Gotta Love Liberalism

[MoreCoffee]

Okay.

 

[tango]

Liberality is about being generous. The Lord counselled that his followers ought to be generous [SUP]Matt 19:21[/SUP]. Worldly wealth is meant to serve humanity not to be greedily accumulated by a few while many live in poverty. [SUP]1Cor 5:11; 2Pet 2:3; Deut 15:9 Psalm 72:4[/SUP]


What will become of labourers and servers when automation takes away their jobs and takes away the jobs of drivers and many others. Will those privileged to work and earn, and the rich mock them for their poverty? Denigrate them for wanting the necessities of life?

The trouble with this kind of centralised generosity is that it isn't generosity at all.

If you see a man in the street who is homeless and hungry and voluntarily buy him some food, maybe help him get into a hostel to keep him out of the cold, that is being generous. You are using your own resources to help another person.

If instead of doing that you create some kind of system whereby I am forced to hand over some of my money to buy this man food and get him into a hostel there is no generosity at all. My resources are taken from me by force (or at least by the threat of going to jail) and, even though the end result might still be that the hungry man gets some food, by the time layers and layers of government bureaucracy have gotten involved, there's a good chance the man who really needs it won't see much while others buy $100 worth of junk food and sugary drinks using their food stamps (I've seen this happen right in front of me, it's not just something made up by the right-wing press)

The simple reality is that there is no generosity in handing out other peoples' money. Jesus certainly did say that his followers should be generous. That means precisely nothing to the people who are not his followers. If we want to do what Jesus commanded we should be generous with our own resources, not try and set up some kind of centralised government system that takes from others to do what Jesus told us to do.

 

[Rens]

The trouble with this kind of centralised generosity is that it isn't generosity at all.

If you see a man in the street who is homeless and hungry and voluntarily buy him some food, maybe help him get into a hostel to keep him out of the cold, that is being generous. You are using your own resources to help another person.

If instead of doing that you create some kind of system whereby I am forced to hand over some of my money to buy this man food and get him into a hostel there is no generosity at all. My resources are taken from me by force (or at least by the threat of going to jail) and, even though the end result might still be that the hungry man gets some food, by the time layers and layers of government bureaucracy have gotten involved, there's a good chance the man who really needs it won't see much while others buy $100 worth of junk food and sugary drinks using their food stamps (I've seen this happen right in front of me, it's not just something made up by the right-wing press)

The simple reality is that there is no generosity in handing out other peoples' money. Jesus certainly did say that his followers should be generous. That means precisely nothing to the people who are not his followers. If we want to do what Jesus commanded we should be generous with our own resources, not try and set up some kind of centralised government system that takes from others to do what Jesus told us to do.

But in Holland there's almost no homeless people and a guy on cf who worked all his life, helped people in ministry, lost his job and wanted to commit suicide cause he'd be homeless, so in Holland they prayed for this guy, I said come here, we'll pay your ticket. What kind of crazy society is that, that they don't help you and some are allowed to be filthy rich with private jets and swimming pools and pay nothing.
Yet I have that guy on Facebook now and he is anti liberals lol.
The aunt of my ex lived in America. She got cancer. They were just normal people . Her husband had a job. They didnt have enough money for meds though. This was before Obama. So she screamed through the whole hospital from pain before she died. Sorry no money, so she didnt get morphine. After she died her husband emigrated to Holland just in case he'd get sick.

 

[Brighten04]

But in Holland there's almost no homeless people and a guy on cf who worked all his life, helped people in ministry, lost his job and wanted to commit suicide cause he'd be homeless, so in Holland they prayed for this guy, I said come here, we'll pay your ticket. What kind of crazy society is that, that they don't help you and some are allowed to be filthy rich with private jets and swimming pools and pay nothing.
Yet I have that guy on Facebook now and he is anti liberals lol.
The aunt of my ex lived in America. She got cancer. They were just normal people . Her husband had a job. They didnt have enough money for meds though. This was before Obama. So she screamed through the whole hospital from pain before she died. Sorry no money, so she didnt get morphine. After she died her husband emigrated to Holland just in case he'd get sick.

This is a sad story Rens. But, there are people who will use people like they use paper towels, once they have worked them until they are raggedy, just throw them on the trash heap after they are of no more use. And they think this is what Jesus would do. smh.

 

[Josiah]

The trouble with this kind of centralised generosity is that it isn't generosity at all.

If you see a man in the street who is homeless and hungry and voluntarily buy him some food, maybe help him get into a hostel to keep him out of the cold, that is being generous. You are using your own resources to help another person.

If instead of doing that you create some kind of system whereby I am forced to hand over some of my money to buy this man food and get him into a hostel there is no generosity at all. My resources are taken from me by force (or at least by the threat of going to jail) and, even though the end result might still be that the hungry man gets some food, by the time layers and layers of government bureaucracy have gotten involved, there's a good chance the man who really needs it won't see much while others buy $100 worth of junk food and sugary drinks using their food stamps (I've seen this happen right in front of me, it's not just something made up by the right-wing press)

The simple reality is that there is no generosity in handing out other peoples' money. Jesus certainly did say that his followers should be generous. That means precisely nothing to the people who are not his followers. If we want to do what Jesus commanded we should be generous with our own resources, not try and set up some kind of centralised government system that takes from others to do what Jesus told us to do.

AMEN! Very well said.....


Again, Liberals aren't about being generous with their money and resources to HELP PEOPLE UP. They tend to have an obsession to take OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY (often people much poorer than they) and then use the money they took from others (those poorer than they) and dole it out - but often not in ways that will help these people but will enable their position to continue and will make them dependent, thankful and loyal to THEM (and keep them in office). I'm generalizing obviously but it seems to be how this often works in the USA. there are notable exceptions (Bill Gates is a profound example of conservative policies coming from a man who tends to be leftist in his politics). Again: In the 2008 election, Obama - the liberal - revealed in his taxes that he gave practically nothing to charity or to the poor but is all in favor of taxing people much poorer than he so he can dole it out. Romney (the conservative) however gave a very large percentage of his (considerable) income to charities - ones that actually help people up and voiced agaist the rich taking from the poor to keep people down and loyal. Or consider the Clintons (typical Liberals that they are), I don't know if either has ever given a dime to anyone (rich or poor), what they did was set up a tax exempt foundation (so it wouldn't get taxed by liberals like that) to TAKE MONEY from others (for years, they've been money takers - traveling all over the world, often asking for money from people who are enemies of America) and then, though that foundation, doling out to various liberal causes and in ways that will empower people to be in their present condition. That's not multi-millionaires like the Clintons giving THEIR money to HELP PEOPLE UP.



- Josiah

 

[JSales]

Looking at the Liberals I know they are embarrassed for being affluent whites and wish to give reparations to the poor because of their guilt and by doing so want to guilt anyone else with money. No one then deserves to be wealthy and it needs to be spread out among all so that everyone will survive in love and happiness whether they work for it or not.

 

[Brighten04]

Well, I still wonder what Jesus would do. I think he would make it a bit more balanced. I have a question for all of us to consider. When John the Baptist sent his disciples to ask Jesus if He was the ONE or should they look for another, Jesus replied

Matt. 11:4 Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see:

5 The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.

Now why, I have asked, is it so important that the POOR have the gospel preached to THEM? Why didn't He say rich and poor?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well, I still wonder what Jesus would do. I think he would make it a bit more balanced. I have a question for all of us to consider. When John the Baptist sent his disciples to ask Jesus if He was the ONE or should they look for another, Jesus replied

Matt. 11:4 Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see:

5 The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.

Now why, I have asked, is it so important that the POOR have the gospel preached to THEM? Why didn't He say rich and poor?

Because the poor and the oppressed are dear to God precisely because they are oppressed by the rich and powerful. The passage I quoted from first Samuel pointed in that direction. It noted that appointing kings for themselves would lead to enslavement and impoverishment of the people due to the heavy burden of taxes and the greed of the ruling classes. That warning still applies today. Those who choose worldly systems and worldly leaders to govern them rather than accepting the theocratic anarchy that God gave to his people before they had kings ruling them reap the enslavement and impoverishment that was mentioned by Samuel. Choose a worldly king for yourself and follow worldly ways and professing Christians will reap the same curse. Paul warned of it in his letters. He wrote "Do not conform yourselves to the standards of this world, but let God transform you inwardly by a complete change of your mind. Then you will be able to know the will of God---what is good and is pleasing to him and is perfect. " [SUP](Rom 12:2)[/SUP] becoming a capitalist or a socialist leads to the same end - people dividing into the rulers and the ruled with wealth and power accumulating in the hands of the rulers. The gospel is a radical message to turn this wicked world upside down. By turning wickedness upside down the Lord intends to set things to rights as the prophet wrote long ago - The Lord said, "These people claim to worship me, but their words are meaningless, and their hearts are somewhere else. Their religion is nothing but human rules and traditions, which they have simply memorized. So I will startle them with one unexpected blow after another. Those who are wise will turn out to be fools, and all their cleverness will be useless." Those who try to hide their plans from the LORD are doomed! They carry out their schemes in secret and think no one will see them or know what they are doing. They turn everything upside down. Which is more important, the potter or the clay? Can something you have made say, "You didn't make me"? Or can it say, "You don't know what you are doing"? As the saying goes, before long the dense forest will become farmland, and the farmland will go back to forest. When that day comes, the deaf will be able to hear a book being read aloud, and the blind, who have been living in darkness, will open their eyes and see. Poor and humble people will once again find the happiness which the LORD, the holy God of Israel, gives. It will be the end of those who oppress others and show contempt for God. Every sinner will be destroyed. God will destroy those who slander others, those who prevent the punishment of criminals, and those who tell lies to keep honest people from getting justice. [SUP](Isa 29:13-21)[/SUP]

 

[Rens]

Jesus and the disciples always took care of the poor.
In Acts they sold their extra houses. They had everything in common. The church doesn't do that anymore, so the govt. does. They should oblige everyone to give to poor countries too or spend the money better, not on infrastructure and other nonsense.

 

[Brighten04]

:sad:

 

[tango]

Because the poor and the oppressed are dear to God precisely because they are oppressed by the rich and powerful. The passage I quoted from first Samuel pointed in that direction. It noted that appointing kings for themselves would lead to enslavement and impoverishment of the people due to the heavy burden of taxes and the greed of the ruling classes. That warning still applies today. Those who choose worldly systems and worldly leaders to govern them rather than accepting the theocratic anarchy that God gave to his people before they had kings ruling them reap the enslavement and impoverishment that was mentioned by Samuel. Choose a worldly king for yourself and follow worldly ways and professing Christians will reap the same curse. Paul warned of it in his letters. He wrote "Do not conform yourselves to the standards of this world, but let God transform you inwardly by a complete change of your mind. Then you will be able to know the will of God---what is good and is pleasing to him and is perfect. " [SUP](Rom 12:2)[/SUP] becoming a capitalist or a socialist leads to the same end - people dividing into the rulers and the ruled with wealth and power accumulating in the hands of the rulers. The gospel is a radical message to turn this wicked world upside down. By turning wickedness upside down the Lord intends to set things to rights as the prophet wrote long ago - The Lord said, "These people claim to worship me, but their words are meaningless, and their hearts are somewhere else. Their religion is nothing but human rules and traditions, which they have simply memorized. So I will startle them with one unexpected blow after another. Those who are wise will turn out to be fools, and all their cleverness will be useless." Those who try to hide their plans from the LORD are doomed! They carry out their schemes in secret and think no one will see them or know what they are doing. They turn everything upside down. Which is more important, the potter or the clay? Can something you have made say, "You didn't make me"? Or can it say, "You don't know what you are doing"? As the saying goes, before long the dense forest will become farmland, and the farmland will go back to forest. When that day comes, the deaf will be able to hear a book being read aloud, and the blind, who have been living in darkness, will open their eyes and see. Poor and humble people will once again find the happiness which the LORD, the holy God of Israel, gives. It will be the end of those who oppress others and show contempt for God. Every sinner will be destroyed. God will destroy those who slander others, those who prevent the punishment of criminals, and those who tell lies to keep honest people from getting justice. [SUP](Isa 29:13-21)[/SUP]

There is a world of difference between taking action in the right here and right now to meet a need, and voting in such a way that results in obligating other people to meet a perceived need.

If we look at the parable of the Good Samaritan we see a man who tended to the man he found, took him to an inn and paid the innkeeper for his care.

Things the Good Samaritan did not do:
He didn't take the wounded man to his own house
He didn't vote for a government that would offer better benefits to people attacked in the street
He didn't complain that "the rich should pay more towards this sort of thing"
He didn't ask for any freebies from the innkeeper
He didn't walk on by figuring Someone Else should deal with it


The parable doesn't say whether the Good Samaritan was a rich person who figured the cost of looking after the wounded man was less than he lost behind the sofa that day, or a poor man who honestly didn't know how he was going to feed his family having given the last of what he had to save the victim. It isn't important to the story, what is important was that he saw a need and met it out of his own resources. When the lawyer correctly observed that the Samaritan was a good neighbor to the victim, Jesus said "go and do likewise". Jesus didn't say "go and do the same, and while you're at it vote for a government that is more compassionate", he didn't say "go out and riot because the rich people aren't paying their fair share towards this sort of thing", he just said "go and do what the Samaritan did".

 

[MoreCoffee]

There is a world of difference between taking action in the right here and right now to meet a need, and voting in such a way that results in obligating other people to meet a perceived need.

God, who was Israel's King until Israel voted to have their own king, gave Israel laws to set aside food and forgive debts for the sake of the poor. It is the same idea one sees in taxation to pay for health care and housing and an income for the poor. It looks to me as though your complaint abrogates God's laws as much as it attacks USA (and other western democracies) laws for helping the poor through taxation. One other thing to remember is that God gave Israel laws to pay taxes for the provisions needed by the tribe of Levi. And the new testament echoes the principle by obligating Christians to pay for the work of the gospel - meaning paying a living wage to their teachers, pastors, and evangelists.

If we look at the parable of the Good Samaritan we see a man who tended to the man he found, took him to an inn and paid the innkeeper for his care.

Things the Good Samaritan did not do:
He didn't take the wounded man to his own house
He didn't vote for a government that would offer better benefits to people attacked in the street
He didn't complain that "the rich should pay more towards this sort of thing"
He didn't ask for any freebies from the innkeeper
He didn't walk on by figuring Someone Else should deal with it


The parable doesn't say whether the Good Samaritan was a rich person who figured the cost of looking after the wounded man was less than he lost behind the sofa that day, or a poor man who honestly didn't know how he was going to feed his family having given the last of what he had to save the victim. It isn't important to the story, what is important was that he saw a need and met it out of his own resources. When the lawyer correctly observed that the Samaritan was a good neighbor to the victim, Jesus said "go and do likewise". Jesus didn't say "go and do the same, and while you're at it vote for a government that is more compassionate", he didn't say "go out and riot because the rich people aren't paying their fair share towards this sort of thing", he just said "go and do what the Samaritan did".

 

[Brighten04]

But helping the poor should be everyone's concern shouldn't it? Paul said something abut the person who steals that is very interesting.

Ephesians 4:28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

Now that is a very novel idea. Work so you can have to give to someone in need.

 

[MoreCoffee]

But helping the poor should be everyone's concern shouldn't it? Paul said something abut the person who steals that is very interesting.

Ephesians 4:28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

Now that is a very novel idea. Work so you can have to give to someone in need.

It's a godly idea and hence it is very unpopular - and it is unpopular with many Christians too.

 

[Brighten04]

It's a godly idea and hence it is very unpopular - and it is unpopular with many Christians too.

I see.

 

[tango]

God, who was Israel's King until Israel voted to have their own king, gave Israel laws to set aside food and forgive debts for the sake of the poor. It is the same idea one sees in taxation to pay for health care and housing and an income for the poor. It looks to me as though your complaint abrogates God's laws as much as it attacks USA (and other western democracies) laws for helping the poor through taxation. One other thing to remember is that God gave Israel laws to pay taxes for the provisions needed by the tribe of Levi. And the new testament echoes the principle by obligating Christians to pay for the work of the gospel - meaning paying a living wage to their teachers, pastors, and evangelists.

A few comments here.

God gives us the freedom to choose whether to follow him or not. If we choose to ignore God's laws, God gives us the freedom to go and do it our own way. Comparisons to ancient Israel aren't relevant here.

There's a world of difference between a system that provides for those who are unable to provide for themselves, and a system that allows long term welfare as a way of life for those who merely don't feel like working.

There's a big difference between a system that provides food so that people don't starve, and a system that hands out money so people can load their shopping carts with junk food and sugary drinks. People need food, they don't need a cart full of Twinkies and more Coke than one person can physically carry.

You're entirely right that if we want teachers, pastors, evangelists then we have to pay for them. That's a totally different proposition from saying we should require everyone, by force the threat of prison, to pay towards the things we think should be done. We don't expect "the world" to fund our churches so why should we expect "the world" to fund the things Christ told us to do? Furthermore, we can see the model of the early church which was that people gave voluntarily to meet the needs of others. Nobody was forced, and nobody was expected to give up their possessions to fund the wants of others. In the case of Ananias and Sapphira we can see a clear acknowledgement that the church had no automatic right to any of the money - Peter said "While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control?" (Acts 5:4) - the property belonged to them and, once it was sold, the money belonged to them. They had every right to keep some or all of it for themselves.

The Old Testament model isn't relevant in a country that isn't ancient Israel and the New Testament model doesn't impose any specific requirements where the level of giving is concerned. It's a far cry from a system that demands increasing percentages from everyone to fund wasteful government while at the same time providing all sorts of opt-outs and get-outs that are largely only economically viable to the wealthiest. For good measure it also creates inefficient programs that waste the money people might have given directly to the needy, while providing a handy opt-out from doing anything more for those in genuine need because it's easier to just point them to the nearest welfare office.