I think God calls us to help people and we will be judged upon that.

 

THEY will be judged on whether they are doing what they need to do to help themselves.

 

 

And what is almsgiving?

We have a moral obligation to help those who are unable to help themselves. We have no obligation to those who refuse to help themselves.

 

Here is my problem with that.

 

Did God send his Son for those that only help themselves or for all people to have a chance at eternal salvation?

 

If helping all despite their mindset, attitude, character, actions is good enough for God, well it should be good enough for us.

We have a moral obligation to help those who are unable to help themselves. We have no obligation to those who refuse to help themselves.

 

I agree with you, but what do you think about the children of those who don't help themselves? That's where I always get hung up.

Here is my problem with that.

 

Did God send his Son for those that only help themselves or for all people to have a chance at eternal salvation?

 

If helping all despite their mindset, attitude, character, actions is good enough for God, well it should be good enough for us.

The question wasn't a religous one, nor was my answer. Why does everyone think that the word moral is a religous term?

I agree with you, but what do you think about the children of those who don't help themselves? That's where I always get hung up.

Yeah, my wife gets hung up with that too, especially for something like Angel Tree.

The question wasn't a religous one, nor was my answer. Why does everyone think that the word moral is a religous term?

I should have been more clear in my question, because that it what I meant to ask.

 

Does your faith request that you should help the poor? Even those who do not help themselves?

I should have been more clear in my question, because that it what I meant to ask.

 

Does your faith request that you should help the poor? Even those who do not help themselves?

Oh, that's completely different. Nevermind.

 

Edited November 24, 200817 yr by HHSDad

I feel each person that calls themself a Christian is obligated to help those that are in need of help.

Matthew 7:6 “Don’t waste what is holy on people who are unholy. Don’t throw your pearls to pigs! They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you."

 

Does this fit how most feel about the current Government entitlement programs?

Does this fit how most feel about the current Government entitlement programs?

 

Giving to the government for them to dole out is not Scriptural giving.

Giving to the government for them to dole out is not Scriptural giving.

 

I agree with you completely.

 

I think when we give to those that are undeserving that it just perpetuates the current entitlement society that we are becoming.

I agree with you completely.

 

I think when we give to those that are undeserving that it just perpetuates the current entitlement society that we are becoming.

 

And speaks to the lazy in Thessolonians where Paul says let those who will not work starve.

 

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.

 

Now those who say "do not judge" never judge, let people do whatever they want and just love them, how do you respond to the last bolded statement?

 

Simply the answer is, we are not judging, but warning as it says for us to do.

And speaks to the lazy in Thessolonians where Paul says let those who will not work starve.

 

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.

 

Now those who say "do not judge" never judge, let people do whatever they want and just love them, how do you respond to the last bolded statement?

 

Simply the answer is, we are not judging, but warning as it says for us to do.

 

 

Post 21 has already addressed the no work no eat scripture.

 

The entire section you are quoting is instructions to missionaries/evangelists.

 

But lets say you are correct, I will concede the scripture interpretation. We spend .087 of the federal budget on non-Soc. Sec. and non-medicaid aid. What percentage of people receiving the .087 do you think is undeserving, and how to you make that judgment.

Post 21 has already addressed the no work no eat scripture.

 

The entire section you are quoting is instructions to missionaries/evangelists.

 

But lets say you are correct, I will concede the scripture interpretation. We spend .087 of the federal budget on non-Soc. Sec. and non-medicaid aid. What percentage of people receiving the .087 do you think is undeserving, and how to you make that judgment.

The number of private, personal charitable contributions far outweighs that.

 

I said in this in another thread (post #68) that you clearly ignored (twice) (assumedly because, in your attempts to fit your political beliefs with your religious beliefs, this would throw a wrench in that). It basically says that, even though we pay high taxes, we still A) donate more money PRIVATELY then the wrest of the world; and B) our government does not care about the poor. Here is what I said:

 

See here

 

- For example, U.S. foundations gave more -- in money, time, goods and expertise -- than 11 of the 22 developed-country governments each gave in 2005, and U.S. private voluntary organizations totaled more than the governments of Japan, the United Kingdom, Germany and France each.

 

-U.S. official development assistance (ODA) in 2005 was $28 billion, the largest of all official donations by an individual country. But, according to the often-quoted measure used by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which compares government aid as a percentage of a country’s gross national income (GNI), U.S. government aid is only 0.22 percent of GNI, which ranks the United States as the 20th of the 22 listed donor states.

 

The United States government is ranked 20th out of 22nd in terms of how much it gives (as a percentage of GNI) Yet, the private contributions of our people ranks us above total contributions from most of the world's major countries. However, you want to give money to our government, which has proven itself stingy in terms of helping the cause of eliminating global poverty. Why don't you leave the money in the hands of American citizens, who have already done far more to aid the poor of the world then our government has?

The number of private, personal charitable contributions far outweighs that.

 

I said in this in another thread (post #68) that you clearly ignored (twice) (assumedly because, in your attempts to fit your political beliefs with your religious beliefs, this would throw a wrench in that). It basically says that, even though we pay high taxes, we still A) donate more money PRIVATELY then the wrest of the world; and B) our government does not care about the poor. Here is what I said:

 

See here

 

- For example, U.S. foundations gave more -- in money, time, goods and expertise -- than 11 of the 22 developed-country governments each gave in 2005, and U.S. private voluntary organizations totaled more than the governments of Japan, the United Kingdom, Germany and France each.

 

-U.S. official development assistance (ODA) in 2005 was $28 billion, the largest of all official donations by an individual country. But, according to the often-quoted measure used by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which compares government aid as a percentage of a country’s gross national income (GNI), U.S. government aid is only 0.22 percent of GNI, which ranks the United States as the 20th of the 22 listed donor states.

 

The United States government is ranked 20th out of 22nd in terms of how much it gives (as a percentage of GNI) Yet, the private contributions of our people ranks us above total contributions from most of the world's major countries. However, you want to give money to our government, which has proven itself stingy in terms of helping the cause of eliminating global poverty. Why don't you leave the money in the hands of American citizens, who have already done far more to aid the poor of the world then our government has?

 

Sometimes I don't see all of the posts, so they are never ignored, and I had to take a weak off to get away from the computer.

 

Every time you give to a charitable organization you decrease you tax liability so the gov't gives you an incentive to give.

 

FWIW, it is not about charity to me it is about creating a just system. More of our gov't money needs to go toward eliminating poverty, by creating jobs and institutions where people can work and learn. But only .087 of our budget does that. It is not about handing people money it is about easing burdens so that they can improve themselves. But if they are living hand to mouth they are simply surviving.

Sometimes I don't see all of the posts, so they are never ignored, and I had to take a weak off to get away from the computer.

 

Every time you give to a charitable organization you decrease you tax liability so the gov't gives you an incentive to give.

 

FWIW, it is not about charity to me it is about creating a just system. More of our gov't money needs to go toward eliminating poverty, by creating jobs and institutions where people can work and learn. But only .087 of our budget does that. It is not about handing people money it is about easing burdens so that they can improve themselves. But if they are living hand to mouth they are simply surviving.

 

1. You posted multiple times in that thread after my post and I brought it up a few times.

 

2. That is why the gov't decreasing your tax liability is an excellent incentive for charitable donations.

 

3) Government spending hinders job growth in the private sector U.S. If you want to blame the economic problems on Bush, that's the reason for it (albeit there are many, many other reasons). Not the tax cuts, but the out of control spending. Anyways, the government can't employ everyone, but the free market can come closer. The government, for whatever reason, gives itself monopolies on certain things (Social Security, United States Postal Service, for examples). If the government didn't have monopolies, then various firms (= more jobs) would compete (=lower prices) and we wouldn't need to spend tax money (=less taxes= more donations).

 

So I agree that donations isn't everything. But why do you think the government will solve the problem? As it stands now, private people donate much, much, much more then the government (even though the private people have to give their money to the government, as well). Where does this inherent trust of government (one that commits a tiny percentage of GNI to the poor) come from?