Liberal and Christianity

[ayin jade]

48 minutes ago, Qnts2 said:

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.  

 

It does look like you said the democrats viewed it as a biblical mandate. 

Regardless, given that the us is a secular govt and not a theocracy, I do not believe that the govt has the mandate to feed the poor. 

[The_Patriot21]

39 minutes ago, Qnts2 said:

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. 

Even if your right about the Bible saying the government should take care of the poor, and I'm not saying your wrong, our current system is far from biblical. Very little of what the government does to help actually helps-just enslaves. Creates dependency. That's not a Biblical system at all. So while the Bible may say the government should help the poor-the Democrat system is anything but Biblical, in fact it's the exact opposite.

Applying the same logic, the slave owners of the early 1800s were only "helping" the poor.

[Revelation Man]

On 7/14/2016 at 4:47 PM, Out of the Shadows said:

I will tell you why are you wrong.  Some born again Christians believe that God gave us freewill and it is not the place of Christians to take that away.  So, yes a liberal person is accepting, in the way of not telling anyone how to live, of any lifestyle that is not harming anyone else.   Jesus never forced anyone to act His way, he never used the laws to make people act like a Christian, so I will not do so either.  If two men or two women want to live together in sin and get the same perks from the government that I do, I say it is their right to be able to choose that lifestyle.   We are not a theocracy and our laws should not be based solely on the bible.   Do I belive homosexulaty is a sin, yes I do, but I change that by dealing with the individual and not passing laws.   Homoselxay is no more a sin than two people of opposite gender having sex outside of marriage or no more of a sin than people who have been married 3, 4, or 5 times that keep doing it again.   The most liberal verse in the bible... So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets

The question wasn't should we be a theocracy, it was can Liberals be Christians, or something to that affect. And yes, believe it or not, as a Christian or child pf God it is our duty to call out all sins....Ezekiel 3:18 If I say to the wicked person, 'You will surely die,' but you do not warn him--you don't speak out to warn him about his wicked way in order to save his life--that wicked person will die for his iniquity. Yet I will hold you responsible for his blood. 

God gave us free will to chose to love Him or evil, but loving evil over God has consequences. No Gov. should condone perversions. To pit Liberals in office is the same as us advocating for abortion. Jesus said there will be many in the last day hat he will say, depart from me for I never knew you, ye that do iniquity. Only those that do the Will of the Father will enter Heaven.

 

[Guest shiloh357]

4 hours ago, Qnts2 said:

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.

Yes, there are always jobs for those willing to work.  But many may not like the kind of job they would have to do.   There are jobs for those willing to work jobs, even if it is not the kind of work they like to do.

Quote

 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. 

My comments about utility companies had to do with them being willing to work with you on your bill IF you talk to them and demonstrate extreme hardship.  In some cases, depending on the circumstances, they will forgive part or all of your bill, or they may work out some other kind of agreement if you can't pay your bill.  It depends on where you live. Utility companies in my area are not hiring.

Quote

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. 

I am not assuming nor did I make the accusation that those who do not have jobs are into bad habits in spending.   My point is that when you're not making a lot of money, you're going to have to give some things up.  That includes self-destructive habits, like smoking, and drinking,  gambling, stuff like that.   I also said that you have to change your eating habits to fit your level of income and that includes not eating out, and eating more for nutrition and less for recreation.   It means being disciplined in how you spend your money at the grocery store.   You can live without chips and cookies and frozen pizza and ice cream, Hot Pockets, etc.   Its' not always how much you make, it's what you do with what you have.   I used to work with people who always complained we didn't paid enough.   But they spent 1/3 to 1/2 of their checks on booze and Internet Pornography and online poker and cigars.

Quote

The Republican plan assumes people are lazy, slackards, irresponsible and unwilling to pull themselves up.

More often that not, that assumption is correct.   When I was 19, I caused a fender bender and the judge assigned me to 25 hours community service.   My community service took place at the Dept. of Social Services here in my town.  I witnessed, first hand, people who getting all kinds of government assistance even though they were able to work.   As I was mopping floors I heard people become irate with their social worker if the social workers suggested they  get a job.   They got even more irate if their welfare check was a day late in getting to them.  They didn't want a job.  They wanted a check.   We have 2nd and 3rd generation welfare recipients on the role.   Their parents were recipients and they learned how to game the system the way their parents did to get welfare.   And most people I have known on welfare are perfectly able to work, their kids are old enough that they don't need a sitter, and there is no real reason whey can't work.

There is a lot poverty out there that is self-imposed.  We have "tent" cities in my town where homeless people live.  They choose to live that way.  They don't get jobs.  Rather, they have a monthly/weekly routine where they get help from churches and para church ministries as well as government programs.  They use programs and charities to perpetuate the lifestyle of homelessness and poverty they live in.  Some churches got wise to that and cut off services to some of the ones they knew were gaming them.  But we have near 200 of these people living in three tent cities just inside the city limits.   They also pan handle at various intersection on the north side of town.  They actually make a lot of money ($50-$80 per day) despite how ragged they make themselves appear and the money they make is tax free.

Quote

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.

To some degree we have to assume the worst because so many people DO attempt exploit others.  Many poor people are not victims.  They enjoy poverty because if someone else will take care of them, they have no incentive to work.   Most government programs to help the poor were not meant to be "income."  They were meant to be  temporary safety net to help you when you hit on hard times due to circumstance beyond your control.   Originally, the idea was to help those who needed help until they could get back on their feet.  The assumption was that you were still looking for work and that this would give you something to live on while you were out looking for a job.  Welfare was never meant to become what it is now, and we have the Democrats to thank for promoting poverty in order to keep people dependent on government hand outs.

 

Quote

Those who see it as a biblical rule that the governments should have laws and taxes to assist others sadly, are the democrats.

The Democrats have done nothing for poverty.  They perpetuate poverty by keeping people dependent on the government.  I have not seen "Christian" Democrats promote anything but the same anti-Christ platform that characterizes the Democrat party that we see today.  The Democrats have become the party of societal sleaze.

  The Conservative view does not lack compassion for the TRULY needy, who cannot help themselves.    But those whose poverty is the result of simply not wanting to get out and get a job deserve no compassion.  They are free loaders and they are a drain on the economy.    We have to draw a  moral distinction between the truly needy and those whose poverty is self-inflicted.   That's why we need a sliding scale when it comes to Welfare for those able to work.  The sliding scale would not apply to those who cannot work due to infirmity.   It would only applied to able-bodied people who really have no business on Welfare in the first place.

 

 

[Guest shiloh357]

4 hours ago, Qnts2 said:

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. 

No, the Democrat method isn't biblical .  The BIBLICAL method was to allow the poor to come and harvest what you left behind in your fields and orchards.   The biblical method was that the poor still had to go to work each day.  They didn't get to sit around and expect the government to subsidize them 24/7.    The Democrat method is to just send you a check.  Their whole platform is to just throw money at every problem.   There is a lot of welfare fraud being perpetrated by people who are able to work, but are merely gaming the system because they are lazy and the rest of us have to pay for them.   There is NOTHING about the Democrat approach that is biblical.

[BK1110]

Biblically, I believe in the Old Testament God provided for the poor to eat by gleaning left behind wheat in the fields, and He did command those harvesting to essentially leave a little behind for them. For people who were truly disabled and couldn't do even that (numerous people Jesus healed in the New Testament would qualify), it seems that giving alms was method there...but that was always from individuals, was it not? I cannot recall a single passage where it was commanded the people be taxed and the religious leaders take that tax and divide it among the poor, or something similar (if that is incorrect, please do correct me with scripture).

As a conservative, I do care about the poor, but I cannot condone a system that seems to do more harm than good. The current system is easily worked and abused, and ends up creating as many problems as it solves. I would say the solution is that those who are truly disabled turn to their local churches. Even unbelievers will find aid there, if the church is truly doing God's work and will.

[Qnts2]

8 hours ago, ayin jade said:

It does look like you said the democrats viewed it as a biblical mandate. 

Regardless, given that the us is a secular govt and not a theocracy, I do not believe that the govt has the mandate to feed the poor. 

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. 

[Qnts2]

4 hours ago, BK1110 said:

Biblically, I believe in the Old Testament God provided for the poor to eat by gleaning left behind wheat in the fields, and He did command those harvesting to essentially leave a little behind for them. For people who were truly disabled and couldn't do even that (numerous people Jesus healed in the New Testament would qualify), it seems that giving alms was method there...but that was always from individuals, was it not? I cannot recall a single passage where it was commanded the people be taxed and the religious leaders take that tax and divide it among the poor, or something similar (if that is incorrect, please do correct me with scripture).

As a conservative, I do care about the poor, but I cannot condone a system that seems to do more harm than good. The current system is easily worked and abused, and ends up creating as many problems as it solves. I would say the solution is that those who are truly disabled turn to their local churches. Even unbelievers will find aid there, if the church is truly doing God's work and will.

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.     

[Qnts2]

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

No, the Democrat method isn't biblical .  The BIBLICAL method was to allow the poor to come and harvest what you left behind in your fields and orchards.   The biblical method was that the poor still had to go to work each day.  They didn't get to sit around and expect the government to subsidize them 24/7.    The Democrat method is to just send you a check.  Their whole platform is to just throw money at every problem.   There is a lot of welfare fraud being perpetrated by people who are able to work, but are merely gaming the system because they are lazy and the rest of us have to pay for them.   There is NOTHING about the Democrat approach that is biblical.

I think you need to read more. 

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)

If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs. Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: "The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near," so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to the Lord against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land. (Dt 15:7-11)

The second verse shows that when we lend to a poor person, do not be concerned if he will pay it back or not. Not everyone can work, or pay it back. In otherwords, mail him a check with no expectation of payback. Be willing to throw money at the need/problem. 

You are basing everything on the cheaters and caring little for the needy. So the needy are hurt to protect yourself against the frauds. Sorry, but that kind of system hurts everyone.

[kwikphilly]

Call me stupid but what does this have to do with the Topic?   Revelation Man gave a good try t o put this discussion back on point but it did not seem to do the trick,can the "Welfare" debate get it's own Thread? It certainly is a Topic that would get many replies but this is a "de-rail"