Spirituality
28 Feb 15
28 Feb 15
Originally posted by KellyJayYou don't think some of the people who pay tax support some of the Gov't programs they fund?
Why is that? It isn't that someone is giving and another receiving, as I said
splitting a robbery spoils does that! If I willing give that is not the
same as being forced to give so another receives it.
Claiming that taxation is 'robbery' is too strong a claim. A robber doesn't make sure your roads are paved and free of ice, or that criminals remain incarcerated, or that the country is defended, or any of that. A robber feels zero obligation to you in return for what they take.
01 Mar 15
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemI am saying that being forced to give is not the same thing as giving out
You don't think some of the people who pay tax support some of the Gov't programs they fund?
Claiming that taxation is 'robbery' is too strong a claim. A robber doesn't make sure your roads are paved and free of ice, or that criminals remain incarcerated, or that the country is defended, or any of that. A robber feels zero obligation to you in return for what they take.
of your own hearts desires. I'm saying someone who directs money out
of a fund that is not their own money is not the same thing as giving out
of their own pockets.
The government does not have its own money, it takes it away from those
that are supposed to be protected by it, that are supposed to be supported
by it. Do we call getting or receiving interest owed charity, I think not.
I'm saying that government giving isn't coming from the government's own
pockets it has none, but from it's own people! So giving someone, someone
one else' money isn't charity, in my opinion.
Originally posted by KellyJayWho is claiming that different forms of charity are "the same thing"?
I am saying that being forced to give is not the same thing as giving out
of your own hearts desires. I'm saying someone who directs money out
of a fund that is not their own money is not the same thing as giving out
of their own pockets.
The government does not have its own money, it takes it away from those
that are supposed to be protected by it, ...[text shortened]... from it's own people! So giving someone, someone
one else' money isn't charity, in my opinion.
So giving someone, someone one else' money isn't charity, in my opinion.
Yes, but the word "charity" has a meaning in English ~ and this meaning is not something that your preference [for certain forms of charity] can simply and arbitrarily negate.
01 Mar 15
Originally posted by KellyJayI hear what you are saying, but I still don't agree with it. 🙂
I am saying that being forced to give is not the same thing as giving out
of your own hearts desires. I'm saying someone who directs money out
of a fund that is not their own money is not the same thing as giving out
of their own pockets.
The government does not have its own money, it takes it away from those
that are supposed to be protected by it, ...[text shortened]... from it's own people! So giving someone, someone
one else' money isn't charity, in my opinion.
01 Mar 15
Originally posted by KellyJayIf they both fund activity or grants that benefit the public at large by providing help to the needy, then they are both charity. Not all forms of charity are "the same thing". If someone were to come along and claim that individuals giving out of their own pockets is not "charity" because it doesn't involve someone directing money out of a fund that is not their own money, then you would say the dichotomy is silly and contrived in order to justify a personal/political preference about how the needy ought to be helped.
I'm saying someone who directs money out of a fund that is not their own money is not the same thing as giving out of their own pockets..
01 Mar 15
Originally posted by KellyJayThe game is that government takes in money and then gives a portion of it to those in need, but the vast majority of money they take in does not go to the poor.
Can the Governments giving be called charity or is it something else?
That way they can always justify their existence. So long as they give a dime to the poor there will always be calls from the left to raise taxes to help the poor, even though the vast amount of money they pay taxes for is not for the poor.
So as they throw crumbs under the table for the poor to lap up like dogs, ask yourself, is my money better off going to the poor directly or to the shady middleman who promises to do the right thing with the tax money you give him?
When we give to the poor there is a reward for the giver and for the person receiving the help. Those that give are blessed with the knowledge they are giving to help their fellow human being and those who are receiving the help are blessed with the natural response which is gratitude.
When the government is in charge of things, it all gets flipped on its head. The giver no longer feels blessed with the knowledge that they are giving to the poor. In fact, everyone, and I mean everyone, seeks to evade taxation through various methods whether they be legal or otherwise. The gift of giving is then destroyed. Then those that receive help no longer feel the gratitude of thanks for the giver. Instead, giving becomes an entitlement, and as such, the recipient always feels like they should be getting more and more.
01 Mar 15
Originally posted by whodeyAnother point, Charity to give because it is needed by those receiving is
The game is that government takes in money and then gives a portion of it to those in need, but the vast majority of money they take in does not go to the poor.
That way they can always justify their existence. So long as they give a dime to the poor there will always be calls from the left to raise taxes to help the poor, even though the vast amount of ...[text shortened]... ly or to the shady middleman who promises to do the right thing with the tax money you give him?
one thing, while giving to get something in return (votes) is another.
01 Mar 15
Originally posted by KellyJayThe way of the world is to oppress the poor. The Bible reiterates this time and again, and yes, this includes the Progressives in power.
Another point, Charity to give because it is needed by those receiving is
one thing, while giving to get something in return (votes) is another.
What is different from days of old is that there is more demagoguery in the mix and a massive welfare system.
If politicians were all that noble, why do they lie like they do? If they were really out to help the middle class and the poor, who outnumber the rich, then all they would have to do is tell the truth all the time to get elected.
01 Mar 15
Originally posted by KellyJayIf it's charity then it's still charity even if you object to the motivations and actions of those involved.
Another point, Charity to give because it is needed by those receiving is
one thing, while giving to get something in return (votes) is another.
Originally posted by FMFWas it charity that Hitler gave the German people free health care, free educations, free this and that? No, it was to buy off a war weary populace steeped in genocide. The chilling part about it is, it worked like a charm.
If it's charity then it's still charity even if you object to the motivations and actions of those involved.
01 Mar 15
Originally posted by whodeyIf his regime gave assistance to the needy and deprived then yes it was charity. If they had to buy those services at market rates then it wasn't charity.
Was it charity that Hitler gave the German people free health care, free educations, free this and that? No, it was to buy off a war weary populace steeped in genocide. The chilling part about it is, it worked like a charm.
01 Mar 15
Originally posted by FMFHaving said that, I think there may be a practical difference between programmes that create legally underpinned entitlements/government obligations and "charity" and charitable activities. It's an interesting point.
If his regime gave assistance to the needy and deprived then yes it was charity. If they had to buy those services at market rates then it wasn't charity.