Gather up your political / social policy scriptures.

[AVG-JOE]

There is nothing in the words of Jesus that would indicate that He would have a problem with the government helping the poor. The totality of scripture is clear that we are to help the widow, the poor, and the orphan, and thus We the People can make the decision for all of us. Tis what tis.

Is there anything wrong with making more of these political decisions using information, teachings and writings that are a little more, shall we say, relevant?

 

[JakeStarkey]

To the great majority of Americans (Christian, Jewish, Moslem), our spiritual values and personal ethics are influenced by the teachings of the scriptures. That is our 1st Amendment right to believe as we wish.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Christianity encourages us to support ourselves and not neglect our responsibilities and burden others with them. In fact, our labor/work is how we serve our fellow men and build up their lives. That's why business is good. Because we provide goods and services others want while they do the same for us. That's the basis of business.

Jesus also thought compassion and charity to those in need.
Diligence is an important aspect and yes sloth is harmful which is why their needs to be regulations that make sure the people who rely on those services actually need them and aren't just taking a free ride.
At the same time I know people who need them who the government wont give them to.

If you think your burdens shouldn't be placed on any one elses shoulders, then denounce your covenant with Jesus Christ for he holds your greatest burden your Sin.
Take up your own cross carry your own burdens live as a Jew would or do you feel like neglecting your responsibilities and burdening another with them.

Nice cherrypicking. It almost sounds like you know what you're talking about . . . that is, if the reader doesn't know, either.

The difference between Christ taking our burdens and putting them onto others via government - you know, aside from that whole "He's God, not another human being" thing - is that Christ takes those burdens on Himself voluntarily and willingly. The government, meanwhile, forces them on other people whether they want them or not.

Never fails to amaze me how hard that whole "voluntary" thing is for some people to grasp.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Jesus also thought compassion and charity to those in need.
Diligence is an important aspect and yes sloth is harmful which is why their needs to be regulations that make sure the people who rely on those services actually need them and aren't just taking a free ride.
At the same time I know people who need them who the government wont give them to.

If you think your burdens shouldn't be placed on any one elses shoulders, then denounce your covenant with Jesus Christ for he holds your greatest burden your Sin.
Take up your own cross carry your own burdens live as a Jew would or do you feel like neglecting your responsibilities and burdening another with them.

The idea that business isn't compassionate or charitable is false. Wealth is created by providing others with goods and services they need.

What service does wall-street provide?
They seem pretty useless and rich to me!

Yes they provide services which need to be paid for. Ever stop to think about the people who constantly look for work but can't find any and so they can't PAY for those services with out help.
I am sure if you rolled up to the people whom you pay for your electric bill and said oops I don't got the money could you show me some compassion, they would laugh at you and turn your power off.
After all America is built upon one of the greatest evils, Social Darwinism.

Well, I'll tell you what, Rockefeller. Why don't you explain to us some of your no-doubt VAST knowledge about who and what "Wall Street" is, and maybe THEN someone will consider your judgement that they're "useless" serious enough to address, rather than just laughing derisively.

By the way, twit, "the people I pay for my electric bill" have a discount program for low-income people. They also routinely provide for grace periods when you can't pay your bills before actually shutting off your electricity. All you have to do is communicate with them, instead of sitting in your hovel, cussing and muttering about "rich electric companies".

Honestly, the arrogant ignorance of some people.

 

[Cecilie1200]

fleecing the rich? that is an odd term...they have already fleeced the poor...

yes rich is a subjective term.....

i was raised a southern baptist......i was taught as a child ...that when you are approached by someone asking for something to remember that bible verse....what you do to the least of my breather you do to me.....think about that....if a begger approaches.....would you turn away jesus....

yes i have left the church.....and i am no longer a christian.....but i think there is a moral to the story...instead of asking what would jesus do....perhaps we should ask...what would we do if jesus ask for something from us?

Tell me, did the Southern Baptists also teach you that when you are approached by someone asking for help, you should refer them to the government, because you'd rather have bureaucrats handle your responsibilities for you? Did they teach you that welfare programs are the equivalent of personal charity and interaction? Or did you become stupid on this subject only AFTER you left the church?

What would I do if Jesus asked something from me? It certainly wouldn't be giving him directions to the nearest welfare office.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let's compare Obama with Romney with repect to charitable contributions.

Romney gave 15% to charity while Obama gave 1%.

Who is being kinder to the poor?

Is stealing our money to give to "The Poor" considered more kind than giving from your own income now????

didnt mittens give that to the mormon church in the form of tithes ?

i dont think i would consider the mormon church a charity

I don't think anyone asked you, or gives a damn now that you shared with us anyway.

The IRS considers the Mormon Church a charity/non-profit organization. They meet the legal definition of a charity/non-profit organization, which strangely enough, doesn't contain the phrase "has deeply impressed ignorant leftists who know nothing about it".

For the record - not that you deserve to have something explained to you that you never bothered to research yourself before opening your fat mouth - the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, like most major churches, supports multiple charities.

Now why don't you tell us all about the charities Obama "generously" contributes almost nothing to, instead of dodging and hiding behind your bigotry?

 

[Amelia]

Someone earlier mentioned the idea that "we the people" can vote to help take care of the rest of "we the people" if that is our choice as a nation. I agree with that.

However, I also believe that "we the people" can consider the evidence that a lot of good governmental intentions go awry. So "we the people" can say hey, maybe all this "helping" we've been trying to do has made some problems worse. Thus "we the people" might reasonably resist greater government involvement and might work on alternatives to what we have now.

Would Christ vote for more bureaucracy and greater dependency?



food for thought: Bob Beckel: Liberals Created A Dependent Society With Welfare

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let's compare Obama with Romney with repect to charitable contributions.

Romney gave 15% to charity while Obama gave 1%.

Who is being kinder to the poor?

Is stealing our money to give to "The Poor" considered more kind than giving from your own income now????

didnt mittens give that to the mormon church in the form of tithes ?

i dont think i would consider the mormon church a charity

Funny thing, only about half the money Romney gives to charity goes to the Mormon church, which is less that the 10% supposedly required of Mormons. The rest of it is distributed mostly through a charitable foundation he started.

By the way, the Mormon church has a number of food pantries. You might not consider that charity work, but you would definitely be in the minority there.

They're also apparently big into humanitarian aid to third-world countries. Wonder if the people who have food and clean water due to the Mormons consider the Mormon Church to be a charity.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Someone earlier mentioned the idea that "we the people" can vote to help take care of the rest of "we the people" if that is our choice as a nation. I agree with that.

However, I also believe that "we the people" can consider the evidence that a lot of good governmental intentions go awry. So "we the people" can say hey, maybe all this "helping" we've been trying to do has made some problems worse. Thus "we the people" might reasonably resist greater government involvement and might work on alternatives to what we have now.

Would Christ vote for more bureaucracy and greater dependency?



food for thought: Bob Beckel: Liberals Created A Dependent Society With Welfare

A lot of people don't understand that "CAN do it" is not the same as "SHOULD do it". Being capable of doing something doesn't make it a good idea.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The haters will continue to hate. Such will always be with us. We the People, influenced by the spirit of scripture, will continue to use government to assist the poor, the widow, the orphan, the homeless, the ill, as Jesus Christ instructed us. Nothing exists in scripture that would prevent We the People from doing this.

 

[Foxfyre]

The haters will continue to hate. Such will always be with us. We the People, influenced by the spirit of scripture, will continue to use government to assist the poor, the widow, the orphan, the homeless, the ill, as Jesus Christ instructed us. Nothing exists in scripture that would prevent We the People from doing this.

Well I don't know which 'we the people' you are talking about, because I think the truly compassionate do not continue government policies that are harming people, and government charity is doing far more harm than good. And Jesus Christ NEVER instructed anybody to use the government to help anybody. He DID suggest that those who give from their own resources for the right reasons will be blessed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The haters will continue to hate. Such will always be with us. We the People, influenced by the spirit of scripture, will continue to use government to assist the poor, the widow, the orphan, the homeless, the ill, as Jesus Christ instructed us. Nothing exists in scripture that would prevent We the People from doing this.

Well I don't know which 'we the people' you are talking about, because I think the truly compassionate do not continue government policies that are harming people, and government charity is doing far more harm than good. And Jesus Christ NEVER instructed anybody to use the government to help anybody. He DID suggest that those who give from their own resources for the right reasons will be blessed.

The only blessing they're looking for is a warm, fuzzy feeling of "Look what a good person I am, I vote for social programs for those nasty poor people I would never deign to actually be around", and damn the consequences. All that matters to some people is how much nobility they can attribute to their intentions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not too worried about the far right non-mainstream folks above.

We the People will continue in this fashion.

We do need reform to maximize the use of $$$ and the effectiveness of the programs, not argue whether they are necessary. That has already been decided.

 

[Foxfyre]

The haters will continue to hate. Such will always be with us. We the People, influenced by the spirit of scripture, will continue to use government to assist the poor, the widow, the orphan, the homeless, the ill, as Jesus Christ instructed us. Nothing exists in scripture that would prevent We the People from doing this.

Well I don't know which 'we the people' you are talking about, because I think the truly compassionate do not continue government policies that are harming people, and government charity is doing far more harm than good. And Jesus Christ NEVER instructed anybody to use the government to help anybody. He DID suggest that those who give from their own resources for the right reasons will be blessed.

The only blessing they're looking for is a warm, fuzzy feeling of "Look what a good person I am, I vote for social programs for those nasty poor people I would never deign to actually be around", and damn the consequences. All that matters to some people is how much nobility they can attribute to their intentions.

Yes. The socialist/Marxists/radical leftists among us feel righteous when the government confiscates property of others and tells us it is used in some program with a compassionate or noble sounding title. Most don't give a tinker's dam whether the program does any good or whether it actually does more harm because in their mind, intent is sufficient to salve their collective consciences.

The conservatives and the few sensible liberals among us want results from the money we spend and deplore the huge amounts the bureaucracy and opportunists siphon off of the money collected. They are angry at how little actually gets to anybody who actually needs it and/or will benefit from it and how it is so corrupting to both those who dispense it and the beneficiaries of it.

I would bet a good steak dinner that most of those promoting bigger and more involved government are those who voluntarily give the least in time, talent, resources, and personal assets. They don't see the disconnect in what true charity is and thinking they are doing charity with other people's money.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You and your silly use of terms. You are no more a Washingtonian "libertarian" than you have any idea what socialism or marxism means above. The programs will remain long after you and I are gone, Foxfyre. You are among the very small minority that can't change the thrust of We the People on these issues.

 

[Foxfyre]

You and your silly use of terms. You are no more a Washingtonian "libertarian" than you have any idea what socialism or marxism means above. The programs will remain long after you and I are gone, Foxfyre. You are among the very small minority that can't change the thrust of We the People on these issues.

Setting aside that I have never claimed to be a Washingtonian 'libertarian', which fact really calls your credibility into serious question, you are woefully ignorant of what I have any idea of and I find it offensive that you presume that you do. I believe I am in a substantial and growing majoirity of people who see what you are saying as idiotic naivete or dishonesty and who are becoming ever more committed to setting this nation back on sound fiscal and moral footing.

And doesn't it really embarrass you to say some of the stuff you say? You seem so otherwise normal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The haters will continue to hate. Such will always be with us. We the People, influenced by the spirit of scripture, will continue to use government to assist the poor, the widow, the orphan, the homeless, the ill, as Jesus Christ instructed us. Nothing exists in scripture that would prevent We the People from doing this.

Theocratic and statist, you might be a Republican after all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well I don't know which 'we the people' you are talking about, because I think the truly compassionate do not continue government policies that are harming people, and government charity is doing far more harm than good. And Jesus Christ NEVER instructed anybody to use the government to help anybody. He DID suggest that those who give from their own resources for the right reasons will be blessed.

The only blessing they're looking for is a warm, fuzzy feeling of "Look what a good person I am, I vote for social programs for those nasty poor people I would never deign to actually be around", and damn the consequences. All that matters to some people is how much nobility they can attribute to their intentions.

Yes. The socialist/Marxists/radical leftists among us feel righteous when the government confiscates property of others and tells us it is used in some program with a compassionate or noble sounding title. Most don't give a tinker's dam whether the program does any good or whether it actually does more harm because in their mind, intent is sufficient to salve their collective consciences.

The conservatives and the few sensible liberals among us want results from the money we spend and deplore the huge amounts the bureaucracy and opportunists siphon off of the money collected. They are angry at how little actually gets to anybody who actually needs it and/or will benefit from it and how it is so corrupting to both those who dispense it and the beneficiaries of it.

I would bet a good steak dinner that most of those promoting bigger and more involved government are those who voluntarily give the least in time, talent, resources, and personal assets. They don't see the disconnect in what true charity is and thinking they are doing charity with other people's money.

They've done studies on this, and yes, liberals - especially liberals with no particular religious beliefs - give less of their money AND their time to charity than anyone else. Because they believe that government should be the only source of aid to the poor, they behave as though government IS the only source of aid to the poor.