Charity: Not in the Constitution

[Dr.Who]

Rude. When I evaluate the testimony (not what they say, but how they act), of self-described Christians to determine if they represent what a person who is actually following the one true God would act like, I note such behavior. "...Your righteousness are as filthy rags...". Have a familiar ring?

Confronting people who treat others wrongly is what people should do.

MT treated the other guy wrongly by coming down to hard on him for using the male pronoun.

It only becomes rude when it is actually rude. What I said was the truth and I thought it was gentle enough. If a few other people tell me it was not gentle enough I will rethink it.

Do I sometimes do something rude? You betcha. And it most certainly is like filthy rags. I am nor righteous based on good work that I have done. Never claimed it never will.

 

[dahermit]

That is show percentages work.

A person paying 10% of a higher wage pays more than a person paying 10% of a lower wage bit it is all fair.

10% of minimum wage represents essentials for survival. 10% of a wealthy person's salary represents luxuries. Vacations to Europe, gold fittings in the bathroom, designer hand-bags, designer clothing, multiple dwellings, sports cars, boats, jewelry, cosmetic surgery, etc., etc. Yup, it is all fair.
"...I could have done more. With this ring, I could have saved another...."- Otto Shindler.

"...It is easyer for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God..." Does any of this mean anything to you? Have you seen it before? Like three places in the Bible? Why do you think three places?

 

[dahermit]

Confronting people who treat others wrongly is what people should do.

"...turn the other cheek..."

 

[Dr.Who]

10% of minimum wage represents essentials for survival. 10% of a wealthy person's salary represents luxuries. Vacations to Europe, gold fittings in the bathroom, designer hand-bags, designer clothing, multiple dwellings, sports cars, boats, jewelry, cosmetic surgery, etc., etc. Yup, it is all fair.
"...I could have done more. With this ring, I could have saved another...."- Otto Shindler.


Um, we were talking about taxes. The example, and it was just an example, of 10% was used to show that both poor and rich alike if they pay 10% of their incomes in taxes pay a fair amount that increases for the rich.

If minimum wage is $8/hour (depending on the state you live in) then 10% of that would be 80 cents per hour or $32 per week. Are you at all trying to say that the same person who has air conditioning is not able to pay $32 per week to be a productive contributing citizen.

"...It is easyer for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God..." Does any of this mean anything to you? Have you seen it before? Like three places in the Bible? Why do you think three places?

Does it mean anything to you? It is about personal responsibility and personal accountability. The rich person has a lot of responsibility before God and will be accountable before God. What this is not about is the state stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Or just as often stealing from one guy to give to another with little regard to how rich or poor they are. The rich should help the poor greatly - it should not be forced.

 

[Dr.Who]

"...turn the other cheek..."

Yes, when one is personally offended one should turn the other cheek. Being overly concerned with ones own rights leads to problems.

On the other hand when one is defending another person that is exactly what is called for. I have defended those of all persuasions on this site and confronted those of all persuasions on this site.

When I am the one on the line I do consider whether or not I am defending a principle or myself. When I do speak for myself I attempt to keep it about the facts and the truth and not my rights. I fail all the time but that is my intent.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

One would think that a person who intentionally confuses the issue of what gender they are would be more understanding of those who are confused.

I didn't feel that there was anything inappropriate in what I posted to Acorn about my gender. I explained my name and asked to be refered to as female "please". What did you feel was insensitive?

And because I am a polite person I will not excoriate you for your personal attack in the first sentence of your post. You are the one who has remained willfully ignorant of the scientific facts around transsexualism so your comment is apparently meant to be offensive. This first sentence, which of Jesus' two most important commandments was that serving?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Are you at all trying to say that the same person who has air conditioning is not able to pay $32 per week to be a productive contributing citizen.

The people being discussed DON'T have air conditioning, they don't have medical care, they scramble to pay their rent--and owning a house is little more than a pipe dream. Thirty two dollars could mean the difference between eating all month or going hungry.

Does it mean anything to you? It is about personal responsibility and personal accountability. The rich person has a lot of responsibility before God and will be accountable before God. What this is not about is the state stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Or just as often stealing from one guy to give to another with little regard to how rich or poor they are. The rich should help the poor greatly - it should not be forced.

So why do we have laws to coerce gay people and punish them, but not rich people? If you believe that obedience to God's laws is for God to judge, then why the double standard?

 

[top gun]

Yup, it's there for the times when the letter of the law isn't clear...

There ya go... you're starting to get it.


There are times when the government has an obligation to step up and help it's people that are hurting.

Charity is not in the Consitution. Furthermore, no government is capable of charity, no matter what document it may be in. All government can do, is forcibly take from one person and give to another. Net "charrity" is zero... except for the fact that the govt just violated someone's basic rights, so net effect of such an act is NEGATIVE.

You could say that about anything the government is involved in. We could have no Interstate Highway System... no National Parks... no Center for Disease Control... no NASA... no military except just enough to repel an invasion... on & on & on. But that would suck for the people living in this great country.

You have let the grand idea of greed & invincibility go to your head... without ever thinking about how easily it could be that you or a loved one might desperately need help that could not, would not be provided in your perfect world of "only the strong should survive."

I'm agnostic but I've always said many of the lessens themselves in religion are with great merit. You may want to take heed to this analogy I found...

"Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren..."

The language is a bit inflammatory, but this article about the disconnect between some Christians' actions and beliefs is well worth reading.

In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus proclaims that how you treat the hungry, the thirsty, the sick and other "least of these," is how you treat Jesus himself. And if you fail to help the "least of these," Jesus promises, he will send you to Hell.

The premise of this essay is that you can't be a true Christian if the focus of your life is thwarting others and the society itself from fully implementing such a fundamental teaching of Christianity as Matthew 25:31-46.

It's fine to oppose government programs to help the Matthew 25 "least of these," but then you must propose Equivalent Alternative Solutions. Equivalent Alternative Solutions are ones which:

help at least the same number of those people who legitimately need help
provide at least the same amount of effective assistance to those people
get the help to them at least as quickly
are at least as certain to accomplish these goals
Equivalent Alternative Solutions can certainly be completely non-governmental, as long as they meet the four criteria directly above.

Right-wing pseudo-Christians are defined by both their opposition to the plans of others to help the "least of these," and their failure to offer any Equivalent Alternative Solutions.

Their behavior puts right-wing pseudo-Christians into the category of the cursed goats whom Jesus describes in Matthew 25 and condemns to Hell.

 

[Little-Acorn]

You could say that about anything the government is involved in.

You're making progress. Kudoes!

We could have no Interstate Highway System... no National Parks... no Center for Disease Control... no NASA...

Now your leftism is showing through with your weird notion that if govt doesn't do it, nobody will.

Clearly you need to make a lot MORE progress.

(more silly fibs about what I think duly deleted)

 

[Dr.Who]

I didn't feel that there was anything inappropriate in what I posted to Acorn about my gender. I explained my name and asked to be refered to as female "please". What did you feel was insensitive?

And because I am a polite person I will not excoriate you for your personal attack in the first sentence of your post. You are the one who has remained willfully ignorant of the scientific facts around transsexualism so your comment is apparently meant to be offensive. This first sentence, which of Jesus' two most important commandments was that serving?

You have a habit of seeing everything as a personal attack. I bet you use those words more than any other poster here.

Yet the keyboard has a tendency to remove all emotion from a statement and make it appear other than it was.

Yours may not have been meant as an offense and I may have been wrong to read it that way. Sorry.

I am probably the only other poster here who thinks that transexualism is clearly a biological mistake at least some of the time and approves of sex reassignment surgery as a solution.

Yet you have not had such surgery and you also wear women's clothes. You have the equipment of a man and the clothing of a women - you are doing things that any reasonable person would consider to be confusing to the vast majority of viewers. There is a burden on you to be extra sensitive to the mistakes others will undoubtably make.

Was it on this forum where the new vegetarian got upset with the waiter who brought out the meals and gave the steak to him and the vegetarian platter to his female date? No, I remember now it was on another forum. The waiter made an honest mistake and the guy got all upset about it.

 

[Dr.Who]

The people being discussed DON'T have air conditioning, they don't have medical care, they scramble to pay their rent--and owning a house is little more than a pipe dream. Thirty two dollars could mean the difference between eating all month or going hungry.

We were discussing the working poor who do not meet the criteria to be in poverty. Yet according to the us census of those who actually do meet the criteria to be in poverty:

Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning.

Forty-three percent of all poor households actu*ally own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

There is no evidence that they are unable to pay their rent (or they would be evicted).

And 89 percent of the poor report their families have enough food to eat.

To summarize:

"Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrig*erator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had suf*ficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians."

There are people with real problems, but we just need to be honest about who they are:

" At the other extreme, however, approxi*mately one-tenth [of those who meet the criteria of being in poverty] have no phone at all. Similarly, while the majority of poor households do not expe*rience significant material problems, roughly 30 percent do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty get*ting medical care."

But we were discussing the working poor who do not meet the criteria for being in poverty. The real poor can always rely on public aid. the working poor have it much better than what was described above.

And I have a link:

http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg2064.cfm

So why do we have laws to coerce gay people and punish them, but not rich people? If you believe that obedience to God's laws is for God to judge, then why the double standard?[/QUOTE]

Gay people are not the topic of discussion here.

Neither rich nor poor should be punished by tax laws. Everyone should pay the same percentage. Beyond that everyone should be as generous with their time, talents and treasure as they can.

 

[Little-Acorn]

And even with such relative comfort prevalent among the poor, as Dr.Who has pointed out, and with the small number of poor who are NOT comfortable, occasionally having difficulty getting food, shelter, etc...

...charity is STILL not in the Constitution.

Would you like it to be?

Do you have any objection to drafting a Constitutional amendment authorizing the Fed govt to engage in "charity" (that is, the forcible taking of resources from one group to give to another group the govt judges a "more needy"), doing the legwork and publicity needed to get 2/3 of each house of Congress to vote for it, and then to get 3/4 of the states to ratify it?

Go for it!

If you don't want to do these things... then why don't YOU want the Fed govt to engage in "charity"? Are you cold, cruel, and heartless?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You have a habit of seeing everything as a personal attack. I bet you use those words more than any other poster here.

Yet the keyboard has a tendency to remove all emotion from a statement and make it appear other than it was.

Yours may not have been meant as an offense and I may have been wrong to read it that way. Sorry.

I am probably the only other poster here who thinks that transexualism is clearly a biological mistake at least some of the time and approves of sex reassignment surgery as a solution.

Yet you have not had such surgery and you also wear women's clothes. You have the equipment of a man and the clothing of a women - you are doing things that any reasonable person would consider to be confusing to the vast majority of viewers. There is a burden on you to be extra sensitive to the mistakes others will undoubtably make.

Was it on this forum where the new vegetarian got upset with the waiter who brought out the meals and gave the steak to him and the vegetarian platter to his female date? No, I remember now it was on another forum. The waiter made an honest mistake and the guy got all upset about it.

Had you actually read my posts on the subject you would know that I had the surgery many years ago and have been legally female and legally married as well. I have been very open about who and what I am, giving information in great detail to those who ask--how could I do otherwise while speaking each term to University students?

I don't know how you missed the fact that I've had the surgery, but, for the record, I have had sexual reassignment surgery and am legally female in all aspects of my life.

 

[top gun]

You're making progress. Kudoes!

Pointing out that we'd have no Interstate Highway System... no National Parks... no Center for Disease Control... no NASA... no military except just enough to repel an invasion... no disaster relief... on & on & on, if we for one silly second believed that the government wasn't allowed to step in and help it's people.

I do kinda deserve kudos for that I guess.

Now your leftism is showing through with your weird notion that if govt doesn't do it, nobody will.

Clearly you need to make a lot MORE progress.

Now your "no progress" selective amnesia is showing through. That stuff wasn't being done... that's exactly why the government had to do it.


But you did have things almost your way for awhile. Having to rely on Bush for disaster relief was almost having nothing.

[Youtube]T0FT3OtmbZc[/media]

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I am probably the only other poster here who thinks that transexualism is clearly a biological mistake at least some of the time and approves of sex reassignment surgery as a solution.

Yet you have not had such surgery and you also wear women's clothes. You have the equipment of a man and the clothing of a women - you are doing things that any reasonable person would consider to be confusing to the vast majority of viewers. There is a burden on you to be extra sensitive to the mistakes others will undoubtably make.

Don't judge to harshly, Who, there are quite a number of transsexuals who will never be able to amass enough money to have the surgery, so they will continue to live as you thought I was living, but it's through no fault of their own. The surgery costs many thousands of dollars and requires extensive recovery time. I mortgaged my home in order to get the money. Many, perhaps most, of the t-girls you see in porno are girls trying to get the money for surgery.