Was Lazarus A 'Bum'?

[Crucible]

Those who have heard the "Grace Gospel" as preached by The Apostle Paul and placed ALL their faith in Christ as their Savior, been sealed, indwelt by The Holy Spirit, and baptized (not by water) into The Body of Christ have eternal life. If anyone lacks this process, they're not saved and are headed for Judgement and The Lake of Fire.

That's why you have a church of 70 million people whose majority merely think they are going to be saved- because your theology is sorry and turns the Bible into a paper weight.

 

[Stripe]

Is OP trying to make the case that we should support the government welfare state because there is a beggar in the Bible?

What a stupid notion.

For a start, begging is work — and characterized as such in scripture.

Moreover, the rich man is criticized because he did not act out of charity, not because he did not endorse state interference.

Government welfare is not work; it is stealing from the taxpayer and providing a disincentive to work. It is demonstrably inefficient and destructive.

Our resident "scholar" has nothing. Again.

 

[Town Heretic]

Government welfare is not work; it is stealing from the rich and providing a disincentive to work

Caring for our neighbors in need is a public virtue. The exercise of our collective will is both noble and good where that will serves those who are not in a position to help themselves and anyone callous enough to believe the disabled, children, and the elderly who constitute the lion's share of that national charity, along with others who for legitimate reasons can't fend for themselves in a moment, anyone who believes those people or the nation that responds to them are thieves and the collective largess of a nation is thievery? Those people have a heart condition that isn't covered by health insurance and are only exhibiting signs of their own disability, which I suppose means the thing to do is be charitable as we can be without allowing them to harm others.

It is demonstrably inefficient and destructive.

Complete nonsense. So you're right back in your wheelhouse. :thumb:

Our resident "scholar" has nothing. Again.

Still nursing that wound? Remarkable. What do you do when actual life doesn't go your way? Jihad? lain: Anyway...

 

[ok doser]

Caring for our neighbors in need is a public virtue.

i don't believe anybody is suggesting otherwise



awwww

the rest of your strawman just fell over





BAM!

Right on your pants! :darwinsm:

 

[Town Heretic]

I'll say it here, now. The government's only roles are to protect it's citizens and their God-given rights, and where possible, protect others and their rights, and to provide infrastructure for it's citizens.

That's one view, but you're going to bump into a lot of things squinting that hard.

Anything else and the government is overstepping it's boundaries, and becomes inefficient at doing those three things above.

If the needs of people were being met by the system without the government we'd never have had the government involved.

By the way, and you liberals (and even some Christians) will hate what I'm about to say, no one has the right to food, water, shelter, clothing, energy, healthcare, or education.

I don't hate it, but it evokes a measure of sympathy in me for whatever it is in you that led you to that belief.

Excepting for emergency relief, from natural disasters or short-term life-and-death crises, and for government employees only as mission critical, the government must not give or subsidize resources to anyone, nor can it compel charitable giving.

Now you're like the woman who when asked if she'd sleep with someone for a million dollars says yes only to be offended by the offer of a dollar. Or, either no one is entitled or you recognize that's not true as an immutable principle (which you just did) and the rest is negotiation and argument.

 

[JudgeRightly]

That's one view, but you're going to bump into a lot of things squinting that hard.

Remove the plank from your own eye, so that you can see clearly to remove the mote from your brother's eye.

If the needs of people were being met by the system without the government we'd never have had the government involved.

Before all the welfare programs the liberals implemented, people's needs were being met. Let me ask you, if the government decided that babies weren't being fed enough, and implemented a program whereby the government would feed babies that it deemed weren't getting fed enough, do you think that parents would be more responsible, or less responsible?

I don't hate it, but it evokes a measure of sympathy in me for whatever it is in you that led you to that belief.

Everything I said comes from the Bible. So you may want to rethink that.

Now you're like the woman who when asked if she'd sleep with someone for a million dollars says yes only to be offended by the offer of a dollar. Or, either no one is entitled or you recognize that's not true as an immutable principle (which you just did) and the rest is negotiation and argument.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, could you clarify?

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Tambora]

Is OP trying to make the case that we should support the government welfare state because there is a beggar in the Bible?

What a stupid notion.

For a start, begging is work — and characterized as such in scripture.

Moreover, the rich man is criticized because he did not act out of charity, not because he did not endorse state interference.

Government welfare is not work; it is stealing from the rich and providing a disincentive to work. It is demonstrably inefficient and destructive.

Our resident "scholar" has nothing. Again.

AMEN!

 

[ok doser]

Our resident "scholar" has nothing. Again.

is artie pretending to be a scholar? :freak:

 

[Town Heretic]

Remove the plank from your own eye, so that you can see clearly to remove the mote from your brother's eye.

That was essentially, "I know you are but what am I?"

Before all the welfare programs the liberals implemented, people's needs were being met.

No, they weren't. That's why the programs came into existence. Begin with an examination of the Great Depression, bread lines and the general state of ruin. Move on from there. Churches and individuals weren't able to make up the difference. And no one with legitimate need should have to go to sleep hoping someone feels sufficiently moved to help them tomorrow. No child, no severely disabled person, not the elderly, etc. Not in the richest nation on earth. Not in one that by and large is comprised of self-professed Christians.

Let me ask you, if the government decided that babies weren't being fed enough, and implemented a program whereby the government would feed babies that it deemed weren't getting fed enough, do you think that parents would be more responsible, or less responsible?

I'd hope they'd be grateful that what they couldn't do was being done and that everyone else would say, "Thank God we're capable of seeing to it that these children don't suffer for their parent's inability to provide enough."

Everything I said comes from the Bible. So you may want to rethink that.

You didn't quote the Bible. You paraphrased your understanding. I don't need to rethink that. I only need to address it, as offered.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, could you clarify?

Sure. You can't say X (where X is the rule) is true and then provide exceptions without undermining your position that X is true. Or, you can't say, "No one is entitled...except for those people...and that guy over there...but none of that riff-raff!" When you do, the moment you do that, you're only haggling over price.

 

[marhig]

By the way, and you liberals (and even some Christians) will hate what I'm about to say, no one has the right to food, water, shelter, clothing, energy, healthcare, or education

I believe that everybody has a right to those things, and just so you know, we don't claim any benefits and we pay our taxes.

I'd rather our government spent the money on people's needs than the rubbish that they do waste it on, including their excessive expenses.

 

[marhig]

. Let me ask you, if the government decided that babies weren't being fed enough, and implemented a program whereby the government would feed babies that it deemed weren't getting fed enough, do you think that parents would be more responsible, or less responsible?

Would it matter so long as the the babies are being fed? Isn't that the most important thing?

I'd put a child's life before money, if a parent was irresponsible and wasted all the money they had on whatever, then I would want our government to look after the children regardless.

Wouldn't you want the government to help people if you saw them starving on the streets? What about yourself, could you walk past?

 

[Stripe]

Caring for our neighbors in need is a ... virtue.

When you find someone to disagree with you, you'll have a knock-down case. :thumb:

Here your implication is that I would deny this. You need to retract that characterization or admit your opener is a useless contribution.

The exercise of our collective will is both noble and good where that will serves those who are not in a position to help themselves and anyone callous enough to believe the disabled, children, and the elderly who constitute the lion's share of that national charity, along with others who for legitimate reasons can't fend for themselves in a moment, anyone who believes those people or the nation that responds to them are thieves and the collective largess of a nation is thievery? Those people have a heart condition that isn't covered by health insurance and are only exhibiting signs of their own disability, which I suppose means the thing to do is be charitable as we can be without allowing them to harm others.

Forcing people to be this removes people's desire to be this. Whatever it is that you said.

Complete nonsense. So you're right back in your wheelhouse. :thumb:

Still nursing that wound? Remarkable. What do you do when actual life doesn't go your way? Jihad? lain: Anyway...

What wound? :AMR:

Jihad? Are you on crack?

It is demonstrably harmful and destructive for a government to force charity out of people at the threat of prison.

If you disagree with me, the rational course would be to ask me to explain myself.

is artie pretending to be a scholar? :freak:

I think he just doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. He has a narrative set to music that nobody can hear running through his brain.

 

[ok doser]

I think he just doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. He has a narrative set to music that nobody can hear running through his brain.

i wonder if it's beyonce? :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

i wonder if it's beyonce? :chuckle:

It's more likely to be RunDMC.

 

[Town Heretic]

When you find someone to disagree with you, you'll have a knock-down case. :thumb:

If I ever raise that as the contention you'll have a point to put your other eye out with.

Here your implication is that I would deny this.

Only if you didn't understand what I wrote. Or truncate it to the point of distorting what it was a part of and what it wasn't. So it's even money.

You need to retract that characterization or admit your opener is a useless contribution.

Supra. You need to admit you have control issues that make no contribution to argument.

Forcing people to be this removes people's desire to be this. Whatever it is that you said.

You can't force someone to part with that which he would willingly give up if asked. I don't find people suggesting that please is the sticking point to be particularly credible.

Complete nonsense. So you're right back in your wheelhouse. :thumb:

That's me again, so you're still working on the whole quote function...how many years in are you again?

What wound? :AMR:

Jihad? Are you on crack?

How about I pretend to consider this while you pretend to not understand it? That way we'll both have a go at make believe that neither of us will have to actually invest in.

It is demonstrably harmful and destructive for a government to force charity out of people at the threat of prison.

That's not what happens, to begin with, but beyond that, asserted and answered prior...see: my opinion on people who say the important distinction is "Please".

If you disagree with me, the rational course would be to ask me to explain myself.

Only if I don't understand you. If you don't think you did the job of making your case sufficiently, the rational thing would be to attempt to do that.

 

[ok doser]

You can't force someone to part with that which he would willingly give up if asked.

really? :freak:

do you even think about this stuff before you bang it out?

 

[Stripe]

If I ever raise that as the contention you'll have a point to put your other eye out with. Only if you didn't understand what I wrote. Or truncate it to the point of distorting what it was a part of and what it wasn't. So it's even money. Supra. You need to admit you have control issues that make no contribution to argument.

You need to make a clear distinction between government welfare and charity.

You can't force someone to part with that which he would willingly give up if asked.

:darwinsm:

Of course you can. In this case, men are more than willing to give when they see need, but then the government demands that taxpayers fund everything from wheelchair ramps to abortions. This just generates contempt.

How about you pretend to consider this.

That's not what happens.

Sure, it is.

Asserted and answered prior.

Nope. At best, your denial of my assertion is of equivalent power. But given that I have stated a coherent concept and all you have done is gone: Nuh-uh, it is not me with the ball in my court. That would be you. When I put forward an idea you do not agree with, you do not defeat that idea by declaring it not to be true.

Only if I don't understand you.

:rotfl:

Buy a dictionary. :up:

 

[Town Heretic]

You need to make a clear distinction between government welfare and charity.

I don't think anyone is confused on the point.

Of course you can. In this case, men are more than willing to give when they see need,

Then money given to assist those in legitimate need shouldn't give them pause. I doubt anyone is completely satisfied with how their tax dollars are spent, but I'm speaking to this one, not everything else you feel like piling atop it to obscure the point.

How about you pretend to consider this.

How about you pretend to make a point worth it.

Sure, it is.

See, that's not doing it.

Nope.

Neither is that.

At best, your denial of my assertion is of equivalent power.

Not that one either.

But given that I have stated a coherent concept and all you have done is gone: Nuh-uh,

You have that backwards and I invite anyone curious on the point to read over the exchange.

it is not me with the ball in my court. That would be you. When I put forward an idea you do not agree with, you do not defeat that idea by declaring it not to be true.

That's literally your methodology, declaration without supportive tissue. Again, I'm fine with people reading through. And this is you talking about anything but the actual point, which tends to eat up a lot of your time in posting.

It is demonstrably harmful and destructive for a government to force charity out of people at the threat of prison.

That's a lot of assumption. The weakness of it is easy enough to illustrate: "It is demonstrably harmful and destructive for a government to force people to obey the law by threat of prison." Or, a consequence for failing to do what we ought to do, before we even get to professing a willingness to do, is a consequence that should only be feared or resented by those who don't mean to actually do it.

Now write something that isn't particularly funny and laugh at it.

:rotfl:

Buy a dictionary.

Close enough. lain:

 

[ok doser]

Then money given to assist those in legitimate need shouldn't give them pause.

so if someone in legitimate need breaks into your house in the middle of the night to steal from you, you're fine with that?

 

[Angel4Truth]

I don't think anyone is confused on the point.

Sure they are, or tax money wouldnt be spent on things like tranny surgery and hormones for lifers in a mans prison to make them more feminine.

Then money given to assist those in legitimate need shouldn't give them pause.

Thats just it, who gets to define legitimate need?