Thursday
31Dec2009
DID WE NOT ENSLAVE OUR VERY CHRIST? A MUST READ FOR ANY CHRISTIAN, ESPECIALLY THOSE OPPOSED TO CHARITY PROGRAMS WHICH "ENSLAVE" OR "FORCE" THEM TO HELP OTHERS (Like Welfare Or Health Care)
Thursday, December 31, 2009 at 6:10PM
Christ’s death itself was, in a sense, enslaving to Him. In fact, he prayed that the burden would be lifted from Him. Nevertheless “Thy will be done”, and he died for our sins.
Many of you, through the discussions on this blog and others over the last several weeks have fiercely denied that charity in the form of government welfare is right and that anything that "enslaves" you into helping another person is wrong.
To fully accept Christ’s atonement, you MUST accept that charity, which comes in MANY forms, even perhaps via government welfare programs, is NECESSARY in some ways if we are ever to accept His atonement.
How quickly many people have claimed that paying taxes to help those on welfare is "enslaving" them and that people on welfare are lazy and abusing the system. And yet, how quickly you accept your very Christ, who was "enslaved" and died for us. How quickly those who make these claims judge others, then call themselves righteous Christians. We are supposed to help the least of us. And lean not to our own understanding of exactly how it might have to work to do so.
Those programs which might perhaps “enslave” others might be necessary to lift the burdens of others (something ALL our Prophets have spoken of as being correct principles). For, not everyone is LDS and the LDS church is not the catch-all in terms of giving help... Our church helps many but there are many more it simply cannot, for a variety of reasons, help. And what then? Who can judge?
Before getting down on those who HAVE/DO accept welfare as "wrong, bad and lazy" perhaps reconsider: Have we not enslaved, no… KILLED our very Christ in return for the forgiveness of our sins?
How quickly we as a society decry accepting help and in doing so put down those who do it as wrong and lesser than us, and then say we are Christians who are non-greedily accepting Christ’s atonement.
Some logical thoughts to ponder. I will let this go, but it is the final, most important concluding point I was trying to make through this experiment. I hope it has opened the eyes of many. I have learned a lot myself and I thank you kindly for the debates.
Many of you, through the discussions on this blog and others over the last several weeks have fiercely denied that charity in the form of government welfare is right and that anything that "enslaves" you into helping another person is wrong.
To fully accept Christ’s atonement, you MUST accept that charity, which comes in MANY forms, even perhaps via government welfare programs, is NECESSARY in some ways if we are ever to accept His atonement.
How quickly many people have claimed that paying taxes to help those on welfare is "enslaving" them and that people on welfare are lazy and abusing the system. And yet, how quickly you accept your very Christ, who was "enslaved" and died for us. How quickly those who make these claims judge others, then call themselves righteous Christians. We are supposed to help the least of us. And lean not to our own understanding of exactly how it might have to work to do so.
Those programs which might perhaps “enslave” others might be necessary to lift the burdens of others (something ALL our Prophets have spoken of as being correct principles). For, not everyone is LDS and the LDS church is not the catch-all in terms of giving help... Our church helps many but there are many more it simply cannot, for a variety of reasons, help. And what then? Who can judge?
Before getting down on those who HAVE/DO accept welfare as "wrong, bad and lazy" perhaps reconsider: Have we not enslaved, no… KILLED our very Christ in return for the forgiveness of our sins?
How quickly we as a society decry accepting help and in doing so put down those who do it as wrong and lesser than us, and then say we are Christians who are non-greedily accepting Christ’s atonement.
Some logical thoughts to ponder. I will let this go, but it is the final, most important concluding point I was trying to make through this experiment. I hope it has opened the eyes of many. I have learned a lot myself and I thank you kindly for the debates.
Reader Comments (6)
The difference is that Christ chose his fate. Not everyone who pays taxes feels like they are making a free will choice to do so. THAT, I believe, is the point of debate. Are they really choosing? I believe they are. Not a great choice: taxes or prison, but a choice nonetheless. The Amish don't pay taxes. They live unto themselves. The same is possible for people who really object to our government. It's not an easy choice but it is one.
Blah. Was going to make more comments but I'm too tired to try to piece together some thoughts.
Basically, I believe that principle-wise, we should be striving to build the kind of government that God would want. Not just a facsimile of what he'd want, but exactly what he'd want. We had a Sunday school lesson on this recently where it was said that where a suitable option doesn't exist, we should make one.
However, I'm just one person. I'm a mom. I'm busy. I am not going to run for office myself. I'm not going to be a campaign manager. As I see it, we live in a world and a society that is only capable of so much. Libertarianism would NEVER work right now. It's not a viable option. It's idealistic. It's airy fairy. So, I believe in living a lower law. Basically, I see socialist-tinged politics as being like the Mosaic law and it's all we're really capable of right now AND to have something that works. Libertarianism ain't gonna happen. Republican programs are not working.
I do believe that there are general principles that are true that don't seem aligned to social programs like welfare. However, the people who are so against welfare programs are rarely people who have experienced them first hand. And when you get down to earth where the real people are standing, holding out their hands, so often the letter of the law needs to be tossed and the spirit of the law need envelop. Even in the church I have seen people continually receive help where, from the outside looking in, it would appear that they are abusing church welfare. However, the Bishop kept giving help because the reality was that mentally and emotionally, those people were seriously messed up and possibly not repairable in this life.
Those people who appear to be prideless bottom-suckers, who live off of welfare gladly, who choose poverty because it's easy, are usually people who are damaged. You can strip them of all assistance thinking that they will smarten up, but they won't. They don't believe in themselves and they don't know how to be anything else. Take away their welfare and they will first find a way to cheat it. They will resort to drug selling, robbing, prostitution or even just finding sugar daddies. Not always, but a lot of the time. I've seen it happen in some of my closest relationships.
People don't live off of welfare their whole lives just because they are lazy. Their problems are much bigger than that. And who are we to judge?
We can't.
We don't get to decide who gets help and who doesn't. Christ said that if a man asks you for your coat, give him your cloak also. If he asks you to go a mile with him, go with him two.
If a man asks for my money to contribute to his welfare subsistence, I will give it and leave the rest up to God.
In the church we have the luxury of being able to run things exactly as God would have us do. We can try to create a similar government but the reality is that we're a minority and it's never going to happen. What God cares about is that we tried. God cares about what we do to help others.
When the choice is between Republicanism and Democratism (?), as parties who align themselves with God on some things and not in other things, it's a toss up! I ask myself what matters most, and what matters most for me is that people LIVE. There is no free agency where there is poverty. Poverty = bondage. There is certainly no free agency where there is no life. Poverty is a slow death. Having inadequate health care can equal death. For me, having people clothed and fed and sheltered is the bare minimum requirement of Christianity. I choose to help when I choose my vote. If, by my vote, someone else is also forced to help where they'd rather not, that's too bad. But they had the choice to do it willingly or to do it begrudgingly. It's not drastically different from the choices we're given in the church. Sure, I can choose to drink if I want to but I could be sacrificing my entire salvation. Hmmm, some choice.
I could elaborate more on some of these points but I'm tired. And anyway, I'm mostly preaching to the choir.
.-= Natasha´s last blog ..http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/1216614478s21580/becoming_something/~3/qLFWbuESDQw/2010-and-a-mild-panic-attack.html" rel="nofollow">2010 and a mild panic attack =-.
Agreed. Yes, I'm the choir, here. ; )
And I meant this also to make a point to those who so fiercely say they have and never will accept any form of charity. Well, as Christians they ARE accepting an act of charity, the utimate act of charity - Christ's death was for us, the very highest type of charitable act out of love. So to say you have and never will accept charity from others and that others are wrong if they do, whether its a government program or not, taxed or not - it's just not so black and white, people.
You understand the point and give several great examples in your comment.
Ohhhh I like you! Thanks for coming on over to my blog. I need way more time than I have right this second to give your bloggy goodness the attention it deserves.
As for me, when I hear people complaining about healthcare or welfare in the manner you mention, I am heartily reminded of Scrooge.
"Are there no prisons... or workhouses?...
Many can't go there; and many would rather die.'
'If they would rather die,' said Scrooge, 'they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
Ah yes, if those who are poor, mostly brown, and hungry would just get around to dying more quickly, then they wouldn't be asking for silly things like food and healthcare! Well, those are the rights of the wealthy, not the poor! UGH! Hot button for me!
I'm wondering why Jesus did not force the rich man to sell his belongings and give to the poor, after he told him to do so and the man walked away...
Certainly if any being was within proper morality to use force against that man, or call down the officers of government to do it on his behalf, then Jesus was and yet he did not.
.-= Spencer W. Morgan´s last blog ..http://utahconstitutionalist.blogspot.com/2008/10/inflation-fractional-reserve-banking.html" rel="nofollow">Inflation, Fractional Reserve Banking and the Competing Solutions =-.
M,
I got your reply on Connor's blog. Go back and re-read what I was saying. My point here: http://bit.ly/5tYrKG was NOT about my testimony. I was being sarcastic.
Actually my point was that you can use almost any scripture to prove a point. Connor and his readers and even you quote scriptures right and left. My point was that you can use scripture to make almost any point. Look how I used scriptures to prove the entire church untrue or confused and very disorganized at best - just because we can quote scriptures here and there doesn't mean we're right or that we fully understand the context of what we're speaking about.
My point was that in Connor and Co being SO firmly against any liberal thoughts and being so unwavering in what they think are firm "truths" because a founding fathers or early Prophet said it, they disprove their own church if those scriptures cannot be interpreted in other ways.
My point was larger. For having such little education, I'm actually quite intelligent. I'm surprised none of them can see what I was truly getting at there.
Thanks for the concern, though. I really am fine in my testimony. ; )
Gabby
We do in fact have the CHOICE to pay taxes or not. However for every choice there is a response which means you might get arrested, or you might not. Also if people really don't like paying taxes so much they could leave America that is a choice.
Oh and the Amish still pay taxes they just don't pay into S.S if they are self employed. there is a rule in the ss and medicare tax that states that if there religion has a system to take care of them should there health fail they don't have to pay into these benefits since they wont use them. The Amish do pay state, federal, income, and sales taxes though.