Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Where does the Bible state that it's the GOVERNMENT's job to provide for the needy? The Bible essentially calls us, the people, to VOLUNTARILY provide for those in need through charity and other good deeds. Since when is forced taxation VOLUNTARY?
By the way, I do support safety nets for folks who fall on hard times but we really need to reform our current system to ensure that those that are really in need are actually receiving government assistance and get rid of fraud. We don't have an unlimited supply of money and no matter what our politicians state, it will always be the middle class that will bear the burdens of increased taxes with our current tax system.
Where does it say that it can't be the government?
I would think voting to allow the rich to take advantage of the poor to further their own wealth (arguably what the current system is right now-less taxes on the rich while sChip expires, etc).
You need to do what you can with your means to help others regardless of if they are taking advantage of you, including your vote, and sometimes it will inconvenience you, thats what Christianity is about.
Think about the parable of the sheep and the goats, think about turing the other cheek, think about how forgiving Christ was of the tax collectors. Think about the parable of the beggar outside the rich man's house with the dog licking his sores.
Those who are the rich and wealthy set prices (though they blame it on competition) at the highest possible amount they can get out of those at the bottom, while getting them to work for the smallest amount possible (capitalism at its essence correct. Is it Christian to allow these the wealthy to take advantage of the poor and do nothing. Just ask yourself that.
Your vote can do just as much as spending time or money on charity. Even more if it can create a government program where people can work and get money.
The closest some of these people have come to Jesus is the one on their dashboard.
What a suprise! An anti- conservative article from the New York Times. Again, charity should be someone's choice. Look at how little Biden and Gore contributed to charity. That is thier choice to turn thier backs on the poor, as many democrats tend to do. When they have to personally contribute their income, they become pretty selfish. However, when they can use the government to take other people's money and give it away, that is alot better, as it soothes a "guilty" conscience, but does not cost anything- at least to them.
Socialism is theft, which is in opposition to Christian values. When one confiscates money from one group and gives to another, it is simple theft. I would be happier if a thief robbed me with a gun, as the thief knows he is wrong, but is stealing out of necessity. On the other hand, socialists think they are right, and are stealing to punish. Who is better- the thief with a gun, or the socialistic government?
Ah, no a lot of people are unable to work much less find it, have no relatives, and never had cable to begin with. Starvation while never wide spread (if one's vision of starvation is babies with swollen bellies is your only point of reference) the affects of malnutrition have indeed led to high rates of mortality in the U.S.
Please see pg, 387 Hunger, Malnutrition and Poverty in Contemporary United States.
38% of all elderly women live in poverty, what was their poor choice, letting their husband's die?
Social Security took money from these women and their husbands by force, and provides only a pittance in return.
If the Democrats who controlled Congress for most of the 20th century had actually invested these funds instead of spending them, these elderly would have gotten a handsome return.
But the Social Security 'trust fund' is empty, (save the government IOU's which blow in the wind every time we peek into the vault), evidence of the trust which the Democrats betrayed.
"The fact is , as you've somewhat conceded, there is very little incidence of 'starvation' in the US."
Your understanding of malnutrition as opposed to an optimally nutritious diet are so uniformed as to defy response.
"Let's see how many rules you are willing to impose on the liberal voting base."
Voter participation amongst the poor is so abysmally low as to not provide a "base" for any particular political bent.
"Social Security took money from these women and their husbands by force, and provides only a pittance in return."
Not worthy of a response.
"If the Democrats who controlled Congress for most of the 20th century had actually invested these funds instead of spending them, these elderly would have gotten a handsome return."
I think that this thread has reached a terminal point.
It has rather clear that the conservatives on this forum can nither explain or defend, from a theological stand point, their conflicting positions regarding scripture and opposition to governmental programs in support of the poor and indigent.
I think that this thread has reached a terminal point.
It has rather clear that the conservatives on this forum can nither explain or defend, from a theological stand point, their conflicting positions regarding scripture and opposition to governmental programs in support of the poor and indigent.
It's been fun, altough not terribly enlightening.
Again- it is pretty simple-
1. Charity is VOLUNTARY and can be directed by the giver
2. Government programs are involuntary and cannot be directed
Therefore, programs which oppose Christian views can be funded through government socialistic programs. This is exactly the opposite of promoting Christian views. It would be the same as demanding that you pay for Christian programs.
BTW- How much did you donate to charity last year? Probably nothing. It is funny, I have never run across a single liberal volunteering at the Catholic initiative food program or helping to work on homes of the elderly in the parish. That would require work and one's own money and time. It is easier just to ***** than actually practice what you preach.
I think that this thread has reached a terminal point.
It has rather clear that the conservatives on this forum can nither explain or defend, from a theological stand point, their conflicting positions regarding scripture and opposition to governmental programs in support of the poor and indigent.
It's been fun, altough not terribly enlightening.
Then you apparently can't read. Your posts on this topic have demonstrated that you have no desire to understand where conservative christians are coming from on this topic. You simply wish to criticize.
You either can't or won't follow basic logic. Therefore you are wasting our time as well as your own.
Its a shame to see how close-minded some people truly are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
