Question(s) for Christians

[Best Buckeye]

The thread has wandered from the initial question which I read as: How do people who call themselves "Christian" justify their opposition to welfare programs?

.

What makes you think Christians oppose welfare?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

What makes you think Christians oppose welfare?

Not speaking for Cinci, he can certainly do that on his own... but, the topic of the thread discusses why so many Christians do, not that all do, that some do.. generally Christians who also are Republicans... and the question is "why is that?"

 

[Best Buckeye]

Not speaking for Cinci, he can certainly do that on his own... but, the topic of the thread discusses why so many Christians do, not that all do, that some do.. generally Christians who also are Republicans... and the question is "why is that?"

what percentage of Christians oppose welfare? Or are you just stereotyping?
Or we might ask why so many people who are not Christians justify their opposition to welfare programs?

 

[Buckeye513]

what percentage of Christians oppose welfare? Or are you just stereotyping?

Would you say that a lot of Christians are Republicans and that a lot of Republicans oppose welfare?

Or we might ask why so many people who are not Christians justify their opposition to welfare programs?

We could. I wasn't.

 

[Best Buckeye]

Would you say that a lot of Christians are Republicans and that a lot of Republicans oppose welfare?
We could. I wasn't.

I would say that most people do not oppose it. Including me.
I oppose the way it is run and the societal practices it panders to.
BTW I am a Christian but not a republican

 

[cincibuck]

what percentage of Christians oppose welfare? Or are you just stereotyping?
Or we might ask why so many people who are not Christians justify their opposition to welfare programs?

The original question -- which I didn't write -- asked the provocative question

"Question(s) for Christians
Why are so many of you against entitlement/social programs and how do you justify it?"

To which I responded:

Inferred is the idea that Christ is a spokesman for the underclass of the Jewish community of his time, that the Sermon on the Mount is a call for social action, and therefore, if you claim to be a follower, shouldn't you also answer the call for social action?

I'm trying to think of a core document of any of the major religions that says, "Forget the poor. They need to figure out that life is not a free ride. Instead, concentrate on prospering and thanking me for all the blessings that I lavish on you because you were born into good circumstances. you're smart and you work hard."

In short, concern for the poor seems to be a part of all the major religions, not just Christianity.

To which I added:

While I tend to think that that means that government should concentrate on equalizing opportunity, I can also appreciate that Atlas Shrugged mentality that says that people of genius and determination create benefit for others -- trickle down, as Ronnie would have put it -- and that if you take away too much of the incentive the goose will stop laying the golden eggs. Where to draw the line with regard to incentive seems to be the most difficult part.

By which I thought I was saying that though I tend to think government should do more for the poor, I can understand that some Christians may believe that by working hard and making lots of money they are creating jobs and benefits for the underclass.

I look at the money paid out as bonuses on Wall Street or given to unproven rookie quarterbacks and see them as obscene, but it may be that in the end that money does more for the underclass than money spent of social action. Thus the difficult part of all of this may be determining how much prosperity is fair.

 

[Buckeye513]

I would say that most people do not oppose it. Including me.
I oppose the way it is run and the societal practices it panders to.

Which is fine...but, most of the time when I hear people (Christians or not) complain about welfare, it's because they don't think that their money should be going to poor people, not because they don't think their money is going to poor people in the right ways. I doubt the majority of Americans know enough about the logistics of social programs to make that argument.

Non-Christians can justify this in a lot of ways. I think this goes against Biblical teachings, which is why I made the thread.

 

[Best Buckeye]

The original question -- which I didn't write -- asked the provocative question

"Question(s) for Christians
Why are so many of you against entitlement/social programs and how do you justify it?"

To which I responded: Inferred is the idea that Christ is a spokesman for the underclass of the Jewish community of his time, that the Sermon on the Mount is a call for social action, and therefore, if you claim to be a follower, shouldn't you also answer the call for social action?

I'm trying to think of a core document of any of the major religions that says, "Forget the poor. They need to figure out that life is not a free ride. Instead, concentrate on prospering and thanking me for all the blessings that I lavish on you because you were born into good circumstances. you're smart and you work hard."

In short, concern for the poor seems to be a part of all the major religions, not just Christianity.

To which I added: While I tend to think that that means that government should concentrate on equalizing opportunity, I can also appreciate that Atlas Shrugged mentality that says that people of genius and determination create benefit for others -- trickle down, as Ronnie would have put it -- and that if you take away too much of the incentive the goose will stop laying the golden eggs. Where to draw the line with regard to incentive seems to be the most difficult part.

By which I thought I was saying that though I tend to think government should do more for the poor, I can understand that some Christians may believe that by working hard and making lots of money they are creating jobs and benefits to the underclass.

I look at the money paid out as bonuses on Wall Street or given to unproven rookie quarterbacks and see them as obscene, but it may be that in the end that money does more for the underclass than money spent of social action. Thus the difficult part of all of this may be determining how much prosperity is fair.

The question is;

Why are so many of you against entitlement/social programs and how do you justify it?"

"So many" infers a lot or most, so I asked just how many.
Answering a cry for social action doesn't mean that action has to be by the gov't.
Why do we have to justify anything to you or anyone else??
How do you justify programs that lead to lifetimes on the public dole?
Why do you not ask the non Christians that question too?
How do you justify programs that lead to generational subserviance to the public dole?
How do you justify programs that do nothing to make people engage in activities that reduce their dependance on the welfare?
Why can I not answer the call for social action in my own way at my discretion?
Who are you or anyone else to ask me why I forget the poor?
How do you know that I do not contribute 10% of my wages to the poor?
How much do you personally contribute?
IN other words the whole argument in BS.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

what percentage of Christians oppose welfare?

No idea. Wasn't my question which was the predicate for this thread.

Or are you just stereotyping?

Nope. Again, it wasn't my question. However, if I had asked it, yes I would be stereotyping.... and generally, if I did so, I believe my stereotype would bear out as having some kernel of truth - Republicans tend to disapprove of social programs, including welfare. This hardly seems debatable. It's not an indictment, but an observation. Not all Republicans are Christian, of course, but those that are - the question ponders a certain irony, in my opinion. Many christian/republicans on this thread have offered their solutions to this "irony" and I can't say I have any problem with their view. (ie giving out of their own wallet, rather than out of the public fisc... though, I still think where the Gov. advances helping the poor, just the same as Christianity would expect the same (to the extent it even does), I can't see the objection. But, that's my opinion, and my opinion alone.)

Or we might ask why so many people who are not Christians justify their opposition to welfare programs?

We might. I'm neiter opposed to welfare, nor am I Christian, so someone else will have to handle that one.

 

[muffler dragon]

was it unlawful to NOT be married?

Just so we're on the same page, I need to ask how you define: unlawful?

 

[lvbuckeye]

you argument was that Yeshua didn't fulfill the Torah because He never married. my question was whether the Torah specifically required everyone to marry.

 

[muffler dragon]

you argument was that Yeshua didn't fulfill the Torah because He never married. my question was whether the Torah specifically required everyone to marry.

I'll repost what I presented earlier to bgrad.

Celibacy - My Jewish Learning

Reprinted from The Jewish Religion: A Companion, published by Oxford University Press.
It is a high religious obligation to marry and have children, so that the question of whether it is religiously proper to he celibate is really a question of whether there are circumstances when the religious injunction of procreation can be set aside.
The classical text in this connection is in the Talmudic tractate Yevamot (63b). Here the story is told of the Palestinian teacher Simeon ben Azzai (early second century CE), who preached an eloquent sermon on the duty of procreation. When his colleagues reproached him for not practicing what he preached since he himself was unmarried, he replied: 'What can I do? Mv soul is in love with the Torah. The world can be populated through others.
Ben Azzai's vocation as a diligent student of the Torah did not allow him to shoulder the responsibilities of married life. His love of the Torah prevented him from being a proper husband to a human wife. (The idea of the Torah as Israel's bride is found in many Talmudic and Midrashic passages.)
Does the Jewish tradition extend this exemption from the duty to marry to other students of the Torah, or is the case of Ben Azzai treated as unique because of his exceptional qualities? A number of medieval authorities did not treat the case of Ben Azzai as exceptional. They are followed in the ruling of the Shulhan Arukh (Even Ha-Ezer, I. 4): "Anyone whose soul is constantly in love with the Torah like Ben Azzai so that he cleaves to it all his days without ever taking a wife such a one commits no sin, provided that his [sexual] inclination does not get the better of him."
The later commentators, however, do tend to see Ben Azzai as exceptional and some point to the less than categorical formulation in the Shulhan Arukh: "commits no sin," implying, perhaps, that if such a student were to ask his Rabbi whether he might remain single he should be told that it is his duty to marry.
Others again note the qualification that celibacy is only allowed where the student is fully able to control his sexual urge and they hold that nowadays such total dedication to the ideal of chastity no longer exists. Even among his rabbinic colleagues Ben Azzai's attitude was not accepted. Evidently, although they were also in love with the Torah, they did not feel that a celibate life was possible for them.
In practice, throughout the ages, only a very few scholars remained unmarried and there are only a very few instances of a community seeing no objection to appointing a bachelor as its Rabbi (but this is not entirely unknown). The weight of the tradition is against the celibate life even for the most dedicated students of the Torah. With the possible exception of the Essenes, there has never been anything like a religious order of celibates in Judaism.

*added emphasis by me.

As you can see, there are varied thoughts on the matter; however, "The weight of the tradition is against the celibate life even for the most dedicated students of the Torah." Thus, while it may or not be a "sin" or "unlawful (depending on your definition)", it is true that Jesus didn't fulfill/observe the commandment to marry nor the commandment to have children.

 

[lvbuckeye]

don't post commentary. post THE TORAH.

 

[muffler dragon]

don't post commentary. post THE TORAH.

lv:

Don't come at me with emphatics. I've attempted to answer your first loaded question:

my question was whether the Torah specifically required everyone to marry.

If you can't handle interpretation of the commandments of G-d via a Jewish POV; then you have no grounds for asking me your question(s).
Furthermore, the entire Torah, from a Jewish POV, is both Written and Oral.

Regarding the commandment of "be fruitful and multiply", this is considered a "great mitzvah", and can even supercede other mitzvah. Thus, Jesus didn't fulfill/observe one of the great mitzvoh.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

don't post commentary. post THE TORAH.

Genesis 1:28

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The meaning is quite clear, and needs little elaboration. God created two humans of different sexes so that they could reproduce. He ordered them to have children and start to populate the world with more humans. There is obviously a limit to the number of children that Eve could give birth to. One might safely assume that God's instruction to Adam and Eve were also binding to their children, grandchildren, even down to the present generation.[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]

Link

"Be fruitful and multiply" Google hit #1

Granted, the site quoted seems to be making the argument as it relates to homosexuality - but it is based on the same "command" to reproduce in an effort to please G-d's will. Whatever the case, it's pretty clear Jesus did not multiply and "failed" to achieve said objective.
[/FONT]