Soft on Sin

[laconicstudent]

The Bible forbids killing, but I do not believe anything should be done for people in poverty or against people in poverty.

Hm, Jesus believed otherwise, but ok.

I believe the only responsibility of Christians is to offer Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior with a commitment to follow the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

One of which was to give all you had to the poor.

As a Christian there is a responsibility of Christians to show personal Christian Charity to fellow Christians.

Jesus never said anything that could be even remotely construed as supporting that.

I believe Socialism (health care/welfare) does more harm than good, because it allows people to survive without having to examine their lives and remove those sinful/evil things that are producing the problems.

Yes, its poor people's fault they are poor.

 

[clirus]

laconicstudent quote

Jesus never said anything that could be even remotely construed as supporting that.

Response

The New Testament constantly refers to "brother", which I interpret to be "bothers in Christ", thus the New Testament is a discussion of how Christians should live and deal with fellow Christians.

II Corinthians 6:14 states, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with the unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"

Thus when personal charity is discussed in the New Testament, it is personal charity to fellow Christians.

Yes, I believe most poverty is caused by a failure to follow the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

A lot of people call themselves Christians, but have no intention of following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible. When a Church accepts these people as part of the Church, I believe they are being "soft on sin".

We have seen the effects of the "soft on sin" attitude in the Catholic Church.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The New Testament constantly refers to "brother", which I interpret to be "bothers in Christ", thus the New Testament is a discussion of how Christians should live and deal with fellow Christians.

Thus when personal charity is discussed in the New Testament, it is personal charity to fellow Christians.

The New Testament also refers to 'neighbour', which Christ very explicitly shows is not confined to those sharing the same religious affiliation. Thus, when charity is discussed in the NT, it is not only charity between those who share the same religious affiliations. If it was, then the Samaritan would never have helped the Jew.

Yes, I believe most poverty is caused by a failure to follow the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

So what? No one cares if you believe it. Show us some empirical evidence that supports this outrageous claim. Show us stats and figures that very clearly illustrate a strong correlation between poverty and sinfulness. The burden of proof is on you, not us.

You said:

(A) The purpose of the Book of Job was to show that poverty was not a proof of sin, yet you seem to be saying being rich is proof of sin​

Followed closely by:

(B) I believe the disease, death, destruction and poverty is the result of the sin and not because someone refuses to help.​

And more recently:

Atheists and the Atheistic Lifestyle produce disease, death, destruction and poverty.​

Sin leads to disease, death, destruction and poverty.

If A, then not B. You claimed that "poverty was not a proof of sin" while many of your other claims assume that poverty is a proof of sin. You, sir or madam, are contradicting yourself! For example, in this thread, you unjustifiably interpreted lack of healthcare coverage to be indicative of sinfulness, and inferred that the 30 million uninsured Americans were sinful. You therefore assumed that their lack, their poverty, was proof of sin! Conversely, you inferred that the 170 million Americans with coverage were Bible-abiding persons. You therefore assumed that their possessions (health insurance) were indicative of their fidelity to Scripture! You claim that poverty is not proof of sin, but contradict yourself by assuming that a people's poverty is indicative of their sinfulness. It's like saying, 'Being poor isn't proof that you're a criminal, but because you're poor I'm going to assume that you are a criminal.' No one should trust what you have to say on poverty - you contradict yourself.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

laconicstudent quote

Jesus never said anything that could be even remotely construed as supporting that.

Response

The New Testament constantly refers to "brother", which I interpret to be "bothers in Christ", thus the New Testament is a discussion of how Christians should live and deal with fellow Christians.

II Corinthians 6:14 states, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with the unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"

Thus when personal charity is discussed in the New Testament, it is personal charity to fellow Christians.

Yes, I believe most poverty is caused by a failure to follow the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

A lot of people call themselves Christians, but have no intention of following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible. When a Church accepts these people as part of the Church, I believe they are being "soft on sin".

We have seen the effects of the "soft on sin" attitude in the Catholic Church.

Oh you are just the worst sort of Christian. The kind that everyone references as the type of Christian they aren't, when debating with non-believers.


James 2:5. Did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?


Luke 12:33. "Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys."

Matt 5
40And if any man [not just fellow christians] will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;




This next one is particularly applicable



Luke 14:12-14. "When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return, and repayment come to you. But when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, since they do not have the means to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."





Mt. 19:20. The young man said to Him, "All these commands I have kept; what am I still lacking?" Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

Notice he wasn't saying to go out and give all of your possessions to poor Christians. He just said "the poor".




Luke 6:24. "But woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving your comfort in full."




Prov. 29:7. The righteous is concerned for the rights of the poor; the wicked does not understand such concern.





When I see my sister and her husband, who purposely live in a very impoverished neighborhood, invite the homeless into their home for dinner, frequently sleep out under the stars down town to be closer to the homeless, and just generally spend as much time as possible giving of their own time to the poor, I think "Now THERE are some Christians." When I see you and others like you, I am reminded why I stopped going to church. Because I don't want people to think I'm like you.



I'm assuming you're one of those people who is against socialism. And so am I. I'm an agorist after all. But there's a difference between socialism (charity at gun point), and true christian charity. Giving to the poor freely is not socialism,there's no government involved. But it is a command from Jesus.

 

[keith99]

When it comes to charity and good acts towards others didn't Jesus respond to those who limited such to only fellow Christians with something like "Don't even tax collectors do as much?"?

 

[Nathan Poe]

The Bible forbids killing,

But you found the loophole a long time ago.

 

[jgarden]

laconicstudent quote

Jesus never said anything that could be even remotely construed as supporting that.

Response

The New Testament constantly refers to "brother", which I interpret to be "bothers in Christ", thus the New Testament is a discussion of how Christians should live and deal with fellow Christians.

II Corinthians 6:14 states, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with the unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"

Thus when personal charity is discussed in the New Testament, it is personal charity to fellow Christians.

Yes, I believe most poverty is caused by a failure to follow the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

A lot of people call themselves Christians, but have no intention of following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible. When a Church accepts these people as part of the Church, I believe they are being "soft on sin".

We have seen the effects of the "soft on sin" attitude in the Catholic Church.

This is one of those "give clirus enough rope ....." moments.

It wasn`t until now that I actually realized that she was attempting to mix and match otherwise unrelated verses from diffferent books in the New Testament and by linking them create new hybrid verses that would support her own ultraconservative agenda.

 

[clirus]

To DontTreadOnMike

I appreciate the effort you went to in collecting verses that support your position, but you did not deal with spiritually poor versus physically poor.

Matthew 5:3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Notice the "poor in spirit"

James 2:5. Did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?

Notice the "rich in faith"

Somehow the Church (especially the Catholic Church) got into trying to resolve physical poverty and ended up with Socialism.

I believe the intend of God and the Bible is to resolve spiritual poverty by accepting Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and committing to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible. When the spiritual poverty is resolved, the physical poverty will be also.

Socialism is giving a person a fish and Christianity is teaching a person to fish.

Some say there is no relation between sin and poverty, but the woman that has an illegitimate child is in instant poverty, thus I see a direct relation of sin and poverty. The Bible even states that the wages of sin is death.

Romans 6:23 states, "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

The Great Commandment does not require that a sandwich be offered.

Matthew 28:19-20 states, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world."

The problem that I have with Socialism (Social miniseries, etc.) is that I believe dealing mostly with the physical poverty allows the person to avoid examining their lives and removing things that are causing the poverty.

Socialism thrives on the concept of hating the rich but loving the poor, but the Bible states that both the rich and poor are in great danger.

Proverbs 30:8-9 states, "Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the LORD? Or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain."

I hope what I have stated will cause you to rethink your position about how God wants to deal with poverty.

PS1

KJV - Prov. 29:7 states, "The righteous considereth the cause of the poor: but the wicked regardeth not to know it.

??? - Prov. 29:7. The righteous is concerned for the rights of the poor; the wicked does not understand such concern.

Every Socialist would like the Bible to say "rights of the poor", but that is not what the KJV says.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

When the spiritual poverty is resolved, the physical poverty will be also.

What indicates that when spiritual poverty is resolved material poverty will also be resolved???

Many people who are materially poor have accepted Christ and yet still continue to be materially poor. How come their physical poverty wasn't instantly resolved with their spiritual poverty?

Socialism is giving a person a fish and Christianity is teaching a person to fish.

Not your version of 'Christianity'.

Some say there is no relation between sin and poverty, but the woman that has an illegitimate child is in instant poverty, thus I see a direct relation of sin and poverty.

That's not necessarily true either!

I hope what I have stated will cause you to rethink your position about how God wants to deal with poverty.

The issue here is not how God wants to deal with poverty, but how you want to deal with poverty. You are on record here for stating that you believe that nothing should be done for or against the poor. That is totally incongruent with the Scriptures, because Jesus did many things for the poor and he encouraged his disciples to do likewise.

 

[jgarden]

Soft on Sin

Socialism is the Atheists/Humanists attempt to make Atheism workable.

..... This is a political subject because Republicans have yet to prove to me that they totally support Christian principles, but democrats have proven they do "not" support Christian Principles.

One has to ask the question, "Will there be any democrats in Heaven?"

I believe a person that is not soft on sin for themselves and yet soft on sin for other people is a hypocrite.

***************************************************************************************************

An ideology is a set of ideas that discusses one's goals, expectations, and actions ..... the ruling class affect their social reproduction by the dominant ideology's representing—to every social-economic class—that the economic interests of the ruling class are the economic interests of the entire society .....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology

IDEOLOGIES (-ISMS)
*********************
- Dominionism
- Theocracy
- Marxism, Trotskyism, Communism
- Socialism
- Mediaevalism
- Islamism
- Capitalism
- Feminism
- Centrism
- Zionism
- Nazism
- Royalism/Monarchism/Theocracy/Absolutism
- Progressivism
- Utilitarianism

By making "support(ing) Christian principles" synominous with supporting the current dominant ideology representing "..... the economic interests of the ruling class," "clirus" is guilty of making the classic error of attempting to "deify" the "secular."

As demonstrated throughout history, when a society finally repudiates the dominant ideology, it often repudiates those religious institutions that helped sustain that discredited ideology. Over the centuries, Christianity had established such an "incestuous" relationship with Monarchism and Capitalism that Communism also rejected it, in favor of "Atheism."

 

[Nathan Poe]

laconicstudent quote

Jesus never said anything that could be even remotely construed as supporting that.

Response

The New Testament constantly refers to "brother", which I interpret to be "bothers in Christ", thus the New Testament is a discussion of how Christians should live and deal with fellow Christians.

Just so we're clear -- we're no longer talking about the words of Christ, but the words of clirus.

 

[clirus]

jgarden quote

By making "support(ing) Christian principles" synominous with supporting the current dominant ideology representing "..... the economic interests of the ruling class," "clirus" is guilty of making the classic error of attempting to "deify" the "secular."

Response

But aren't Socialists just trying to replace the economic interests of the rich by the economic interest of the poor as being dominant?

I see no justification of either the rich or the poor being given dominance if they are where they are by evil activity.

It is really hard for Socialists to admit that there is a relation between sin and poverty, but the Bible clearly states:

Romans 6:23 states, "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Christians need to deal with issues as good and evil, not rich or poor.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is really hard for Socialists to admit that there is a relation between sin and poverty, but the Bible clearly states:

And it's even harder for you to admit that you are contradicting yourself repeatedly. You claim that there is a strong relation between sinfulness and poverty, and yet you also have claimed that 'poverty is not proof of sin'. If it is not proof of sin then how can the apparent association between these variables be as strong as you claim it is?

Christians need to deal with issues as good and evil, not rich or poor.

But you don't even do that! You deal with issues in terms of rich and poor and you assume that poverty is an indication of sinfulness despite claiming the opposite! What's worse is that you are on record for saying that we ought to do nothing for poor people - an idea that is totally incongruent with many of Christ's teachings.

 

[jgarden]

The Bible forbids killing, but I do not believe anything should be done for people in poverty or against people in poverty. - clirus

I believe the intend of God and the Bible is to resolve spiritual poverty by accepting Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and committing to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible. When the spiritual poverty is resolved, the physical poverty will be also. - clirus

Some say there is no relation between sin and poverty, but the woman that has an illegitimate child is in instant poverty, thus I see a direct relation of sin and poverty. The Bible even states that the wages of sin is death.- clirus

The Great Commandment does not require that a sandwich be offered. -clirus

As the Bible says, AIDS would be just punishment for sin, except that homosexuals with AIDS are treated as needy people that deserve health care/welfare programs as part of a Socialism system. - clirus

I don't see poverty decreasing. I believe a "soft on sin" approach encourages immoral behavior. - clirus

Trying to pin "clirus" down on "poverty," "The greatest Commandment" or virtually any other topic is tantamount to shooting at a "moving target." Initially she equated poverty with sin, but under pressure is now gradually "backpedaling" from her original hardline position.

As is in most of her threads, "clirus" is rapidly reaching the point where there are so many unanswered questions that she is unprepared to address that she she abandons the thread, introduces a new topic - and we start the same process all over again.

Upon closer examination, however, one finds that despite the titles, these "new threads" are nothing more than variations on the same old theme - manipulating the Bible to support an ultraconservative agenda that many of us feel is diametrically opposed to the Bible and Christian values!

 

[clirus]

Trying to pin "clirus" down on "poverty," "The greatest Commandment" or virtually any other topic is tantamount to shooting at a "moving target." Initially she equated poverty with sin, but under pressure is now gradually "backpedaling" from her original hardline position.

As is in most of her threads, "clirus" is rapidly reaching the point where there are so many unanswered questions that she is unprepared to address that she she abandons the thread, introduces a new topic - and we start the same process all over again.

Upon closer examination, however, one finds that despite the titles, these "new threads" are nothing more than variations on the same old theme - manipulating the Bible to support an ultraconservative agenda that many of us feel is diametrically opposed to the Bible and Christian values!

When nothing new is being discussed, it is time to move on.

I try to always address new issues when I write, but there is always repeating because all issues come back to the concepts of good and evil.

 

[WannaWitness]

Well, here is my two-cents on this whole issue....

I have never been one to really connect politics with Christianity. My reasons for this are a bit hard to explain. I, for one, am annoyed that people in general have become "soft on sin". But when it comes to politics, there is no party that is more guilty than the other. If we try hard enough (and have a little too much time on our hands), we can dig up dirt about every political leader in the world, no matter how good they are. They are all flawed in one way or another (as every human being is). Politicians (regardless of party) will get up and speak about causes they claim to support, then don't deliver. Republicans and Democrats both have been caught in the midst of one scandal after another, proving once and for all that no party is completely lily-white. Republicans and Democrats both have their bad agendas, as well as good ideas. Some people have resorted to "third parties" (when available) when they don't think neither main party "cuts the mustard". Then again, that's often a lost cause, as well, because not enough is known about them, and everybody knows they rarely, if ever, make it to office. HOwever, what little is known seems to combine the best ideas of both main parties. I, as a nonpartisan, believe that there is no party that can be labeled a "Christian" party (for some of the very reasons I mentioned above), so I believe in voting for whoever we feel can best do the job. Then, it's important to pray for whoever makes it into office, even ones we don't particularly care for. I don't mean judgmental, finger-pointing "prayers" for destruction, but prayers for wisdom to make the right decisions, then trusting God to take care of His people. This morning's "Daily Bread" devotional was on this very topic, pointing to Scripture from 1 Timothy 2:1-7, which says to pray for those in leadership and authority. We also need to pray for party differences to be set aside for those in leadership to work together. If more Christians would at least do that much, maybe we'll see some good happen.


I can imagine some here will think of me as some sort of renegade or common heathen for my feelings on this, but I know there are others who will know exactly what I'm saying.

 

[ACougar]

Hmm... so the more money I have the less sinfull I must be? You sound like a BP executive!

You are implying that people whose morals are consistent with the Bible can afford health insurance. What's more, you are implying that 170 million people (the number that can afford health insurance) have morals consistent with the Bible! Prove it - show us some figures that indicate that 170 million people who can afford health insurance have Bible-consistent moralities. Otherwise, this is a ridiculous claim purely because of its broad assumptions.



Wow. So 170 million people who can afford health insurance have values consistent with the Bible, but 30 million people who cannot afford health insurance cannot afford it due to sin? Your speculations would be amusing Clirus if they were not so patently absurd.

Besides that, you are contradicting yourself again!

You said:

(A) The purpose of the Book of Job was to show that poverty was not a proof of sin, yet you seem to be saying being rich is proof of sin
​

Followed closely by:

(B) I believe the disease, death, destruction and poverty is the result of the sin and not because someone refuses to help.
​

And more recently:

Atheists and the Atheistic Lifestyle produce disease, death, destruction and poverty.
​

Sin leads to disease, death, destruction and poverty.
​

If A, then not B. You claimed that "poverty was not a proof of sin" while many of your other claims assume that poverty is a proof of sin. You, sir or madam, are contradicting yourself! For example, in this thread, you unjustifiably interpreted lack of healthcare coverage to be indicative of sinfulness, and inferred that the 30 million uninsured Americans were sinful. You therefore assumed that their lack, their poverty, was proof of sin! Conversely, you inferred that the 170 million Americans with coverage were Bible-abiding persons. You therefore assumed that their possessions (health insurance) were indicative of their fidelity to Scripture! In this way you contradict your own claim that "poverty [is] not proof of sin" by conjecturing that a people's poverty (in this case, lack of healthcare coverage) is indicative of their sin! It's like saying, 'Being poor isn't proof that you're a criminal, but because you're poor I'm going to assume that you are a criminal.'

So how do you account for this self-contradiction?



The State cannot take any stance on sin (soft or hard approach) without expressly violating the Separation of Church and State.



But the State has no compelling reason (for neither safety or economics) to rebuke/eliminate some things that the Church calls sin.



And I believe that a person who claims that "that poverty [is] not proof of sin" and that "poverty is the result of sin" is contradicting themselves.

 

[ACougar]

The most despicable hateful act that Obama has done is to force the military to drop the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

Yea... not much more hateful and unchristian than treating people the way you'd want to be treated.

 

[jgarden]

When nothing new is being discussed, it is time to move on.

I try to always address new issues when I write, but there is always repeating because all issues come back to the concepts of good and evil.

Sorry "clirus" but someone who systematically sidesteps issues that you don't wish to discuss, while repeating the same old set of stock phrases over and over and over again, has not put themselves in a position to have these criticisms taken seriously!

 

[clirus]

Well, here is my two-cents on this whole issue....

I have never been one to really connect politics with Christianity. My reasons for this are a bit hard to explain. I, for one, am annoyed that people in general have become "soft on sin". But when it comes to politics, there is no party that is more guilty than the other. If we try hard enough (and have a little too much time on our hands), we can dig up dirt about every political leader in the world, no matter how good they are. They are all flawed in one way or another (as every human being is). Politicians (regardless of party) will get up and speak about causes they claim to support, then don't deliver. Republicans and Democrats both have been caught in the midst of one scandal after another, proving once and for all that no party is completely lily-white. Republicans and Democrats both have their bad agendas, as well as good ideas. Some people have resorted to "third parties" (when available) when they don't think neither main party "cuts the mustard". Then again, that's often a lost cause, as well, because not enough is known about them, and everybody knows they rarely, if ever, make it to office. HOwever, what little is known seems to combine the best ideas of both main parties. I, as a nonpartisan, believe that there is no party that can be labeled a "Christian" party (for some of the very reasons I mentioned above), so I believe in voting for whoever we feel can best do the job. Then, it's important to pray for whoever makes it into office, even ones we don't particularly care for. I don't mean judgmental, finger-pointing "prayers" for destruction, but prayers for wisdom to make the right decisions, then trusting God to take care of His people. This morning's "Daily Bread" devotional was on this very topic, pointing to Scripture from 1 Timothy 2:1-7, which says to pray for those in leadership and authority. We also need to pray for party differences to be set aside for those in leadership to work together. If more Christians would at least do that much, maybe we'll see some good happen.


I can imagine some here will think of me as some sort of renegade or common heathen for my feelings on this, but I know there are others who will know exactly what I'm saying.

Your position seems to be the position of most Christians.

Will it work if we elect Atheists, then pray that the Atheists will change their ways? By electing a person, we are endorsing their Atheism. How can anyone justify voting for a person that advocates abortion and homosexuality, or voting for anyone that is part of a political party that advocates abortion and homosexuality?

Surly it is good to pray for those in leadership and authority, but it is better to elect people that listen to God, so that God can have an effect through the Holy Spirit. I do not believe people that support abortion and homosexuality are listening to God.

Some would say they have totally satisfied there Christian obligation if they vote and pray, but by the time they get to vote, the candidates available are not even Christians, so you are voting for the lesser of two evils.

I believe the Restoration of America to being a Christian Nation means every Christian must be mindful of politics and many must devote their life to being political missionaries, by devoting their life to political life. See the thread "Christian Nation Restoration".

In the discussion of Republican verses democrats, I make the following statement.

Republicans have yet to prove to me that they totally support Christian principles, but democrats have proven they do "not" support Christian Principles.

I believe the Republican Party would be the best possibility for Restoring America to being a Christian Nation, but only if Christians first take over the Republican Party.

For most of my Christian life I debated whether a Christian had an obligation to be involved in politics, but as I have seen Atheism and Socialism (symbiotic relationship) grow in America, I decided being involved in politics was a necessity. Although challenged by the world, I have been at peace with God.

I believe the Bible is an instruction book for both individuals and nations. Neither individuals or nations will prosper/survive if the Church and State are not under the leadership of the Lord and following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

I believe Solomon summed up the whole thing.

Ecclesiastes 12:13-14, "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgement, and every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."