rich republicans don't like homeless Jesus

[amrchaos]

I recognize that the government has not solved the problem on poverty. In fact, noting how some has the wrong idea of living off government assistance, I can push an argument that these government programs has escalated the problem.


However, it is unlikely that religious organizations will be able to solve the problem by themselves. Just remember that during the recession, many churches and Archdiocese were closed due to their own budget problems. But the number of homeless increased during this time. That is a strain you should not place upon charitable organizations or else they effect will become marginalized.

So that leaves me thinking that a combined effort, both from government and religious organizations is most likely the key to addressing the issue of poverty and the homeless.


Of course, that is my opinion. If you think that charitable organizations can handle the problem by themselves, then tell your government to stop funding charitable as well.

According to this article

James Piereson: How Big Government Co-opted Charities - WSJ.com

That is alot of money to make up if we are only using donations to your church or favorite non-profit organization

 

[Avatar4321]

I think I have clearly pointed out how you have completely abused the words of Peter. The very clear text of his admonition.
I can't even imagine you honestly believe what you are saying.

You can't imagine how I can actually read what the text says and believe it over your assumptions?

Well, you might want to try sometime. You might learn something.

 

[Avatar4321]

No expectation to give it all, no necessity to lie.
I am equally amazed that you would contort what Peter said to support a specious argument.

Unless of course you want to look like you are super righteous by "giving everything" when you really don't want to give everything. Are you seriously suggesting no one ever has said one thing and done another? Because I'm pretty sure that Jesus mentioned all the problems with hypocrisy in the Sermon on the Mount specifically because many people do act like self righteous hypocrites.

They absolutely said one thing and did another. That is not in question here. No one has made that argument. Where did I suggest such a thing? Bizarre thought process of yours.
Why did they say the one thing? Why does scripture state that the followers pooled everything? Why would they want to be perceived as giving everything if there was no expectation to do so?

When you said they had no reason to lie. If they wanted to look like they were doing something without really doing something that would be a reason to lie.

 

[PostmodernProph]

I s that what you think communal living means?

typically, yes....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Sorry. I didn't notice this one in the onslaught of hysteria.
What they freely did was join the church.
They were not free to hold back a penny of their income.

That's not what Peter said in acts. He specifically said, "Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?" (Acts 5:4)

It was clearly their property to use and give or sell freely. Their sin was lying to God saying "This is all of it" when it wasn't.

LOL!
The whole point Peter is making is that they had full control of the funds after selling the property and could have given it all but didn't.

agreed...but your claim was they had no choice except to give it all.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

When you tithe, you are supporting whatever the church chooses to do with the money they are given. A small group within the church makes those decisions.

except that you are not restricted to making all charitable donations through a single congregation....you can donate whereever you choose....

 

[thebrucebeat]

When you tithe, you are supporting whatever the church chooses to do with the money they are given. A small group within the church makes those decisions.

except that you are not restricted to making all charitable donations through a single congregation....you can donate whereever you choose....

Do you tithe?

 

[PostmodernProph]

A single house? Where is that suggested, anywhere?
I s that what you think communal living means?
Do you think all the people in a kibbutz live in the same room?
You are painting yourself as an intellectual child.

I apologize. I assumed you were a rational and literate individual. I can tell from this conversation where you refuse to acknowledge what the scriptures clearly say and continue to argue for your perversion of the text that you are not. I suggest you reread the scriptures sometime for what they actually say.

I suggest you don't make really stupid statements about single houses holding entire communes if you want any kind of credibility.
If you are so inane to make that argument your discernment of scripture is pretty much worthless.

if you're arguing they were supposed to sell their homes and donating the proceeds to the church, where do you expect they were going to sleep the next night?.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

When you tithe, you are supporting whatever the church chooses to do with the money they are given. A small group within the church makes those decisions.

except that you are not restricted to making all charitable donations through a single congregation....you can donate whereever you choose....

Do you tithe?

a rather personal question, but I believe I exceed the ten percent.....both in my time and value.....I have causes I support on local, national and international levels....if you are in need of worthy charities I can make recommendations.....

 

[thebrucebeat]

I s that what you think communal living means?

typically, yes....

Then you are a confirmed moron.

Commune - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[thebrucebeat]

That's not what Peter said in acts. He specifically said, "Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?" (Acts 5:4)

It was clearly their property to use and give or sell freely. Their sin was lying to God saying "This is all of it" when it wasn't.

LOL!
The whole point Peter is making is that they had full control of the funds after selling the property and could have given it all but didn't.

agreed...but your claim was they had no choice except to give it all.....

It was the rule of the first church. You were in or you were out.
No half-assed Christians were allowed.

 

[thebrucebeat]

except that you are not restricted to making all charitable donations through a single congregation....you can donate whereever you choose....

Do you tithe?

a rather personal question, but I believe I exceed the ten percent.....both in my time and value.....I have causes I support on local, national and international levels....if you are in need of worthy charities I can make recommendations.....

The point is that whether it is church or another organization, a small group makes those spending decisions and you either support it or leave it.
Don't worry. Almost no congregants actually tithe, either.

 

[Avatar4321]

LOL!
The whole point Peter is making is that they had full control of the funds after selling the property and could have given it all but didn't.

agreed...but your claim was they had no choice except to give it all.....

It was the rule of the first church. You were in or you were out.
No half-assed Christians were allowed.

Except the text doesn't say that. In fact, it gives the opposite impression. That people donated this over a period of time to address the needs of the congregations.

Again, they weren't punished for not giving everything they had. They were punished because they claimed they did and lied to God.

 

[thebrucebeat]

I apologize. I assumed you were a rational and literate individual. I can tell from this conversation where you refuse to acknowledge what the scriptures clearly say and continue to argue for your perversion of the text that you are not. I suggest you reread the scriptures sometime for what they actually say.

I suggest you don't make really stupid statements about single houses holding entire communes if you want any kind of credibility.
If you are so inane to make that argument your discernment of scripture is pretty much worthless.

if you're arguing they were supposed to sell their homes and donating the proceeds to the church, where do you expect they were going to sleep the next night?.....

In communal housing, which often incorporates entire towns, as in a kibbutz.
Please stop. This is so embarrassing for you.

 

[thebrucebeat]

agreed...but your claim was they had no choice except to give it all.....

It was the rule of the first church. You were in or you were out.
No half-assed Christians were allowed.

Except the text doesn't say that. In fact, it gives the opposite impression. That people donated this over a period of time to address the needs of the congregations.

Again, they weren't punished for not giving everything they had. They were punished because they claimed they did and lied to God.

I DIDN'T BRING UP ANANAIS!
I responded to one of you bringing up punishment. The striking down of the liars is not the issue!
Acts 5 is the issue!

"32 Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. 33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. 34 Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, 35 and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need."

 

[thebrucebeat]

I think I have clearly pointed out how you have completely abused the words of Peter. The very clear text of his admonition.
I can't even imagine you honestly believe what you are saying.

You can't imagine how I can actually read what the text says and believe it over your assumptions?

Well, you might want to try sometime. You might learn something.

I AM MAKING NO ASSUMPTIONS!
Read the bloody text!

 

[RandomVariable]

There seems to be two arguments from the Right here: 1) that charity breeds dependence and is therefor bad policy and 2) charity does help but should be done but by private organizations. Several on the Right are making both arguments.

You're incorrect. The government cannot provide charity. The government only has money by forcing it's citizens to give it money through taxes, tarriffs, etc. enforced by various forms of compulsion. Charity by definition is voluntary. The second compulsion is involved, it ceases to be charity. Thus no government can give charity.

Those programs governments do create don't actually try to fix the problems. They throw money at problems and act as if that is enough to "do something". But it's not. It simply creates dependence on those holding the purse strings.

Charity on the other hand lifts people up. It not only helps them with individual needs but empowers them to eventually provide for themselves. It's voluntary and done without compulsion or force.

You are all over the place with your logic and understanding there. Let's start with the basics. If someone finds $5 on a table can that be called charity? Even if it can not be called 'charity' is that not functionally the same as charity? If not, why?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Brucetheidiot has no idea what the Bible says. He may read a few verses but he doesn't really understand.

He talks about tithing as if we owe the church something. Tithing doesn't have to be money and it doesn't have to be given to any church.

Jesus criticized the Pharisees not for tithing, but for treating tithing as more important than mercy, love, justice and faithfulness.

42 “Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenthj of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God.k You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.l Luke 11:42

 

[thebrucebeat]

Brucetheidiot has no idea what the Bible says. He may read a few verses but he doesn't really understand.

He talks about tithing as if we owe the church something. Tithing doesn't have to be money and it doesn't have to be given to any church.

Jesus criticized the Pharisees not for tithing, but for treating tithing as more important than mercy, love, justice and faithfulness.

42 “Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenthj of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God.k You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.l Luke 11:42

Your post shows why "Lonestar Logic" is a contradiction in terms.
Tithing, biblically, is 10% of ones earnings. It isn't complicated. That's it.
In the modern church it has morphed, because congregants don't give that much. Trust me, I know.
As for whether this is important or not, I am on your side. Jesus is, too. The OT demand has no weight in the discussion of a person's heart.
But we are talking about charity.
Try to keep up.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Government redistribution =/= charity