The Evangelical Universalist Forum

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

Geoffrey, I agree. You’ve made some excellent points. :slight_smile:

qaz, I don’t know where you get the idea that I believe it is okay to tax the strong and talented and redistribute it to weak and struggling. From what I understand, this is what YOU advocate. NO, it is not okay to tax anyone to give to the weak and struggling. I get these beliefs from the Bible. We sit and wonder why our nation is falling apart at the seams, well open the Good Book and there you will find the answers, as it says, “For in the book it is written of Me.” Starting in Genesis we find that God said if we sin we shall surely die. This law still holds true today. However, man can not come to terms with this. “What? surely we shall not die. Did God really say this? What a cruel and mean God. Come with us and we will show you the way to utopia.” We hear the same old stuff today, for example the war on poverty, no child left behind etc., etc. and we fall for it every time, thinking that no one should ever have to suffer.Well, sorry to say that God has declared it otherwise. We try to manipulate the law in order to make it happen, but in doing so we only keep sin alive and make the problems worse. There is no way around it except the way that God has shown us, that is church and state (law) as two separate entities. Each have their own duties to perform and they shall not be mixed.For God has set boundaries for everything and should we cross these boundaries, chaos ensues. Hence, this is what we see today.

My position is that it is literally not possible for a modern nation-state to successfully do such things in the long-term. (By long-term I do not mean for years or decades, but for a couple centuries at least.) I think such social experiments could run for a thousand years, and we’d still not have a single long-term success. I think the only way to help people in one’s own society is at the local level:

  1. If you know Mrs. McAuliffe, who is now poor because her husband recently died in a tragic accident, and you know that she lives her life according to Christian principles, then it is a righteous and joyous thing to go to the grocery store with her and pay for her groceries, or to pay her water bill, or etc. That is real charity, the agape taught by St. Paul in I Corinthians 13.

  2. Contrast that with a taxpayer’s money going into a giant pot with other taxpayers’ money, and some unelected government workers getting paid out of that pot to distribute the left-over money to the “poor”. The government worker is a stranger to you. The “poor” people getting your tax money are strangers to you. You have no idea how that money is being spent. For all you know, it is buying beer, prostitutes, and a new, fancy phone. The anonymity of the modern state makes accountability impossible.

The force of this has particularly struck me of late, for the best friend of my wife and myself is having her marriage ruined by her alcoholic husband spending tens of thousands of dollars on alcohol and on expensive gifts for his young girlfriend (such as a purse for $1,000). Coincidentally, my wife got a telephone call earlier this week telling her that her 53-year-old cousin drank himself to death. Any “humanitarian” social system that is putting more alcohol into the hands of the “poor” is ipso facto unjust and unmerciful. It is dehumanizing and deadly. This is why I say that only Christian principles operating at the local level can give help to the poor, rather than simply being a particularly expensive and indirect method of supplying alcohol to alcoholics.

Accountability is key. Without it we have suicide.

qaz, what point are you trying to make in asking me these questions? In response to your other comments, as I have pointed out numerous times, God does limit the scope of government. You just fail to want to recognize it. The point at which the government opened it’s purse to assist the needy, they overstepped the boundary line. You may keep insisting otherwise, but it is there in the pages of the Bible, loud and clear.

Geoffrey, again I totally agree. My father was an alcoholic who left my mother with five kids. I thank the good Lord that she moved on and married my step-father who I consider to be a God-send, and whom I refer to as my real father. My biological father lived off the government for the rest of his life and eventually drank himself to death. So much for the government “helping the poor”!

The BBC is now addressing, the most important Trump story: :laughing:

Trump election: Who will dress America’s new first family?

Or, yes. Everybody is making “generalizations” about the poor drinking, the poor wasting time and money, etc.

Otherwise, we might as well be saying…the moon is made of green cheese…the world is flat…the Flat Earth Society is right…Etc. Without statistical data and/or scientific studies…Let’s talk about flat earths and green cheese moons.

But can anyone present any statistical data, to back their claims and/or hypothesizes?

Now, back to fashion. :exclamation: :laughing:

or

youtube.com/watch?v=QA5gJ0hZpCc

My main point is NOT that the poor drink or otherwise waste money (though I have no doubt that they do, since most people I know–regardless of income–lack the virtue of thrift). My point is that we have NO IDEA what the money given to the “poor” is spent on. I would not willingly give one red cent to someone hoping he wouldn’t waste it. Giving without strict accountability is like giving a loaded revolver to the “poor” for a helpful game of Russian roulette. We might be buying alcohol for alcoholics.

Now to the distinct point of whether the poor drink: Just last Wednesday I showed a very run-down (and officially uninhabited) property without a front door to a client. It was two stories and 6,000 square feet, with perhaps a dozen different bedrooms in it. There were empty liquor bottles and beer cans…EVERYWHERE. I bet if we had counted them it would have been between 500 and 1,000. There were filthy sleeping mats, fast food wrappers, cigarette butts, needles, etc. all over as well.

Who, I wonder, could have drank all of that?

As a recovering drug addict and one who goes to A.A. I can tell you that you have to hit bottom before you start to get better. You don’t give money to a drug addict while he is still in his addiction. There has to be spiritual growth and change before you can trust a drug addict. I’m a schizophrenic and I can tell you that it takes time to change. You can’t just get up and start working again when you have had multiple psychotic breaks with reality. For one nobody wants to hire you. They’re afraid you may go nuts and hurt someone. You have to first seek God and His righteousness and get better before you start working. I’m a caregiver to a Catholic man who reached out to be my sponsor and he has helped me tremendously. I realize I need to get some other job now because I’m not with him 24/7 anymore. But I’m getting better and in the position now where I can work again. I can communicate and relate to people now. Before I couldn’t do that. I’ve started working out and I volunteer for a ministry called “Beautiful Feet” sometimes where they help the homeless. I’ve also thought about going back to school. But there is a stigma and fear of hiring someone who has a bad history of being schizoaffective (bipolar type). But my A.A. sponsor gave me a chance and now I have a good reference. I also wanted to say that ego is what drives drug addiction. The A.A. group I go to has politicians, doctors, lawyers, dentists, pilots, as well as the homeless. But it’s hard to make a decision on these issues because a lot of people don’t want to get better and don’t try. I’m not one of them. I have improved 1000 percent. But again it takes time. You have to want it. You have to keep trying.

Exactly, Michael. Your statement rings true to life:

In other words, addictions - whether alcohol, sex, drugs, gambling, etc. - effect all spectrum of society. Not just the poor. Not just the homeless.

When we make statements, like “I think if we gave money, the poor would mishandle it”, etc. is unscientific…not backed by statistical data…Nothing solid to quench our teeth into.

Then we just have personal opinions. At least, those of Protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Churches - are backed by theology. Regardless of what individual church members think. I know one Roman Catholic blogger, who feels the poor should pull themselves up - by their own bootstraps. Sure, if they can do it.

I would be interested in seeing what programs Mitt Romney endorsed, for helping the poor - as governor. Sure, he’s a Mormon. But they still have a good and solid foundation of ethics.

And what works and doesn’t work - in other countries. Like Germany, France, England, Switzerland, Norway or Sweden?

Show me some data. Give me some stats. Show me some scientific studies.

Don’t just give me personal opinions. Otherwise, let’s talk about climate change being a myth…the moon being made of green cheese…the earth is really flat.

And here’s the perfect guy, to be Trump’s adviser on climate change. Or refine some theories presented here, on how to resolve society’s inequality problems. :laughing:

or

youtube.com/watch?v=VNqNnUJVcVs

Exactly Randy. It’s not just the poor. The poor have ego problems just like the rich.

Exactly.

Before I could endorse giving anything to anyone, I would want data/statistics/scientific studies showing that the goods/funds given to whomever would not be wasted and would be used for its stated and intended purpose.

To take the current subject as a case in point:

Where are the data/statistics/scientific studies showing that the U. S.'s SNAP program translates into nutritious food in the stomachs of those who would not have that nutritious food without SNAP?

Where are the data/statistics/scientific studies showing that only those who qualify for SNAP actually use SNAP cards (as opposed to, for example, a SNAP recipient trading his $200 SNAP card for $100 in cash to buy alcohol/tobacco/dog food/whatever)?

Where are the data/statistics/scientific studies showing that the recipients of SNAP do not allocate funds to alcohol/tobacco/Oreos/Legos/whatever thus: “Hey, since I got this $200 SNAP card, I can spend this $200 cash I have on baseball cards instead of on the food I was otherwise going to buy. Thank you, SNAP! Cubs cards, here I come!”

And that’s only half of it:

Where are the data/statistics/scientific studies showing that the SNAP program is efficiently administered? Are there too many SNAP employees? Are there too many chiefs and not enough Indians? What percentage of monies collected for SNAP go into the pockets of SNAP employees instead of into SNAP benefits for recipients?

Where are the data/statistics/scientific studies showing that the SNAP employees themselves aren’t wasting their wages (which come from the monies collected for SNAP) on alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, Pepsi, sports memorabilia, etc.?

Where are the data/statistics/scientific studies showing that the monies collected for SNAP would not have been more beneficially spent if SNAP did not exist?

Still not done:

How sure are we that these hypothetical data/statistics/scientific studies showing the above are both accurate and not tendentious? Was the study conducted by those who administer SNAP? Was the data collected and/or analyzed by someone whose mother is a SNAP employee? Etc.

There are way, way too many variables and uncertainties for me to have any confidence whatsoever in SNAP. Contrast that with me paying Mrs. McGraw’s (the little old lady from church) heat bill this month because she no longer has her recently deceased husband’s income. There is no ambiguity or uncertainty to speak of here. There’s as much chance of Mrs. McGraw being a space alien in disguise as there is of her wasting her money on marijuana.

Christ enjoins us to “be wise as serpents and harmless as doves” (Matthew 10:16). Programs that do not have strict accountability for monies collected and allocated and utilized are neither wise nor harmless. They sometimes harm the ones they are designed to help, and harming people in the name of “helping” them is not wise.

I think everyone here agrees that helping the poor is commendable. What we disagree on is how important accountability is. I think it is absolutely crucial. Some here seem to think (if I am interpreting them correctly) that accountability is optional. To anyone who thinks it is optional, I ask: Why is accountability not crucial to you?

That’s the way I see it, Geoffrey.
I do not know the answer as to the HOW of accountability. Do we need hundreds of thousands of new gov’t employees to monitor how gov’t money is spent? No. Even if we demanded receipts for every penny spent out of a welfare check, who is going to look at the receipts and, if money is being spent on non-essentials, levy a fine? Put someone in jail? Take away kids? Stop the welfare payments?

None of those sounds reasonable. Maybe instead of a check, issue a monthly card that would report automatically what is being bought, and a program to flag inappropriate expenditures? That might cut down on fraud. We’d have a better idea of where the money is going. No cash, no checks - the card.

If we could do the same with the trillions wasted or stolen by our ‘representatives’ in Washington D.c., - well I might as well wish for monkeys to fly out me arse.

Qaz, perhaps we’re talking past each other?

My overall point is single: accountability. If $1 of my money is given to feed poor people, I want to know that my $1 will buy $1 worth of nutritious food that will be eaten by a poor person who would otherwise not have had that $1 worth of nutritious food.

Surely that is not controversial?

If I buy a bag of two dozen oranges for $5, I want to be sure that I’m getting two dozen oranges.
If I buy a 12-issue subscription to a magazine, I want to be sure that I get 12 issues.
If I give my daughter $5 to buy a movie ticket to Harry Potter, I want to be sure that she bought the Harry Potter ticket.
Etc, ad infinitum.

That’s simply how I regard ALL of the monies I spend or give. Under no circumstances (whether public, private, church, individual, or whatnot) would I consent to give/spend money and just cross my fingers and hope I get what I wanted. Surely you would not buy a $20 box marked “stuff”? You would want to inspect the contents first, surely? Why not the same level of inspection and accountability with something as important as feeding and helping the poor?

I do not think accountability is possible anywhere but at the local level, and even there any charitable giving must be done according to strict Christian standards.

Lack of accountability = lack of effective compassion. The more money wasted (regardless of what it’s wasted on) means less money for alleviating poverty. We can’t be lazy in our giving. We have to work hard to avoid harming those we supposedly intend to help. Case in point:

A recent convert at our church was mentioning that he likes to give money to the beggars he sees. He says it makes him feel good and gives him blessings from God. I asked him, “You don’t know what these fellows are going to do with the money you give them. What if some of them are alcoholics, and you are simply buying alcohol for an alcoholic?” His exact response: “That’s not on me.” :open_mouth: Thinking I misunderstood him, I rephrased my question but got the same general response. He literally didn’t care if his money was being used by an alcoholic to further his alcohol addiction. All he cared about was getting his “blessing”. I for one do NOT think God blesses that sort of self-centered irresponsibility.

Hi qaz,

Society Is only served if the whole understands the need for production across the board. I think Geoffrey said something to the extent that it only works on the local level.

To arbitrarily say we need to take care of the indigent, needs to be at least be qualified in why *some one *is having a problem. This is an important part of how we take care of our needy.

You seem to ignore the fact that many will do everything they can to take advantage of the social systems in place. Thus if we do not have checks and limits in place an undue burden will be thrown upon the paying middle class. :open_mouth:

I can’t imagine that anyone would suggest that “the poor” don’t waste money. At least here in the USA, the majority of the poor DO waste money. So do the rest of us, although, if we’re wasting money that we have earned rather than received as a subsidy, that’s our business–even though it is foolish and possibly something we may answer to our Father for. But yes. Certainly the poor waste a LOT of money. If they didn’t, many of them might not be poor–or at least not for very long.

That’s why I think we ought to really HELP the poor by providing basic life skills training and mentoring. For those who don’t want it, well maybe they’re just not hungry and cold enough. People are lazy by nature. It’s a product of our genetic code. Biologically we are predominantly predators. Predators spend most of their time lying around–this conserves energy for chasing after food on the hoof when it crosses their path. This is not a laudable way of being, but it’s just the way we are. Jesus came to (among other things) raise us up and part of that is, imo, taking us beyond where evolution can no longer go–into virtue and love. It isn’t natural to want to work harder than necessary in order to succeed. When we give free food and money to the poor, we take away their natural motivation. Their natural response is to lie about and eat–just like any other person would in their place.

So I say that in order to receive benefits, they ought to have to show the desire and take steps to improve their OWN lot in life and that of their children. Otherwise, we’re just perpetuating the problem. That said, they DO need help. We needed Jesus’ help–we couldn’t lift ourselves up. We are the body of Christ to the world, and we ought to be lifting people up. Not enabling them; lifting them up. Part of that necessarily requires keeping them reasonably fed and clothed and sheltered while they learn how to do that for themselves. And no, I don’t think the government is the best agency to provide that. They may or may not be in the best position to collect resources from the population at large with which to supply the immediate needs of the poor, but they ought not be trusted with administering those funds. They’ve proven themselves untrustworthy. I don’t know what a GOOD supply system would look like, but I’m sure it’s possible to come up with something better than we have.

Ideally, the church should collect and administer aid from among its own. If you have any inclination to think that the church WOULD do that, you don’t know your history. A quick and painless way to get an idea of what church “charity” to the poor has looked like in the past would be to read some Charles Dickens. It wasn’t pretty. It was appalling. I don’t think we want to go back to that. But we DO need accountability from those who receive public funds for their own sustenance and that of their families–and we need a commitment and tangible action on their part to take advantage of and be lifted up by programs that ought to exist to mentor them OUT of poverty.

Beyond that, we need available employment in entry level jobs that pay a living wage (benefits should pay significantly LESS, not MORE than entry-level jobs).

And yes, I get the whole substance abuse thing. More than I want to. I don’t know what proportion of the poor suffer from addictions. Most of the poor I personally know (from my friend’s programs) are NOT substance abusers, but that makes sense since they’ve taken the initiative to sign up for and attend these programs. There are the occasional substance abusers who can stop abusing on their own, but by and large, people need help. Help (real help) is not available to the poor OR the middle class. They can’t afford it. Maybe the poor can (I’m not sure what’s covered in their fully-subsidized programs), but the middle class can’t afford it. AND we need to control the borders and keep out the drugs we can keep out. That’s not a whole solution, but it wouldn’t hurt.

St. Michael, what a wonderful testimony. :slight_smile:

qaz, I don’t really know where you are coming from in all of this, for I have not expressed much in the way of my political views. So far I have only been coming at it from my biblical perspective. In reading the article that you posted by Reinhold Neuberger or whatever his name is, if he is suggesting that Jesus was an anarchist or a communist, then I don’t care to read of him any further for in my opinion he obviously didn’t understand Jesus very well. I truly believe that the Bible was written for the purpose of instruction in living life as a spiritual human being in accordance with God, our creator. As I am a little older, I have come to see many truths of life through trial and error, experience, history, and observation of the living world around me. Now, if I were to write a book to leave to my children I would include the most important of these truths in order to insure their utmost happiness and avoid many of the trappings and pitfalls of life. I feel that since the Bible is exactly this, then it most definitely would say something about government and how to live peacefully amongst one another, for this has been and still is, one of the bigger issues that we face in life. As it says “seek and ye shall find.” And, sure enough, there it is written in the Bible. From reading Geoffrey’s posts, I believe he hit the nail on the head.

I’m not sure what your comment has to do with my response. :confused: :question: I am not willfully ignorant. :open_mouth: If you have an opportunity to do so, :wink: please address my original post. :blush:

Maintenanceman said:

:cry:

qaz, thanks for the tidbit. :wink: Looking at Genesis, we read that the serpent is the most cunning of all the creatures. These serpents know the word of God just as well as those who follow God, for they are the people who were raised along with us, sitting right beside us in the classroom and in the church. However, they twist the word to make it say what they want it to, in order to gain power and control for themselves. Where there is power and money, there the hawks will gather. This is why I am not a fan of big government, or big anything for that matter, and when they say that they need more money whether it be for social programs or whatnot, this allows them to grow in size. If such social programs were actually working to decrease the poverty in the country, then why is it that we need more? As we are instructed, we are not to leave the sheep to the wolves in sheep’s clothing, we are to tend to them personally. As Cindy has pointed out, even in the big churches, corruption may become rampant. I believe Hermano made the point that less is more. As Jesus said “The least shall be the greatest.” In other words there should be many, more smaller groups rather than one big group taking care of these sheep. And this goes also for the governments of the law.

Thank you LLC. To God be the glory! :smiley:

Well, I think we need to quit painting all the poor with the same brush. Everyone knows that unscrupulous people take advantage of the system. I have already posted remarks about the distinction between the deserving poor and the undeserving “poor.” It seems to me that some of you don’t even recognize that there are MANY in the deserving-poor class.

I guess it’s about time to tell you all that I was raised in a family that was poor. However, I was unaware that we were poor by community standards until I was an adult, since we always had plenty to eat. My father was a subsistence farmer on 160 acres of land, mostly forest. He had no automobile, no electricity in the home, and no motors of any kind. He did all of his farm work with horse-drawn equipment. If we needed to go to a neighbour’s place a few miles away, or to a store, we had to go in a horse-drawn wagon in summer, or sled in winter. Occasionally, a neighbour would take one or both my parents to a town located 36 miles away in his automobile. Also, we had many visitors come to the house, some of them staying overnight. Others would come and get us with their automobiles and bring us to their house for a meal.

My mother canned hundreds of quarts of wild blueberries, strawberries, and raspberries, as well as venison and garden vegetables. Oh, yes, and delicious high-bush cranberry jelly and jam. These products were necessary during the severe winter in which it was not uncommon to have Fahrenheit temperatures of 40 or 50 below zero.

My father was a hard worker, but had no ambition to improve his lot. He was content with the life he lived. Venison was our main source of meat. Out of necessity, my father began hunting deer, together with my older brother about August—night and day. Yet, interestingly enough, when hunting season rolled around, he always bought a hunting license. We lived in a small, unfinished, uninsulated house (I still live on the same property with my wife, though in a different house, of course). His only “luxury” was his requirement for one can of Picobac tobacco per week to smoke in his pipe.

My father was a proud man who refused any help by way of welfare or any other social programs. There was a local pulp mill about 36 miles away, and he managed to get a small contract for around 60 cords per winter. He cut down the pulp wood with a swede saw, hauled the wood to the road with horses and dray. It was then loaded onto a pulpwood truck that held about 6 cords, a truck which my father hired to transport the pulp wood to the mill.

When we were children, we were never given any money by my parents. If some other relative ever gave me a quarter, or even a dime, I considered myself lucky. I recall that when I was about 14, I used our team of horses to rake the hay on a neighbour’s field, and the neighbour paid me $2.00.
When I was 16, my older brother, who had a job away from home, gave me $9.00 to spend at a local fall fair. I was amazed! I had never had that much money in my life prior to that. At that fair, as I purchased hamburgers and fries, and rides in the midway, I felt as if I were wealthy!

The nearest school was a one-room country school located 2½ miles from our house, and there was no school bus. The older children rode bicycles to school. I had severe bronchitis as a child, and didn’t attend school during the winter until I was in grade 5, at which time the school closed and a school bus took us to a consolidated school located 6½ miles away.

Occasionally, a member of the community would take up a collection for my parents on special occasions, such as a special wedding anniversary. My father was able to accept that, since it was a gift. Sometimes it was as much as $100 and that was a LOT in those days.

When a small, nearby church closed, they wished to sell a small house that served as a manse for the minister. My father’s sister, who was connected with the church, brought up the matter to him. They were asking only $700. It was a much better house than the one in which my father lived with his family, but my father simply declared to his sister that he didn’t have the money to buy it, and I’m sure he felt he didn’t have the need of it, either.

I suppose my story bears out the view that some of the deserving poor don’t require any outside assistance. However, I am sure there are many of them that do, if they could be persuaded to accept it.

“Recessions are simply are part of capitalism.” This is one of the many lies being spread about by the people in charge. Government works behind the scenes in many ways, manipulating the economy, making backroom deals, over burdening businesses with regulation upon regulation, and who knows what else. Sometimes it is not the good guy vs.the bad guy but the bad guy vs. the bad guy, or maybe the bad guy pretending to be the good guy vs. good guy. :confused: :confused: :astonished: