. 

 

[The Commish]

I haven’t seen any studies so I’ll defer to you on that. My statement was more personal observations in my own little parish. Certainly not a representative sample. 

I might get in trouble for that comment, but the last I had studied this (early 2010s) it was definitely the case.  I guess it could have changed between now and then.  Ultimately you'll find the raw number of dollars donated is higher with the rich, but the larger percentage based on what they have available to give is with the poor.  It wouldn't surprise me at all that the numbers change as the wealth gap increases and it's been increasing at a pretty impressive clip since the middle of the 2010s.

 

[kface]

I'm always of the mind that when you have more than you need that you should share with those that don't have what they need.

 

[The Commish]

I'm always of the mind that when you have more than you need that you should share with those that don't have what they need.

How I was raised...drives my wife crazy sometimes.

 

[Jayrod]

However, about 5 years ago, I started studying at Notre Dame Seminary here in New Orleans.  Understanding Scripture and understanding the Church's teachings on social issues really started to give me some issues in terms of what I believed as a social conservative.  For example, if you believe that all life is sacred, it's easy to be against abortion, but you also need to recognize that capital punishment is wrong.  So, yes, criminals, even the worst of them, have an inherent human dignity that cannot be violated by killing them.  

This seems like a bit of a tangent from the primary topic at hand, but this is theologically quite incorrect.  The death penalty as a form of punishment by the government for criminal behavior is in no way removed or invalidated by anything presented in Christ's teachings and was a consistent teaching in the OT law.  In other words, the Bible does not state that capital punishment is wrong and it is quite the opposite really.

 

[dgreen]

I'm always of the mind that when you have more than you need that you should share with those that don't have what they need.

I've been thinking about this. In general, I think most people agree with this statement. While actions may not necessarily always reflect it, most people certainly nod in agreement. But, the topic here, I think, relates to government spending and I've never really thought about my (mandatory) contribution to the US government as qualifying as me sharing with others. I've never viewed the taxes I pay as being part of my giving.

Additionally, for a long time, I've been thinking about the phrase we Christians commonly say: "It's all God's anyway." Again, this is something I have always nodded in agreement with, but how that impacts what I do is hard to grasp and tough to think about. For those familiar with Dave Ramsey, this is lesson one in his process. His curriculum spends some time at the beginning looking at a few scriptures that say everything is God's and that God rules over everything. And many people, including myself, say, "Yeah, yeah, yeah. I get it. It's all God's. He's sovereign. Now, can we get to the part where I learn how to get out of debt and have more of MY money to spend?" I'm starting to think that any Christian approach to finances and stewardship should spend like 10 weeks on the theology that God's owns it all and then maybe 1 week on everything else, instead of the reverse time allocation.

 

[Guido Merkins]

This seems like a bit of a tangent from the primary topic at hand, but this is theologically quite incorrect.  The death penalty as a form of punishment by the government for criminal behavior is in no way removed or invalidated by anything presented in Christ's teachings and was a consistent teaching in the OT law.  In other words, the Bible does not state that capital punishment is wrong and it is quite the opposite really.

First, the OT states eye for an eye, so that's true.  Jesus came to fulfill the OT so His teachings supersede the teachings of the OT.  Second, IMO, "he who is without sin, caste the first stone" is, to me, a clear condemnation of capital punishment.  Third, the Sermon on the Mount rejects "an eye for an eye"

Also, I am a Catholic and we don't only rely on Scripture.  The teachings of the Church starting with Pope John Paul II state that capital punishment is only permissible in a situation where the public would be in significant danger.  In the modern developed world, this is almost never.

JPII teachings on this subject are not done under Papal Infallibility, so you could certainly argue that he's wrong, but to me, it makes sense that if human life is sacred that only God can take a life for justice sake.  

So in your faith, it might be theologically incorrect, but it's not in mine.......

I'd be quite happy to have that discussion with you......

 

[djmich]

First, the OT states eye for an eye, so that's true.  Jesus came to fulfill the OT so His teachings supersede the teachings of the OT. Second, IMO, "he who is without sin, caste the first stone" is, to me, a clear condemnation of capital punishment.  

Also, I am a Catholic and we don't only rely on Scripture.  The teachings of the Church starting with Pope John Paul II state that capital punishment is only permissible in a situation where the public would be in significant danger.  In the modern developed world, this is almost never.

JPII teachings on this subject are not done under Papal Infallibility, so you could certainly argue that he's wrong, but to me, it makes sense that if human life is sacred that only God can take a life.  

So in your faith, it might be theologically incorrect, but it's not in mine.......

I'd be quite happy to have that discussion with you......

I don't know why you would read the bolded that way or why wouldn't you also read it as a clear condemnation of any punishment?  To me it speaks to understanding, leniency, forgiveness. Particularly for more minor offenses that we are all likely to have erred on at some point.  I think that can apply to a lot of "offenses"...like prostitution for example...but saying that it means its a condemnation of the death penalty for murdering another human seems a stretch of an interpretation and certainly not "clear" given the words aren't used.

 

[quick-hands]

First, the OT states eye for an eye, so that's true.  Jesus came to fulfill the OT so His teachings supersede the teachings of the OT.  Second, IMO, "he who is without sin, caste the first stone" is, to me, a clear condemnation of capital punishment.  

Also, I am a Catholic and we don't only rely on Scripture.  The teachings of the Church starting with Pope John Paul II state that capital punishment is only permissible in a situation where the public would be in significant danger.  In the modern developed world, this is almost never.

JPII teachings on this subject are not done under Papal Infallibility, so you could certainly argue that he's wrong, but to me, it makes sense that if human life is sacred that only God can take a life.  

So in your faith, it might be theologically incorrect, but it's not in mine.......

I'd be quite happy to have that discussion with you......

I was reading this a few weeks back and didnt really have time to post thoughts.   The same day after i read your thoughts on capitol punishment a man broke into a house, stole a sleeping 4 year old boy.   Tortured and killed him.   He was in the process of going back and stealing his twin brother when he was spooked and ran off.

I vote capitol punishment.

 

[Guido Merkins]

I don't know why you would read the bolded that way or why wouldn't you also read it as a clear condemnation of any punishment?  To me it speaks to understanding, leniency, forgiveness. Particularly for more minor offenses that we are all likely to have erred on at some point.  I think that can apply to a lot of "offenses"...like prostitution for example...but saying that it means its a condemnation of the death penalty for murdering another human seems a stretch of an interpretation and certainly not "clear" given the words aren't used.

I'm just sharing what I was taught and that it makes sense to me in prayer that the teaching is correct.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church was edited in 2018 to be in line with the teachings of the Popes since Vatican II and the USCCB's teachings on capital punishment.  The two Scriptures most sited are the Sermon on the Mount and "he who is without sin, caste the first stone."

You can certainly interpret those readings in another way.  I'm not saying my way is the only one that is correct.  I'm simply stating that my faith teaches this and it makes sense to me in my heart and in my brain.....

Make of that what you will....

 

[Guido Merkins]

I was reading this a few weeks back and didnt really have time to post thoughts.   The same day after i read your thoughts on capitol punishment a man broke into a house, stole a sleeping 4 year old boy.   Tortured and killed him.   He was in the process of going back and stealing his twin brother when he was spooked and ran off.

I vote capitol punishment.

The majority of Protestants and Catholics agree with you.  So yeah, that's a common opinion.  I am certainly in the minority among the people, but my view agrees with the vast majority of the teachings of the major Christian churches.....

 

[JAA]

but we need to be Christ to those people

I kinda got lost in this statement

thanks

 

[djmich]

I'm just sharing what I was taught and that it makes sense to me in prayer that the teaching is correct.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church was edited in 2018 to be in line with the teachings of the Popes since Vatican II and the USCCB's teachings on capital punishment.  The two Scriptures most sited are the Sermon on the Mount and "he who is without sin, caste the first stone."

You can certainly interpret those readings in another way.  I'm not saying my way is the only one that is correct.  I'm simply stating that my faith teaches this and it makes sense to me in my heart and in my brain.....

Make of that what you will....

  All good, respect your interpretation.  Apologies if I came of negatively, when folks are interpreting things and one person says the interpretation is "clear" it would seem to be dismissive of other interpretations.  Understand where you are coming from better, thanks.  

 

[Guido Merkins]

  All good, respect your interpretation.  Apologies if I came of negatively, when folks are interpreting things and one person says the interpretation is "clear" it would seem to be dismissive of other interpretations.  Understand where you are coming from better, thanks.  

Absolutely no problem.  I enjoy having these conversations and I think the ability to have them and to be understanding, even if we disagree, is in an of itself Christ-like.

 

[dgreen]

Also, I am a Catholic and we don't only rely on Scripture. 

I'm curious what you mean here. Do you mean that you don't only rely on your knowledge of Scripture but also lean on others (like JPII) who are more learned and have dug deeper into Scripture? Or do you mean that you also rely on opinions that were not developed based on Scripture? Or something else?

 

[Zow]

I'm curious what you mean here. Do you mean that you don't only rely on your knowledge of Scripture but also lean on others (like JPII) who are more learned and have dug deeper into Scripture? Or do you mean that you also rely on opinions that were not developed based on Scripture? Or something else?

Not speaking for him - and I haven't studied this particular dogma in years - but there is something called the catholic catechism that is sort of like the Catholic Church's official interpretation of the Bible.  IIRC the dogma is that this interpretation is done by the Pope with the direct guidance from God and is therefore infallible despite it coming from a man. 

 

[Guido Merkins]

Not speaking for him - and I haven't studied this particular dogma in years - but there is something called the catholic catechism that is sort of like the Catholic Church's official interpretation of the Bible.  IIRC the dogma is that this interpretation is done by the Pope with the direct guidance from God and is therefore infallible despite it coming from a man. 

Mostly correct.....one of the most misunderstood things about the Church is Papal infallibility.  It's VERY RARE, but people think Catholics think everything that comes from the Pope is infallible.  That's not true.  In this case, JPII didn't invoke infallibility.  There are specific rules and only on specific topics can a Pope declare infallibility.  It hasn't been used in 150 years, since I believe the Immaculate Conception.

The teachings on capital punishment started changing with Vatican II.  JPII, confirmed by the conference of bishops evolved the teaching on capital punishment in light of the fact that capital punishment as a means to protect society in the developed countries is no longer necessary.  Criminals who are locked up for life, can't escape.  Killing them is unnecessary.  

The Catechism is a summary of the beliefs of Catholics.  Those beliefs are arrived at by prayerfully discerning Sacred Scripture, liturgical documents, along with Church Tradition which we believe has been passed down, uninterrupted, from the Apostles themselves and has been itself guided by the Holy Spirit.  Once again, most of the teachings in the Catechism are doctrines, not dogmas.  Dogmas are things that all Catholics must believe.  For example, the Church teaches that God is a Trinity, 3 persons in one God.  We believe this has been passed down to us from Jesus to the Apostles down to us.  This belief is essential, and therefore, infallible for Catholics.  The teachings on capital punishment are doctrines and not considered infallible so some new information could come about that could change that doctrine.  

Hope this helps...bottom line, not everything the Pope says is infallible.  Common misconception.... 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

This seems like a bit of a tangent from the primary topic at hand, but this is theologically quite incorrect.  The death penalty as a form of punishment by the government for criminal behavior is in no way removed or invalidated by anything presented in Christ's teachings and was a consistent teaching in the OT law.  In other words, the Bible does not state that capital punishment is wrong and it is quite the opposite really.

I guess it depends on what you think God's purpose for the Old Testament laws were and whether or not they were the law for all times and all places or more of a reporting of the struggles of God's people to form a just society in a world that, at least from their perspective was hardly just.  In many ways they set up their society differently than what we might in 2021.  Was that because that was the only right way to be "good" with God, or was it just the best result at the time that their struggles got them?   

I tend to look at the bible as being written for the same audience (God's children) but at different levels of growing up.  The Old Testament is for the younger set where everything needs to be spelled out.  And the young ones turn guidance for specific situation into rules, just like children do.  Thus there are lots of laws some make sense, some make sense in a specific time and place, and some have lost so much context, so much understanding of the time and place that they simply make no sense at all (and some are just out right wrong - at least without that context!)

The New Testament is for when God's children have grown up a bit that now laws are really boiled down to just one (with a corollary).  We are to love God with all of our hearts and that is to be accomplished by loving our neighbors - taking care of his children.  Thus all of those laws of the Old Testament are put into a simple framework as to whether or not they are laws for a specific people in a specific place, or for everyone.   That would include when imposing the death penalty would be considered a necessary evil for society to protect itself, and when the death penalty is just plain evil.   Does the "death penalty" take care of God's children?  Does it serve any purpose that fits into this framework?

This is where reasonable people can disagree.  That being said almost none of the arguments such as being a deterrent either for the person executed or other potential criminals seem to hold much water when looking at the evidence.  To me it seems that the death penalty is largely about gaining a sense of being in control of the world, that there are things that we will just say no to happening in the most forceful way.  I'm not sure if this type of "tough love' qualifies.  I think for the OP it clearly does not.  I think for many it does.  I think intellectually it of course does not, but there is no doubt a certain "guilty pleasure" to be had when some of those people that have committed such terrible things are no longer around.

My pastor likes to throw out from time to time that "we all like to think of ourselves as rational beings that also have emotions when instead we are emotional beings that sometimes like to think".   So if we are in God's image does that mean that the rational side needs to give more weight to the emotional side then it would otherwise     ?  The rational side says there is no real justification for the death penalty, even in the bible in 2021 America.  The emotional side says not so fast...

 

[E Street Brat]

To give you a little of my story, I have always been a Republican.  I am still pretty much a financial conservative in that I believe we should have a plan fiscally and that regulations should not be overly burdensome on businesses.

However, about 5 years ago, I started studying at Notre Dame Seminary here in New Orleans.  Understanding Scripture and understanding the Church's teachings on social issues really started to give me some issues in terms of what I believed as a social conservative.  For example, if you believe that all life is sacred, it's easy to be against abortion, but you also need to recognize that capital punishment is wrong.  So, yes, criminals, even the worst of them, have an inherent human dignity that cannot be violated by killing them.   

As the worlds richest nation, the United States has a responsibility to try and help lift humanity.  For example, George W Bush, who many would list as a failed President used the influence and riches of the US (along with Dr Fauci) to save millions of lives in Africa from AIDS.  This is an example of a leader using his Christian faith to help others.  IMO, this includes helping people coming to the border who are running from oppressive governments.  We cannot have an open border, but we need to be Christ to those people who do come and do the best we can to determine why they are here and help if we can.

So, what do you think?  Do we do enough?  Can we do more?  Should we do more??  Should we do anything??

This really needs to stop.  The country is 28 trillion dollars in debt, 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

This really needs to stop.  The country is 28 trillion dollars in debt, 

 His post didn't mention anything about the tax cuts that have run up the debt. But yes that needs to stop so that we can continue to invest into our own future directly and indirectly.  Butter is always much more effective than guns in securing our future.  Kind of like how bread and wine (and literacy rates) lead to one of the world's most successful and shocking revolutions despite many (though probably greatly exaggerated) of the revolutionaries receiving death sentences.

 

[GordonGekko]

As the worlds richest nation, the United States has a responsibility to try and help lift humanity.......

So, what do you think?  Do we do enough?  Can we do more?  Should we do more??  Should we do anything??

......#2.  we agree.  Is it enough?  You apparently think it is.  I'm not sure.  And the overall attitude that prevails especially among the Trump folks about how generous we should be is problematic.  I'm specifically thinking about the "America first" crowd.  Yes, we need to take care of ourselves, but we can do both and we should.  Shouldn't be a question

VIDEO: How Do You Help Someone Who's Lost? | Jordan Peterson Life Advice •Sep 25, 2019

Dr. Peterson responds to a difficult question posed by an audience member during his lecture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_I6n1tE4JE

VIDEO: Rule 6: Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world •Sep 8, 2018

Excerpt from Jordan Peterson's presentation to the London How To Academy, January, 2018 of his book "12 Rules for Life".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpxLWF65jIM

VIDEO: What does collaborative empiricism mean? •Sep 6, 2010

Cognitive Behavioural Therapist John Anderson explains what the term "Collaborative Empiricism" means.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6gxdJKfctI

******

It's your free speech, but you are asking what people think and to share their viewpoints then almost immediately you are telling them what they should be doing and how they should be thinking (i.e. more like you to fulfill your vision of how things should be)

The best way I've seen in real life to get people to see your vision and follow it is one of several variations of collaborative empiricism, which is a subset of behavioral psychology. Your methodology in this thread isn't going to help you meet the end goal you state. As you've invoked religion, your methodology lines up more in tune with several instances in the Bible where Jesus interacted with the Pharisees. ( i.e. a pathway to virtue signaling and dogmatic legalism. Thus in this case, you are the Pharisee )  It has the net effect of hammering spirituality like one is tenderizing a bad cut of meat with a club. I don't believe in God but I've spent a good amount of time reading the Bible ( as well as masses of other books that relate to human behavior) 

Human beings and their actions, but more critically "their reactions", are a sum of a pattern of ingrained behaviors. Some root from biological imperative. Many others root from life experience, mostly in their formative years. Much of it lies, and this is uncomfortable for many to hear because it lights personal agency on fire, within our limited understanding of our genetic makeup.

If you want to do more, to help "everyone" do more to your vision, exploring behavioral psychology will help you.

To answer your question more specifically, I'll line up with Jordan Peterson here and say America has to solve its own problems first. Then it can seek to help the rest of the world. i.e. "Don't see the splinter in someone else's eye, but see the plank in your own eye first" I still believe food distribution to other nations in need should always be a priority if America can feed itself first. There is no benefit to watching the world starve. A hungry belly won't help win  hearts and minds and give a pathway for people see the world through your eyes. But every other type of aid, military and financial, should be cut off completely until America fixes itself first. As Jordan Peterson says, no matter what criticism comes, this is not cruelty but a form of wisdom with an unfortunately ugly cost to it.

You can ignore me or denounce me, your choice, but then you won't learn anything. And the Bible prescribes you to humility. And if that doesn't work, Stephen Covey prescribes you to humility for your own self interest - "Seek first to understand, then be understood" 

I could have taken it a bit easier on you here. But you made the mistake of categorizing Conservatives/Republicans into one monolithic group with  "their overall attitude" and apparently bearing zero personal agency. Doing this makes them easier to dehumanize, persecute and hunt.  If you want to talk about the needs of the rest of the world, there are places in the rest of the world who label people like this. They are usually authoritarian regimes that are looking to rationalize ethnic cleansing.

Nothing is more terrifying in this life than a zealot who is unskilled but has convinced themselves otherwise.

Should we do more?  You can't change the world, you can only change yourself. Start there. And when you've changed yourself into the best version of yourself, an authentic realization of you, then you can present yourself as a example so that the world around you can one day emulate you and choose to change itself. Not to your vision, but simply to a kind of raw faith you tragically don't seem to currently possess.

 

[E Street Brat]

 His post didn't mention anything about the tax cuts that have run up the debt. But yes that needs to stop so that we can continue to invest into our own future directly and indirectly.  Butter is always much more effective than guns in securing our future.  Kind of like how bread and wine (and literacy rates) lead to one of the world's most successful and shocking revolutions despite many (though probably greatly exaggerated) of the revolutionaries receiving death sentences.

I was only talking about "The worlds richest nation" quote.  This gets tossed around like pennies on a Best Buy floor, and is complete BS.

We have no money. Period. 

We have intrest interest payments we pay on more borrowed cash

The only thing that saves us is our military is strong enough to hold the creditors at Bay

 

[tonydead]

$0.00

We aren't being compensated fairly for what we already do.

 

[The Commish]

I was only talking about "The worlds richest nation" quote.  This gets tossed around like pennies on a Best Buy floor, and is complete BS.

We have no money. Period. 

We have intrest interest payments we pay on more borrowed cash

The only thing that saves us is our military is strong enough to hold the creditors at Bay

You're aware that roughly $7T of our debt isn't held by people/governments/banks.businesses in this country right?

 

[E Street Brat]

You're aware that roughly $7T of our debt isn't held by people/governments/banks.businesses in this country right?

I'm aware that The Fed has been buying T bills,  If that is what your getting at,