The Doctrinal Error Of Liberalism

[WinePusher]

This is a post inspired by another post on another site:

You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

The above perfectly explains the doctrinal error of Liberalism.

If you agree, why?

If you disagree, why?

[WinePusher]

Please articulate your understanding of Christ's view on wealth and poverty..

1. He specifically blessed the poor and pronounced woe upon the rich (apparently without qualification).
2. He was opposed to the hoarding of wealth.
3. He advocated selling one's possessions and giving to the poor.
4. He opposed privilege based on wealth
5. He routinely cast the wealthy as villains and the poor as victims in his parables.

Yes, I agree whole heartedly with all of these points. However, these teachings do not translate into the liberal view of Social Justice. The key thing that Jesus Christ advocated was voluntary giving by the rich, and the voluntary selling of ones possessions. In Christian Morality, I would assert that the intention behind an action has just as much meaning as the action itself. If a person is being forced to give money to the poor, or is giving money to the poor out of fear of penalities, the action cannot itself be called moral. So, Christ's teachings are more inclined to be in agreement with Conservative views on Social Justice (which is essentially charity without coercion done through private and faith based organizations) rather then with Liberal views on Social Justice (which would be programs such as Welfare).

Oh, absolutely. I'm sure Jesus was all for regressive taxation (remember the Sermon on the Amount), against universal health care and for corporate immunity to liability.

Come on, WP. Do YOU even believe you. Anyone who reads the words of Jesus and does not recognize that he had an open hostility towards wealth and a particular devotion to the poor simply cannot read. Nevertheless, Christians have somehow, beyond comprehension, cast Jesus as a supply-side Republican. Pathetic.

Anyone who reads the words of Jesus would realize that he no where advocates for government social programs that liberals are advocating for today. He did not promote mandatory redistribution of wealth and he was not a socialist. He advocated voluntary charity, a concept that you left unaddressed.

But you continue to condemn Christians for misrepresenting and not following the steps of Jesus. A first and foremost goal of Christians churches is almsgiving, which is what Jesus promoted. So, what exactly is your problem with Christians? They give a substantiale amount of money to the poor, they run hospitals and orphanages, they run soup kitchens and jail minsitries, so what exactly is your problem with Christians?

[flitzerbiest]

Anyone who reads the words of Jesus would realize that he no where advocates for government social programs that liberals are advocating for today. He did not promote mandatory redistribution of wealth and he was not a socialist. He advocated voluntary charity, a concept that you left unaddressed.

Unfortunately, it is a concept that most Christians have also left unaddressed. Besides keeping the lights on in their churches, they do no better than the rest of the population in providing for the needs of the disadvantaged.

[McCulloch]

The key thing that Jesus Christ advocated was voluntary giving by the rich, and the voluntary selling of ones possessions. In Christian Morality, I would assert that the intention behind an action has just as much meaning as the action itself. If a person is being forced to give money to the poor, or is giving money to the poor out of fear of penalties, the action cannot itself be called moral. So, Christ's teachings are more inclined to be in agreement with Conservative views on Social Justice (which is essentially charity without coercion done through private and faith based organizations) rather then with Liberal views on Social Justice (which would be programs such as Welfare).
..
Anyone who reads the words of Jesus would realize that he no where advocates for government social programs that liberals are advocating for today. He did not promote mandatory redistribution of wealth and he was not a socialist. He advocated voluntary charity, a concept that you left unaddressed.

If you look at what is recorded that he taught, you might notice that he saw money and wealth as being of little or no importance, other than perhaps as an impediment to higher heavenly goals. If the conservative Christians behaved as if what happened to their money had no importance, they would not spend a whole lot of time advocating right wing economics, tax reduction and free markets, and focus their energy on the important things.

[ChaosBorders]

But you continue to condemn Christians for misrepresenting and not following the steps of Jesus. A first and foremost goal of Christians churches is almsgiving, which is what Jesus promoted. So, what exactly is your problem with Christians? They give a substantiale amount of money to the poor, they run hospitals and orphanages, they run soup kitchens and jail minsitries, so what exactly is your problem with Christians?

The amount of money needed to solve a lack of water, which kills 3.5 million people a year, is less than 10% of what Christians spend on Christmas presents every year. The cost of saving over a million children from dying of vitamin A deficiency is even less than that.

The need in the world is not for the lack of ability to address it. Christians have the funds to solve major world problems. Sadly, too many of us choose not to.

What is more, statistically they do not give that much more of their money to 'charities' than non-Christians, and a sizable chunk that they do give goes towards the salaries of those working in their church, as well as maintenance and upkeep of the building. I have seen no indication that Christians give any more towards causes that actually help the needy than do non-Christians. Yet, again statistically, they make up a much larger portion of the party that tries to put up road blocks to social programs.

[WinePusher]

Unfortunately, it is a concept that most Christians have also left unaddressed. Besides keeping the lights on in their churches, they do no better than the rest of the population in providing for the needs of the disadvantaged.

I bet you can't support this claim. Taken from thisthread having been research by otseng, there are many religious philanthropic organizations, also add every single Christian church that exists in America to this list. You'll see that Christians do make a better and stronger effort in providing for the needs of the disadvantaged.

Alcoholics Anonymous
http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org
Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism.

Bread for the World
http://www.bread.org/
Bread for the World is a nationwide Christian movement that seeks justice for the world's hungry people by lobbying our nation's decision makers.

Catholic Relief Services
http://www.crs.org/
Our mission is to assist the poor and disadvantaged, leveraging the teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to alleviate human suffering, promote development of all people, and to foster charity and justice throughout the world.

Christian Aid
http://www.christian-aid.org.uk/
We work through local organisations to deliver direct, practical benefits, and we campaign to challenge the causes of poverty.

Christian Blind Mission International
http://www.cbmiusa.org
Christian Blind Mission International (CBMI) is the oldest and largest ministry with the primary purpose of improving the quality of life for the blind and disabled living in the world's most disadvantaged societies.

Compassion International
http://www.compassion.com
Compassion International exists as a Christian child advocacy ministry that releases children from spiritual, physical, economic and social poverty and enables them to become responsible, fulfilled Christian adults.

Feed the Children
http://www.feedthechildren.org
Feed The Children is a Christian, international, nonprofit relief organization with headquarters in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, that delivers food, medicine, clothing and other necessities to individuals, children and families who lack these essentials due to famine, war, poverty, or natural disaster.

Habitat for Humanity
http://www.habitat.org
Habitat for Humanity International is a nonprofit, ecumenical Christian organization dedicated to eliminating substandard housing and homelessness worldwide and to making adequate, affordable shelter a matter of conscience and action. Habitat is founded on the conviction that every man, woman and child should have a simple, decent, affordable place to live in dignity and safety.

Missionaries of Charity
http://www.mcpriests.com
The religious community of the Missionaries of Charity Fathers was founded by Mother Teresa of Calcutta with Fr. Joseph Langford in 1984, to combine the beauty of the Missionaries of Charity vocation with the grace of the ministerial priesthood.

Salvation Army
http://www1.salvationarmy.org
The Salvation Army is an integral part of the Christian Church, although distinctive in government and practice. The Army�s doctrine follows the mainstream of Christian belief and its articles of faith emphasise God�s saving purposes. Its objects are �the advancement of the Christian religion� of education, the relief of poverty, and other charitable objects beneficial to society or the community of mankind as a whole.

Samaritan's Purse
http://www.samaritanspurse.org/
For over 35 years, Samaritan's Purse has done our utmost to follow Christ's command by going to the aid of the world's poor, sick, and suffering.

World Relief
http://www.worldrelief.org/
We believe showing suffering people that Christians care and that the Church wants to make a lasting impact on their lives is a powerful expression of our faith and love for God.World Relief empowers, equips and strengthens churches to serve their communities, enabling them to act as beacons of hope to their people and to spread the life-changing power of Jesus Christ . Church-centered, grassroots initiatives tackle entrenched and intertwined problems of poverty � and people experience transformation in their lives, in their families, in their churches, and in their communities.

World Vision
http://www.worldvision.org/
World Vision is a Christian relief and development organization dedicated to helping children and their communities worldwide reach their full potential by tackling the causes of poverty.

YMCA
http://www.ymca.net/
Together, the nation's 2,617 YMCAs are the largest not-for-profit community service organization in America, working to meet the health and human service needs of 20.2 million men, women and children in 10,000 communities in the United States. YMCAs are at the heart of community life across the country: 42 million families and 72 million households are located within three miles of a YMCA.

[flitzerbiest]

Unfortunately, it is a concept that most Christians have also left unaddressed. Besides keeping the lights on in their churches, they do no better than the rest of the population in providing for the needs of the disadvantaged.

I bet you can't support this claim. Taken from thisthread having been research by otseng, there are many religious philanthropic organizations, also add every single Christian church that exists in America to this list. You'll see that Christians do make a better and stronger effort in providing for the needs of the disadvantaged.

Oh?

American Red Cross
Amnesty International
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Doctors without Borders (Nobel Peace Prize)
Freedom from Hunger
Heifer International
Human Rights Campaign
International AIDS Vaccine Initiative
International Peace Institute
Kiva
Partners in Health
Peanut Butter Project
Population Connection
Second Harvest
Southern Poverty Law Center
UNICEF
World Health Organization

I've thrown in a variety of HUGE and merely large organizations. Even if you only counted the American Red Cross, the WHO, UNICEF and the B&MGF, you'd already be at a larger dollar figure than all of your listed charities combined. Additionally, I made sure to include some charities which Christians have historically seen as untouchable (AIDS, gay rights, population control, etc).

Your point is not made.





*edited for poor quote crop

[ChaosBorders]

Unfortunately, it is a concept that most Christians have also left unaddressed. Besides keeping the lights on in their churches, they do no better than the rest of the population in providing for the needs of the disadvantaged.

I bet you can't support this claim. Taken from thisthread having been research by otseng, there are many religious philanthropic organizations, also add every single Christian church that exists in America to this list. You'll see that Christians do make a better and stronger effort in providing for the needs of the disadvantaged.

A) Those organizations you listed may have been started by Christians, but that does not make them solely funded by Christians.
B) Let's examine a source regarding giving, shall we? It's a few years out of date, but I suspect proportions have not changed all that much.

Americans gave in total 260.28 billion dollars. Of that, $98.13 billion went to religious organizations, the vast majority of those Christian. So how does that $98.13 billion break down? Well, per this research, 42% goes to payroll and over 20% goes to building expenses. 16% goes to church programs like youth ministry and 15% goes to missions.

The only two that even might (depending entirely on the church and mission) directly help the poor are the programs and missions.

Now per the previous source, those making less than 300k give 2.3% of their income to charity while those making over 300 k give an average of 4.4 percent. That sounds like they're way more generous right?

Maybe before you consider how much more those who make less have to spend on [url=ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ce/standard/2009/higherincome.txt]basic necessities[/url].

Higher income families give twice as much, but they spend about four times as much on entertainment. Somehow it doesn't seem like their priorities are quite straight....

What is also interesting is that fewer than half of wealthy Americans considered religion a major contributor to their happiness. Also interesting to note? The more money someone makes, the less likely they are to tithe. While 8% of those making less than 20k a year tithe, the number dropped to 1% for those making from 75k-100k. Now, in fairness, the number did drop back up to 5% for those making over 100k, but it was still less than those at the bottom.

But I think a more important thing to note from this is that 85% of what church-goers donated, went to their churches. This is important to note because as detailed above, roughly two-thirds of that doesn't go towards anything more than payroll and building expenses.

Now it's true that those who are most religiously active seem to donate 2 to 3 times as much of their money. However, when 85% of that goes to a church, and two-thirds of that just goes to payroll and building expenses, the amount actually going towards helping those who are impoverished does not seem to be significantly more than those are not very religious (both theists and non-theists).

[WinePusher]

Unfortunately, it is a concept that most Christians have also left unaddressed. Besides keeping the lights on in their churches, they do no better than the rest of the population in providing for the needs of the disadvantaged.

I bet you can't support this claim. Taken from this thread having been research by otseng, there are many religious philanthropic organizations, also add every single Christian church that exists in America to this list. You'll see that Christians do make a better and stronger effort in providing for the needs of the disadvantaged.

Oh?

American Red Cross
Amnesty International
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Doctors without Borders (Nobel Peace Prize)
Freedom from Hunger
Heifer International
Human Rights Campaign
International AIDS Vaccine Initiative
International Peace Institute
Kiva
Partners in Health
Peanut Butter Project
Population Connection
Second Harvest
Southern Poverty Law Center
UNICEF
World Health Organization

I've thrown in a variety of HUGE and merely large organizations. Even if you only counted the American Red Cross, the WHO, UNICEF and the B&MGF, you'd already be at a larger dollar figure than all of your listed charities combined.

Sorry, but what is your point? First, you claim that churches do no better then the rest of the population in caring for the disadvantaged. When this claim is shown to be false, you shift the goalposts and say that my examples only count if they are able to beat my charities.

Additionally, I made sure to include some charities which Christians have historically seen as untouchable (AIDS, gay rights, population control, etc).

Lol, because an organization fights for a cause you agree with it must then be charity? I guess I should have added pro-life groups to my list because what they do is also charity.

[ChaosBorders]

Sorry, but what is your point? First, you claim that churches do no better then the rest of the population in caring for the disadvantaged. When this claim is shown to be false, you shift the goalposts and say that my examples only count if they are able to beat my charities.

Firstly, you never showed that churches do better than (or even the same as) the rest of the population in caring for the disadvantaged, you just gave a long list of Christian founded charities.

Secondly, if the Christian charities are giving less than the non-Christian charities than it would be indicative that, yes, they are doing no better than the rest of the population. So if you're going to try and argue that way, you do have to beat his charities. (Though in both cases the entire way either of you are trying to argue this is flawed since non-Christians can give to Winepusher's list of charities and Christians can give to Flitz's list of charities. Neither list shows anything meaningful at all.).

Lol, because an organization fights for a cause you agree with it must then be charity? I guess I should have added pro-life groups to my list because what they do is also charity.

Pro-life I would consider an acceptable term of the word charity as used in this context, even if I mostly disagree with their position. My contention is more that Christians consider their donations to payroll and building expenses 'charitable giving' when by and large the ones receiving the greatest benefit from that are themselves and their families (and their favorite pastor and ministers). Equating such giving to the giving of others who are truly disadvantaged seems disingenuous.

[flitzerbiest]

Unfortunately, it is a concept that most Christians have also left unaddressed. Besides keeping the lights on in their churches, they do no better than the rest of the population in providing for the needs of the disadvantaged.

I bet you can't support this claim. Taken from this thread having been research by otseng, there are many religious philanthropic organizations, also add every single Christian church that exists in America to this list. You'll see that Christians do make a better and stronger effort in providing for the needs of the disadvantaged.

Oh?

American Red Cross
Amnesty International
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Doctors without Borders (Nobel Peace Prize)
Freedom from Hunger
Heifer International
Human Rights Campaign
International AIDS Vaccine Initiative
International Peace Institute
Kiva
Partners in Health
Peanut Butter Project
Population Connection
Second Harvest
Southern Poverty Law Center
UNICEF
World Health Organization

I've thrown in a variety of HUGE and merely large organizations. Even if you only counted the American Red Cross, the WHO, UNICEF and the B&MGF, you'd already be at a larger dollar figure than all of your listed charities combined.

Sorry, but what is your point? First, you claim that churches do no better then the rest of the population in caring for the disadvantaged. When this claim is shown to be false...

Where did that happen? You claimed that Christians made a "a better and stronger effort at caring for the disadvantaged", and threw out of a list of Christian charities. I countered with a list of non-religious charities which are substantially larger in size and in scope. It was your tactic. Don't blame me if it backfires.