Why Are So Many Christians So Un-Christian?
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
tekkychick
New member
I like these lines
zappasguitar
Well-known member
An extremely SMALL minority.
If we are going to drug test welfare recipients before they get their Government check, then we need to drug test EVERY SINGLE PERSON who gets a Government check...starting with those up on Capital Hill in DC.
Jesus never once said that the government is the means by which your personal responsibility (the one to feed the poor) can be avoided. That "Christians" attempt to use government as a means to press religion itself is the antithesis of the "Give unto Caesar" lesson that Christ taught. Any attempt to say, "Because we are Christian we force you to give" is itself nonsense when taken in context of Christian teaching.
The Government, not being Christ (or even Christian in itself), needs to work within the more secular understanding of "Just" rather than the less achievable "Perfect" that Christ was supposed to have obtained. And Christians would need to understand that this is not the means by which they are helping the poor, to do what Christ taught they need to go out and help personally, not assume that giving other people's money is enough.
In order to view the aid as "Just" a simple assurance that they are not using the means that "we" borrow from China to give them (and must at some point pay back through the simple means of taking money from others to pay what we owe) as a means to buy and use drugs isn't too far of a reach. People want to help people, but they want to help those who actually need the help, they don't want to be the forced enablers of addicts, those people need different help than our money given to them.
The Government, not being Christ (or even Christian in itself), needs to work within the more secular understanding of "Just" rather than the less achievable "Perfect" that Christ was supposed to have obtained. And Christians would need to understand that this is not the means by which they are helping the poor, to do what Christ taught they need to go out and help personally, not assume that giving other people's money is enough.
In order to view the aid as "Just" a simple assurance that they are not using the means that "we" borrow from China to give them (and must at some point pay back through the simple means of taking money from others to pay what we owe) as a means to buy and use drugs isn't too far of a reach. People want to help people, but they want to help those who actually need the help, they don't want to be the forced enablers of addicts, those people need different help than our money given to them.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
the funny thing is, you said that thinking we wouldn't believe it to be an excellent idea......
Anti-Party
Tea Is The New Kool-Aid
Thessalonians 3:10
King James Version (KJV)
10 "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."
It's important to separate the Sloth from the needy and this has been a problem of all parties.
Anti-Party
Tea Is The New Kool-Aid
To my knowledge of the subject...It was tested before and it cost X amount of dollars and it cost more than it saved. I think in Florida. I was bored enough to educate myself on the topic so here it is.
Marijuana, is the least threatening drug yet stays in the system the longest.
So when hard drugs leave the body fast, Marijuana stays in your body for a very long time. Some sources say up to a month. All sources are different but here is 1 source http://www.passyourdrugtest.com/timetable.htm
So the real question is this. Do we want to spend more money on testing than we do to help the needy financially?
It's a deep topic I hope more people are willing to discuss with BRAINS.
Marijuana, is the least threatening drug yet stays in the system the longest.
So when hard drugs leave the body fast, Marijuana stays in your body for a very long time. Some sources say up to a month. All sources are different but here is 1 source http://www.passyourdrugtest.com/timetable.htm
So the real question is this. Do we want to spend more money on testing than we do to help the needy financially?
It's a deep topic I hope more people are willing to discuss with BRAINS.
Steelplate
New member
Then why test? What a waste of taxpayer dollars to test every eligible recipient when so few fail. Just for a Conservative ego trip?
Steelplate
New member
You know Damo..... this "other people's money" meme is getting quite old. If it weren't for the people who WORK for those "other people" you seem so concerned about, those "other people" would be dead broke. Pay employees what they're worth and the gubmint wouldn't be involved except for a regulatory means for safety.
As far as addicts go.... it's been proven time and time again that an extremely small percentage of people fail those drug tests in states where they are required....those tests are expensive and more burdensome to the general public than letting the few that area addicts slip by without testing.
Back to the OP.... Christians.... if they followed Christ word, would not judge the sinner, would not deny aid to the sinner and would try to help the sinner as much as he/she can. Read the parable of Goats and Sheep.... or also known as the "Judgment of Nations" and think about where we sit in God's eye.
You have half of the argument on 'other people's money' dead right. The other half is that the rich have stolen the majority of the people's money already through government enacting laws and regulations that only benefit the rich. Now it's a fight by the people to take some of it back and claim a share in their country. Essentially, this is what health care for all is about.
Americans need to learn how to feel good about taking back some of the money the rich have stolen from them.
Again, Christians wouldn't assume that their duty to others is assuaged by having the government do it. The main assumption is that the government is the means by which Christians should and can express their religion. Christ taught about your personal responsibility, not what responsibility you can force onto others. This argument, specifically, from a leftist is both hypocritical and idiotic.
The Bible has many examples of what Christ would have done for these people... This Christ of yours would have healed them of their addiction and told them to sin no more.
Drivel. Jesus taught in a pre-capitalist society, but the Church he set up had things in common, not a footling pretence of caring.
Utter nonsense, truly. Capitalism was alive and well in Jesus' time (see the money-changers), and the Senate found that voting largesse to the masses lent them support....
The reality is, had Jesus felt government force on others to be the proper application of your personal responsibility he had ample ability and knowledge to do so.
And again, Jesus would have healed them of their addiction and told them to sin no more, there are repeated examples of this throughout the Bible. The Christians, using government as you so desperately want them to, would be more in line with the "heal the problem" track of Jesus if they work to heal the addiction, not simply give them money to spend.
You're first of all forgetting that the poor in your country have to be enabled again in order to lift themselves up. The system has clearly been rigged so that they aren't able anymore.
Your income inequality being the second worst in the world while your country has the highest per capita incomes, tells the sad story. The American way has failed the people and even your jesus couldn't fix that without changing laws and stripping control away from the wealthy.