The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The Purge: Election Year, Hypocrisy, and The Nature Of God

Theology Biblical Theology
#191

I totally agree. I am a middle-classer who is fed up with being used and abused by the system.

On another note, I believe food stamps should be one of the first things to go out the window. To say that these people do not use them for alcohol, drugs or other bad habits, is a farce. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. Since they no longer have to worry about the food supply, they instead spend that money on whatever. I’m tired of footing the bill for such nonsense. I try not to lose my compassion because I know there are legitimate cases of real need. However, I feel that if we kick the free loaders to the curb, the churches can handle the rest. Say what you want, but where I come from, there seems to be a church with a food pantry, on every corner. To say these poor people don’t know any better because they weren’t raised properly is just another excuse I see as being overused.(No offense Cindy :blush: ) People aren’t stupid. We no longer live in isolated communities where one is unable to see a different life or lifestyle. My own kids know much more than I do when it comes to navigating the electronic world. It seemed to come naturally to them, and they have left me in the dust. I believe that if we get the government off the backs of the people, we will see the Spirit of God pouring forth.

#192

Not quite accurate. It “coerces” in some respects, but in response to the will of the people, if it is a democracy. Such “coercion” is necessary in order to carry out the will of the people. If the state overrides the will of the people its “coercion” it is not a democratic.

I would need to be convinced of that.

Not so. I am a pacifist, and I support government. I do not believe in anarchy. That would result in the unscrupulous minority taking advantage of the rest of the people via theft, murder, etc.

I presume that what is written below the three asterisks is meant to be a quote from Tolstoy. I have never read those words in Tolstoy’s works. It too bad that the site doesn’t give a reference. In any case, I see nothing in the quote that indicates anarchy.

A supporter of government does not necessarily agree with all that the government requires of its citizens. Even the apostles said that they would obey God in speaking in the name of Jesus, even though the authorities requested them to desist. That doesn’t imply that the apostles were anarchists.

#193

Paidion, since you brought up the will of the people, I’m just curious: When the will of the people becomes 49% wanting something totally different than the other 50%, it would seem to me that half the people no longer have a representative government of the people, be it one way or the other. At that point, it seems like a losing battle. For now, Trump is in office for the next four years. But, what about after that? The other side may just vote in someone like Hillary and undo all that Trump does. Looking at scripture, we see Abraham and Lot having to go their separate ways when they both get too big to occupy the same space. I often wonder if our country will eventually split apart because of it. I hate to say it, but it has even occurred to me that while we are in the process of building walls…, we can just keep going up the middle of the country. :laughing: Any thoughts?

#194

I bumped into my Roman Catholic, Republican neighbor. I mentioned to her, that she should be very happy now. Now that she had a Republican congress and a Republican president.

But she didn’t think so. She said there were a lot of Rhinos in Congress.

Interesting term. So I looked it up, via a Google search. I put in the keywords “rhinos in congress definition”.

But Google page search, showed me I got the name wrong.

And I browsed through the page 1 entries. And I found a definition from Wiki at RINO:

Say :exclamation: She has a point :exclamation: How many RINO members are in Congress :question: And how will this effect the agenda, that Trump is trying to push :question:

And there are a lot of ticked off folks out there. So I give Trump and the Trumpeters their 2 years running - to turn things around.

Otherwise, the ticked off folks will vote in Democratic members of Congress. And Trump will have a hard time - getting anything done.

And it’s refreshing he’s meeting with Mitt Romney. Perhaps for a secretary of State position? See Donald Trump to meet fierce critic Mitt Romney

Stay tune for this exciting soap opera.

Will the Rino members cause Havoc?
Will Mitt be offered a Secretary of State position and will he accept it?
Will the ticked off folks, fill Congress with Democrats in 2 years?
How will Trump’s view on climate change being a hoax, square with world leaders and the world’s scientific community?
How will Trump’s rhetoric on Islam, balance with our troop deployment, in Islamic places like Saudi Arabia?
How will the tabloids and political cartoonists - treat Trump?
Etc.?

Stay tuned for the next exciting episode, of **As Trump and the Trumpeters Blow The Trumpets ** :laughing:

And now for Trump’s next trick :exclamation: But first, some user commentary :exclamation: :laughing:

or

youtube.com/watch?v=kRW7pITY5Cg

#196

Secession would indeed solve a lot of problems. You describe the system we have now, LLC. It is an endless war to see who will be the 51% and who will be the 49% next election. And what with voter fraud, I do not doubt that the 51% is simply the side more adept at cheating.

#197

I do not think a secular government can operate on (much less recognize) Christian principles, except when these principles are in their crosshairs. The 20th century saw the meteoric rise of “the state as savior”, and consequently this secular savior has murdered hundreds of millions of human beings, all in the name of justice, compassion, and humanitarianism.

I want off.

#198

qaz, I suppose I must be bit slow since I still do not quite understand these Nozickian property rights that you keep speaking of. All I know is that life is “unfair” in many ways, but we are all born in to it and must deal with it, doing the best that we can with what we have. We are never going to make life completely and perfectly fair among all. Sorry, but if there is a problem with it, you’ll have to take that up with God. Yes, we do have to pay for goods and services. Things are not free and this is why we all get jobs and earn a living. If someone is unable to do this, it up to the people of God to provide for them. This is why the kingdom of God/church was established. To me, Jesus made it pretty clear what the duties of the church are, who is in charge of it and how it is to be run,coin verses no coin. There’s your answer. I believe that one of the big problems with this country is not the “poor” that everyone keeps talking about. It seems to me that we have been given too much. Our nation is quite generous and we have become the spoiled little rich kids who don’t know how to work any more.

#199

It is not a simple matter; indeed it is an impossible matter to combine the philosophy of Ayn Rand with the theology of Christianity.
Rand’s philosophy of morality is that the morally right behaviour is to do that which maximizes one’s self-interest. Ayn would consider it immoral to give one’s life in order to save the life of another.

Jesus’ moral instruction was to do the opposite of Rand’s “morality”—to do good even to your enemies (those who hate you). He also said, "And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. (Matt 5:40, 41). Jesus personally gave Himself to suffer excruciating pain on the cross, and to die for the sake of the whole world of people.

#200

I think there is a disconnect between the “poor” in the Bible and the “poor” in the United States today. Only the latter is so well-fed as to be (statistically speaking) the most over-weight demographic in the United States.

To a “poor” man who is overweight, owns a cell phone, owns a TV, drinks, smokes, and has a higher standard of living than medieval nobility, I think the following passage is the most appropriate: “For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread.” (II Thessalonians 3:10-12)

For the sort of poverty spoken of in the Bible, I think you have to look outside of the First World.

#201

Good points. When we use a class concept - such as ‘the poor’ or ‘conservatives’ - we can lose the fact that not All the poor are ‘a,b,c’ not ALL conservatives are ‘x, y, z’

C.S. Lewis brought out the point that the real mystics are the sociologists, who act as if the classification - an abstract concept - is more ‘real’ than the individuals in the class.

We cannot really ‘know’ a class of people - we can know people in that ‘class’. If we are going to help those in need, we do need to know what that means for particular families and individuals.

Prudent compassion?

#202

Exactly. This illustrates why caring for the needy in this country is best done at the local level by local churches. As an example, I used to know an LDS woman whose husband abandoned her and her small children out of the blue. She was a good housewife who had only a minimum wage, part-time job shelving books at the local library. Suddenly and through no fault of her own, she could not pay the bills. She applied to her local LDS church (which she had attended for years), and her church paid her bills. They did not give her money. She brought them her bills, and she was held to a strict level of accountability. All the money her church used to help her consisted of offerings that she and her fellow church-goers religiously paid into Sunday after Sunday. It was almost like insurance. For the church to use the money to “help” irresponsible people would have been tantamount to theft, and soon nobody would choose to pay into it anymore.

Contrast that to the state “helping” the anonymous “poor”. God alone knows where all that money goes, but chances are the biggest chunk of it goes into the pockets of state workers, and the next biggest chunk gets spent on drink, tobacco, etc. There is little accountability. There is no way for there to be accountability, because it’s strangers “helping” strangers. No one knows who is a con artist and who is not. Plus, with the state’s immorality, it is forbidden to insist upon those “helped” living according to Christian principles (such as not fornicating).

Alas, much of this “help” is buying more alcohol for alcoholics. This is no laughing matter. Alcoholism is a vile scourge that destroys lives. I fear that the state’s “help” is more often than not real harm.

#205

George Bernard Shaw in his novel “Pygmalion” had one of his characters distinguishing between “the dasarvin’ poor” and the “undasarvin” poor."
I think you encapsulate that distinction in your statements above. However, I think you are not fully aware, if you believe that there are virtually no deserving poor in the United States.

#207

I don’t think that in the long run, giving money is any answer. In the LONG run. Of course there are emergencies and such, and I would hope the usa would continue to pour out aid and help.

BUT - give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, he can provide for himself and his family.
Corny, but encapsulates a great truth. We can hand out fish in a merciful manner, but much better, once the starvation is alleviated, to teach how to fish.

“A striking 82 percent of black households with children receive welfare–double the white rate. Hispanic families are not far behind blacks.” - amren.com/features/2015/10/w … -whos-not/ Lots of good info on that page.

Why such a high percentage of ‘poor’ blacks and hispanics? Taxpayers are paying for 8/10 b/h families with children.

I cannot make a blanket statement as to the reasons. Fingers are pointedover the place, including at ‘white privilege’ which is…what is the word…ah yes - a Crock.

#208

You have it in a nutshell, Paidion. But that’s what many folks, in Republican circuits - try to do. I really have no hard feelings, towards either Republicans or Democrats. But you can’t mix fire and ice. :laughing:

#209

And what if the man, is just **fishy **to begin with :question: :laughing:

#210

Eat him! :laughing:

#211

True, Geoffrey.

Yet many of the poor in the 1st world countries are impoverished in knowledge, training and motivation–this IS often due to the poverty culture which is all that they have experienced. Thus, though one could argue they don’t deserve our help, they still DO need help–if not for their own good, then at least for the good of us all. That’s why I told Qaz I don’t know whether I would reduce benefits (including food stamps)–I don’t know that I WOULDN’T reduce them either. I simply don’t have sufficient knowledge to make a credible answer. I think though, that for the sake of the children, benefits couldn’t be cut so severely that they would suffer more than they already do. It’s a ticklish business. The able-bodied, able-minded adults would often be better off with NO benefits, IMO. There’s nothing like a good dose of being hungry and without shelter to motivate one to work.

That said, along with the **motivation **to work, work must be available, and the potential worker needs to know what’s expected of workers and that s/he must indeed live up to those expectations. Help with childcare would do a lot to enable them to fulfill the needs of employers. Training and the availability of a mentor are also helpful to many who do want to enter the society of the (sadly endangered) middle class. Unfortunately, entitlements take away a lot of the motivation people need (ie: pain) to birth in them a desire to support themselves.

You’re absolutely right though. The poor in the USA are very dissimilar to the poor of Jesus’ day.

#212

RIGHT ON!

#213

Let me re-phrase:

I do not think it is possible for a modern state to efficiently help the poor, nor for it to ensure that it is not harming a great many people with its “help”. I think of all the tricks that alcoholics play, and it would be as easy as falling off a log to trade a $200 food stamp card for $100 cash with which to buy alcohol. I take this very seriously. This is little different than murder by slow degrees.

I am an extreme liberal. I want works of mercy and compassion to be the norm in every society. I deny that the welfare programs of the modern state are works of mercy and compassion. They are unaccountable actions that sometimes help alcoholics and drug addicts kill themselves. Contrast that with the LDS example I gave above. Remember that these supposedly “humanitarian” states are the same states that force an anti-Christian social order upon us, up to and including the wholesale slaughter of untold hundreds of millions of the pre-born. How compassionate can these states be? Their death tolls make Stalin’s look paltry in comparison.

Before the 20th century, was there ever a society anywhere on planet Earth in which the “poor” were literally the fattest people in their society? Would anyone from any of these pre-20th century societies look at “poor”, fat Americans and believe you if you told them they were “poor”? Would they not rather look at you with that peculiar expression a person has when he is told a self-evident falsehood?

I have never met nor even heard of a person in my lifetime in the United States who was starving. (Obvious exceptions for people with eating disorders or for people made captive by criminals.) There are plenty of people in other countries who are starving. It is undeniable that “poverty” in the United States is an entirely different creature than poverty in Africa.

Helping others is far, far too important a task to delegate to government workers and programs.

Qaz, I want to emphasize that I am not criticizing you or any other person for his political beliefs. I am criticizing the governmental systems of our modern age. I think they are all inherently unworkable because of lack of accountability, regardless of how fine some of the people are who try to make these systems work.

Paidion, there are certainly deserving poor in the U. S., such as that LDS woman I mentioned. My point is that, by the standards of the entire pre-20th century world (including the Biblical world), the material assets and physical weight of the U. S. “poor” would put them in the “rich” category. I’m reminded of Bede Griffiths, who was a student and friend of C. S. Lewis who became a Roman Catholic monk. He helped establish some Catholic monasteries in India. Monks, of course, are sworn to a life of poverty. When the Indians saw the monks and their monasteries, they considered them rich. It was a cultural shock/wake-up call to Griffiths and his fellow monks. They realized that what they considered “poor” was in actuality quite wealthy. So they got rid of their monasteries, got rid of their shoes, and started walking around with nothing but their robes. Then, and only then, did the Indians recognize them as poor. (It goes without saying that the “poor” of contemporary America are far wealthier than Griffiths and his fellow monks ever were.)

#214

One more point: A few years after my daughter was born my wife and I quit our library jobs so we could both spend as much time as possible with our daughter, whom we homeschool. We figure that we can always go make money, but our daughter grows up only once, and if we miss it, there’s no second chances.

(We make money by writing, by real estate, and by very occasional substitute teaching, all of which require little investment of time away from our home.)

Anyway, since 2008 our annual household income has hovered around the poverty level (give or take $1,000) as defined by the U. S. government. Neither myself, nor my wife, nor my daughter thinks of our family as poor. We live according to Biblical principles. We have one child who was born 4 years after we married. We are faithful in our marriage, and recognize divorce as a grave sin. We have no debts, not even a house payment. When we first married in 2000 we bought a modest house outright, and we still live in it. I still drive my 1999 Saturn, and my wife still drives her 2001 Nissan. We still have a low-tech flip-phone. We spend zero money on alcohol, on drugs, on tobacco, etc. We still have the same TV my wife bought in 1999. We live within our means, and we love life. We don’t sit around and feel sorry for ourselves because we are supposedly “poor” because the federal government says so.

In contrast, every person I have ever met who considers himself “poor” is very wasteful with his money. They get kicked out of their homes because they bought houses worth three times my own and couldn’t afford the payments. They buy new cars every 2-3 years. They spend lots of money on alcohol and/or cigarettes. They all have TV sets that dwarf mine, and usually more than one. And knick-knacks? Don’t even get me started on the metric ton of useless junk that these “poor” people buy. It’s no wonder they have no money. For every dollar they get they waste two. They have multiple credit cards, many maxed-out. (We have one that we use as cash, paying it off 100% each month so as to never pay any interest.)

I do not live in a rich area. I live in Pueblo, Colorado.

Forgive me if anyone thinks I am “tooting my own horn”. Far from it. I am simply saying that if one exercises a little common sense and decency in his life, he will avoid the problems that seem to be rampant amongst the “poor”. What with the promiscuity, divorce, debt, alcohol, tobacco, drugs, new cars, high-tech phones/gadgets, etc. Good grief. Paying people to indulge in these sins is not “helping the poor”, it is hurting them. It is no less sinful than finding a wino sitting back of an alley and buying him a new bottle of wine. The last thing an unaccountable person needs is money. Money in such hands is a greater means of self-destruction.