Re: Female GOP Lawmakers say their Colleges have Crossed the Line

Darth Cheney Sun Jan 25, 2015 10:28 am

Paquette wrote:
Paquette wrote:Now, does everyone's demand for humility in charitable giving extend beyond me? Will you stand up and trash all those individuals and corporations who widely announce their charitable works, not with one offhand comment by an anonymous poster on some obscure internet forum viewed by a throng of less than a dozen people, but with press releases to be plastered all over the news media and paid advertisements announcing their good works?

Is publicly displaying charitable works to boost corporate image acceptable?

Is publicly boasting that republicans give more than democrats to boost party image acceptable?

Have none of you ever mentioned any acts of charity you may have done, either anonymously on the pages of some insignificant internet forum, at work, at church, on a tax form or to anyone else who will listen?

Are your demands for charitable anonymity universal or only reserved for certain people?

Crickets.

That's alright, it's far easier to attack the messenger than admit that your demand for anonymous giving is extremely selective. Does your church give to the least of His brethren? Are they silent about it or do they speak out in an effort to gain more support for their causes? Does your favorite charity keep silent or do they publicize their work in an effort to get more people involved?

It's hard to miss the hypocrisy of people who boast about how morally superior they are for never advocating for charity by example. And I'm sure you would never further display that hypocrisy by failing to give equal treatment to ALL who dare mention how they might follow Christ's call to help the least of His brethren.

Poverty should never be made comfortable, permanent or without shame. There is nothing worse then stealing self destiny and motivation from an individual and instead making it comfortable to be dependent upon others in the name of "caring". You are making the same case as plantation owners did to their slaves centuries ago.

Jammer Sun Jan 25, 2015 10:29 am

Paquette wrote:
Paquette wrote:Now, does everyone's demand for humility in charitable giving extend beyond me? Will you stand up and trash all those individuals and corporations who widely announce their charitable works, not with one offhand comment by an anonymous poster on some obscure internet forum viewed by a throng of less than a dozen people, but with press releases to be plastered all over the news media and paid advertisements announcing their good works?

Is publicly displaying charitable works to boost corporate image acceptable?

Is publicly boasting that republicans give more than democrats to boost party image acceptable?

Have none of you ever mentioned any acts of charity you may have done, either anonymously on the pages of some insignificant internet forum, at work, at church, on a tax form or to anyone else who will listen?

Are your demands for charitable anonymity universal or only reserved for certain people?

Crickets.

That's alright, it's far easier to attack the messenger than admit that your demand for anonymous giving is extremely selective. Does your church give to the least of His brethren? Are they silent about it or do they speak out in an effort to gain more support for their causes? Does your favorite charity keep silent or do they publicize their work in an effort to get more people involved?

It's hard to miss the hypocrisy of people who boast about how morally superior they are for never advocating for charity by example. And I'm sure you would never further display that hypocrisy by failing to give equal treatment to ALL who dare mention how they might follow Christ's call to help the least of His brethren.

I do not recall anyone demanding anonymous giving by anyone. The issue seemed to have been about the boastful and self-aggrandizing progressive liberal making themselves the "poster child" for charitable giving.

Rusty Houser Sun Jan 25, 2015 10:47 am

Darth Cheney wrote:
Paquette wrote:
Paquette wrote:Now, does everyone's demand for humility in charitable giving extend beyond me? Will you stand up and trash all those individuals and corporations who widely announce their charitable works, not with one offhand comment by an anonymous poster on some obscure internet forum viewed by a throng of less than a dozen people, but with press releases to be plastered all over the news media and paid advertisements announcing their good works?

Is publicly displaying charitable works to boost corporate image acceptable?

Is publicly boasting that republicans give more than democrats to boost party image acceptable?

Have none of you ever mentioned any acts of charity you may have done, either anonymously on the pages of some insignificant internet forum, at work, at church, on a tax form or to anyone else who will listen?

Are your demands for charitable anonymity universal or only reserved for certain people?

Crickets.

That's alright, it's far easier to attack the messenger than admit that your demand for anonymous giving is extremely selective. Does your church give to the least of His brethren? Are they silent about it or do they speak out in an effort to gain more support for their causes? Does your favorite charity keep silent or do they publicize their work in an effort to get more people involved?

It's hard to miss the hypocrisy of people who boast about how morally superior they are for never advocating for charity by example. And I'm sure you would never further display that hypocrisy by failing to give equal treatment to ALL who dare mention how they might follow Christ's call to help the least of His brethren.

Poverty should never be made comfortable, permanent or without shame. There is nothing worse then stealing self destiny and motivation from an individual and instead making it comfortable to be dependent upon others in the name of "caring". You are making the same case as plantation owners did to their slaves centuries ago.

Thank you for you honest answer. I don't agree with your opposition to giving a hand up and would have a damned hard time letting an innocent child to be lost to abortion just so I could "shame" one of the least of Christ's brethren but I support your right to your own path.

BTW: None of the parents I've helped has needed "permanent" help. The longest was three years and all but one of them worked. The one exception had some serious medical issues but has since recovered and is now gainfully employed and self sufficient.

But I must admit, yours was a fine effort to paint God's children in the most demeaning way possible. I can see why you object so strongly to any mention of following Jesus' commandment. "whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me".

Jammer Sun Jan 25, 2015 11:55 am

Paquette wrote:
Darth Cheney wrote:
Paquette wrote:
Paquette wrote:Now, does everyone's demand for humility in charitable giving extend beyond me? Will you stand up and trash all those individuals and corporations who widely announce their charitable works, not with one offhand comment by an anonymous poster on some obscure internet forum viewed by a throng of less than a dozen people, but with press releases to be plastered all over the news media and paid advertisements announcing their good works?

Is publicly displaying charitable works to boost corporate image acceptable?

Is publicly boasting that republicans give more than democrats to boost party image acceptable?

Have none of you ever mentioned any acts of charity you may have done, either anonymously on the pages of some insignificant internet forum, at work, at church, on a tax form or to anyone else who will listen?

Are your demands for charitable anonymity universal or only reserved for certain people?

Crickets.

That's alright, it's far easier to attack the messenger than admit that your demand for anonymous giving is extremely selective. Does your church give to the least of His brethren? Are they silent about it or do they speak out in an effort to gain more support for their causes? Does your favorite charity keep silent or do they publicize their work in an effort to get more people involved?

It's hard to miss the hypocrisy of people who boast about how morally superior they are for never advocating for charity by example. And I'm sure you would never further display that hypocrisy by failing to give equal treatment to ALL who dare mention how they might follow Christ's call to help the least of His brethren.

Poverty should never be made comfortable, permanent or without shame. There is nothing worse then stealing self destiny and motivation from an individual and instead making it comfortable to be dependent upon others in the name of "caring". You are making the same case as plantation owners did to their slaves centuries ago.

Thank you for you honest answer. I don't agree with your opposition to giving a hand up and would have a damned hard time letting an innocent child to be lost to abortion just so I could "shame" one of the least of Christ's brethren but I support your right to your own path.

BTW: None of the parents I've helped has needed "permanent" help. The longest was three years and all but one of them worked. The one exception had some serious medical issues but has since recovered and is now gainfully employed and self sufficient.

But I must admit, yours was a fine effort to paint God's children in the most demeaning way possible. I can see why you object so strongly to any mention of following Jesus' commandment. "whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me".

Are you completely brain dead? I did not see any indication from Darth that he is opposed to providing a hand up out of poverty for those in a position who are unable to provide for themselves. What he and every conservative that I know is opposed to is the debilitating compassion of the seemingly permanent handouts extended my liberals utilizing a remote and bloated federal bureaucracy.

Conservatives believe there is an obligation to help those who are in need but are unable to provide for themselves. However, we believe in the scale of responsibility that the Founding Fathers believed in. They believed that it was the responsibility of each individual to provide for themselves, but in the situations where a person was truly unable (not unwilling) to provide for their own needs, this responsibility fell to others in the following order of responsibility:

Self
Family
Church
Community (city)
County
State (in extreme disasters or situations such as a tornado)

But NEVER the federal government. It is too remote and far removed from the problem. The Founders believed that the best solutions to a problem always come from those closest to the problem. When the solution is far removed from the problem (such as the federal government in this example), there are gross inefficiencies as well as numerous sources of fraud and waste.

Skeptical Sun Jan 25, 2015 12:19 pm

Jammer wrote: Are you completely brain dead? I did not see any indication from Darth that he is opposed to providing a hand up out of poverty for those in a position who are unable to provide for themselves. What he and every conservative that I know is opposed to is the debilitating compassion of the seemingly permanent handouts extended my liberals utilizing a remote and bloated federal bureaucracy.

Conservatives believe there is an obligation to help those who are in need but are unable to provide for themselves. However, we believe in the scale of responsibility that the Founding Fathers believed in. They believed that it was the responsibility of each individual to provide for themselves, but in the situations where a person was truly unable (not unwilling) to provide for their own needs, this responsibility fell to others in the following order of responsibility:

Self
Family
Church
Community (city)
County
State (in extreme disasters or situations such as a tornado)

But NEVER the federal government. It is too remote and far removed from the problem. The Founders believed that the best solutions to a problem always come from those closest to the problem. When the solution is far removed from the problem (such as the federal government in this example), there are gross inefficiencies as well as numerous sources of fraud and waste.

I do think you zeroed in on the biggest difference between conservatives and the liberal progressives and mentioned it several times, RESPONSIBILITY!

The liberals think they are not responsible for what happens to them, it is always the fault of somebody or something else.

Conservatives realize we are responsible for our actions and understand there can be either good or bad consequences of those actions and let intelligent thought guide the plans of those actions.

Case in point for what started this rant by the resident boast, what personal responsibility did a single women finding herself pregnant and thinking abortion have over the situation that culminated in the pregnancy?

Rusty Houser Sun Jan 25, 2015 12:42 pm

Jammer wrote:Are you completely brain dead? I did not see any indication from Darth that he is opposed to providing a hand up out of poverty for those in a position who are unable to provide for themselves. What he and every conservative that I know is opposed to is the debilitating compassion of the seemingly permanent handouts extended my liberals utilizing a remote and bloated federal bureaucracy.

Conservatives believe there is an obligation to help those who are in need but are unable to provide for themselves. However, we believe in the scale of responsibility that the Founding Fathers believed in. They believed that it was the responsibility of each individual to provide for themselves, but in the situations where a person was truly unable (not unwilling) to provide for their own needs, this responsibility fell to others in the following order of responsibility:

Self
Family
Church
Community (city)
County
State (in extreme disasters or situations such as a tornado)

But NEVER the federal government. It is too remote and far removed from the problem. The Founders believed that the best solutions to a problem always come from those closest to the problem. When the solution is far removed from the problem (such as the federal government in this example), there are gross inefficiencies as well as numerous sources of fraud and waste.

Isn't that exactly what I'm doing? I'm helping women so they don't need governmental support and so they don't make the disastrous decision to abort their baby. Yet I've been met with a barrage of criticism for doing exactly what you're saying I should do.

Darth made no distinction between government help or private charity. He said "dependent upon others in the name of "caring"" and pointed his criticism directly at my non governmental help by saying "you are making the same case as plantation owners did to their slaves centuries ago". I never once said anything about government welfare, I have been talking about the same private assistance that you're advocating in your post.

Do you still want to argue that darth wasn't objecting to my temporary, private, non governmental help?

Jammer Sun Jan 25, 2015 1:43 pm

Paquette wrote:
Jammer wrote:Are you completely brain dead? I did not see any indication from Darth that he is opposed to providing a hand up out of poverty for those in a position who are unable to provide for themselves. What he and every conservative that I know is opposed to is the debilitating compassion of the seemingly permanent handouts extended my liberals utilizing a remote and bloated federal bureaucracy.

Conservatives believe there is an obligation to help those who are in need but are unable to provide for themselves. However, we believe in the scale of responsibility that the Founding Fathers believed in. They believed that it was the responsibility of each individual to provide for themselves, but in the situations where a person was truly unable (not unwilling) to provide for their own needs, this responsibility fell to others in the following order of responsibility:

Self
Family
Church
Community (city)
County
State (in extreme disasters or situations such as a tornado)

But NEVER the federal government. It is too remote and far removed from the problem. The Founders believed that the best solutions to a problem always come from those closest to the problem. When the solution is far removed from the problem (such as the federal government in this example), there are gross inefficiencies as well as numerous sources of fraud and waste.

Isn't that exactly what I'm doing? I'm helping women so they don't need governmental support and so they don't make the disastrous decision to abort their baby. Yet I've been met with a barrage of criticism for doing exactly what you're saying I should do.

LIBERAL LIE - LIBERAL LIE - LIBERAL LIE - LIBERAL LIE - LIBERAL LIE - LIBERAL LIE

It has hardly been a barrage of criticism, the barrage has been all of YOUR comments trying to paint yourself as some type of martyr. The criticism that came your way was in regards to your BRAGGING about what you have done.

Darth Cheney Sun Jan 25, 2015 1:59 pm

Paquette wrote:
Jammer wrote:Are you completely brain dead? I did not see any indication from Darth that he is opposed to providing a hand up out of poverty for those in a position who are unable to provide for themselves. What he and every conservative that I know is opposed to is the debilitating compassion of the seemingly permanent handouts extended my liberals utilizing a remote and bloated federal bureaucracy.

Conservatives believe there is an obligation to help those who are in need but are unable to provide for themselves. However, we believe in the scale of responsibility that the Founding Fathers believed in. They believed that it was the responsibility of each individual to provide for themselves, but in the situations where a person was truly unable (not unwilling) to provide for their own needs, this responsibility fell to others in the following order of responsibility:

Self
Family
Church
Community (city)
County
State (in extreme disasters or situations such as a tornado)

But NEVER the federal government. It is too remote and far removed from the problem. The Founders believed that the best solutions to a problem always come from those closest to the problem. When the solution is far removed from the problem (such as the federal government in this example), there are gross inefficiencies as well as numerous sources of fraud and waste.

Isn't that exactly what I'm doing? I'm helping women so they don't need governmental support and so they don't make the disastrous decision to abort their baby. Yet I've been met with a barrage of criticism for doing exactly what you're saying I should do.

Darth made no distinction between government help or private charity. He said "dependent upon others in the name of "caring"" and pointed his criticism directly at my non governmental help by saying "you are making the same case as plantation owners did to their slaves centuries ago". I never once said anything about government welfare, I have been talking about the same private assistance that you're advocating in your post.

Do you still want to argue that darth wasn't objecting to my temporary, private, non governmental help?

Maybe...just maybe...the woman should have thought about having non-protected sex when she couldn't even care for herself. Please spare me about them having jobs working their way out of poverty...bullcrap for 99% of them. The soup kitchen in this town isn't running out of homeless it is increasing their numbers. And rather then having the needy prepare, serve and clean up they have working class people spend time away from work to wait on them like servants. "I'm helping these women" sounds like they are too stupid to keep their legs closed to me. Do you coach them on that also?

Everyone should be given assistance that needs it for an extremely limited time period...< 6 months. After that...thrown to the curb. There is a really good reason these people are not receiving help from their families...anymore.

Jammer Sun Jan 25, 2015 2:06 pm

Skeptical wrote:
Jammer wrote: Are you completely brain dead? I did not see any indication from Darth that he is opposed to providing a hand up out of poverty for those in a position who are unable to provide for themselves. What he and every conservative that I know is opposed to is the debilitating compassion of the seemingly permanent handouts extended my liberals utilizing a remote and bloated federal bureaucracy.

Conservatives believe there is an obligation to help those who are in need but are unable to provide for themselves. However, we believe in the scale of responsibility that the Founding Fathers believed in. They believed that it was the responsibility of each individual to provide for themselves, but in the situations where a person was truly unable (not unwilling) to provide for their own needs, this responsibility fell to others in the following order of responsibility:

Self
Family
Church
Community (city)
County
State (in extreme disasters or situations such as a tornado)

But NEVER the federal government. It is too remote and far removed from the problem. The Founders believed that the best solutions to a problem always come from those closest to the problem. When the solution is far removed from the problem (such as the federal government in this example), there are gross inefficiencies as well as numerous sources of fraud and waste.

I do think you zeroed in on the biggest difference between conservatives and the liberal progressives and mentioned it several times, RESPONSIBILITY!

The liberals think they are not responsible for what happens to them, it is always the fault of somebody or something else.

Conservatives realize we are responsible for our actions and understand there can be either good or bad consequences of those actions and let intelligent thought guide the plans of those actions.

Case in point for what started this rant by the resident boast, what personal responsibility did a single women finding herself pregnant and thinking abortion have over the situation that culminated in the pregnancy?

You are 100% correct. The Founding Fathers were guided by many guiding principles when they created our system of government. We are so fortunate to be benefitting from the wisdom of these truly great men. They not only won a bloody war to secure our freedom from a tyrannical King George, but they set in place a country where every citizen could enjoy our God given rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I think the guiding principle the Founders used that probably equates to your statement above is the following:

All things were created by God, therefore upon Him all mankind are equally dependent and to Him they are equally responsible.

Rusty Houser Mon Jan 26, 2015 7:00 am

Darth Cheney wrote:Maybe...just maybe...the woman should have thought about having non-protected sex when she couldn't even care for herself. Please spare me about them having jobs working their way out of poverty...bullcrap for 99% of them. The soup kitchen in this town isn't running out of homeless it is increasing their numbers. And rather then having the needy prepare, serve and clean up they have working class people spend time away from work to wait on them like servants. "I'm helping these women" sounds like they are too stupid to keep their legs closed to me. Do you coach them on that also?

Everyone should be given assistance that needs it for an extremely limited time period...< 6 months. After that...thrown to the curb. There is a really good reason these people are not receiving help from their families...anymore.

Sure, I could have gotten all self righteous and refused to help because they might have made the same poor choices that people have been making since the beginning of time but then it's very possible that those children would have been aborted. Maybe you can live with that but my faith takes me down a different path. Jesus didn't give His life for the saved, he gave His life to save the sinners.

I guess it depends on what you think is more important, standing in judgment and keeping a little more money in your pocket, or the life of the child. I have shown what's more important to me and you have shown what's more important to you.

To justify your decision to kick that unborn child to the curb you have judged people you don't even know. I get to know them so I know that my limited funds will be most effective. Instead of brow beating them from a distance as a stranger, I stand beside them so there's a good chance my "coaching" will be taken to heart.

To me that's the difference between being pro life or just anti abortion.

Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.

Dr. Evil Mon Jan 26, 2015 7:55 am

It's unfortunate that a real Christian telling their story of giving makes some of you so uncomfortable, it should be celebrated. Maybe this is a good opportunity for some of you reassess your own relationship with God. This is exactly why Christianity is faltering. Everybody is sick of modern day neo-christians' "do as I day not as I do" attitude. Not only is it hypocratic, but it breaks the third commandment. It's not that liberals don't generally live by the scripture, it's just that they don't like being associated with you hacks. How can you argue over a "hand up vs. a hand out" when the bible very clearly points toward a hand out?

Rusty Houser Mon Jan 26, 2015 8:25 am

Dr. Jones wrote:Maybe this is a good opportunity for some of you reassess your own relationship with God. This is exactly why Christianity is faltering. Everybody is sick of modern day neo-christians' "do as I day not as I do" attitude. Not only is it hypocratic, but it breaks the third commandment. It's not that liberals don't generally live by the scripture, it's just that they don't like being associated with you hacks. How can you argue over a "hand up vs. a hand out" when the bible very clearly points toward a hand out?

I lean heavily towards the hand up rather than the hand out but I'm getting the impression that some are opposed to the hand up as well.

That's their choice but when it comes to the topic of this discussion, saving the life of an unborn child, I don't think it enters the conversation at all. So what if the woman made a poor choice, should that condemn the resulting child to death? Should I abandon my pro life principles in favor of my economic principles?

What I'd like to know is if those who are judging women for being "too stupid to keep their legs closed" have lived an exemplary life. Have they led by example and never once engaged in premarital sex? Do their life choices stand up to the same scrutiny that they expect of others?

Jammer Mon Jan 26, 2015 8:34 am

Dr. Jones wrote:It's unfortunate that a real Christian telling their story of giving makes some of you so uncomfortable, it should be celebrated. Maybe this is a good opportunity for some of you reassess your own relationship with God. This is exactly why Christianity is faltering. Everybody is sick of modern day neo-christians' "do as I day not as I do" attitude. Not only is it hypocratic, but it breaks the third commandment. It's not that liberals don't generally live by the scripture, it's just that they don't like being associated with you hacks. How can you argue over a "hand up vs. a hand out" when the bible very clearly points toward a hand out?

Ben Franklin said it best:

Compassion which breeds debilitating dependency and weakness is counter productive.
Compassion which blunts the desire or necessity to work for a living is counter productive.
Compassion which smothers the instinct to strove and excel is counter productive.

Dr. Evil Mon Jan 26, 2015 8:57 am

Jammer wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:It's unfortunate that a real Christian telling their story of giving makes some of you so uncomfortable, it should be celebrated. Maybe this is a good opportunity for some of you reassess your own relationship with God. This is exactly why Christianity is faltering. Everybody is sick of modern day neo-christians' "do as I day not as I do" attitude. Not only is it hypocratic, but it breaks the third commandment. It's not that liberals don't generally live by the scripture, it's just that they don't like being associated with you hacks. How can you argue over a "hand up vs. a hand out" when the bible very clearly points toward a hand out?

Ben Franklin said it best:

Compassion which breeds debilitating dependency and weakness is counter productive.
Compassion which blunts the desire or necessity to work for a living is counter productive.
Compassion which smothers the instinct to strove and excel is counter productive.

What does God say? Or don't you really care?

Skeptical Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:04 am

Dr. Jones wrote:It's unfortunate that a real Christian telling their story of giving makes some of you so uncomfortable, it should be celebrated. Maybe this is a good opportunity for some of you reassess your own relationship with God. This is exactly why Christianity is faltering. Everybody is sick of modern day neo-christians' "do as I day not as I do" attitude. Not only is it hypocratic, but it breaks the third commandment. It's not that liberals don't generally live by the scripture, it's just that they don't like being associated with you hacks. How can you argue over a "hand up vs. a hand out" when the bible very clearly points toward a hand out?

Who is this "real Christian" you speak of?
Were you there?
Did you personally witness this giving?
What was the real motive for this "giving"?

Jammer Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:43 am

Dr. Jones wrote:
Jammer wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:It's unfortunate that a real Christian telling their story of giving makes some of you so uncomfortable, it should be celebrated. Maybe this is a good opportunity for some of you reassess your own relationship with God. This is exactly why Christianity is faltering. Everybody is sick of modern day neo-christians' "do as I day not as I do" attitude. Not only is it hypocratic, but it breaks the third commandment. It's not that liberals don't generally live by the scripture, it's just that they don't like being associated with you hacks. How can you argue over a "hand up vs. a hand out" when the bible very clearly points toward a hand out?

Ben Franklin said it best:

Compassion which breeds debilitating dependency and weakness is counter productive.
Compassion which blunts the desire or necessity to work for a living is counter productive.
Compassion which smothers the instinct to strove and excel is counter productive.

What does God say? Or don't you really care?

My grandmother told me that God helps those who help THEMSELVES.

BladeRunner Mon Jan 26, 2015 11:06 am

Dr. Jones wrote:
Jammer wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:It's unfortunate that a real Christian telling their story of giving makes some of you so uncomfortable, it should be celebrated. Maybe this is a good opportunity for some of you reassess your own relationship with God. This is exactly why Christianity is faltering. Everybody is sick of modern day neo-christians' "do as I day not as I do" attitude. Not only is it hypocratic, but it breaks the third commandment. It's not that liberals don't generally live by the scripture, it's just that they don't like being associated with you hacks. How can you argue over a "hand up vs. a hand out" when the bible very clearly points toward a hand out?

Ben Franklin said it best:

Compassion which breeds debilitating dependency and weakness is counter productive.
Compassion which blunts the desire or necessity to work for a living is counter productive.
Compassion which smothers the instinct to strove and excel is counter productive.

What does God say? Or don't you really care?

Here's what God says.....

Paul in 2nd Thessalonians 3 wrote:6In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teachinga you received from us. 7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. 10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

11We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat. 13And as for you, brothers and sisters, never tire of doing what is good.

14Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. 15Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer.

I work with some people from India, and I think their form of helping the poor is done much better than it is here. According to them, there is no free welfare. If anyone needs money, they come to work for it EVERYDAY. It's not a guaranteed amount a month. If you show up, you'll be given some work to do that day to earn the money.

There are plenty of jobs in the community our welfare recipients could do. If they showed up, they'd be given tasks to do to earn the welfare money.

Can you imagine the liberals screaming about this? Make them WORK for it? Are you kidding? HOW DARE YOU??????

Skeptical Mon Jan 26, 2015 11:34 am

BladeRunner wrote: Here's what God says.....

Paul in 2nd Thessalonians 3 wrote:6In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teachinga you received from us. 7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. 10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

11We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat. 13And as for you, brothers and sisters, never tire of doing what is good.

14Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. 15Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer.

I work with some people from India, and I think their form of helping the poor is done much better than it is here. According to them, there is no free welfare. If anyone needs money, they come to work for it EVERYDAY. It's not a guaranteed amount a month. If you show up, you'll be given some work to do that day to earn the money.

There are plenty of jobs in the community our welfare recipients could do. If they showed up, they'd be given tasks to do to earn the welfare money.

Can you imagine the liberals screaming about this? Make them WORK for it? Are you kidding? HOW DARE YOU??????

I recall this or similar concept being advanced by a poster on the extinct Argus Leader Forum and got thoroughly trashed by the liberals. It mattered not to those scoffing liberals whether a person on welfare is physically and mentally able to work, it is just too degrading to make them work for their aid.

BladeRunner Mon Jan 26, 2015 11:49 am

Skeptical wrote:
BladeRunner wrote: Here's what God says.....

Paul in 2nd Thessalonians 3 wrote:6In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teachinga you received from us. 7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. 10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

11We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat. 13And as for you, brothers and sisters, never tire of doing what is good.

14Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. 15Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer.

I work with some people from India, and I think their form of helping the poor is done much better than it is here. According to them, there is no free welfare. If anyone needs money, they come to work for it EVERYDAY. It's not a guaranteed amount a month. If you show up, you'll be given some work to do that day to earn the money.

There are plenty of jobs in the community our welfare recipients could do. If they showed up, they'd be given tasks to do to earn the welfare money.

Can you imagine the liberals screaming about this? Make them WORK for it? Are you kidding? HOW DARE YOU??????

I recall this or similar concept being advanced by a poster on the extinct Argus Leader Forum and got thoroughly trashed by the liberals. It mattered not to those scoffing liberals whether a person on welfare is physically and mentally able to work, it is just too degrading to make them work for their aid.

The verses I posted earlier cover this as well....

14Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. 15Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer.

Why would Paul say that they should feel ashamed?

Maybe it's because it might cause them to get off their butts and actually do some work????????

To constantly provide for people does them absolutely no good. It actually arms them.....
I am not talking about the people that cannot fend for themselves...

I found this article about this topic very interesting:

http://selwynduke.typepad.com/selwyndukecom/2007/11/bible-those-who.html

The balanced view is that we have been enjoined to help the desperate, but not the deadbeats. To facilitate irresponsibility is to harm your fellow man, for by lavishing him with undeserved largess you corrupt his soul. And, as Jesus said, do not fear that which destroys the body; fear that which destroys the soul.

Darth Cheney Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:54 pm

Paquette wrote:
Darth Cheney wrote:Maybe...just maybe...the woman should have thought about having non-protected sex when she couldn't even care for herself. Please spare me about them having jobs working their way out of poverty...bullcrap for 99% of them. The soup kitchen in this town isn't running out of homeless it is increasing their numbers. And rather then having the needy prepare, serve and clean up they have working class people spend time away from work to wait on them like servants. "I'm helping these women" sounds like they are too stupid to keep their legs closed to me. Do you coach them on that also?

Everyone should be given assistance that needs it for an extremely limited time period...< 6 months. After that...thrown to the curb. There is a really good reason these people are not receiving help from their families...anymore.

Sure, I could have gotten all self righteous and refused to help because they might have made the same poor choices that people have been making since the beginning of time but then it's very possible that those children would have been aborted. Maybe you can live with that but my faith takes me down a different path. Jesus didn't give His life for the saved, he gave His life to save the sinners.

I guess it depends on what you think is more important, standing in judgment and keeping a little more money in your pocket, or the life of the child. I have shown what's more important to me and you have shown what's more important to you.

To justify your decision to kick that unborn child to the curb you have judged people you don't even know. I get to know them so I know that my limited funds will be most effective. Instead of brow beating them from a distance as a stranger, I stand beside them so there's a good chance my "coaching" will be taken to heart.

To me that's the difference between being pro life or just anti abortion.

Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.

She should have put her children up for adoption and kept her legs closed in the future. What you have done is enabled her poor decisions and allowed her to continue her mistakes. Maybe they are your children also...

Speaking of which...where is the father??? Let me guess...

Rusty Houser Mon Jan 26, 2015 6:47 pm

Darth Cheney wrote:She should have put her children up for adoption and kept her legs closed in the future. What you have done is enabled her poor decisions and allowed her to continue her mistakes. Maybe they are your children also...

Speaking of which...where is the father??? Let me guess...

Wow. Just plain wow.

Have you found a loophole in the 8th commandment?

Dr. Evil Mon Jan 26, 2015 7:35 pm

BladeRunner wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Jammer wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:It's unfortunate that a real Christian telling their story of giving makes some of you so uncomfortable, it should be celebrated. Maybe this is a good opportunity for some of you reassess your own relationship with God. This is exactly why Christianity is faltering. Everybody is sick of modern day neo-christians' "do as I day not as I do" attitude. Not only is it hypocratic, but it breaks the third commandment. It's not that liberals don't generally live by the scripture, it's just that they don't like being associated with you hacks. How can you argue over a "hand up vs. a hand out" when the bible very clearly points toward a hand out?

Ben Franklin said it best:

Compassion which breeds debilitating dependency and weakness is counter productive.
Compassion which blunts the desire or necessity to work for a living is counter productive.
Compassion which smothers the instinct to strove and excel is counter productive.

What does God say? Or don't you really care?

Here's what God says.....

Paul in 2nd Thessalonians 3 wrote:6In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teachinga you received from us. 7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. 10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

11We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat. 13And as for you, brothers and sisters, never tire of doing what is good.

14Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. 15Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer.

I work with some people from India, and I think their form of helping the poor is done much better than it is here. According to them, there is no free welfare. If anyone needs money, they come to work for it EVERYDAY. It's not a guaranteed amount a month. If you show up, you'll be given some work to do that day to earn the money.

There are plenty of jobs in the community our welfare recipients could do. If they showed up, they'd be given tasks to do to earn the welfare money.

Can you imagine the liberals screaming about this? Make them WORK for it? Are you kidding? HOW DARE YOU??????

In these passages Paul was referring to not taking a lazy our disruptive attitude toward your faith in general. As an example, Paul offers that God does not want you to expect to be fed in his name, but he also forbids you from being disruptive of God's word in other ways and then just sitting around waiting for his forgiveness. To point at this parable as proof that others are not living up to God's standards while you have your own shortcomings not only distorts the point, but is rather disingenuous.

Jammer Mon Jan 26, 2015 7:44 pm

Paquette wrote:
Darth Cheney wrote:She should have put her children up for adoption and kept her legs closed in the future. What you have done is enabled her poor decisions and allowed her to continue her mistakes. Maybe they are your children also...

Speaking of which...where is the father??? Let me guess...

Wow. Just plain wow.

Have you found a loophole in the 8th commandment?

The only loophole that has been found is the loophole the progressive liberals have created in the code of personal responsibility.

BladeRunner Tue Jan 27, 2015 8:48 am

Dr. Jones wrote:
BladeRunner wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Jammer wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:It's unfortunate that a real Christian telling their story of giving makes some of you so uncomfortable, it should be celebrated. Maybe this is a good opportunity for some of you reassess your own relationship with God. This is exactly why Christianity is faltering. Everybody is sick of modern day neo-christians' "do as I day not as I do" attitude. Not only is it hypocratic, but it breaks the third commandment. It's not that liberals don't generally live by the scripture, it's just that they don't like being associated with you hacks. How can you argue over a "hand up vs. a hand out" when the bible very clearly points toward a hand out?

Ben Franklin said it best:

Compassion which breeds debilitating dependency and weakness is counter productive.
Compassion which blunts the desire or necessity to work for a living is counter productive.
Compassion which smothers the instinct to strove and excel is counter productive.

What does God say? Or don't you really care?

Here's what God says.....

Paul in 2nd Thessalonians 3 wrote:6In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teachinga you received from us. 7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. 10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

11We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat. 13And as for you, brothers and sisters, never tire of doing what is good.

14Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. 15Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer.

I work with some people from India, and I think their form of helping the poor is done much better than it is here. According to them, there is no free welfare. If anyone needs money, they come to work for it EVERYDAY. It's not a guaranteed amount a month. If you show up, you'll be given some work to do that day to earn the money.

There are plenty of jobs in the community our welfare recipients could do. If they showed up, they'd be given tasks to do to earn the welfare money.

Can you imagine the liberals screaming about this? Make them WORK for it? Are you kidding? HOW DARE YOU??????

In these passages Paul was referring to not taking a lazy our disruptive attitude toward your faith in general. As an example, Paul offers that God does not want you to expect to be fed in his name, but he also forbids you from being disruptive of God's word in other ways and then just sitting around waiting for his forgiveness. To point at this parable as proof that others are not living up to God's standards while you have your own shortcomings not only distorts the point, but is rather disingenuous.

Exactly where did I or anyone else point out this parable as proof others are not living up to God's standards?

Are you able to comprehend ANYTHING?

And, apparently you do not take the Bible for what it says, but rather use a liberal mind to interpret it. It says that if you're going to be lazy, you don't eat. While it could apply to the lazy person's faith, it says outright that if you don't work, you don't eat.

Paul also talks about himself, saying that he does not take without giving, to not be a burden on society and to show an example for others to follow:
"On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. "

Your liberal interpretation is really twisting what the Bible plainly says. Are you saying that it only applies to faith, or people of faith? Are you also going to say that the Ten Commandments only apply to people of faith?

You are the one missing the whole point. YOU asked what God says about giving to others who don't earn it. I told you. It's very simple reading.....really, it is.

There are those that actually need our help, those that cannot fend for themselves. And we should help those people. No one is arguing that fact. But there are also those people in our society that continually leach off the system without contributing to it. They are no different than the people Paul was talking about.

Skeptical Tue Jan 27, 2015 9:03 am

Paquette wrote:
Darth Cheney wrote:She should have put her children up for adoption and kept her legs closed in the future. What you have done is enabled her poor decisions and allowed her to continue her mistakes. Maybe they are your children also...

Speaking of which...where is the father??? Let me guess...

Wow. Just plain wow.

Have you found a loophole in the 8th commandment?

You mean the same loophole used by Dr. Jones earlier in this thread?

Sponsored content