So you don't believe in God or Christ...

Post Reply New Topic

Right now, people get far more out of social security than they ever put in. This is due to the government increasing it's debt substantially to provide more and more and more.

My point is, with church charity you do not need all the extra spending...it would fill in some of the gaps. The government wouldn't need to keep increasing the debt to cover everything.

Even if you don't like the Christian faith and are a complete atheist you can't deny charity is something Christians have always done very well, better than any other religion. Just think of how much money they have saved governments in the past by filling in gaps of neediness in the society so the government didn't have to.

No: if people spend more on church charity, they spend less on other things. Whether it is church charity or tax-funded welfare, the economic effect is the same. Welfare funded by debt money is different since it leaves the people's money in the economy. Not saying welfare funded by debt is the future, but it is not the same as church/tax-based welfare.

What I am talking about specifically is government debt not just government spending. If government has the money to cover most of it, the debt is not so large. Debt managed wisely can generate revenues.

That's why you hear politicians on the right moaning about entitlement debt on a constant basis. The government doesn't get a return on that.

The alternative is what they do in the EU: austerity till we all choke on it. I think the US has been more pragmatic in this by cutting government spending only after things are turning upwards again. The recovery in the US has been much stronger than over here. Somehow the US did the Keynsian thing, and the EU did the Austrian thing (or a distorted version of it). The Austrian thing didn't work this time.

Because correlation does not imply causation?

^ This.

It doesn't do either. In other words, could go either way. Why not keep an open mind and examine the possibility?

Are there good and bad Christians?

Are the top 1% to 2 % richest people Christian? I'll bet most call themselves such. As they accumulate more and more wealth they leave less and less for others and as others starve around the world. I'm sure they don't lose any sleep, knowing THEY WERE JUST DOING THEIR JOBS.

SEIG HEIL

The same type of heart beats in these scum as in the Nazis who treated humans as filth.

Because church charities never have done what needs to be done on the scale that it needs to be done.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/daily-e ... nding.html


What I think you are implying is that churches used to provide the services now provided by the government and now that they don't/can't because of low attendance, government debt is up. But the thing is, churches have never provided help on the scale provided by the government. When government social spending didn't yet exist and church charities were all that existed (since they did precede secular charities), a lot of people just didn't get help.

Although I give to secular charities, I don't expect them to be able to match government social programs either. Anything done by charities- even the very large Feeding America which I linked to and donate to- can't match the scale and comprehensiveness of government programs. People fall through the cracks all the time in government programs and trying to rescue the ones who fell through the cracks seems to be a primary goal of charities, but that sort of haphazard catching stray people is about all that charities can do. It's all that church charities did when they outnumbered and outspent secular charities. This is because charities rely in voluntary donations whereas taxes are mandatory. Even an expected/required regular church tithe doesn't come close to tax. And if tax disappeared, people wouldn't put all the previous tax money into charities- not even religious people.

A point in secular charities' favor is that they are secular. The lack of religion means that nobody has to even pretend to subscribe to a religion they don't believe in just to receive the charity.

The thing is, Paul has been so been taken out of context on that one line he wrote of, "He who does not work shall not heat." What he was actually talking about were people who figured now that they were Christians, they could stop working, and sit around lollygagging and gossiping while depending on the church to feed them. It was hardly a blanket nullification of the rest of the Bible's call to care for the needy as both the religious and secular right claims it is.

I am not really sure if as many rich people are Christian like they used to be but I am sure they donate to charities of various types due to tax benefits and pressure.

The developed world has turned away from Christianity for years. It's been a process.

It seems to make sense to acknowledge Christians can and do help with some of the entitlement burden even if you don't support Christianity. There is a practical function involved that might actually benefit you even if you are a non believer.

Paul wrote some good, insightful things, but he has never claimed to be God and is only human in the Bible...he can only offer advice and insight, not laws and commandments yet people will blindly follow the apostles without question forgetting it is Christ who is the actual authority.

Since we are long past Godwinning anything anyway, I'll play the Grammar Nazi: It's Sieg Heil

Absolutely.

Around here there seem to be two different groups who offer relief: the Salvation Army (Catholic), they collect money/food/clothes for the needy. The people who are collecting for the food banks seem mostly of the socialist/hippy type.