More than a million people lose unemployment benefits today, because Jesus, or something.

[WilliamPitt]

So, yeah, more than a million unemployed people lose their benefits today because Supply-Side Jesus says helping the needy is no longer the Christian thing to do.

Deut. 15 : 7. If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.

Lev. 19 : 19 Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger.

1 John 3 : 17 But if someone who is supposed to be a Christian has money enough to live well, and sees a brother in need, and won't help him--how can God's love be within him?

Prov. 14 : 31 Anyone who oppresses the poor is insulting God who made them. To help the poor is to honor God.

Prov. 21 : 13 He who shuts his ears to the cries of the poor will be ignored in his own time of need.

Luke 3 : 11 "If you have two coats," he replied, "give one to the poor. If you have extra food, give it away to those who are hungry."

2 Cor. 9 : 9 It is as the Scriptures say: "The godly man gives generously to the poor. His good deeds will be an honor to him forever."

Isa. 58 : 7 I want you to share your food with the hungry and bring right into your own homes those who are helpless, poor, and destitute. Clothe those who are cold, and don't hide from relatives who need your help

Luke 6 : 20-21. Blessed are you who are poor, for yours in the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.

Prov. 22 : 9 He who is generous will be blessed, for he gives some of his food to the poor.

Ezek. 22 : 29,31. "The people of the land have practiced oppression and committed robbery, and they have wronged the poor and needy and have oppressed the sojourner without justice... Thus I have poured out My indignation on them; I have consumed them with the fire of My wrath; their way I have brought upon their heads," declares the Lord GOD.

James 5 : 1-6. Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. ...Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and with you have withheld, cries out against you; and the outcry of the harvesters has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.

I could go on, but you get the point.

[Blanket Statements]

1. Those are demands on individuals

Paying your taxes and demanding the government do something doesn't count.

Yes the government should be helping but it's not what the bible is talking about

[jwirr]

2. That is your interpretation. Where in the Bible does it tell exactly HOW we are supposed to help the

needy. I direct you to the Psalms. Many of David's are him as the ruler of the country telling the Lord what he had been doing to help others.

[Blanket Statements]

3. Ehhh, if you're compelled by law to pay taxes

It's not a personal act of helping those in need, which is what those verses were speaking to.
And god didn't buy David's claims in Psalms

[jwirr]

14. Well many of us are NOT compelled. We do it because it supports the programs we worked to set up.

My father used to set us children down every April 15 and have a little talk. It included a discussion on what we were getting for our tax money. He would start with the school bus (which the children did not necessarily see as a blessing) and continue to the road in front of our house, the library, the schools (again a questionable blessing), the military and so on until in the end he stressed the help it gave to people who were poor. We all grew up very willing to pay taxes.

You know every time the lottery gets big someone asks what would you do if you win. The first thing I would do is call President Obama to tell him I am glad to pay the taxes on the win. It would be an honor to support my nation even with all its faults.

Deep into the Great Depression when the churches were failing in their handling of the poor. It was churches who welcomed the government help. And to this day only a handful of churches (mostly rw and dominist) are asking for the job back. Most private charity groups openly admit they do not have enough resources for the job.

I have heard some ministers say that if they had the money saved from taxes they would have the resources. First of all I doubt that members would be willing to give that much to the churches. As to that last statement I will use my own severely disabled daughter. Our church is a small congregation but we have two children (now adults) who are disabled. My daughter costs the government more than $36,000 not counting her medications to maintain. The young man cost a bit less but not much. My church would have to sell the church to maintain this cost year after year. Ministers who think they can take care of the poor are delusional. In the county were my daughter lives there are more than 70 adults and children with this disability. Most belong to a church. So how are they going to take care of the rest of the poor and needy if they have to maintain our present church activities and help these children turned adult who were born with a disability. Delusional is the word.

[Blanket Statements]

15. Ummm, unless you're exempt from paying taxes

Taxes are compulsory

[jwirr]

19. You are great at symantics but you miss the spirit and heart of the message. Do onto others what you

would have them do unto you. Unless you want others to set back and do nothing or not enough when you are someone you care for needs government help you have missed the spirit of the whole issue here.

[Blanket Statements]

20. Not really. Being happy to pay taxes doesn't mean

You had a choice in the matter

[jwirr]

23. I actually know where you are coming from. Luther has a paragraph in one of his books that argues

the issue of giving on demand. But keep in mind those old theologians did not live in a democracy where they had a say over the elected officials and a chance to lobby for and against the laws. Also keep in mind that Luther and his age did not have it all correct. His attitude toward the Jews and the poor was horrible and not something most of us Lutherans care to remember.

So for the sake of your argument - you are not willing to pay taxes to the government you live under even though I am sure that you benefit is some way from it - I am thus it is a matter of choice for me. I voted for the system we have knowing I would be asked to pay for it and I have been voting for it since JFK.

[Blanket Statements]

26. It's not a matter of willing or not willing

the fact of the matter is we are compelled by law to pay taxes. It's not giving as prescribed in the bible.
Paying for the upkeep of a society isn't the same thing as helping your fellow man.

They are completely different acts

[CJCRANE]

78. What would Jesus want? Would he want you to help the maximum number of people?

"Paying for the upkeep of a society isn't the same thing as helping your fellow man."

What is the difference? You seem to making up your own rules.

My interpretation is that Jesus wants us to help as many people as possible whether by both personal charitable giving and paying taxes.

[Blanket Statements]

86. Paying your taxes isn't charitable giving

[CJCRANE]

91. So? The government is US. The government should spend the money as WE see fit

that is to help the People.

You are talking about a very pedantic God and a hair splitting Jesus.

Government of, by and for the people should give back to the people who are down on their luck.

Countries where there is no government and that rely on charitable giving to help the needy are usually hellholes. You are free to live in a country like that but I choose to work towards a civilized country where We, The People help those down on their luck.

That is my interpretation of scripture.

You are choosing to use words that are not in the Bible to justify your opinion, so your opinion is no more or less relevant than mine.

[lisby]

114. Render unto Caesar, friend

And if the money you pay is spent on the poor then it is, indeed, from their perspective, charity. Then give more of what is not Caesar's to the poor and it is still, from their perspective, charity.

The fact remains that the poor will always be with us until we give enough as a collective of individuals to erase their need.

[LanternWaste]

131. Render unto Caesar is a close to a proscription as one may get... unless one simply chooses not to s

'Render unto Caesar...r is a close to a proscription as one may get... unless one simply chooses not to see it, as written by Tertullian, in De Idololatria; and by Bunyan and Gandhi too; and may also be read in The Disputation of Barcelona.



Your interpretation as an absolute statement though, will certainly be given all the credibility it in deed, warrants.

[ohheckyeah]

48. I've heard that lame argument many times...

the Bible also makes it clear that Jesus and the disciples paid their taxes without whining about it. Taxes are used to help people.

[former9thward]

72. And taxes are used to hurt people.

I would never dream that I was doing my duty to help people by the payment of legally required taxes. Are the Koch brothers helping more people because they pay more taxes than you or me?

[ohheckyeah]

74. I don't use paying taxes as an excuse to not help people.

I help people frequently.

[roguevalley]

106. agreed. That is why I love him and feel real pain when he's dissed.

[hatrack]

4. Well, obviously it's not meant to be taken literally.

It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

[DirkGently]

41. Are you from the People's Front of Judea?!

[hatrack]

49. Fuck off! We're the Judean Peoples' Front!

[DirkGently]

56. 8) That's what I thought.

Edit: (Big Nose)

[WinkyDink]

5. You must not be familiar with the New Testament.

[Blanket Statements]

6. I am...the act of paying taxes is not the same

as the act of giving to those in need.
One is compulsory, the other is voluntary

[Bluenorthwest]

101. The original Christian community, the surviving followers of the late teacher

lived thusly: to join them you sold everything you owned, put the proceeds into a community pot and each took according to their needs. The first couple who saw fit to keep a bit back for themselves when contributing to the community fund were instantly struck dead.
So each gave according to their ability, and took according to their needs. That's the Biblical way of life, NT style. Give it all and take back only what you need. What do you think of that? Ready to live by 'The Word' in that regard?

[Blanket Statements]

102. I have no problem with that at all

M

[1StrongBlackMan]

117. Just so long as the government isn't involved ....

Right?

[Blanket Statements]

120. What?

[badtoworse]

7. Care to elaborate?

[CAG]

8. Yet the "christian" right demands that we

Legislate all sorts of biblical social morals upon society, so its not to be unexpected that the left thinks that all of the scripture concerning helping the poor, hungry, and unsheltered should also be legislated.

Where the left gets it correct is that for all the chest-thumping from those on the right who supposedly care about the poor who claim that the church and faith-based charities should take care of the poor and needy, they are completely ignorant of how woefully inadequate the help would be.

[Blanket Statements]

9. If the government took 100% of income to help the poor

It would not alleviate your personal responsibility to help those less fortunate than you.

[CAG]

10. I agree, but i happen to care about the millions

In this era of inadequately regulated capitalism that could use help as well as the few who i could directly help.

The government will never be able to do everything it should because of the greed of the 1% and the propaganda they buy to scare the populace.

[Blanket Statements]

13. And that's fine. But the greed of the few

has no bearing on your responsibility.
Just as, having the government seize their assets would have no bearing.

Your responsibility to others remains your responsibility. And it's based on what you can freely give

[CAG]

16. Do you use the term "seize their assets"

When talking about a citizen paying taxes to support an adequate defense, public roads, utility/power infrastructure, or public schools, or is it a term just used when the "guvment just took my money to help those lazy poor people"?

[Blanket Statements]

17. I'm talking about taking of the 1%s wealth

Not on tax paying, in general.

It would, in fact, be a seizure of assets that had been previously taxed

[CAG]

18. Well thats a rather specific and narrow view

Of taxing the rich. I would be viewing this more in the larger context of progressive tax rates. The degree of progressive tax rates has been lowered the last several decades to where, when combined with loopholes/shelters, etc, many of the rich pay less share of their income than the middle class.

[Blanket Statements]

21. I'm not referring to taxing them in the future

I was referring to going back and retaxing them...reducing what they currently have that was already taxed.

[Maraya1969]

38. Practically all taxes are on things that were taxed before. That happens to the poor too.

So what is your big deal with protecting the rich that you so care about?

And since when did you come to believe that people here do not give to the poor and needy? I think we probably have the most generous group in the country represented here.

[Blanket Statements]

40. I've not said anything about protecting the rich

Nor did I make any assumptions on people's charitable giving.

[Maraya1969]

47. Yes you did. In a round about way by pointing out that taxes are not the same as

personal giving when in actuality they are when the taxes go to help the needy.

[Blanket Statements]

51. No, I didn't

One is mandatory one is voluntary.

The biblical act of helping the poor is separate from your legal responsibility to the government.

[CJCRANE]

79. So your version of Jesus prefers a government that doesn't help people?

Well, my version of Jesus likes a government that helps people where possible as well as charitable giving.

For example, I'm happy to pay my taxes but I also give charitably to people in third world countries which don't have an efficient government that can help them.

[Blanket Statements]

85. Noooo

It's that the government isn't a substitute for personal responsibility to one's fellow man.

[CJCRANE]

89. That's very arbitrary. Where the government has a choice it should use funds to help the people

that it represents in the most efficient manner possible. In this case that means paying unemployment benefits.

I pay my taxes and I also have an opinion in how that money is spent.

Added to that I can also help my fellow man in additional ways.

You're stuck in the conservative either/or binary thinking inertia.

The most competitive capitalist societies also happen to be the most civilized in that they pay unemployment benefits to their citiziens where necessary (these are mostly the Scandinavian countries).

[Blanket Statements]

90. Would you pass a hungry child on the street

And do nothing because you pay taxes to feed hungry children?

If not, then you recognize there is an obligation to your fellow man apart from what the government does.

It's not a matter of solving the problem or the efficiency of government vs charity it's a matter of personal responsibility to people in need

[CJCRANE]

92. I said repeatedly that I do both. I pay taxes and help the needy.

Countries with a liberal capitalist market economy and government that provides a strong social safety net are the most the efficient way to create wealth and help the maximum number of people.

Countries with small or no government are usually places where the poor and needy have a very hard time - exactly what Jesus preached against.

So I agree with asking the government to provide a safety net to keep people out of poverty.

I also help the needy above and beyond what I pay in taxes (even though I'm not well off, I realize that I'm luckier than many, so I try to help where I can).

BTW Jesus was a communitarian. Everyone in his group of disciples pitched in and then spread the money and resources out according to need. I'm not quite that left wing but I think he set a good example.

[Blanket Statements]

93. We'll find where Jesus talks about government

Being a replacement for personal responsibility to one's fellow man

[CJCRANE]

95. WE are the government. Jesus talks about helping the needy, not small print about

what exactly is and isn't helping the needy or some RW spiel about personal responsibility.

Jesus wasn't some nit picker.

So, you think Jesus would say to Boehner, "Don't extend the unemployment benefits, let them suffer"?

Yours is a cruel an pedantic Jesus.

That's not the Jesus I believe in.

[Blanket Statements]

96. If the government fed, clothed and sheltered every person in this country

Who needed it, would that mean you had fulfilled your personal responsibility to your fellow man?

[CJCRANE]

97. No because I help people in other countries too.

But you know full well that no one is asking the government to do everything.

Scripture also says that people who are able to work should work. Hence the idea of helping the needy: those people who are unable to work or look after themselves, which in Jesus' time included the sick and disabled, widows and orphans.

[Blanket Statements]

98. Yes..so you recognize paying your taxes isn't enough

So why are you arguing with me?

[CJCRANE]

99. You're doing the "all or nothing" argument again. And again I will tell you that both are needed

that is paying taxes and charitable giving.

No one is claiming that the government can do everything. But where it can help, it is simply cruel to refuse to help.

[Blanket Statements]

100. No...I'm distinguishing between the 2 acts

[CJCRANE]

103. Well to me that is an irrelevant distinction. Do you want to help people whose unemploment benefits

are going to stop? (Which is what this thread is basically about).

What is the easiest way to help them?

Answer: by Congress doing its job,

[Blanket Statements]

104. Congress could grant UE for perpetuity

It still wouldn't equate to giving as preached in the bible.
The government action is not a substitute for personal giving

[CJCRANE]

107. We're not going to agree. You have your interpretation and I have mine.

"The government action is not a substitute for personal giving".

To me it doesn't matter what you call it.

If people who are unable to find work and who are suffering can be helped right now, then it's the right thing to do to alleviate their suffering.

[Blanket Statements]

108. Agreed

[jwirr]

121. Morning, I do not think there is anyone on this board that thinks government is a total answer to

our social problems. But since I have worked both as a volunteer and board member for several charitable organizations and they are clearly not capable of replacing government. The need is too large and often too serious to wait around for donations to come in. As you point out they would have to rely on voluntary donations and those donations are never even near to what we need for the help.

Private charitable organizations often supplement government help but I do not know of a single one that actually takes a serious problem and handles it totally apart from the government. Your arguments sound frighteningly like those of the rw politicians. They want to end all government aid to people (not the military or the corporations) and hand it over to these inadequate private groups.

[Blanket Statements]

124. I'm not arguing against government or for charity

I'm pointing out that the bible isn't telling governments what to do for the poor, it's telling individuals what to do.

Even if the government were able to eliminate poverty, your obligation to those with less would still remain

[Arkansas Granny]

11. Since our government is not a theocracy and was never meant to be one,

I really don't care what the bible says. What concerns me is that the government that is responsible for the laws that allow the rich to control so much of this country's wealth, feels no responsibility to provide assistance for those among us who have basic needs that they are unable to provide for themselves and their families. Individual charitable donations are not enough.

[world wide wally]

22. To the hungry children, do you think it matters all that much how the food was paid for?

I think those little rascals would even eat a stolen loaf of bread!

[Blanket Statements]

27. That's not the point. Paying taxes isn't charitable giving

They are completely different acts.
One is a price for living in a civilized society and one is an act of giving to help those who are less fortunate.
One is compulsory and one is voluntary

[world wide wally]

32. It still feeds kids...so render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's...and just "maybe" something

other than bombs can come out of it

[Blanket Statements]

36. But it doesn't alleviate your duty to your fellow man.

[world wide wally]

42. That would just be a bonus

[Comrade Grumpy]

43. I hope you're posting during your breaks at the food kitchen.

[Blanket Statements]

44. Why?

[CJCRANE]

80. My definition of a civilized society includes more than your definition

including helping those who are down on their luck. The government is us, so the government should do what we want it to.

[Blanket Statements]

84. That would mean you recognize no personal

responsibility to your fellow man outside what is provided by the government.

[CJCRANE]

87. No, I don't. I pay taxes and give to charity. I prefer my taxes to go to unemployment benefits

rather than bailed out billionaire bankers' bonuses. That's a clear choice using available funds.

Also, the most competitive capitalist countries are the ones which spend the most on welfare.

[Blanket Statements]

88. The fact that you give to charity means you

Recognize that paying your taxes isn't what the bible was talking about when it came to giving....I don't know why you're trying to argue with me

[MannyGoldstein]

31. Most Americans want to extend benefits

Almost twice as many want to extend than don't want to.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/26/3104601/poll-emergency-unemployment-benefits/#

[Maraya1969]

33. It is the republicans in the government and all those who support what they are doing that

these Bible verses are talking. We all know that it takes the government to solve the problems of the poor in our country. It is too big for any one person.

[Blanket Statements]

35. Not the point

Paying your taxes isn't what the verses are talking about.
Charitable giving is in addition to paying taxes for the upkeep and growth of a society

[Maraya1969]

45. When you know that your taxes will go to help the poor and you refuse or try to stop it

then you are usurping your responsibility to the poor and the children and the sick and the needy.

You would have to be an idiot to think that your taxes do not go toward helping the poor?

So you pay your taxes and you give personally. Those things should be enough but they aren't because there are not enough taxes paid to help the poor and personally most people cannot do much to make a dent. Except maybe the Waltons.

Sure you can help the poor in your community by any number of means. Buying food for the food pantry or just donating to it. Collecting money to help pay for a person's medical bills, which thank God will not be needed now that Obamacare is in effect.

And speaking of Obamacare, how many "Christians' have been fighting tooth and nail to prevent people from obtaining health care? How on earth do they justify that? (I'm sure you'll try)

And because The Waltons have as much wealth as 49% of the people in this country don't you think it would be financially apropos for them to pay the same amount as those 49% do?

[Blanket Statements]

46. Paying your taxes is a matter of law

Charitable giving is a matter of choice

They are not the same thing

[Maraya1969]

50. And using tax loopholes and hiding money in other countries is a matter of choice too.

[Blanket Statements]

52. That's a matter of law

Which has nothing to do with the biblical act of giving.

[ohheckyeah]

53. So what?

Using taxes to help the needy is a matter of choice - it's called voting.

[Blanket Statements]

55. It's not what the bible is speaking to

In the verses cited.

Your responsibility for your fellow man is separate and distinct from the acts of the government.
In other words, your responsibility isn't covered by the actions of the government or any other collective where you are legally required to pay for its upkeep.

[ohheckyeah]

57. As I said...

so what? Really, what's your point besides the nit picking?

[Blanket Statements]

58. My point is, no matter what the government does to help the poor

It doesn't alleviate your personal responsibility to help and care for your fellow man in need.

You can't say "I voted for candidate A" and claim you're committing a charitable act

[ohheckyeah]

59. Nobody said it did....

did they? You're making an argument against something that was neither said or implied.

You can't vote against using taxes to help people and then proclaim you are charitable, either, unless you plan on personally paying unemployment benefits to the millions.

All you're doing is shadowboxing.

[Blanket Statements]

60. Actually some did. And, again, you're missing the point

It doesn't matter what the government does. Your responsibility is still the same.

[ohheckyeah]

61. It matters to the

unemployed what the government does. It matters to the poor what the government does.

Nobody ever said they had no responsibility, but we also have the responsibility to see that taxes are used in such a way as to promote the general welfare of the citizens of this country.

I get the point, I just think it's silly and immaterial to the discussion at hand.

Most of the people I know who make this argument never do anything to help others, they just spout crap about how the government doing it doesn't alleviate other people's responsibility to help.

[Blanket Statements]

62. You're conflating the issues

If a person pays his taxes and gives a million to charity but could afford 2 million...he has fulfilled his obligation to the government but not to his fellow man

[ohheckyeah]

66. That's just plain silly.

Have a good day.

[Blanket Statements]

70. If you say so

[blue cat]

63. you

Are so full if it.

[Blanket Statements]

64. Prove it

[world wide wally]

82. Aren't we a government "of the people, by the people, and FOR the people"?

[Blanket Statements]

83. Nope

[HangOnKids]

111. I think 4 hidden posts in 28 days proves your point.

Cheers!

[Barack_America]

109. And a demand that those individuals be represented by persons who uphold those ideals.

How can it be Christian to intentionally vote for individuals to represent you who openly disdain and refuse to provide support for the poor and destitute?

Don't forget that in a representative democracy you are voting for people to be your voice. How can one claim to be Christian and select someone who disparages and deprives the poor to speak for them?

I'm sure there are all sorts of technicalities and excuses that can be listed (I only care about "life", I vote Republican so I can pay less in taxes and give more to my church...and so on). But I suspect that if most Christians sat and pondered these issues with honesty, they would conclude that voting Republican is not in the true spirit of Christ.

[1StrongBlackMan]

118. After reading your posts ...

Interestingly, you are making WP's point in the OP's title ..."More than a million people lose unemployment benefits today, because Jesus, or something." To argue it's a "demand on the individual", while ignoring that the non-governmental charity system is failing woefully ... even with direct (e.g., government grants and contracts) AND indirect (e.g., tax exempt status) tax dollar support, is to ignore the spirit of the Great Commission ... the treatment of and providing for the poor.

So all I can say is your libertarian slip is showing. To argue the "Great Commission" was/is an "demand on individual" that excludes the largest, most efficient social safety support system known - the Government - is merely excuse making, that only a prosperity preacher ("give your money to MY tax exempt charitable organization and I will give (some of) it to the poor) and a ("it's Jesus' loophole, not mine&quot libertarian could love.

[Blanket Statements]

119. Uhhh that wasn't what I was saying at all

[spanone]

12. faux christians really don't give a shit. politicians use Jesus to garner votes, not to help people.

[Sheepshank]

24. The godless left wing rabble intrinsically wants to help people in job/health/money trouble

and the god fearing Right wants to cut them off. Funny, in a curious sort of hypocritical way, ain't it?

[spanone]

71. i don't consider the left wing godless

[Sheepshank]

75. The "Right" does n/t

[SCVDem]

25. Help the needy

Before the needy get truly desperate to save their families by resorting to measures of the terrified and hopeless.

Look to other very poor countries and you will see armed guards everywhere. Stores, parking lots and restaurants. It's not just theft, burglary or assault, but kidnapping and gun violence in support of drugs, even a possible return to political assassinations. The very poor will increase in numbers to the point that society will pay a large price for protection. Underpaid workers will riot in a replay of the late 19th and 20th century Pinkerton's massacres Andrew Carnegie fled America to distance himself from.

Think we have a police state now?

America will look like a dystopia straight from the movies. Gun owners will become the targets no matter how bad they see themselves.

Isn't it better to help Americans in need before we hit this rapidly approaching tipping point?

Only social programs and government aid has kept the peace. Not the police or military.

Ignoring the needy will indeed be the downfall of America. It will kill her spirit as the evening news is filled with ever increasing stories of despair.

America needs an attitude change, NOW!

[Moostache]

28. Free Market Jeebus wept. (nt)

[ErikJ]

29. WORSE than not helping is PREVENTING help of the poor.

be it govt help or charity.

[woo me with science]

30. Because corporate money.

Jesus is just one more tool in their box.

[Mnemosyne]

34. 1 John 4:20

If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.

Not exactly about the poor, but still feel it is relevant.

[heaven05]

37. this says a lot

[whistler162]

39. Follow your doctors instructions and take your meds!

[sulphurdunn]

54. I'm certain the people

being cast into deeper poverty and despair today would be happy to avoid that fate and wouldn't much care how or why it was done. The fact that it has been done and that the social compact the working people of America made with capitalism during the New Deal continues to be shredded with impunity should concern us greatly. And yes, using religion as a moral weapon in class struggle is as important as taking the flag and other national symbols back from the right wing.

[kentuck]

65. After all...

It wasn't possible to put it in the budget agreement. We can increase defense spending. Even come back and vote to re-instate COLA's for veterans' pensions. But if you are unemployed and hungry, tough shit. It's better to have it as an issue than to actually pass something. It just wasn't possible to get an agreement with unemployment benefits included. Uh-huh...

[SomethingFishy]

67. +1...

I'm in another thread where I'm sure it's about to be explained to me why the Dems had no choice but to agree to the cuts

[MineralMan]

68. And another verse from Luke

Luke 18:22
Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

[TBF]

69. Did you not read the new conservative bible?

This is all laid out in the book of Ayn Rand 5:87-95.

http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

[jsr]

73. Recommend

[GeorgeGist]

76. God doesn't care.

Obviously.

[Packerowner740]

77. After reading most of the replies, it seems most don't get the point

Or agree with your point.

[CJCRANE]

81. Not really. It seems to be one person with an ungenerous interpretation of scripture.

The rest of us have a more liberal or shall we generous and compassionate interpretaion of the words and actions of the God of Love and the Prince of Peace.

[freedom fighter jh]

115. Seems to me Blanket Statements is just trying to make different point . . .

. . . that paying taxes doesn't fulfill the Biblical requirement to help the poor.

That is not an argument against government money going to help for the poor. It is just an argument for personal help for the poor.

The poor get just enough support from government to keep them alive and not rebelling openly. I wish my tax money went to help them, rather than to support a machine that functions by threatening death. But I think Blanket Statements is saying (correct me if I'm wrong, Blanket) that taxes and government are just a separate issue from the mandate on the individual to help the poor. And even though I'm not Christian, I think it works well that way: Do try to get government to use our money less for destruction and more for human purposes like feeding the needy, but don't assume that that's how you help the needy. Helping the needy takes a separate, personal effort.

I suppose if government worked very well all around the world, there would be no poor, so how could you help them, and then how could you fulfill your Biblical obligation? But I don't think we have to worry about that too much.

[CJCRANE]

122. I don't get the separation. If the government is the most efficient way to help the needy

then let's do it that way.

"I suppose if government worked very well all around the world, there would be no poor, so how could you help them, and then how could you fulfill your Biblical obligation?"

To me that seems like following the letter of the (Biblical) law to an absurd level, but not following the spirit.

A government is just a larger form of community. The government respresents us, it is not separate from us (or shouldn't be in an ideal world).

The idea that you allow poverty just to give yourself a chance to fulfil your Biblical obligations is ridiculous. That's religion by loophole.

What would Jesus do? Would he really say to Boehner and the Repubs: "Don't renew the unemploymeny benefits, let the people suffer so someone else can help them (even though they may live in a community that can't help them)"?

That is just absolutely absurd IMO.

[freedom fighter jh]

125. The idea is that for an individual to help is in itself a good thing.

Not that government help is not. Both have (arguably) the same effect on the poor, although I think government help probably does a better job in remote places where only poor people live.

But government help, no matter how good it is, does not *replace* individual help, because giving is required for spiritual growth.

I certainly was not trying to suggest that anyone should allow poverty for any reason. That statement of mine that you quoted was just a kind of musing about what happens to the individual obligation if the problem is gone.

[CJCRANE]

126. There is a simple answer to your musing.

&quot W)hat happens to the individual obligation if the problem is gone(?)"

Once the problem is gone the obligation would no longer apply. The obligation is a means to solving the problem, not an end in itself. However, the problem isn't going to be solved any time soon.

And even if the problem of poverty were solved, there are still other needs and other ways to help people so you could still get your spiritual growth that way.

[freedom fighter jh]

127. agree, mostly

Certainly there will always be ways to help people. And the problem isn't going away.

But I think the obligation is more than a means to solving the problem, and that, I think, is what Blanket Statement was trying to say. Sure, it is a means to solving the problem. But it is also important for the person doing it. Helping makes you a better person.

[CJCRANE]

128. I agree that helping others makes you a better person

but I detected something very self-serving in Blanket Statement's opinion (which also seems to be the attitude of many conservative christians).

It is an idea that puts ideas about self-sufficiency and personal responsibility into the Bible and claims that individual charitable giving is the best way of helping people. You also implied that this form of giving gives you more spiritual points.

However, in the New Testament Jesus is portrayed as living in a communitarian group where all their resources were pooled and redistributed according to need (which incidentally is where Marx got his idea of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need&quot . So this was a collective form of giving similar to the idea of a government for the people.

So, I see Blanket Statement's insistence on personal giving as being better as Biblically incorrect. It is an unecessary and self-imposed limitation.

By hindering collective giving, which is what Jesus' disciples practiced, (in this case stopping the unemployment benefits), the Repubs are causing more suffering and in spiritual terms putting themselves on the wrong path. Alleviating suffering is good however it is achieved.

[freedom fighter jh]

129. What I thought he/she was saying . . .

was that giving through government loses its points partly because it's not voluntary. What you "give" isn't really given; it's taken from you. For a community like that of Jesus' followers, it would not be so; those people join voluntarily.

Sure, the government is supposed to be us collectively. But is it? Sure I want to feel that my tax dollars are going to help people who need support. But lots more of my tax dollars are going to the military, something with which I want nothing to do.

Again, I'm not trying to say there shouldn't be government welfare programs. I'm horrified that food stamps and unemployment benefits get cut rather than corporate welfare. But I agree with Blanket Statement that there are *some* benefits to giving that come only with private giving. Why not have both? There's certainly enough need out there.

[CJCRANE]

130. But in relation to the issue in the OP, it is still a voluntary act

to vote against extending unemployment benefits and it is also a voluntary act to support those who voted against them.

In both cases IMO they going against the Biblical principles cited above.

[Rex]

94. Yep Jesus, he shutdown the govt right? Ate green eggs

and discussed wasting billions of dollars on the poor? Something about the Seven Mountains Purple Majesties right? Cost money to keep those running. Big light bill.

[Bluenorthwest]

105. Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 2 44-45

All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one’s need.

http://www.usccb.org/bible/acts/2

[WillyT]

110. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!! (Somebody Here Has 488 Posts...)

Most of them in this one thread.

[Kablooie]

112. Limbaugh 7 : 10

There's a payoff for not working. A, you don't have to work. But you're gonna get food stamps multiple ways. You're gonna have food out the wazoo.

--

The new Jesus has spoken

[KansDem]

113. I believe Christians are now using the "Buffet Bible."

You take what you like and leave the rest for somebody else...

[Jester Messiah]

116. Thor wouldn't put up with this shit.

I think we need an upgrade of divinities.

[CJCRANE]

123. One day at the beach, a drowning man cries for help...

Luckily, there is a life guard nearby. But just as he is about to dive in to save the drowning man, a conservative christian grabs him and holds him back.

"You can't help him, " says the conservative.
"Why not?" asks the life guard.
"Because it's your job to help people. That means it isn't a genuine act of compassion. For that it needs someone else to volunteer".
"Okay, can you save him in that case?"
"No, I can't. I don't know how to swim".