Another accusation of Jesus not being pro-life.
-
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!
Republicans: What About Children Outside the Womb?
- Thread starter Crabtownboy
- Start date
Another accusation of Jesus not being pro-life.
Jesus was pro life. He taught we should take care of each other. He was not just pro-birth. We have many who parade as being pro-life, but are only pro-birth, having little or no regard for children's welfare once they are born.
You make the claim that anyone who does not support any program funded by taxes meant to help the poor is anti-life. Jesus was such a person. No cut and run here. You said it.
There is no evidence that Jesus supported taxing people to support the poor.
No one else can or will do it. Yes I said it. Jesus would support helping children, the poor, the needy and the elderly, and if no one else were doing it he would support taxes for it to happen.
Now there is no scripture to support or oppose this belief. Only what he showed us in his life, his care and helping of people.
Remember the story of the rich man and Lazarus?
Remember the story of the rich young ruler?
Remember Luke 14:13 But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind.
Remember Proverbs 19:17 Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed.
Remember Matthew 9:36 When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd
Remember Isaiah 10:1-2 Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be their spoil, and that they may make the fatherless their prey!
And there are more verses of scripture that speak to this issue.
Last edited by a moderator:
And yet liberals want to stop charitable contributions from being deducted from tax returns especially when it comes to the rich.
While scripture is clear that God cares for the poor it is also clear that He has no concern for the government doing it. Jesus had plenty of opportunity to make it clear if He did. And He did not.
While scripture is clear that God cares for the poor it is also clear that He has no concern for the government doing it. Jesus had plenty of opportunity to make it clear if He did. And He did not.
You said the gist of your many arguments right here. You want legal theft of the resources of those who own or earn them to help those who don't so much that you think Jesus would support the same, but "there is no scripture to support or oppose this belief."
I would like to say simply 'shove it' right there, but your contention, which you admit does not have scriptural support, is used by you to accuse those who disagree of not being pro-life-- and of that even more so you cannot claim has support in scripture. We both know you are going to continue to be The Accuser on this board, but remember what you said and that you are not within scriptural limits in your accusations. This is my last post on this thread unless you introduce anything not yet debated.
However the way Christ lived his life, the way he treated others shows us he was pro helping those in need. No question about it he would not approve their not being helped.
They are not pro-life, they are only pro-birth.
Judas supported taking from one and giving to the poor. (John 12) Jesus soundly scolded that.
No where did Jesus tell the Roman government that it needed to collect taxes to give to the poor and neither did he tell that to the church.
Jesus didn't come to earth to play politics and certainly would not approve of churches selling out to a political party that does not want to help the poor, the ill, the elderly and children in need. And he certainly taught that we should help the poor, the ill, the homeless, etc. Since churches can't or won't do it, the government is what can help.
However Jesus told us we are to pay taxes. Remember "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" This was in answer to a question about if it was lawful for Jews to pay taxes to Rome.
Don't fall in love with the god of money.
And, Jesus went to the synagogue.
Last edited by a moderator:
What churches are not helping the poor, the elderly and children in need? Could you be specific? Is it every church? Some churches? Only churches that don't openly support Democrats? Northern churches? Southern churches?
I work two jobs and have for most of the last 25 years. It really sticks in my craw when somebody calls me selfish and a money worshiper because I hate to see able-bodied men sitting on their backsides all day refusing to support the children they have made. I had one feller telling me how much he loved his kids but he didn't love them enough to buy them food. He never went without. He believed it was the responsibility of the working stiff to pay more taxes so he could sit around smoking weed and arguing with his buddies about the NBA.
There is nothing compassionate about enabling sloth.
2 Thessalonians 3:7-12 NAS77
7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you,
8 nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we might not be a burden to any of you;
9 not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, that you might follow our example.
10 For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone will not work, neither let him eat.
11 For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies.
12 Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread.
8 nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we might not be a burden to any of you;
9 not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, that you might follow our example.
10 For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone will not work, neither let him eat.
11 For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies.
12 Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread.
Sapper Woody
Well-Known Member
It all boils down to this: contrary to the accusation raised, EVERYONE on this board is in favor of helping the poor and needy. The difference is, hardly anyone is in favor of the government forcefully taking our money to do so. CTB, how would you feel if I held you at gunpoint, took your wallet, and gave it to a homeless man? That's what is happening. It is socialism at it's core. Spread the wealth.
Contrary to what you are saying, the church CAN handle it. If they don't they will be judged.
I am not going to post what I do for charity. I don't want to brag. But I give money, food and time.
And since it hasn't been brought up yet, if a man doesn't work, he shouldn't eat. That's straight out of the Bible. You can't argue that.
Help those who need it. But not by stealing from others to do so.
Contrary to what you are saying, the church CAN handle it. If they don't they will be judged.
I am not going to post what I do for charity. I don't want to brag. But I give money, food and time.
And since it hasn't been brought up yet, if a man doesn't work, he shouldn't eat. That's straight out of the Bible. You can't argue that.
Help those who need it. But not by stealing from others to do so.
You must mean selling out to the Democrat party that wants to take, by force, the hard earned money of people and decide for them how it is best spent. You are right he would not approve of that.
We also do not need to fall in love with the god of government. When we put all our faith in government and side step the church and God then we have no biblical ground to stand on.
No, it is those who love their money so much they do not want to part with any of it to help those who are more unfortunate. They have fallen for the god of money and that god is their god.
Remember all the words of Jesus and scripture about helping the poor.
Here's where your thesis falls apart. We don't get to designate where our tax dollars are spent. I cannot go to the payroll department at work and tell them how to divide the deduction: 10 % for defense spending; 17% for the 180 federally funded children welfare programs; etc, etc. Your default position is any opposition to increased taxes equals starving children. What if my opposition is multi-million dollar furniture expenditures at the SEC?
The Heritage Foundation reports the Conservation Reserve program pays farmers $2 billion annually not to farm their land. If I raise my voice in opposition your reply is "Why do you hate children?" It's impossible to have a rational conversation with a group who answer in predictable platitudes.
Like this one?
"For the poor you always have with you, and whenever you wish, you can do them good; but you do not always have Me.
Mark 14:7 NAS77
:applause: This is, IMHO, by far the best observation to come out of this thread.
Then if the "poor" receive any benefits and there are any less fortunate than these beneficiaries-- and if these 'poor' are in the USA, unquestionably there are such in the world-- then the benefits are their gods if they don't give them away? "More unfortunate" is how you said it.
There is definitely a difference between the pro-life movement and those of the pro-birth agenda. The later are those who sponsor HR212. In majority males at that.
This is a bill that would, if passed into law God forbid, traumatize a woman who had a miscarriage. Because she would potentially be subject to a fetal homicide investigation.
Did she abort through her own efforts? Was this a case of involuntary manslaughter?
And what about tubal pregnancy? That has absolutely no chance of becoming a viable baby? Would a physician be able to save the woman's life by removing that tubal growth under this (bill)?
It's a real shame that the pro-birth movement agenda isn't compelled to respect women who are alive simply because they're fertile and sperm is deemed to take precedent.
Prayerfully HR212 dies in a drawer somewhere.
raying: