Why wouldn't Jesus...

[Ravi]

they do....without reading the rest of the thread, i am sure this is a broad swipe at republicans.....churches do far better for the poor than the government....

thread fail

It was actually against some Christians, but nice try.

btw, can you prove that the churches do better for the poor than government? I'd like to see you do that.

Contrary to the beliefs of the liberals, Christian organizations do not attach strings to their charity. (There may be a tiny few who do) Social welfare, or help for the poor has strings attached, and costs attached, and allows for fraud and is often hateful in the delivering of the services. That is not what Jesus would have us do.

Of course, if the money could be directed by ethical people, not politicians and greedy organizations, it might work.

Can you prove that the government does a better job than churches? Have you been in a large number of churches who do serve the community through charities?

I'm not the one that made the claim.

 

[Ravi]

they do....without reading the rest of the thread, i am sure this is a broad swipe at republicans.....churches do far better for the poor than the government....

thread fail

It was actually against some Christians, but nice try.

btw, can you prove that the churches do better for the poor than government? I'd like to see you do that.

Every day, Ravi. There are Shelters, Kitchens, Pantry's, Networks, Some even in partnership with Government funding Because the Government knows it is effective. They are also generally volunteer. Some Zero overhead. It's not a contest though Ravi. You can Volunteer near.

Zero overhead, I don't think so...I've been in some of those megachurches. There's no zero overhead.

 

[Ravi]

It was actually against some Christians, but nice try.

btw, can you prove that the churches do better for the poor than government? I'd like to see you do that.

Simple, unlike politicians, Church's dont have any sort of motivation to keep people poor to recieve votes.

No, but they need a cause to keep money rolling in so what's the difference?

 

[Care4all]

i wonder who the 50% of the citizens are in this country that do not vote...i'd bet a great deal of our poorest citizens don't even vote...we know 40% of the citizens on welfare are children and don't vote...

we also know that republicans/conservatives are recipients of welfare, food stamps, gvt money to pay for their children's faith based school, medicaid, medicare, social security.

The whole argument that all democrats support the poor because THEY WANT TO KEEP THEM POOR, so that the poor will continue to vote for them, is complete LUNACY, and illogical....it makes no sense, no matter how anyone looks at it. It also is similar to the Sadducee telling Jesus that Him helping and healing the needy and the sick was the work of Beelzebub....

 

[Avatar4321]

No, but they need a cause to keep money rolling in so what's the difference?

Why exactly do you think volunteers need money?

 

[Ravi]

No, but they need a cause to keep money rolling in so what's the difference?

Why exactly do you think volunteers need money?

Not the volunteers...the churches.

 

[mskafka]

Don't confuse jesus with the church or government

jesus was a man (maybe) who believed in free will and individual choice

church, government or whatever institution you want to use to enact the will of the people compels via threat of violence not individual choice.

I find it hard to believe (literally since I am an atheist) that the jesus you speak of would condone a society that forced people to be charitable or suffer the consequences of some sort of legal retribution.

What, who, when??? Legal retribution for not being charitable? Did I miss something?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

we should help the poor help themselves, not make the poor dependent (like a drug dealer) on the government

want us to structure our society to help the poor?

Jesus preached that we should help the poor...that is indisputable.

I often see self-described Christians arguing against social welfare, claiming that Jesus meant that we should help the poor individually.

This makes no sense to me. If we have the power, as individuals, to collectively help the poor then IMO this is what Jesus would want us to do.

Any thoughts?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It was actually against some Christians, but nice try.

btw, can you prove that the churches do better for the poor than government? I'd like to see you do that.

Every day, Ravi. There are Shelters, Kitchens, Pantry's, Networks, Some even in partnership with Government funding Because the Government knows it is effective. They are also generally volunteer. Some Zero overhead. It's not a contest though Ravi. You can Volunteer near.

Zero overhead, I don't think so...I've been in some of those megachurches. There's no zero overhead.

Who were in a church?!? And it didn't burn down?!?!?! Talk about a miracle!

 

[Care4all]

Christ did NOT want churches spending their time on the needy, he felt the "people" should, and the Church should spend their time on spreading the gospel and only the rogue widow here or there would need their help.

The Churches have just as much to GAIN monetarily as a politician would, for helping the poor....they may not abuse their donations and all of it goes towards the poor, but i doubt such...I am certain the Church takes a cut of this money for their overhead and some....

I did see somewhere that Churches do use less of this money on overhead than charities such as United Way etc...but they still do use some of this money donated, for their Church, Church clergy etc...

And going back to the topic...

On the whole, Jesus WOULD NOT BE UPSET if the people in a community of society decided to take care of their needy...

IT IS BLASPHEMY to state otherwise imo....it is saying something that is GOOD is evil...something GOOD is from GOD, and something EVIL is from the DEVIL....making the poorest and their children starve to death would be evil, shunning them and ignoring them, would be EVIL.....

But wanting to help them is NOT EVIL.....no matter HOW your heads want to TWIST AND TURN AND SPIN IT. Amen!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Christ did NOT want churches spending their time on the needy, he felt the "people" should, and the Church should spend their time on spreading the gospel and only the rogue widow here or there would need their help.

The Churches have just as much to GAIN monetarily as a politician would, for helping the poor....they may not abuse their donations and all of it goes towards the poor, but i doubt such...I am certain the Church takes a cut of this money for their overhead and some....

I did see somewhere that Churches do use less of this money on overhead than charities such as United Way etc...but they still do use some of this money donated, for their Church, Church clergy etc...

And going back to the topic...

On the whole, Jesus WOULD NOT BE UPSET if the people in a community of society decided to take care of their needy...

IT IS BLASPHEMY to state otherwise imo....it is saying something that is GOOD is evil...something GOOD is from GOD, and something EVIL is from the DEVIL....making the poorest and their children starve to death would be evil, shunning them and ignoring them, would be EVIL.....

But wanting to help them is NOT EVIL.....no matter HOW your heads want to TWIST AND TURN AND SPIN IT. Amen!

The word “church” in the New Testament comes from the Greek word, ekklesia, which means “to call out.”. There are only two places in the New testament where the word church is used by Jesus. The first one is....

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matt. 16:18

You would have to start at Matthew 16:13 in order to understand the meaning here.

And the second is ...

"But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." Matt. 18:16-17

When it comes to the church, there is the church invisible, comprised by all those who have trusted Jesus as Savior and Lord. And there is the visible church, comprised of those who gather together. Not all members of the visible church belong to the body of Christ, and not all who belong to the body of Christ gather physically in a church.

 

[Intense]

It was actually against some Christians, but nice try.

btw, can you prove that the churches do better for the poor than government? I'd like to see you do that.

Every day, Ravi. There are Shelters, Kitchens, Pantry's, Networks, Some even in partnership with Government funding Because the Government knows it is effective. They are also generally volunteer. Some Zero overhead. It's not a contest though Ravi. You can Volunteer near.

Zero overhead, I don't think so...I've been in some of those megachurches. There's no zero overhead.

I've seen plenty of charities in existence, that work through benefactors. Zero Overhead. Volunteer. Donated Resources, Food, Clothing. Zero Payroll. Zero Rent using Church Property. The Operative word here Ravi is Charity, in It's Truest Sense. It is very common. Shame on you being raised Catholic and being blind to that. You are a Very Naughty Girl Ravi!!!

 

[Intense]

It was actually against some Christians, but nice try.

btw, can you prove that the churches do better for the poor than government? I'd like to see you do that.

Simple, unlike politicians, Church's dont have any sort of motivation to keep people poor to recieve votes.

No, but they need a cause to keep money rolling in so what's the difference?

You being misguided. I'm not saying that there are not scams out there, there obviously are, the Universe is much bigger than that though. Why do you bring the rest down?

 

[Intense]

i wonder who the 50% of the citizens are in this country that do not vote...i'd bet a great deal of our poorest citizens don't even vote...we know 40% of the citizens on welfare are children and don't vote...

we also know that republicans/conservatives are recipients of welfare, food stamps, gvt money to pay for their children's faith based school, medicaid, medicare, social security.

The whole argument that all democrats support the poor because THEY WANT TO KEEP THEM POOR, so that the poor will continue to vote for them, is complete LUNACY, and illogical....it makes no sense, no matter how anyone looks at it. It also is similar to the Sadducee telling Jesus that Him helping and healing the needy and the sick was the work of Beelzebub....

Statists want to keep people dependent so they can continue to play God with other peoples money, and dictate quality of life.

 

[Intense]

Christ did NOT want churches spending their time on the needy, he felt the "people" should, and the Church should spend their time on spreading the gospel and only the rogue widow here or there would need their help.

The Churches have just as much to GAIN monetarily as a politician would, for helping the poor....they may not abuse their donations and all of it goes towards the poor, but i doubt such...I am certain the Church takes a cut of this money for their overhead and some....

I did see somewhere that Churches do use less of this money on overhead than charities such as United Way etc...but they still do use some of this money donated, for their Church, Church clergy etc...

And going back to the topic...

On the whole, Jesus WOULD NOT BE UPSET if the people in a community of society decided to take care of their needy...

IT IS BLASPHEMY to state otherwise imo....it is saying something that is GOOD is evil...something GOOD is from GOD, and something EVIL is from the DEVIL....making the poorest and their children starve to death would be evil, shunning them and ignoring them, would be EVIL.....

But wanting to help them is NOT EVIL.....no matter HOW your heads want to TWIST AND TURN AND SPIN IT. Amen!

The word “church” in the New Testament comes from the Greek word, ekklesia, which means “to call out.”. There are only two places in the New testament where the word church is used by Jesus. The first one is....

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matt. 16:18

You would have to start at Matthew 16:13 in order to understand the meaning here.

And the second is ...

"But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." Matt. 18:16-17

When it comes to the church, there is the church invisible, comprised by all those who have trusted Jesus as Savior and Lord. And there is the visible church, comprised of those who gather together. Not all members of the visible church belong to the body of Christ, and not all who belong to the body of Christ gather physically in a church.

John Chapter 17.

The Holy Bible

 

[Care4all]

i wonder who the 50% of the citizens are in this country that do not vote...i'd bet a great deal of our poorest citizens don't even vote...we know 40% of the citizens on welfare are children and don't vote...

we also know that republicans/conservatives are recipients of welfare, food stamps, gvt money to pay for their children's faith based school, medicaid, medicare, social security.

The whole argument that all democrats support the poor because THEY WANT TO KEEP THEM POOR, so that the poor will continue to vote for them, is complete LUNACY, and illogical....it makes no sense, no matter how anyone looks at it. It also is similar to the Sadducee telling Jesus that Him helping and healing the needy and the sick was the work of Beelzebub....

Statists want to keep people dependent so they can continue to play God with other peoples money, and dictate quality of life.

So, you see Democrats, rubbing their hands together in glee, as people become poor,....ohhhh, not just that, you see Democrats making them poor and keeping them there, so that these people will vote for them.

Can you name names and then show specifics?

Can you show that those on welfare even vote? Can you show that those on welfare even register to vote.

Can you explain how you and other republicans are so smart and enlightened to this being the case while black people on welfare and white people on welfare are NOT SMART ENOUGH to know when they are being conned? Do you just presume they would be too ignorant to recognize that they are being used in this manner or do you presume that these people just enjoy being in poverty?

There are just so many questions about this kind of mere speculation and the motive behind those that started the rumor, it isn't funny, imo.

If you could somehow prove that this is the case other tham mere smear, I would appreciate it.

Before these welfare programs came in to affect in the early 60's, poverty was at a constant 25% in our country...and yes, it was cut 50%, and down to 12-14% for the following 5 decades, but killing these programs just brings it back up to the 25% constantly in poverty, so YES the war on poverty has worked out well...kept 100% more people than now and all the years between now and the early 60's from being in poverty than were in poverty with the programs...

Do I think they are perfect? No, but I do think they are much better since welfare reform under Clinton and Gingrich...in fact 50% savings have occurred since this reform of theirs...

Do I wish these people could better themselves, yes of course and I believe if we want to get it better than the constant 13%, we need to focus on improving our educational systems in impoverished areas...and this should be a focus of states with these impoverished areas... with some help from the feds if needed because it will only be money the fed will save down the road, when our children are better educated and ready for the -taxed-working world...


NOTE, that not all of this 13% even gets any help from our govt...they just somehow get by...

I know many republicans who truly do want to help these people that are down trodden and want to honestly address the issue and the causes, and are not these selfish, me me me me people that some come off to be when they constantly put down these people that have hit a low and honestly need help and guidance...

I just do not know where they are, on this board...because the ones constantly condemning the poor seem to overpower or overshout or over chatter these type threads where those who do truly care and want to help are drowned out....I suppose?



Care

 

[Ravi]

Every day, Ravi. There are Shelters, Kitchens, Pantry's, Networks, Some even in partnership with Government funding Because the Government knows it is effective. They are also generally volunteer. Some Zero overhead. It's not a contest though Ravi. You can Volunteer near.

Zero overhead, I don't think so...I've been in some of those megachurches. There's no zero overhead.

I've seen plenty of charities in existence, that work through benefactors. Zero Overhead. Volunteer. Donated Resources, Food, Clothing. Zero Payroll. Zero Rent using Church Property. The Operative word here Ravi is Charity, in It's Truest Sense. It is very common. Shame on you being raised Catholic and being blind to that. You are a Very Naughty Girl Ravi!!!

No doubt I am, but I've never seen a charity that had no overhead. Please let me know who they are...the closest I can see are Catholic Charities.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I still think if Christ came back to Earth TODAY he would fall to his knees in front of the Sistine Chaple and WEEP openly for how WRONG all his "followers" got his message. I think he would go to the "MEGA" Churches and tell the paritioners "You don't know me for you have TOTALLY missed my words."

 

[Cold Fusion38]

As far as CONSERVATIVES being "charitable" yes SOME of them are but I think MOST of them have NO sympathy for the poor. They will screem and yell that they DESERVE to be where they are because they don't "WANT" to work because they "ENJOY" sponging off of welfare as if it is such a WONDERFUL life. Get REAL it is NOT!

 

[Intense]

i wonder who the 50% of the citizens are in this country that do not vote...i'd bet a great deal of our poorest citizens don't even vote...we know 40% of the citizens on welfare are children and don't vote...

we also know that republicans/conservatives are recipients of welfare, food stamps, gvt money to pay for their children's faith based school, medicaid, medicare, social security.

The whole argument that all democrats support the poor because THEY WANT TO KEEP THEM POOR, so that the poor will continue to vote for them, is complete LUNACY, and illogical....it makes no sense, no matter how anyone looks at it. It also is similar to the Sadducee telling Jesus that Him helping and healing the needy and the sick was the work of Beelzebub....

Statists want to keep people dependent so they can continue to play God with other peoples money, and dictate quality of life.

So, you see Democrats, rubbing their hands together in glee, as people become poor,....ohhhh, not just that, you see Democrats making them poor and keeping them there, so that these people will vote for them.

Can you name names and then show specifics?

Can you show that those on welfare even vote? Can you show that those on welfare even register to vote.

Can you explain how you and other republicans are so smart and enlightened to this being the case while black people on welfare and white people on welfare are NOT SMART ENOUGH to know when they are being conned? Do you just presume they would be too ignorant to recognize that they are being used in this manner or do you presume that these people just enjoy being in poverty?

There are just so many questions about this kind of mere speculation and the motive behind those that started the rumor, it isn't funny, imo.

If you could somehow prove that this is the case other tham mere smear, I would appreciate it.

Before these welfare programs came in to affect in the early 60's, poverty was at a constant 25% in our country...and yes, it was cut 50%, and down to 12-14% for the following 5 decades, but killing these programs just brings it back up to the 25% constantly in poverty, so YES the war on poverty has worked out well...kept 100% more people than now and all the years between now and the early 60's from being in poverty than were in poverty with the programs...

Do I think they are perfect? No, but I do think they are much better since welfare reform under Clinton and Gingrich...in fact 50% savings have occurred since this reform of theirs...

Do I wish these people could better themselves, yes of course and I believe if we want to get it better than the constant 13%, we need to focus on improving our educational systems in impoverished areas...and this should be a focus of states with these impoverished areas... with some help from the feds if needed because it will only be money the fed will save down the road, when our children are better educated and ready for the -taxed-working world...


NOTE, that not all of this 13% even gets any help from our govt...they just somehow get by...

I know many republicans who truly do want to help these people that are down trodden and want to honestly address the issue and the causes, and are not these selfish, me me me me people that some come off to be when they constantly put down these people that have hit a low and honestly need help and guidance...

I just do not know where they are, on this board...because the ones constantly condemning the poor seem to overpower or overshout or over chatter these type threads where those who do truly care and want to help are drowned out....I suppose?



Care

Care: So, you see Democrats, rubbing their hands together in glee, as people become poor,....ohhhh, not just that, you see Democrats making them poor and keeping them there, so that these people will vote for them.

Care I didn't say Democrat's, I said Statist's. Some Democrats may very well be Statists, the same holds true for some Republicans. Statist's want the Government to play God, to be every solution to every Problem.

Care: Can you name names and then show specifics?

There are too many to number. You will see some on the "What is a Right" Thread. These boards are full of Statists.

Care: Can you show that those on welfare even vote? Can you show that those on welfare even register to vote.

Silly Question considering how much trouble ACORN is in right now.


Care: Can you explain how you and other republicans are so smart and enlightened to this being the case while black people on welfare and white people on welfare are NOT SMART ENOUGH to know when they are being conned? Do you just presume they would be too ignorant to recognize that they are being used in this manner or do you presume that these people just enjoy being in poverty?

I'm Conservative Care, not Republican. Still, you are taking cheap shots. Put God First in All Things Care. You started out on a false premise and you build on it. Poverty is a trap. Poverty makes people desperate, and sometimes foolish. If You believe that Government is Your Savior I would ask you to explain the Lottery's. Who wins? Who loses? Who gets exploited most? We'll leave it there for now.