I think I might be changing my mind about something

I wouldn't called his attitude unChristian because there are many Christians with Pastor Larry's attitude. I would call it very un-Christ-like because of Jesus' care and concern for the poor. Jesus did not dismiss and label all poor folks as lazy. I'm sure there were lazy poor folks back in his day. Hence the proverb about letting the lazy go hungry.

[sarcasm]He really shouldn't have given them all that free bread and fish though. Handouts just makes folks lazy and unappreciative of the value of hard work and feel like they are entitled to it. Or at least give it only to those who hold a decent job, contributing to society and still had time to follow Jesus around the countryside.[/sarcasm]

[ September 29, 2005, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Gold Dragon ]

 

Larry said: "Since when is pointing out what a passage says "terrible talk"? I don't get that. I didn't say anything negative. I merely pointed out what the passage is talking about. Wouldn't you expect that from a pastor?"

I say: No you didn't. You said something that was not even in Scripture. I know for a fact...because I would NOT have told you you said something terrible if it WAS Scripture. Now...when you talk about the passage that says "those who don't work don't eat"...the context is people IN the CHURCH who CLAIM to be Christians. It says absolutely NOTHING about unsaved people out in the world who are UNABLE to work DOES it?!

Larry said: "God explicitly says that people who don't work are not entitled to food, and by extension, to those "necessities" of life. I don't find housing to be a right anywhere."

I say: So God doesn't care about widows and orphans or the disabled, people who can't work? You explicitly said that God said if people don't work, they aren't entitled to food. Would you make a six week old baby work? Ridiculous question I know but I'm just following your "logic".

Housing is a right for any citizen of a country that is required to pay taxes and is subject to the laws of the nation. Noone says it has to be a mansion. It can be a room in a homeless shelter. Or are you against that?

I hope that one day you aren't in the situation where you can't work and have noone to help you. And please don't say you have insurance to take care of that because some people believe insurance is not for Christians. Besides, you would be benefiting off of other people's money as well. That is the way insurance works. Kind of like gambling but that's a whole other post...

 

What did I say that was unChristian? Be careful to use Scripture when you answer. Your opinion doesn't count.

What was inaccurate in what I said? Again, please compare what I said to the truth, not to your opinion.

Okay, fine. Did I address this situation? No, I specifically did not address this situation. In fact, I reworded my comment several times to speak of never married mothers.

Did he go to night school? Did he get a GED? And what percentage of high school dropouts fit this category?

And?? Are immigrants exempt from the biblical responsibilities?

Those are the things of existence. They are not extras.

I never said we shouldn't take care of them, did I? Can you please point to any place where I said anything of the sort?

Christ is the one who said that if you don't work, you shouldn't eat. If you don't like it, talk to him.

IN short, your post doesn't really address what I said. So we should consider it irrelevant to my comments.

 

"There are very few reasons why anyone supporting a family has to work for minimum wage. Many of these minimum wage workers are high school dropouts, people who have had 3 or 4 jobs in a year because they won't keep one, people who are high school students. They are people who don't know how to talk properly. They don't know how to dress respectably. They are minimum wage workers for a reason"

Talk about drastically uninformed. You sound rather foolish Larry. Would you say this to the people being laid off in the factories in my city that do have an education, that do know how to talk, and that do want to work? One big reason that many people are losing jobs or aren't able to find sufficient employment to survive is because "capitalistic" businesses only care about the bottom line and these days they are laying off, firing, or downright outsourcing to other countries. You need to learn what the world is like today Larry...

 

You are right Larry...we should HELP them. I think that is ALL that we have been saying.

And...

Since nobody ever addresses my question, I'm hoping you might since you are a pastor. Why did Joseph gather enough food for his people to last through a seven year famine?
*this is about the 20th time I've asked this in the last few months*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never saw that question. Not sure what it has to do with this topic. The answer is so that people would survive. Not sure why that is confusing, or what the point of it is.

If you don't know...then you ain't the guy to ask. It is quite clear...and confusing as to why it isn't clear to you.

So people would survive huh? The defense rests your honour.

 

I will ask you what I asked TS. What was unChristian or un Christliek about what I said. Please be specific with what I said, and use Scripture to back it up. Your opinion doesn't count.

And I did? Please show us where.

Which is the principle I addressed? Do you believe Christ or not? I simply said what he said.

Good thing you put the sarcasm deal in there ... becuse this is totally irrelevant to anythign I said.

You guys don't read very well.

 

Larry said: "Why should the government help the never married mom? She should have never had the kids. Why shouldn't she have to accept responsibility for her choices? Why should the government bail someone out who is unwilling to work? That makes no sense to me."

So by asking the question, you are implying that the government should help someone...just not the never married? This is getting more interesting...

So...since when does the government base help on the "moral choices" of those they are helping? Help is based on need..not moral choices..and you would just as soon let that woman's kid suffer because of her choices than to help? And you are a pastor?

 

[/qb]Like what?

Then show it to us. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you think it is different? I don't. I don't see any indication that it is different.

Of course he does. And so do I. I wasn't talkign about those, and if you read my comments, you should know that.

No you're not. You are not following anythign I said. You know better.

Really? Based on what?

Me too ... But in my 22 years of working life, I have never been unable to find a job.

I don't.

So?

 

I have never said the government should never help. If you would hvae read, you would know that. Your unwillingness to read what I actually said has now resulted in 3 or 4 off topic posts, accusing me of something I never said.

They don't, but they should. When you help someone who constantly makes wrong choices, you are encouraging them to make wrong choices. Choices should have consequences. That is biblical.

Never said that, and you should know it. Are you seeing a pattern here? You are saying stuff I never said.

Yes, of course.

Now, go spend some time reading and thinking, and then issue your apology for misreading what I said and misrepresenting it.

 

Foolish and off topic posts? That's your opinion. So...because these people are being laid off or losing their jobs permanently they don't want to work? And I'm foolish? I know about economics.

I don't have to prove you wrong. You have to prove that you are right. I am playing the role of the defense. You prove...I counter. Oh...and your opinion doesn't count either. Like the opinion you stated here: "Do you think it is different? I don't. I don't see any indication that it is different." I do see an indication that it is different. You are against helping people in need (say, the nevermarried...cuz I know you'll ask for proof) and I say that verse is ONLY talking about people IN the church who CLAIM to be Christians. The book is written to Christians, is it not?

By the way...don't talk down to me Sir. It's unbecoming of a pastor and I will not listen to anything you have to say if you persist.

 

Apology? When you apologize to all the people in the world that don't have a job and can't work for calling them lazy. Oh...and I know how to read. I know exactly what you said.
I know that you said we should help them. But the rest of what you say contradicts that. You even said "why should the government help the never married woman with kids"? Didn't you? Now...you can apologize to me for slandering me and accusing me of not knowing how to read and saying foolish things. Basically, you are just angry because you can't handle the way I deal with debating. And that's fine with me. <---that is my opinion and I am sticking with it. Cheers.

 

The question is What is the best kind of help to give.

That's certainly personal, but not helpful. How does Joseph setting aside good in a time of famine apply to people who won't work for a living?

Then the judge will throw the case out for lack of relevancy.

 

Of course it's RELEVANT! I'm not stupid! We're both talking about something the government does to help people survive. If it's fine for Joseph,it's fine for governments today. Ever heard of "precedent"? What do you MEAN it's not relevant???

 

Again, you are making stuff up. I never said someone who was laid off or losing their job didn't want to work. It is foolish for you to say that I did say that, or to imply that I did.

THe facts prove me right. I have made no categorical statement about "all" of anything. But the truth is that many people are lazy and they make bad choices. Do you disagree with that? If you don't, then you have no beef with anything I have said on that topic.

No I am not. You are making stuff up again.

Yes, but the principle seems broader than that, and when coupled with the statements of other biblical passages such are Proverbs, it is pretty clearly not limited to simply Christians.

I haven't talked down to you. I have pointed out errors in your representation of what I said. You were wrong to do that, and you should not have done it.

Where did I say anythign about anyone who "can't" work?

Yes I did. It was a question. Did you answer it? Or did you assume you knew my answer?

I don't think I accused you of not knowing how to read did I? Can you show me a place where I accused you of not knowing how to read? If not, then please apologize. As for making foolish statements, you did. You said things that I didn't say.

I am not mad. I do however have a problem with unethical debating tactics, like misrepresenting what people say. You are guilty of that.

But that does not absolve you of you responsibility to be honest and ethical with other people's words, and to apologize when you are wrong.

Why don't you back out of this and start over. Please read what I actually said, and interact with that. Don't read your own ideas into it, or pretend that I said more than I said.

 

Joseph was in teh OT, under a completely different kind of government. He was not governed by a constitution such as ours. Secondly, the government had, for seven years, collected from the people for the express purpose of giving it back during the famine. I have no problem with that. That is what unemployment insurance is for. That is what disability is for. So I completely agree with that principle. Thanks for explaining what you were talking about.

 

You are welcome. I am glad you understand what I am talking about.

As for all your questions...I am not going to argue anymore. However, if I am wrong on everything I said...maybe I didn't understand what you were talking about.

As for my unethical debating tactics...I asked (and admitted I did)...some ridiculous questions but I only asked them based on what you DID say. If that's unethical then maybe the government can teach me some ethics eh? Besides, I hope to go to law school some day. I know I have a long way to go...but I believe I'm off to a good start. That said, I do apologize. Please understand nothing was personal. I did go too far though and I will try to work on that.

 

"Please read what I actually said, and interact with that. Don't read your own ideas into it, or pretend that I said more than I said."

I hope people will start doing this with me then, instead of using unethical tactics as well.

 

I will ask you what I asked TS. What was unChristian or un Christliek about what I said. Please be specific with what I said, and use Scripture to back it up. Your opinion doesn't count.</font>[/QUOTE]I think one of the primary reasons some Christians seem to be able to rationalize those positions regarding the poor and government financing of the poor is the convenient distancing of the government at certain times. When it comes to things that benefit others or negatively impacts ourselves, like the use of finances to help the poor, the government doesn't represent as and is some nebulous other entity that shouldn't do those things. Yet when it comes to things that could negatively impact others and benefit ourselves, the government must be our representative and do what we want.

All that to say that in the democratically elected systems that we have, our governments represents us and our attitude towards how the government should treat the poor is reflective of our attitudes towards how we should treat the poor. Hence as Christians, we should want our governments to treat the poor the way Christ would treat the poor. The government doesn't always do that because others are not Christians and the practical realities of human nature like laziness as you are so keen to point out. However, I believe the attitude we want our elected representatives to treat the poor is reflective of our attitudes towards them.

And I consider your belief that the government should have no compassion on the poor unless they meet your standards of work ethic and morality to be un-Christ-like.

 

I agree with whoever said it is "un-Christ-like".

Larry - This quote is attributed to you.

"God explicitly says that people who don't work are not entitled to food, and by extension, to those "necessities" of life. I don't find housing to be a right anywhere."


As to the rest:

Christ said that the greatest commandment was to Love the Lord God first - and that the second was to love your neighbor as yourself. He taught that your neighbor was anyone in need. (Good Samaritan).

Your entire passage sounded like, "They don't deserve help," and that contradicts Christ Himself.

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 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. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

 

And I did? Please show us where.</font>[/QUOTE]No, you didn't label all of them as lazy, just almost all of them such that the rest were not worth being concerned about.

Which is the principle I addressed? Do you believe Christ or not? I simply said what he said.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes. I am agreeing with you here.

But I made this statement as a pre-emptive strike to those who use the argument that the poor in Jesus' time are different from the poor in our time, implying that folks who were poor in Jesus' time were not lazy.