Why do Christians in the voting booth help billionaires instead of people in poverty?

[Enahs4Him]

Jesus was "liberal" in terms of the Pharisees who were set in their ways.
The term does not translate to political terms today.
Jesus did not carry a weapon because that was not his purpose.
I am SO sure it is a sin to carry a weapon to protect your home from thugs
I think there are some on here who are getting a little carried away.
Jesus was neither a Republican or a Democrat.
However, according to the word there are some things he would be against: same sex marriage and abortion and drum roll.....persecution of the Jews and Israel.

 

[Jay NotApplicable]

Jay - To me, Jesus was endorsing the separation of church and state. Pay your taxes to the government but keep God separate from the government.

Please make up your mind. How can you say the above and then turn around and say 'tax the rich to help the poor because it is Jesus will' ?? That sounds a lot like a hypocrite to me.

What?? John said the first statement, and I said the rich should be taxed to help the poor.

I say it is NOT the Lord Jesus way to have the government tax to help the needy, it is each individuals job via the Church. Remember who ever you give thanks to receives the glory. In fact the gov. welfare programs cause the receivers of the help to give glory to man, it is a detestable thing.

That sounds like an excuse to me. If your logic is that we shouldn’t use the government to help the poor because it would bring glory to man, then why should we use government to help anybody? By your logic we shouldn’t use government to do any good, because that would bring glory to man. We shouldn’t use government to protect people from violent crimes, or reduce abortion to help the unborn, or try to improve the economy because we wouldn’t want to bring glory to man.

The main reason to help the needy is to teach us to care for all others, the by product is the needy gets help.

I’m pretty sure Jesus actually cared about the needy, and not just helping them being a “by product” as you say. We are all needy in some way or another. We are all in need of salvation. If you don't care about the needy, thinking that helping them is just a "by product," what makes you think God isn't going to treat you the same way? What makes you think God is going to tend to your need for salvation if you're unwilling to care about others who are needy?

 

[John S]

Yarddog - Treating a homosexual with respect and dignity IS liberal. You have seen more threads than I have. Would you say that there is a higher percentage of people here who want to treat them with respect or not?
I'll just sum it up this way - Since the VAST majority of the words and examples of Jesus Christ ARE liberal - and we are supposed to follow those words and examples - then we should also be liberal in our thoughts and deeds.
Also - When Peter used his sword, Jesus rebuked him.

Fearless - Treating a homosexual with respect and dignity - is that political?
Treating a handicapped person with respect and dignity - is that political?
Treating a woman who has had an abortion with respect and dignity - is that political?
Following the liberal words and examples of Jesus Christ - is that political?

LostFarmer - "tax the rich to help the poor because it is Jesus' will".
PLEASE show me where I said that.
PLEASE show me where I said ANYTHING political in this thread.

 

[John S]

Song of Solomon - Just to be clear, I NEVER said that Jesus was a Republican or a Democrat. I SAID that He was/is a liberal.

Jay - Thank You for admitting to saying something that I was accused of saying.

 

[Fearless12]

Fearless - Treating a homosexual with respect and dignity - is that political?
Treating a handicapped person with respect and dignity - is that political?
Treating a woman who has had an abortion with respect and dignity - is that political?
Following the liberal words and examples of Jesus Christ - is that political?

I'm just going to refer you back to my previous post.

If you want to tell people to treat others with respect and dignity, then just say that. That's plain English. If you've got it in your mind that it has anything to do with being liberal or conservative as people commonly understand the terms (useless terms in the first place, IMO), then you're just picking one of the 6 or 7 possible definitions of the word and applying it loosely to mean something which could be said in terms that inspire rather than divide.

 

[jpcedotal]

hmmmm....

Jesus did use a weapon against the traders around the temple....a whip that he personally made.

There is a Biblical difference between the poor and the lazy and as Christians we are to differentiate between the two.

I got verses for both of these statements if ya'll need them.

 

[Jay NotApplicable]

...if you are poor it is because your lazy fault.

We don’t deserve heaven because of our sinful fault. If Jesus is willing to forgive us for our faults, why should we judge others and refuse to help them because of their faults?

The excuse that poor people are lazy and therefore shouldn’t be helped comes up a lot. There are many people who are in poverty that work, or are disabled, or are elderly. However, let’s assume everyone in poverty is there because they are lazy. What’s more important, making sure lazy people don’t get help or helping to reduce poverty and problems associated with poverty? For some reason most Christian voters think making sure not to help lazy people is more important than reducing all the problems associated with poverty such as crime, drug addiction, spousal abuse, teen pregnancy, assault, murder, and suicide.

I suspect it often has to do with jealousy. People are jealous of others getting something for free, or getting something they don’t deserve. They are willing to let their jealousy get in the way of accomplishing some real social good. This world could be such a better place if people weren’t jealous.

 

[Eric Hibbert]

Blacks and Hispanics are three times as likely to have an abortion than whites. It’s not because they are black or Hispanic though, it’s because they are also three times as likely to live in poverty. Poverty drastically increases the number of abortions that people have. Poverty also drastically increases crime, drug addiction, spousal abuse, teen pregnancy, assault, murder, and suicide, among many other things.

When taxes on the rich were 94% the American economy thrived! Now taxes on the rich are only 35% (and Romney wants to lower them to 28%.) There’s PLENTY of room to raise taxes on the rich. If instead of lowering taxes on the rich and cutting programs that decrease poverty, we were to raise taxes on the rich to fund more programs to decrease poverty we could significantly reduce poverty and the problems associated with it.

So why do most pro-life Christian voters focus so much on candidates that want to lower taxes on the rich, and decrease funding for the poor? Is lowering taxes for billionaires really so much more important than reducing poverty, abortion, crime, drug addiction, spousal abuse, teen pregnancy, assault, murder, and suicide?

Maybe it would help if you could show us where in the Constitution it's the role of government to "reduce poverty, abortion [redundant, since you go on to list murder later on in this list], crime, drug addition, spousal abuse, teen pregnancy, assault, murder, and suicide".

Why should we vote for a candidate who wants to go outside the parameters set for him by the Constitution to pursue a social agenda?

 

[Almighty's humble servant]

We don’t deserve heaven because of our sinful fault. If Jesus is willing to forgive us for our faults, why should we judge others and refuse to help them because of their faults?

The excuse that poor people are lazy and therefore shouldn’t be helped comes up a lot. There are many people who are in poverty that work, or are disabled, or are elderly. However, let’s assume everyone in poverty is there because they are lazy. What’s more important, making sure lazy people don’t get help or helping to reduce poverty and problems associated with poverty? For some reason most Christian voters think making sure not to help lazy people is more important than reducing all the problems associated with poverty such as crime, drug addiction, spousal abuse, teen pregnancy, assault, murder, and suicide.

I suspect it often has to do with jealousy. People are jealous of others getting something for free, or getting something they don’t deserve. They are willing to let their jealousy get in the way of accomplishing some real social good. This world could be such a better place if people weren’t jealous.

SPOT ON BROTHER

 

[Jay NotApplicable]

Maybe it would help if you could show us where in the Constitution it's the role of government to "reduce poverty, abortion [redundant, since you go on to list murder later on in this list], crime, drug addition, spousal abuse, teen pregnancy, assault, murder, and suicide".

Where in the Constitution does it say that it’s NOT the role of government to do these things? Are you actually saying that the government shouldn’t be used to reduce abortion, crime, drug addiction, spousal abuse, teen pregnancy, assault, murder and suicide?

 

[Eric Hibbert]

Where in the Constitution does it say that it’s NOT the role of government to do these things?

The 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Our Constitution works on a principle called "enumerated powers". That means that the government can only do those things that are listed in the Constitution. Under this principle, anything not specifically listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is the responsibility of the states or of individuals.

Now that I've answered your question, could you please answer mine?

Are you actually saying that the government shouldn’t be used to reduce abortion, crime, drug addiction, spousal abuse, teen pregnancy, assault, murder and suicide?

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. Not only does the Constitution not give the government the authority or responsibility to do these things, the purpose of the government, not that you'd know it by watching the government in action for the last hundred years or so, is pretty much limited to protecting our borders, making treaties, regulating interstate commerce, and protecting the sovereignty of the states and individual liberties.

About 90% of the things our government does is outside the parameters set for it by the Constitution.

Your question was where in the Constitution does it say it’s the role of the government to crime, abortion, etc. You’ve essentially just answered it.

Well, one of us had to.

The Constitution gives states the right to regulate or enforce these things.

That's right, states. Not federal. When someone says "the government", unless they stipulate state or local government, they're referring to the federal government.

This thread isn’t just about which president to vote for. It’s about the voting practices in general of most Christians, whether they vote in on the local, state or federal level.

Actually, the OP is specifically about the federal government.

Most Christian voters, and people in general, have no problem with the FBI going after child porn rings, for example.

And, insofar as child porn rings cross state lines, they would be correct.

If you don’t think that is the government’s business, and your vote goes to stop the government from having that power, then this thread isn’t about you.

So then it's really not about Christians and their voting habits, as you said earlier. It's really about Christians who vote the way you think they should vote.

Your opinion on this is rather unusual, and most Christians don't vote with your ideas in mind.

Unfortunately, these days it is. But up until the Wilson administration, it was the common understanding of how our Republic works.

If that's no longer the case, then all that goes to show is that government schools have been successful in their attempts to dumb down the American people.

 

[Yarddog]

Yarddog - Treating a homosexual with respect and dignity IS liberal.

Many many conservatives treat gays with respect and love. Many don't but many liberals don't either. People cannot, fully, be classified as conservatives and liberals because every person has a variety of beliefs which span the spectrum.

You have seen more threads than I have. Would you say that there is a higher percentage of people here who want to treat them with respect or not?

Here? Well, people have different ideas of what respect is. There are many who will condemn them regardless and many who will understand that gays do not choose to be gay. There are thousands of members of this forum but you usually only hear from a very small number of them. Don't allow the loud ones to prejudice you against the whole.

I'll just sum it up this way - Since the VAST majority of the words and examples of Jesus Christ ARE liberal - and we are supposed to follow those words and examples - then we should also be liberal in our thoughts and deeds.

No, we should be Godly in our thoughts and deeds. That way, we won't follow the ungodly ways of some liberal issues.

Also - When Peter used his sword, Jesus rebuked him.

He didn't tell him to throw it away though. We should always allow the Holy Spirit to act in the way that God wills us to. Sometimes we have to act in order to help those in need.

I have been on both sides of the issue. I have turned my cheek and allowed another to strike it several times and I have stepped in to protect the weak.

God is our guide, not liberalism or conservatism.

God Bless,
Yarddog

 

[Jay NotApplicable]

The 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Now that I've answered your question, could you please answer mine?

Your question was where in the Constitution does it say it’s the role of the government to crime, abortion, etc. You’ve essentially just answered it. The Constitution gives states the right to regulate or enforce these things. The states are government. This thread isn’t just about which president to vote for. It’s about the voting practices in general of most Christians, whether they vote in on the local, state or federal level.

Are you actually saying that the government shouldn’t be used to reduce abortion, crime, drug addiction, spousal abuse, teen pregnancy, assault, murder and suicide?

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying.

Most Christian voters, and people in general, have no problem with the FBI going after child porn rings, for example. If you don’t think that is the government’s business, and your vote goes to stop the government from having that power, then this thread isn’t about you. It’s about the voting practices of most Christians. Your opinion on this is rather unusual, and most Christians don't vote with your ideas in mind.

 

[PACKY]

Abraham Lincoln said it best "When i do good, I feel good; When I do bad I feel bad"

Doing the right thing is not a liberal or Conservative value.
The drive to label each and one of us as one of the two is what is dividing the nation, more specific the middle class.
If they keep us fighting against each other for the winning "team" then we arent paying attention to what is really going on in the kitchen.

If your a christian you vote for christian values, In the end I feel that God simply wants us to love one another, as he made us so that he could love us.

I give food to those i love, i dont on someone i love to be out in the cold, i dont want someone i love to go without proper healthcare.

Look at the works and teachings of Christ, IMHO he is the definitive bleeding heart liberal!!

in the end we need to be here to help and love each other.

the "L" word is not something to be afraid of.

 

[John S]

PACKY - "Look at the works and teachings of Christ, IMHO He is the definitive bleeding heart liberal".
Thank You - That's what I have been saying.

 

[Enahs4Him]

PACKY - "Look at the works and teachings of Christ, IMHO He is the definitive bleeding heart liberal".
Thank You - That's what I have been saying.

Yes, you can say Jesus was a "liberal" of his time, but that definetely does not transfer to "liberal" as it means today. I don't think Jesus would be welcoming women to the abortion clinics, presiding over same sex ceremonies, encouraging people to be what you want and live immoral, promiscous, or homosexual lifestyles.
Jesus was a liberal in that he came to free people from the curse of the law, and their traditions.
Jesus still stood against sin, as demonstrated with the woman at the well, but he did not condemn her.
If you think about it "Fundamentalist Christians" are "liberals" when it comes to the world's values. Unfortunately, "most" liberals do not believe/accept Christ as the Messiah. Please note I stated "most" not "all". One could say well about the African American population? I would hardly call them "liberal". They are actually more conservative than caucasians. However, they still vote Democrat, but maybe not for the same reasons as "liberals". Not all Democrats are liberal and not all Republicans are conservative.

But in the end.......
Jesus would neither be a card carrying Republican or Democrats.

 

[Aijalon]

I don't know how you define "true Christians." But those that identify as Christian usually vote with taxation in mind. If you happen not to fall into this category then I'm not talking about you. But most people who identify as pro-life Christians vote for the Republican candidate, whether or not he is pro-life. Those Christians that vote with taxation in mind, and that is most of them, usually support the billionaires instead of those in poverty. As has already been shown on this thread, they come up with various excuses such as the idea that we should not bring economic harm to billionaires.

I can understand the idea of capitalism. I was a capitalist too a long time ago. But then I read the New Testament. I cannot now understand how any true Christian could read the new testament and still want to help billionaires get richer at the expense of the poor.

I am not a capitalist, nor am I a socialist, or anything in between. I used to vote with the Republican side. Now I don't. I hope that I will have the moral backbone to vote for pro-life issues above any party line.

But I do still think it is crazy that Democrats can become morally outraged at Republicans over poverty and social justice issues and at the same time vote to kill children and support state sponsored immorality.

Murder and homosexuality are physical and personal acts of immorality.

Certainly we should have compassion on the poor, unfortunately for the Democratic argument, the Bible does not teach that taxes are either moral or immoral. It teaches that the church is to care for its members that are in need, and above all, the widows and orphans. It is not ever expected that Christians are morally obligated to give away what they have (through tax or any other means) to someone who is opposed to thier faith.

Christianity is a personal religion with a personal God, who gave us personal gifts for the good of the body. One of those gifts is generosity. Christians that believe they can fulfill the commands of christ (even partly) through legislation of a common tax - no matter how 'nice' or how compassionate that tax may appear, they should realize that the governments of this world are ALL opposed to the rule of Christ.

Democracy is in no way a fulfillment of the commands of Christ to love one another. A democracy is only as good as the mob mentality that drives it. One mob believes that the whole is better off with less taxes, and that richer rich people will elevate also some of the poor people. Very well. And some believe that making richer people less rich and just giving that directly to the poor will make the poor better off. Both sides of a moral conscience, and neither is more sensible than the other.

In neither case was true generosity in play. Generosity is the act of freely giving. Also in neither case is any personal, Christ centered love displayed, because all of the economic help was administered by a government acting as an agent of enforcement.

To conclude, I'm all in favor of taxing super rich people, doesn't bother me one bit.

 

[God's Fighter]

I am not a capitalist, nor am I a socialist, or anything in between. I used to vote with the Republican side. Now I don't. I hope that I will have the moral backbone to vote for pro-life issues above any party line.

But I do still think it is crazy that Democrats can become morally outraged at Republicans over poverty and social justice issues and at the same time vote to kill children and support state sponsored immorality.

I concur.

 

[Enahs4Him]

I am not a capitalist, nor am I a socialist, or anything in between. I used to vote with the Republican side. Now I don't. I hope that I will have the moral backbone to vote for pro-life issues above any party line.

But I do still think it is crazy that Democrats can become morally outraged at Republicans over poverty and social justice issues and at the same time vote to kill children and support state sponsored immorality.

Very good informative post!

 

[SharonL]

Very good informative post!

Words of wisdom - tried to give you reps, but it won't take them.