To be a long way from my position is to be a long way from the Scriptures.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Latent Marxism II
- Thread starter Aaron
- Start date
- Status
FR7 Baptist
Active Member
In what way? No where in the Scriptures does it prohibit taxation for social programs.
*snicker*
Yeah, on one side, we have CTB..."God wants you to give your money to the government, to help the poor."
On the other, we have Aaron..."What poor?"
I think I'll strike the middle: I'll be generous as God leads, but individual charity will always trump government charity.
FR7 Baptist
Active Member
Just to clarify, do you think "government charity", to use your term, is unbiblical?
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you sure?
See, now you're doing what Obama does: misstating another's position for political advantage.
I'm shaking my head and mouthing the words, "Not true. Not true."
Not so much unBiblical as less effective than Christians doing what they're supposed to do.
Of course, this presupposes several things:
- Able-bodied folks who are simply lazy...well, they don't get help. Their kids, OK...but not them.
- Helping the poor involves meeting needs. Our list of "needs" in 21st-century America is entirely too long. Cell phones at government expense? Not a need. Cable TV? Not a need. The list goes on.
- The goal should be moving people toward a day in which they don't need assistance. Government is world-class at entrenching people into the bondage of perpetual mooching...and that's after "welfare reform."
- Moving from Government-based help to Christ-motivated charity would take a monumental allocation of time and effort.
- Is unbelievably wasteful. The cost for them to do anything is enormous, redundant, and prohibitively expensive.
- Is so beholden to politicians, and especially unions, that it is absolutely rife with corruption and incompetence. Many of these entitlement programs are run by goofballs who couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper sack. SEIU, anyone? 'Nuff said.
- Invariably becomes a vote-buying scheme (or an incumbent-retention plan). An easy fix would be to not allow people on welfare (not Veteran's benefits, Social Security, or anything earned) to vote, until they were self-sufficient.
- Becomes a generational shackle. Countless families are now third and fourth-generation welfare recipients. Many kids grow up not knowing an adult in their family who works. This ain't good.
Could be worse. You could have yelled, "You lie."
Based on the amount of "inspiring" that you like to do here on the board I do not doubt that you do not consider it to be bragging.
I will leave the "inspiring" to you - I would find it to be too boastful to participate in it myself.
Very nice misquote. What I have said over and over is that if chruches and individuals did their part that the government would not have to "take from you and help the poor." But since churches do not do their part the government steps in and establishes programs.
We have examples of groups who do take care of their own, i.e. the Amish, the Old Order Mennonites and the Hutterites. If, say, the Christians in the SBC, the Methodist, the Lutherans, etc., etc. set up and funded such programs the government would not have to have programs for those SBC members who are poor and/or have no health insurance. There was a thread where it was discussed that the Amish would not be forced into the health care program that Congress is working on. It makes sense, they take care of their own and do not need such programs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not much fun having someone put words in your mouth is it?
Perhaps you will remember this and strive to "do unto others..." the next time that you are tempted to score points rather than to seek the truth in discussions here.
the constitution does at the Fed level.
QUOTE=Revmitchell;1512957]the constitution does at the Fed level.[/QUOTE]
Where?
Where?
Magnetic Poles
New Member
Okay, that's funny.
Aaron seems to be universally alienating folks all across the spectrum. I am thinking he says outrageous things because he craves attention.
ccrobinson
Active Member
billwald said:
You need to read the Constitution again.
Provide and promote do not mean the same thing.
promote
1. to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further: to promote world peace.
2. to advance in rank, dignity, position, etc. (opposed to demote ).
3. Education. to put ahead to the next higher stage or grade of a course or series of classes.
4. to aid in organizing (business undertakings).
5. to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), esp. through advertising or other publicity.
6. Informal. to obtain (something) by cunning or trickery; wangle.
provide
1. to make available; furnish: to provide employees with various benefits.
2. to supply or equip: to provide the army with new fighter planes.
3. to afford or yield.
4. Law. to arrange for or stipulate beforehand, as by a provision or proviso.
5. Archaic. to prepare or procure beforehand.
6. to take measures with due foresight (usually fol. by for or against).
7. to make arrangements for supplying means of support, money, etc. (usually fol. by for): He provided for his children in his will.
8. to supply means of support (often fol. by for): to provide for oneself.
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
Amazing: I have been gone for about five months, and there are some who insist upon interjecting Marxism into a discussion, yet really don't understand what the term actually means.
I guess some things never change........
I guess some things never change........
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
Oops, I think you mean "promote," not "provide."
Regards, hope you are well,
BiR (in St. Louis)
- Status