The Tea Party will change America back to the days of Thomas Jefferson

[Openmind]

There are more than enough charities to help out and give money to if anyone feels they need to help the poor. Govt is not there to take care of people. Govt is inefficient and wastes money. Charities get more bang for the buck. There are inner city Gospel missions, church food banks, medical teams, dentists, and many others who donate time to help the poor. That's the way to do it.

Charities are great to help. They obviously are not enough, especially in times of bad economy.

they are already streetched to the limit, and can't do more with less!

If charity alone was the answer, why is poverty still a growing issue?

Charity has existed for ever, and NEVER managed to erase poverty.

t

 

[dogtowner]

Charities are great to help. They obviously are not enough, especially in times of bad economy.

they are already stretched to the limit, and can't do more with less!

If charity alone was the answer, why is poverty still a growing issue?

Charity has existed for ever, and NEVER managed to erase poverty.

there will always be poverty. human nature dictates that.

 

[GenSeneca]

If charity alone was the answer, why is poverty still a growing issue?

If massive government spending was the answer, why is poverty still a growing issue?

 

[Openmind]

If massive government spending was the answer, why is poverty still a growing issue?

Because the "massive government spending" was more massive toward "corporate welfare" than toward social programs that really would make a difference, as they have done in Europe for decades!

 

[dogtowner]

Because the "massive government spending" was more massive toward "corporate welfare" than toward social programs that really would make a difference, as they have done in Europe for decades!

nope

as of 2009 DoD 18% social stuff 38%

 

[Alias]

Charities are great to help. They obviously are not enough, especially in times of bad economy.

they are already streetched to the limit, and can't do more with less!

If charity alone was the answer, why is poverty still a growing issue?

Charity has existed for ever, and NEVER managed to erase poverty.

t

Poverty is a growing issue because of liberal policies that don't produce jobs.

 

[Alias]

Because the "massive government spending" was more massive toward "corporate welfare" than toward social programs that really would make a difference, as they have done in Europe for decades!

I disagree. Govt spending does not stop poverty. The govt is spending more on poverty programs than every before and it's not working. Same with the school system....we spend more and things get worse. I don't know what it's gonna take to convince some of you on the left. Govt spending does not help.

 

[Dr.Who]

It is wrong to steal. . .even a candy.

It is MUCH more sinful to kill. . .to protect that candy!

Which do you think would be more of a major sin in God's eyes?

I know which is in MY eyes.

It would be wrong to kill just to protect candy. But it would not be wrong to pursue a criminal even if all he stole was candy. The principal is that we try to catch and convict criminals no matter what it is that proves they are criminals. If the policeman who is trying to catch that man ends up shooting him for a variety of valid reasons then that is unfortunate but it is just.

The first time a responsible person sins he has earned the wages of his actions. It does not matter what that first sin was. It might be as simple as picking an apple.

I also think that God does view some sins as worse than others. Some people might be surprised that His priorities are not the same as ours: touching the ark - big; selling goods in the temple - big; being ungrateful - big; being a bad host and failing to personally give to the poor - big. Murdering an Egyptian foreman but repenting - small; becoming a prostitute - small; having gay thoughts - not even mentioned in the bible.

Are you planning to suggest that the poor person who steals candy or bread has done no wrong but the wealthy person who has him thrown in jail has done wrong? That just may be true looking at the small picture. But if we started ignoring crimes every time they were committed by the poor the crime rate would sky rocket. People would understand that there is no rule of law. And it would not be just the poor who were stealing. Without respect for the rules then there are no rules.

 

[Dr.Who]

Would this one do?

That one will do just fine.

It upholds the rule of law and affirms that the Law and the prophets are of value. It also lets us draw the conclusion that the rich man did not follow the law. Why was he in hell? Not because he was rich but because he failed to follow the law.

Why was Lazarus at Abraham's side? Not because he was poor but because he was righteous.

Is there a comparison between rich and poor that is not really about righteous and unrighteous? Yes there is. The parable affirms that there is inequality in this world but that it is God's place to balance things out in the next. No where does the parable indicate that there is a responsibility of government to redistribute. In fact, when asked to redistribute the authority figure (Abraham) indicates that he cannot do it.

Are the rich in any way told that they need to change the way they treat the poor? It is implied that since the beggar was at the rich mans gate that he should have been helped personally by the rich man, voluntarily. Is the poor man told that he needs to change the way he treats the rich? No, he is not told to envy the rich man and since the law is affirmed coveting what the rich man has would be a sin.

Is Lazarus lazy? It says that the dogs lick his sores. Clearly he is too sick to even stop the dogs. He was deserving of the rich mans charity but the rich man did not give it. For his personal failure to help the rich man is in hell.

What if the poor man had been able bodied? The bible says elsewhere that those who can work should and if they refuse that they will generally be hungry.

The parable does not support the idea that there should be class warfare nor that there should be government intervention to make people help the poor.

 

[Dr.Who]

Where does it say you shouldn't if the wealthy are too greedy to do it themselves?

Exactly, the parable speaks to YOU. Every time you demand that the force of law be used to make the rich give instead of you giving yourself you demonstrate a disregard for the lesson of the parable.

 

[Dr.Who]

Class warfare was around long before Reagan.

.

Are you suggesting that Marx was around before Reagan?

Was Engels around before Marx?

Was Hegel around before Engels?

What about kant?

As a side note the rationalist branch of philosphy has as its origins the desire to explain away the miracles of the bible. The origins of class warfare are in fact anti-theism.

 

[Dr.Who]

I don't care about other people's "salvation." I care about fairness and about people suffering in THIS life time.
.

You might spend less time preaching to the choir and more time doing something about the plight of poor people that you know and meet.

On your own judgment day you will not be evaluated based on how well you advanced the cause of socialism but on how much you obeyed The Law and the prophets or in the unlkely even that you have never heard The Law based on the law put in your heart.

 

[Dr.Who]

There are more than enough charities to help out and give money to if anyone feels they need to help the poor. Govt is not there to take care of people. Govt is inefficient and wastes money. Charities get more bang for the buck. There are inner city Gospel missions, church food banks, medical teams, dentists, and many others who donate time to help the poor. That's the way to do it.

If you really want to cut down on waste and inefficiency then just give directly from yourself to the poor.

I suggest a box in your (whoever you all are) car that includes:

Dry non perishable openable food (like granola cereal), coins, the phone number and address for shelters and food pantries and soup kitchens, gift certificates for fast food restaurants, a small bible, and the willingness to talk to people in need to really understand their need and then to act on it in more meaningful ways than just offering a box. [this is of course designed to not give beggars enough money to buy liquor but also to give them several days worth of food]

Having a charity set up on your auto bill pay is also great in my opinion.

 

[Dr.Who]

Charities are great to help. They obviously are not enough, especially in times of bad economy.

In todays modern age there is an abundance of food and charity could easily be enough. All it takes is for YOU to give. Don't worry about how much others give.

they are already streetched to the limit, and can't do more with less!

Some are some are not. Of course IMO too many people give to the shelter for cats and not enough to the shelter for people. OI bet they give to the shelter for cats because they think the needs of people are taken care of.

If charity alone was the answer, why is poverty still a growing issue

?

There will always be poor and government makes it worse. So why is it growing? Could it be that the definition is bogus? If we measure only the people who cannot through their own efforts provide for their basic needs then perhaps it is decreasing.

Charity has existed for ever, and NEVER managed to erase poverty.

Government has existed for ever, and NEVER managed to erase poverty.

But charity does it better.

 

[Dr.Who]

Because the "massive government spending" was more massive toward "corporate welfare" than toward social programs that really would make a difference, as they have done in Europe for decades!

CAn you support those statements?

Is corporate welfare greater?
Is social welfare not enough?
Is absolute poverty less in Europe?

Here is a useful statistic: the total spent on welfare amounts to $16,800 per poor person per year.

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...increases-welfare-spending-to-historic-levels

"Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, the U.S. has spent $15.9 trillion on means-tested welfare. Instead of reducing the causes of poverty, this spending has made the problem dramatically worse. By undermining intact families and eroding the work ethic in low-income communities, the welfare state has made families less capable of supporting themselves today than they were when the War on Poverty began.

For example:

* After adjusting for inflation, welfare spending is 13 times higher today than in 1965, when the War on Poverty started.
* The out-of-wedlock birthrate is 40 percent, and the African–American out-of-wedlock birthrate is 72 percent. When the War on Poverty began, the out-of-wedlock birthrate was 7 percent.[7]
* More than 40 million people are on food stamps. Four decades ago, only 4.3 million people were on the rolls.[8] "

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...ments-principles-of-reform-and-the-next-steps

"Using an absolute poverty measurement method, the picture looks different: poverty in some European countries is higher."

http://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/5313.html