A question of ethics

[The_Patriot21]

man, I don't mean to be rude, but I already stated why. Read the rest of my post, as well as the others I made, and not just the one little excerpt.

[Guest man]

man, I don't mean to be rude, but I already stated why. Read the rest of my post, as well as the others I made, and not just the one little excerpt.

You mean this?

.

Maybe, if there was a system that taught them how to use coupons and the like, I wouldnt be opposed to name brand foods and the like on there, but when a person on food stamps, is eating better then someone who works 60+ hours a week, I think theres an issue with the system.

[The_Patriot21]

No I mean take all my posts and read them in their entirety instead of taking out bits and pieces.

[ayin jade]

candice and man... follow as the Holy Spirit convicts you, not how people on this forum condemn you. stay right with God and don't let others heap guilt on you.... guilt is not of God.

I made it quite plain that I was not condemning anyone. That this is what I would have to do, as I see the food stamp programs rules and how I would have to live out my walk with the Lord under it.

For my opinions I have been solidly condemned as legalistic etc by no less than 3 people on this thread, one of whom is a mod.

[Guest man]

No I mean take all my posts and read them in their entirety instead of taking out bits and pieces.

I did read your posts. I see nothing wrong with discussing the "bits and pieces". I was just curious why you felt that way. From what I see in your posts, the thorn in your side is the money. You want to restrict what others have because you can't have it. (steaks and lobster) I was just wondering why? I mean really, who cares what other people are eating?

Did you know that there are military families on foodstamps? Active, retired and disabled.

Im against them using the food for a bake sale, the food is intended, to feed people, not to generate a profit, even if its for someone else. Now, if someone brings home food bought with food stamps, and they have extra, and their neigbor is hungry and/or in need of food, then by all means share the food-but for a bake sale? no thats misuse of them if you ask me. Food stamps also shouldn't be accepted in restaurants, or even with some of the more expensive foods, in my opinion. Basic necessities, healthy food, store brand only stuff, and maybe a few extras but not a lot, and stuff like diapers. Just my opinion on it.

Let me address some issues here. First off I'm addressing food stamps-not food pantries, that's another topic entirely so im not going to address it here. Second, as I said I'm not opposed to people sharing stamps and food with people who need food, in fact if they do have extra that is what I think they should do. What I'm opposed to is them using them for anything that generates money-even if its for a good cause.

Secondly you need to wake up there are restaurants that accept food stamps. And if your state limits what food can be bought that's great but not all states do. And only store brand is not big brotherish its wise money management. When I can't afford the name brand u buy the store brand-why? Because I can't afford it. Yet, people who can't afford any food are rewarded with high dollar stuff I can't even buy? That's not helping that's enabling them. Period. Give them the necessities and that's it-anymore is enabling and a waste of tax dollars that could be spent elsewhere

Honestly though, food stamps are a sign of church failure. I just heard less then 5% if Christians tithe in the us. If that were 100% and the churches did their job we wouldn't even have to have food stamps because the church would feed the needy.

ok, so.... so why exactly is your tone to me so condescending? i wasn't trying to pick a fight, and i wasn't speaking to you in the tone that you spoke back. i didn't deserve that.

you were speaking of food stamps, yes. we all were. BUT, you said that people shouldn't be allowed to buy name brand or expensive foods with them. THAT is what i was addressing. i'm sure that you're not the one to do the household shopping most of the time, so perhaps you aren't aware that frequently you can buy the name brands for the same price or even cheaper than the generics, because of sales and coupons. buying generic isn't always wise money management. price comparison is. and perhaps i was jumping to conclusions, but i was assuming that "expensive foods" included better quality cuts of meat. those can also be had for a fraction of their normal price, sometimes even cheaper than ground hamburger meat, if you watch the sales and reduced-for-quick-sale bins. that's how i shop... i'm not on food stamps, but i'm on a very strict budget. that doesn't mean we eat ramen noodles and hot dogs every night.

i'm sorry you felt the need to get so defensive that you came across as hatefully as you did. i was hoping by sharing the story of one woman's attitude towards poor people and her opinion of what they deserved, you would recognize that sometimes there is more to things than meets the eye, and our opinions may be inaccurate. such is the case with the food pantry figurehead who believed poor people coming for assistance from the church did not deserve to eat well, even though it was cost efficient. and so is your opinion just as inaccurate that poor people coming to the government for assistance do not deserve to eat things that are generally considered expensive. the issue i was addressing was preconceived notions (attitudes, opinions, judgmentalism), NOT food pantries vs. food stamps. i apologize for not making my point a little more clear.

in any case, i agree the churches are failing in their responsibility to care for those in need. part of that is the lack of tithing going on. part of that is the mis-use of the tithes that do come in. and there is a lot of mis-use and even abuse by many churches, but that's a whole different topic indeed.

First off, I apologize if I came across as condescending-that was not my intent, your big brother comment kind of erked me, and in my experience when someone says theyre not trying to pick a fight, its usually the opposite, and even so I wasnt trying to come across as rude or condescending-It was a rushed reply on my cell phone during a break at work, and I didn't realize I was coming across that way. I was merely pointing out, that in many states, food stamps were accepted at some restaurants, and while yes, sometimes you can get name brand stuff cheaper and on sale, and with coupons-but on the whole, the generic, is cheaper. And you make a good point about coupons, but honestly, how many people who are on food stamps, are knoweldgeable about how to use and watch for sales and coupons and the like? My point is, I feel food stamps, like welfare, has turned into an entitlement-and not something beneficial to the person. Thats not saying that everyone on them is abusing the sytem and are evil, there are people out there that have a genuine need for food stamps, Im not discounting that at all-but I think there is a LOT of abuse of the system, and a lot of people are on food stamps, not because they are incapable of working or finding a job, but because of poor money management and bad life decisions, and food stamps are just enabling that lifestyle. Maybe, if there was a system that taught them how to use coupons and the like, I wouldnt be opposed to name brand foods and the like on there, but when a person on food stamps, is eating better then someone who works 60+ hours a week, I think theres an issue with the system.

When it comes to meat, however, I hold a slightly different principle. Meat is healthy, and filling, and Im not opposed to their being chicken, beef, and the like being allowed for people on food stamps. Especially beef, which is high in protein, Im not even opposed to some seafood-granted, I dont think they should be able to get the top brand name T-bone and lobster, but meat should definetly be on the menu, to deny someone meat and sticking them with tuna is punishing them for being poor-not helping. Im for wise food management, and wise money management, and teaching others how to do it. Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. Teach a man how to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime.

I hope Ive cleared my position up some, and again I apologize if I offended you, it was not my intent.

[Guest]

Very interesting stuff folks, I am really impressed. Let me add more information, not intended to apply the the question of the original post, but just more general information about the food stamp program itself.

Things that you cannot purchase with food stamps:

Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco;

Any nonfood items, such as:

-- pet foods; -- soaps, paper products; and -- household supplies.

Vitamins and medicines.

Food that will be eaten in the store.

Hot foods.

Things that one can buy with food stamps:

Foods for the household to eat, such as: -- breads and cereals; -- fruits and vegetables; -- meats, fish and poultry; and -- dairy products.

Seeds and plants which produce food for the household to eat.

Now, in the thread the topic has come up about junk foods and luxury items. The program uses a definition of food that comes from The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. Since this is what determines eligibility, the following items are permitted becuase the fit the acts' definition of food:

Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items

Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible items

Energy drink? Some yes, and some no:

Energy drinks that have a nutrition facts label are eligible foods

Energy drinks that have a supplement facts label are classified by the FDA as supplements, and are therefore not eligible

Why allow recipients to buy lobster (expensive) or diet soda (zero nutrition)?

Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by a member of Congress. Several times in the history of the program, congress has considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome.

Back to things relating to ethics, I have another question(s) that people have touched on and may want to think more about and even comment if they wish.

Some have the conviction that the act should be followed to the letter. I do not think that this should be criticised, because of the instruction in Romans 13, which read in part:

1Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

There is seems to me that the instruction are clearly, for us to obey the law. I think then, that someone who wished to follow that edict, deserves to be respected, whether or not we share their view. It is true, that there are people who are legalists, but many who get that label, are also what we might call obedient.

Of course, to be obedient, we might expect that this would be true in all their life, and not just applied to others in situations which they do not share. I shall give an example:

A number of years ago, we had a national speed limit in the U.S. of 55 M.P.H. People who are big fans of Romans 13, would then of course never drive 56 M.P.H., or I would think, ride with someone driving 56 M.P.H. without at least mentioning it. I choose the driving example, becuase most Americans at least, can relate to it. It also gives me an opportunity to raise another point.

That speed limit was imposed for the sake of energy conservation, However, most speed limits exist, for safety reasons. Let me introduce a hypothetical. Suppose that a 55 M.P.H. speed limit werein force for safety reasons. Also suppose that every car on a 4 lane each way freeway, was diving at 70 M.P.H., in this 55 M.P.H. zone. Soon a Romans 13 minded Christian is about to enter this stretch of road. He pulls into traffic, going 55, a car has to make a lane change to avoid hitting him, or slow down. Doing either, then affects other drivers, who have to alter speed or direction, and that affects others etc. This creates a hazard. In this case, the law abiding citizen is effectively more dangerous, that the law breakers were until the good citizen got on the freeway. Question, can/should the Rom 13 Christian, consider breaking the letter of the law, in order to harmonize with the spirit of the law, which in the case is safety?

My question here then is, When Jesus told us that it was the spirit of the law that mattered, not the letter, should we only applie that to God's laws, or also to mans laws? Here I am speaking in the moral sense only, of course it remain illegals and subject to legal consequences. Does God look at the heart of that beleiver, and think, he is trying to do good, and not risk the safety of others? Or is God more likely to think that rebellious beliver is breaking mans law?

Another thought to ponder in the foos stamp situation:

Sceneario:

Two familes of four, one has three members eligible for food stamp, and one inelligible member. The secong familily, had no eligible members.

Family one, may have up to four servings of food under the program, but is not allowed to let the inelligible member have any of it.

Family to, goes to a local food pantry, which has four seving of food available.

Which is better, for the 1st family, to go to the food pantry for their ineligible member, and therefore that meber can have 4/5ths of a serving of food, and family 2 also gets 4/5ths of a serving each,

or

for family 1 to violate the rules of the program, and receive 1 serving apiece, and the 2nd family also gets one serving apiece?

Clearly the results are better for everyone in the second case, but the 1st family had to 'sin' by breaking the government rules.

Is God more concerned about rules than He is about peoples welfare?

Just things to ponder.

[~candice~]

candice and man... follow as the Holy Spirit convicts you, not how people on this forum condemn you. stay right with God and don't let others heap guilt on you.... guilt is not of God.

I made it quite plain that I was not condemning anyone. That this is what I would have to do, as I see the food stamp programs rules and how I would have to live out my walk with the Lord under it.

For my opinions I have been solidly condemned as legalistic etc by no less than 3 people on this thread, one of whom is a mod.

No one condemned you as legalistic. The cited examples (which I intentionally made up) I consider legalistic. Since I'm the only mod in the thread, I can only infer you mean I called you legalistic, which I didn't. Please don't falsely accuse me.

Now, in general (no longer citing aj) let me respond to omegaman's point.

I understand how frustrating it is to be genuinely obedient and be called a legalistic. But obedience needs to be in he spirit of the rules. I think it's clear that the spirit of the rules is nothing like the examples I put forth. To infer a more restrictive intention than what is intended is legalism, not obedience. It burdens our brothers unnecessarily. Eg I consider it personal use to offer a coffee to a visitor.

God does see the heart. And a heart that unnecessarily burdens people with laws more restrictive than what is intended is not necessarily in a more pure state (I'm trying to get a the heart of the feeling when obedience is called legalism) than the person being obedient (to the point of being obedient to the uni tended restriction).

I'm posting from my phone so it's very hard to type. Ill leave it at that.

[nebula]

not sure how that addresses bake sales though, neb that's basically saying what a person is allowed to purchase, not what they're allowed to do with it.

Well, that's the trouble with this debate. There are no rules I could find that say they cannot use food stamps to purchase ingredients to make something for a bake sale.

[Qnts2]

Well, I am learning some things about the food stamp program.

I hope they never make a rule concerning brands of food which may be purchased. Muslims have food laws and what is ok to it is called 'Halal'. Not that I know much about their system of certifying food as 'clean' or fit to eat. Jewish people who are observant can only eat food certified as Kosher. Off brands or generic brands are not usually certified as Kosher or Halal. Most major brands do go for the certification. So, if food stamps did make a ruling on generic brands being required, Jews and Muslims could not use the food stamp program even if they needed to.

The U.S. with religious freedom is a country which built it's laws to allow people of all religions to live safely and follow their religions. This was recognized as necessary as the first settlers were escaping religious persecution in church/state countries. What that means to me is that we need to protect the rights of other religions.

Another thing I find strange. No feed for animals allowed. So a family could not buy feed for a young calf and raise it for meat for the family. Or buy feed for a goat for milk. Or chickens.

[Guest LadyC]

candice and man... follow as the Holy Spirit convicts you, not how people on this forum condemn you. stay right with God and don't let others heap guilt on you.... guilt is not of God.

I made it quite plain that I was not condemning anyone. That this is what I would have to do, as I see the food stamp programs rules and how I would have to live out my walk with the Lord under it.

For my opinions I have been solidly condemned as legalistic etc by no less than 3 people on this thread, one of whom is a mod.

jade, i didn't call you out and say "don't let ayin jade condemn you". i was speaking in general. those who are on food stamps have stated that they feel judged by some in this thread. do you not agree that such feelings of being judged are feelings of condemnation from humans, rather than of conviction that comes from the Holy Spirit? and do you not agree that they need only make sure they are not being led by true conviction rather than feelings of condemnation? and do you also not agree that feelings of condemnation are not of God?

i know that you DO agree with me on those statements, but you took my words personally and got offended. there was no attack on you or anyone else. are we good now?

(edited to strike out a word i didn't mean to put there!)