I don't think anyone is against the poor. However, if you support a system that is oppressive and has been shown time and time again to increase the gap between the rich and poor, with the rich getting extra rich and more people falling into poverty then you support a system that is against the poor.

You just posted earlier:

It is not just about helping the poor it is about changing the system the exacerbates poverty. Donating money to a soup kitchen does not help lift someone out of poverty, it helps them to eat for day or so but it does not change their circumstances.

From this I deduced that you comprehend that a steady stream of handouts render many as dependents of the handout provider. In this case an every larger more intrusive government fueled by power hungry politicians playing a numbers game. As long as there are more on the low end than on the high end, they calculate they can lock up enough votes to stay in power. These politicians understand that by fueling fear and dependence they get to live in luxury calling the shots and feeling important... screw the rest of us.

 

If you think for one minute that the confiscatory and punitive tax plan forwarded by Obama is going to reduce poverty in this nation you must contradict the logic you stated so clearly in regard to church backed soup kitchens. Obama will change the system alright... he will bring it to its knees. :thumb:

I don't think anyone is against the poor. However, if you support a system that is oppressive and has been shown time and time again to increase the gap between the rich and poor, with the rich getting extra rich and more people falling into poverty then you support a system that is against the poor.

 

Historically, I'd say that system has a better track record than socialism.

 

So, if there was a better alternative, you might be on to something.

 

But, given a choice between that and a system that basically ends with everyone being "equally" poor and oppressed by the government.

 

I guess it comes down to whether you'd rather be "oppressed" by rich people while still having a chance to better yourself...or being "oppressed" by your government, with virtually no chance of betterment, while being "equally" poor and miserable with everyone else.

 

I suppose "equally" is the key word. As long as we're all poor and miserable, everything will be OK, right?

Can somebody show me an example where the common people prospered in a socialist nation?

You just posted earlier:

From this I deduced that you comprehend that a steady stream of handouts render many as dependents of the handout provider. In this case an every larger more intrusive government fueled by power hungry politicians playing a numbers game. As long as there are more on the low end than on the high end, they calculate they can lock up enough votes to stay in power. These politicians understand that by fueling fear and dependence they get to live in luxury calling the shots and feeling important... screw the rest of us.

 

If you think for one minute that the confiscatory and punitive tax plan forwarded by Obama is going to reduce poverty in this nation you must contradict the logic you stated so clearly in regard to church backed soup kitchens. Obama will change the system alright... he will bring it to its knees. :thumb:

 

How is returning the tax bracket of those making over 250,000.00 to what it was confiscatory. He is not raising it higher, he is letting the tax cut lapse.

 

You deduced wrongly. I think the church should continue to feed, but it takes political action to change a system the increases poverty. The system we have is broken and it needs to be CHANGEd

Can somebody show me an example where the common people prospered in a socialist nation?

 

I might be willing to research that, but then I would have to agree with your premise that Obama's plan is socialist. I disagree. He has not advocated government takeover of anything. He simply wants those make over 250,000.00 to pay what they were paying before the bush tax cuts.

How is returning the tax bracket of those making over 250,000.00 to what it was confiscatory. He is not raising it higher, he is letting the tax cut lapse.

 

You deduced wrongly. I think the church should continue to feed, but it takes political action to change a system the increases poverty. The system we have is broken and it needs to be CHANGEd

If you, or anyone else on this board believes Obama will bring America to the promised land by only slightly raising the taxes of those earning above $250,000, while providing tax cuts for 95% of Americans and reducing poverty in the process... I have several bridges I'd love to sell you. :lol:

 

Just think of it, the "Acemona Memorial Bridge" kinda has a nice ring to it doesn't it?

Please explain 2 Thessalonians 3

Warning Against Idleness

6In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching[a] you received from us. 7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. 10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

11We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. 13And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right.

 

14If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. 15Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.

 

My view is that yes, we should help those that are truly NOT ABLE TO HELP THEMSELVES. That does not constitute many that our government helps.

 

 

Secondly, does the Bible and Jesus call for the Church to help these people or the government?

 

Does the Bible command the Church or the government to take care of the poor?

 

In my best Ben Stein, anyone, anyone?

It's my opinion that many Christian voters simply subscribe to a particular party, then reconcile their faith to that party's platform.

This is a very, very accurate statement, that needs to be recognized. I know because I have been guilty of it in the past.

In my best Ben Stein, anyone, anyone?

 

Give me some statistics on the number of people who are receiving welfare that do not deserve it.

 

You cannot simply choose not to help anyone b/c you might help someone that doesn't need it. This is a direction to YOU not to let the Lord's work cause you to become a burden on someone else. How you turn it into a scripture not to help someone is beyond me.

Give me some statistics on the number of people who are receiving welfare that do not deserve it.

 

You cannot simply choose not to help anyone b/c you might help someone that doesn't need it. This is a direction to YOU not to let the Lord's work cause you to become a burden on someone else. How you turn it into a scripture not to help someone is beyond me.

 

My inquiry was a response concerning 2 Thes, where it said that a person does not work, they don't eat.

 

Also, you never addressed my inquiry on whether God/Jesus called the church or government to do this?

My inquiry was a response concerning 2 Thes, where it said that a person does not work, they don't eat.

 

Also, you never addressed my inquiry on whether God/Jesus called the church or government to do this?

 

God/Jesus called the people to do this. In our country that is both the church and the government (of, for, by . . .)

I'm not for taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, and I'm certainly not for taking money from the middle class and giving it to the rich. I just think the more money you make, the more you should have to pay the government. It's common sense, and good economics.

That's an excellent point and one certainly worth noting. Today's media rarely brings attention to "good" news...consequently the view of various people or groups gets skewed.

 

And you really didn't need to go off on a tirade. I'm well aware that there are numerous Christians who do many, many things (large and small) to help our society. Just pointing out that some people get too wrapped up in the world of politics and the results are sometimes regrettable.

 

This is why I was a bit irritated and felt the need to explain after reading the post below. I am a Conservative Christian who does not believe that your point is my main contribution to society.

 

I do not like the fact that "evangelical/conservative Christians" main contribution to society seems to be that their sheer numbers make them a powerful voting bloc. When Christians have, at any point, tried to change or transform society in their own power and numbers, Christ tends to get left out of the equation and the result is not good.

 

You are right, rarely do we see good news in any form of media, liberal or conservative. If you hear about a Christian act on the news, it is never the good things they do, just the political or bad things a few have been involved with.

I'm not for taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, and I'm certainly not for taking money from the middle class and giving it to the rich. I just think the more money you make, the more you should have to pay the government. It's common sense, and good economics.

 

Not always. If you take more away from the persons making let's say $250,000 to 500,000 a year, and they in turn don't the houseboat from the company my buddy works for. He makes good money, but if the market dries up for his company, he won't be paying any taxes on $0 income. Those people also invest their money in the market and buy numerous other products, ... just like the middle class. The difference is they have more to spend.

 

I do agree that the more you make, the more you should (and do) pay in taxes. Neither Obama nor McCain's plan is taking anything away from the middle class, which is good. But I don't think raising taxes on anyone in today's economy is a good idea.

 

Personally, I like the flat tax. It also could eliminate the IRS.

God/Jesus called the people to do this. In our country that is both the church and the government (of, for, by . . .)

 

Wow! In this country, we have been beaten over the head by separation of church and state.

 

So, you are saying this must be a Christian government if Jesus called it to take care of those living in poverty?