A question for conservative Christians

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mysterytramp, Nov 3, 2008.

  1. mysterytramp macrumors 65816

    mysterytramp

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Location:
    Maryland
    #1
    This board having the middle name "Religion," I'm assuming I can get away with a question like this here. If a flame war erupts, it was not my intention.

    As the discussion of Obama's "spread the wealth around" comment continued, I was struck at how mean-spirited some of the responses were. From secular conservatives, I just assumed they didn't know better. But assuming that many conservatives are in fact believers, I'm left with this question:

    How do you reconcile your criticism of Obama's statement with Matthew 25:40?

    Although there may be shades of meaning between helping the poor and spreading the wealth, I'm not sure the critics were honing in on those nuances but opposing the concept itself. (BTW, I realize the statement has already been argued to death. I hope the mods recognize this as a different line of discussion. Apologies in advance if I've violate any rule.)

    mt
     
  2. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #2
    Personally I think that we should help those that are less well off than us, however the Government has always managed to mess things up in the past so I would rather give my money to a charity that I choose instead of having the government take it and waste it.
     
  3. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #3
    Is this really a religious issue? Most churches do help the poor so I don't see the problem. I think the problem comes in who decides who should be in charge of the money.

    Just a note, I don't see this thread ending well.
     
  4. atthecross macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    #4
    the bible, both old and new testament call for individuals to look out/care for the poor/needy.
    Old Testament
    Leviticus
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=23&verse=22&version=31&context=verse
    Ruth
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=8&chapter=2&verse=7&version=31&context=verse

    New Testament
    Matthew
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=6&verse=1&version=50&context=verse

    Acts
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=9&verse=36&version=50&context=verse


    The bible does not call out for the government/authorities to mandate for this to happen. The Government/authority role is shown in Romans 13:1-7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom 13:1-7;&version=31;

    Of course, these few passages are not meant to be all inclusive, and of course there are passages of scripture that when read in the context of the verse/chapter/book and bible as a whole, you will find that the bible does call the individual to care for the down trodden.
     
  5. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #5
    Like others have said, the Bible is quite clear that it is the role of individuals to care for those less fortunate.

    Like mrkramer I'd rather give to charities that help the poor than the government. Charities are way more efficient in recognizing who needs help, getting them the help, and avoiding waste.
     
  6. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #6
    Jesus was probably the biggest proponent of separation of church and state.

    A radical liberal at that.;)
     
  7. mysterytramp thread starter macrumors 65816

    mysterytramp

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Location:
    Maryland
    #7
    To be honest, I don't either ::) Have FAITH!

    Do you really believe that Christ would oppose a government showing mercy? helping the poor?

    mt
     
  8. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #8
    Well, he never called on the Roman or Jewish authorities to help the poor, so why do you think he would call on the governments of today to do so?
     
  9. atthecross macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    #9
    I do not believe Jesus would oppose it, however, that is not the role of the government/authorities as God has established government/authorities to be.
     
  10. atthecross macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    #10
    And should Obama win (I personally do not desire him as a president), I would submit to his authority as in Romans 13 as long as that support does not contradict the mandates of God.
     
  11. 66217 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    #11
    I think that giving out resources (money, food, clothes) to help others as an individual is good for the general health of a country. When people care about each other, things usually go better.

    But the government has a different role. They should obviously look out to assure that the people don't suffer because the lack of food or shelter, but giving out money for them to have a good life doesn't solve things, it just covers the problem.

    A government should look out and create jobs for the people to earn money. And you don't achieve this by making the rich pay more taxes, but by helping out the rich to get more money to continue growing their businesses.

    It sounds illogical, but the best way to help the poor people of a country, is by first helping out the rich people. If the rich people are happy and continue earning money, they will keep creating more and more jobs, so consequently, the people that needs a job would eventually get one, or the people that already has a job, would have opportunities to get a better job.
     
  12. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #12
    And what, pray tell, would those be?
     
  13. thechidz macrumors 68000

    thechidz

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Location:
    New York City
    #13

    it's a great idea, but in reality....

    where did the country go under the two Bush administrations economically? where did it go under Clinton? which of the two current candidates economic stance more so resembles Clinton?
     
  14. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #14
    Because it doesn't say "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever your president did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."

    It's about what I do of my own free will and choice. It has absolutely nothing to do with what the government requires me (or anyone else) to do.

    How do you reconcile your support of Obama's tax piracy with Ephesians 4:28? http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=56&chapter=4&verse=28&version=31&context=verse

    SLC
     
  15. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #15
    Unfortunately, the American workforce has found out that just isn't the case. Bush cut taxes quite a bit on the upper classes. We didn't get more jobs, they got shipped overseas. Trickle down simply doesn't work.
     
  16. 66217 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    #16
    Me don't know much about America. I'm not American.:D

    I do think Clinton was a much better president, at least as far as I know. And well, obviously Obama resembles more Clinton. If I were American I would vote for Obama, but I still disagree in some things with him.

    Hopefully when he says "spread the wealth around", he is not meaning it in a socialist way.
     
  17. 66217 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    #17
    Well, it's much more complicated than what I said. There are a lot more variables that come into account, and obviously if these don't come out correctly my idea won't be that productive. It is just kind of a big and general idea that needs minor ideas to work.

    I remember making a small tesis about this on an Economy and International Business class I had. After reading many books, this was my conclusion, but, I'm a Civil Engineer student, so I'm far from being an expert right now about this topic.;)
     
  18. atthecross macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    #18
    Luke 10:27
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=10&verse=27&version=31&context=verse

    Matthew 24:14
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&verse=14&version=31&context=verse

    (again, just to name a couple)

    Sharing the gospel (which means good news) is something that I am called to do. If there is a good news, then by implication there is some bad news.

    The bad news part (sin) is what people usually don't want to hear, and what has the possibility of a government/authority to desire me not to speak about and suppress (as an example, all sexual immorality; and yes, heterosexual immorality as well) and should that happen then I would not have to submit to that authority because it is in conflict with the One who has ultimate authority, God.

    Giving the full console of God (good news, and bad news), is imperative in order for an individual to make a decision for or against Christ.
     
  19. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #19
    Oh boy. So let me get this straight. You would simply break the law if there was a law made that you interpret to go against your religion? Remember that not even all Christians agree on those issues.
     
  20. atthecross macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    #20
    yes, and I would then accept the consequences of the government/authorities for breaking their laws.

    That's part of the deal with having convictions. Standing for the truth does not change due to circumstance.
     
  21. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #21
    OK. So how far do you see yourself taking this? Bombing abortion clinics? Burning down gay bars? What possible law is it that so scares you?

    I'm not being flippant. I'm quite serious.
     
  22. 66217 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    #22
    Good thing is that laws normally don't go against moral beliefs (at least Christian beliefs).

    I think he is meaning when a law forces to make you something against your beliefs. Abortion clinics may be against my principles, but they existing don't make me act against my beliefs, as long as I stay away from them.

    Now, for example, if a law forced you to abort if being a victim of a rape, then that would be against my beliefs. (exaggerated example I know).
     
  23. atthecross macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    #23
    bombing abortion clinics - sin, burning down gay bars - sin

    Looking at the bible in context, God calls me to love the sinner, hate the sin. The mistake that many Christians make is that they believe that there are 'level's of sin, God sees all sin as sin, unrighteousness (not being right with God). The way you become righteous (right with God) is to accept the only way that He has created to be right with Him.

    All sin is against God, so it stands to reason that He chooses how sin is to be forgiven. He has chosen that sin is to be forgiven through the belief in His Son Jesus Christ.

    As far as a law that could be passed that scares me, there is not one. A law that could be passed that would cause me to not support those in authority would be something like this

    (Sorry for using the same link, but I did an edit to my previous post it may not have been seen)
     
  24. gotzero macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Location:
    Mid-Atlantic, US
    #24
    Since when are voters only following the government as far as "god's" will? This stuff absolutely terrifies me.

    I think religion can be a wonderful thing, but it has no place in politics.

    As far as "God's word", take a gander at a parallel bible like http://bible.cc/
     
  25. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #25
    You would never have to worry about that. Canada doesn't have freedom of speech. We do.
     

Share This Page