"When you failed to do it for the least of these here brethren of mine..you failed to do it for me"
--J.C.
You are confusing two concepts. According to Christ, we are all required to be charitable. That, however has nothing to do with the government unjustly taking a disproportionate amount of our wages, such that it's difficult to care for our families, so it can in turn give that money away.
You can't give everything to everybody.
Jesus Christ would not aprove of giving money to people to build houses again in an area that is.... lets face it...prone to this activity.
Nothing in the Bible does it say "Blessed are the Stupid.
The government taking money from you and I and giving it away is not charity.
It is forced slavery of You and I.
If I want to give money to help these people...and I will......I want to do it...not have the government tell me that I must do it.
JC hated publicans...tax collectors. And the tax collectors are running this country into the ground with this supposed idea of charity...which has stolen trillions from hard working Americans in the name of.....WE MUST DO IT.....IT IS ONLY RIGHT.
See the great society.....and welfare.....and Social security...and so on and so forth.
Fair enough. But does this mean the government is taking my money and giving it away in the name of Jesus? I didn't think so!
Libertarians wouldn't stand in the way of individual donations or an organized private effort.
Great point but it's going to be lost on the dogmatic Randians.
Then you do it. Or do you think the government is you?
--J.C.
True, but as an individual endeavor.
The government shouldn't stick it's hand in MY pocket to make the decision FOR me.
"When you failed...". That is you and me not a government. A government is not a person. Therefore it has no right to give away what is not its to give.
You are such a holy person; ready, willing and able to give my tax money to charity.
God will really be impressed with your selflessness.
You've done absolutely nothing for your brethren if the money was first confiscated by force and then illegitimately given to your brethren. The operative scripture here comes from the Ten Commandments - "Thou Shalt Not Steal".
By all means, we should send boatloads of cash to those hit by this horrible disaster. But private donations are the only acceptable donations. Show me the portion of the U.S. Constitution which authorizes the President or the Congress to appropriate funds for such disaster relief. Call me cold and heartless but as the article says it is not the government's money to spend. It was confiscated, by force, from citizens first and it should only be spent on authorized things.
GIVE ALL YOU WANT BUT I AGREE GOVT SHOULD NOT GIVE. WHIP OUT YOUR CHECK BOOK IF YOU FEEL LIKE IT
There is not necessarily a conflict between agreeing with this writer and believing in Christ. I think all Christians have a moral obligation to help Tsunami victims. However, I agree with this writer that the government has no right to confiscate our money and give it on our behalf. This is no diiferent to me than if my employer were to withhold a percentage of my wages without my permission and give my money to worthy causes. My money is mine to give and I would rather give it myself to Catholic Charities or the Red Cross to help tsunami victims.
>> "When you failed to do it for the least of these here brethren of mine..you failed to do it for me"
Jesus encouraged individual charity. But at no time did Jesus encourage the use of government surrogates to force charity from its citizens.
Could you please give the Scripture's Chapter and verse?????
I do belive the KEYWORD in what you quoted is YOU
He didn't mean the G should do it at the point of a GUN!!!
I read this to be about individuals, not the government. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Windsong, Christ was not talking about governments doing for others. He was talking about individuals. And voluntary altruism, not extortion. There is a world of difference.
Scripture does not promise, nor does it hold up as a goal, a utopian society without illness, poverty, racism, need, or any of the countless other ills of civilization. And it certainly doesn’t suggest that a secular government should be used to eradicate society’s inequalities, or fill its needs. Where do our church leaders, and the followers of Christ, come up with the concept that secular government should attempt to accomplish what God Himself never promises? They surely aren’t finding it in scripture.
Non-Christians often point to Acts 2:42-45 (in which communal fellowship is described) in order to further the misconception that scripture promotes a kind of socialist welfare state. But the scene described there, and in many other scriptural passages, is one of divine inspiration and voluntary, natural brotherly love, not statist fiat.
When Christ commands us to care for the poor and the disadvantaged, He is not promoting the creation of a welfare state, forced taxpayer-funded charity, or expanded government power to forcibly redistribute wealth. In fact, He often repeats the Old Testament commandment against theft (Matthew 19:18), consistently putting His stamp of approval on private property and individual choice. 2 Corinthians 9:7 reads Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. God asks for a tithe, a voluntary contribution of ten percent of our earnings. The government requires half of our earnings at gunpoint – and then ‘magnanimously’ decides what to do with that extorted money.
Christ never suggested that we look to the government to solve our problems. He instead encouraged, even commanded, that we love one another. Faith without works is dead. And the works to which the Bible exhorts us involve voluntarily helping one another with our individual needs and spiritual hurts.
The following is an excerpt from a pamphlet I picked up at a political retreat several years ago. It is a simple, yet wonderful, example of the what is being discussed on this thread. I hope you will take the time to read it. I believe good people who have placed entirely too much faith in an unworthy government sometimes need to, in order to put charity in its proper perspective:
______________________________________
In the early 1800’s Congress was considering a bill to appropriate tax dollars for the widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in support of this bill. It seemed that everyone in the house favored it. The Speaker of the House was just about to put the question to a vote, when Davy Crocket, famous frontiersman and then Congressman from Tennessee, rose to his feet.
‘Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead, or our sympathy for a part of the living, to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity, but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money.
Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Sir, this is no debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. And we have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.’
There was silence on the floor of the House as Crockett took his seat. When the bill was put to a vote, instead of passing unanimously as had been expected, it received only a few votes.
The next day a friend approached Crockett and asked why he had spoken against a bill for such a worthy cause. In reply, Crockett related the following story:
Just a few years before, he had voted to spend $20,000 of public money to help the victims of a terrible fire in Georgetown, When the legislative session was over, he made a trip back home to do some campaigning for his re-election. In his travels he encountered one of his constituents, a man by the name of Horatio Bunce. Mr. Bunce bluntly informed Crockett, ‘I voted for you the last time. I shall not vote for you again.’ Crockett, feeling he had served his constituents well, was stunned. He inquired as to what he had done to so offend Mr. Bunce.
Bunce replied, ‘You gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not the capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided buy it. The Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions.’
‘I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire. Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away public money in charity? No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.’
‘The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. You have violated the Constitution in what I consider to be a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the People.
‘I could not answer him,’ said Crockett. ‘I was so fully convinced that he was right. I said to him, ‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. If you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law, I wish I may be shot.’
After finishing the story, Crockett said, ‘Now, sir, you know why I made that speech yesterday. There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay? There are in that House many very wealthy men – men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of these same men made beautiful speeches upon the debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased, yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. Bit it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.
______________________________________
All of our hearts are breaking for the victims of the terrible disaster that occurred last week. We would have to be inhuman not to be deeply affected by the pictures and heart-rending accounts of the indescribable human suffering. In a combined effort, eight of the churches in my community are busy collecting material items and financial contributions to send to Sri Lanka, India, Indonesia and Thailand. And I know that thousands of other churches, and other religious, community and charitable organizations, are doing the same. But government cannot, and must not, be in the charity business. To do so amounts to (1) robbing charity of its voluntary nature, and (2) ascribing to government a compassion that it does not, and will never, comprehend. Government is not altruistic, but confiscatory and oppressive. Not only is charity alien to the definition of government, but (even more importantly) the Constitution also forbids the convergence of the two.
~ joanie
J.C. never forced anyone to help anyone else. You only make points with him if you do it volunatarily.
When you failed to do it for the least of these here brethren of mine..you failed to do it for me"
*****
Since WHEN did a non-believing Muslim become MY brother?
"The ONLY way to the Father is thru the SON." They are NOT my brethren, they are the children of the devil.