Christian citizenship and stewardship

Well I dont know if you guys are deliberately dodging the question or not.

But I dont know how else to make it any simpler.

We agree that individuals have a Biblical/Judeo-Christian obligation to the poor.

The question is whether Nations also have the same obligation.

(Maybe it would help if you read the referenced info in the original post)

Any obligation nations have must address ALL of it's citizens, not just the benefit of a select few.

The answer to your question is a resounding NO.

Thank you Aaron for your answer.

It takes courage to give an honest answer sometimes.

Now let's see if any other rightwingers can man-up.

What I think you'll find is that you're alone on this one as most on the left will fill the same way. For those who think the government should assist the poor, it won't be for Judeo-Christian reasons but more for Marixt/Lenist reasons.

Well aaron I think many on the right agree with you but they won't admit.

It would be difficult to admit you believe gvt. should not help hungry children.

Or sick children, etc.

Sherm,

You're forgetting that at least one of the people you call a rightwinger considers your bible along the same lines as Grimm's fairly tales.

Stephanie wrote:Sherm,

You're forgetting that at least one of the people you call a rightwinger considers your bible along the same lines as Grimm's fairly tales.

As does this "leftwinger", Stephanie.

But would you agree that, the fairy tales aside, we can find good lessons about life and living in the Bible? Can you concieve that Jesus the man (not as God) offered good lessons on how people can morally interact, ones with others?

Sure, he was an an alright sort of guy.

I don't think he ever said the government should steal from the middle class (or the wealthy for that matter) to care for people unwilling or unable to care for themselves.

Well Zig and Steph that is fair enough.

So do either/both of you agree that nations have an obligation to the needy (religion aside)?

Or do you agree with the rightwingers that the nation has no obligation to them?

Let them eat cake in other words.

(unless some individual wants to give them a little something)

I believe Americans have little to no faith that the government can succeed in aiding the poor and that is why they give in record numbers every year to charity.

We give twice as much as the next country, donating almost $300 billion, or about a third of the liberal spending bill last year alone. 65% of those donations go to religious organizations which makes sense given that 75% of Americans are Christians.

I do believe we as a predominately Christian nation of people are already meeting the obligation you seek from our government.

Imagine how much more we could do if Uncle Sam would quit robbing us blind to pay for wasteful and fraudulent entitlement programs that are ineffective and do little to aid needy families?

Over the years I have given this much thought.

The government should provide a safety net for people, so yes, I believe there is an obligation there. This is true particularly of people who cannot care for themselves.......children, the profoundly disabled, those with debilitating mental disability the government should assist.

Similarly, the government should provide short term assistance to people facing crisis. Perhaps a couple of years of assistance to help displaced homemakers, victims of natural disasters, crime and disease, that sort of thing. That isn't what's going on in this nation. This country has a significant portion of the general population totally dependent for everything from food to shelter to burial expenses.

I do think if the government is interested in entitlement programs it should come up with ways of paying for them that aren't a burden to productive citizens. One way would be to charge other nations for all those security we provide them.

I most certainly do not think this government should be in the business of sending US taxpayer money over seas to arm other nations, prop up regimes, instigate coups and the like. That would be the first thing to go.

sodbuster wrote:Well I dont know if you guys are deliberately dodging the question or not.

But I dont know how else to make it any simpler.

We agree that individuals have a Biblical/Judeo-Christian obligation to the poor.

The question is whether Nations also have the same obligation.

(Maybe it would help if you read the referenced info in the original post)

Sherm,

Yes or no, should be U.S. be a Christian theocracy?

Unless you are willing to answer the above question, your statements of national obligation to the poor mean nothing to me.

Because you refuse to accept the principle of ruling our country through Christian precepts or not.

If you wish to be a theocrat, then well and good.

Otherwise, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Well aaron I think many on the right agree with you but they won't admit.

It would be difficult to admit you believe gvt. should not help hungry children.

There is no constitutional warrant for it. Why would it be difficult to admit that?

Jesus did not say, "Sell all that you own and pay your taxes." He said, "Sell all that you own and give it to the poor". Have you done that? Joe Biden, who wants to lecture me about paying my taxes (apparently he has a different standard for Cabinet designees) has donated well under $1,000 per year to charity. Let the government govern. Requirements to fulfill your Christian responsibilities are strictly personal. You cannot get into heaven by paying your taxes.

"65% of those donations go to religious organizations"

Yes Aaron thank you for pointing that out.

And do you know what % of Church budgets go to helping the needy?

Also as to the remaining 35% do you know what % of it goes to helping the needy?

Giving to "charity" does not necessarily mean helping the needy.

SheikBen wrote:Because you refuse to accept the principle of ruling our country through Christian precepts or not.

If you wish to be a theocrat, then well and good.

Otherwise, you don't have a leg to stand on.

So now being a "Theocrat" means you think the gvt. should help hungry children?

Sure it does if you seek out a charity and ensure it does.

You're confusing giving to charity and paying taxes Sodbuster, the latter of which you have no say so over where it goes, the former you do.

"There is no constitutional warrant for it. Why would it be difficult to admit that?" <---------------OC

Well thanks OC for another honest answer.

So now let's see if any others will man-up and say the gvt. has no right or obligation to feed hungry children.

Maybe there are more true blue conservatives in this world than I thought.

I think he's calling you a heartless bastard, Jim. lol

I don't want the government feeding my kids.

It's hard to tell where the strings attached will lead.

That's right. Feeding your kids comes at a price.

sodbuster wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Because you refuse to accept the principle of ruling our country through Christian precepts or not.

If you wish to be a theocrat, then well and good.

Otherwise, you don't have a leg to stand on.

So now being a "Theocrat" means you think the gvt. should help hungry children?

No, Sherm, focus!

You are saying that nations should feed the hungry because they have a Biblical obligation.

Saying that a nation should do something because the Bible says so is advocating a theocracy.

That's fine, but it is what you are doing and I'd like you to at least say so.

GEEEEZE, isn't that why State teachers and other state employees and retired employees are always demanding more money, more money, is because they all give up so much of their's to feed the hungry?



.

SheikBen wrote:

sodbuster wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Because you refuse to accept the principle of ruling our country through Christian precepts or not.

If you wish to be a theocrat, then well and good.

Otherwise, you don't have a leg to stand on.

So now being a "Theocrat" means you think the gvt. should help hungry children?

No, Sherm, focus!

You are saying that nations should feed the hungry because they have a Biblical obligation.

Saying that a nation should do something because the Bible says so is advocating a theocracy.

That's fine, but it is what you are doing and I'd like you to at least say so.

SheikBen, how is it "advocating for theocracy" to suggest that we adopt the moral teachings of Jesus as a good man- as long as it is not in the theocratic context of Jesus Christ as God or as God's direct messenger?

Or to put it another way, is it "advocating a theocracy" to advocate for compliance with American laws that are taken in significant part from historic judeo-christian laws?

If you are suggesting that it ceases to become theocracy when the statements of Jesus are taken as no more authoritative than the statements of Ziggy, then you are right.

But surely Sherm would not say THAT, would he??????