• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Let's just talk about sin then........

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Martin Jr. said:
It seems to me the liberal response to the Lord is: " But, Lord, we pay our taxes, it is the governments job to take care of these people."
When you have a government "of the people, for the people, and by the people" then when government gets involved, it is the people getting involved. And by using the government to provide the help to those most needing it, hopefully we can make that help as universal as possible so fewer people either abuse the system or fall through the cracks.

A good example of private vs public assistance would be university scholarships. An FHA scholarship would help those who are members of FHA. And this is a good thing. But that help is not available to an inner city kid. A football scholarship is a good thing. But not if you don't play football. But a Pell Grant provides an educational opportunity to all in need, regardless of interest or athletic talent. And some things are basic, human needs that we, the people, should try to meet, just as the verse quoted says. We have the ability to feed the world. As Christians we should not see a single child, man or woman go to bed hungry. We have the ability to get decent health care to all citizens. We have the ability to provide education to all. We have the ability to meet the basic needs of all. To not do this is probably the most graphic condemnation of todays churches available. When I see "Christians" attempt to limit service to a few (the way Bush did last week on the funding of children's medical care) is proof of a failure in the most basic "fruits of Christian life" and provides irrefutable evidence that Bush is a Christian in Name Only.....the spirit of Jesus does not reside in him.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
Martin Jr. said:
It seems to me the liberal response to the Lord is: " But, Lord, we pay our taxes, it is the governments job to take care of these people."
When you have a government "of the people, for the people, and by the people" then when government gets involved, it is the people getting involved. And by using the government to provide the help to those most needing it, hopefully we can make that help as universal as possible so fewer people either abuse the system or fall through the cracks.

A good example of private vs public assistance would be university scholarships. An FHA scholarship would help those who are members of FHA. And this is a good thing. But that help is not available to an inner city kid. A football scholarship is a good thing. But not if you don't play football. But a Pell Grant provides an educational opportunity to all in need, regardless of interest or athletic talent. And some things are basic, human needs that we, the people, should try to meet, just as the verse quoted says. We have the ability to feed the world. As Christians we should not see a single child, man or woman go to bed hungry. We have the ability to get decent health care to all citizens. We have the ability to provide education to all. We have the ability to meet the basic needs of all. To not do this is probably the most graphic condemnation of todays churches available. When I see "Christians" attempt to limit service to a few (the way Bush did last week on the funding of children's medical care) is proof of a failure in the most basic "fruits of Christian life" and provides irrefutable evidence that Bush is a Christian in Name Only.....the spirit of Jesus does not reside in him.

When does personal responsibility come into play? We have a system that is designed to help the most needy! Liberals want a system that helps those that could and don't help themself.

Welfare takes care of those most needy ones. Problem is people want free medical and satellite TV, Internet, nice cars etc...... In life we have to make choices.

Like I said once before I did not have medical insurance. I was young and took the gamble being self employed. I lost the gamble and had to pay for a couple surgeries out of pocket. But at the same time I did not have medical insurance I had cable TV, boat, motorcycles and sports car. I could have not had those things and had medical insurance, but being young and stupid I rolled the dice and lost. It is not the Government's fault that I did not have insurance it was mine.

People have to work for what they want in life rather it is material possessions or better health. There is no constitutional promise of good health. If we want that we should eat smart, exercise and pay for insurance or get a job that has it provided for us. Let the Government do its job of protecting our dollar and securing its citizens safety and providing infrastructure.

Personal responsibility is a word you Liberals wipe from your dictionary!
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
When does personal responsibility come into play?
From the beginning?

aplusmnt said:
We have a system that is designed to help the most needy! Liberals want a system that helps those that could and don't help themself.
aplusmnt said:
e="aplusmnt"] Personal responsibility is a word you Liberals wipe from your dictionary!
Pretty broad statement. Considering how wrong it is. At this point in time I would wager there are more personally responsible liberals in this world than there are neocons. I believe it is the neocons who need to tilt the playing field so they feel they have a fair chance. They want poor kids to remain sick. They want poor people to remain uneducated. They want poor people to remain tenants. They want poor people to drive cars that get 5 mpg. I know this because every time a program comes along designed to assist these people and make them productive citizens, it is the neocon who begins whining.
 

Martin Jr.

Well-known member
It is no secret that conservitives give more to charity than the liberals.
The rich give to other organations like Sierra club, funds to save the whales, polar bears, spotte owl, etc. but not to the poor.

Between the conservatives and religious organizations there is probably more give to help the poor than the government gives.

I saw a book review a while back (I can't find it now) that gives a lot os suprising information on charity.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
At this point in time I would wager there are more personally responsible liberals in this world than there are neocons. I believe it is the neocons who need to tilt the playing field so they feel they have a fair chance. They want poor kids to remain sick. They want poor people to remain uneducated. They want poor people to remain tenants. They want poor people to drive cars that get 5 mpg. I know this because every time a program comes along designed to assist these people and make them productive citizens, it is the neocon who begins whining.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

How wrong could you be! Liberal are the ones that wan to keep these people down. If the poor and sick get up in life then they will loose their voting base.

Liberals want to give things to get people to vote, not help people. Just like Hillary wanting to give 5,000 dollars for newborns, or a $1,000 for a 401k plan for everyone. Socialist rely survive on playing to the selfish inherited desire of mankind.

Look at the Afro American race, years ago after the Civil war the Afro family were probably one of the strongest tight group of families there were. They had to stick together to survive in tough times. They were hard workers trying to take advantage of their new freedoms to make something of their lives.........Along came welfare and it destroyed their families.

A socialist society destroys families and countries. When people reap based on Government handouts they quit trying to improve their families.

Problem with Democracy is eventually the people realize they can vote themselves things and become selfish. Socialist play on that weakness of mankind.

If a kid is sick in the U.S. and does not get help, it is no ones fault the but the parents. No hospital will turn away a sick kid. If a parent can not afford to care for kid at worse scenario the kid will become a ward of the court and get the help they need.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Martin Jr. said:
It is no secret that conservitives give more to charity than the liberals.
The rich give to other organations like Sierra club, funds to save the whales, polar bears, spotte owl, etc. but not to the poor.

Between the conservatives and religious organizations there is probably more give to help the poor than the government gives.

I saw a book review a while back (I can't find it now) that gives a lot os suprising information on charity.


I believe 20/20 or 60 minutes had a special proving what you are saying.
 

Latest posts

Top