Are we corrupting the morals of the people by switching incentive from
success to failure in the interest of securing votes? This is
wickedness, "up with which I will not put".  It is wicked because, the
practice strips the time honored work ethics imbued in us by no less
than the Christ himself.  I have heard of seperating church from
state, but this is seperating virtue from the people.
Until truer views shall come, I believe that the main ingredient that
makes CAPITALISM win out above other systems, is imbedded in that
parable of the "ten talents".  If my fellow Democrats succeed in
removing reward from those who prosper, to give it to those who own
the vote advantage, then our most potent weapon against Socialism and
the like will be lost.  SHAME SHAME SHAME.
Remember: confute with facts, dont refute with beliefs.

Um... what's the question here? I'm confuzzled.

skermit-ga

Proverbs 19:17 He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the LORD;
and that which he hath given will he pay him again.

Proverbs 14:31 He that oppresseth the poor reproacheth his Maker: but
he that honoureth him hath mercy on the poor.
Source: http://www.knightsofgod.com/About%20Giving%20Unto%20the%20Poor.htm

"Assuredly, I can say to you that is harder for a rich man to enter
the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you, it is easier for a
camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter
the kingdom of God"
http://tn.essortment.com/biblematthew_rbus.htm

23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a
rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I
say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 25 When
his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then
can be saved? 26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men
this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. Matthew
6:19-21
http://pub2.ezboard.com/fmelythasworldfrm1.showMessage?topicID=304.topic

I think that there are not many real Christians who do not feel the
responsibility to help those who are poor...

tisme-ga

To tisme-ga:

"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any
would not work, neither should he eat."

2 Thessalonians 3:10, KJV

Verily I say unto you that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
needle, than for a rich Democrat (or Republican) to enter into the kingdom of God...

"Jesus  also said, “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for
the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give
to you, for on him has God the Father set his seal.”"
SOURCE: http://www.tidings.org/minutes/minute200212.htm

The verse I found that seems most supportive addressed actually, to a
rich ruler is:

"A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit
eternal life?" "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is
good--except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not commit
adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony,
honor your father and mother.' "All these I have kept since I was a
boy," he said. When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack
one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will
have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." When he heard this, he
became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth."

Regarding the commend made by pinkfreud, I believe it was addressed to
the church that Paul had set up where all people had pooled their
resources. It would have been easy for someone (who had nothing to
start off with) to just enter this (socialist) community and eat
without contributing anything! The verse is addressed specifically in
a letter to one of the early churches:

"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any
would not work, neither should he eat.
For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly,
working not at all, but are busybodies."
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/Bible/2_Thessalonians.html

It is interesting to note however, that people WERE given the choice
of whether they wanted to give up all of their possessions and join
the church (in the case of Annanius and Saphira, they pretended to
give up all they had but had not actually sold everything and given it
to the Apostles, and died as  a result). I am not sure if Jesus/God
would want to force everyone to give up their money, because of free
will (which is what might be happening in the Democrat case if they
got elected).

I must say however that I am proud to live in a very socialist country
where the rich get taxed, and where a single parent is able to manage
better than in many other countries. I really do not understand the
latest US tax cut, something like that would certainly not have much
chance of passing where I live.

By the way, I am not saying I have all the answer... I probably have
more questions than any of you! Just trying to contribute a bit with
what I know.

tisme-ga

Sorry for all the mistakes, I submitted prematurely. :(

tisme-ga

1 Corinthians 13:13
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of
these is love.

2 Corinthians 10:3
For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does.

1 John 4:4
You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the
one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 John 2:16
For everything in the world–the cravings, the lust and the boasting of
what he has and does–comes not from the Father but from the world.

Honestly, while I occassionally disagree with you (or have absolutely
no idea what you are getting at) regarding other issues you’ve invited
us to discuss, I believe you are right on this one:

Politicians are not unlike "soldiers", "overseers”, “watchmen",
"shepherds” and “teachers" whose office it is to lead, guard and feed
those committed to their charge. ALL OF THEM. They must be fully
committed to the collective and not to any particular group of the
flock:

"Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy
profiting may appear to all. Take heed unto thyself, and unto the
doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save
thyself, and them that hear thee" (1 Tim. 4:15, 16).

According to scripture, leaders (politicians included) should work in
such a manner that they have no shame for their actions or inactions
and dividing his interest equally among the people:

"Study to how thyself approved unto God a workman that needeth not to
be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Leaders are expected to be fairer to the people and more knowledgeable
in their work than the followers. They are also held to much greater
accountability:

“My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the
greater condemnation.” (James 3:1)

“Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good life let him
show his works in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter
jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be
false to the truth. This wisdom is not such as comes down from above,
but is earthly, unspiritual, devilish. For where jealousy and selfish
ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.”
(James 3:13-16)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Politicians who focus on “removing rewards from those who prosper” as
you put it (personally, I tend to believe it can better be described
as “ignoring the prosperous when handing out rewards”) are doing
themselves a disservice. Prosperity in itself can easily be viewed as
an earthly reward for which no other reward is necessary, but at the
same time prosperity is also a largely untapped resource that “could”
be directed toward helping those who cannot help themselves if only
the proper motivation was there. Having said that, ideally it would be
well for the most powerful among us to befriend the wealthiest among
us if for no other reason that to hope that they, through their wealth
and generosity, could help those who need it. Our political landscape
does not permit either party to ignore the needs of the rich or the
poor. For leader to side with one over the other in any conflict
(especially for personal gain) is to choreograph his own downfall:

"They made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have
I not kept" (Song of Sol. 1:6)

Regards;
Tutuzdad-ga

I guess the lesson I am learning here is that it can be extreemly
prodigious to employ the Bible to make any given point, as you guys
are proving.  One can find scriptures to buttress any point or
counter-point.  I recall a story about one guy who wanted to justify
suiside, so he searched the bible and found "and Judas hanged himself"
then he shopped again and found "go and do likewise".  Now my job will
be to find out who is quoting out of context, or out of dispensation
and whose WORD trumps whose.  Just a hint, I think Jesus trumps them
all. He had the last word "It is finished"...Back at you... got to
marshall my thoughts and try to wiggle my way out of this one...

Ok Count Tisme, let me start with your presentment.  It talks about
opressing the poor and so on...  This debate boils down to my main
contention about the "America Street", being versed at handling the
choice between good or evil, but falling egregiously short when it
comes to employing the Solomonics to choose between two evils.  The
DEM's "evil" is feeding a fish to the poor and keeping them as vote
pawns, while the GOP's evil is the trittle-down "evil" where they
prefer to try to teach the poor how to fish for the guys who turned
their talents into many.  The way I read it, Reagan's trittle-down
prosperity lasted through a DEM-impelled Bush-1 tax increase that
staggered back up again until Clinton's mega hike which produced the
false surplus and forced the economy into the resession that GW is now
battling.  Give me that "trickle down" any day, after all rain
trickles down, and it is written I will send rain upon the just and
the unjust.  Now whoever said anything about oppressing the poor
anyway? I do not recall that Jesus aluded to the poor in the parable
in question.
But then who is to say that all of the men in the parable, were not
poor?
Less ye get the wrong idea, I am as poor as a church mouse, but I just
want to make sure you guys don't keep thinking these unfriendly things
about me when I get there:)

TisMe, you are my favourite ANSWERMAN, but you had me searching my
vocabulary-box for an EXPRESSION that describes the tatics you
employed with this question.  The clocest word I could find is
"SOPHISTRY". (Help with this PINKfreud) Here is my esay on the concept
of sophistry:  We loose a quarter in the dark, and you bring in an
army to look for it under a street-light, and you quote me scriptures
to prove that the light of the world is Jesus and yee who likes the
darkness is evil; all of which would be 100% correct but in a
different discussion.  I see that you have suscribed
hook-line-&-sinker,to the ploy of transforming all discussions into
class-warfare...it's ok to love the party that much, but the "New Love
Commandment" that Jesus gave to us? That was TOUGH LOVE...

To TisMe

Ok, I read your piece on Labouring not for food, but I come away with
a diferent take on the moral of the story.  I hear the author saying,
not to fixate, nor idolize your pursuit of food.  Although the piece
addressed food, I also take from it that it applies to other facets of
life.  If in the same piece, is found "If one does not work, he should
not eat", then a thinking pearson should understand that the key is to
strike a balance.  I note that it took Pink Freud to draw your
attention to the seeming contradiction in  your own exhibit.  I am
handling you with kid-gloves TisMe, although I would not say it
myself, if someone else said that you indulged in alittle selective
gleaning here, I would not be able to come to your rescue.

I was told that the reason that Catholics try to keep their members
away from the Bible is that they believe in the notion that "alittle
knowledge can be a dangerous thing"  Again, I did not intend to
address the "poor" nor do I believe the "TEN TALENT PARABLE" specified
the poor, but since you brought us here, I take from your material
that, if you don't want to work, you should not eat, but you should
not spend all of your time pursuing food.  Note! I did not say, if you
can't work.  I am no expert on the bible, but here is what I conclude:
 If the Bible says in one verse that you shall not KILL, and in
another verse "and I gave David the skill to slay Goliath" then the
analytic mind must conclude that it means to stay away from EXTREEMS. 
Dont kill every giant you find.  But don't let Hitler go free to
plunder either.  Because believers understand that the Book does not
contradict itself it only appears so to the careless reader.

Hi toughlover,

Thanks for your analysis of my comments... :)

I must honestly say that I am Canadian and do not know as much about
the Democrats vs. the Republicans as perhaps I should in the context
of this discussion. I tend to always equal the Democrats and
Replublicans to their rough equivalents in the government in Canada,
but really there is no  comparison. I do not think we have anything
close to Republicans, we just have three different kinds of Democrats.
As a result, I quickly found myself meandering off topic a bit into
defending the right for jobless people to be paid for food because I
always think of the media extremes when thinking about Republicans.

As for one being able to use the bible properly to justify everything,
I disagree with that completely! My selective gleaning was really not
that selective, I do not know of any place in the Bible where monetary
wealth is a good thing!! But it is always a good thing to give to the
poor. Solomon was the "wisest" and most rich person ever, but what did
wealth do to him in the end?? Same thing with David, his riches and
influences caused him quite a bit of trouble.

Perhaps at the heart of this problem is the "American Dream". Many
poor Americans believe that someday, they (or their children) will
have the chance to become rich... But how often is this actually
happening to the majority of poor people? The best way America can
ensure that everyone has a good chance is to take money from the rich
people and put it into schools, health programs and poor families so
that all can more equally develop their intellect, music, athetic
skills etc. etc. etc.

I was assuming that this is what the democrats have been trying to do,
so I guess I misunderstood a large part of your original question.

As for Catholics... I must say that I have some Catholic friends and
am confused about many aspects of Catholicism. While I do not believe
that the bible is two-faced, I think that many leaders/officials
within the Catholic church are. You have Catholic doctrine pushing
extreme views on people in "third world countries" while in the more
modern and richer areas of the world, you have them being much more
relaxed about things. While Rome may say that divorce, abortion, sex
etc. are bad, the message between what you will hear in a Catholic
Church in Poland and in Canada on these topics and others is so
different, it looks like another religion!

The quote: "Jesus  also said, “Do not labor for the food which
perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the
Son of man will give
to you, for on him has God the Father set his seal." I feel means that
you should do "honest work" not work that leads to corruption of
others etc.

"If one does not work, he should not eat", I still think this
basically meant that if there are people that joined the newly
established communal church for the sole purpose of eating (and not
contributing in any spiritual or working way) they should be kicked
out of the church because they are fake. Note that they would still be
eligible for handouts from the rich and the church, but they would not
be a major strain on the newly established church. Many people had
given up EVERYTHING to the "feet of the Apostle" so it can easily be
understood that people with nothing would join in such a group and
have their personal net worth and influence increase drastically. The
problem was their motivation to join was not what it should have
been...

REGARDING your conclusion: Thou Shalt Not Kill -- Translation problems
into English are the problem here. I personally think that "thou shalt
not kill" refers to murdering. There is no contradiction in the
original text, but in some translations of it to english there are.
See this URL: http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:br5a9dRzFuoJ:www.stjohnadulted.org/CmdH06.rtf+%22do+not+kill%22+commandment&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

tisme-ga

Here is a general defense of the idea of wealth redistribution based
on the bible.

First allow me to address the parable. In the parable a wealthy man
gives money to his servants and then leaves on an errand. Upon his
return he learns that some servants have invested the money and earned
returns, and some chose to allow the money to lie fallow (as it would
be work to invest). Upon the wealthy man’s return he rewards the
investors with power. The non-investor justifies his actions on the
basis that he may not enjoy the fruit of his labors because the
wealthy man has been known to “takest up that thou layedst not down,
and reapest that thou didst not sow.” (Luke 19:21). The lazy servant
did no work because he did not expect any reward. So the moral is that
work should be its own reward, and not done in the expectation that
you will reap what you sow. If you do work for its own sake, you will
be rewarded with responsibility.

The above lines could be taken out of context and used as an argument
that we should randomly dig ditches (with no other purpose than to
occupy ourselves) because “work should be its own reward”. However, I
do not think Jesus was that ridiculous.

More specifically this is in the context of his followers thinking
“that the kingdom of God should immediately appear” (Luke 19:11). In
other words, his followers were impatient for their reward. This
parable is relayed immediately after to keep them focused on the
process not the prize. So in particular, this refers to theological
work, not necessarily practical labor.

The problem leftists have with the market system is that at times it
may evolve into a predatory institution where work is not guaranteed
reward. Marx in Das Kapital says :

“He and the owner of money meet in the market, and deal with each
other as on the basis of equal rights, with this difference alone,
that one is buyer, the other seller; both, therefore, equal in the
eyes of the law.”

“In order that a man may be able to sell commodities other than
labour-power, he must of course have the means of production, as raw
material, implements, &c. No boots can be made without leather. He
requires also the means of subsistence. Nobody -- not even "a musician
of the future" -- can live upon future products, or upon use-values in
an unfinished state; and ever since the first moment of his appearance
on the world's stage, man always has been, and must still be a
consumer, both before and while he is producing.”

“For the conversion of his money into capital, therefore, the owner of
money must meet in the market with the free labourer, free in the
double sense, that as a free man he can dispose of his labour-power as
his own commodity, and that on the other hand he has no other
commodity for sale, is short of everything necessary for the
realisation of his labour-power.”

This is as true today as it was in the nineteenth century. The growing
inequality and lack of social mobility are the important
circumstantial evidence that liberals point to in support of social
programs. Take this recent article in Slate:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2084816/

This was also true in biblical times. In Leviticus 25, a system of
wealth redistribution was established. This is a recognition that
labor divorced from other resources is worthless, and that one who
only owns labor is completely at the mercy of others, practically a
slave.

“In this year of jubilee ye shall return every man unto his
possession.” (Lev 25:13)

“And the land shall not be sold in perpetuity; for the land is Mine;
for ye are strangers and settlers with Me.” (Lev 25:23)

In the same chapter it mentions the Jubilee (every fifty years) as the
year in which “slave” go free. I quote slaves because in ancient
Judea, all laborers were under temporary contracts at best (Fifty year
contracts at most). This is significant because it gives the freed
slaves a means of independent subsistence immediately upon release.
Without this means, he may as well still be in bondage.

So in this way, the modern interpretation of the market system is
unfair (as G-d sees it) because it allows land resources (and maybe
certain capital resources, though that is debatable) to be owned in
perpetuity by individuals. Therefore, since imposition of a biblical
style redistribution is currently unfeasible (for a number of reasons
both political and practical) democrats compromise by attempting to
make certain subsistence “kapital” available to everyone (like well
funded education, basic food, shelter, and  hopefully soon: medicine).

So a politically liberal interpretation of the parable would bring up
the fact that the wealthy nobleman did not know the one servant would
not invest his money wisely. The parable says that he gives one
servant five, one two, and the lazy one a single talent. Given his
ignorance of the lazy one’s laziness (why would he give a lazy servant
anything? [remember the parable talks about a mortal]) it is just as
likely that the five talent servant is the lazy one. In that case, the
wealthy man would return to find only three new talents, rather than
seven as in the original. The Democrat servant would argue that the
eight talents should be divided equally among the three. That way if
one is lazy, the nobleman will return to at least 5 and one third new
talents, rather than let fate decide between an extreme of poverty or
wealth. In addition, the non-lazy servant who unfortunately is stuck
with the single talent will not be unfairly penalized in the reward
for his labor (2 and two thirds cities versus one [Mat 25]) when the
wealthy man returns.

PS I do not have an idealized view of Marx. I am in no way apologizing
for communism or endorsing any of his other ideas.

I think some of us are missing the point here.  The question is not so
much about helping the poor, which is something I am in favor of and
I'm sure the asker is also, but within reason.

I think the problem is that so much of the welfare (help) was/is also
designed to deliberately keep the poor, poor.   And of course as long
as they are kept poor, they will be loyal voters for those who keep
passing out the money.

Exactly what I mean by that is that much of the welfare system
designed to "help" the poor also included side benefits in addition to
the money, Medicade and housing assistence to name a couple.

Because of this, many who receive aid do not dare leave the welfare
system till they absolutely have to because to get off welfare and
take a paying job is actually an economic step backwards.  Medicade
and other entitlement benefits may very well be lost and the
difference cannot be made up by taking legitimate work.  Most low
paying jobs don't offer insurance or even if they do it is frequently
with a co-pay plan.  Section 8 housing assistance may also be lost or
reduced along with other side benefits many of the 'poor' receive.

Too many times the tax payer who is dunned for this has a take home
pay which is much lower than what the aid recipient receives each
month in cash and benefits and often does not have the side benefits
such as free insurance.

As long as there is no incentive to stop receiving aid or as long as
such aid is more than what many families receive by actually working,
then those politicians who push "aiding the poor" in the "name of
compassion" are in actuality creating an ever loyal and ever entrapped
professional poverty class from which to milk votes.

The 'poor' are often given a subsistence level of aid just high enough
that they can be frightened into not leaving the welfare roles and
taking legitimate jobs because of what they stand to lose.  They may
well become even more impoverished by actually working.

Now while many politicians will appeal to our emotions and cry foul
when anybody challenges the welfare system, claiming that we are
selfish and cruel to the poor and have no compassion, the real cruelty
is in the creation of a system deliberately designed to keep the poor
in their place as an easily manipulated voting block.

The Bible and all the quotes from it really have very little to do
with our US national attitude toward the poor when it comes to
gathering votes.  It is simply real-politics in one of its most base
and cruel forms.

Just a personal opinion.

digs

You ask an interesting question.

   Even more interesting is the framework of your question, that is
the larger structure that contains your question.

   You ask us to interpret and apply christian theology to a small
part of a political party's platform.

   Carried to it's logical end, we would wind-up with the "Democratic
christian church."   Your question is the only one on the political
board with 15 comments!  You see how it stirs passion.

    There's an old saying that "The Devil can quote scripture to prove
his point".  That comes, I suppose, from when Jesus spent 40 days and
nights in the Wilderness, and the Devil tempted him by quoting
scripture.

    How is it that so much scripture can be quoted to support opposite
sides?

    A church-friend once said to me, quoting a radio minister, "When
Christian's disagree, one is wrong".  I would agree, and add, "one--or
both--are wrong.

    It was so with slavery.  The Southern Baptist church was born out
of the split within the Baptist church during the 1850's and the
national debate on slavery.  The Catholic church was also divided,
north and south.  As was the Presbyterian church...and so on.

    Both sides quoted Scripture to invoke God's authority either for,
or against slavery.

    The same thing happens here, on your question.

    It's a free country, and individuals should apply their faith to
political issues.  But, that should take place within the frame-work
of their faith; and not within a political party.

    You are ask us to reach a decison on applying Christian theology
to a political party issue.  How do we reach a decision?  Do we vote? 
Does majority rule?  Do you appoint Bishops within the Democratic
Party to decide issues of faith?

    Your question is a theological one.  It should be asked, and
debated, in a religion forum.

    Otherwise, we will form the Democratic Christian Church and also,
(need I say it? the Republican Christian Church.  And whichever one
wins; that will be, for the next four years, the official state
religion.

I really feel sad for you Sir because you don't sound very happy.
No joy of the Lord in your question.
Jesus was not a democrat nor a republican.
Nor does he care which you are.
You are really missing a big point.
Politics will not save this country nor people.
Honestly you sound like a person with real high blood pressure.

1Co 13:13 But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the 
greatest of these is love.

1Jo 4:16
God is love…he doesn’t have love He is Love. 

Love NEVER fails. 1Co 13:8
Start here and you will never ask that question.
If you don’t understand how it answers it then…
well….you don’t know love or the Power of God.

Sir, with all respect, lazy people or Democrats are not your
problem.

Allowing Democrats or Lazy people to steal our Joy….
That’s your problem. And I say that in love.
I know because I’ve been there.

Be blessed,
I’m sure of the answer.
And by the way…you can work your tail off….but God gives true
success….not the hard work.