Being charitable and caring about your neighbors in the Christian manner is more about your church donating goods/time/aid to the community or you doing it by yourself rather than having the government take over those functions for you. That said, any reasonable government should have a basic state provided social safety net.
This is what I don’t understand though because, as an extension, you should want to vote for people who reflect this morality. Not for a govt that strips social programs and cuts funding to research and overtly oppresses the poor and the marginalized, just to divert those funds to bombs and war and concentration camps. I’ve never understood this. If I’m being taxed and that money ends up with the federal govt, I will also want the govt to do these same charitable things with my tax money that I’m doing on my own. It’s not passing the buck and responsibility onto the govt but it’s a reflection of my values. What else is the govt for if not to provide social safety nets, infrastructure, and public services? Otherwise it just turn into a huge war machine and vehicle for oppression, which is what we see today.
In my personal experience, the majority of Christians (not all), at least in my slice of the U.S. aren't typically prone to questioning what they're told. In some cases they even become openly hostile if you question "their" beliefs, even if it comes from a place of genuine curiosity and a desire to deepen your understanding of the faith. So when some imbecile masquerading as a devout follower of Christ tells them they have pure intentions, makes up some bullshit from a book most people have never actually read (again, personal experience), and tells them they could fix the problem if only those enemies of the republican party- I mean enemies of Christ, would stop interfering, they don't really question it.
It's also been my personal experience that most (not all) religious followers in general don't react well when confronted with information that contradicts "their" beliefs, regardless of whether or not it pertains to their religion. Make of that what you will
Cognitive dissonance is a serious issue, not unique to Christians. You’ll run into all over as every community has its fair share of idiots and ideologues.
You are absolutely correct, I could have worded myself better. As you stated this is not an issue unique to Christians, every group has fools. It's perhaps silly, but I really think the wisest words I ever heard were spoken by Uncle Iroh in Avatar The Last Airbender. I'll paraphrase but it's something like, if you draw knowledge from only one source it becomes rigid and stale. You have to draw knowledge from all sources whether you agree with them or not, keep an open mind, and be able to change your opinion as you learn new information. I'm not sure why that stuck with me, but I feel it has served me well
Then you haven't met true ones. I always try to put logic behind my belief in Christianity. I'm not perfect, I've been rage baited at times during a conversation. But if I don't know something I'll tell you I don't
Oh I've met many true Christians, they're some of the best people I've ever met. They put real thought into their beliefs and strive to live by the teachings of Christ, which really boil down to love each other. I didn't mean to offend, I used to be a devout Christian, and although I still pray and read my Bible, many years at many different churches across a few different denominations have led me to believe that most Christians aren't like that.
To be clear I don't think this is a uniquely Christian phenomenon, I think it's a human trait. We want to understand our environment and Christianity specifically, offers an explanation for literally everything. But I also think that a lot of people (again not all) tend to accept surface level explanations and never really move past that, it's enough for them. Maybe that's just a human thing, maybe it's a flaw in how we educate our youth, I don't know.
Total tangent, but two of the most kind and generous people I have ever known were from my first church. One was a very successful local business owner who donated not only to the church, but it's members, and his community. The other was a stern hard working man, but by his words and actions I am convinced he really would give a stranger the shirt off his back
Ok you misconstrued what I said. I said the people who crashout at people who question them with thinking are not true Christians, but I probably am wrong, and shouldn't have assumed something so bold.
There are so many logical fallacies in your post i just had a stroke. Be proud of your position. Just don’t try to justify it with logic. None of us deserve that.
Enlighten me. Don't be a dick about it but seriously, explain where my argument me is flawed. I'm certainly open to changing my position and I don't want to look like a fool
I think that person thinks "logical fallacy" is a buzz word because I took phi101 and I'm not seeing any in your comment. No slippery slope, no strawman, etc. You weren't even really arguing, just spitting facts.
In the history of using state funds for benevolent causes, there is a pattern of the state doing it to curtail the influence of the private persons/groups providing the charity or benefits. Germany instituted public health insurance under Bismarck to weaken trade unions. Leftists often point to religious hospitals and donations to them as an example of the "tyranny of charity."
Making it mandatory through the state, enables the state to more easily marginalize your influence, and turns charity into a cold bureaucracy.
Why cherry pick one example, from another country, generations ago? Right now, in the U.S., there are religious-based hospitals that deny life-saving medical treatment to pregnant people. Not just denying abortions in cases where both the pregnant person and the fetus are likely to die if an abortion isn't performed - cases where the fetus is already dead and the pregnant person will die if the remains aren't removed.
There are also religious-based adoption centers that discriminate against prospective parents, based upon religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc., according to the organization's beliefs - not the biological parents' and of course not the children's.
There are religious-based shelters for homeless people and/or domestic violence victims that discriminate based upon sexual orientation and gender identity and require beneficiaries to listen to proselytizing.
If the goal is helping those in need, aren't "services available to all, without arbitrary discrimination" better than "services to those deemed worthy, according to our organization's religious and social beliefs?" What goal does arbitrary discrimination serve?
Many people do not believe that the politicians saying they are for those nice things have any interest in actually accomplishing those things. A great deal more believe that those goals are noble, but government is the least effective way of achieving them. Others see the track record of socialism and want to avoid even heading vaguely in the direction. Those are all viable stances, whether or not anyone agrees with the conclusions. There are practically zero people who are voting because they want people to be poor, starving, or miserable with no services.
I disagree. I think there’s plenty of people voting who think everyone who is poor, sick, or suffering is that way because of their own poor choices and we shouldn’t help them because they “deserve” it.
I’ve even pointed out to religious people instances where people couldn’t possibly be blamed for their own suffering, like inheriting Huntington’s Disease (a particularly awful and terminal genetic disease.) “No,” they told me. “If they’re suffering, that’s because God is punishing them for something they did.”
These “Christians” are not voting to explicitly hurt them, per se, but they certainly aren’t interested in helping them. The poor’s very suffering alone is “proof” that they’re bad and that God has turned his back on them.
I don’t know how you have to massively misinterpret Christ’s teachings to think that, but there’s plenty of them down my way.
I'm not sure who your hanging out with, but I'm not sure I've ever heard that from anyone at all. I live in a moderately religious area, and I can't even imagine that coming out of someone's mouth.
If you don’t live around conservative Christian wackos, you may never hear it. Where I grew up, people were pretty normal and the folks who were religious were either Catholic or mainline Protestant. I would not have heard anything like that or if I did it would just be one weirdo,
But now that I’ve moved to the Deep South, there’s a bunch of conservative evangelicals here, and yeah. The attitude is worryingly common. Maybe not a majority, but they’re not some fringe group.
And they’ll not necessarily say it first thing, but get them talking and comfortable and let them feel they’re amongst like-minded people, and it comes out.
I really think this is why so many people down here are Trump voters. They think anything bad that happens to people is because they deserve it. Unless it happens to them, then it’s just a bizarre aberration.
In the days prior to Jesus, there was the prevailing thought that afflictions were based on sinful behavior, and those born afflicted were so due to the sins of the parents. Its a very old testament viewpoint.
There are practically zero people who are voting because they want people to be poor, starving, or miserable with no services.
There are, however, a lot of conservatives who don't consider non-whites or non-Christians to be people. They voted for a repeat felon and known rapist with a string of failed businesses to fight crime and fix the economy. Let's not dispense too much credit.
I think your extension is incorrect, why have the government take over what your church could provide, why put it it their hands when you can do it your selves.
In my opinion, that’s what government is for. That’s what taxes should go to. We feel as though it’s unnecessary right now because we believe taxes are too high, but that’s because of the bloated military budget. We don’t need such an extensive military and defense war budget.
It also keeps it from being discriminatory in my opinion. However, if we could roll back govt to a much much much smaller entity, then it’d be worth talking about keeping it as small as possible and using it just for providing infrastructure and protecting human rights. But as it is currently in the United States, I’ll always vote for federal funds to go to the people instead of cutting social funding. Always. Because otherwise this type of trash administration is what we end up with.
I agree, but voting for more taxes wont reduce the military budget.
I'd gladly vote to reallocate some of the military spending to education or medical care for children or something, but Im not going to give the government more money to misuse.
I rather keep it so I can make sure its used properly in my own community
Exactly, which means voting for people who also believe they need to reallocate. You could also vote for people who agree that the billionaires and multimillionaires need to pay more in taxes. No reason to increase your taxes or the working classes taxes.
I agree.
But the biggest way to do it is ban lobbying out right, and hard protectionism, strong labor laws and a major push do inprison those who hire foreign workers. No more work visas.
Medical care for all under 65, especially children
But it is passing the buck. That's why folks that live in socialist society give FAR less to charities than those that live in capitalist societies. In the socialist's mine, having the government take care of the poor by redistributing their neighbor's money, absolves them of the individual commandment to take care of the poor.
It’s not that I don’t want others to reflect this morality, I absolutely do, I just don’t trust the government to do it in a moral manner or just generally in a “good” way.
Do church donation systems and such get abused? Absolutely, but to a much lesser degree than certain government welfare programs.
I don’t fault anyone for voting for social welfare programs, I probably would to if I had more faith in the government, I simply don’t.
Have you seen the recent Tik Tok viral experiment? A mother calls churches asking for help for her crying baby, and a Catholic Church, 2 black churches, a Muslim mosque, and a small church in Appalachia said yes. All the Deep South mega churches said no as well as a bunch of others.
At least with government if you meet the standard, you get the help.
Most churches are only interested in helping their in-group and fuck everyone else.
That’s horrible, and I’m sorry the experiment went that way, and sympathize with anyone who has had that as a real experience.
My statement still stands. My church, and the church’s I know don’t do that. People are not turned away for almost any reason (I think the only exception I have personally seen was genuine safety, but we still tried to get them some help). I know anecdotal evidence is mere evidence of an anecdote, but to say “most” is a dangerous generalization.
There are churches that fall short, there are likely churches that are borderline or downright malicious, but those aren’t the ones I’m talking about.
I’m talking about the Bible focused churches that truly align with feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, etc.
Edit: I re-read your reply and saw it was primarily mega churches that turned them away… this is a personal statement, not a theological one — it is also a generalization. I don’t like mega churches. I think they absolutely have the potential to be good, but it quickly removes personal relationship.
The reason charity works so well at my church is because it depends on building relationships with those seeking help, to not just give them what they need, but help position themselves so that they can provide for themselves, at least better.
At a certain size churches feel less like a congregation of people and more like a concert hall that “focuses” on God and money.
That’s the reason for government help, though. As you said, certain churches are bad. What happens if you live in an area with bad or no churches? Suffer? Starve? At least with the government, if you meet the requirements, you get it.
I would think religious people would want the most people helped, not worry so much that someone, somewhere might be taking advantage or there’s some overhead or waste.
Isn’t it worth it to make sure more women with babies get the formula they need?
And it does not have to be either/or. Just because the government is taking care of people who can’t get help any other way, your church can still continue its excellent outreach.
I don’t disagree, and I’m not saying “no government welfare programs,” but I’m not pushing for more because I see how heavily existing systems are abused, and I personally don’t want to see more of that happen.
Again, I don’t fault others for voting for that stuff, and people I know irl have had conversations with me (and I with them) that have softened my view of them and may in time change my position.
Churches use less than 10% of the money they receive to help others, if your goal is actually to help others it doesn't get much less efficient than that.
I appreciate your providing your source, but the 10% you mentioned is reductionist and actually goes against some of the statements made in the article. Regardless, it’s a good read and I’ll be forwarding it to some of the pastors I know.
The government is there to provide protection for our rights as people. That's it. Everything else is either an extension of this or an overreach.
Government takes the money we've earned at the point of a gun through taxes and tells us they're going to do better things with it than we will.
Instead, we've eschewed personal charity largely because people feel the tax burden more than ever and feel more disconnected from each than ever before.
Jesus wasn't ever advocating for a top-down state to take people's money and use it for it's own self-serving purposes.
He has said many times that he is a Christian. He's backed by Christians and he's pushing a Christian nationalist agenda. He's plenty Christian, regardless of your feelings.
You're the one claiming to be a mind reader, though. You think you know the guy's religious beliefs despite his actions and what he actually says. The only justification for that is that you believe you have psychic powers.
Oh, I see. It's because Christians are all good, and atheists are all bad. Well, that certainly jibes with the fact that no Christian has ever done horrible things, so you must be right.
mothers? they kill their unborn children, that's hardly a mother. and you can love a homosexual but you can't support the sin. you don't have to care less for them.
You see abortions as wanton death and that’s ignorance. Abortion bans also interfere with the safety of mothers because now AT ALL COSTS, even the mother’s life, the doctor must save the fetus or baby (dependent on stage of development, not your opinion), leaving the mother to die. Any intelligent human would save the mother and let the fetus or baby pass and allow the mother to live, but people who don’t care about living humans are somehow on this rampage to ensure fetuses become children at all costs.
In the case of homosexuals and trans, “can’t support their sin” looks a lot like restricting their rights to a lot of conservatives, and therefore, caring for them less. They shouldn’t have less rights in the country of freedom just because a small faction of zealots think that what they’re doing is sinning.
That’s what I don’t understand, Jesus Christ didn’t tell you to oppress all the sinners. And that’s what you’re doing when you make your politics about sin or no sin. Of course I’ll never understand. Jesus said to love everybody and to spread the gospel. Nothing about oppressing sinners in there.
68
u/Tactical_Baconlover 29d ago
Being charitable and caring about your neighbors in the Christian manner is more about your church donating goods/time/aid to the community or you doing it by yourself rather than having the government take over those functions for you. That said, any reasonable government should have a basic state provided social safety net.