FamilyLife Forums

Holten:

reagtay:

What makes you think the Bible says that social programs should come from the government?

I never said I think the Bible says that social programs should come from the Government.

A great many things come from 'the Government' that do not come from the bible.  And those things are not limited to one party.  People are rather selective when they 'notice' which things.

Would that it were that all Followers of Christ gave sacrificially and loved selflessly to the point that all governmental social programs were unnecessary....  if only all those who lay claim to "Christian" lived their life even modestly towards that end.

Is it safe to assume that you are similarly opposed to any and all government-provided assistance, across the board, because it isn't biblical?  For example, Federal or State assistance to victims of natural disasters?  Medical programs for senior citizens?  WIC?  The Small Business Administration?  Are you taking a *consistent* stand against such government aid, or are you being selective?

Reagtay never said that everything that comes from the gov't must come from the Bible. Rather, that specifically, the idea of social programs DO NOT come from the Bible. Big difference. Pointing out that the govt does "extra-Biblical" things doesnt matter to the point that was made. Someone brought up the mention of money in the Bible, implying that therefore the things of money have some Biblical mandate. Someone rightly replied that the Bible says about money, lots of things, none of them having to do with government. It speaks of charity, it speaks of not getting caught up in money...etc.

There was zero opposition expressed to government assistence. The context is this election and how one side seems bent on GROWING these programs while accusing the other side of not caring...which is nonsense. These programs have grown massively under Bush...libs should be delighted in the rate of growth of social programs for the needy. Its fallacious to imply republicans want to TAKE from the poor and GIVE to corporations. Interesting, that. Corporations pretty much employ every one of us...but we love to bite that hand which feeds us..its counterintuitive. Libs use the 40bln Exxon made....wow it sounds excessive, UNTIL you see its just an 8% return. Look at Warren Buffets "profits" and his percentages. NO WAY he would accept an 8% terurn on investment long term. People who invest money should not feel guilty seeking a certain RATE of return. If I deposited a trillion dollars, and earned 1%, would you grouse that I made 10 bln dollars cause thats LOTS of money (I hope my math was right) or woudl 1% seem pathetic....same standards for the corps. And that money is used to build things and create jobs....unlike the raw profits of speculators where I can have a meeting of the monds with you about.

Social programs have grown EVERY year since they started. Fact. Why, someone tell me, are we not succeeding with the things they are to fix? Wheres the gain? Why is it ALWAYS just that we are underfunded? Its a fact that demand for something good (free money) increases with its availability...FACT. So, instead of shoving more and more money, and creating more and more dependency...why not try something else?

---

Cool Im banned TOO.
Enjoy it Holten and Company!

Matthew 25:41-46 (NIV):
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

 "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

---

Christianity is about learning to love like Jesus loved and Jesus loved the poor and Jesus loved the broken.~Rich Mullins

Ky Wildcat:

Matthew 25:41-46 (NIV):
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

 "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

EXACTLY.....Heres what it DOESNT say. This is addressed TO YOU as an individual. Of that there is NO doubt. I am not against government programs...never said I was. i am against them being called faith based. Its a perversion of the scripture to say that this lines up with tax policy. There is NO virture , you get NO "credit" as a giver, for casting a vote that takes from another to give to another. This is about the condition of YOUR heart, and if your heart dwells on the other guys money...that is envy.

Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you (didnt instruct the government to take from someone and)gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you (didnt instruct someone else to)gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not instruct someone else to invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not force someone else to clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not
force someone else to  look after me.'

---

Cool Im banned TOO.
Enjoy it Holten and Company!

Ky Wildcat:

Matthew 25:41-46 (NIV):
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

 "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

KY...  I don't want to assume I understand your point.  Could you explain what you're trying to say by quoting this scripture?

---

Love God; Love people.

Seek first to understand before you seek to be understood.

Step 1: Toast the Poptart.

I ask honestly....who is the more virtuous

The rich man who pays his taxes AND gives away loads of money above and beyond his tithes....30-40-50% of his money left after taxes.

OR

the guy who tithes and votes to get more tax money from the rich man

OR

The guy who simply votes that the rich get taxed to help the poor

I have no opinion on who is more virtuous.....it seems liberals do.

---

Cool Im banned TOO.
Enjoy it Holten and Company!

Holten:

Ky Wildcat:

Matthew 25:41-46 (NIV):
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

 "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

KY...  I don't want to assume I understand your point.  Could you explain what you're trying to say by quoting this scripture?

I think this scripture answers the question asked in the first post. 

I know some disagree but I personally find it hypocritical to make the claim that this is a Christian nation and then complain when our government does what is described in Matthew 25 and support politicians that are against doing 'for the lest of the these'.

I have to wonder about how Christians who don't want their tax money used to help 'the lest of the these' would use that money if they were allowed to keep it themselves.  I'm sorry to say that I don't think it would make it to 'the lest of the these'.

Blessings!
KW

---

Christianity is about learning to love like Jesus loved and Jesus loved the poor and Jesus loved the broken.~Rich Mullins

Ky Wildcat:

Holten:

Ky Wildcat:

Matthew 25:41-46 (NIV):
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

 "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

KY...  I don't want to assume I understand your point.  Could you explain what you're trying to say by quoting this scripture?

I think this scripture answers the question asked in the first post. 

I know some disagree but I personally find it hypocritical to make the claim that this is a Christian nation and then complain when our government does what is described in Matthew 25 and support politicians that are against doing 'for the lest of the these'.

I have to wonder about how Christians who don't want their tax money used to help 'the lest of the these' would use that money if they were allowed to keep it themselves.  I'm sorry to say that I don't think it would make it to 'the lest of the these'.

Blessings!
KW

And you'd be wrong. The real question is how much of what the government takes makes it. Nobody said they dont want their tax money used to help the least of these....I said I dont want my money going to government...there is a huge difference there friend. Government screws up just about 100% of what it tries.

The government CANNOT do what is described in that scripture. Know why? because the government DOESNT HAVE ITS OWN MONEY!. Its a nonsequitor.

I would have ZERO problem if the government MADE us give money straight to NON government charities...no problem whatsoever. And I assure you, most Christians would totally agree, regardless of income. But if you honestly think somehow government is helping....think again. Its not.

By the way, there are no politicians AGAINST helping the poor. Where would you even come up with such an allegation?

---

Cool Im banned TOO.
Enjoy it Holten and Company!

Just one more point.....who EXACTLY are "the least of these"

---

Cool Im banned TOO.
Enjoy it Holten and Company!

divorce in church:

Just one more point.....who EXACTLY are "the least of these"

I would guess the unborn child

---

Utah Utes...Only Undefeated Team in D1
13-0 = With a BCS Bowl win
No one else can claim that achievment

"divorce in church"

Trickle down is a terrible term. A rising tide lifts all boats. Our economy is not a pie, that I get a big piece doesnt mean someone gets a little piece. It amazes me to listen to people talk about the "policies of the last 8 years"....first, the last 2 are dem policies, second in the first 6 there was an attack and 2 wars...but please, dont let facts get lose in your thinking, they break things like preconceived notions.

You forgot to mention the many hurricanes and fires, and floods, and such that have also hit this country over the past few years, that Government spending went on the rise, as they sent money to help those states and people in need.

Isn't God a huge supporter of free will? Forcibly taking someones hard earned money to give to someone else violates this principle. Everyone likes to scream when they hear that the government is enforcing morality, but if you believe that government social programs are a Biblical way to help "the least of these" isn't that exactly what is going on?

I'm not against all social programs at least not now that they are all set up. I think it would be virtually impossible to get rid of them now. I do think they should work effeciently though. They should be there for when someone really needs them. One year we had to use the reduced lunch program, but we quit as soon as we were able. These programs should not become a crutch and especially not a way of life for generations of families.

 

TD&H:

divorce in church:

Just one more point.....who EXACTLY are "the least of these"

I would guess the unborn child

Yes, brother this is so true! 

Innocent Blood.

---

I Love My Husband!
Go Gators!!!

reagtay:

Isn't God a huge supporter of free will? Forcibly taking someones hard earned money to give to someone else violates this principle.

How does that fit with Christ's words...

Luke 20:

20Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be honest. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor. 21So the spies questioned him: "Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. 22Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"  23He saw through their duplicity and said to them, 24"Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?"  25"Caesar's," they replied. He said to them, "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."  26They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent.

 

I don't intend this as any sort of trick question... just a real question.  How does what you say above (and your general contention on this subject) fit with that scripture?  That isn't rhetorical - I'm not implying "it doesn't fit"...  I'm asking for your take on how it does, so I understand what you think.

---

Love God; Love people.

Seek first to understand before you seek to be understood.

Step 1: Toast the Poptart.

Holten, In general Luke 20 - 26 is a call to obey civil authority. I haven't suggested anything in any of my posts that as Christians and citizens , we should not do that.

On the other hand, the verse doesn't prevent us from being proactive in helping to create a responsible government.

From your post I have an idea that you are trying to suggest that ALL our money belongs to the governernment!? Money is simply an alternative to a direct exchange of goods and services. If we could go back to those days of exchanging book keeping services for the neighbors milk, it would be great. Just because we can't doesn't make all our money the governments by default.

Maybe you think the verse means more than just a call to civil authority? If you take it literally that since Ceasar's face is on the denarius that it is his, then I guess the money belongs to the decendents of the president on each given bill or coin.

Also, if you are using this verse as broad cover that says I have to do everything that the government says, how would that work during end times when true corruption is in control. Should I take the mark of the devil because Luke 20 -26 says I have to do what the powers that be say?

TD&H:

divorce in church:

Just one more point.....who EXACTLY are "the least of these"

I would guess the unborn child

ding ding ding ding ding ding......

To advocate for FAILED social programs is alone proplematic
To side step abortion as a critical matter is problematic

But to tie them together saying that beacuse we are unwilling to dump more money into failed social programs disqualifies the moral comapss of pro-lifers is an amazing fallacy.

There can, by definition, be NO lesser "least" of these than an infant still in the womb.


Ovbvioulsy they dont count the baby with "these"...so i wasnt really looking for that answer TDH, and you scooped me......you are way more correct than any point I was trying to make. Great point!!!!

But in the minds of those advocating taxes and failed programs....I wonder, who are "the least of these"

What I was trying to do is see if we are simply saying that because a need seems to exist...that it actually exists. NO ONE, not a single person, wants anyone hungry or homeless etc. Especially those unable for whatever reason to care for themselves. I GLADLY fork over for all of that
No one wants those who TEMPORARILY need help to fall thru cracks. I JOYFULLY fork over for that.

But what about the need that is CREATED by the availiability of help? It is a law of human nature that you will never eliminate demand by increasing supply. Entire massive bureaucracies have been born and grown....and they have CREATED their own constituencies. Is it "un christian" to question these things? I do not think so...and this is the crux of the whole liberal conservative argument.

There is not a conservative character trait that doesn NOT want to help those who need help. The trait is to want to help folks reach self sufficiency
The liberals on the other hand, they take the existence of a need, ignore the reason, and want to plow ahead with more and more...and its easy, because its other folks money.

In Jesus' time the "poor" were not comprised of the same cast of characters as they are today. the "poor" that Jesus admonishes to help....AMEN, help until you cna help no more. My behavior backs my belief...I will say no more about that.  But I resent the lack of definitions, the lack of qualifications, and the simple blatant invocation of Biblical principles in an area that I do not believe it was ever intended. NO it does not mean I will ever turn my back on hunger or homelessness. What it means is accountability...once I fork over the money, I want to KNOW that its not a vote buying boondoggle...which is is every 4 years.

If suddenly the "poor" became thosew who are unable to help themselves permananetly, and those who temporarily need a leg up and are transitioning back into self sufficeincy....the democrat party would cease to exist, because everyone would be working except those who cannot, and the problem would be SOLVED. You cannot take a "war on poverty" and spend trillions over decades, and say we dont speand enough and that Im mean and heartless because I dont agree. Its not reality.

Finally, I go back to the fundamnetal generasity that was studies in the Brooks book about giving where it showed that the highest donors to charity are Christians AND/OR Republicans....usually one in the same. Explain the blatant hypocrisy of a party that gives, IN THE AGGREGATE virtually nothing compared to the other, yet whines that the other is mean and heartless. Its nonsense

---

Cool Im banned TOO.
Enjoy it Holten and Company!