Essay- christian beliefs about responsibility!

[spirit]

(is this the right place to post this, the religion section has been closed down...?)

i have an R.S essay to do and i need your help. i am not a Christian, so these are not my beliefs, but there are so many christians here, and i was wondering if you could help me!

[spirit]

Explain what Christians believe about their responsibility for other people.

The word responsible in the dictionary means legally and morally responsible for one’s actions or another’s actions. Christians believe that it is their responsibility to help each other through life, and it is easier to face what life has to bring with someone rather than facing it all alone.
In the passage in Luke, 7:1-10 ‘The Roman Centurion’ in which the Centurion’s servant was ill, he asked Jesus to heal that slave. This showed that Centurion care for the slave even though he was a Jew and wanted him to recover from his illness.
Christians believe that they should try to help other people whether they are Christians or Jews. In the passage about ‘The Good Samaritan’, from Luke 10:25-37, the Samaritan’ helped the injured man who was lying on the road. The other two by passers, the Priest and the Levite. Jesus is showing Christians that they should treat everyone the same no matter what class, colour or race or sex they are, you should help someone when they need it, and he is also teaching Christians that they should take responsibility for other even if you don’t know them, like them or are completely different from them. Paying a little extra for the good or buying different goods for the sake of fair trade means that you can help people to survive in less developed countries where they are poor. Helping people in need is the duty of Christians and just like the Good Samaritan we should help those in need.
Christians need to be responsible for people that are outcasts, such as the disabled elderly and sick are also part of this world and they may think of us as being the outcasts and not them. Every one must have someone else to look down on to make then feel better.
Jesus felt responsible for everyone and healed many people that were considered as outcasts at his time; like ‘Blind Bartimaeus’ and the ‘Syro-Phonician Woman’s daughter’ and many others. He did not judge them and he would heal them regardless of the sin that they had committed in the past. Christians have learned form Jesus’ actions and his teachings that you should not judge other people as it is God’s duty to do that, not theirs! Christians believe that they should do whatever they can to help others and therefore they feel responsible for their actions and others’ actions.

[Lantarion]

Wow great essay; you almost had me convinced (me not being a Christian either)! ;)
But I'm not quite sure I agree with the end statement, "Christians believe that they should do whatever they can to help others and therefore they feel responsible for their actions and others’ actions."
That's an enormous responsibility to take, and can be more condescending or destructive than helpful if not looked at completely objectively by the Christian (i.e. taking all the factors into account).
It would be interesting to hear a Christian's view on the matter. :D Not that all Christians think the same way, obviously, but just to get some perspective.

Oh and I think it's a swell idea (for the moment anyway) for you to post any essays you have here: it is a form of writing after all! :)

[Eriol]

Ok, here comes the Christian :D.

Christianity in action is full of apparent paradoxes; as is life itself. I recommend G.K. Chesterton on that aspect of it; great books. And it is important to note the "in action" over there. Christianity is not a philosophy. It is not a collection of teachings. It is action. It is deeds.

Responsibility and free will are two sides of the same coin. The Christian embraces free will wholeheartedly, and therefore accepts responsibility over his acts. It is only free will which can recognize "a duty". A duty is, indeed, something that you MUST do; even though the possibility of not doing it is open to you. You can only believe that you MUST do it, then, if you are free to choose between the two alternatives.

That said, it is important to realize that the Christian (as I see it ;) ) does not "feel responsible for others' action". The "other" -- the neighbor -- is a fellow human being, one of God's masterpieces, and it is our DUTY to love him. But that does not make us responsible for his actions. We can love someone without having to be responsible for his actions. And free will tells us that each of us is responsible for his own actions. That is God's gift.

This sounds as greatly demanding; and it is. But the great demand is balanced by the great hope and the great assurance of God's love. We will fail in our duty of love; we can't succeed without God's help. But we are assured of God's help; so we will succeed.

Apparent paradoxes ;).

I liked your essay, spirit; it is very accurate in my opinion. The only sentence that draws my attention is the one picked out by Lantarion, about Christians feeling responsible for the actions of others.

Well done :).

[Thorin]

I agree with the above comments concerning that one line.

However, the Christian mandate goes even further. The parable of the good Samaritan is not just for whom we'd consider outcasts and undesirables (i.e. the prostitute, the leper, the politician :eek: (oops, did I say that out loud?)), but those whom we consider our enemies. The Samaritans and Jews were bitter rivals and the Jews considered them very low to themselves. Christ was showing that love knows no boundaries. The concept of 'thy brother' was extended to the whole human race. Hence, Christ's phrase, 'He who says he loves me but hates his brother is a liar and the truth is not in him', encompasses good or bad, friend or foe. That is a tough thing for many prejudiced Christians. Our responsibility is to love one another regardless of what he/she has done. That is somewhat easy to do when we are removed from the situation. It gets harder to do when wrong is done to us.

This was radical thinking but Christ didn't just say it, he proved it. The irony was that he suffered pain and torture under false and unfair pretences from the very beings he created (specially created, Eriol ;) ) when he had every right to strike them down. And yet he suffered as an example of how we should suffer when faced with unfair treatment. He even said, 'Father forgive them for they know what they do'. If anyone had the right to strike back and take vengeance it was Christ and yet he did not.

The real definition of a Christian's responsibility is to look at the example of the life Christ and emulate it.

[celebdraug]

im not a christian!!

but it had me convinced! is this for skewl? lol!

i have something similar for my coursework!

but there are a few sp mistakes you might want to check and you sort of need a better and stronger conclusion paragraph!

apart from that its all good! :):)

[HLGStrider]

Anyway, content aside, I'd say shorter paragraphs.

Your first two are about the length I'd do the rest in. Shorter paragraphs are easier to read and seem less rambling.

Jesus is showing Christians that they should treat everyone the same no matter what class, colour or race or sex they are, you should help someone when they need it, and he is also teaching Christians that they should take responsibility for other even if you don’t know them, like them or are completely different from them.

This sentence is three sentences. It'll get you marked down if the teacher is strict. If the teacher isn't, you'll get away with it.

I'd add a period
"
Jesus is showing Christians that they should treat everyone the same no matter what class, colour or race or sex they are. You should help someone when they need it, and he is also teaching Christians that they should take responsibility for other even if you don’t know them, like them or are completely different from them.
"

[Shaky_the_Mohel]

This is a profile in today's Melbourne Age of Australian Attorney-General and former Immigration Minister Phillip Ruddock (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/22/1069027346572.html).

I just thought I'd share with you his understanding of "Christian responsibility" towards asylum seekers.

[HLGStrider]

Not knowing much about Austrailian immigration policies, I'm not really fit to comment, but from what you hear in the news there, it sounds like you have a mess. . .and that is a confusingly written article. It bounces back between the guy's politics, his family life, his background, and his faith. You think they would stick to one topic or at least divide the various topics into subheadings. . .and an incredibly biased article in the ending. They don't make any bones about disagreeing with the guy.

Is this journalistic or editorial?



Mixing religious philosophies and political philosophies is dangerous because of power and unintended consequences. . .like that governor who said he needed to raise taxes because he was a Christian and helping the poor in a Christian duty.

A Christian duty with his own money, yes, not with other peoples.

It also implies to private cases, where you have to balance Christian duty with one group with Christian duty with another.

For instance, the Smart family (Elizabeth Smart) took a lot of gaff for their daughter's abduction because the abductor had been a homeless man they'd just picked off the street to help. Christianity says help him. . .but does it say to put your little girl in danger to do so?

Christianity says help the refuges. . .but if you are putting others in danger to do so, you shouldn't.

Not knowing if he would be or not, I can't comment.

[Shaky_the_Mohel]

Not knowing much about Austrailian immigration policies, I'm not really fit to comment, but from what you hear in the news there, it sounds like you have a mess. . .

With regard to "illegal" immigration, the Australian government takes anybody who arrives on Australia's shores by boat, traumatised by their experiences in whatever war-torn, disease-ridden, impoverished part of the world they hail from, fleeing religious and political persecution under the regimes of the very same dictators we in the West like to call "evil"--the Australian government takes these "boat people" and re-traumatises them by locking them up for three or four years in desert camps. That includes families with children.

The government does not do likewise for middle-class people who enter the country on aeroplanes and overstay their visas. Nope--no mandatory detention for them.

They don't make any bones about disagreeing with the guy.

I agree. But if this kind of profile were to appear in one of Rupert Murdoch's papers (he's the guy that owns FOX NEWS), they would make Ruddock look like Mother Teresa. That, alas, is the nature of the media in the 21st century. It is up to each of us to attend to what is presented to us as "the truth" with a critical eye.

Mixing religious philosophies and political philosophies is dangerous because of power and unintended consequences. . .like that governor who said he needed to raise taxes because he was a Christian and helping the poor in a Christian duty. A Christian duty with his own money, yes, not with other peoples.

Surely the measure--or one of the measures of a Christian or ethical society is how it treats its poorest members. Ergo, if voters don't want public funds directed towards programmes that assist the poor, they can vote for a different administration--and this will be a reflection upon the values of those voters.

For instance, the Smart family (Elizabeth Smart) took a lot of gaff for their daughter's abduction because the abductor had been a homeless man they'd just picked off the street to help. Christianity says help him. . .but does it say to put your little girl in danger to do so?

What is the connection between this man's criminality and his homelessness? Or to put this another way, why, because of thisindividual's actions, should we tar all homeless people with the same brush--by seeing them as potential kidnappers? If the kidnapper wore a smart suit and worked on Wall Street--would we all begin to think twice about leaving our children in the vicinity of stockbrokers? (Wait--bad example)

Christianity says help the refuges. . .but if you are putting others in danger to do so, you shouldn't.

In order to garner public support for their policies towards asylum seekers, the Australian government pushes the "potential terrorist" line pretty strongly. The problem is, no asylum seeker or refugee has ever been found to be a terrorist; on the other hand, the government recently deported to France a terrorist suspect who entered the country legally, by plane (as it turns out). No-one has suggested closing down the nation's airports as a consequence.

[HLGStrider]

In debating this with you, I'm at a disadvantage. I know very little, as stated before, about your policies, and I am willing to give the politician the benefit of the doubt that he knows something I don't. Therefore, I am willing to look at him more mercifully than someone perhaps with a more complete view of the situation. I also sympathize because I know what a mess America has on their hands as far as immigration goes, but ours is a mess we dont' seem to want to do anything about. We pretty much just let illegals stay in for as long as they want.

Surely the measure--or one of the measures of a Christian or ethical society is how it treats its poorest members.

For a society, yes. For a government, no. I believe in a VERY limited government. I almost registered Libertarian but was turned off by the fact they're pro-choice and I'm pro-life to the bone.

Ergo, if voters don't want public funds directed towards programmes that assist the poor, they can vote for a different administration--and this will be a reflection upon the values of those voters.

Not really a very good reflection. I'd vote against any form of welfare, I think, and I consider myself a very charitable person. I don't want public funds directed anywhere they don't absolutely need to be. I want private funds directed everywhere. The problem was this governor was using this as an excuse to pass it over the voice of the people. They'd already voted down the tax cut and he said, "Well, I want it so I'm going to just sign it anyway."

What is the connection between this man's criminality and his homelessness? Or to put this another way, why, because of thisindividual's actions, should we tar all homeless people with the same brush--by seeing them as potential kidnappers?

I don't tar them all. It is a general bad idea to have ANY strange man just come into your home without referances. The homelessness of the man wasn't the point. It was a risk.

The problem is, no asylum seeker or refugee has ever been found to be a terrorist; on the other hand, the government recently deported to France a terrorist suspect who entered the country legally, by plane (as it turns out). No-one has suggested closing down the nation's airports as a consequence.

Unfortunately, this wasn't the case in America. Most terror suspects turned out to be in the country illegally. . .besides, entering the country illegally is by definition illegal, duh, so it is breaking a law. . .so if the law is silly change the law. Until then enforce it.

[Shaky_the_Mohel]

Not really a very good reflection. I'd vote against any form of welfare, I think, and I consider myself a very charitable person. I don't want public funds directed anywhere they don't absolutely need to be. I want private funds directed everywhere.

I understand that the U.S. has a tradition of philanthropy--Australia doesn't--but I sincerely doubt that, in an era which puts profits before people and in which the (economic) bottom line is god, we can trust the private sector to look after the interests of the poor. I don't want to live in a Dickensian society.

Most terror suspects turned out to be in the country illegally. . .besides, entering the country illegally is by definition illegal, duh, so it is breaking a law. . .so if the law is silly change the law. Until then enforce it.

But it isn't illegal to come to a country like Australia--which is a signatory to the Refugee Convention--and claim asylum. "Illegal" thus becomes a convenient political buzzword (like "queue-jumper") which the government uses to demonise and de-humanise asylum seekers in the eyes of the electorate and so gain political mileage. And I don't just feel that the law in this regard is "silly"--I think "evil" and "barbaric" are more appropriate--a law designed to bring out the worst in Australians--xenophobia, racism, insularity, mean-spiritedness, fear--purely to secure victory at the next election. Unjust laws such as this deserve to be challenged.

[HLGStrider]

I understand that the U.S. has a tradition of philanthropy--Australia doesn't--but I sincerely doubt that, in an era which puts profits before people and in which the (economic) bottom line is god, we can trust the private sector to look after the interests of the poor. I don't want to live in a Dickensian society.

Well, historically, welfare doesn't help the poor. I could start digging up statistics.

Has there ever been an era that does not put profits before people? I think this one is about the same as any other. You will always have greedy business men and philanthropists.

The private sector does it much better. Also, when companies profit everyone's pockets get lined. Wealth increases wealth, etc. It's simple economics. Most welfare plans ignore economics, so they make things, generally, worse.

But it isn't illegal to come to a country like Australia--which is a signatory to the Refugee Convention--and claim asylum.

As I said I don't know much about your laws. All I know about this situation is one, admittedly and openly, rather biased poorly written article, and your opinion. I can't really make a judgement call on that. If we were to discuss the American situation, I'd be somewhat better equiped though it is not a subject I tend to follow as closely as others that interest me more.

[Thorin]

How in the world did we go from Christian responsibility to political refugee status?? Oy! How people can get off track!

Get it back on track and open another thread like "Refugees: Keep em or Send em?" Or something like that.

[Lantarion]

Ack you beat me to it Thorin! :D
Hm hoom, what he said. :rolleyes:

[HLGStrider]

Elgee mumbles that it wasn't her fault and sinks back down to think great, Libertarian type political thoughts. . .

Though I personally don't think I'd be capable of arguing the subject in depth or even in shallow for more than a few posts. . .

So. . .

Is there anything left to say on the original subject?