Faith was always a prerequisite of Jesus' healing. As LBBC said, Jesus performed no miracles in his own hometown for that very reason. More often than not, Jesus required a demonstration of faith before healing--"Stretch out your hand...take up your mat & walk...go wash in the pool of Siloam."

 

Jesus' primary purpose for coming was not to alleviate poverty. Jesus himself said that he had come to "seek and to save what was lost." Jesus WAS all about alleviating oppression--the oppression of sin.

 

And the deal with the rich young man was not that he was rich. It was that his wealth was the biggest barrier between himself & faith in Christ. NEVER did Jesus make it a requirement that rich people had to sell everything and give it to the poor. Zacchaeus said that he would give back to those he had stolen from (and then some). But he never said, "I'll give everything I have away."

 

The social gospel, which you & other well-meaning Christians push so hard, is important. Don't mistake me for some kind of hate-monger. But, as evidenced in the feeding of the 5,000, Jesus' mission was not about alleviating poverty. If you remember, the crowd Jesus fed came back for more food, and he refused to give it to them. Why? Because he wasn't a bread messiah. He was here to bring salvation from sin.

 

Does Jesus love & identify with the poor? Absolutely. But he has commissioned his own to care for them (which the 1st century church did quite well). Never, EVER does God, His Son, or His word call on the government to be the agents of alleviating poverty in this world.

 

Does that mean the government shouldn't play a role? No. But they are to be the final option; not the first.

 

But, we have people sick and starving now. No one has taken care of them, so I'd rather the government provide. I've never been dirt poor, haven't ever had to go hungry, and have had health insurance my entire life. I see that as being lucky. It's sad that we, the greatest country in the world, have people who aren't provided for.

 

Also with the different religions we have I don't think we was Americans can rely on a single church/religion to take care of all of our people. Should an Islamic family have to go to a Baptist church just so that they can eat?

 

I would counter and say there is no reason in America for a church NOT providing meals for the community except for their own stubborness.

 

One of my railing points in my local community is that several churches have Wednesday night meals and Bible studies. Why?

 

Why can't one have Monday night meals, one have Tuesday night meals and so on and so on.

 

Every night of the week a church would be providing a hot meal for the community.

 

There is a church that has a free and very reduced food store. Two churches have places people can pick up clothing, winter coats, shoes, etc, etc.

 

This should be done more and in greater quantity and people would know Christ through us as the Bible says they should.

 

I agree with what you've said. It just doesn't happen is what I'm saying. I also think that it is the role of the American Government to provide for it's citizens. If the government isn't going to help those in need, why should any of us support it? Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness, I think being a welfare type state plays into that.

 

Also with the different religions we have I don't think we was Americans can rely on a single church/religion to take care of all of our people. Should an Islamic family have to go to a Baptist church just so that they can eat?

 

 

 

I agree with what you've said. It just doesn't happen is what I'm saying. I also think that it is the role of the American Government to provide for it's citizens. If the government isn't going to help those in need, why should any of us support it? Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness, I think being a welfare type state plays into that.

 

1) No they should go to an Islamic church/whatever it may be called for that. Although, any Christian denomination should be thankful and happy to have them join them for a meal.

 

2) You listed pursuit of happiness. Too much of our population do not want the pursuit but rather be provided with the Happiness. And I think a welfare type of state definitely plays into that.

1) No they should go to an Islamic church/whatever it may be called for that. Although, any Christian denomination should be thankful and happy to have them join them for a meal.

 

2) You listed pursuit of happiness. Too much of our population do not want the pursuit but rather be provided with the Happiness. And I think a welfare type of state definitely plays into that.

 

Do all religions worshipped in the United States tell their followers to feed the poor? Also, it's just my believe but I believe God would want welfare for those who truly need it.

 

Though many take advantage of welfare should that prevent the system from providing for those who really need it? People are always going to take advantage of the system, but I don't think that should stop us from trying to help those in need.

But, we have people sick and starving now. No one has taken care of them, so I'd rather the government provide. I've never been dirt poor, haven't ever had to go hungry, and have had health insurance my entire life. I see that as being lucky. It's sad that we, the greatest country in the world, have people who aren't provided for.

 

Also with the different religions we have I don't think we was Americans can rely on a single church/religion to take care of all of our people. Should an Islamic family have to go to a Baptist church just so that they can eat?

 

I understand that there are some who are impoverished. But in my experiences with individuals seeking assistance (which is quite extensive), much poverty is self-inflicted. When an individual is impoverished, they need to look to themselves first (can I get a job? are there other ways I can cut my expenses?)

 

If they can't get out themselves, their family is the second option. If family doesn't work, the next avenue they can pursue is a church, synagogue, mosque, or other non-profit organization (Salvation Army, community food banks and the like).

 

I think after these three options have been exhausted, the government is the final choice. And I am certainly in favor of supporting those who, without question, cannot care for themselves.

Do all religions worshipped in the United States tell their followers to feed the poor? Also, it's just my believe but I believe God would want welfare for those who truly need it.

 

Though many take advantage of welfare should that prevent the system from providing for those who really need it? People are always going to take advantage of the system, but I don't think that should stop us from trying to help those in need.

 

I agree. I'm not saying the government should not play a role. I'm saying it should be limited, and also the last option.

Do all religions worshipped in the United States tell their followers to feed the poor? Also, it's just my believe but I believe God would want welfare for those who truly need it.

 

Though many take advantage of welfare should that prevent the system from providing for those who really need it? People are always going to take advantage of the system, but I don't think that should stop us from trying to help those in need.

 

If a religion doesn't take care of it's weak and poor by circumstances, that would be an interesting religion.

 

I don't think that the poor by choice necessarily deserve to be taken care of.

 

If I choose to quit working tomorrow, dine on Ho Ho's and grow to 567 pounds and have major medical problems, is it your responsibility to now take care of me?

I understand that there are some who are impoverished. But in my experiences with individuals seeking assistance (which is quite extensive), much poverty is self-inflicted. When an individual is impoverished, they need to look to themselves first (can I get a job? are there other ways I can cut my expenses?)

 

If they can't get out themselves, their family is the second option. If family doesn't work, the next avenue they can pursue is a church, synagogue, mosque, or other non-profit organization (Salvation Army, community food banks and the like).

 

I think after these three options have been exhausted, the government is the final choice. And I am certainly in favor of supporting those who, without question, cannot care for themselves.

 

I agree. In this country it is government first because we view that as free money in this country. It is either a) coming from rich people who have more than enough and don't need/deserve to keep what they have; b) we borrow it from some nameless group/country that we can't really understand anyhow.

 

So, it's free money in the eyes of many.

The reason many so-called "needy" prefer government welfare to faith based charity is that the government is less demanding in holding them accountable for their actions. Once you're in the system... you're in. Just meet a few minimal requirements and you keep getting handouts. I actually know a number of otherwise healthy, potentially productive individuals that have settled for living off the system. When they do work, it's for cash or barter, so they have no taxes. No pressure, no grind, just lower your standards, give up any meaningful goals... Uncle Sam will take care of you.

 

A church based charity will feed and clothe and minister to the needs of the down and out. They will not just pour money on them month after month with no regard to how and why they are down and out in the first place. A Christian outreach is not going to mindlessly feed demons of lust, perversion, drugs, alcoholism, apathy, depression, etc.

 

Government welfare in an enabler. It may be the worst way possible of helping people get off their butts, dust themselves off and make something out of their lives. The only obligation is to keep voting for the sugar daddys feeding your need. Even Bill Clinton attempted to reform this system of gratuitous give aways.

 

Faith based charity may be the best way to get people plugged in to more productive and meaningful lives.

 

Love him or hate him, GWB had a great idea IMO with his "faith based initiatives."

 

Enabling our government to call the shots on all of our healthcare, essentially rendering all of us into dependents of the state is unconscionable. Anyone willing to surrender his or her freedom and the personal responsibility that goes with it, deserves what they will no doubt receive... BUT PLEASE do not insist that we all join you in this dependency... voluntarily or by threat of imprisonment.

I would counter and say there is no reason in America for a church NOT providing meals for the community except for their own stubborness.

 

One of my railing points in my local community is that several churches have Wednesday night meals and Bible studies. Why?

Why can't one have Monday night meals, one have Tuesday night meals and so on and so on.

 

Every night of the week a church would be providing a hot meal for the community.

 

There is a church that has a free and very reduced food store. Two churches have places people can pick up clothing, winter coats, shoes, etc, etc.

 

This should be done more and in greater quantity and people would know Christ through us as the Bible says they should.

 

Come to Martinsville and you will see it being done. :thumb:

 

BTW, that is with 20% unemployment. That means that the "means" to the projects have been drastically lower than normal.

 

BTW, you still have not commented on the fact that your thread title is slanted. I provided a place where the VA GOP is rallying ministers to speak out vs. the Health Bill.

If a religion doesn't take care of it's weak and poor by circumstances, that would be an interesting religion.

 

I don't think that the poor by choice necessarily deserve to be taken care of.

 

If I choose to quit working tomorrow, dine on Ho Ho's and grow to 567 pounds and have major medical problems, is it your responsibility to now take care of me?

 

I don't think that believers of Hindu necessarily would help the poor, as there is a pretty deep caste system there. Satanism doesn't have a place to help the poor in their religion, or at least I don't think it is specified. And as there is no set religion in the United States, I don't think we can say that all help should come from churches, it just excludes too many people and is unconstitutional IMO.

 

As for the bolded, you have to take care of the poor by choice because often they have children they still have to provide for. I know what you're saying, I just don't think it is unrealistic to not have welfare for that reason. 5 year old Tommy shouldn't have to starve because his father and mother don't want to work.

If a religion doesn't take care of it's weak and poor by circumstances, that would be an interesting religion.

 

I don't think that the poor by choice necessarily deserve to be taken care of.

 

If I choose to quit working tomorrow, dine on Ho Ho's and grow to 567 pounds and have major medical problems, is it your responsibility to now take care of me?

 

The reason many so-called "needy" prefer government welfare to faith based charity is that the government is less demanding in holding them accountable for their actions. Once you're in the system... you're in. Just meet a few minimal requirements and you keep getting handouts. I actually know a number of otherwise healthy, potentially productive individuals that have settled for living off the system. When they do work, it's for cash or barter, so they have no taxes. No pressure, no grind, just lower your standards, give up any meaningful goals... Uncle Sam will take care of you.

 

A church based charity will feed and clothe and minister to the needs of the down and out. They will not just pour money on them month after month with no regard to how and why they are down and out in the first place. A Christian outreach is not going to mindlessly feed demons of lust, perversion, drugs, alcoholism, apathy, depression, etc.

 

Government welfare in an enabler. It may be the worst way possible of helping people get off their butts, dust themselves off and make something out of their lives. The only obligation is to keep voting for the sugar daddys feeding your need. Even Bill Clinton attempted to reform this system of gratuitous give aways.

 

Faith based charity may be the best way to get people plugged in to more productive and meaningful lives.

 

Love him or hate him, GWB had a great idea IMO with his "faith based initiatives."

 

Enabling our government to call the shots on all of our healthcare, essentially rendering all of us into dependents of the state is unconscionable. Anyone willing to surrender his or her freedom and the personal responsibility that goes with it, deserves what they will no doubt receive... BUT PLEASE do not insist that we all join you in this dependency... voluntarily or by threat of imprisonment.

 

Everyone that is on food stamp, welfare, etc. isn't taking advantage of the system though.

 

As for faith based charity, what if you have no faith or religion?

 

Health care I think that there should be an actual option to take government provided health care. Not having universal health care is something that no leading country should go with out. You shouldn't have to take it, but it should be available since this is America and not some 3rd world country, IMO.

Everyone that is on food stamp, welfare, etc. isn't taking advantage of the system though.

 

As for faith based charity, what if you have no faith or religion?

 

Health care I think that there should be an actual option to take government provided health care. Not having universal health care is something that no leading country should go with out. You shouldn't have to take it, but it should be available since this is America and not some 3rd world country, IMO.

 

Charity from a faith or a religion should not be given to only the adherents of such faith. It can and should be given in the name of Christ without strings attached.

Charity from a faith or a religion should not be given to only the adherents of such faith. It can and should be given in the name of Christ without strings attached.

 

No doubt about that. But, IMO, a person shouldn't have to go to a church to get food. Most don't care to or wouldn't care to, but I don't think that they should or could be the only means of help for people in need.

Charity from a faith or a religion should not be given to only the adherents of such faith. It can and should be given in the name of Christ without strings attached.

If by "no strings attached" you mean that recipients are not required to convert to a particular faith prior to being fed or clothed or sheltered I agree.

 

If by "no strings attached" you imply there shouldn't be some consideration given to modifying certain destructive habits, patterns, addictions or other harmful behaviors, I disagree strongly.

 

I can see loving and welcoming individuals... and especially teens and children with no strings attached initially. BUT as good doers become aware of each individual's wrong behaviors... it would be criminal (to me) not to begin to encourage and ultimately require some type of behavior modification--over time--that would lift them out of the sewer they are in. Not as a guilt ridden weapon, not as a strong armed tactic forcing conversion, but as a vehicle fueled by love, hope and the expectation of a higher quality of life. You treat people like that and there will be more actual conversions, more truly transformed lives, more of a rising tide that will lift all the ships... :thumb:

If by "no strings attached" you mean that recipients are not required to convert to a particular faith prior to being fed or clothed or sheltered I agree.

If by "no strings attached" you imply there shouldn't be some consideration given to modifying certain destructive habits, patterns, addictions or other harmful behaviors, I disagree strongly.

 

I can see loving and welcoming individuals... and especially teens and children with no strings attached initially. BUT as good doers become aware of each individual's wrong behaviors... it would be criminal (to me) not to begin to encourage and ultimately require some type of behavior modification--over time--that would lift them out of the sewer they are in. Not as a guilt ridden weapon, not as a strong armed tactic forcing conversion, but as a vehicle fueled by love, hope and the expectation of a higher quality of life. You treat people like that and there will be more actual conversions, more truly transformed lives, more of a rising tide that will lift all the ships... :thumb:

 

Precisely. :thumb: