Hey alleged Christians ....

#226
#226
lawgator1 said:
Depends on your setting I suppose.

Anyway, I do think there is a major inconsistency in how Christian conservative political leaders right now advocate policy that clearly promotes accumulating wealth over helping the poor. People are free to disagree with either my point of view about charity in the Bible, or whether there is an inconsistency there.

Regardless, I do think it is worth talking about because it goes to the big picture vision we have of the country generally, not just who wins the next few election cycles.
Click to expand...

What individuals do with their money in regards to charity is up to them.( as it pertains to God that is what they will be responsible for and your intent or attitude). As I stated before, if you choose money as your love that is your personal business. The government can't mandate religion, and they can't mandate charity in regards to the Bible. Both are decisions that are made. The government taking money to give to the needy (when that does happen) does not square you with God when you decided not to give it to the needy on your own.

That doesn't even touch whether the government efficiently helps needy with the $ they take. Or if that really is the intent.
 
#227
#227
BeecherVol said:
What individuals do with their money in regards to charity is up to them.( as it pertains to God that is what they will be responsible for and your intent or attitude). As I stated before, if you choose money as your love that is your personal business. The government can't mandate religion, and they can't mandate charity in regards to the Bible. Both are decisions that are made. The government taking money to give to the needy (when that does happen) does not square you with God when you decided not to give it to the needy on your own.

That doesn't even touch whether the government efficiently helps needy with the $ they take. Or if that really is the intent.
Click to expand...


Ok, but if you are running for office, and trying to garner votes based on appeal to Christians and your own faith, do you have a responsibility to promote and advocate for a point of view that there is something inherently wrong with $16 million a year bonuses when the poverty level in this country is at an all time high?

Or, to put the issue into terms of responsibility, that average CEO compensation this year is $16 million when the number of children living in poverty is at an all time high?

I would argue that a Perry or a Bachmann should be gently urging, if not chastising, the corporate elite and the wealthy about such disparity.
 
#228
#228
lawgator1 said:
Ok, but if you are running for office, and trying to garner votes based on appeal to Christians and your own faith, do you have a responsibility to promote and advocate for a point of view that there is something inherently wrong with $16 million a year bonuses when the poverty level in this country is at an all time high?

Or, to put the issue into terms of responsibility, that average CEO compensation this year is $16 million when the number of children living in poverty is at an all time high?

I would argue that a Perry or a Bachmann should be gently urging, if not chastising, the corporate elite and the wealthy about such disparity.
Click to expand...

you should be equally outraged that the federal government has spent trillions of taxpayer dollars in the "war on poverty" and the percentage living in poverty is essentially unchanged despite 40+ years of government programs.
 
#229
#229
My giving grows every year as God's blessings in my life grow. A concept that the Christian Conservative lives by.
As already stated, it has NOTHING to do with what BHO is trying to do with our money.
 
#230
#230
MG1968 said:
you should be equally outraged that the federal government has spent trillions of taxpayer dollars in the "war on poverty" and the percentage living in poverty is essentially unchanged despite 40+ years of government programs.
Click to expand...

T-TownVol said:
My giving grows every year as God's blessings in my life grow. A concept that the Christian Conservative lives by.
As already stated, it has NOTHING to do with what BHO is trying to do with our money.
Click to expand...


I suppose as a compromise I'd be more satisfied if Perry or Bachmann said he/she opposed eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the top earners but at the same time was pledging to take what more that would have cost him or her and pledging it to Habitat for Humanity and urging all others to do the same.

I don't see anything like that.
 
#231
#231
why do you feel it's your responsibility to dictate to others how they should spend their money? This need to control coming from the left is ridiculous and scary
 
#232
#232
lawgator1 said:
I suppose as a compromise I'd be more satisfied if Perry or Bachmann said he/she opposed eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the top earners but at the same time was pledging to take what more that would have cost him or her and pledging it to Habitat for Humanity and urging all others to do the same.

I don't see anything like that.
Click to expand...

give a man a fish, you feed him for a single meal

teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime

if Perry or Bachmann were constantly telling us how much money they personally gave to charity, you would be the first person to call them fake humanitarians.

it's so typical of you to assign a standard to someone that you are completely unwilling and unable to live up to yourself.
 
#233
#233
lawgator1 said:
Ok, but if you are running for office, and trying to garner votes based on appeal to Christians and your own faith, do you have a responsibility to promote and advocate for a point of view that there is something inherently wrong with $16 million a year bonuses when the poverty level in this country is at an all time high?

Or, to put the issue into terms of responsibility, that average CEO compensation this year is $16 million when the number of children living in poverty is at an all time high?

I would argue that a Perry or a Bachmann should be gently urging, if not chastising, the corporate elite and the wealthy about such disparity.
Click to expand...

Okay... I'll bite. To interpret the bolded above, are you suggesting that a Christian should use their religious beliefs and apply them to others when they take office? I thought this was something that most liberals were afraid of... that a religious person would impose their "beliefs" on others once elected. Now you're saying that they would be hypocrites if they don't do this? I guess I'm a little confused... but it's not the first time.
 
#235
#235
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Okay... I'll bite. To interpret the bolded above, are you suggesting that a Christian should use their religious beliefs and apply them to others when they take office? I thought this was something that most liberals were afraid of... that a religious person would impose their "beliefs" on others once elected. Now you're saying that they would be hypocrites if they don't do this? I guess I'm a little confused... but it's not the first time.
Click to expand...

you're not really expecting consistency from LG are you? That's akin to expecting logic from utgibbs.
 
#236
#236
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Okay... I'll bite. To interpret the bolded above, are you suggesting that a Christian should use their religious beliefs and apply them to others when they take office? I thought this was something that most liberals were afraid of... that a religious person would impose their "beliefs" on others once elected. Now you're saying that they would be hypocrites if they don't do this? I guess I'm a little confused... but it's not the first time.
Click to expand...


If they claim that one of their main qualifications for office is being a Christian conservative, then aren't they morally and religiously obliged to do so?

I mean, if they are a REAL Christian conservative, that is.
 
#237
#237
Religious people should learn to accept that their "live" religion is as sound as all of the dead ones. Mythology is the same today as it was 5,000 years ago. Let us rise from the Stone Age, where possible.
 
#238
#238
lawgator1 said:
Ok, but if you are running for office, and trying to garner votes based on appeal to Christians and your own faith, do you have a responsibility to promote and advocate for a point of view that there is something inherently wrong with $16 million a year bonuses when the poverty level in this country is at an all time high?

Or, to put the issue into terms of responsibility, that average CEO compensation this year is $16 million when the number of children living in poverty is at an all time high?

I would argue that a Perry or a Bachmann should be gently urging, if not chastising, the corporate elite and the wealthy about such disparity.
Click to expand...

1. In regards to running for office. They should explain their stance on what they believe. I would tell you that it is not my job to play Robin Hood if the rich personally decide to be stingy with their earnings.

2. The responsibility is personal responsibility (that is what you will be held accountable for before God) in regards to the Bible and taking care of the needy.


Are all 16mil.$ CEOs christians? If not, as a christian would I (as POTUS) be expected to "take" money from the rich, non believer and give it to the needy?
 
#239
#239
DinkinFlicka said:
Dude, really? Because I don't believe in a god or a set of laws in religious text, I'm sill obligated to obey a THEORY? That's stupid.

The only laws I try to follow are those of the land, and even then I break those I deem to be unjust and silly. As far as charity, I do help out when I am able, but there is no way you can tell me I'm obligated to do so. I never vowed to do so. I never subscribed to a creed that says I should.

If you WANT to live by a Socratic theory, be my guest. I am in no way obligated to.
Click to expand...

OK I never said you were obligated to do so...i was speaking to the other guy who said that he thinks that Christians are hypocrites and dont give all the while he is talking about putting money toward a extravagant vacation. Social Contract btw...everyone does it when you do obey the laws so not real sure what you are arguing here. If you dont want to give to the poor or think universal health care is the cure that is fine with me but dont call Christians hypocrites when that is the very definition.
 
#241
#241
MG1968 said:
give a man a fish, you feed him for a single meal

teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime

if Perry or Bachmann were constantly telling us how much money they personally gave to charity, you would be the first person to call them fake humanitarians.

it's so typical of you to assign a standard to someone that you are completely unwilling and unable to live up to yourself.
Click to expand...

Excellent point.

At what point does it go past a helping hand and your enabling a "loafer" (for lack of a better term) to continue to be a loafer.

Lets not pretend that the "needy" are as many as we are told.
 
#242
#242
lawgator1 said:
If they claim that one of their main qualifications for office is being a Christian conservative, then aren't they morally and religiously obliged to do so?

I mean, if they are a REAL Christian conservative, that is.
Click to expand...

Jesus seperates Church and State in the Book of Luke,
Chapter 20 verse 25 :
And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.
 
#243
#243
BeecherVol said:
Excellent point.

At what point does it go past a helping hand and your enabling a "loafer" (for lack of a better term) to continue to be a loafer.

Lets not pretend that the "needy" are as many as we are told.
Click to expand...

The needy are scattered all over the U.S. (and the world, for that matter). There are millions of people that are bound by their circumstances. Among these are children, the elderly, and the disabled. Children are mostly forgotten in the "pull yourself up" Republican agenda. They can eat at school, I guess.
 
#244
#244
I wont sumatt said:
The needy are scattered all over the U.S. (and the world, for that matter). There are millions of people that are bound by their circumstances. Among these are children, the elderly, and the disabled. Children are mostly forgotten in the "pull yourself up" Republican agenda. They can eat at school, I guess.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that they are. I just don't agree that the number is what we are made to believe. There are a lot of people bound to their own lazy nature as well. And as long as they have the ability to be and the avenue in which to do it with, it will continue. Giving to this group is outside of what we are discussing.
 
#246
#246
I think in Jesus' time the percentage in poverty because they were diseased or a slave or because they literally had no skill or intellect was probably a lot higher than the percentage now, relative to those you might describe as lazy.

I think it is human nature to resent the lazy, especially if you believe that the government is taxing the hard working to turn around and give some of it to the lazy.

I think there is an overwhelming sentiment, particularly in the GOP and definitely in the TP, that this is exactly the case right now and so I see little room for willingness to compromise on taxes versus spending as a result.
 
#247
#247
lawgator1 said:
I think in Jesus' time the percentage in poverty because they were diseased or a slave or because they literally had no skill or intellect was probably a lot higher than the percentage now, relative to those you might describe as lazy.

I think it is human nature to resent the lazy, especially if you believe that the government is taxing the hard working to turn around and give some of it to the lazy.

I think there is an overwhelming sentiment, particularly in the GOP and definitely in the TP, that this is exactly the case right now and so I see little room for willingness to compromise on taxes versus spending as a result.
Click to expand...

If that is the case do you have a grip?
 
#248
#248
Vercingetorix said:
I've read through the Gospels dozens of times in my life, and I really can't remember any passages where Jesus worried that helping the poor would make them dependent on the benevolence of others. All I remember is him repeatedly commanding his followers to help them. Can you provide a verse where Jesus was worried about anything beyond that?
Click to expand...

1 Timothy 5
Honor widows who are widows indeed; 4 but if any widow has children or grandchildren, they must first learn to practice piety in regard to their own family and to [a]make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God. 5 Now she who is a widow indeed and who has been left alone, has fixed her hope on God and continues in entreaties and prayers night and day. 6 But she who gives herself to wanton pleasure is dead even while she lives. 7 Prescribe these things as well, so that they may be above reproach.
 
#250
#250
lawgator1 said:
I think in Jesus' time the percentage in poverty because they were diseased or a slave or because they literally had no skill or intellect was probably a lot higher than the percentage now, relative to those you might describe as lazy.

I think it is human nature to resent the lazy, especially if you believe that the government is taxing the hard working to turn around and give some of it to the lazy.

I think there is an overwhelming sentiment, particularly in the GOP and definitely in the TP, that this is exactly the case right now and so I see little room for willingness to compromise on taxes versus spending as a result.
Click to expand...

Missed that whole roman occupation....huh?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top