Where in the Bible does it say we should not help those in need, either personally or through agencies, governmental or otherwise?
Glad you asked. It doesn't. It is one thing to give a helping hand to those who are in need. But to take from those who work hard to give to those who will not is quite another matter. It's called "stealing." And, right now our government is strong arming the hard working in order to buy votes from those who won't and what is sad is that you are sitting at your computer clapping your hands in hearty agreement. What's even more sad is your twisting of God's word to justify your bleeding heart.
Is Rick Perry as Christian as He Thinks He Is?
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Crabtownboy, Aug 15, 2011.
Page 3 of 4
-
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Oh, brother. Now I remember why I stay away from this forum.
-
Bothering with folks like Crabby is a losing proposition. How can you debate with someone who has such a low view of God's word and uses it to support the virtues of the Federal Government? Good grief!!!
-
TomVols said: ↑Oh, brother. Now I remember why I stay away from this forum.Click to expand...
-
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supportersag38 said: ↑Bothering with folks like Crabby is a losing proposition. How can you debate with someone who has such a low view of God's word and uses it to support the virtues of the Federal Government? Good grief!!!Click to expand...
I'd say I have a very high opinion of God. I take his word as it is, not as I want it to be. When Paul says I or we I believe he means himself and himself and others in his company. When Paul says God I believe he means God. Why is it that you want to add to the Bible what it does not say nor mean?
Fundamentalist always say they take the Bible as it is. Maybe I am a fundamentalist with a heart for people. You continually say I add meaning to the Bible?
Why are you so liberal that you want to add to God's word?
I am still waiting for the apology concerning your comments on my supporting abortion.
Have a blessed day. -
Self Edited: Why waste anymore time?
-
Also remember a the last judgement one of the comments will be:Click to expand..."I was hungry and ye fed me." There is not mention of work in the comments that are in the last judgement.Click to expand...
-
Crabtownboy said: ↑I'd say I have a very high opinion of God. I take his word as it is, not as I want it to be.Click to expand...
Now watch closely, folks:
Crabtownboy said: ↑When Paul says I or we I believe he means himself and himself and others in his company. When Paul says God I believe he means God.Click to expand...
When given scripture that says those who won't work, don't eat, Crab doesn't like what that implies; and immediately turns scripture into what "he believes" it says, completely ignoring the principles espoused.
Just calling it as I see it. -
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite SupporterDon said: ↑
Now watch closely, folks:
When given scripture that says those who won't work, don't eat, Crab doesn't like what that implies; and immediately turns scripture into what "he believes" it says, completely ignoring the principles espoused.
Just calling it as I see it.Click to expand...
Let's look at the verse:
2 Thessalonians 3:10
New International Version (NIV)
10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”Click to expand...
He does not say God gave this rule, but that he and, because of the we, he must mean this is also true of those who were traveling with him. They, he and his companions, gave the rule. No where does he say it is a rule from God. To say it is from God is to make the verse say what it does not say ... and that is a liberal interpretation.
So, I stand by my statement. If you look at the entire verse and include the "we" there can be no other conclusion ... without making it quit a liberal interpretation.
I am being quite conservative in my interpretation ... as I believe the word 'we' means 'we'.
We must take the verse as a whole. If we can drop the 'we' out of this verse to force a meaning that is not there and do that with other verses and passages then the Bible becomes meaningless. This, I believe, is a very fundamental belief. -
Crabtownboy said: ↑Don, I beg to differ. You did not give the entire verse in your quote, so you are using it out of context and thus making a liberal interpretation.
Let's look at the verse:
Note; Paul says "We gave you this rule."
He does not say God gave this rule, but that he and, because of the we, he must mean this is also true of those who were traveling with him. They, he and his companions, gave the rule. No where does he say it is a rule from God. To say it is from God is to make the verse say what it does not say ... and that is a liberal interpretation.
So, I stand by my statement. If you look at the entire verse and include the "we" there can be no other conclusion ... without making it quit a liberal interpretation.
I am being quite conservative in my interpretation ... as I believe the word 'we' means 'we'.
We must take the verse as a whole. If we can drop the 'we' out of this verse to force a meaning that is not there and do that with other verses and passages then the Bible becomes meaningless. This, I believe, is a very fundamental belief.Click to expand...
What?! Dude, talk about reading something out of context! This is a commandment of the Lord!
2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
2Th 3:11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
2Th 3:12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
You cannot twist the scriptures to excuse not working. It is NOT excusable. We are not to feed people who are sitting on their fat, lazy rear-ends.
However, that being said, the small percentage of welfare and SNAP (food stamp), recipients (single moms and the under employed), who are working, but just can't quite make it, I have no problem with giving them a little assistance. Nor do I have a problem giving food stamps to people who have paid into the system, and then lose their job (for a time) or are disabled. These people are taking back their own money (to a point!)...
But those who are completely unemployed or under employed, by choice and laziness (the vast majority), rather than simply receiving other people's money, should be out on road work crews picking up trash, building new roads, etc., to make them EARN their food stamps and welfare! -
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite SupporterHavensdad said: ↑What?! Dude, talk about reading something out of context! This is a commandment of the Lord!
2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
2Th 3:11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
2Th 3:12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
You cannot twist the scriptures to excuse not working. It is NOT excusable. We are not to feed people who are sitting on their fat, lazy rear-ends.
However, that being said, the small percentage of welfare and SNAP (food stamp), recipients (single moms and the under employed), who are working, but just can't quite make it, I have no problem with giving them a little assistance. Nor do I have a problem giving food stamps to people who have paid into the system, and then lose their job (for a time) or are disabled. These people are taking back their own money (to a point!)...
But those who are completely unemployed or under employed, by choice and laziness (the vast majority), rather than simply receiving other people's money, should be out on road work crews picking up trash, building new roads, etc., to make them EARN their food stamps and welfare!
Those who can work should. Those who cannot should be helped. But that is not the point of discussion here. The point of discussion is does "I" and "We" mean I and we or something else?Click to expand...
So apparently you are interpreting "We" as God, and that is a liberal interpretation. My guess is that you say you take the Bible as it says. Well, it says "We" and that means Paul and his colleagues.
I am not saying these are bad ideas, but that they are not commands from God. Each person has to determine who, for them, is fat and lazy and do not deserve help. But remember to treat others as you want to be treated. Also remember we will be judged as we judge. Does it not say in the Lords prayer, "forgive us our sins as we forgive the sins of others". Do we really want God to forgive us in the same way we forgive others.
But those who are completely unemployed or under employed, by choice and laziness (the vast majority), rather than simply receiving other people's money, should be out on road work crews picking up trash, building new roads, etc., to make them EARN their food stamps and welfare!Click to expand...
My friend, I am not twisting scripture. I am taking it as it says, We means We, I means I. To insist otherwise is, as I have said, to make a literal interpretation. If you are truly a conservative you also will take it as it says, otherwise you are saying the Paul's writings are not literally true. -
Crabtownboy said: ↑All the verses you quote have the word "we", none have the word "God". One has Jesus Christ, but not as a command but to exhort them to work so they can eat their own bread. .
So apparently you are interpreting "We" as God, and that is a liberal interpretation. My guess is that you say you take the Bible as it says. Well, it says "We" and that means Paul and his colleagues.
I am not saying these are bad ideas, but that they are not commands from God. Each person has to determine who, for them, is fat and lazy and do not deserve help. But remember to treat others as you want to be treated. Also remember we will be judged as we judge. Does it not say in the Lords prayer, "forgive us our sins as we forgive the sins of others". Do we really want God to forgive us in the same way we forgive others.Click to expand...
No, that is completely incorrect. He says that "we" are exhorting them "BY our Lord Jesus Christ." With the authority of Christ. It is indeed a command. The believers did not have the New Testament yet. God gave them the apostles to fill this vacuum, and to write the New Testament. In other words, he is commanding them, and that command came from Christ. That is the literal interpretation. You are quibbling over an insignificant word
Again, the command is from God:
2Th 3:12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness
That is abundantly clear for those without an agenda.
What about those who were laid off and want to work, seek work but cannot find work? Are we simply to say, "Sorry, you deserve no help?"Click to expand...
My friend, I am not twisting scripture. I am taking it as it says, We means We, I means I. To insist otherwise is, as I have said, to make a literal interpretation. If you are truly a conservative you also will take it as it says, otherwise you are saying the Paul's writings are not literally true.Click to expand... -
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite SupporterHavensdad said: ↑No, that is completely incorrect. He says that "we" are exhorting them "BY our Lord Jesus Christ." With the authority of Christ. It is indeed a command. The believers did not have the New Testament yet. God gave them the apostles to fill this vacuum, and to write the New Testament. In other words, he is commanding them, and that command came from Christ. That is the literal interpretation. You are quibbling over an insignificant word
Again, the command is from God:
2Th 3:12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness
That is abundantly clear for those without an agenda.Click to expand...
The entire verse:
2 Thessalonians 3:12
King James Version (KJV)
12Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.Click to expand...
As I said in another post if we select portions of verses and ignore the entire verse or passage the Bible become chaos.
Yep. At some point we have to cut them off. You cannot just say "We are going to feed you for the rest of your life. MAKE THEM WORK FOR THEIR MONEY. If they need the foodstamps, the government can give them a job building highways or picking up trash or cleaning public bathrooms to EARN their foodstamps. Stealing from people to give to others is clearly prohibited by these verses.Click to expand...
You are NOT taking it as it says. You are eliminating the "by the Lord Jesus Christ" part. "We" command you, "by the Lord Jesus Christ" is pretty darn clear that it is not just his command, but a command straight from God himself.Click to expand...
[This next comment is very gently said] I am becoming convinced by posts on this BB that many who call themselves fundamental or conservative are not really so. Why, because they take widely held beliefs and chop-up scripture to support their beliefs and ignore, as we have seen in several posts here today, that such verses do not say when we look at them in their entirety or when we look at the entire passage to gain an understanding of the context of the passage. Many here say they take the Bible as it says, but do just as I have said above and thus are in error on that passage. It may mean their belief is in error or it may not mean their are in error but just not using scripture correctly. -
Crabtownboy said: ↑No, you are mistaken. Why? Because you do not include all the verse you quoted. Thus you infer an interpretation that is not there. Again you are being liberal.Click to expand...
Note it says :with quietness they work, and eat their own bread," They are to work with quietness and eat their own bread. There is nothing here about not feeding those who are not working or cannot work. Sure, everyone who can work should work. But that is not the discussion here. Like others, you cannot take part of a verse, chop out what you do not like, and say "Oh, this means............" what it does not mean. Again that is being liberal.Click to expand...
2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.
So, there is this group of people. Paul, the apostle, filled with the Holy Spirit, and granted authority by God himself, said if ANYONE (not just specific persons at a specific time) is not willing to work, you don't let them eat. Ignore it if you wish, but that is what it is saying.
2Th 3:11 For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies.
Notice the "for"? Yeah, he is saying, "in light of that commandment", "remembering that commandment"... "there are these people now that are not working, and I need to address the issue."
2Th 3:12 Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.
"Such" persons. Which persons? Why, the ones refusing to work. Well, what should they do, Paul? He says, by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, that they should #1 Work quietly and #2 Earn their OWN living. Note that the construction, with the reflexive pronoun, is written just like that in the Greek. Not "let someone else earn their living" or, "eat someone else's bread." Paul commands them to WORK, and to "eat their OWN (earned) bread!" And he says this ALL in light of the commandment he already gave them, that the one who doesn't work, doesn't eat.
As I said in another post if we select portions of verses and ignore the entire verse or passage the Bible become chaos.Click to expand...
I have no problem with programs such as the CCC that gave many young men, including my father, a job during the Great Depression. I assume from you comment you would not oppose a similar program in these hard times.Click to expand...
No, I am putting it it its proper context by including it in the entire verse. You are being liberal in chipping the rest of the verse out after gentleness and saying it means what it does not mean. [This is gently said.]
[This next comment is very gently said] I am becoming convinced by posts on this BB that many who call themselves fundamental or conservative are not really so. Why, because they take widely held beliefs and chop-up scripture to support their beliefs and ignore, as we have seen in several posts here today, that such verses do not say when we look at them in their entirety or when we look at the entire passage to gain an understanding of the context of the passage. Many here say they take the Bible as it says, but do just as I have said above and thus are in error on that passage. It may mean their belief is in error or it may not mean their are in error but just not using scripture correctly.Click to expand... -
Havensdad said: ↑No, wrong again. You are REALLY trying hard to redefine what this verse is clearly saying. Look at the whole set of verses.Click to expand...
-
Don said: ↑According to the article, the author believes Perry says he's a serious, devout Christian.Click to expand...
10%...30% , etc. ??? -
I don't see what Perry's personal faith has to do with anything, unless he has said or done something grossly unchristian. Thus far nothing like this has surfaced.
BTW, I don't think Perry will have any problem beating Obama in the General Election, unless the economy improves dramatically. His fight will be to get the Republican nomination. -
carpro said: ↑Is there some way that "how much of a Christian" he is can be quantified?
10%...30% , etc. ???Click to expand... -
There's a word for what Crab's doing: "quibbling." Feel free to look it up.
You see, Crab's biggest mistake here is dismissing the author. If we agree that the scriptures are divine, inspired words of God, then that automatically dismisses Crab's argument. If we don't agree that they're divine, inspired words of God, we have a bigger problem and discussion to attend to.
Second, the words are written by God's inspired apostles, the ones who knew Him best while He walked this earth in fleshly form; and the one who states that he received the Word directly from Him (Galatians 1:12). So Crab's argument is that the words of His apostle can be ignored if they don't seem to be direct quotes from God Himself.
Third, these words are NOT a "new" commandment from the apostle; they're also words that were given to a son from a father...a father who asked God for wisdom, and received it (Proverbs 20:4; Proverbs 24:33-34). So we not only have God's inspired author, His apostle, providing a commandment...but it echoes something that a direct recipient of His gifts also stated.
So what we have is someone who doesn't agree with what one of God's inspired authors, one of His direct apostles, wrote; and is now determining the definition of "is" in order to refute the fact that those who won't work, don't eat.
Never mind the fact that we are ALL in agreement that "those who can't work, shall be helped."
So, by all means, let the quibbling continue.
Page 3 of 4