Qnts2

There is a tax used to feed the poor. At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it in your towns, so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. (Dt 14:28-29) Our current system of welfare definitely has flaws but when caring for others, is it better to be so aware of cheaters that the law makes it harder on those with real needs? In my view, I would rather some cheaters slip by to make sure those who have a real need do not go hungry. The cheaters will be judged by God, but an overly tight fisted rule which harms the needed will be judged also. It is better to be more generous (higher taxes), to help the needed. I am going to assume that maybe 10% of the people in the U.S. are truly Christians. I am also going to assume that 10% of the people are poor and have real needs for food, etc. The few Christians are unable to support number of poor and are unable to locate all of the poor. That is why a central system is needed. I at one time was friends with a family with young children who had recently moved to our state. They found an apartment for themselves and 3 young children. The husband looked for a job but after several months had not yet found one. He was behind on his rent which was 1000 a month. And he had to wait to get federal assistance. I took him to some local churches to ask for some assistance with his rent. Two churches turned him down. The third church gave him $50. That was it. I did not have $1000 to give him.

Sorry, I was referring to Christians who vote Democrat. They see caring for the poor as a biblical mandate and that Democrats do that by strongly supporting welfare etc, so vote based on that. I believe that any government should have ethical laws. Ethical laws are those defined by God. A government does not have to be a theocracy to have some biblical laws, and all governments should outlaw murder, care for the poor, etc.

I never said that Democrats viewed it as a biblical mandate. However, the bible does show that governments can and should provide for the poor by taxation so the democrat method is biblical.

I do not see it as a myth since I have heard Republicans speak about that kind of things expressed.

I know disabled people who are totally unable to work. (One has since passed away, and did not receive enough money from disability to make it. He was renting a single bedroom in a home, and ate frugally but ran out of money for gas to see his kids, so we gave him money for gas). I know disabled people who have trouble finding jobs and have tried. There are not always jobs. It depends on where you live. Utility companies in my area are not hiring. Your assumption that people who don't have jobs, or making minimum wage, are into bad habits in spending, and it is their fault, is a gross generalization. So, I disagree with your view. Except, I do agree that Obama has NOT turned the economy around. The Republican plan assumes people are lazy, slackards, irresponsible and unwilling to pull themselves up. Their plan is based on assuming the worst from people, and therefore lacks compassion, mercy, and any real assistance, but rather threats, demands, and ignores real people who are going hungry. Those who see it as a biblical rule that the governments should have laws and taxes to assist others sadly, are the democrats. By the way, migrants work what I would call piece work. If a person can pick a lot of apples in a short amount of time, they will make a relatively decent wage, but it is hot, hard work, and very long hours. A person who is not as skilled, since it is piece work, a person might make $2 an hour. The migrant farm hands are skilled. Others need to put in the time to learn how to be faster but farmers have found few Americans are willing. Some farms contract with prisons to get enough workers.

Ok, let's start with the statement that the poor will always be with us, so no system in this current world will ever eliminate all poor. There will always be people in need of assistance. Our U.S. government has system in place to help the disabled who could work, get jobs. Businesses have to make special accommodations. But, the disabled still have a tough time getting jobs. Those with mental challenges (used to be called retarded), if they are able to work at all, usually get minimum wage jobs and are lucky to get them. In a tight job market, there are not jobs for everyone. So, based on you scaled welfare benefits, what about education? Or a way to gain skills? What about the family that can not find jobs that a sufficient to cover their expenses? Do they go to 0, and starve? In the system set up for the poor by God, no one was put in a position where they got 0. The usual Republican proposal is filled with rules but shows no mercy. The Democrats don't want people to starve. By the way, I mostly agree about illegal aliens, but non-citizens with work visa's sometimes do the low paying dirty jobs few want to do but are needed and they do need assistance. Also, the work visa system is broken, not allowing enough visa's to cover the farm workers needed for the dirty jobs. In some areas fruit rots in the field because of a shortage of migrant workers.

Actually, my point is that the government is supposed to help those in need. According to scripture, the government of Israel had laws and systems setup to help those in poverty. Israel is an example for all governments. Without a system to help those in need, people starve. That system must be central, to coordinate the method, the food etc, and reach the people in need. That means government. Now who decides and regulates who has the need to receive assistance? Again, it must be centralized, so it is up to the central authority to weed out the lazy. But, in that process, a child should not starve because the grownups involved in caring for that child are too lazy. So, government, according to scripture, is to setup a system of assistance as shown by God's laws given to the government of Israel. Those scriptural laws are the examples given by God to all people and governments.

I understand my friends who vote Democratic, in that they are concerned about providing for the poor. Unfortunately, your post seems to fight against providing for the poor. Since most cities do not have fields and orchards within walking distance, so your statement about that is not valid. And what of those who are disabled and unable to glean? And unable to leave their homes? Caring for the poor is not being a sugar daddy, as it can be a caring, merciful and compassionate person. What would be your solution to help feed the poor? Not finding faults, but finding a solution.

It is not mandated, but if God commanded something, I would say it is a good idea for any government to provide for the poor. Just as any government needs to have laws against murder, even if that government is not a theocracy. A government providing for the poor by taxes is in the bible. For a Christian, it is reasonable to support a tax which helps the poor since such a tax is in scripture. And yes, I do believe there are faults in the system but an imperfect system does not mean we completely eliminate a provision to help those in need. Nor do I believe the system should be so demanding and stringent to demean those who are truly in need, which is the risk of requiring too many hoops people in need must jump through. I have heard that for a person to receive disability assistance, they have to fight against an almost automatic initial rejection.

On Bernie, some of the reservations he visited have never been visited by anyone else running for president. He also visited an Inuit village which had never had a presidential candidate visit. While the NT says that Christians are to be cheerful givers, there are insufficient born again Christians to actually help all of those in need in the U.S. Plus, Christians are not aware of the poor people in need. Going to the OT, in the Mosaic law, specific tithes were for the poor. In addition, farmers were to leave corners of crops for the poor, etc When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. (Lev 19:9-10) When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the alien, the fatherless and the widow, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. When you beat the olives from your trees, do not go over the branches a second time. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow. When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do this. (Dt 24:19-22) At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it in your towns, so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. (Dt 14:28-29) As Christians, we are to freely give, but governments can and must also set laws to provide for the poor which is clear in scripture. The tithe is essentially a tax. So, it is biblical and necessary to set a tax to support the poor, widows and orphans.

One Christian friend lost her father at a very young age, and she and her mother were dependent on the welfare system. From that experience, she knows the struggles her family went through, and their need for assistance, welfare. So, she will always vote for the party which will provide the best assistance for the poor. Helping the widows and the poor is Christian. So, yes, a person can be a Christian and a Democrat. Sadly, the Republicans do not have a very good track record supporting welfare. Today, the Democrats are focused on environmental causes, and will pass laws which hurt the poor. At the same time, the Republicans are pushing to reduce or eliminate social security which will hurt the elderly and perhaps leave them short to afford the costs of electricity. Clinton (who I will never vote for), said she will maintain the Social Security system at a good rate while Trump is wanting to reduce it on the way to privatizing it. (Clinton SSI stance actually comes from Sanders who has always championed the elderly). By the way, I never heard from Sanders about the Reservation issues in Arizona, but the local news made a point of covering Bernie's many visits to reservations after Arizona. Apparently, he was the only presidential candidate to visit and discuss issues with Native Americans in many places that he went. Yesterday, I got a phone call with a survey about the welfare system. It was clearly a survey for the Republican candidate and most of the questions had to do with welfare, phrased in a way to regulate welfare intensely to minimize the cost. Since I know Christians who vote Democrat, and I understand their reasoning and have to concede that they have biblical support, I answer that a person can be a Christian and a Democrat. Neither party is really showing Christian views, and neither is entirely devoid of biblical issues.

I know several solid believers who vote Democrat. If you consider a person who votes Democrat as liberal, then I say, yes, a person can be a 'liberal' and a solid committed believer. Their number one political motivation for voting Democrat is care for the poor, orphans, etc. Democrats commit to those views in their platform far more then Republicans.

We are reading it very differently. I see what is occurring as nothing different then what occurs in vocal churches. No, attempted dialogue but just a one line spoken outloud to affirm what the pastor is saying, which I have seen in televised church services of this type. In a church which does not typically have this interaction with the Pastors sermon, it sounds very different. But the only way to know for sure would be to non-confrontationally, talk to the person, assuming the best and just to understand them and get to know them a little bit better. There is no reason to tell the person they are wrong, or correct them. They may be doing what is right and proper in churches they have attended. In my view, it is best to start with the view that the person is not doing something wrong, or offensive. The Church is made up of people from different church cultures who gather together in a potentially wide diversity.

I know that some churches not only allow but encourage those listening to the sermon to vocally respond with out loud amens, or other statements of affirmation of what the pastor is saying. So, vocalization during a sermon is perfectly acceptable, encouraged, and common in some church services. I have never really attended a church which had people speaking or shouting during the sermon, but know that they exist from TV shows of such services. Before calling what a person does as rude, I would check to see if he came from a church where talking during a sermon is considered proper.

In so-called Christianity there are segments whicch are anti-zionist/anti-semitic. People who know little to nothing about Jesus and Christianity hear these anti-zionist/anti-semitic 'christians' and come to think that Christians are anti-zionist/anti-semitic. Knowing scripture and being able to quote scripture showing that God made the promises of the land to the children of Israel/Jewish people, shows to the Jewish people that some Christians know this truth in scripture and are not anti-semitic. It is a starting place to share about the Messianic prophesies, and Who Jesus is. But, as long as Christianity is portrayed by anti-zionist/anti-semitic christians, it can be seen as an indication the christians are against the Jewish people and hardly have the best intentions concerning the Jewish people. In otherwords, anti-zionism/anti-semitism works against Jesus, not for Jesus. The truth about Jesus is not shared by hate (anti-zionism/anti-semitism), but many Jewish people have experienced hate from christians who hate in Jesus name. So, anyone who cares about the Jewish people knows that hate filled christians, have done tremendous damage, and those who care know it is important to know this to be able to reach out and share the gospel.

I understand what Ezra and you are trying to say, but it is contrary to scripture. Nothing, and I mean nothing God gives is ever an empty shell. I view such a statement as demeaning to God. In both the OT and the NT, the benefits of scripture is emphasized, and the OT is scripture. I think some people are confused. They think that since Jesus came, the Mosaic covenant no longer offers eternal salvation, but totally miss the fact that eternal salvation was never, ever offered in the Mosaic covenant. Before Jesus, the Mosaic covenant did not offer salvation, so nothing has changed as far as the Mosaic covenant. The New Covenant is the better covenant because it gives eternal salvation but the Mosaic covenant is called a good covenant in the NT. Not an empty shell. Those who look down on the Mosaic covenant, and miss the beauty and purpose, might call it an 'empty shell', but again, nothing God gives is empty.

Ok. I have seen various groups do that quite a bit. I have also seen wealthy people work to achieve their agendas. Both liberal and conservatives. A while back, the LGBT community chose some states with smaller populations and strongly encouraged people to move to those states as it was believed to be easier to gain enough people to pass their agendas in select smaller states. They viewed it as a way to start gaining ground. They were successful in the smaller states and expanded from there. I had already heard a lot of talk for years about taxing sugary drinks, so that is nothing new really. I don't like it, but that has been attempted for years.

I am trying to understand the relationship. Why 'Bloomberg, the new Soros'?

I have heard the claim that a large number of Jewish people don't support Zionism, but it is incorrect. There is a small group which did not and does not support Zionism, but not for the same reason as Gentile anti-zionists. There is a small group of ultra-orthodox Jewish people who did not support the establishment of Israel by a secular government. The reason they objected is the belief that when the Messiah comes, it is the Messiah who will setup the Jewish state. It's not that they don't believe the land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people, but because they felt that it should wait for the arrival of the Messiah. Unlike Gentile anti-zionists who do not think the Jewish people should have the land at all, and oppose Jewish people defending themselves in the land. So, there is a tremendous difference between the small group of Jewish people who wanted to wait to establish the land of Israel until the Messiah comes, and those who want to deny Israel the right to exist or defend itself. The second is anti-semitic. The first is a view of future prophetic Messianic events and not a denial of having a homeland.

Fresno Joe answered very well. The bible shows very clearly in the OT and the NT that God gave the OT and the promises to the Jewish people. Again, Judaism means the religion of the Jewish people, which is God given. Anything given by God has merit. For me, it was Judaism that gave me the information to believe in Jesus as Judaism teaches the OT scriptures given by God and teaches of the prophesied Messiah. Judaism has preserved the OT scriptures and teaches the OT. So, when you call Judaism and empty shell, you are calling what God gave the children of Israel and what God did for the children of Israel an did an empty shell.

What does God say about the OT and the Mosaic covenant? Tim 3:16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. All scripture includes the OT, which contains the Mosaic covenant, which is scripture inspired by God and profitable for teaching etc. It is written that the man of God can be equipped for every good work. Romans 7:12 So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. The OT and the Mosaic covenant is not an 'empty shell' as you have said. Scripture disagrees with you. You might want to read some of the Psalms. Psalm 1:2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord, And in His law he meditates day and night. We know how God was pleased with King David. Nothing God gives should ever be called an 'empty shell'.

I would not call the Mosaic covenant an empty shell since it was given by God. That to me demeans God. Nothing God did was an empty shell. Since Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people, and Judaism includes the promise of the Messiah, along with prophesies about the Jewish people coming to Jesus, Judaism as the religion of the Jewish people, does and will include Jesus.

Judaism simply means the religion of the Jewish people. From a Jewish believer view point, Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, prophesied in the OT to the Jewish people first. The religion of the Jewish people, Judaism, should include Jesus as the promised Messiah, therefore, belief in Jesus is Judaism (Messianic Judaism). A belief which should be the belief of the Jewish people.

I am very sorry to learn this. I liked the OP and saw him as a seeker with a great desire to study. I will miss him.

A publican is a Jewish person who collected taxes for Rome. They were not cut off from the righteousness of the law, nor were they dead to God. Publicans would have been viewed as a low person who worked for Rome, mandating taxes and making money off the Jewish people. They would not be considered unclean as unclean as the term unclean is defined by the Mosaic law and is a ritual thing which is resolved by following the prescribed Mosaic laws, such as waiting the prescribed amount of time, going to the ritual bath, and sometimes making a sacrifice. Just for a comparison, a person who works with the dead, or ritually slaughters animal is ritually unclean much of the time. Publicans were not excommunicated as there is no such thing as excommunication in Judaism or the Mosaic law. The closest thing to excommunication would be violating certain laws, or being born from an illegitimate union. Those people were still Jewish but were not allowed to enter the assembly or other limitations. Publicans were fully members and allowed by Mosaic law to enter the assembly. So, while the Jewish community viewed a publican as being the lowest of the Jewish society, that would be because they were Jewish and working for Rome, taking money from their own people.