Forum Post: Why should conservatives/Christians help the homeless/poor/otherwise downtrodden?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 11, 2011, 10:30 p.m. EST by LongLostAndLooking
(74)
from Portland, OR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Because they claim to believe in the Bible. Whenever they talk about cutting services or otherwise refusing to help, remind them of this:
Matthew 25:
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
You will note that charity is not done at the point of a gun.
Oh really?
Matthew 25:46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Being threatened with burning in hell for all of eternity isn't "the point of a gun"? Seriously?
No it isn't ! It's just where you wind up.
All charitable action is performed by Christians?
They can't claim they're voting for the most "Christian" candidate when their policies are anything but.
Perry Leads Prayer Rally for ‘Nation in Crisis’ - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/us/politics/07prayer.html
You want to know why the nation is in "crisis"? Matthew 25:41-46.
Kansas LEGALIZES Domestic Violence to Save Money on Prosecutions - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/11/domestic-violence-law-topeka-kansas_n_1006203.html
Matthew 25:41-46
Go ahead and cut funding for schools AGAIN, but remember Matthew 25:41-46.
Go ahead and cut food stamps AGAIN, but remember Matthew 25:41-46.
Go ahead and cut funding for the poor AGAIN, but remember Matthew 25:41-46.
Go ahead an execute another potentially innocent man AGAIN, but remember Matthew 25:41-46.
Go ahead and cut Social Security for the elderly and disabled AGAIN, but remember Matthew 25:41-46.
Go ahead and cut funding for veterans AGAIN, but remember Matthew 25:41-46.
I'm sick of people using the "God" card like it's a bullet statement on their freaking resume for political offices, especially when they clearly don't believe in it.
They want to make Christianity an issue? They want to claim this is a "Christian nation"? Fine. Let's make it an issue.
It's time we started talking about what we really believe.
I don't recall the Lord telling people "Go form a government and then use the weapons of your soldiers and police to take the money from others in order to attempt to do good with it."
I do recall him telling people to act personally charitable but I've never seen a call by him to use force to make others act "good".
Regardless of putting your religious spin on things, the fact is that our LAW is not directly related to RELIGION nor your moral stance on a subject. Our LAW is directly related to abiding within the Constitutional limits that is placed on both State Governments and our Federal government....Well, its supposed to be anyway.
So now you are for separation of Church and State? Jesus, talk about picking and choosing what suits you.
Damn douche, at what point did I say anything about Church and States in the terms you are putting forth? Are you really that ignorant that you can't read a comment for what it says? I was making a factual statement about the workings of religion and Law. They are not dependent on each other. One is about morality and the other is about legality.
That's like me saying, "How describes mechanics, while Why describes reasoning." Then you saying something like, "So now you for the separation of how and why? What side of the fence are you playing?" Idiot. Get an education.
I'm an atheist, but I can back this. I do find it bewildering how many Christians can walk their eyes straight past everything Jesus said about social justice to focus on a handful of verses about sex and marriage.
Same here. And it is a bit bewildering. Here in Pocatello Idaho we have a local Occupy where we march, meet etc. And after nearly 3 weeks we have not had one minister attend....but we have a Christian church on every other block. Our group is very mixed in age and socio economic status yet the clergy seem to be hiding. I would think this would be an opportunity to actually practice what they preach...mostly they like to build churches.
What about natural selection, homie? Or that shouldn't apply to people?
Only the fanatics are true believers. The rest pretend to be religious. Only when it suits them.
I'm right there with you, pinardilla ! Christianity has mostly betrayed Jesus for almost 2000 years. The more I love Jesus, the less I can stand that grotesque caricature of his teachings which falsely calls itself Christianity.
inorite, liberals are all about ethics and then they just go and kill all those babies in abortion clinics
Oppose abortion but support the death penalty? Either you support killing or not. Pick one.
Hopefully, it's the latter because:
Matthew 5:20-22
20For I say unto you that unless your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
21"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old, Thou shalt not kill, and Whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.
22But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, `Thou fool,' shall be in danger of hell fire.
I support killing of evil people, not the killing of the innocent children who have done nothing wrong.
As for your picking and choosing which passages of the Bible you want to use to try and support what you believe, have at it. I don't have the time or desire to match you verse for verse on every out-of-context Bible verse you can google up.
Wasn't the Christians whole point of putting searchable bible databases on the internet so that we would read them?
Listen I could care less whether you read it or not. I also do not care what you think of it, or how you interpret it. You're understanding of the Bible does not impact mine, and I've learned my lesson about throwing pearls to swine. I don't do it anymore.
It doesn't bother you that one can pick and choose from the bible? Isn't it all supposed to be true anyway?
Bible = Big book of multiple choice.
You can write an encyclopedia of true statements and still someone would be able to come through and pick and choose which statements they wanted to use. When they were finished, the could convince others that the encyclopedia stated something that wasn't even written within it. Unless the others actually studied the encyclopedia for themselves, they would not know what it said.
The Bible is the same way.
Don't you see that that's exactly what YOU do?
Oh, I get tired of people who know nothing about the Bible trying to school me in what it says. That's like a homeless, lazy bum trying to tell you how to run the economy......Oh wait, that's exactly what this movement is about.
Funny yet you "don't have time" to actually refute or even debate the subject. You really need to take the time and ACTUALLY study your bible and learn EXACTLY what Jesus taught, not just claim to know!
No sense in debating it. You can pull just as many out-of-context statements from the Bible as I can set you straight on the context in which those messages were used. It's a simple matter of choosing to use my time for other things than to use it refuting or debating statements, which are used out of context. It would be the same if I a dog knocked over my trash can and I said, "Dang dog, I should kill him." Then you trying to use this statement to say I want to kill all dogs.
The early church actually believed a fetus wasn't "alive" before "quickening" which they thought occurred around the 4th or 5th month of pregnancy.
Abortion is only wrong if you believe the fetus is a full fledged "person" at the time of conception.
It follows from this same line of thought that if the majority of us determine that you are not a person, then I can kill you. Scary stuff.
We wish to air on the side of caution for criminals on death row, why not in regards to abortion.
Being a person of conscience, I actually do struggle with the abortion issue.
I think something like the morning-after pill is clearly "okay".
There is a point at which abortion becomes "not okay" I'm just not sure where that line should be drawn, but ethically I believe it is well before the 4th month of pregnancy.
In an ideal world, abortion would never be desired or necessary but we don't live in an ideal world.
This is why I think the focus should be on liberty and property rights and not ethics and that these issues should be handled at the state level.
because Jesus had so much to say about prenatal biology and abortions
Psalm 139:13 "For you formed my inward parts; you wove me together in my mother's womb." 139:16 "Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in your book were written the days that were ordained for me when as of yet there was not one of them."
Basically saying you are a person for the moment of conception and God knew you before you were even conceived.
if we can define something as not human, we can kill it. then it is not murder.
i mean, you are an atheist. there is no eternal foundation that ethics rests upon. only subjectivity and pragmatism.
heck, it was just in the news how an innocent man was executed after being on death row for a number of years. i saw the outcry of how we need to get rid of the death penalty, just so that we won't actually kill any innocent people. kind of funny how life is sacred, only when you want it to be.
Why are you on the occupy wall street forum? What does this have to do with tax-payer subsidized golden parachutes for bankers? Are you in favor of our hard earned money going to someone who destroyed the economy?
Original discussion in this thread is about judeo christian ethos.
learn2read
Doesnt the bible have a lot on killing for various occasions? Like if you work on a sunday or something? That would have decreased unemployment by decreasing the employable.
Leviticus 23: 3 There are six days when you may work, but the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, a day of sacred assembly. You are not to do any work; wherever you live, it is a sabbath to the LORD.
So all of those employers and "job creators" the Republicans are always so fond of are apparently disobeying the bible when they force us to work on Sunday.
It also bans the financial practices of most employers and banks:
Leviticus 19:13 Do not defraud or rob your neighbor. Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight.
It also bans GMO:
Leviticus 19:19 Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
Combining the DNA of two different kinds of animals is exactly what GMO is.
And it prohibits serving a rare hamburger:
Leviticus 19:26 Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it.
Don't see conservatives protesting Outback Steak House over that one do you?
It's funny that they only choose to enforce that one thing about homosexuality from that particular book of the bible (Leviticus 18:22), but ignore everything they're making money on.
The West Wing - Biblical Quotes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI
That's the president we need today.
You're looking into Old Testament. And if that is the game you want to play then:
And he that blasphemy the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:27
The Old Testament is salvation though the law, and it was purposely done to show that no one can gain salvation by themselves. You cannot work your way into heaven. You cannot do enough good deeds to get into Heaven.
The New Testament is salvation through the grace of God, through Jesus.
Now, if you want Christians to abide by the Old Testament Laws, then get ready for many people to die, because if Christians were bound by Old Testament law, there would be many, many dead people in the US of A.
Did I say I want them to abide by that? NO.
In fact, I advocated THE EXACT OPPOSITE when I said:
"The West Wing - Biblical Quotes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI
That's the president we need today."
In case you missed it the first time.
We already have a president that is a great actor reading off of scripts.
With all that contradictory BS they believe, it's no wonder so many are loosing their minds. I feel like I'm watching HAL 9000 every time Michelle or some other gets up on the stage.
I half expect to hear this whenever they speak about the OWS protests: "Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?"
Conservatives would say it is an individual's responsibility to help other individuals. Not to put that responsibility in the hands of the government to dispense at their will.
To hand that responsibility over to a governmental body just means that you yourself don't have to help the downtrodden because its not your job. And you can complain to the government that they're not doing anything about it.
You can't create downtrodden through the tax code and then wash your hands of the damage you're doing like Pontius Pilate.
If they believe in trickle down economics (AKA Reaganomics) which demands they take from the poor to enrich the wealthy, then they can't claim that it's the "responsibility of individuals to help other individuals". THEY'RE CREATING THE F-ING PROBLEM! They don't get to wash their hands of the damage they're doing.
I don't disagree with you but I'll just point out that there are very few actual conservatives in government these days. Republicans expand the government as liberally as Democrats.
This is funny. Where in the verses does it say that the government should do the good deeds in place of the person?
I don't read anything in there that says "Tax others more so you can give to the poor."
The bible does say "sell all you have and give it to the poor".
Have you? Maybe you should put your money where your mouth is, or at least learn how to read properly. "You" does NOT mean "your government".
Maybe I missed the part where it said government should provide charity in place of the individual?
The verse seems to say that individuals should all be taking care of each other, unless "you" means "your government"?
Are we not our government in a democracy?
Are we not "a government of the people by the people and for the people"?
Rationalize it all you want. It doesn't say that. It doesn't absolve you of individual responsibility. Nor does it provide biblical support for unlimited social programs. Your willfully manipulating what you read to attempt to fit it with what you think you know about the world. It simply doesn't say that, nor does any possible attempt to apply it contextually mean that.
This is a complete joke.
The bible is full of socialist passages. I believe truly Christianity is socialism.
"all ye are brethren." (Matthew"23;8)
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."(Matthew: 22; 39)
"All things whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." (Matthew: 7; 12)
"Let everyone who possesses two shirts share with him who has none, and let him who has food do likewise." (Luke: 3; 11)
"Give to every man that asketh of thee." (Luke: 6; 30)
"Give and it shall be given unto you...for with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again." (Luke: 6; 38)
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor...to preach deliverance to the captives." (Luke: 4; 18)
"Woe unto you that are rich, for ye have received your consolation."(Luke: 6; 24).
"No man can serve two masters…Ye cannot serve God and mammon." (Matthew: 6; 24)
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."(Matthew: 19; 23)
Hello. My name is David. I don’t know whether or not if you notice it. But, there are a lot of empty fields with tall grass and weeds in them. We all walk by them every day year after year. All the food we buy is shipped from across the country or from oversees. Oil and its cousin transportation contribute to systemic problems from greenhouse gases around the world. Look up global warming. Most elder persons in San Bernardino tell me that most of the food they ate use to be grown here long ago. There is a lot of money involved in transport. Think about it. Oil stock is a billion dollar business. Where would it be without the importation or (transportation of food) not only, to those who need it, but thoughts who will buy it not oversees, but right here in San Bernardino and around the world? In short, you should produce foods where you live. I live on social security income as do others who would be able and willing to participate in such a plan to help ourselves, planet, and future generations. I think everyone would want to participate. Reduce the humane carbon foot print grow food local.
Amen. And can I just say that I don't like my religion sullied by politicians. Every time some jack-ass (like Rick Perry but he is just the most recent one blurting out offensive references to G-d like he has some special insight) starts talking about how g-d is on their side in their stump speeches I feel like they are taking the lord's name in vain. "For who knows the power of G-d's anger?" - J. Edwards 1741. (I'm pretty sure no-one is the answer)
Right on!
Rewatch the republican debates with that in mind. Especially this part:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrQHcMucLVU
Cut wages and benefits = More families can't afford to raise children, carrying on a pregnancy becomes a survival issue for the whole family, abortions more likely.
Cut wages and benefits = Less opportunity for the nuclear family, alternative lifestyles without children become more attractive = respect fior traditional marriage suffers.
Cut wages and benefits = More workers out of a job, overburdening social services, hunger and disease spread..
Cut wages abd bebefits = Families must raise their children on less, participation in religion and community diminishes, traditional values are replaced with primitive behaviors.
Cut wages and benefits = Libraries schools and museums close, The American Way is forgotten, You become a stranger in your own land.
Joan Osborne - One Of Us
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4CRkpBGQzU
because they fake., there are there just to build movment to help the rich
Join any local church and they will have charity programs set up. Whether it's a food bank, or program like angel food ministries, or help for young pregnant woman, or a place to stay and a hot meal for the homeless, or a new outfit for someone who's job hunting... churches, and the people within the churches, help every single day. They don't need to use other peoples money and pay people to do the work, they donate their own time and money to get the jobs done.
Being opposed to the government running "charity" or social programs does NOT mean you're against helping those who need it. It simply means that you think the government is wasteful and that the job can be done better by volunteers PLUS everyone involved gets the major benefit of feeling good about helping others. Instead of resentment, you get understanding. Instead of bureaucracy, you get individualized help.
It doesn't matter about religion anymore. These are people, just like you and me, that are suffering to a degree you cannot imagine.
Conservative Christians are a walking contradiction. They are all for Capital punishment... Can any one think of a prominent figure in the Bible that was a victim of capital punishment ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QrDLwSgg24
Because you are one of the people that trod on them, and you should compensation them for the harm you caused them. And yes it is a matter of trodding in many cases, indeed most.
do not post here. this is an intentionally divisive post. (troll)
I'm no troll.
If we're going to talk about values, then lets talk about values. I'm tired of being bludgeoned with a bible by people who obviously don't believe in it. I'm tired of my president being called a satanic Muslim Manchurian candidate . I'm tired of people who always advocate against giving help to anyone who needs it also constantly talking about "values".
WHAT DO WE REALLY BELIEVE IN? That's what I want to know. That's the debate we need to be having.
please go do your homework on conservatives and charity donations...i think you will be suprised...then speak with fact and not conjecture like you have.
Even the devil can quote snippets of the bible and remove them from their context. However, to be fair, as a Christian, the biggest stumbling block I have ever found to people finding God and living as Jesus would have is the example many "Christians" set. I love to help people personally, but please note the many examples in the bible where God was helping those who had faith, and excercised it, or if they were not believers yet, were at the very least attempting to help themselves. I believe in giving a hand up, not a hand out. I also recognize that sometimes a hand out is needed to take care of basic needs to be able to provide the hand up later.
This is why Christians are the single largest charitable group in the world. They practice what they preach.
I am not a very religious person (hadn't been to church in over 15 years); However, I do recognize the great works that Christian organizations do around the world for the poor.
Some do. I totally agree.
They sure as hell don't seem to vote that way though.
Not true. The Black community is a very large block of the Christian community (mostly Baptists). They vote for the Democrats.
I assume that you are referring to the Republicans when you say that they don't "vote that way".
My favorite, because so many conservative Christians are evangelicals who preach all you have to do is accept Jesus in your heart:
James 2:14-26
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them?
15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food.
16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?
17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.
19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?
21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.
23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend.
24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?
26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
Love that.
Ahh someone wanting to throw out a religious argument.
My religious response to your topic.
2 Thessalonians 3:
Legal Argument to your Topic:
The Constitution never intended to give the Federal government the right to force one Citizen to pay for another Citizens.
Natural Argument to your Topic:
No person has the right to directly benefit off of the work of another without the consent of or compensation to the person who did the work.
Child's argument to your Topic: "Who is going to eat this bread?" asked the little red hen.
"I will," grunted the pig.
"I will," quacked the duck.
"I will," purred the cat.
"Oh no, you won't," said the little red hen. "I planted the seed, I cut the corn, I took it to the mill to be made into flour, and I made the bread, all by myself. I shall now eat the loaf all by myself."
Now, that being said. I have no problem with helping those who are down on their luck; however, I have an extreme problem with paying for trash that refuses to accept responsibility for their own lives. Also, charity is a PERSONAL choice. In fact, Charity is ONLY a PERSONAL choice. When the government FORCES you to give your hard earned money over to someone else, it is no longer charity; it is nothing more than ROBBERY.
Do you really see paying taxes as a form of charity? What about the massive benefits you receive from living in a civilized society? Did you go to private schools? Maybe you did. For all I know, you drive on private roads. But most people who espouse this kind of rhetoric are in the normal 90% and probably stand to gain from any increase of taxes on the wealthy and capital gains.
That "hard-earned" crap is such a joke, such propaganda, designed by the rich to get poor and middle-class people to remain obedient wage-slaves (when they're needed in that capacity) and to vote against their economic interests. What about the hard work a single mother puts into her children, with no monetary reward? What about the work soldiers do on the battlefield? They don't become millionaires. And then there are the people in China who make everything we use. They probably do an awful lot of work for very little.
If you have a lot more money than most people, it doesn't mean you've worked harder. It means you're probably exploiting somebody. I think this is why Jesus advocated poverty. A civilized, moral society would try to soften this exploitation, and redistribute these ill-gotten gains. Everyone deserves a shot at life. It's a basic right. You know it in your heart. YOU aren't expected to fund every miserable jerk out there, but we would be a better society if, in general, we took care of each other. Especially since each of us owes so much to society in general, to millions of nameless people who may or may not have been well-paid, for our success.
No, a charity is something given, not taken. But to ride on your line of thinking, No, taxes in and of themselves are not a form of charity. What the taxes go to define whether it is charitable or not. Roads? Not a charity. Education? If you are paying for yours or your children. Not a charity. If you are paying for someone elses? Yes, it is a charity.
Not even going to dignify your "hard-earned crap" paragraph.
"A civilized, moral society would try to soften this exploitation, and redistribute these ill-gotten gains" - Define exploit and then tell me how to determine the businesses that have exploited someone to get their profits vs. a business that did not exploit anyone to get their profits.
Everyone deserves a shot at life. It's a basic right. No its not you jackass. No one has the "right" to life. Put a man in a den of snakes and see if he lives. Man has no RIGHT to anything. We have the freedom. The freedom to do whatever we want, whenever we want, how ever we want, where ever we want, to whoever we want. That is called liberty. That is freedom. Rights!! Secure those freedoms we deem most valuable. The RIGHT to a get a shot at life does not exist. You have the freedom at life, but it is up to you to convert that freedom at a life into a life.
"YOU aren't expected to fund every miserable jerk out there, but we would be a better society if, in general, we took care of each other. Especially since each of us owes so much to society in general, to millions of nameless people who may or may not have been well-paid, for our success."
I'm glad you express the point that I am not expected to pay for everyone else, and you're right, if as a society we all took care of each other we would be better off; however, that is personal choice, not something government should force on us.
What is your comment on the fact that the right is now demonizing working people as it used to demonize welfare recipients?
Some of your own remarks above relate to people who "don't want to work". But Herman Cain's 999 tax will only impact working people.
Do you feel it is just to tax lower income working people disproportionately and make their lives more difficult? Those people generally work harder for their money than the rich, who have many sources of "unearned" income, ie capital gains.
Honestly I don't believe the Federal government has the Constitutional Authority to tax us on a variety of things that they tax us on, nor do I believe the Fed has the Constitutional Authority to implement the enormous programs/departments/laws that it has.
But how does that have anything to do with my response to this topic thread?
I would like to think that if you remind conservatives who claim to be Christian about the basic teachings of Jesus, it could possibly make them contemplate the distance between their philosophies and Jesus'. But in conservative republican backwards world all those familiar teachings that we learned in Sunday school have evolved into more conservative friendly interpretations. Like turning Jesus' general admonitions against wealth into "well, I don't see where Jesus says you can force the government to tax the wealthy and give it to the poor." ??? WTF? Reading conservative posts here sounds like a 13 yr old trying to get out of blame for breaking mom's new vase by saying something like "if she didn't want it broken, she shouldn't have bought it in the first place." Whaaaat?? Putting up a completely nonsensical argument requires too much energy for most people to take the time to refute so the conservative can believe that they have won the argument. But I think liberal progressives should continue to push the Christian perspective and maybe a few conservatives will be shamed (if that's possible) and/or some more intellectually honest Christians will be motivated to come forward with the radically bold view that yeah, maybe Jesus would want a little less money to go to CEO golden parachutes or bonuses and a little more towards somehow reducing unnecessary death and hunger among at least children, maybe.
Jesus wasn't interested in politics, nor how government was run.
It seems like the arguments being put forth by both Wildcat and beardy, based on their extensive knowledge of the Bible, give them the sword of righteousness required to judge from on high and assess who are the worthless, irresponsible and, thus, undeserving among us. Jesus says let the bums rot. Jesus says the government can't enforce social justice and that it is entirely up to the compassion of Wildcat and beardy if they happen to be in the mood to help. I may be wrong here, but somehow referring to your selected fellow humans as "trash that refuses to accept responsibility for their own lives" doesn't paint a picture of Christian charity. Or maybe I'm being presumptuous that you claim to adhere to any tenets of Christianity because you certainly don't sound like your heart is overflowing with even a drop of kindness or compassion. (No lack of pride and arrogance.) Maybe the Sunday school lessons they taught us non biblical scholars were a complete lie. We thought loving others, the golden rule were things that Jesus represented. Guess we were wrong, eh? I don't claim to be Christian. Making observations, JMO.
Now you are mincing religion and politics. They are separate. Religion is about morality and politics are about the law. At no point do I make an assertion of self-righteousness. In fact, in a previous post, I pointed out several different points of view against social programs(taking from one to give to another without consent or compensation), so don't try to flip the script that this is strictly some kind of religious stand point. Here let me try again. Keep in mind this example is extremely limited to prove my point.
Me, you and Frank are the only people in the world. We have chosen Frank as the mediator and law-maker for our little clan. You spend your days farming the land, hunting animals for food. One day, Frank tells you that from that day forth, he will take some of your food from you and give to me because I am dying of starvation. Is that ok with you?
Lets take it a little further. You allow it because you have plenty to give; however, inside you are a little resentful that you have to give me food even though I have done nothing to earn or deserve it. One year there is a horrible streak of luck. The animals have mostly deserted our area, so you can't find hardly any animals to kill. The weather has been horrendous and most of your crops have died. You only have a little food. Still Frank says you have to give a portion of your food to me, even though I still have not done anything to contribute to finding or growing food. Is this still, ok? If you say you would not have a problem with that, then you are a damn liar.
"trash that refuses to accept responsibility for their own lives" - I'm referring to those who can work, can contribute, but refuse to do so. I'm not referring to those who want to work, but truly cannot find any.
You seem to make the popular argument that Christianity makes a case that Christians should do for others regardless of the actions of others, while clearly from a moral and commonsense standpoint, that is not the case. You seem to make the case that Christians do not have a right to judge others by their actions? Once again from a moral and common sense viewpoint this is completely false. If it were true, then a Christian could not teach their own children good from evil because to teach a child good from evil, you MUST have an example of evil; otherwise, there is no understanding of good. You must PRAISE your children whenever they do right and PUNISH your children when they do wrong; otherwise, they have no understanding of right and wrong. To do that you must JUDGE what they do as good or bad, and by doing so, you are judging them for their actions. YOU lied and lying is wrong. YOU were wrong for lying. YOU chose not to get an education when you were in school, so now YOU don't have the right to make me pay for YOUR choices.
"We thought loving others, the golden rule were things that Jesus represented. Guess we were wrong, eh? I don't claim to be Christian. Making observations, JMO"
I can love my child and force them to accept responsibility for their own actions and choices at the same time. It's not an either or situation. MY point is that it is not YOUR right to tell me that I have to give the fruits of my labor to someone else. If I so choose to do so, then I will do so. The ax swings both ways tritone. If I have to pay for your mistakes, then you should have to pay for mine. I got hooked on cigarettes when I was younger and even though I know they cause cancer, I've continued to smoke. So when I finally get cancer, I think the government should take your paycheck and pay for my surgery. Only fair that you be responsible for my health care regardless of what I action or inaction I have done to put myself in my situation.
"Now you are mincing religion and politics. They are separate. Religion is about morality and politics are about the law." Religion and politics are, unfortunately, so intertwined you may as well try to separate out the water and dirt out of a bucket of mud. http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_detail.aspx?id=326 For more information about the intersection of religion and politics, visit the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life Web site. You say you do not make an assertion of self-righteousness. I think most people don't claim to be self-righteous. Your own statements make the case for that. ".... trash that refuses to accept responsibility for their own lives." Your hypothetical situtation with me, you and Frank just serves to illustrate your attitude about not helping somebody who you deem unworthy because they haven't contributed in a way that you approve. Maybe you have made other contributions to our little community of 3, so I might feel a little resentful but realize that your existence has added to the richness of the mini-society in some way. Maybe you didn't gather food but you constructed shelter, tools and can make fire. And, in reality, people are always giving to people who may or may not have done anything and don't have a problem with like you do. I've been giving to Child Fund Inc. (formerly Christian Children's Fund) for 30 years, every month. Even in months when I made no money and had only $300 left in the bank. That may have not been wise, but I chose to think that things would turn out Ok, which they did. I certainly did not have a problem with that. Your justification of calling certain people trash seems to directed at a class of people that can work or contribute, but refuse to do so. How many people like that do think there really are? Shoot, homeless people making no money are working 50 times harder than I am. How easy do you think it would be to live in a city, on the streets with no money? That's why I much prefer to make at least a little money. It's WAY easier than being homeless. So when you say "if you say you would not have a problem with that, then you are a damn liar." that only means something if I accept your premise which I obviously do not. But it serves you to justify your selfish, uncharitable, un-Christian attitude and ignore even those who would qualify under your bar of those who want to work but cannot find work. Do you seriously think each and every OWS protester is able but not willing to work? "You seem to make the popular argument that Christianity makes a case that Christians should do for others regardless of the actions of others, while clearly from a moral and commonsense standpoint, that is not the case." Gee, where would I have gotten the idea that one should not be judgmental and help those in need? "Jesus showed compassion for all and helped them: the poor, the despised the outcasts, and wants us to do the same (Matt. 4:24-25;9:9-13)." http://www.thirdway.com/jesus/?Page=1224%7CKey+Teachings Didn't Jesus forgive robbers and others guilty of greater crimes than laziness? I didn't say that Christians don't have the right to judge others. Everybody judges others. It's human nature. But to judge (very superficially at that, not knowing the full story) and then withhold aid to punish does not seem to fall within Jesus' teachings. Your primary beef seems to be this idea that you are being forced to give money to those who you don't like. How much of your actual money do you think goes straight into the hands of somebody who is giddy over having shown you to be a fool, by giving money to them when they didn't work for it? What, maybe 5 cents? How much do you think goes to national defense? And are you seriously going to keep smoking in an attempt to get cancer so you can prove an ideological point. I'll give you $10 just for your idiotic dedication. The government is not going to come directly to me and ask me to be your sole support for cancer treatment. There might be many who are ignorant or for whatever reasons can't quit smoking (like John Boehner) but I wouldn't mind having 5 cents of my money go to his treatment (assuming universal health care) even though his crimes are much bigger than getting cancer someday. I'm guessing that you're not a Christian. I've been reading a little bit on the web about Jesus and basic tenets of Christianity and your views on being judge, jury and punisher for relatively innocuous crimes is so at odds with, I think, even the broadest interpretations of Christian doctrine, that it just seems like an unrealistic stretch for you to claim any semblance of being a follower of Christ.
"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."
Tell me o' surveyor of truth; where does this quote come from?
I do not advocate withholding aid to punish. I advocate allowing each individual to make the personal choice to aid or not to. I advocate against government taking from me and giving to someone else just because of they are "needy". That's one thing this movement has repeatedly advocated. This movement has said that it is not right that the government took our money and gave it to corporations who were about to fail. The corporations were in "need" of money at the time, and I agree, our money should not have gone to these corporations, but I take it further. My government should not steal money from my pocket and hand it over to anyone who is "needy". It is not the government's place to do so, especially since the government apparently has absolutely no ability to determine if the ones getting the money actually need it or if they are just living off the system.
Why do you not open your home and wallet up to everyone who needs help? Is it too much to ask for you to make that sacrifice as an individual? If you are so big on helping the less fortunate, then you do so. My problem is people like you forcing your ideas into government, which in turn takes my money from me. All so people like you can say you are "changing the world" for the better. There's nothing "good" about stealing what one person rightfully acquires and giving it to someone else. You're no better than the government or the corporations you claim to be against. The only difference is that at least the government and corporations do not try to hide the fact that they are unjustly stealing money from the working man to give to the undeserving behind some veil that they are doing something good. Oh wait, yes they do.
Government needs to do it's job and stop trying to fix everyone's lives for them. Let the people hurt, let them suffer. Through pain people become stronger and more self reliant. Without pain, people become weak and dependent.
I don't know where the quote comes from. Mad magazine? Cosmo? I don't care. I'm not the biblical scholar.
Do you claim to be Christian? I've mentioned my doubt, but you have not stated either way. If you were proud of your religious affiliation, why wouldn't you proclaim your faith loudly and without reservation? But if you're not a practicing Christian, perhaps just a scholar with an interest in religious studies, I would have less of a problem with your views like "Let the people hurt, let the people suffer."
It's too bad you weren't in Oakland with your words of wisdom for the OWS protester who was apparently struck in the head by an Oakland police officer's "non-lethal" bullet. You could have told him as he was being carried away on a stretcher that his pain will make him stronger and self-reliant since his 2 tours of duty in Iraq apparently didn't toughen him up to your standards of being something a little more than "trash that refuses to accept responsibility for his own life".
You're giving me a whole new view on Christianity! I never knew Jesus was so ruthless! I guess if Jesus had been in Oakland he would have told the Iraq war vet to quit trying to force others through such subversive tactics like freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful assembly to give their hard earned money to the worthless in our society. By the way, how can you assess a worthless piece of trash American from a deserving one? Do they fill out a questionnaire? Is there some sort of advisory group that assesses human worth? Is this something you would do yourself or would you have some sort of non-governmental agency do it? How would you realistically implement your desire to weed out the worthless in America so they couldn't receive any of your money? And then how would you dispose of the dead ones without having anybody like yourself pay for it? Or would it be worth it to you to pay for getting rid of the leeches?
There are practical considerations to your fantasy of denying assistance to the worthless because it helps them become better people. An acquaintance of mine, a fella I had worked with a long time ago, died back in 2007. Needed a lung transplant. Couldn't afford health insurance. I wonder if his parents paid for his burial? They already had to pay for their flight out to California from Mississippi. Should the parents have to pay for their worthless son's funeral or somebody else? Inquiring minds want to know how Jesus would have handled the expenses. Do you think Jesus was pleased that the parents were able to experience some personal growth, you know, become less weak and dependent, from the pain and suffering they experienced through the death of their son? What would it have taken for Mike to have proven to you he wasn't a piece of trash and be worthy of your beneficence? I can't vouch for how hard a worker he was.
And if you do realize that it is the American government that is taking your money and spending it in ways which are not pleasing to you, you can go out and protest, write your congressman, start a blog, or move to another country. You could start another movement just like OWS. Why don't you do that? I'm sure there are many Americans like you who have your quality of compassion and would like to force other Americans to qualify their neediness for your approval. What about the Tea Party? You might have to educate them a bit on the true meaning of Christianity but being cut from the same cloth, it shouldn't be difficult. How about amending Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution? "Congress may impose taxes but not give it to human trash"? Yes, I can, and people like me can, have our views implemented if they are shared by a substantial majority of Americans. Enough to overcome Fox News and idiots like Eric Cantor or Paul Ryan, the abuse of Senate Republicans and the big corporate money behind them. If you don't like it, tough. Welcome to American democracy. But you should take comfort in the fact that so much of the big corporate money is funding your side.
It's interesting how different your view of Christianity is from that of the small sampling of websites I've perused. They all seem to have this old quaint notion that Christianity is about forgiveness, charity, humility, concern for the sick, homeless, the poor, etc. This misguided belief appears to be running rampant. If you want the truth of Christianity to be understood, you have your work cut out for you. Thank you for illuminating the darkness of my ignorance.
Are you a Christian?
It's time we started talking about this. They want this to be an issue? Let's make it an issue.
They probably don't care if it's an issue. Since they seem bereft of intellectual honesty or shame they will find some way to wriggle out of being cast as the hypocrites they are. But you are right to make it an issue nonetheless. It should be raised loudly and often. And probably where they live, like The Americans Spectator, Wall Street Journal, freerepublic.com, foxnews.com, etc. etc. in addition to this forum.
Hello. My name is David. I don’t know whether or not if you notice it. But, there are a lot of empty fields with tall grass and weeds in them. We all walk by them every day year after year. All the food we buy is shipped from across the country or from oversees. Oil and its cousin transportation contribute to systemic problems from greenhouse gases around the world. Look up global warming. Most elder persons in San Bernardino tell me that most of the food they ate use to be grown here long ago. There is a lot of money involved in transport. Think about it. Oil stock is a billion dollar business. Where would it be without the importation or (transportation of food) not only, to those who need it, but thoughts who will buy it not oversees, but right here in San Bernardino and around the world? In short, you should produce foods where you live. I live on social security income as do others who would be able and willing to participate in such a plan to help ourselves, planet, and future generations. I think everyone would want to participate. Reduce the humane carbon foot print grow food local.
Posted this somewhere else, but it's true for what you're saying too.
We need to stop subsidizing oil. The whole reason they manufacture/grow things overseas is because labor PLUS shipping costs are lower. The problem is that it really isn't. It just seems like it is because the US Government subsidizes oil. $41 BILLION per year.
Budget hawks: Does US need to give gas and oil companies $41 billion a year? - http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0309/Budget-hawks-Does-US-need-to-give-gas-and-oil-companies-41-billion-a-year/%28page%29/2
Stop paying their shipping costs with our tax dollars. Make it less expensive to make/grow the thing where you're going to use it.
Christians and Atheists alike should be forced by the government to help the poor and homeless, so that the poor and homeless don't have to worry about not being able to eat if they don't work. The money should be guaranteed to the downtrodden..
Fail.
Good idea. That will motivate everyone to be poor :)
I don't agree with that. But people that want to work and survive also shouldn't be kept down either.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hd1UbSPx-E
Let him die? Seriously?
The fact is that the poor (even if they want out) often can't get out.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yloNmBTKNIE Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Gt6v01UA1c Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urGuAEGhMjA Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOSS5NODkro Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBbaBUTm5Rs
You want people to have good jobs? WHY IS EDUCATION THE FIRST THING THE REPUBLICANS CUT EVERY SINGLE TIME THERE'S A BUDGET SHORTFALL?
All of their talking points about how lazy the poor are is F-ing BS! The system is rigged so that the only people that can move up are the rich.
The Super Rich Get Richer, Everyone Else Gets Poorer, and the Democrats Punt - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-super-rich-get-richer_b_737792.html
A Look at the Numbers: How the Rich Get Richer - http://motherjones.com/politics/2006/05/look-numbers-how-rich-get-richer
First of all, why is my government taking money away from me by force (taxes) to pay someone to ship our jobs overseas (outsourcing tax credits)?
And second, why the hell are some of us stuck with tens of thousands of dollars in student debt for degrees that OUR OWN FREAKING GOVERNMENT is paying people to outsource?
They've got their boots on our necks and we can't get up.
First of all, why is my government taking money away from me by force (taxes) to pay someone to ship our jobs overseas (outsourcing tax credits)?
And second, why the hell are some of us stuck with tens of thousands of dollars in student debt for degrees that OUR OWN FREAKING GOVERNMENT is paying people to outsource?
Because the Federal Government is working outside of its Constitutionally-defined limits. Because the People keep petitioning the Federal Government for this or for that, instead of petitioning the Federal Government to abide by the Constitution and give back the States and People the rights that the Constitution originally gave.
This is just a stupid comment. You make it sound like conservative Christians don't ever help the homeless or poor. I'm agnostic, but I see what the churches do in my community. I don't know of one church who does not help the poor and the homeless. One of our local churches gave away 5 cars to those who couldn't afford a car. This church raised over 5.6 million to help the hungry and homeless. They raised money for Haiti and hurricane Katrina. They were there before any government handout was there to help. So if you want to post that conservative Christians don't want to help, then post me proof of churches who are not helping their communities.
That's not what's happening in their politics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hd1UbSPx-E&feature=related
Their tax policy is another example. Their policies toward the poor are another example.
""Some people will pay more. But most people would pay less is my argument," said Cain. When asked who will pay more, he said, "the people who spend more money on new goods."
Economists say generally people who make less money spend a larger share of their income on food and other essentials. Cain suggests that even if this is true, they can change their behavior and purchase more used items."
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/17/141427450/herman-cains-9-9-9-plan-gets-a-closer-look
Used food??? Wait, what? Trickle down just took a turn for the worse.
LOL, used food. That's pretty funny, but I don't think that is what Cain meant. Haven't really looked to deep into his 999 plan though, so who knows.
That's most of what the poor buy.
Oh, I know. I'm poor myself. Always have been. Never made more than 27K a year, and boy do I love me some food.
Stupid post.
yeah that part in the bible where jesus went to ceasar and demanded that rome tax all the wealthy people and give that money in the form of food stamps and welfare to the poor was awesome
Luke 21
1 As Jesus looked up, he saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2 He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. 3 “Truly I tell you,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. 4 All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”
To take just two coins from the poor widow is to take more from her than to take the excesses of the rich. This stuff isn't hard at all, I'm not even a believer.
LOL, to take? Wow, you need to reread that passage. First, this passage is about GIVING, not TAKING. Second, this is about personal sacrifice. Basically, the poor woman gave to the church even when she didn't have it to give. For that reason, she gave way more than the rich people gave. Her gift was a sacrifice, while the rich did not sacrifice anything by the gifts they gave.
It's also about the heart issue the wealthy were giving so they would get recognition for it "oh isn't that rich guy awesome he gives so much to the church!" the poor woman gave discretely and gave more than what she could really afford to give. She didn't want recognition, she wanted to give because it was the right thing to do
story is about people donating money to church. it is not about paying taxes.
jesus did not take it from them, nor did jesus have the government take it from them.
nice try, try again
You're nitpicking at the unimportant details. The relevant part is that the two coins of the widow is a real sacrifice on her part for the greater good, whereas the contributions of the rich were not. That it was given voluntarily rather than manditorily is irrelevant. Like the wealthy of the temple, today's wealthy don't really sacrifice anything the way the poor do.
forced ethics, now that is hilarious
even more funny is that you think because government takes property and redistributes it to the poor, while you do absolutely nothing, gives you the moral high ground
lol
It's the continual pressure from the rich on the government to keep letting them off their tax obligations that are unethical.
I also have a job, plus an interview for a second this Friday. I'm not here to "get mine", I'm here because I'm not so greedy as to be unable to recognize injustice when I see it.
i disagree, nothing wrong with free speech
problem is the corrupt politicians who listen to them
grats on the job interview and good luck
I'm with you on that one beardy
He actually did exactly that.
Luke 25:
18An important man asked Jesus, "Good Teacher, what must I do to have eternal life?"
19Jesus said, "Why do you call me good? Only God is good. 20You know the commandments: `Be faithful in marriage. Do not murder. Do not steal. Do not tell lies about others. Respect your father and mother.' "
21He told Jesus, "I have obeyed all these commandments since I was a young man."
22When Jesus heard this, he said, "There is one thing you still need to do. GO AND SELL EVERYTHING YOU OWN! GIVE THE MONEY TO THE POOR, AND YOU WILL HAVE RICHES IN HEAVEN. Then come and be my follower." 23When the man heard this, he was sad, because he was very rich.
24Jesus saw how sad the man was. So he said, "It's terribly hard for rich people to get into God's kingdom! 25In fact, it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get into God's kingdom."
26When the crowd heard this, they asked, "How can anyone ever be saved?"
27Jesus replied, "There are some things that people cannot do, but God can do anything."
28Peter said, "Remember, we left everything to be your followers!"
29Jesus answered, "You can be sure that anyone who gives up home or wife or brothers or family or children because of God's kingdom 30will be given much more in this life. And in the future world they will have eternal life."
And Matthew 22:
13The Pharisees got together with Herod's followers. Then they sent some men to trick Jesus into saying something wrong. 14They went to him and said, "Teacher, we know that you are honest. You treat everyone with the same respect, no matter who they are. And you teach the truth about what God wants people to do. Tell us, should we pay taxes to the Emperor or not?"
15Jesus knew what they were up to, and he said, "Why are you trying to test me? Show me a coin!"
16They brought him a silver coin, and he asked, "Whose picture and name are on it?"
"The Emperor's," they answered.
17Then Jesus told them, "Give the Emperor what belongs to him and give God what belongs to God." The men were amazed at Jesus.
So, I guess the real question is do they worship the lamb or the golden calf?
I'm a liberal. How is it I know this and all the God fearing conservative candidates for president don't?
that quote has nothing about jesus going to the government and demanding that the government redistribute property
nice try, try again
Oh really? What do you think he's saying then?
Well first, he knew they were trying to trick him into advocating the breaking of Roman law(not paying taxes). Second, of all he was making a point about salvation. He was saying give the government that he wants, but give God your soul. Jesus wasn't interested in the material world, he was interested in the souls of people.