.jpg)
My upbringing and unwavering faith in God have attributed to my view of the world as a whole. I consider the book of Proverbs to be the book of wisdom for daily life. Proverbs 6 provides examples of what God hates, yes it says hates, and also a fantastic story of an ant.
Proverbs 6:6-11 (The Message) You lazy fool, look at an ant. Watch it closely; let it teach you a thing or two. Nobody has to tell it what to do. All summer it stores up food; at harvest it stockpiles provisions. So how long are you going to laze around doing nothing? How long before you get out of bed? A nap here, a nap there, a day off here, a day off there, sit back, take it easy - do you know what comes next? Just this: You can look forward to a dirt-poor life, poverty your permanent houseguest!
I understand there are those that simply cannot, and that is what welfare was meant for. I understand there are those that won't, and that is a shame.
2 Theselonians 3:10b If a man will not work, he shall not eat.
Back to Proverbs, in chapter 6, verses 17-19 explains the things God hates. Haughty eyes - being proud
Lying tongue - enough said
Hands that shed innocent blood - life is sacred and a gift
A heart that devises wicked schemes
Feet that are quick to rush into evil
A false witness who pours out lies and a man that stirs up dissension among brothers.
I know there will be some of you that will twist these words and remove them from their context, but it will not move me.
My earlier posts explained my views and here is the basis. Give Caesar what is due him, but love thy neighbor as thyself. Take care of the widows and orphans, for this is the true religion. This is our responsibility. Do not shed innocent blood. Life comes from God and is not up to us to end it early.
Now that the left side of New Albany knows my theology, let's talk policy. I will try to the best of my ability to stay on topic, but no promises. This faith is woven into me. I expect the comments to be plentiful and heavy handed, so bring 'em on.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
AMEN!!!
I'm perfectly content to see these words remain in their context, i.e., theology.
What any of them have to do with an introduction to policy is less clear, other than to suggest that in Daniel's mind, the two are linked.
Is that the case?
Absolutely. My faith is the foundation for my world view. Just like your humanistic beliefs guide yours. Now, I don't spout scripture on every blog entry, but I am trying to give some perspective of where it comes from. I know you do not agree. That's OK - I'm not trying to persuade you. Now when you read my opinions, you will understand my reasoning, agree or not, and how I arrived at my position. Let's not turn every day into a religion, or lack of, argument. I like the conversations we have and would like to keep them going.(Olive Branch) LOL
If that is truly an olive branch, do you actually believe that we on the left want to "pay" slackers?
Speaking of slackers and policy, here's a bit from an old Boston Globe series that summarizes what I was getting at yesterday:
"The $150 billion for corporate subsidies and tax benefits eclipses the annual budget deficit of $130 billion. It's more than the $145 billion paid out annually for the core programs of the social welfare state: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), student aid, housing, food and nutrition, and all direct public assistance (excluding Social Security and medical care)."
Some of the biggest corporate winners in that scenario laid off tens of thousands of employees during the same time period in which they each received billions of tax subsidy, disproving the theory that tax breaks lead to job creation.
Wow, bluegill, virtually every economist is America disagrees with you. While some companies do lay off workers, we have witnesses 52 straight months of job growth since the middle class tax cuts were implemented. And,no hoosier, I don't think you on the left want to pay slackers, but why do we keep doing it?
I'm open to suggestions that will ensure that those adults and children who really need it, get it. Also, the children of the slackers, it is not the child's fault.
"...we have witnesses 52 straight months of job growth since the middle class tax cuts were implemented."
You're comparing apple and oranges. Middle class tax cuts and corporate tax subsidy are very different things. Economists do not disagree about that.
If you'd like to actually address corporate welfare, feel free.
I understand that as a Republican I automatically get the label of a friend of big business. Corporations that abuse the system should be booted from any further help, as should small businesses that receive grants or low interest loans and then fold. Still, in the big picture, tax cuts help the economy - both personal and corporate.
Daniel Short said...
"I understand that as a Republican I automatically get the label of a friend of big business. Corporations that abuse the system should be booted from any further help, as should small businesses that receive grants or low interest loans and then fold. Still, in the big picture, tax cuts help the economy - both personal and corporate."
BRAVO!
What constitutes abuse? Isn't any subsidization of a company who can readily afford to pay its CEO millions of dollars a year abuse?
Daniel,
I’d caution you on a couple of things in terms of Scriptural interpretation.
My first caution is the usage of the word hate/hates. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew and the New Testament was written in Greek and these ancient languages lacked the vocabulary to add nuance to words. By nuance I mean that one prefers one thing to another. An example of this would be that if I say, in English, I like vanilla better than chocolate, in the ancient languages it would read as I love vanilla and hate chocolate. As a rule, Biblical translators tend to translate the words literally, but the reader needs to recognize the nuances and the quirks of the language from which it was translated. Hatred, as a rule, generally runs counter to an understanding of God being love, as cited so often in John. Any preacher who preaches hatred is running contrary to God.
My second caution would be to be extremely careful when citing “The Message.” The author of “The Message” is Eugene Peterson who paraphrased the Bible in order to make it more understandable to people. It was, and remains, an excellent tool for the edification of people, especially those people who struggle with translations of the text. Peterson is very up front with the fact that he is the author of this book. “The Message” is not the Bible but an interpreted paraphrase of the Bible. Again, it’s fine for self-edification, but it ought not be used as a document for serious study. The absolute best translation of the Old Testament that exists right now is the New Jerusalem Bible, a Roman Catholic translation. Amongst more liberal Protestants, the favorite is generally the New Revised Standard Version. Amongst more conservative Protestants, the New International Version is widely used. If you’d like to do serious Bible study, I’d strong recommend using a translation of the Bible and not a paraphrase.
Having said that, your citations are accurate. Proverbs, and Wisdom Literature in general, deplore laziness. Judaism is very community oriented and slackers, frankly, were a major drain on everyone. Paul’s citation is also quite accurate. The early Christian Church, as we read in Acts 2:
Acts 2:44-47
All who believed were together and had all things in common; [45] they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. [46] Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, [47] praising God and having the goodwill of all the people. And day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.
The early Christian Church did a great deal of communal living----a practice that proved to be unfeasible and was discontinued. The words of Paul, in this context, make it clear that every person had to pull their own weight. It is, obviously, a good rule for society.
So, is it Biblical that God wants people to work hard? Yes, absolutely. What you cite is right on and an excellent inspiration for how to live your life. I would concur.
There are a couple of caveats.
First, poverty is often not the result of laziness. We feed 80 people in our Soup Kitchen every week and pass out free clothing to many, many needy people each week. The vast majority of the people who come to be fed and clothed work. Many of them work very, very hard in very difficult jobs. Yet, they live in poverty. Many have experienced some sort of financial devastation or have never had the jobs to be able to make enough money to survive in our modern day world. They exist as the working poor in our community and would not fall into the categories we find in Proverbs or in the writings of St. Paul.
Secondly, laziness might be an moral ill, but poverty is not. The major proponent of poverty as a moral ill was Ayn Rand in her writings. To her, the moral obligation of people was to become as wealthy as they could and true moral living was to make as much money and live as lavishly as one could. To not be successful was, to her, immoral. To Rand, charity was deplorable. If you’ve ever listened to Rush Limbaugh, without citing her directly, he is the most vocal advocate of her philosophy. It is, if one has read Rand, difficult to miss in many of his statements. Rand had no belief in any kind of divine power, and found discussions about God to be comical and ludicrous.
Lastly, as Christians, we have a moral obligation to help serve the poor in our midst without judgment as to why they are poor. If one reads the Gospels in their totality, it is painfully obvious that this is Jesus’ number one moral teaching. Christians are required to help the impoverished. How this is done is a political issue that I’m not going to engage. As long as one espouses the necessity that it is done and lives one’s life accordingly, I have no quibble with one’s political views on this. As I said, how it is done is a political issue, but that it is done is a spiritual issue.
One of the great dilemmas Christianity has faced in the last century is that Christianity has become increasingly political and Christian teachings and political policies get confused with each other. Secondly, political leaders have cherry picked Christianity and the Bible to validate their own opinions but have often done so in a way that has made Christianity appear to be what it is not.
I may disagree with many of your ideas but I respect that they are sincere and that you are living your life in accord to your faith commitment. While I have absolutely no issue with the Scripture you cited or even the context in which you cited it, I would remind you that there is a great deal more in the Bible to grapple with and what you cited is an excellent approach in the way you have chosen to live your life, but there is so much more to deal with.
John - Thanks for your comments. I used the message in this instance for the ease of reading to those on this blog. My normal choice is the Life Application Study Bible, NIV. I wish to take issue with two of your points. God absolutely hates certain things, even though he is a God of love. You see, he rules with justice. The Bible states that he is emotional - jealousy, love, hate, joy and anger. He destroyed his creation at one point because of his dislike for what mankind had become. Next, I believe it is every Christians responsibilty to take of those that need help, especially those in poverty. I believe it is a cop out to pass this responsibilty on to an inefficient government that milks it for votes. I feel we both understand what it means to be a Christian, with only the fine details not in agreement. I can appreciate your stance and applaud your efforts. I will continue to give in my personal and spiritual life, while striving to give a hand up instead of a hand out in my public life.
Daniel,
I hesitate to re-ask my question since it has been ignored for two days. Different possibilities for that I guess--not worthy of answer, don't have an answer, overlooked, whatever. Considering the last two posts, I will venture into the ...
" Iamhoosier said...
I'm open to suggestions that will ensure that those adults and children who really need it, get it. Also, the children of the slackers, it is not the child's fault.
January 29, 2008 10:35 AM"
Daniel,
I'm not sure you're taking issue with two things. I disagree with you on the 'hate' issue, but we'll leave that. As for the other. I have no objection to things not being done by the government. My issue is more that they do get done as opposed, necessarily to who does them. In New Albany churches are feeding people 7 days a week when others aren't. Churches are passing out food and giving poor people Thanksgiving meals and Christmas gifts when no one else will. I personally thinks this means more than if the city just did it.
And, I do thank you for being upfront and allowing comments. It takes a small person to advocate positions and not have the courage to listen to critiques---it takes a person of character to take stands and be willing to interact. You've done that. Thank you.
And... :-) I'm glad to hear about the NIV.
John, I would never write this blog and not allow comments. Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesman and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do." I quoted that to simply say that I am open to all points of view, while my foundation remains solid. I enjoy learning how people arrive at their views, so thank you for commenting. Hoosier, I have never insisted that aid should be cut off. Sure there are those that really need it. I do feel, however, that sometimes those that receive it are not vested in rising above their situation because the path they are on is just too easy. We should create avenues of hope and not just easy streets.
Daniel...NOW I know why I like you so much! :-)
I wish that ALL of the churches in Floyd County would come together and finance (under one roof and according to their budget), a multi-functional building for the underprivileged; a nourishing meal a day, a large organized clothing closet when someone needs clothing for school, job, etc. (donated), a large closet of furniture to provide the underprivileged with essentially needed furniture (donated), volunteers to help children with their homework (I happen to know a couple of boys who could help other children out with their math) :-), professionals to help the jobless get jobs (possibly even training for jobs), skilled workers who are willing to help to repair a leaky roof, fix an electrical problem, plumbing, etc. and above all that they receive the nourishment of God's word and how it applies in their lives. Our churches are full of skilled people who could donate their time to help out.
I think it would also be great if some of our doctors, dentists and optometrists donated a day a month (or whatever) to administer to the underprivileged needs. We donate used eye glasses that are repaired/reworked for poor people in Honduras, free plastic surgery for the poor but disfigured in other parts of the world...and I think it could be done here also.
It appears that since welfare was started that some of our churches have slacked in this area. As Christians, I think our responsibility to help them.
I suppose that's just a pipe dream though.
Daniel,
I learn by sometimes playing "devil's advocate". Another is to find whatever common ground there may be and try to build from that. I get bashed occasionally by some of my kindred spirits for my "on the other hand" thoughts. It has been my experience that no one person or group holds the BEST ideas and/or plans. I doubt that there is much disagreement among us on that.
I do not share your religious beliefs. That does not mean that I do not respect them. You wrote earlier about where your foundation comes from and then said let's talk policy. That's all I was trying to do.
I believe in personal responsibility as much as you, at least it seems that way. Neither of us wants to pay slackers. Our current system of helping those in need is imperfect. We agree on that. How do we do it better? Waving a magic wand is not an option.
Mark
Mark - I believe there will not be an end all, since humans sometimes tend to be a self serving species. Therefore, we must try new things - instead of just giving a single mother a check, let's partner with local schools such as Ivy Tech for a reduced tuition rate and have these mothers learn a skill. We need to give them a reason to climb out of their situation. There are many volunteer or work programs that recipients should be involved in. We all know that folks will take more pride in something if they have a vested interest in it. A free ride only lends itself to another free ride. A gradual lowering of benefits when someone starts working again may be better than a true cut off because it stifles productivity and hours worked. I am willing to listen to any suggestions someone may have for I know that I don't have all the answers. Good talking with you Mark.
Daniel,
Thanks for answering. I don't have all the answers either.
I had two points in mind when asking. One, obviously, is what could be done. The other concerns the mistrust between conservatives and liberals and the tag lines that go along with all that. This crazy partisanship could very well doom all of us.
Since I don't know you, this may be wrong, but I can almost see the sneer when you write "liberal". The comment of why do you liberals just keep paying the slackers? The actual fact of changing the system is a lot more complicated than a "tag line". You just pointed that out.
Your ideas are good and in many places those actual ideas are being implemented. Adding to the complexity of the single mother, it's great to offer reduced tuition but don't forget the daycare that would have to go along with it. It is complicated.
You don't know me either, but please try and believe that I am just searching for some common ground to build upon. We can't be THAT different. Can we?
Nah, not THAT different. I have found that nothing gets done by arguing and reading off the right/left playbook or without some type of compromise. There is simply too much work to be done to act like kiddos.
It's a start. Thanks again.
Post a Comment