The right to pursue happiness is very different from a guarantee of happiness.

 

You apparently have never been an 8-15 year old living in abject poverty in the 2000s.

While I agree with much of what you've said here, I bolded this part because you need to reread Amos if you think God did not care about the relationship of corporate greed (nations, collective body of the nation, etc) and God.

 

I read Amos and have not changed my mind. While there is mention of nations the emphasis is still on the individual in the book. While we give credit or complain about government, the entity is made up of individuals who make the decisions. It is the responsibity of the individual to meet his or hers needs, just as it is the responsibility of the individual to come to the aid of those in need. Individuals may come together in a voluntary way to pool their resources to help those in need, but government redistribution is not mentioned in the Bible.

I read Amos and have not changed my mind. While there is mention of nations the emphasis is still on the individual in the book. While we give credit or complain about government, the entity is made up of individuals who make the decisions. It is the responsibity of the individual to meet his or hers needs, just as it is the responsibility of the individual to come to the aid of those in need. Individuals may come together in a voluntary way to pool their resources to help those in need, but government redistribution is not mentioned in the Bible.

 

 

:ohbrother:

 

Then we have nothing further to say except you must be the first person in the history of biblical interpretation to come down that way. There is not merely a "mention of nations," the premise by the prophet from Tekoa is God's judgement on all the nations, including Israel because of their systems.

 

Your straw man at the end of your post shows that you have no intention of allowing the scripture in Amos to speak for itself but will spout your personal viewpoints into it. Amazing. :eek:

You apparently have never been an 8-15 year old living in abject poverty in the 2000s.

Yeah... but I once did live in a tiny cottage with all four grandparents sharing one bed and the last bowl of cabbage soup until I discovered a golden ticket in my Wonka Bar... but that's another story...

 

I have it under pretty good authority that Abraham Lincoln was raised in a single room log cabin with a dirt floor, no running water, no toilet, no central heat or air, no Kroger to buy groceries, no money to shop with even if there was a store around the corner, no shoes, no schoolhouse to learn to read, no library, shall I go on? The point is, by today's standards old Abe had it as rough as any kid in America. Where were the social programs to ensure Abe had all the essentials? He was probably stunted at 6' 4" and could have been 6' 8" with free government cheese and canned meat. And somehow... he turned out pretty good. The same could be said for thousands if not millions of other Americans.

 

Whether or not we have ever endured abject poverty has nothing to do with the meaning of the words...

 

"...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

The right to "pursue" is not a "guarantee of?... and certainly not a "guarantee of" regardless of whether you "pursue" or not.

The right to pursue happiness is very different from a guarantee of happiness.

 

Exactly.

 

Too many people today seem to think the constitution says equal outcome for all.

You apparently have never been an 8-15 year old living in abject poverty in the 2000s.

 

So what is the differences from living in poverty in the 1950's or 1960's or for that matter the 1800's? Just curious by your meaning?

:ohbrother:

 

Then we have nothing further to say except you must be the first person in the history of biblical interpretation to come down that way. There is not merely a "mention of nations," the premise by the prophet from Tekoa is God's judgement on all the nations, including Israel because of their systems.

 

Your straw man at the end of your post shows that you have no intention of allowing the scripture in Amos to speak for itself but will spout your personal viewpoints into it. Amazing. :eek:

 

The nation is made up of individuals who make the nation's decisions. Yes then you may say the nation is the one who is at fault, but a government only does what the individuals decide to do. Please point to where a government is to redistribute wealth. Please do not point out a verse that says the more fortunate should help the less fortunate directly or indirectly through the government. Actual government redistribution.

The nation is made up of individuals who make the nation's decisions. Yes then you may say the nation is the one who is at fault, but a government only does what the individuals decide to do. Please point to where a government is to redistribute wealth. Please do not point out a verse that says the more fortunate should help the less fortunate directly or indirectly through the government. Actual government redistribution.

 

Please point where any of that is a claim I made!

 

I pointed you to scripture that cited that nations were held accountable to their actions as a corporate body. You said "It's only speaking about individuals." No bible student can deduce that from Amos. It just isn't there.

 

Not speaking of some "redistribution" mumbo jumbo, but here's a verse for you:

 

1Hear this word, you cows of (A)Bashan who are on the (B)mountain of Samaria,

Who ©oppress the poor, who crush the needy,

Who say to your husbands, "Bring now, that we may (D)drink!"

 

It comes from the 4th chapter of Amos.

 

From Amos 5:11-12

 

11Therefore because you impose heavy rent on the poor

And exact a tribute of grain from them,

Though you have built houses of well-hewn stone,

Yet you will not live in them;

You have planted pleasant vineyards, yet you will not drink their wine.

12For I know your transgressions are many and your sins are great,

You who distress the righteous and accept bribes

And turn aside the poor in the gate.

 

 

 

It's a declaration to Israel (Northern Kingdom) and it's about the way the poor and needy are forgotten for the appetites of the powerful and well off.

The nation is made up of individuals who make the nation's decisions. Yes then you may say the nation is the one who is at fault, but a government only does what the individuals decide to do. Please point to where a government is to redistribute wealth. Please do not point out a verse that says the more fortunate should help the less fortunate directly or indirectly through the government. Actual government redistribution.

 

BTW, I'm not in favor of redistribution but God might be.

 

Check out Leviticus 25:8-55.

 

It spells out the Year of Jubilee in which Israel was to have everything returned back to each person/family what was originally his and all debts were cancelled. This was to take place every 50 years.

 

10'You shall thus consecrate the fiftieth year and (B)proclaim [a]a release through the land to all its inhabitants It shall be a jubilee for you, and ©each of you shall return to his own property, and each of you shall return to his family.

 

35'(S)Now in case a countryman of yours becomes poor and his means with regard to you falter, then you are to sustain him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you.

36'(T)Do not take usurious interest from him, but revere your God, that your countryman may live with you.

 

37'You shall not give him your silver at interest, nor your food for gain.

 

Albeit it doesn't sound very practical nor did it become the law of the land once the Israelites secured the land, but you asked for a verse or two and here is a good place to start. It sounds like this was God's intention from the beginning.

BTW, I'm not in favor of redistribution but God might be.

 

Check out Leviticus 25:8-55.

 

It spells out the Year of Jubilee in which Israel was to have everything returned back to each person/family what was originally his and all debts were cancelled. This was to take place every 50 years.

 

10'You shall thus consecrate the fiftieth year and (B)proclaim [a]a release through the land to all its inhabitants It shall be a jubilee for you, and ©each of you shall return to his own property, and each of you shall return to his family.

 

35'(S)Now in case a countryman of yours becomes poor and his means with regard to you falter, then you are to sustain him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you.

36'(T)Do not take usurious interest from him, but revere your God, that your countryman may live with you.

 

37'You shall not give him your silver at interest, nor your food for gain.

 

Albeit it doesn't sound very practical nor did it become the law of the land once the Israelites secured the land, but you asked for a verse or two and here is a good place to start. It sounds like this was God's intention from the beginning.

 

I see where there is to be help, but not redistribution as some actually want.

I still believe a government acts in ways as directed by the individuals who work in its bureaucracies.

Thank you for your lessons.

So what is the differences from living in poverty in the 1950's or 1960's or for that matter the 1800's? Just curious by your meaning?

 

Really? That is an honest, sincere question? You see no difference in growing up poor now than in 50s, 60s or earlier? Heck there is a difference in growing up rural poor and growing up urban poor.

Really? That is an honest, sincere question? You see no difference in growing up poor now than in 50s, 60s or earlier? Heck there is a difference in growing up rural poor and growing up urban poor.

 

I took it as an honest question and would like to hear the answer as I don't see what the difference would be either, other than more public support available now than back then.

Lyndon Johnson began the federal government war on poverty in 1964. The percentage of poor dropped slightly in the decade that followed, but has remained steady since. Nearly five decades and couple trillion dollars later, the problem remains. If government is the answer, why is poverty still the problem it is today?

Edited March 15, 201016 yr by Fastbreak

I took it as an honest question and would like to hear the answer as I don't see what the difference would be either, other than more public support available now than back then.

 

The difference is that today's poor are well off compared to the poor of 50+ years ago. They have at least 1 car, if not 2, they have air conditioning, cell phones, computers, cable TV and all types of government assitance. Yet some in this country are so jealous of those who worked hard for what they have earned, they believe the government must step in and take it from them.

I'm sure that many of those in the lower income category work hard as well, but there is no reason to take from higher earners to give to lower wage earners, other than to meet some basic need food and housing needs. And then only on a temporary basis.

The difference is that today's poor are well off compared to the poor of 50+ years ago. They have at least 1 car, if not 2, they have air conditioning, cell phones, computers, cable TV and all types of government assitance. Yet some in this country are so jealous of those who worked hard for what they have earned, they believe the government must step in and take it from them.

I'm sure that many of those in the lower income category work hard as well, but there is no reason to take from higher earners to give to lower wage earners, other than to meet some basic need food and housing needs. And then only on a temporary basis.

 

Give me one link that says this. I have 50 youth in my building, about 5 have a computer at home. Almost all have a cell phone that runs out of minutes in about a week (as does their parents, but it beats paying a regular phone bill every month). Several have had their electricity cut-off for some amount of time this year, hardly any actually own their houses.

 

LESS THAN 1% OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET GOES TO WELFARE PROGRAMS OUTSIDE OF MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY. WHERE IS THIS MASS REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. LESS THAT 1%. GOODNESS GRACIOUS.

 

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-runawaywelfare.htm