Does being opposed to government intervention mean you hate the poor?

[Revmitchell]

There has been a number of accusations on this board made that suggests if you do not support government intervention in order to assist the poor then you either hate the poor or do not care about them.

So if you believe that if you are against government intervention is this any indication in any way that you either hate the poor or are against them?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Only a self-pious Pharisee would say such a thing.

To them, caring for the poor simply means demanding others give more. That's where they end it, save for the patting themselves on the back.

But it does seem to me the government solutions only create more poor people to give welfare to. Not sure why a thinking person would want that to continue.

And anyone who would try to justify their own personal charity work by submitting it to one of these Pharisees for approval will be fighting an uphill battle. The bible says God can know what's in our hearts. Anyone else who tells me they can is just a liar.

 

[Aaron]

Not to mention all the feigned concern for the poor is merely ruse.

 

[Herald]

How is the Church to react to oppressive government taxation?

 

[FollowTheWay]

There has been a number of accusations on this board made that suggests if you do not support government intervention in order to assist the poor then you either hate the poor or do not care about them.

So if you believe that if you are against government intervention is this any indication in any way that you either hate the poor or are against them?

I personally would far prefer that the church or individual Christians support the poor. But this isn't happening and is unlikely. Let's just at the question of providing medical support. The church could in no way provide medical insurance for the 45M Americans that don't have it. I calculated at one time that it would take about $200K/Christian church to meet this goal. With many churches having only about 100 members this is impossible. So, yes, voting to maintain our military budget as tops in the world and equal to the sum of the next 9 is indeed a vote against helping the poor.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I personally would far prefer that the church or individual Christians support the poor. But this isn't happening and is unlikely. Let's just at the question of providing medical support. The church could in no way provide medical insurance for the 45M Americans that don't have it. I calculated at one time that it would take about $200K/Christian church to meet this goal. With many churches having only about 100 members this is impossible. So, yes, voting to maintain our military budget as tops in the world and equal to the sum of the next 9 is indeed a vote against helping the poor.

You have well stated the position that I have expressed. Thank you.

 

[sag38]

Yeah, and Jesus wouldn't drop a bomb either. Typical bleeding heart rhetoric.

 

[Revmitchell]

I personally would far prefer that the church or individual Christians support the poor. But this isn't happening and is unlikely. Let's just at the question of providing medical support. The church could in no way provide medical insurance for the 45M Americans that don't have it. I calculated at one time that it would take about $200K/Christian church to meet this goal. With many churches having only about 100 members this is impossible. So, yes, voting to maintain our military budget as tops in the world and equal to the sum of the next 9 is indeed a vote against helping the poor.

And that my friend is Marxism and it is the very attitude that causes so much division and ill in this country.

 

[Alcott]

Where is any consistency in the philosophy of government involvement? "Separation of church and state" is defended by saying religion thrives when government 'leaves it alone' and takes no position for or against any religion. If that's true, and aiding those in need is a 'religious' endeavor-- which undoubtedly it is to many people-- why doesn't government do the same here? By forcing people to aid the poor against their will, it is coming between many citizens and their beliefs which should come free. And if Jesus is going to be invoked with his teachings of benevolence, which did he favor?-- carrying out this endeavor freely, or with force of government? Why didn't he start an empire-wide movement for Rome to impose minimum slave wage, flatbread stamps, and Aid to Families with Dependent Lepers?

And finally, when we are separated like the sheep from the goats, is whether we are on his right or his left going to be dependent on whether the government we lived under had welfare programs or not? Henry David Thoreau will be on his left because there was virtually no government welfare in his day, while Josef Stalin will be on his right because the government he controlled grabbed from those who would become rich elsewhere and distributed necessities to the needy?

 

[Revmitchell]

Where is any consistency in the philosophy of government involvement? "Separation of church and state" is defended by saying religion thrives when government 'leaves it alone' and takes no position for or against any religion. If that's true, and aiding those in need is a 'religious' endeavor-- which undoubtedly it is to many people-- why doesn't government do the same here? By forcing people to aid the poor against their will, it is coming between many citizens and their beliefs which should come free. And if Jesus is going to be invoked with his teachings of benevolence, which did he favor?-- carrying out this endeavor freely, or with force of government? Why didn't he start an empire-wide movement for Rome to impose minimum slave wage, flatbread stamps, and Aid to Families with Dependent Lepers?

And finally, when we are separated like the sheep from the goats, is whether we are on his right or his left going to be dependent on whether the government we lived under had welfare programs or not? Henry David Thoreau will be on his left because there was virtually no government welfare in his day, while Josef Stalin will be on his right because the government he controlled grabbed from those who would become rich elsewhere and distributed necessities to the needy?

And yet they cannot use on verse of scripture to support their accusation. Not one verse of scripture to show that being against government intervention means you hate the poor.

 

[Thousand Hills]

Hmmm... 10 votes so far, and only one vote yes. I wonder who that is.

A question for Mr. Crabby, how do you define "poor"?

 

[Revmitchell]

A question for Mr. Crabby, how do you define "poor"?

Yea old billy boy commented but did not vote in the poll. I doubt he will give a clearly defined answer. But it really doesn't matter because regardless of who the poor is government is the worst possible answer.

The truth is even if there was the absolute best answer (other than government) out there known by all folks like him would still want government in control of people's lives. These people need a king to care and coddle them.

 

[Revmitchell]

“Aid is just a stopgap,” he said. “Commerce [and] entrepreneurial capitalism take more people out of poverty than aid. We need Africa to become an economic powerhouse.”

Bono

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

How is the Church to react to oppressive government taxation?

Pay the taxes

 

[Aaron]

. . . and teach the proper role of government, the reason and proper use of tax money, so that Christians can be better voters.

 

[Revmitchell]

. . . and teach the proper role of government, the reason and proper use of tax money, so that Christians can be better voters.

And not look for a King when voting.

 

[saturneptune]

No, I do not think it means one hates the poor. As Christians, we are commanded to help the poor. Families and churches should be helping the poor, not government. The question becomes, as Christians, are we really committed to helping the poor, as it is a voluntary act done out of love. If all government programs ended, would we take up the slack?

It becomes a matter of what help does someone really need. How much of the tax money we shell out today really goes for those in need, and how much is paid because of laziness? Many, many people are on government subsidized programs that are in the 20s and 30s that are perfectly healthy.

Do we really use the money wisely? It is like the old saying about paying for someone to eat a fish everyday, when we could teach them to fish for themselves. In our local church, I remember a time we would hand over money to someone who came by to ask for a helping hand. Several years ago, we stopped that, and give people what they need after we purchase it, such as food, gas, a utility bill, or clothing for obvious reasons.

 

[go2church]

Voted yes, given the choices the poll offered, but it really is poorly worded.

 

[Revmitchell]

Voted yes, given the choices the poll offered, but it really is poorly worded.

Actually it is not. It was worded based on an accusation made elsewhere. Sad.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Three posters here say people apposed to government handouts hate the poor.

Unbelievable. Not surprised about who they are, but still. To accuse someone of hate ?

I ask the folks who said "yes"....why ? Especially go2church. What is the basis of your accusation ?

Please explain to me my hatred.