"Christian" Republicans Stand the NT on its Head

[Danmark]

https://thinkprogress.org/bad-theology- ... 42ef90b387
Question for debate: 'Does the Republican battle against programs to help the poor stand in direct contradiction to the words of Jesus Christ:

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.�
Matthew 25:41-46

[Wootah]

Minimum wage killing restaurants and jobs as expected.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/bus ... story.html

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 10 by Tired of the Nonsense]

ToTN - generally that graph shows that first world countries who built their wealth already are all too willing to risk it. This is why manufacturing is leaving them.

The minimum wage did not cause that wealth and it's mistaken to think it is causing economic wellbeing.

[Friedrich]

http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/ ... -wellbeing

The question that you need to ask is "Did raising the minimum wage cause the nations to prosper or did prosperity cause the nations to raise the minimum wage?"

Consider this, nations with high rates of broadband subscriptions tend to be far more prosperous than nations with low rates of broadband subscriptions. So we should give poor nations free broadband subscriptions and they will become prosperous?

TotN, can you see how you have put the cart in front of the horse?

[bluethread]

Consider this, nations with high rates of broadband subscriptions tend to be far more prosperous than nations with low rates of broadband subscriptions. So we should give poor nations free broadband subscriptions and they will become prosperous?

TotN, can you see how you have put the cart in front of the horse?

Don't give him any ideas. That is how we got the Obama phone and that was a great help in expanding the drug trade.

[tam]

Peace to you Wootah!

[Replying to post 4 by Danmark]

Actually the Bible makes it clear that anyone that does not work should not eat.

Paul says this:

For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat."

This is not the same as saying that someone who does not work should not eat.


Regardless of what Paul said, however, Christ says this:

Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.



Did He check to see if there were any who were not working among the five thousand that he fed; or to see if those being fed were only widows and orphans? Or did He simply have compassion upon those people?

Which compassion comes from love, against which there is no law.


And of course the positive side of the OP:

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You something to drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? When did we see You sick or in prison and visit You?’…

"The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'

Welfare was for the widow and the orphan. I would advise the churches to consider their aid and where it is best to spend for sure.

Are you sure? Because it would seem to me that we are to give to anyone in need - widow, orphan, male, female, etc. Indeed, would not love give even without being asked?

It holds people back in the same way that giving a man a fish doesn't teach him how to fish.

So we should forego giving a man a fish, in lieu of teaching a man to fish?

I mean, we can do both, right? Unless of course there is no room at the lake, or there are no more fishing poles, or the lake requires a license that the man cannot afford... or their are a limited number of license to give out and they have all been given out...


And did Christ not also say that we would always have the poor among us (in this world at least)?


(Even in Israel, one was not to go over their fields twice, but to leave what had fallen or perhaps been missed to the poor who would go over them. But this world (even some of those who profess to be Christian or Jew) shames many of those who "dumpster dive", when this world is the one throwing the food in the dumpster to begin with. I am not saying that you (or anyone here) is doing this personally; I was just shown it and found it quite interesting.)





Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 5 by bluethread]

I hope you will notice, in the parable, He is speaking to individuals and not governments. . .

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the House of Representatives often called "the peoples house?" I noticed that Speaker Ryan often uses that phrase.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 5 by bluethread]

I hope you will notice, in the parable, He is speaking to individuals and not governments. . .

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the House of Representatives often called "the peoples house?" I noticed that Speaker Ryan often uses that phrase.

[Mountainmanbob]

https://thinkprogress.org/bad-theology- ... 42ef90b387
Question for debate: 'Does the Republican battle against programs to help the poor stand in direct contradiction to the words of Jesus Christ:

As much as the republicans would like to give everyone exactly what they want
they have the smarts to realize -- it just ain't possible.

Money truly does not grow on trees.

M-Bob

[tam]

[Replying to post 18 by Mountainmanbob]

Except that from the article, some of these politicians are quoting from Christ (and Paul) and (mis)using their words to justify cutting back government help to the poor. They are not saying, sorry, there's not enough money for all of this; they are blaming the poor and saying that the poor (according to God) do not deserve these programs:

During the 2013 debate over the Farm Bill — which includes the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps — two different Republican lawmakers bolstered calls to cut the program by citing 2 Thessalonians, just as Arrington did this year. Then-congressman Stephen Fincher from Tennessee dismissed Democrats who said government assistance mirrors Christ’s call to care for the “the least of these,� saying instead “Anyone unwilling to work should not eat.� Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) also repeated the verse to counter a constituent who cited the Bible to criticize his support for cutting SNAP.

So governments of this world can do what they want (for now), in accordance with the laws in this world and in their countries, and in accordance with the people who have elected them. Whatever.

But when they start using Christ and God to support their positions, then they should expect that some are going to hold their words up to the light that is Christ.


Hence, my earlier comment.




Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 5 by bluethread]

I hope you will notice, in the parable, He is speaking to individuals and not governments. . .

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the House of Representatives often called "the peoples house?" I noticed that Speaker Ryan often uses that phrase.

That is an idiom based on the fact that originally the senate was appointed by the state governments and not by popular vote. That said, the representatives are not presumed to be acting as individuals, but governmental representatives of large groups of people.