Another liberal lie debunked

Perhaps not but like Jim said, "It was intended to serve society's needs which were not being met by the churches or any other service." Why would a Christian want to stand in the way of that? You prefer people get no help at all because the Church didn't do it and God wasn't glorified? I guess that's one way of loving your fellowman. Tough love...

 

You would have to show me where I suggested it was a mandate, what I believe I said is that WE shouldn't be a stumbling block or condemn those who labor to help their fellowman in ways other than biblical. Help is help and I see protesting one being helped because you don't approve of the source of the help is to be against help for your fellowman.

I think Jesus put it best when the disciples saw non-disciples casting out devils in the name of Jesus.

Mk 9:38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

 

I'm amazed! Just how do you suppose that people who had real needs survived before the recent advent of welfare in our country?

 

Many of them not well at all, and many died or lived very miserable lives. You are probably too young to remember when we had poor farms ... this is places where the poor were housed, usually in miserable conditions and will poor food. Before FDR it was the job of the local government to take care of people. Some did pretty good jobs and some did very poor jobs. Remember Tammany Hall? This was the organization, made possible by this system, that basically ran New York City and its made and broke politicians. So there was welfare, but it was a different system.

 

I am further amazed that Christians on this board, who like the welfare system to substitute for the charity of the church, are critical of Christians who are more conservative with the tax dollars, but from which denominational and non-denominational but Christian sponsored charitable missions, helping hands, feed the children, benevolent society, Salvation Army, waterfront missions, etc. sprang up to minister to people who were more reluctant to receive help directly from a church, but churches have been active in keeping their members informed and encouraging both giving and volunteerism to these groups!

LeBuick, when a person criticises others in the body of Christ, they are also critical of the headship of Christ to whom the body and its members are responsible. The Bible teaches that it is not right to criticise another man's servant. So then if we, being the servants of Christ, minister in obediance with our labor, or out of our abundance, to others according to the calling to which Jesus has called us, then why are the members within that body critical of others within the body by choosing to judge them by standards which are set by the world and not by the LORD ship of Christ Jesus?

The judgement to which we are responsible for rendering within the body, concerns those things of false doctrine and judging unrepentant or rebellious sin, which, if tolerated and coddled, brings shame to the testimony of the gospel and destroys the body as yeast working through a dough of meal.

 

I'm sure I must be too young to remember anything!
However, my great grandpa and great grandma were of sound mind to the time of their deaths. Great grandpa was born 1857. I knew him. Though my dad was military, he grew up in the south, in a strong farming economy, and his values were such that family was important, so, with few years of exception, all of my childhood was spent near or in the shadows of extended family members of age, great aunts and uncles and cousins included..... and some fellowship with some aged neighbors of color who had themselves been slaves, or the children of freed slaves, who visited with members of my family because of mutual respect and working together as community through hard times like recovery from the civil war, natural disasters, crop failures, epidemics of flu and polio and small-pox, and depression, and the various wars. I have a book of family genelogy which goes back to 1636..... and it reads like a history book: The picture you paint of yesteryears, is not at all accurate!

People in the community used to help others in the community. If someone's dad was a drunkard and ner do well.... still the folks would have compassion and assist the mother and children with offerings of food, patching of repairs, sharing of clothes or materials for making clothes.

Right now I live on an income which would qualify me for some benefits under a government program, if I wished to live on the standard by which they would allow..... for example: I have a land line..... no cell phone..... but if I had cell phone expenses, I could use that to reduce what's left for utilities, food, medical, and transportation to help me qualify. Do you think I should get a cell phone so that I can get access to your tax dollars to put food on my table ..... when my income will provide nourishing food without a cell phone? How about cable or satellight t.v.? I use rabbit ears and am content with what little I get from that...... but, I would be allowed to reduce my income for cable, which is counted like a necessary utility.... to qualify for government aid: Do you think I should do this? Do you think it is necessary to have a t.v. and cable and all the trash it offers when the free networks can give me the news and weather report and enough trash to puke on? How about transportation? I have a 10 y/o car, 145,000miles on the odometer---give or take a few miles, and do my best to keep it running. Yet, if I wanted, I could upgrade to a new one and reduce my expenses by the payments for transportation in order to qualify for government helps (I live in the country way off track of public transportation)....... but I've been a tax payer too and still am..... do you think it is right for me to take your tax money so that I get some relief which lets me live a lifestyle more in keeping with your ideals or the ideals of some government program, which does not require that I be a steward of my resources or yours? Yet I give to the church..... but not nearly as much as I would like.

My health is not as good as it once was, I have good days and bad, but if someone needs transporting to doctor or shopping or I can fill in by sitting with a neighbor or family member, so another can leave for an appointment or shopping..... then, I do so. Are these things which the government can do? No! Are these and other charitable acts which other Christians do on the radar when people are talking about welfare needs..... no!

And then people who believe governmetn is the answer turn around and are uncharitable and unholy in their judgenment of other Christians, who, like myself, do and give what they can but believe less in making people dependant and reliant on government.

It is sad that there are people who go without the necessities and have needs which are not being met anywhere...... but there are: I've worked with some of them: Some of them used to be institutionalized, where everything was structured and provided for them..... right down to apponted times to shower, to eat, to dress: and what they did not do for themselves was done to and for them..... or, in some cases, their neglect was under supervision so that regular interventions maintained a quantity, if not much quality of life.

But years ago, before all these institutions and then the deinstitutionalization to the community or streets, or the welfare system for those who could live independant of supervision but needed support for their disabilities...... before all that, people used to take care of family members in their homes, regardless of the difficulty and (back then) the lack of medications like major tranquilizers and anti-psychotics. The elderly used to be cared for in their homes by their children or close relatives. It wasn't uncommon for a single or widowed child to take on this responsibility.... and if other siblings were available, some sharing or respite of care was given. When people had no family or none which could help, then people in the community would take notice and give care: I remember in NC, in 1969, an old retarded black man who lived a short country block from the Baptist Church which I attended, was watched over in that predominantly white community. There was the owner of a country store..... the kind that had rocking chairs on the poarch and a pot-belly stove for warmth inside: He fixed up a room for shelter for this old Negro. People would all the time bring him plates of food or, if he complained or showed symptoms of illness, would take him to the pharmacy or the doctor. Back then we had a doctor that would make house calls to the 'shut-ins' and at such times.... others besides the one he came to see might also get an assessment and a script if needed.

Years ago, people didn't have fire or theift insurance: If a house or barn burned down, particularly, if it was a families home...... the people in the community, unburdoned by the need for red-tape and permits or inspections, would pool their resources of labor and skills and supplies and work to provide shelter. If a farmer got sick and unable to harvest his crops.... his neighbors did so on his behalf: Or if it was spring time, they prepared his fields and planted for him.

My SS teacher has mentioned on numerous ocassions how his mother, during the depression, reported that the family had 'nothing' but that they always had enough to share with another who was hungry: People were wandering looking both for food and for shelter during the depression. When strangers wandered by and knocked on their door, they were always given some thing warm, like soup, and bread or a sandwich. When they left, they might make a little mark on the door sill or a side post, which was an alert to others that this was a house of charity and food. Many churches, either formally through organization, or through an outgrowth of Christian fellowship within both the church and the Christians in the community would, with less organization and structure, provide 'helps' for those.....first within the community, and supports for those passing through so that people or families were sheltered from the elements and didn't go hungry.

Direct participation in the process encourages more participation because one also sees the reward of need being satisfied: But when the government does it for us (just like the senario in which I told how I could qualify for benefits or 'entitlements'), it cost more to replace what was voluntary at the community level with paid administration, and then some people who figure out or are assisted with the help of social workers to adjust their incomes to qualify for assistance get the 'entitlements' ....... while others are marginally excluded because they either don't qualify, or don't know how to negotiate the redtape, or don't know how to work the system: And the system gives no credit for the ones who either don't know how to ask for help or would refuse help, even in their need, or who are too independant or who are willing to adjust their lifestyle to live within their means rather that be on the public dole.

CTB, I'm not making this accusation at you, but frankly, I'm tired and fed up with the self-righteous crowd who is placing government action as superior and judgeing fellow Christians because of their political preference for less government expense and more individual involvement and acceptance of responsibility. If it can't be and either/or then why should I be judged as though doing nothing..... when I pay my taxes, and I'm not stopping the entitlement programs.... but believe there is no nation which can afford a bottomless entitlement.... so if you will not influence some restraint, then I must try, because I DO practice what I encourage others to consider.

 

I agree this far, this also goes back to the "religion loosing clout" thread.

You kind of have me here, I don't know if this is directed toward me or Rev Mitchell. If me, can you give an example?

The caveat here is that we should use clear indisputable scriptural facts when addressing both false doctrine and sin.