I don't think that is a big difference at all. It is simply giving to an organization that you would believe has to the capabilities to redistribute.

 

Personally, I think this is better done through the churches and the local churches have gravely neglected their duty across this country.

 

People are not being fed at local churches throughout this coutnry like they should.

 

Really? If I choose not to give to a charity, what can happen to me? If I choose not to "give" to the government, what can happen to me? I think the answer to both of these questions points out the major differences.

Thou shalt not steal. It is wrong when individuals do it and it is wrong when governments do it. You have every right to give as much money to worthy (or unworthy) charities as you want, but you do not have the moral right to compel me to do give to the charities of your choice.

 

Taxes should be collected to pay for legitimate expenses of government and all able-bodied adult citizens should pay their fair share of the cost of a just government.

 

Give to Caesar's what is Caesars. Jesus saw nothing wrong with paying taxes.

Well, it is pretty clear that this country does not want Christian views getting involved in politics so I wonder if we should remove our support for welfare?:sssh:

 

I don't think welfare is biblically based, other than give to the widows and the children.

 

Christian views are who and what we are, so anytime we enter politics you can not distinguish one from the other, but the way we present our message, that is what we should focus on, meekly, kind, generous heart... so on.

 

The nice thing about being christian it is a choice, if you remove the choice in say our actions and mandate what must be done, then we are no better, then the Islamic communities. Just an opinion

Really? If I choose not to give to a charity, what can happen to me? If I choose not to "give" to the government, what can happen to me? I think the answer to both of these questions points out the major differences.

 

The consequences are different, not sure the purpose of them are different.

I don't think that is a big difference at all. It is simply giving to an organization that you would believe has to the capabilities to redistribute.

 

Personally, I think this is better done through the churches and the local churches have gravely neglected their duty across this country.

People are not being fed at local churches throughout this coutnry like they should.

 

:thumb::thumb::thumb:

 

I believe that it is also the Church's responsiblity.

I don't think welfare is biblically based, other than give to the widows and the children.

 

Christian views are who and what we are, so anytime we enter politics you can not distinguish one from the other, but the way we present our message, that is what we should focus on, meekly, kind, generous heart... so on.

 

The nice thing about being christian it is a choice, if you remove the choice in say our actions and mandate what must be done, then we are no better, then the Islamic communities. Just an opinion

 

Disagree on the bolded. John Kerry was very clear in 2004 that when he went to DC he left his faith at home. His faith did not drive his political actions.

 

I totally agree on the last paragraph.

 

So who is welfare going to in the first that are not widows (if the mother is abandoned by the father is that not widowed) and children?

I don't think welfare is biblically based, other than give to the widows and the children.

 

Christian views are who and what we are, so anytime we enter politics you can not distinguish one from the other, but the way we present our message, that is what we should focus on, meekly, kind, generous heart... so on.

 

The nice thing about being christian it is a choice, if you remove the choice in say our actions and mandate what must be done, then we are no better, then the Islamic communities. Just an opinion

 

 

I disagree, I believe welfare is definitely biblically based. I just don't think "government" welfare is biblically based.

The consequences are different, not sure the purpose of them are different.

 

 

I am not sure what you mean by this? Aren't consequences the result of all actions?

Give to Caesar's what is Caesars. Jesus saw nothing wrong with paying taxes.

Did Jesus advocate rendering to Caesar that which was not Caesar's? There must be limits to governments hunger for power and money and the Bible contains examples of unjust rulers being toppled, does it not?

I am not sure what you mean by this? Aren't consequences the result of all actions?

 

Not necessarily. If they were the same, I would have control of both the actions and the consequences.

 

I say this ALOT in my classroom...

You control your actions but you don't control the consequences.

 

If something was the same, than both would be the same.

Did Jesus advocate rendering to Caesar that which was not Caesar's? There must be limits to governments hunger for power and money and the Bible contains examples of unjust rulers being toppled, does it not?

 

Absolutely. But we are encouraged in this country as Christians to not bring our faith into politics.:sssh:

Absolutely. But we are encouraged in this country as Christians to not bring our faith into politics.:sssh:

Exactly! That is why government does not belong in the income or wealth redistribution business. Religious people should oppose government imposed wealth distribution programs and high taxes because they diminish the role of churches in society. Government is much more inefficient at identifying worthy causes and addressing them than churches - or at least that is the way it used to be.

Not necessarily. If they were the same, I would have control of both the actions and the consequences.

 

I say this ALOT in my classroom...

You control your actions but you don't control the consequences.

 

If something was the same, than both would be the same.

 

Now I am really lost. Anyhow, so do you feel like giving at church is the same as paying taxes?

Exactly! That is why government does not belong in the income or wealth redistribution business. Religious people should oppose government imposed wealth distribution programs and high taxes because they diminish the role of churches in society. Government is much more inefficient at identifying worthy causes and addressing them than churches - or at least that is the way it used to be.

 

Good point:thumb:

Exactly! That is why government does not belong in the income or wealth redistribution business. Religious people should oppose government imposed wealth distribution programs and high taxes because they diminish the role of churches in society. Government is much more inefficient at identifying worthy causes and addressing them than churches - or at least that is the way it used to be.

 

But the problem is that churches are not and were not doing it and still not doing. So, the government has stepped in and is trying to do what the churches have failed to do.