Jun 28, 2011 -- 4:34PM, watcher59 wrote:

Matthew 25: 31-46 is a *warning*?  Hmmm, when I warn my children about something it is because I expect them to do something that I want them to do, and the warning is what will happen if they choose not to obey me, just like Jesus expects us to care for the *least of them*.  I do not know about you, but it is important to me to try to do as Jesus asks - not because I am afraid of hell, but because, as a Christian, Jesus is who I want to follow, and following Jesus means to me to try my best to live my life as He lived His.

Exactly. There are consequences for our choices. But they are still our choices. Jesus never stood in the pay line taking a portion of anyone's money before the person entitled to said money could get what he chose to let them keep.

 

Do you not consider the Preamble to be a part of the constitution?  The courts do - as evidenced in Ellis vs City of Grand Rapids, which dealt with eminent domain, and the question of whether a Catholic Hospital is a public use.  The court cited the Preamble's reference to "promote the general Welfare"  " as evidence that "[t]he health of the people was in the minds of our forefathers" mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.....

I do consider the Preamble as part of the Constitution. I don't get your point. Are you saying government is the supreme authority?

 

Gosh, I am really sorry.  I forget sometimes that not all who post here claim Christianity.  You are correct, you have every right to not follow Him. I guess I am too used to discussing things like this with those who strongly claim Christianity and yet seem not to follow Christ.

No, my point about the preamble is in response to your statement of "There are certain services the government provides that they are authorized to administer. I have no objection to paying for those. I have strong objections to being forced to fund programs and services I think are invalid or immoral."  I was pointing out that there is constitutional authority for helping others.  So I guess they fall under your *immoral* clause, and that I can not argue with cause our values are so different. I do not think that the Government is the supreme authority - I think I have already established that Christ is my supreme authority. So am thinking we need to agree to disagree.

Justme

Jun 28, 2011 -- 10:02AM, watcher59 wrote:

My aplogies for taking so long to respond.

Charity, when compelled by government, is no longer charity, it is socialism. I can't find anything in Jesus' teachings that said charity should be mandated. What did I miss? 

Apparently you missed Matthew 25: 31-46, which is also frequently referred to as the *Final Judgment*.  Sure sounds like a mandate from Jesus to me.

I disagree. It's a warning. There is consequence for not being a part of humanity. Selfishness comes with a price. Jesus never REQUIRED anyone to do anything. In Matthew 19:16-24. Jesus tells the rich man if he wants to be perfect he must give everything he has to the poor and follow Jesus. The man's free-will is not compromised. The choice remains his.  Jesus didn't put his hand in the man's pocket (well, purse). Government forces employers to be thieves. They "withhold" (steal) a part of MY pay to support social programs which may or may not be in line with my morals and conscience.

 A second thought on the topic; Since when has any government EVER done the right thing? Socialism is nothing more than government enforced poverty. It's "do-gooders" mostly wanting to feel good about themselves. Socialism represses productivity and creates a much larger class divide than free market capitalism. Only when government gets involved does capitalism fail.

Obviously I do not agree with that.  I have known too many people who have used the helping hand that the Government provided to go to college and lift them selves out of poverty.

That helping hand is available from sources other than the government. I say that with confidence because I have been the recipient of other's generosity. However, the generosity was there own.

My last thought; How would you feel about me telling you how best to spend your money?

Oh, like you are now?  You are telling me how best to spend my money.  I want my taxes to go for those things that assist people to meet their basic needs.  Neither I nor my Church can effectively meet those needs, which is why I feel the Government should *provide for the general welfare* of our citizens.  And you are wanting my taxes to go toward, what - more warfare,  tax breaks for the wealthiest?

Justme 

You misunderstand my point. I am not saying you can't give your money to the government. It's your money. You can do whatever you want with it. However, in acknowledging your autonomy in these matters, I expect the same in return. There are certain services the government provides that they are authorized to administer. I have no objection to paying for those. I have strong objections to being forced to fund programs and services I think are invalid or immoral.

Matthew 25: 31-46 is a *warning*?  Hmmm, when I warn my children about something it is because I expect them to do something that I want them to do, and the warning is what will happen if they choose not to obey me, just like Jesus expects us to care for the *least of them*.  I do not know about you, but it is important to me to try to do as Jesus asks - not because I am afraid of hell, but because, as a Christian, Jesus is who I want to follow, and following Jesus means to me to try my best to live my life as He lived His.

Do you not consider the Preamble to be a part of the constitution?  The courts do - as evidenced in Ellis vs City of Grand Rapids, which dealt with eminent domain, and the question of whether a Catholic Hospital is a public use.  The court cited the Preamble's reference to "promote the general Welfare"  " as evidence that "[t]he health of the people was in the minds of our forefathers" mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.....

Justme 

watcher59 wrote:

"A second thought on the topic; Since when has any government EVER done the right thing? Socialism is nothing more than government enforced poverty. It's "do-gooders" mostly wanting to feel good about themselves. Socialism represses productivity and creates a much larger class divide than free market capitalism. Only when government gets involved does capitalism fail."

The Canadian experience with social democracy puts the lie to that. A number of other nations have similar experience.  Several years ago a Canadian TV network initiated a vote for the greatest Canadian hero. About 10 were nominated and a TV special was done on each one. The final result was conclusive. The winner was Tommy Douglas, a firey Baptist preacher who entered politics, rose to be premier of Saskatchewan, and to lead a national party. He had no problem in reconciling his strong Christian values with democratic socialism. He is remembered as "the Father of Canadian Medicare".

A democratically elected government operated charity is really no different than a democratically elected government operated war. If the first is unjust then the second must be an abomination.

Charity, when compelled by government, is no longer charity, it is socialism. I can't find anything in Jesus' teachings that said charity should be mandated. What did I miss?

A second thought on the topic; Since when has any government EVER done the right thing? Socialism is nothing more than government enforced poverty. It's "do-gooders" mostly wanting to feel good about themselves. Socialism represses productivity and creates a much larger class divide than free market capitalism. Only when government gets involved does capitalism fail.

My last thought; How would you feel about me telling you how best to spend your money?

I did a bit of a double take when I saw the title of this thread - the merging of three words that I usually do not think go together.  But now I see, and am impressed.  Did you read through the Bible marking all the verses dealing with sexual morality and then all the verses dealing with social justice, or is there a tool that I am unaware of that does that for you?  Doesn't matter, cause I agree with you wholeheartedly.

I was never confronted with the sexual morality issue thing (but then I consider social justice to be a moral issue in and of itself).  During the health care reform debates, I often quoted Matthew 25:31-46 (about doing for the least of these), and was told that that meant we were to personally do these things for others, not government.  I would reply that I personally pay taxes so that those less fortunate than I, can have basic necessities, because obviously, I, alone, or anyone else alone, cannot serve as many people people as the government can by using taxes from everyone - and that is why I am a liberal.  Then I get told that I am a socialist, so, so be it. 

Justme