America 'still conservative at its core'

So feeding the starving isn't protecting life? How do you have such a double standard. Either government protects life or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

Mt 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

 

A few years ago John Stossel did a report on what soup kitchens were doing for the hungry. One gentleman they interviewed mentioned that he never received help until he refused to let them help him. He mentioned how he got fat going to them. So many soup kitchens do not hold the people accountable. They just give them food for no work or accountability.

Have you ever taken the money a church gets in giving and divide it by the number of members or those who attend regularly? It is typically very little.

 

What do you mean, WIC, the food stamp programs, free lunch and breakfast in school, there are many government programs that is the only food some of these children receive. And around here, the government subsidize the soup kitchens and homeless shelters since they never receive enough in donations.

I know this because our Church has the 4th Wed. of the month at the Mission downtown. I work closely with them in other programs also.

 

The point is that those people are not really being helped in a way as they really should be. What they get is free. They are accountable for nothing.

I was involved in a church that began to hold those people accountable and you would be amazed at the number who took the free lunch and did not need it. It was as a good as a free meal. Some of those people had nice cars and good homes. It was a way for them to save money. It was a "free lunch".

When I was a kid I remember well the number of times people asked my dad for food or money. His response was that he would give them work and pay them for their labor. We had a farm and could easily employ those who needed help. Only once did a young man come to the farm to work. He was a good worker and earned what he was paid. He was happy to have the work and money. My parents fed him some nice meals when he was working and he went on his way with gratitude for the help. All of the other times there was not one person willing to work. To this day I feel sorry for nobody because of what I saw happen when I was a kid. Let me assure you that there is work for those who are willing to work.

 

Have you ever taken a look at the dollars in giving in your own church and divided it by the number of people in your church. Inmost churches that is not giving but merely tipping. Have you also taken a look at who gives how much. You would be surprised at who the tippers and givers are.

 

rbell

It's all over the place in the YGBKMV (You've Gotta Be Kidding Me Version).

I don't want to interrupt the flow of this discussion, but this was really funny....I'm going to use this one, rbell, LOLOL! :laugh:

 

I remember early on in my preaching ministry-----I pastored a small rural in north Mississippi---not many "transists" found us because we were off the beaten path of the interstate(I-55)

But two men stopped by the house when I was in

"Sir, we're lookin' for some work we can do!! Anything!! We're out of money and need gas for the drive home!"

I pointed out several large Oak trees in the parsonage yard----and told them I wanted the lower limbs cut at the trunk of the trees and thne cut the limbs in firewood length for my wood burning heater

"How much are you gonna pay??"

"I'll pay you $20.00 each and fill up your truck with fuel!!"(I thought that was a pretty good deal---gasoline at the time was about $1.25/gallon---and I estimated it would have taken about $50.00 to fill up the truck they were riding in----if indeed, it were empty, as they claimed)

Their response was

"Sir, we are professionals at what we do and we think we need more than $20 each!"

They stood there lookin' at me like calves lookin' at a new fence---then turned around---got in their truck and drove off

Nobody wants to work anymore, do they???

 

That is a hard question. Yes, there should be some help. But we have more and more looking to the government for help, for school, food, place to live and take care of their children. Look at how much it cost the government to give a dollar to a person, these government workers get paid well and add the health and welfare on it, it is costly.

I don't have the report today but back in the 80's I read that it cost the governments about eighty dollars or more to get one dollar to a person. From FDR on we have been taking care of the poor and the poor has grown and many a government employee has lived well at work and on their retirement, it is costly!!!

As a child the family took care of it members and then their church helped and then the folks who lived around them helped. That way much more is done out of love than for a dollar at your job. Also when you have to look the person in the eye who is helping you, one seems to try harder.

One should do what ever they are going to do to help others after much prayer and study and then follow the lead of the Holy Spirit, not telling others what they should do, but do what they believe God is leading them to do, them self.

Also many who their parents couldn't take care of them went into an orphan home to be educated and raised. Many of my friends went that way, parents would come and see them on the week end. I've heard Al Janney say that happen to him, and it was the best thing that could have happen to him at that time. There are many ways the government can help better that what is happening today.

 

I agree with you here, government bureaucracy and red tape needs to be reformed before they can properly and efficiently assist the people. In my view it is not that the government workers get paid well, it is the layers upon layers of government workers all being paid well. Like a lot of these large corporations, I think we need to cut some of the top executives in these programs so we can have more of the lower paid citizen facing people making the program work.

I would like to see the unemployed out looking for a job instead of down at the office trying to get their check.

 

That is conserving it, when we interpret it in its original context.

Me either. I am not suggesting that we lack boldness. Again, as in the past, you are completely missing the point. Being radical and being conservative are not opposites. They are not mutually exclusive.

I already referenced several where Jesus condemned people for not conserving the doctrine.

These two things are not necessarily different. That's your mistake.

NO it's not. Earnestly contending for the faith is conservatism. We are trying to conserve the faith that was handed down.

Until you have conserved theology, you do not know how to follow him.

I have not suggested man-made conservative theology. By definition, theological conservatism is not man-made. It is God revealed. Man simply conserves it.

I don't need more information about any of it.

Yes, I showed several.

You have seen no place that I advocated it either.

Your whole posts here treat it as opposites. Go back and read your post and see how many times you say something like "that's radical, not conservative." It is all over.

Because I was pointing out that we have different ideas of being radical.

I do not see any conflict. I merely commented on some differences we have. I didn't attack you in the least. God has not called us all to be the same.

So you call me arrogant? How is that not an attack? I never attacked you to begin with. I merely made a comment about the fact that you and I differ in some areas. There was not attack intended, and none can be legitimately inferred. You seem again way too quick to take offense. Please, in line with Scripture, be slow to take offense. Please do not make the same mistake again.

I think your biggest issue here is that you misunderstand conservatism. Conservatism is simply conserving something. It can be political or theological. I am using it theologically, to speak of conserving the theology that has been handed down. It is a theme all the way through Scripture.

 

Those liars had probably bilked many other gullible people out of their money simply because people felt sorry for them.

A few years ago when I was pastoring in a small town a couple came to my home and asked for help. I had seen them in town just before they knocked on my door. Our interaction was rather funny because they told me they had ridden about 300 miles from a larger city and were on their way home. I took one look at their bicycles and mentioned that if they had ridden 300 miles they would have been dressed differently and their bicycles would have looked like they had been ridden. The I began to tell them that I used to race bicycles and that I also saw them drive into town in a car. I also told them that each pastor in town would receive a call from me warning them about these two. Because we were about 30 miles from the nearest city of any size were often sought out. All of the pastors agreed to work together to help people and that each pastor would be called when one came into town. As pastors we decided whop would be helped. It was a uniteed effort to help but not to give away resources to those who wanted a hand out.

 

This could be true. Our household income is close to yours but my daughter has never eaten one free meal. I never checked to see if she qualifies. I do know there are some who do need these programs so reform, yes, eliminate, no...

 

I think our government offers sloppy help and much of that is due to the social workers who work for the government. They seem to leave so many folks needing help for years or for ever. I can't speak for where you live but down here I keep hearing if the programs help one it is worth it. No it isn't!!!

I think the first place any person should look for help is within their family. The second place is their place of worship. The third place is there neighborhood. Why??? It is from folks one knows and they know the person and much help would come from love for the person. They would know if the person is pulling the wool over their eyes or not.

 

How is self justification not arrogance?

How is elevating yourself above another in the following statements not arrogance?

In Post #10 you wrote, “Perhaps you don't know the Scriptures well, or do not know the Bible well. When Jude writes his epistle, he is writing about conserving the faith once for all handed down to the saints. That is theological conservatism.”
In that post you attempted to elevate yourself by making the claim that perhaps I do not know the Bible well. After taking look at Jude 3, I came to the conclusion that perhaps you do not know your Bible as well as you think you do. In Jude 3 [FONT=&quot]parakalw'n[/FONT] is a present tense participle, [FONT=&quot]ejpagwnivzesqai[/FONT] is a present middle infinitive and [FONT=&quot]paradoqeivsh/[/FONT] is an aorist passive participle. Rather than accusing someone of ignorance by elevating yourself, I might suggest that if you can find something wrong then state that fact. I am more than willing to discuss any differences but when you begin to hurl personal insults of ignorance that is not showing grace. If I am wrong then show me where you disagree and why, rather than hurling insults claiming that I do not know my Bible as though nobody knows it as well as you do.

 

To add a little more. If a person is getting help and find a job at a fast food place or another low paying job, or part time job, don't take away all of their help. If a person is working to better them self, help them but if they aren't, don't.

As long as we have children raising children we will always have a problem with folks not making it. As long as we have folks more into drink and drugs we will always have folks who aren't going to have it as well as others. As long as we have greed from the top or from the worker we are going to have folks who are going to have it hard. We can spend all the money we want and their are some who aren't going to make it because they aren't going to work with in the program, that is why socialism is well like by so many who or young or have not done well in their life.

Keep in mind in this country we have freedom and that freedom allows one to fail as well as succeed.

 

Because they are two different things. Self justification can be arrogant, but it need not be.

If I actually am right, and you are wrong, pointing that out is not arrogant. It is the most loving thing I can do, since I wouldn't imagine you would want to go on being wrong.

Yes, I say "perhaps." I did not make an unequivocal charge. Some of the things you say indicate that you do not know the Bible well with respect to this topic, or are at least confused about the terms used.

I thought you just said it was arrogant to make this kind of statement?

First, if you are going to use Greek, I would encourage either using an Greek font, or using transliteration. Second, this is not in dispute. You are correct in what you say (though there are other verbs you did not parse). But you need to make an argument that shows that Jude was not encouraging his readers to conserve the theology that was handed down to them. Simply stating the parsing of Greek verbs is not an argument.

I didn't elevate myself, but let's face it, none of us are omniscient. There is always someone who knows more than we do. Humility means we should admit that.

Then discuss it. I didn't hurl personal insults (and remember, if I hurled personal insults, you just did the same thing).

There are people who know the Bible far better than you or I, or you and I put together. I have shown you where I disagree and why. You simply chose to read something as a personal attack when it wasn't, and ignore the substance of the discussion.

To reiterate the point, being radical is not opposed to being conservative. Being conservative means we conserve something. Someone can be a political conservative, an ecological conservative, a fiscal conservative, etc. In each case, they are trying to conserve something. Someone can also be a theological conservative, in which case they are trying to conserve theology.

My point (that you have not addressed) is that Jesus condemned those who did not conserve theology (the Pharisees, who rather added to it). Jude told his readers (and us by extension) to conserve theology by earnest contention. Paul told us to conserve theology by defending and propogaging the truth (1 Tim 3:15).

My second point is that being theological conservative has nothign to do with being radical. We can and should be both theological conservatives and radical at the same time. You are trying to make a false dichotomy by saying that the Bible doesn't call us to be conservatives, it calls us to be radical.

Are you saying that we should not conserve the theology of the Bible? I doubt it. I think you simply misunderstand what it means to be a conservative.