Question(s) for Christians

[DubCoffman62]

Wow. What an uncharitable, cynical, self-congratulatory tone you take.

If only everyone could be as [censored]ing virtuous as you, the world would be nothing but lollipops and rainbows.

Cynical yes but uncharitable no. I give at least 3-5,000 a year of my own money to less fortunate people, but I give to whom I choose. When I lived in NYC I never passes up one of those people set up at a card table collecting for the homeless without dropping whatever spare change I had into their 10 gallon water bottle.
I lived in poverty most of my childhood mainly because my father didn't want to work for "the man" and focused his attention on pipe dreams like selling painting of his, starting a band and writing songs which he was sure would be number 1 hits if the right people heard them and also panning for gold in a creek bed. I've been down at that level, I've seen the people who depend on handouts in order to survive and I'll tell you, it ain't pretty. I'm also jaded by my POS brother in-law who while my sister was working two jobs to pay their mortgage and the rest of their bills spent his days and nights smoking pot, playing x-box and watching cartoons. I know, she picked him, she let it happen but it's little consolation now as they've finally lost their home and he's now taken up residence on my mother's couch. Some people are too stupid to live.
I will say though that I've seen it work people who not only needed a hand but were also motivated to improve themselves. I have a friend who had a baby with a worthless POS and needed welfare to get by while she finished school. She now has her degree and is self sufficient.
As far as me being self congratulatory, I don't know, maybe I am at times. When I think about where I came from and how lucky I am for not staying there and taking care of myself even as an atheist jew I do have to thank God at times I may not have made it the conventional way but I some how got there.

 

[MaxBuck]

Cynical yes but uncharitable no. I give at least 3-5,000 a year of my own money to less fortunate people ...

... I have a friend who had a baby with a worthless POS and needed welfare to get by while she finished school. She now has her degree and is self sufficient.

Your tone was uncharitable. There was no way I could characterize you personally as uncharitable; we've never even met (probably). It's a credit to you that you are generous with your funds, and you're certainly entitled to use whatever filter you choose to in order to select the beneficiaries. Props!

As regards your friend, that's the outcome we obviously hope for in our welfare recipients. Glad she was able to make the turnaround (with the help of the State). Took a lot of hard work and discipline on her part, no doubt.

 

[DubCoffman62]

Your tone was uncharitable. There was no way I could characterize you personally as uncharitable; we've never even met (probably). It's a credit to you that you are generous with your funds, and you're certainly entitled to use whatever filter you choose to in order to select the beneficiaries. Props!

As regards your friend, that's the outcome we obviously hope for in our welfare recipients. Glad she was able to make the turnaround (with the help of the State). Took a lot of hard work and discipline on her part, no doubt.

Unfortunately i fear she's the exception rather than the rule but I guess if it it helps one out of ten get back on their feet it's worth something. I personally don't have any objection over paying taxes but I hate to see our tax dollars pissed away on people who will never give anything back.

 

[Taosman]

I hope you'll admit there's a difference between paying taxes for the things we all use and need (infrastructure and national defense) and paying taxes for entitlements. It's the redistribution of wealth that is a problem to conservatives.

As far as the funding of research and development, I think that's a gray area. I don't think there's any real mandate for the government to reappropriate taxpayer money to people doing research, but some of the research would never get done without programs like the NSF. Some of the research funded by the government, however, would get done better if the government weren't involved (the profit motive is generally stronger than the public service motive).

But neither infrastructure nor research is the question of this thread. When the conservatives mention taxes in this thread, and I think I can speak for all of us on this, we are talking specifically about taxes levied to provide entitlements.

Circular logic. Back to the beginning of this thread. The next question would be what parts of the Bible do you believe in? The parts about compassion or the off quoted saying about giving unto Caesar what is Caesar's? Kind of sounds like what jwinslow was railing about picking and choosing from the Bible. I believe the intent of most Bible teaching is centered in having compassion for your fellow man.
What constitutes compassion according to the Bible?
1 John 3:17. The definition of compassion must include human kindness as well as good deeds. Someone cannot have human kindness in them unless they have the love for others. God is the best example of compassion. He loves all of mankind whether or not any one individual loves Him or not. Because of this love, God desires to bless us. As our Creator, He desires us to be as compassionate as Him and show human kindness to others. To be compassionate we must have love in us that compels us to do good deeds. If we just do good deeds for someone, but we have no love for that person we are not compassionate. We have no human kindness (1Co 13:3, "And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing"). In fact, if you have something to give and do not give it to someone in need, you have no compassion or the love of God in you (1 John 3:17, "But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? ").
http://www.access-jesus.com/1_John/1_John_3_17

 

[mathman]

Circular logic. Back to the beginning of this thread. The next question would be what parts of the Bible do you believe in? The parts about compassion or the off quoted saying about giving unto Caesar what is Caesar's?

Not circular logic. Referring back to the original question is a way of refocusing the conversation. We keep moving from federal welfare programs to all forms of federal programs. I don't think anybody is suggesting the government stop road maintenance, yet that seems to be a constant accusation. "Oh, you aren't for a neverending expansion of federal government? Then you must not be for road maintenance." Come on, now.

 

[Taosman]

Some times it's hard to separate politics from belief but if you truly believe in the Bible's view on compassion then you see the Christian values in so called "entitlement " programs.
This is where I'm coming from.

 

[cincibuck]

In short, 513, I am a Christian who is opposed to a federal welfare program based on economic, philosophical, and constitutional objections. I reject your premise that I oppose welfare in spite of my Christianity. Rather, I oppose welfare (in part) because of my Christianity.

Well, there is that Calvinist side to Christianity -- that some of us are born saved and some are born damned -- and that all of us are obligated to work hard in the meantime.

My own interpretation of the Gospel comes down to what is meant by do to others as you would ask them to do to you. Paying people to not work seems to avoid the issue of making sure there is work for them to do and in that sense it seems to me that there is a dual responsibility that is not being met.

 

[Zurp]

But I doubt that you're against highways, schools, police and fire protection, the underwriting of essential services, the funding of research and development --

It's not that I like paying taxes, but my perception is that I get a great deal for what I pay along with an awareness that my lifestyle would be impossible without the considerable affect of tax generated goods and services.

The original question was about welfare. If I understand it, that's the portion of my taxes which are given to poor or other people who need the money to survive. Highways, schools, police, etc. are paid with other portions of my taxes. That wasn't part of the question. We can argue about each line item of the budget, if I really wanted to put the time in (which I don't), and about whether the government should be spending money on each one.

 

[Gatorubet]

Not sure where to put this one, so here is as good as any, and although it is not the point of the article, as to perception, it is very apropos.

Gist of the article is how Secular Liberals should talk to Evangelicals.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/do-as-i-do-not-as-i-say/

 

[buckeyegrad]

Not sure where to put this one, so here is as good as any, and although it is not the point of the article, as to perception, it is very apropos.

Gist of the article is how Secular Liberals should talk to Evangelicals.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/do-as-i-do-not-as-i-say/

Not a bad article....at least it is a start in trying to understand evangelicals on their own terms rather than boxing them into preconceived notions by secular non-evagnelicals. However, at the end the author misses one big point that he gets in the beginning. How does expanding government to help people (assuming it actually does this--that is another dabate) help the evangelical better his/her relationship with G-d--which as the author stated, is the real reason for an evangelical wanting to seek his/her own betterment?

Now granted, the guy writes from the perspective of winning votes; but his conclusion is the primary problem many of us religious conservatives--at least those who have thought about it--have regarding government solutions. It seeks to find betterment through government (or a man-made construction) in place of doing it through a relationship with G-d.

 

[calibuck]

Just my two cents, but let's not mix politics and religion in the same sentence/thread. God gives salvation by His grace, not by deeds. Having said that, giving a person a helping hand is not the same as a hand-out. If Dub wants to provide so those growing up in the same boat as he experienced, he should be blessed, not chastized. It appears to me that he is cynical toward the reasons those children are in the pickle they are in, because he experienced that reality. The children should not be punished for the sins of the parent, and Dub is doing what he can to help. More power to him. I applaud his actions.

If people are looking for a hand-out rather than a helping hand, then it's up to those in 'power' to weed out these folk. Yes, I too believe there are waaaay to many who would rather sit back and collect welfare, rather than get back in the work force. It's a matter of economics. For the jobs they can get, and the added expense (commute, clothes, daycare, etc) they can make MORE money sitting on their duffs collecting. We are in the midst of the third or fourth generation of these people. Not good, but once again, cut off the money to these abusers, the children suffer. Ultimately. I know it's wrong, but do not have the intelligence to figure out how to fix it.

Anyway, in California, we are the welfare state of the nation. More people are 'on the dole' and living under freeways than probably the population of Delaware (that's a SWAG folks). Meanwhile, people come across the border, undocumented, and receive better medical care than those native-born here, and living under those freeways. Huh?

Dub, keep on supporting your preferred charities, you are one of those making a difference. More making a difference, no matter how small, will make a larger total at some point.

:gobucks3::gobucks4:

 

[MaxBuck]

Just my two cents, but let's not mix politics and religion in the same sentence/thread.

... Meanwhile, people come across the border, undocumented, and receive better medical care than those native-born here, and living under those freeways.

First, what an extreme case of contradicting oneself.

Second, I am unaware of any state laws that mandate that illegal aliens be afforded superior state services to native-born citizens. That comment appears absurd on a variety of levels.

Third, I happen to agree that the welfare state has created more problems than it has solved via unintended consequences, but as a Christian I believe that, one way or another, it is our responsibility to provide a safety net for the less fortunate (which category includes the less capable). However, as an individual American I believe that mandate applies to Christians and not necessarily to those of other faiths -- they can follow the dictates of their own religions, or not, as they choose.

Finally, as regards "understanding Evangelicals," that strikes me as something of a non sequitur. Evangelicals differ one from another just as Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, or Muslims; they are individuals who each have their own sets of biases and beliefs. Many Evangelicals are very pro-environment, pro-social action, and anti-death penalty for example, even though the majority may have opposite views. What unites Evangelicals is the nature of their faith, and their belief that converting others to Christianity is a dictate of God for their lives. Beyond that, I think drawing too many conclusions is difficult.

As an aside, in the article Gator linked, the author makes the following comment:

Secular liberals want to create the social conditions that allow everyday people, behaving the way ordinary people behave, to have fewer bad outcomes.

Let me say that this is one of the most smug, self-serving comments I've read lately, at least in its implication that conservatives want something different. Conservatives do NOT want people to have fewer bad outcomes? Baloney. Both conservatives and liberals (and let's throw us moderates into the bag, too) want people to prosper; we just disagree on what kind of society is most likely to promote that.

 

[buckeyebri]

First, let me say that I am a believer and I do attend the Catholic church with my family on a regular basis. I was raised Lutheran and married a Catholic. I have never converted to Catholic, as I don't think that it is necessary. I was especially appalled when I was told by the religious ed person at the Catholic church we were attending at the time that I needed to learn the right way to take communion. Herein lies my bane with organized religion and why I don't have a fondness for what I believe is man's interpretation of God's word as being the truth and basis for the organized church.

That being said, I have watched with great disgust to what has happened with my mother at her place of worship. My mother has always been a staunch religious person and extremely active in her church as her parents before her and their parents before them were. The family basically built the Lutheran church that exists today in my home town.

My mother is a retired Ohio High School Teacher, who has a degree in Education, as well as, in Early Childhood Development from tOSU. After she retired she helped the church build and run a day care. She has done a majority of the work in getting the funding and running the programs with the State over the last 12 or so years. She puts her heart and soul into running the program and is extremely active with the children, staff, and other ministry within the church.

Recently a new minister came in and has decided that it is time for my mom to retire. He has forced her out the door and has lied to the church board and others that it was my mom's decision on retiring and the date to retire. He has put her on the spot with the board regarding this and has forced the situation without and reason as to why. He has not done one thing to thank my mom for her services, let alone having a retirement ceremony.

So, what we have is a lying, conniving, and deceitful individual passing himself off as a man of God literally attempting and succeeding in destroying a foundational family member of the church. This is a man of God? This is the church family? I am at a loss as to what this individual is doing and how he rationalizes his actions with his role.

This is why I struggle with organized religion. I have seen way to many times where these so called men of God destroy and hurt good people. I believe in God, but not organized religion.

 

[MaxBuck]

... a new minister came in and has decided that it is time for my mom to retire. He has forced her out the door and has lied to the church board and others that it was my mom's decision on retiring and the date to retire. He has put her on the spot with the board regarding this and has forced the situation without and reason as to why. He has not done one thing to thank my mom for her services, let alone having a retirement ceremony.

So, what we have is a lying, conniving, and deceitful individual passing himself off as a man of God literally attempting and succeeding in destroying a foundational family member of the church. This is a man of God? This is the church family? I am at a loss as to what this individual is doing and how he rationalizes his actions with his role.

I'm saddened that your mom is going through this, buckeyebri. But I have to say that there's nothing about being a "man of God" that confers good common sense. Ministers (and the term includes priests, rabbis, imams, what have you) aren't guaranteed to be any more sensible than anyone else.

I'd be cautious about making too many assumptions about this fellow's motivations, though for sure you're close to the situation and can make your own mind up about things. In any event, hope your mom is able to come to terms with this situation and move on in a positive direction. From what she's done in the church in the past, sounds like that is the likely outcome.

 

[buckeyebri]

I'm saddened that your mom is going through this, buckeyebri. But I have to say that there's nothing about being a "man of God" that confers good common sense. Ministers (and the term includes priests, rabbis, imams, what have you) aren't guaranteed to be any more sensible than anyone else.

I'd be cautious about making too many assumptions about this fellow's motivations, though for sure you're close to the situation and can make your own mind up about things. In any event, hope your mom is able to come to terms with this situation and move on in a positive direction. From what she's done in the church in the past, sounds like that is the likely outcome.

Thanks Max. It is a very sad situation indeed and I have no idea what the motivation or reasoning may be. I have never seen my mom so hurt by another individuals actions and lack of explanation. Unfortunately for the church and day care they have lost a giving individual in both time and money. As they say when one door closes another one opens......