Republicans Cut Welfare, Betray Christian Values
Faith and Philosophy
| November 15, 2005
| Tim
Here's a rule for running your community: "If a man won't work, then he won't eat either."
Who said that? A hard-line Republican like Ronald Reagan? Some conservative politician complaining about welfare for the poor? Certainly the Christian community should gather together to oppose such a cold-hearted attitude, and demand justice for the poor, not this kind of demonization.
Actually, you'd be wrong if you bought that. The man who said that was no less than the Christian Apostle Paul, who laid it down as a rule for governing communities in his letter to the Thessalonians (3:10). If we believe Paul, then giving welfare to any able-bodied person, without demanding at least some kind of compensating work out of them, is immoral.
So while the left would have you believe that mandating work in return for welfare or food is some kind of betrayal of Christian values, they're simply lying to you. Paul himself demanded that able-bodied people had to work in order to be fed. As best as I can see, this would made made the Apostle Paul politically somewhat to the RIGHT of most Republicans.
Well of course. You are completely right. About Paul that is. But Jesus said to give all your money to the poor. Wait!? Hold on! Why!!?!?!?!?
It's because the bible was written almost 2000 years ago by a bunch of fanatical sheep herders who were barely literate, and then had their writings edited numerous times by the orthodox church. In the words of Thomas Paine: 'The Bible is so riddled with contradictions that one could prove any point with one verse, but then prove the exact opposite with another bible verse. Therefore, the bible stands for nothing.'
Mad Dog,
Care to point out some of those contradictions?
But Jesus said to give all your money to the poor.
Actually, to be precise, he told a specific rich young man to give his money to the poor.
It's because the bible was written almost 2000 years ago...
And you know, we're so much smarterer than those people were. :-)
Really, specificly, what's wrong with the idea of giving money to people who are starving? Do we "know better" than that now?
In the words of Thomas Paine: 'The Bible is so riddled with contradictions that one could prove any point with one verse, but then prove the exact opposite with another bible verse...
If take verses out of context, of course that's true. As in any document. Take the constitution: It says you have a right be secure in your possessions. But judges also believe taxation is constitutional. That's a contradiction.
So do you reject the constitution? Or US law? Or even Thomas Paine, given his many mistakes and contradictions?
I personally haven't seen any clear, meaningful contradictions in the bible. But, just for the sake of argument, even if you did produce a few: so what? What if you find a newspaper has an apparent contradiction in it? How do you treat that situation?
Anti-theists are people who, if they were to read two newpaper accounts about 9/11, and see one saying that 2,819 were killed, and another saying more than 3,000 were killed -- would then believe they have proven...
that 9/11 never happened!
But, hey, some of them think that anyway. :-)
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Jimmy Carter's Endangering Values |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Bill Moyers: The Religious Right Hijacked Jesus »
|
Well of course. You are completely right. About Paul that is. But Jesus said to give all your money to the poor. Wait!? Hold on! Why!!?!?!?!?
It's because the bible was written almost 2000 years ago by a bunch of fanatical sheep herders who were barely literate, and then had their writings edited numerous times by the orthodox church. In the words of Thomas Paine: 'The Bible is so riddled with contradictions that one could prove any point with one verse, but then prove the exact opposite with another bible verse. Therefore, the bible stands for nothing.'
Posted by: mad dog on October 4, 2006 11:05 PM