Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bill_Urick]

Chris, are you being mean to me?

[bblackwood]

Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 21:15

I am a Born Again Christian who thinks his conservative brothers and sisters are modern day Pharisees and Sadducees.

I think when you use such broad strokes to make your point you lose your audience.

[Hallams]

Bill_Urick wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 12:40

Chris, are you being mean to me?

Never...just trying to be a funny bugger...but i see now how it might have looked a bit mean so i swaped the pics around..... I feel better now.....how do you feel Barry?

[Bill_Urick]

Hallams wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 22:54

Bill_Urick wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 12:40 Chris, are you being mean to me? Never...just trying to be a funny bugger...but i see now how it might have looked a bit mean so i swaped the pics around..... I feel better now.....how do you feel Barry?

All good mate.
I know what it's like to have one's humor misunderstood.
(and it's OK if you're mean to Barry)

[Hallams]

Bill_Urick wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 13:02

Hallams wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 22:54 Bill_Urick wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 12:40 Chris, are you being mean to me? Never...just trying to be a funny bugger...but i see now how it might have looked a bit mean so i swaped the pics around..... I feel better now.....how do you feel Barry? All good mate. I know what it's like to have one's humor misunderstood. (and it's OK if you're mean to Barry)

All good then old mate!

[el duderino]

Daniel Farris wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 19:55

Bill_Urick wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 16:47 As far as I can tell, what they are really about is limiting the size of the federal government and getting a handle on the rampant spending. That's what they say, and I would treat them with so much more respect if I actually believed that to be true. Where were they for eight years while Bush ran up the deficit, put two wars on the credit card, data-mined the entire internet, and passed a giveaway to the insurance companies in the form of Medicare Part D? They're fine with large government and huge spending, as long as we spend it like *they* want it spent... mostly bombing brown people. DF

exactly. but you forgot DHS, the largest expansion of gov't in over 50 years.

i find it hard to believe TARP was what set them off, the national debt was already almost double what it was when bush went into office at that point.

[Barry Hufker]

It's certainly OK to be "mean to Barry".  I'm not offended by anyone here or anything said here.  I believe in an honest and direct exchange of ideas.

My apologies to anyone I've offended.  I did paint with a rather broad stroke in my Pharisees comment, but those who know they aren't in that group shouldn't feel offended.  But that "brush" does paint a lot of the correct people.

Thanks Chris for the invitation.  Still friends Bill.  Sorry Brad.

Barry

[bblackwood]

Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 11:12

My apologies to anyone I've offended.  I did paint with a rather broad stroke in my Pharisees comment, but those who know they aren't in that group shouldn't feel offended.  But that "brush" does paint a lot of the correct people.

I still think it's incorrect if you're basing that judgment on whether or not Christians want the government taking care of the needy.

I don't necessarily agree with a lot of what I've read by Kuyper, but I think this is completely true: "The holy art of ‘giving for Jesus’ sake’ ought to be much more strongly developed among us Christians. Never forget that all state relief for the poor is a blot on the honor of your Savior."

God doesn't need for us to address the needs of the poor, but he asks us to - why is that? Do you think having the state address these needs falls under the 'why' God has required us as Christians to do so?

Some (many?) Christians don't want tax dollars spend on welfare programs because they are greedy and/or judgmental, plain and simple, but there are some (many) who feel that the government is undermining the Christian's ability to serve.

Of course, it goes without saying that if Christians in the US were pulling their collective weight, there would be little need for government interference.

But that doesn't mean that all (or even most) Christians who don't want the government handing out relief are following the law but missing the spirit behind it...

[Barry Hufker]

"Of course, it goes without saying that if Christians in the US were pulling their collective weight, there would be little need for government interference."

This is the only statement I'll agree with.

Barry

[Berolzheimer]

bblackwood wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 09:53

there are some (many) who feel that the government is undermining the Christian's ability to serve.

Um....yeah.....right.


So what, they're saying that having the government help the needy is somehow preventing them from helping the needy, so what, the government is preventing them from getting into heaven or something?
I don't quite get this, Brad.  Can you elaborate?

[bblackwood]

Berolzheimer wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 14:34

bblackwood wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 09:53  there are some (many) who feel that the government is undermining the Christian's ability to serve. Um....yeah.....right. So what, they're saying that having the government help the needy is somehow preventing them from helping the needy, so what, the government is preventing them from getting into heaven or something? I don't quite get this, Brad.  Can you elaborate?

Be happy to.

Many (I'm just going to use general terms here as percentages would just be argued) Christians believe that God is all-powerful, that He can address anyone's need as He sees fit. In other words, God doesn't demand that we help the needy because He needs our help, but rather for another purpose (most folks I know believe it's for His glorification and we make the effort to let the people we're helping know that we're doing it for His glory).

Our government, by necessity, imo, strips religion from helping those in need. This is how it should be in the US, the only way to have true freedom, but it means that reliance upon the government to help the needy essentially removes God from the picture, which the the entire reason we're called to serve in the first place (again, these are the beliefs of most people I know and have discussed this with, I in no way speak for all Christians). For many of us, this means that we feel urged to find other ways to serve the needy (which is, by anyone's measure, a good thing).

At the end of the day, there are many who feel that if you took the inefficiency of government out to the picture, more needy people would be relieved, and through the personal relationships that inevitably develop between those in need and those willing to help, lives would be improved. As it stands now, many Christians live at the rails financially and therefore are unable to reach out and help as many folks directly.

My statement above - that we have failed as Christians to relive the plight of the poor - is absolutely true. Some do more than others but collectively we tend to ignore the needy. It's sad, but reliance on the government to do the work we should be doing with our own hands isn't the answer for some of us...

Clear as mud?

[Barry Hufker]

A clear rationalization...

Barry

[bblackwood]

Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 15:41

A clear rationalization... Barry

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the subject if you're willing to participate in an adult discussion, but that will require more than dismissive posts.

[Barry Hufker]

Brad,

Mine is not a dismissive comment.  It is a succinct one.  And there is nothing childish about it so please save your vitriol. But as you asked for a fuller explanation...

In my view, the philosophy you state is more convenient than it is Christian.  Giving has very little to do with money and everything to do with the heart.  In no particular order then...
Jesus said, "Give to Caesar the things which are his".  This can be interpreted in this day as "give to the government (an institution ordained by God) what it lawfully requires". This means pay taxes whether one is happy about it or not.  This means serve in the military when required (or use the lawful option of being a conscientious objector).  The point is, that giving to the government so it can provide services and goods to the poor does not deny God.  It is obeying a God-given commandment so God is honored by the giving and the resultant good that comes from feeding and sheltering the poor.  He is also glorified when government money is used for healthcare and any other service which benefits people.

The second saying is "God loves a cheerful giver".  This means one gives of one's necessity and not one's bounty.  Giving of one's excess means little to God because it cost the giver nothing.  So if one gives of one's necessity (what the giver depends upon for basic living) then one has truly given and God is glorified.  So to say Christians would give more if the government didn't "take so much" or "do so much" is an outrage.  One is still required to give from one's heart of what one has not what one would have if the government wasn't "so evil".

Third, there is more to give than money.  In fact, money is the lowliest form of giving.  One gives one's time, talent, energy, ideas, love, etc. as the best kinds of giving.  Money is the lowest form.  So to say Christians would give more if the government didn't take so much is bullshit.  The government is not taking anything from the list I just outlined.  If Christians gave those things the world would be a better place.

Lastly, people who despise the government and use it as a scapegoat for their lack of Christian love should be glad as they have a means to feel good about themselves without having to actually do anything but blame the government as to why they aren't better people.

Barry

[bblackwood]

Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:28

Brad, Mine is not a dismissive comment.  It is a succinct one.  And there is nothing childish about it so please save your vitriol.

No vitriol here, Barry. I suspect you know me better than that by now. I read your comment as dismissive, as I suspect many would.

It does seem, however, that we have different philosophies regarding what we're instructed in the Word and why...

Quote:

In my view, the philosophy you state is more convenient than it is Christian.  Giving has very little to do with money and everything to do with the heart.

No one said it is about money, but that is the subject at hand.

Quote:

In no particular order then... Jesus said, "Give to Caesar the things which are his".  This can be interpreted in this day as "give to the government (an institution ordained by God) what it lawfully requires". This means pay taxes whether one is happy about it or not.  This means serve in the military when required (or use the lawful option of being a conscientious objector).  The point is, that giving to the government so it can provide services and goods to the poor does not deny God.  It is obeying a God-given commandment so God is honored by the giving and the resultant good that comes from feeding and sheltering the poor.  He is also glorified when government money is used for healthcare and any other service which benefits people.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree here - only the function of meeting the needs follows God's will for the needy - the actions that lead to it and the benefits which stem from them are absent.

Again, if it were as simple as God wanting their needs met, he wouldn't ask us to do it. God wants us to have relationships to strengthen each other, this is simply a part of that.

Quote:

The second saying is "God loves a cheerful giver".  This means one gives of one's necessity and not one's bounty.  Giving of one's excess means little to God because it cost the giver nothing.  So if one gives of one's necessity (what the giver depends upon for basic living) then one has truly given and God is glorified.  So to say Christians would give more if the government didn't "take so much" or "do so much" is an outrage.  One is still required to give from one's heart of what one has not what one would have if the government wasn't "so evil".

The giver may indeed feel some of the benefits of doing His will, but without being able to interface and interact with those receiving the gifts, it's single-ended at best. I mean, do you feel the same joy in your heart by writing a check to the IRS as you do actually meeting and helping those in need?

See below regarding giving vs income. It happens, it's real, look it up.

Quote:

Third, there is more to give than money.  In fact, money is the lowliest form of giving.  One gives one's time, talent, energy, ideas, love, etc. as the best kinds of giving.  Money is the lowest form.  So to say Christians would give more if the government didn't take so much is bullshit.  The government is not taking anything from the list I just outlined.  If Christians gave those things the world would be a better place.

I agree, as I've stated several times, that we as Christians have collectively failed wrt the calling to take care of the needy. Can you explain then why charitable donations drop so severely when money is tight (like right now) or rise so significantly when the economy is doing well? The reality is people do give monetarily as they have on hand and money goes a lot further wrt to taking care of people's needs than most anything else.

Again, if it is as simple as needs being met, God doesn't need us. Giving (of anything) to those in need is about glorifying God through the relationships that are formed.

Quote:

Lastly, people who despise the government and use it as a scapegoat for their lack of Christian love should be glad as they have a means to feel good about themselves without having to actually do anything but blame the government as to why they aren't better people.

I agree completely.