|
Post by amanda mcbride on Oct 24, 2005 19:14:45 GMT -5
Adam not only votes republican but IS republican. Sorry for the confusion. I think, for me, anyway, the answer to your question regarding the treatment of the tax collector and the gentile lies in the flow of the passages. The call to forgive not seven but seventy-seven times comes after the verses regarding a follower who has sinned against you. And, in the end, I think that is what we are to do, regardless. Forgive again and again and again and again... and again... as many times as necessary. It's not an easy thing to do by any means. "You are correct, as Christians, we are not supposed to set requirements on who gets help and who doesn't. But.." I think we should, and can, stop right there. We aren't supposed to set requirements (as Christians) on who gets help and who doesn't. Period. Right...? As for the able bodied and food stamps -- some additional information. After welfare reform in 1996, a new policy was emplemented regarding food assistance called Able Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWD). People between the ages of 18 and 50 who have no dependent children or are not caretakers for an elderly or disabled adult and who are not employed can only receive food stamps for an initial 3 months. In order to continue receiving assistance, they would need a medical statement verifying that they are unable to work due to a health condition OR they would need to work 80 hours in a 30 day period and maintain at least 20 hours weekly. They can regain eligibility only once. After that, if they stop maintaining 20hrs/week of work, thereby losing their eligibility, then they can not apply for assistance until a period of 36 months has transpired. Students enrolled in institutes of higher education can not receive food stamps unless they are working 20 hours/week, participating in work study 20hrs/week or have a child under age 6. (Have everyone's eyes glossed over yet? ) Sorry. I'll step back and await your response to Rick's question.
|
|
|
Post by amanda mcbride on Oct 24, 2005 19:16:35 GMT -5
Hmmm.. Might have to retract my statement regarding Adam's official political affiliation.
|
|
|
Post by rickus on Oct 24, 2005 19:47:44 GMT -5
Unfortunately I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with Rick and say right up front that I'm not nice about this stuff and that I already hate you... but don't take it personally! You see, I make really bad and rash decisions... which is one trait that I unfortunately share with republicans. By the way, that's about the nicest thing I could post right now, which is pretty good for me... really I'm just glad that I haven't said anything yet that I'll have to be apologizing for later (emphasis on the word 'yet'). Cuddly isn't he. (borrowed this from Amanda)Ummm... Yeah. Kyle. I'll be honest that we have 28 members on this board is a little misleading. We (there are actually about 10 or 11 active members) have run off (offended to the point that they won't come back) the rest. A little warning we are having this discussion in the Christianity board, which is marked as shown in the picture below: So. I think we (some of us... David) trying to be the new friendlier version of the Indigenous Circle. I think that you'll find that everyone here has a good heart and that we really are interested in the dialog. It may not always be "Nicy Nicy" but it will be honest. David. Do you think you could play nice with the new guy? At least until he gets used to us? P.S. Dave, I know I deserve any harsh thing you may have to say to me for that last sentence.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Oct 24, 2005 19:50:40 GMT -5
Hey guys!
Wow, this thread is taking off…
Watch Matt 18 closely, keeping the objects of Jesus’ anger in mind. He starts off praising children and making dire pronouncements against those who would cause them to stumble. His words are familiar: “Better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Jesus isn’t pulling any punches; I am reminded of his anger at the money changers in the temple. He addresses the same group here: the falsely pious, those who claim to be members of the community but really aren’t. Notice particularly that the “little ones” of later verses in this chapter could be conceived as either novices in the faith or the perfected faithful. So here we see Jesus collapsing, as he always seems to, the distinction between social classes, this time within the church itself.
Verse 15 begins a set of passages concerning disciplining a member of the church. The procedure evolved is irrelevant to our current disputes, since here the matter concerns ecclesiastical rather than political or social policy. I believe Amanda is quite right: We are to treat the excommunicates as gentiles, which as Jesus mentions elsewhere, we should love as we love ourselves. Jesus is not suggesting that anyone moves beyond our forgiveness or that of God.
(A side note: So what is the point of Jesus discussing excommunication policies? Many commentators think that Jesus probably never said anything like Matt 18:17. Jesus was not a Christian, and he has very little to say elsewhere about the policies of the eventual church. Matthew is the only gospel writer to even use the term “church” (ekklesia). Thus, scholars like Howard Clark Kee see Matt 18:17 as an extrapolation of Jesus’ ideas, a policy aimed at settling what would have been an important issue in the early church. Further evidence for this can be found in the writings of the Essene community at Qumran: Their procedures concerning excommunication were much the same.)
In any case, I left out the preceding verses because they are entirely consistent with Matt 18:21-2.
Jeff
PS David, can you please be kind, even when you disagree? I love you man, but that was kinda harsh.
|
|
|
Post by CaptAdam on Oct 24, 2005 20:15:15 GMT -5
You are fully correct I'm regestered and I do vote the majority of time repulican.
as for the other comments in this folder I'll have to do some more reading before I shove my foot to far down my throat.
I will be posting more about the Demon in the bottle very soon which explains why I've responded so harshly in the past and why I'm trying so much harder now not too. As much for my own well being (staying out of jail) as to the health of others.
I hope you all will take time to read it as soon as it's posted and maybe comment.
|
|
|
Post by amanda on Oct 24, 2005 20:17:46 GMT -5
I would really appreciate your input on this thread regarding the original question (How are the teachings of Christ compatible with Republican ideology?), Adam, if you have the time. Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
Post by Thanin on Oct 25, 2005 1:10:49 GMT -5
I will be as harsh or nice as I choose, like I always have. If I can no longer express my opinions openly with this group, then kick me off the boards please.
If you'll notice, I WAS being as nice as I could. The homosexuality stuff that he was saying was as hateful to me as implying Native Americans shouldn't necessarily be able to raise children, regardless of the false rationalities.
I will continue to be as nice as I'm able to this person out of respect for others, so if you're going to censor me do it now and lock me from posting on anything ever again.
And now I will say Good day to you sirs, yo
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Oct 25, 2005 1:18:22 GMT -5
You know we love you, David.
The day you get kicked off the board is the day I stop hanging out here.
(I should have a present for you in a couple of hours, something you asked me to make you in May. I'll post info over on the music board.)
|
|
|
Post by amanda on Oct 25, 2005 18:07:59 GMT -5
Kyle (and anyone else who may be lurking about), as a republican, how do you see the teachings of Christ as being compatible with the ideology of your party?
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Oct 25, 2005 23:33:39 GMT -5
I'll be using Luther's Small Catechism (I'm Lutheran) to help me answer this question Amanda. In it Luther talks about who receives forgiveness and sites Psalms 32:5: I acknowledged my sin to You and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the Lord" - and You forgave the guilt of my sin. A person has to actually admit that they are sinful and ask for forgiveness. I think that this coorilates well with what I was saying earlier, why should we keep giving entitlements to people who are not willing to look at themselves and realize the bad decisions they made to get them into the situations they are in?
I know you had a problem with the Mathew 18:17: If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. This is Jesus talking here. Jesus tells us that there is a time to cut somebody loose.
Luther refers to these people as Unrepentant Sinners, that is, those who are not sorry for their sins and do not believe in Jesus Christ, are not to be forgiven as long as they do not repent.
Now, we've been discussing forgiveness in most of these verses but I have not found a verse yet that Jesus sets guidelines on how to help others. He just teaches us to do it. I think that both Republicans and Democrats do want the best for people, they just have different ideas of how to help them.
That's all I've got for now. Have to do some tax research before I go into any more topics.
Why do the Democrats here think that their party is doing such a better job?
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Oct 26, 2005 1:09:04 GMT -5
Kyle,
Not to be churlish, but don’t you perceive a distinction between our forgiveness and God’s? My worry is that even if God judges as the literalists believe She does, we risk hubris and worse if we take on this infinite judgment. There is good evidence in the Bible that our lot is to love all and let God take care of judging and excluding.
Sample passages:
Matthew 7:1-2 Luke 6:37 And everyone’s favorite: John 8:7
I also think there is good reason to reject the literalist view of the judgment of God. It’s late and I am tired, but you can find evidence for this view in passages like these:
John 8:15ff “You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. But if I do judge, my decisions are right…” (I think the literalist faces an incoherence here.)
John 12:47 "As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it.”
Acts 10:42 “He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead.” (God subordinates his judgment to the efficacy of Jesus…interpret that as you will, but Jesus has already said that he judges no one.)
I am sure we could do dueling scriptures on this theme, but I don’t know how much time I’ll have this week to list and discuss the passages that support my interpretation and massage the ones that conflict with it. Can we just say that we are all interpreting the Bible here and the issue is vital? That at least preserves the hermeneutical mystery surrounding much of the Bible, well, any monumental work of the spirit (see the ending of the film Ikiru for a nice example.)
Just to put my cards on the table, and this is something I cannot fully or easily explain, but I think a lot of soteriology is vitiated by ignoring the idea that God may be trying to save everything. Could it be that by granting real freedom to creatures, God has allowed us the possibility of self-exclusion from Her universal desire to save? Perhaps God is always trying to lovingly save what can be saved. Rather than a dogmatic God dispensing death and judgment, God would still be on the cross announcing in every possible way that She is suffering, too, and for us...
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by amanda on Oct 26, 2005 7:39:38 GMT -5
I know you had a problem with the Mathew 18:17: If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. This is Jesus talking here. Jesus tells us that there is a time to cut somebody loose.
The problem I have is that you seem to be calling people who utilize social programs greater sinners than the rest of us. How have they sinned? Against whom? And from whom do they need to seek forgiveness? Poverty is no sin. It's a crime, but it isn't a sin.
Look how Jesus responded to the young man in Matt 19:16-21: Just then someone came up and asked Him, "Teacher, what good must I do to have eternal life?"
Why do you ask Me about what is good?" He said to him. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."
"Which ones?" he asked Him. Jesus answered, "You shall not murder; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother; and you shall love your neighbor as yourself.
"I have kept all these," the young man told Him. "What do I still lack?"
"If you want to be perfect," Jesus said to him, "go, sell your belongings and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me."
Jesus didn't ask him to sell all his belongings and give to the poor after assessing their situation and determining that they were truly worthy of the help because they would make a good investment with what they are given and not squander it away.
Jesus tells us to Give to everyone who asks of you (Luke 6:30), and just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise (Luke 6:31). Do good and lend hoping for nothing in return (Luke 6:35) And, of course, Be merciful just as your Father is merciful.
God freely gives. You are to do the same.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Oct 26, 2005 7:51:15 GMT -5
soteriology is vitiated It sounds like some description of the clotting process.
|
|
|
Post by rickus on Oct 26, 2005 8:51:39 GMT -5
I guess I'm playing Devils advocate here.
Kyle asked what I thought was a good question, that none of us have yet to answer: Why do the Democrats here think that their party is doing such a better job?
My answer would be that we are attempting to help the poorer of our society. Not force their hands and put them into situations which will only send them to the most desperate of social standing, begging for loose change on street corners. Not that we don't already have that, but it can be much more prevalent. Really!
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Oct 26, 2005 9:11:02 GMT -5
Rickus, Amanda started this thread with her question, and I admire her tenacity for sticking with it. She still hasn't gotten her answer. Kyle can get an earful of Democratic interpretation of the Bible by heading over to the Christian Politics board that we worked on last year at this time. It's still up and still vexing: www.quicktopic.com/28/H/92ckXjvaiaGy4Also, pretty much everything that Justin, Amanda, and I write has been deeply influenced by our interpretation of the Bible. So most of our political discussions are connected with our interpretation of the Bible. Not a dodge, just the truth. We've written a lot about this very issue; it's just scattered all over the board. Maybe Kyle can start another thread? Jeff
|
|
|
Post by rickus on Oct 26, 2005 9:16:23 GMT -5
Touché! My apologies Amanda.
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Oct 26, 2005 9:25:33 GMT -5
Unfortunately the bible was written way before welfare and food stamps were created so there is no passage that outlines how to operate a welfare program. I know that we are all sinners. Please don't think that I believe people who need help are greater sinners than I am. I was trying to show that Jesus does talk about circumstances when it is acceptable to stop helping (look upon them as pagans and tax collectors).
Amanda, I'm getting that you don't like the idea of setting guidelines to make sure that people are not being wasteful of resources and attention. If that is not the case please let me know.
My Rep. thinking is that if there are people being wasteful of the resources that they think are entitled to them, that may cause less resources so be given to people who are going to try and better themselves by using these resources resourcefully. I know Pres. Bush beat this phrase like a dead horse during the election but it is probably because many Republicans agree: We should be giving people a hand up, not a hand out. Maybe if people were to see people bettering themselves with what is given to them, more people would be willing to devote more resources to help.
Like to hear how Democrats are doing this better; not just what Republicans aren't doing.
|
|
|
Post by rickus on Oct 26, 2005 9:39:57 GMT -5
Not true. Moses hands down several laws on how to treat and even insure that the lowest among the Jews had a support system. If you re-read the Pentichuk (I'm not sure how to spell it) you will find several wonderful commandments about outsiders, foreigners, widows and orphans. Look back to Ruth. In it is an example of how it kind of worked. And then there is the much overlooked Jubilee. Which is more generous than anything any elected Democrat has ever dreamed up. Of course there's a lot of shit in there too. But you can't claim that there was no welfare program.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Oct 26, 2005 9:58:08 GMT -5
Let me preface this post by saying that racism and prejudice can primarily be seen in most of the circumstances I'm about to mention. Our society shuns those who are different.
From a practical modern-day standpoint... Kyle, would you feel that we should give welfare and assistance to someone who was never taught to read or write? That can't hold a job because they don't know how to open a checking account, little-own write checks? They were never taught how to fill out an envelope. If they can't do this, how can they pay rent? How can they purchase clothes? How can they pay for school lunches? If you can't open a checking account or write checks, you have to go to a check-cashing service, or give a good percentage of whatever pay you get to get the cash that is yours. What if they were never socialized? Being taught the accepted means of speech and of acting. Taught what is appropriate in some social settings and not in others? What I'm trying to get at here is that, what if this person, we'll call him Walter, lacked the basic ability to fit in at school, and so did badly. Should we then fault him for failing high-school? If because we didn't teach him anything, and then held it against him for the rest of his life that he didn't know these things, aren't we obliged to assist him? Amanda, how many of your clients came from good homes where they received adequate nutrition, education, socialization, and care? I'm a suburban white guy who was raised with one parent staying home, doing nothing other than making sure I was learning and well-cared for. I lived in a neighborhood that I could wander through barefoot and feel nothing but well-tended grass. Every day I got as much as I wanted to eat of all different varieties of food. Every time I've screwed up, my parents have helped me physically and financially. How many of your clients can say this? How can you buy a car if you can't make car payments? This is how society discriminates. Until we fix these problems, don't we have a moral duty to help these people? So, the question becomes, how many people actually have the capacity to find a job that pays over the poverty level, that allows one of them to stay at home to take care of their children? How many of these people, that have this opportunity, do you think are currently getting welfare? Please express your answer as a percentage.
To my native-american bretherein. Yea, I'm a cracker. What I'm trying to get across is that the most harmful racism is this, the mandated racism.
|
|
|
Post by CaptAdam on Oct 26, 2005 10:24:19 GMT -5
I've not forgotten your original question Amanda, and I will do my best to give you an honest answer, it just may take me some time and the group may have dropped this subject by the time I finally do get to answer. Ooh if I could squeeze more hours out of a day, ooh who am I kidding I'd just take on a 10th job or more.
Really I will answer.
|
|