[quote]limburg wrote:
So what we need to do is make it a crime for a father to leave the house. Put him under house arrest. Problem solved.[/quote]
Fixing the symptom, won’t solve the problem.[/quote]
All the previous posts lead me to believe that fatherless homes are the cause of all of this. but feeing the hungry is fixing a sympton, houseing the homeless is fixing a symptom. Fix the problem of people being hungry and homeless. Kick illegal aliens out of their homes and give it to homeless AMERICANS.
[quote]limburg wrote:
So what we need to do is make it a crime for a father to leave the house. Put him under house arrest. Problem solved.[/quote]
Fixing the symptom, won’t solve the problem.[/quote]
All the previous posts lead me to believe that fatherless homes are the cause of all of this. but feeing the hungry is fixing a sympton, houseing the homeless is fixing a symptom. Fix the problem of people being hungry and homeless. Kick illegal aliens out of their homes and give it to homeless AMERICANS.[/quote]
When does giving anyone anything ever fix a problem long term?
[quote]limburg wrote:
So what we need to do is make it a crime for a father to leave the house. Put him under house arrest. Problem solved.[/quote]
Fixing the symptom, won’t solve the problem.[/quote]
All the previous posts lead me to believe that fatherless homes are the cause of all of this. but feeing the hungry is fixing a sympton, houseing the homeless is fixing a symptom. Fix the problem of people being hungry and homeless. Kick illegal aliens out of their homes and give it to homeless AMERICANS.[/quote]
Ah, I so love the smell of Weimar in the air…
So, have we already decided who it is gonna be this time?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
One is required to feed the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, harboring the harborless, visiting the sick, ransoming captives, and burying the dead.
So, although I do not believe that the government is in position to do this, the family then the local community is responsible for taking care of the sick. And, as well Doctors who have talent should give their talent or at least treasure to help with the sick.[/quote]
I have an interesting take on this. We are given those commands for our own benefit, not the benefit of others. We are also told that there will always be poor, so I don’t think this is intended to solve the problem of the needy.[/quote]
[quote]smh23 wrote:
It’s not just for the benefit of those on welfare. As a people we have an exigent (self) interest in limiting desperate poverty.[/quote]
That does not mean the Fed Gov’t should be the one to carry out action towards that end.
[/quote]
Why not. It is in our interest, therefore we as a group (government) work toward it.[/quote]
A. Because it goes against the US Constitution.
B. It is the worst possible way to address the problem, as proven out by our “War on Poverty”[/quote]
[quote]limburg wrote:
So what we need to do is make it a crime for a father to leave the house. Put him under house arrest. Problem solved.[/quote]
Fixing the symptom, won’t solve the problem.[/quote]
All the previous posts lead me to believe that fatherless homes are the cause of all of this. but feeing the hungry is fixing a sympton, houseing the homeless is fixing a symptom. Fix the problem of people being hungry and homeless. Kick illegal aliens out of their homes and give it to homeless AMERICANS.[/quote]
I didn’t say don’t take care of the symptom, I said it won’t solve the problem. Even though we are supposed to take care of the less fortunate, they also are supposed to earn their wage in life.
Now, fatherless homes happen because men don’t have the fortitude to sacrifice themselves for their families.
And my question is what gives the gov’t the right to take money out of my pocket and give it to others, whether in the form of food stamps of health care?
[/quote]
you used NAACP “research” to back up your argument, so you can’t ask these questions now lol.
seriously though - taxes are taxes - what gives them the right to take money out of your pocket to provide education for the kids whose parents aren’t covering education expenses in their tax payments or to spend tax dollars on space research or to pay for gov-t officials to travel on charter flights etc etc etc.
[/quote]
There isn’t any such right, which is my issue. Taxes aren’t taxes. There are issues the Fed Gov’t has the right to handle. Taxes towards those ends are justified.
[/quote]
well yeah, there are politicians who run the country who at the end of the day decide how to use your tax money.
not sure what the problem is here?
yeah, I’d rather see States with more power and Feds with less, but from your pocket’s perspective it’s all the same.
No Christ taught to willingly give your own things to the poor. He most certainly never advocated taking by force to give to the poor.
[/quote]
If you are Christian then the money in question–money used to feed, shelter, and care for–is, ipso facto, being surrendered willingly.
Edit: also, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” came in direct reference to the issue of taxation, and in my view the sentiment is entirely unambiguous.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
We are given those commands for our own benefit, not the benefit of others. We are also told that there will always be poor, so I don’t think this is intended to solve the problem of the needy.[/quote]
“Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” --Gandhi[/quote]
I’m no religious scholar lol, but my understanding is to be a Christian you need to be baptized, accept Christ the Lord as your Savior and follow the Ten Commandments.
No Christ taught to willingly give your own things to the poor. He most certainly never advocated taking by force to give to the poor.
[/quote]
If you are Christian then the money in question–money used to feed, shelter, and care for–is, ipso facto, being surrendered willingly.
Edit: also, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” came in direct reference to the issue of taxation, and in my view the sentiment is entirely unambiguous.[/quote]
Thats just because you never read the bible and in the unlikely case that you did you did not really look into why was what said when to whom.
Next, the whole eye of the needle thing, that is practically only known to most people with the exact opposite meaning of the one intended.
No Christ taught to willingly give your own things to the poor. He most certainly never advocated taking by force to give to the poor.
[/quote]
If you are Christian then the money in question–money used to feed, shelter, and care for–is, ipso facto, being surrendered willingly.
Edit: also, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” came in direct reference to the issue of taxation, and in my view the sentiment is entirely unambiguous.[/quote]
Yes, but we have to remember the principle of Subsidiarity.
No Christ taught to willingly give your own things to the poor. He most certainly never advocated taking by force to give to the poor.
[/quote]
If you are Christian then the money in question–money used to feed, shelter, and care for–is, ipso facto, being surrendered willingly.
Edit: also, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” came in direct reference to the issue of taxation, and in my view the sentiment is entirely unambiguous.[/quote]
Thats just because you never read the bible and in the unlikely case that you did you did not really look into why was what said when to whom.
Next, the whole eye of the needle thing, that is practically only known to most people with the exact opposite meaning of the one intended.
[/quote]
Are you saying I misinterpreted that particular quote? If so, by all means, enlighten me.
No Christ taught to willingly give your own things to the poor. He most certainly never advocated taking by force to give to the poor.
[/quote]
If you are Christian then the money in question–money used to feed, shelter, and care for–is, ipso facto, being surrendered willingly.[/quote]
No, the 10% of my income that I donate is given willingly. If I would not go to jail I would not pay taxes.
That isn’t the only way to interpret Jesus’ words. This selection in particular is the subject of much debate. It does seem, though, to be a justification for obeying human law, including (and indeed, in this instance, in specific reference to) those regarding taxation.
This sentiment would be corroborated by Romans 13:1–“Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God.”
That isn’t the only way to interpret Jesus’ words. This selection in particular is the subject of much debate. It does seem, though, to be a justification for obeying human law, including (and indeed, in this instance, in specific reference to) those regarding taxation.
This sentiment would be corroborated by Romans 13:1–“Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God.”[/quote]
Maybe but Pauls ideas are questionable in the light of what God thinks about kings in general.
Hint: God is an anarchist and a rather outspoken one.
That isn’t the only way to interpret Jesus’ words. This selection in particular is the subject of much debate. It does seem, though, to be a justification for obeying human law, including (and indeed, in this instance, in specific reference to) those regarding taxation.[/quote]
Only if you take it out of context.
That isn’t the only way to interpret Jesus’ words. This selection in particular is the subject of much debate. It does seem, though, to be a justification for obeying human law, including (and indeed, in this instance, in specific reference to) those regarding taxation.[/quote]
Only if you take it out of context.
Again, only if you take it out of context.
The words are the words. The fact that someone centuries later realized that the words can lead to a dangerous form of complacency does nothing to change the original sentiment, which is unambiguous.
That isn’t the only way to interpret Jesus’ words. This selection in particular is the subject of much debate. It does seem, though, to be a justification for obeying human law, including (and indeed, in this instance, in specific reference to) those regarding taxation.[/quote]
Only if you take it out of context.
Again, only if you take it out of context.
The words are the words. The fact that someone centuries later realized that the words can lead to a dangerous form of complacency does nothing to change the original sentiment, which is unambiguous.[/quote]
No, this highlights the difference between quoting the Bible and understanding the Bible. By simply quoting it you take phrases at random and support whatever argument you are trying to make. Understanding the Bible makes that much more difficult.
That isn’t the only way to interpret Jesus’ words. This selection in particular is the subject of much debate. It does seem, though, to be a justification for obeying human law, including (and indeed, in this instance, in specific reference to) those regarding taxation.[/quote]
Only if you take it out of context.
Again, only if you take it out of context.
The words are the words. The fact that someone centuries later realized that the words can lead to a dangerous form of complacency does nothing to change the original sentiment, which is unambiguous.[/quote]
No, this highlights the difference between quoting the Bible and understanding the Bible. By simply quoting it you take phrases at random and support whatever argument you are trying to make. Understanding the Bible makes that much more difficult.[/quote]
Then show how they’ve been misinterpreted, i.e. try and make an argument, the conclusion of which would have this sentence meaning anything other than “follow Earthly law.” To say “this would have justified complicity with Hitler’s laws” does nothing to change the words on the page.