knapplc Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 If you're talking about taking care of the poor, I'm all for that idea. But the idea that a government would step in, require us to pay our hard earned money, and then divvy it out to poor people is NOT the way Jesus would have intended it. It should be an entirely free will thing, not something that's forced upon people. Matthew 25: 37-40 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they marveled at him. Notice how he didn't say "Render unto Caesar your money so he can give it to those less fortunate." Once again, I believe Jesus would have it be a free will offering rather than a payment to the government for them to disburse. Acts 4:32-35 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. We can quibble about who's doing the distributing - the government or the church - but it's still about as Socialist as Medicare. And we can quibble about the government being "them" or "us" all you want, but Abraham Lincoln said the government was "Of the people, by the people, for the people." If the government is "them," then who is "us?" The dots don't connect the way you want them to. Bottom line is, people work hard for their money. They shouldn't be forced to hand over a portion of it so that it can be distributed by a current-day government that has shown time and again not to be trustworthy. Giving money to the poor should be entirely by choice. It isn't by choice. You've been commanded to do so by Jesus. He couldn't have been more clear about it. Link to comment
HuskerNation1 Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 If you're talking about taking care of the poor, I'm all for that idea. But the idea that a government would step in, require us to pay our hard earned money, and then divvy it out to poor people is NOT the way Jesus would have intended it. It should be an entirely free will thing, not something that's forced upon people. Matthew 25: 37-40 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they marveled at him. Notice how he didn't say "Render unto Caesar your money so he can give it to those less fortunate." Once again, I believe Jesus would have it be a free will offering rather than a payment to the government for them to disburse. Acts 4:32-35 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. We can quibble about who's doing the distributing - the government or the church - but it's still about as Socialist as Medicare. And we can quibble about the government being "them" or "us" all you want, but Abraham Lincoln said the government was "Of the people, by the people, for the people." If the government is "them," then who is "us?" I really think this discussion is getting too philosophical. As I pointed out earlier, science is proving the pro-life movement right with each passing day. With the pre-born able to feel excruciating pain beginning around 20 weeks, there is no justification for allowing abortions to continue unless the mother's life is in danger and it's an either/or choice where someone must feel the pain. While I am ok if some oppose abortion based upon their own religious believes, it's also ok to declare something morally wrong that is not based upon a religious doctrine. It's comical to me that the same group that claims we must pass gun control legislation which has its basis in a Constitutional amendment, and by which ownership of a gun does not mean someone will be hurt or die, approves of the right to have unlimited abortions which GUARANTEES pain and suffering of the innocent pre-born. 1 Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 If you're talking about taking care of the poor, I'm all for that idea. But the idea that a government would step in, require us to pay our hard earned money, and then divvy it out to poor people is NOT the way Jesus would have intended it. It should be an entirely free will thing, not something that's forced upon people. Matthew 25: 37-40 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they marveled at him. Notice how he didn't say "Render unto Caesar your money so he can give it to those less fortunate." Once again, I believe Jesus would have it be a free will offering rather than a payment to the government for them to disburse. Acts 4:32-35 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. We can quibble about who's doing the distributing - the government or the church - but it's still about as Socialist as Medicare. And we can quibble about the government being "them" or "us" all you want, but Abraham Lincoln said the government was "Of the people, by the people, for the people." If the government is "them," then who is "us?" The dots don't connect the way you want them to. Bottom line is, people work hard for their money. They shouldn't be forced to hand over a portion of it so that it can be distributed by a current-day government that has shown time and again not to be trustworthy. Giving money to the poor should be entirely by choice. It isn't by choice. You've been commanded to do so by Jesus. He couldn't have been more clear about it. So you're forcing the Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Pagans, and Satanists to participate in a Christian program through the government? That doesn't seem right... Link to comment
zoogs Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 Ah. So we want to punish those we deem sexually irresponsible, and wield the mighty federal government as our instrument of retribution. Serves them ... who are disproportionately poor and without access to information and contraceptives, serves them right? Having sex is a choice Not always, but I'm sure you knew that. 2 Link to comment
knapplc Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 If you're talking about taking care of the poor, I'm all for that idea. But the idea that a government would step in, require us to pay our hard earned money, and then divvy it out to poor people is NOT the way Jesus would have intended it. It should be an entirely free will thing, not something that's forced upon people. Matthew 25: 37-40 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they marveled at him. Notice how he didn't say "Render unto Caesar your money so he can give it to those less fortunate." Once again, I believe Jesus would have it be a free will offering rather than a payment to the government for them to disburse. Acts 4:32-35 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. We can quibble about who's doing the distributing - the government or the church - but it's still about as Socialist as Medicare. And we can quibble about the government being "them" or "us" all you want, but Abraham Lincoln said the government was "Of the people, by the people, for the people." If the government is "them," then who is "us?" The dots don't connect the way you want them to. Bottom line is, people work hard for their money. They shouldn't be forced to hand over a portion of it so that it can be distributed by a current-day government that has shown time and again not to be trustworthy. Giving money to the poor should be entirely by choice. It isn't by choice. You've been commanded to do so by Jesus. He couldn't have been more clear about it. So you're forcing the Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Pagans, and Satanists to participate in a Christian program through the government? That doesn't seem right... Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security aren't Christian programs. Link to comment
knapplc Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 Ah. So we want to punish those we deem sexually irresponsible, and wield the mighty federal government as our instrument of retribution. Serves them ... who are disproportionately poor and without access to information and contraceptives, serves them right? Having sex is a choice Not always, but I'm sure you knew that. Apparently there is no rape or incest in some peoples' worldview. Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 Ah. So we want to punish those we deem sexually irresponsible, and wield the mighty federal government as our instrument of retribution. Serves them ... who are disproportionately poor and without access to information and contraceptives, serves them right? Having sex is a choice Not always, but I'm sure you knew that. Ah. So we want to punish those we deem sexually irresponsible, and wield the mighty federal government as our instrument of retribution. Serves them ... who are disproportionately poor and without access to information and contraceptives, serves them right? Having sex is a choice Not always, but I'm sure you knew that. Ah, I get where you're going with this. So let me get this straight. If a woman gets raped and ends up getting pregnant as a result, it's then OK in your mind to murder a baby? Am I getting that right? And if someone "can't afford" contraceptives, there's a really simple way to avoid becoming pregnant that's cost-free: abstinence. Or just doing oral or anal, whichever haha Link to comment
QMany Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 Could you turn that ball like half an inch to the left before zoogs knocks it into the middle of next week? I don't think you teed it up 100% perfectly. I can't hardly hold in my excitement to hear how it's moral to murder unborn babies. When do you consider them "unborn babies?" Conception or a certain amount of weeks? Link to comment
Landlord Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 If you're talking about taking care of the poor, I'm all for that idea. But the idea that a government would step in, require us to pay our hard earned money, and then divvy it out to poor people is NOT the way Jesus would have intended it. It should be an entirely free will thing, not something that's forced upon people. Matthew 25: 37-40 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they marveled at him. Notice how he didn't say "Render unto Caesar your money so he can give it to those less fortunate." Once again, I believe Jesus would have it be a free will offering rather than a payment to the government for them to disburse. Acts 4:32-35 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. We can quibble about who's doing the distributing - the government or the church - but it's still about as Socialist as Medicare. And we can quibble about the government being "them" or "us" all you want, but Abraham Lincoln said the government was "Of the people, by the people, for the people." If the government is "them," then who is "us?" The dots don't connect the way you want them to. Bottom line is, people work hard for their money. They shouldn't be forced to hand over a portion of it so that it can be distributed by a current-day government that has shown time and again not to be trustworthy. Giving money to the poor should be entirely by choice. It isn't by choice. You've been commanded to do so by Jesus. He couldn't have been more clear about it. I don't see any commands issued in the scriptures you referenced. I see Jesus explaining certain things, and I see a depiction of what the early church was like, but the commandment part is missing as far as I can tell. What are you actually arguing for, by the way? What's your perspective? Surely you don't believe in the idea of a theocracy or a non-separation of church and state. 1 Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 If you're talking about taking care of the poor, I'm all for that idea. But the idea that a government would step in, require us to pay our hard earned money, and then divvy it out to poor people is NOT the way Jesus would have intended it. It should be an entirely free will thing, not something that's forced upon people. Matthew 25: 37-40 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they marveled at him. Notice how he didn't say "Render unto Caesar your money so he can give it to those less fortunate." Once again, I believe Jesus would have it be a free will offering rather than a payment to the government for them to disburse. Acts 4:32-35 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. We can quibble about who's doing the distributing - the government or the church - but it's still about as Socialist as Medicare. And we can quibble about the government being "them" or "us" all you want, but Abraham Lincoln said the government was "Of the people, by the people, for the people." If the government is "them," then who is "us?" The dots don't connect the way you want them to. Bottom line is, people work hard for their money. They shouldn't be forced to hand over a portion of it so that it can be distributed by a current-day government that has shown time and again not to be trustworthy. Giving money to the poor should be entirely by choice. It isn't by choice. You've been commanded to do so by Jesus. He couldn't have been more clear about it. So you're forcing the Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Pagans, and Satanists to participate in a Christian program through the government? That doesn't seem right... Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security aren't Christian programs. That's what you're trying to argue. Bottom line, no government should force anyone to give money in order for them to re-disburse to those they deem worthy. It should be entirely by free will choice, as Jesus intended it if that's what you're coming back at me with. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 Clicked on thread......now...... Link to comment
Landlord Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 I can't help but get the feeling that 25, 50, 100 years from now, society will look back on a cultural blind spot we're living in with a less than favorable lens. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the legal sanction of abortion will go down in history in the same vein as slavery or segregation, with the culture at the time being ignorant of the moral unease that future generations will look back on it with. Link to comment
zoogs Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 If a woman gets raped and ends up getting pregnant as a result, it's then OK in your mind to murder a baby? Am I getting that right? And if someone "can't afford" contraceptives, there's a really simple way to avoid becoming pregnant that's cost-free: abstinence. Or just doing oral or anal, whichever haha HuskerShark's America: #1. If you're poor, just don't have sex, or do oral and anal haha. #2. Don't get raped. Haha? Your words, not mine. Yes, if a woman gets raped, but in general, we shouldn't (and in fact, can't) force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. Her body belongs to her. We all want to reduce unwanted pregnancies. That should be an easy bit of common ground. 2 Link to comment
knapplc Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 It's comical to me that the same group that claims we must pass gun control legislation which has its basis in a Constitutional amendment, and by which ownership of a gun does not mean someone will be hurt or die, approves of the right to have unlimited abortions which GUARANTEES pain and suffering of the innocent pre-born. I disagree with the notion that everyone who wants gun control is pro-abortion. That is the broadest of brushes. Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 Could you turn that ball like half an inch to the left before zoogs knocks it into the middle of next week? I don't think you teed it up 100% perfectly. I can't hardly hold in my excitement to hear how it's moral to murder unborn babies. When do you consider them "unborn babies?" Conception or a certain amount of weeks? At the time of conception, it is a baby. In other words, once the sperm fertilizes the egg. Link to comment
Recommended Posts