Was Lazarus A 'Bum'?

[Stripe]

That's not a word.

Of course it is; it means unable to be compressed.

Again, two paragraphs.

Uh... OK. :idunno:

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Stripe]

I'm not interested in how you feel about them.

Who is "them"?

The legislators who fashioned the programs to meet a present and ongoing public need did so voluntarily.

How charitable of them to force everyone else to be charitable.

Easy-peasy.

I don't eschew taxes. Most people don't, though they argue about how much and where the money should go. And it doesn't control the above.

What are you talking about now?

Welfare is not charity, remember?

You don't have a reasonable choice about paying into the state welfare system.

Charity is a man seeing a need and acting to meet it.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[JudgeRightly]

That's not a word. Did you mean incomprehensible? Again, two paragraphs. I'm not interested in how you feel about them, only if you can object to them rationally. The legislators who fashioned the programs to meet a present and ongoing public need did so voluntarily...wait, why reinvent the wheel.

Laws should not be created, only discovered. Legislators are not needed for a good government, because laws should be able to be understood by a child. Taxes should never be raised above 5%, and the government should only tax personal increase.

As I've stated before, the government DOES NOT have the right to provide for it's people except by providing infrastructure, protecting its citizens and their God-given rights, and where possible, other people and their rights.

Anything else and the government goes out of bounds of God's rules for how a government should operate.

This is what seems Faulknerian to Stripe:

We collectively elect people to stand in our place and speak for us. Their actions are voluntary in establishing the institutions of that public giving as is the yearly budgetary allowance for it.

We shouldn't be electing anyone. God tells us how we should appoint national leaders, and that is by lottery.

The point is to address those in need and establish and thereafter maintain institutions engaged in that relief.

That responsibility of taking care of those in need belongs only to the church, not the government.

Welfare is, therefore, a willful, intentional giving to those in need from a common purse that meets the definition in authority give below, evidencing goodwill toward humanity, being an expression of generosity and helpfulness, especially toward the needy and suffering, as aid given those in need and provided by an institution engaged in that relief.

I don't want the money that I earned being taken away from me by force and going to a welfare program. So it's not willful at all. It's theft. It's a socialist concept, and socialism is wrong because it violates God's enduring command, "Thou shall not steal."

Or, a public charity.

From Merriam Webster: "1. benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity 2. a: generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also: aid given to those in need b: an institution engaged in relief of the poor c: public provision for the relief of the needy 3 a: a gift for public benevolent purposes b: an institution (as a hospital) founded by such a gift 4: lenient judgment of others.

Easy-peasy.

Did you notice that nowhere in that definition does it refer to the government being the one distributing the charity? Institutions, sure, public, sure, but government? Nope.

I don't eschew taxes. Most people don't, though they argue about how much and where the money should go. And it doesn't control the above.

The government has no right to use tax money for anything other than the three roles I gave above. You will not find any other role given in the Bible for the government to perform.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[JudgeRightly]

That's not a word. Did you mean incomprehensible? Again, two paragraphs. I'm not interested in how you feel about them, only if you can object to them rationally. The legislators who fashioned the programs to meet a present and ongoing public need did so voluntarily...wait, why reinvent the wheel.

This is what seems Faulknerian to Stripe:

We collectively elect people to stand in our place and speak for us. Their actions are voluntary in establishing the institutions of that public giving as is the yearly budgetary allowance for it. The point is to address those in need and establish and thereafter maintain institutions engaged in that relief. Welfare is, therefore, a willful, intentional giving to those in need from a common purse that meets the definition in authority give below, evidencing goodwill toward humanity, being an expression of generosity and helpfulness, especially toward the needy and suffering, as aid given those in need and provided by an institution engaged in that relief. Or, a public charity.

From Merriam Webster: "1. benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity 2. a: generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also: aid given to those in need b: an institution engaged in relief of the poor c: public provision for the relief of the needy 3 a: a gift for public benevolent purposes b: an institution (as a hospital) founded by such a gift 4: lenient judgment of others.

Easy-peasy.


I don't eschew taxes. Most people don't, though they argue about how much and where the money should go. And it doesn't control the above.

I also want to point out that, as a rule of thumb, third-party charity distributers are generally a bad idea.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Stripe]

Leaving off an article or leaving in a verb isn't really the undoing of readily comprehensible thought, is it.

It can be.

How you define isn't the issue.

Of course it's the issue. Charity is a man seeing a need and meeting it. You don't like this definition because you want welfare to be charity.

To achieve your goal you've invented a great, convoluted narrative.

The dictionary definition is fine, but it doesn't resolve our disagreement. My understanding of what charity is fits perfectly within it, while yours requires the acceptance of your narrative.

Similarly, what you believe about the place of that public charity as an extension of popular will, in government, alters nothing at all.

Of course it alters something; it means I disagree with you.

Not true at all. See my last post. The argument is made, with authority and connection, in two brief paragraphs.

Repeating your narrative isn't going to get it accepted.

People do not have a choice about paying into the state welfare system.

Rather, I recognize that welfare is charity on the state level because it literally meets the definition in authority. It's not about how either of us feel about it.

We could make up reasons for many things to meet a definition. We're not interested in narrative; we're seeking clarity.

Welfare is not charity.

The rest is addressing your scattershot harrumphing. I cut back on some of that in this post.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Stripe]

i wonder if there's a treatment for that :think:

There is: A copy chief. :thumb:

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Town Heretic]

Charity is a man seeing a need and meeting it. You don't like this definition because you want welfare to be charity.

Actually, through each repetition of that first sentence I've responded: that's one form. A peculiar way to dislike a thing. lain:

To achieve your goal you've invented a great, convoluted narrative.

Thanks for the "great" part but this isn't convoluted:

We collectively elect people to stand in our place and speak for us. Those duly elected representatives established particular institutions that address those suffering from disability and/or those in some other particular need who cannot subsist without assistance. That relief is offered and maintained by institutions created from our common purse and monies are pledged to it each year.

Now here's what authority has to say about what constitutes a charity:

From Merriam Webster: "1. benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity 2. a: generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also: aid given to those in need b: an institution engaged in relief of the poor c: public provision for the relief of the needy 3 a: a gift for public benevolent purposes b: an institution (as a hospital) founded by such a gift 4: lenient judgment of others.

In welfare we have an evidenced goodwill (1), a generosity and helpfulness aimed toward addressing need and mitigating suffering (2), with aid given by an institution engaged in relief of the poor 2(b) through public provision (2c). As it comes without expectation of repayment you could say it meets 3(a) as well.

It's fairly succinct, clearly stated and echoed in the authority (you were right about incompressible being a word though).

 

[Crucible]

This subject brings out the inner Roman in Right Wing Christians

 

[ok doser]

In welfare we have an evidenced goodwill (1),

your naiveté is showing :darwinsm:

 

[ok doser]

This subject brings out the inner Roman in Right Wing Christians

 

[Crucible]

 

[Stripe]

Actually, through each repetition of that first sentence I've responded: that's one form. A peculiar way to dislike a thing. lain:


Thanks for the "great" part but this isn't convoluted:

We collectively elect people to stand in our place and speak for us. Those duly elected representatives established particular institutions that address those suffering from disability and/or those in some other particular need who cannot subsist without assistance. That relief is offered and maintained by institutions created from our common purse and monies are pledged to it each year.

Now here's what authority has to say about what constitutes a charity:

From Merriam Webster: "1. benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity 2. a: generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also: aid given to those in need b: an institution engaged in relief of the poor c: public provision for the relief of the needy 3 a: a gift for public benevolent purposes b: an institution (as a hospital) founded by such a gift 4: lenient judgment of others.

In welfare we have an evidenced goodwill (1), a generosity and helpfulness aimed toward addressing need and mitigating suffering (2), with aid given by an institution engaged in relief of the poor 2(b) through public provision (2c). As it comes without expectation of repayment you could say it meets 3(a) as well.

It's fairly succinct, clearly stated and echoed in the authority (you were right about incompressible being a word though).

Nope. You can repeat your narrative as much as you like, but taxes will always be coerced.

Welfare is not charity, because charity is the act of a person from his heart. As soon as you legislate it, you remove it from the realm of free acts.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app