I think I might be changing my mind about something

Unfortunately, sin has consequences and sin affects other people. Children do suffer for their parents sin. At some point, under our laws, the government would step in and remove the child for neglect.

 

But Larry, wouldn't that be a contradiction? If the government can't step in to help why should they step in to take the child away? If the government can't help anyone, how can they take care of a neglected child? Can they care for the child any better?

 

I didn't say the government can't help anyone. Please don't make stuff up.

In respect to the specific passage cited (Rom 13), the government is there for the punishment of evil and the reward (protection) of good. In this case, a mother who doesn't take care of her children is an evil doer and it is the government's responsibility to deal with it. They cannot leave a child in danger.

There is no contradiction with what I said.

 

Please stop accusing me of making stuff up. I am going to start posting like you. I will continually say things like "don't make stuff up, I didn't say that". It's a convenient excuse to flee any accountability to what you said.

Newsflash Larry...we are ALL evildoers? Are you saying you are not? There is contradiction with what you said but I am far from being in the mood to debate it with a moderator. That's not allowed ya know? so I will remain silent.

 

You are more than welcome to debate with a moderator. There is nothing in the rules against that. There are rules, however, about your debating tactics. You are having a tough day because your demeanor is catching up. You even admitted that you went too far (p. 4) and were straining at a gnat (p. 5). And you have made stuff up that I didn't say becasue you read into my words more than I said. I was intentionally general in my comments to avoid the very conclusions that you are trying to attach to them. I have been here long enough to know what some people will do to words. So I left them general to avoid that. I will be accountable for what I said (whatever that means). But you will actually have to deal with what I said, not what you think I said, or what you read into it.

When you say that we are all evildoers, you are right, but not in the sense of Romans 13, which the is passage under discussion. The "evildoer" of Romans 13 is a violator of civil law. The government has been established as a ruler, and they are responsible to enforce the laws. When people break them, the government handles it, to punish the evildoer and to protect the one who has not done evil.

There is no contradiction in what I said. There is a contradiction in your own mind because you did not read carefully and did not interact with what I actually said.

 

No...can't debate with a moderator.

How are my debating tactics wrong but it is ok for a certain gentleman to attack me from out of nowhere when I "thought" I was engaged in a civil debate?

As for the government, I agree.

Many people don't read what I say carefully and interact with what I actually said. How am I any worse?

 

Actually, Pastor Larry is right by rule. You cited some anecdotes. However, many "poor" people make an economic calculation... "Is it worth it to work?" and answer "no".

There are jobs available for anyone who is willing to work. There are business opportunities for anyone willing to sacrifice.

The other side is the moral choices made by poor people. The first lady you cited is worthy of pity... but her poor decision making in no way before God or government entitles her to pick the pockets of people who acted responsibly. I didn't get to have 7 kids... Please explain why I am responsible for paying for her bad judgment?

Those are her rights... and I might and probably would extend a hand of charity to someone in that situation. However, she doesn't have a "right" to a living from my labor simply because she had poor judgment.

She has a right to believe what she wants. She does not have a right to demand I pay the consequences when it doesn't work out for her.

What brought these people to these "emergencies"?

I am not disputing that we as Christians should help them directly. I am condemning the idea that they are entitled to part of a working person's income just because they made bad decisions.

Right. He told US. He did not say that we should get government to take money from other people and give it to these people. That act has a name- theft by proxy.

It is not our duty to take one person's property and give it to another for any reason. It is our duty to give of our own.

BTW, the critical argument against welfare isn't this but rather that it gives glory to man and his system rather than God. If no welfare had meant that one more church had rescued and evangelized one more person who escaped hell... it would completely tip the balance of costs and benefits against welfare.

Welfare is a means of stealing the church's opportunity to evangelize those most in need of grace. Poor Americans don't need God... they've got a god... and it sends them a check every week and provides housing.

 

I agree that no one is entitled to welfare. But I hope that as Christians on this board who call Christ Lord, we would be folks who want to help the poor and voluntarily give of our "hard-earned dollars" for the benefit of others.

I also don't like the idea of thinking that our money is "ours". I prefer the idea of stewardship of resources God has given to us over ownership of resources we have earned on our own.

 

Then what are you doing? I am a moderator, and you have been debating with me for about 7 pages now haven't you?

You would be best served to take this up with the appropriate party. I am not involved in that, don't know anything about it, and it would be wrong for me to comment on it. The vast majority of people who participate here have no problems. If you do, perhaps there is something you are doing to create them.

I don't recall saying you were worse, and I wasn't debating with "many people." I was debating with you and a few others.

 

Larry, don't turn this around on me as if I am doing something wrong. I know for a fact that I am not the only person that has a problem with some moderators. And they don't have a problem commenting on anything, so you shouldn't either.

I am debating you. But some people would have a problem with it.

I didn't say you said I was worse. And I didn't say you were debating with many people. Don't read into what I said. that's not nice.

 

I agree that no one is entitled to welfare. But I hope that as Christians on this board who call Christ Lord, we would be folks who want to help the poor and voluntarily give of our "hard-earned dollars" for the benefit of others. </font>[/QUOTE] Absolutely... with two caveats.

1) It must be CHARITY and not an entitlement. IOW's, it must be the act of one person or group of people responsibly delivering aid to another person for the purpose of helping them up.

Gov't entitlements are built on numerous perverse incentives to those involved. All the way from the tax collector to the politician to the social worker to the recipient... they all have a vested interest in the person continuing to draw a check rather than becoming independent.

2) We don't support much less attempt to enforce the notion that the unwilling should be required to pay.

When I say "ours" I am speaking of the relationship between man and government or man and man... not man and God.

God owns all. He is amply demonstrated through scripture and history His ability to redistribute wealth if He so chooses. I am not entirely sure why some people want to play God in that respect.

 

Our tax systems do not allow us to opt-in and opt-out of programs. Part of having an elected government is the submission of some of our individual autonomy for the betterment of the whole.

As I stated in a previous post, I think we should want our elected governments to represent us, even when it comes to benefiting others at our expense. This is something that Christians agree we should do individually, but why does that stop corporately?

I agree that there are inefficiencies and abuses to all welfare systems. The solution is not to eliminate the systems but to eliminate the inefficiencies and abuses. The argument could be made that the system is so bad that it needs to be scrapped and built from scratch. But I don't think it is Christ-like to say that the concern for the poor and less fortunate is none of my elected government's business.

 

Why does my approach to the resources I am to steward differ depending on who it is relating to?

Do we trust Romans that God has given authority to our governments and their wealth redistribution policies?

 

Why does my approach to the resources I am to steward differ depending on who it is relating to?</font>[/QUOTE] Because God has a legitimate claim to what you own at any time for any reason. Other people don't- thus "thou shalt not steal".

Do we trust Romans that God has given authority to our governments and their wealth redistribution policies? </font>[/QUOTE]God didn't give the Romans control in our government. By His grace, we live in a nation established on the principles of liberty, freedom, and self-governance (sovereignty of the individual rather than the state).

I oppose the welfare state for many reasons. These include: it isn't biblical to steal, it very frequently brings out the worst in human nature, it subsidizes laziness, it promotes immorality, it enslaves both the payer and payee,... But, out of respect for the scripture you cite, I pay my taxes and have not resorted to violence.

 

God didn't give the Romans control in our government. By His grace, we live in a nation established on the principles of liberty, freedom, and self-governance (sovereignty of the individual rather than the state).

I oppose the welfare state for many reasons. These include: it isn't biblical to steal, it very frequently brings out the worst in human nature, it subsidizes laziness, it promotes immorality, it enslaves both the payer and payee,... But, out of respect for the scripture you cite, I pay my taxes and have not resorted to violence. </font>[/QUOTE] Sorry if I was unclear. I was actually talking about the book of Romans.

You were saying that God can redistribute wealth if he wants. I agree. He often does so through the authorities he establishes called our governments.

 

Our tax systems do not allow us to opt-in and opt-out of programs. Part of having an elected government is the submission of some of our individual autonomy for the betterment of the whole. </font>[/QUOTE] And that is why the founders went out of their way to protect individual rights from "an elected government." That early protection included a prohibition of direct taxation for any purpose. How much more would wealth redistribution offended their sense of rights?

I am not proposing an option program. I am proposing that government "opt out" of the entitlement business... especially as it relates to young and able welfare recipients.

BTW, your whole premise is faulty. "Betterment of the whole"? Who gets to say what is better? I don't think subsidizing laziness, poor judgment, and immorality is for the "betterment of the whole"? Why should someone else's view on that override mine with regard to "my" money?

It doesn't. There is nothing that can or should prevent Christians from pooling their resources.

But I have given 3 very good reasons it shouldn't be done by government. One, it isn't effective. Two, it amounts to theft by proxy. Three, it glorifies man not God.

Yes. It is very Christlike. He said that His kingdom was not of this world. He said we were citizens of a heavenly kingdom.

Please cite one place where Jesus told His followers to go solicit the Romans to tax the greedy and dispense it to the poor. And remember, the poor of Jesus' day were truly poor... not like our poor today who almost all have tv's, homes, cars,... and most importantly have not been in any real danger of starvation in the past year.

 

Stewardship is about what I do with the things God has given me. In a representative government where I vote for, that includes the way I want my government to spend the tax dollars it recieves, regardless of whether it comes from me or not.

Part of being a good steward is care and concern for those less fortunate. Both in the money that I don't pay in taxes and the way I choose my representatives to spend the countries tax dollars.

The point has been made repeatedly that showing care and concern is not to give handouts that promote laziness. I agree that promoting laziness is bad for others and if that is what the welfare system is doing, it should be fixed in way that discourages laziness, not eliminated.

 

"poor judgment" should entail a second chance though. Because someone uses poor judgement and wrecks their life doesn't mean they should not be given a second chance to do better. God gives many chances.

 

That's OK. The point about our form of gov't and the Romans not being in charge still stands.

You were saying that God can redistribute wealth if he wants. I agree. He often does so through the authorities he establishes called our governments. </font>[/QUOTE]I think I mentioned that I am in subjection to my government. And I also clearly stated why I believe wealth redistribution is immoral, counterproductive, and steals glory from God.