People that travel the world sometimes say, "There are no poor people in America." Above you see an example of why they say that, as poor, homeless welfare recipients take pictures of Michelle Obama with their cellphones. The poor in India and Zimbabwe evidently don't have cellphones.
Because of an evil called prejudice, the liberals the socialists, and their Democrat Party were able to suck in an absorb our African Americans. Subsequently, the Black families which were once oppressed, strong, and intact... Are now free, broken, and destitute. For whites, the percentage of destruction is lower... But for many a life of fatherless homes relying on hand-outs is a family tradition.
In stark contrast, immigrants who don't even speak English come to this country and thrive. Their children attend college and become rich, successful professionals.
There are no poor in America, but thanks to the nanny state, there are generations of hopeless, joyless beggars.
Sadly, the Obama Administration and the Democrat-lead Congress are working towards increasing the ranks of these poor souls. How heartless. How cruel.
....
25 comments:
"In stark contrast, immigrants who don't even speak English come to this country and thrive. Their children attend college and become rich, successful professionals."
Well, they used to. Our current liberal collectivist politicians will soon crush the opportunity to succeed. Those successful professionals will soon become another part of the liberal collective.
Perhaps he could use his camera phone to call for health insurance quotes.
Chuck,
These legal immigrants are people of character, and I believe they will make the sacrifices that will insure that their dreams for their children's future will eventuate... in spite of the present government.
Grammy,
You heartless, uncaring thing! Instead we should subsidize healthcare minutes for his cellphone plan.
Malott? You sound a bit jaded.
This is a tough subject for me. Now, I have a cell phone. But I don't have a cell phone that takes photos. I think I could purchase one of those pay as you go phones that has one. But, I don't have one.
That said, we are not poor. We are not rich. We are grateful for that which we have.
We have a child with disabilties. His grandparents offered to purchase him a cell phone so he could call if he were in trouble. I vetoed the idea.
Why? Because it might have something like a camera in it. And that would give some people the mistaken impression that my child doesn't need any financial help as an adult, since he would have a camera phone.
We tend to make judgement calls, right or wrong, because of what we see.
There ARE poor in America. I think we need to quit judging, though. "Judge not, that you will not be judged". Sometimes...just sometimes...a picture does NOT speak a thousand truthful words.
And yes, I am an independent conservative that leans republican.
I absolutely believe the right thing to do is to cover the needs and delights of people who can't provide for themselves. But here's the thing...we're evolving to a place where anything we need has become a "right" and somehow we shouldn't have to pay for it. Instead, we work to pay for stuff we want and the government (whoever that is) should pay for what we need. When you read the Bill of Rights, it doesn't say anything about having a right to a home, health insurance, food and education. We should wake up every morning in a total panic with this thought: "Oh my God!!!! I'd better get up and work my rear end off so I can provide those things my family and I need. If I don't, we will all die!" It should be an overwhelming drive in our lives. People who are so driven, will find a way to make it happen. I'm certainly not advocating illegal immigration, but I live in a place where I see this drive to survive exhibited by the hispanics in my neighborhood every day. I don't know whether they're all here legally or not, but they work so energetically from dawn to dusk at very hard jobs and they are very family oriented. I just hate it the way our welfare system deprives people of that miserably uncomfortable urge that drives them to work, and I mean work hard, whether they want to or not.
Grammy, I understand some of what you are saying. However, many illegal immigrants, including hispanics, get welfare. Possibly some from your neighborhood who do work so hard.
How do we know who needs what? How do we know how hard they work? Or IF they can work? What about the man who used to make 750K and now delivers pizza to put food on the table? We really don't know what's going on by looking at the surface.
There's got to be a balance. As far as helping others, well, I have a hard time NOT helping others based on the following:
Isaiah 58:6-7 "Here is the sort of fast I want - releasing those unjustly bound, untying the thongs of the yoke, letting the oppressed go free, breaking every yoke, sharing your food with the hungry, taking the homeless poor into your house, clothing the naked when you see them, fulfilling your duty to your kinsmen!" (CJB)
Tsofah,
It strikes me that you may be under the impression that Malott, Grammy, ChuckL and others do not want to help their fellow man. Though I cannot vouch for them, I suspect nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, I would not be surprised to find that they all give generously to their churches and other worthwhile organizations that help those truly in need.
What many of us find objectionable, however, is the forced "helping" of others through government programs that, in many cases (though admittedly not all), serve merely to foster the dependence of those being "helped".
As I understand it, the passage from Isaiah that you cite is part of a stern rebuke of the audience for the inappropriate nature of their fasting. However, when viewed, as you have done, as an exhortation to helping others, it is imperative to note something key that you left out: The passage does not say "I will FORCE you to do these things to 'help' others by taxing you and giving the funds to those that I think qualify for help." Instead, it says "These are the things I WANT you to do to help others (i.e. voluntarily)."
It is that sort of voluntary charity that so many of us are more than willing to participate in. It is the forced charity (read "theft") by the government that is objectionable and which, despite the best intentions, too often only fosters a greater dependency on a handout. And the more money that is taken for government programs from those likely to voluntarily help others, the less they have with which to help.
Just my two cents...
Ted,
The early church brought all their resources together to help the widow and the poor. Now, I don't know your experience with church programs. But, those we've experienced want to hit you over the head with a Bible even if you tell them you already have a church, etc. Then they want you to sign up to attend THEIR church and then they will give you food, or help you find resources while you are waiting the three months for your request for food stamps to go through.
Some churches don't "force" you to give money. Some however, will guilt, push, pull, and almost threaten you with hail and brimstone from G-d if you do not give.
I personally don't want to give tax money to pay a senator's salary but won't help a veteran when he returns from war. It happens, though. And has happened for decades.
So, what changes now? Whether we are giving to a church, or an insurance company, or whatever, somebody else forces us to pay money to someone for some type of care.
Personally, I don't think public health care can fly. If it could, then Medicaid and Medicare would have worked.
I just don't understand the jab's against the poor...sigh.
Oh, Ted, I forgot...
The verses from Isaiah WERE a rebuke. The religious head honchos et al were busy wanting to do their "thing" for G-d. However, they did not want to help their own families or the people around them. It would be easier to just fast and pray and be self-righteous. That's when G-d told them they were phonies. Instead of being in their own little worlds of piety, G-d told them to get real, get busy, and do that which He found more acceptable: to help those who need help.
Ted,
You captured the essence of what I am about concerning compassion and public policy. Regardless of its use (or misuse), taxation never qualifies as compassion. It may be necessary for the common good (such as appropriate defense and protection from the bad guys), but that is not compassion. Neither is taxation for things like health care, foreclosures, welfare, etc. Even though I may willingly contribute to such causes, forcing me to contribute is not an act of compassion; it is extortion. You know, when the thug comes into your store and demands that you pay him "insurance" so that he doesn't burn the place down or break your legs. Taking my financial resources upon threat of fines and/or imprisonment is no different.
In spite of its teachings about sacrifice and service to others, the New Testament does not command Christians to seek to confiscate wealth from others. It tells believers, such as myself, to use my resources to minister to others. The Good Samaritan did not form a community action group to march on Rome and demand that taxes be raised for a national health care program. He took care of the injured traveller using what he had.
The ministry & practice of the early church to which Tsofah refers is true, but, again, there is no instruction for believers to demand that someone else be taxed to take care of the widows and orphans. They are to do it themselves. Perhaps if we did not have a nanny government stepping in to "solve" poverty by extortion, churches would once again fill that role like they did for centuries. Now we have been conditioned to trust the welfare system because we are forced to participate in it.
Additionally, the welfare state continues to breed poverty because it refuses to confront it at its root source: sin (against God and against man). What we are forced to do is to pay people to continue bad behavior and poor choices. An illuminating passage comes from James 1:27, "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and TO KEEP ONESELF FROM BEING POLLUTED BY THE WORLD." Christianity is both social and doctrinal. The Christian cannot ignore doing good for others, but that does not supersede obedience to God's commands. Without striving for righteousness, the needs of a society that continues in open rebelliousness to God grows to umanageable proportions. Whether one is rich or poor, unbridled selfishness and self-centeredness knows no bounds. This is why our Founders so adamantly declared that the republic they founded was for a religious (ie, Christian) people. Without that source of and for self-control, the form of government they established could not be sustained. Sort of like we're seeing today.
An interesting quote from Benjamin Franklin that we don't see much today: "I think that the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." - On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, 29 November 1766.
We have a place where I live called "Room at the Inn". It's a home for unwed mothers. They can stay for up to 3 years with their children. It provides a home, food, transportation, childcare and education and skills training opportunities. The purpose is to cover the family's needs in a safe environment while enabling them to get a foothold for a sucessful life. It is based on deep two-way committment and accountability between the Inn and the client. It's completely funded by local churches through people whose hearts are broken and burn for the needs of the poor. What I know is that if I were to give all of my tax dollars that go for heartless government welfare to the Room at the Inn, they would accomplish infinitely more, and I can think of dozens of other charities that would serve likewise. I suppose we need a small government provided welfare system, but it will always be the least effective means of serving the poor.
What great contributions from everyone on this. Thanks, ChuckL, Tsofah and Ted. And thanks, Malott. I like to think of Malott's posts as provokative rather than jaded. The sharpest edged posts draw the most heart-felt responses. But I do think we need a Bachelor's Tip of the Month or an Amazing Fact for some comic relief!
"I just don't understand the jab's against the poor...sigh."
When I point out realities such as this, it's not a jab against the poor. It is exposing how all of us, including the poor, are exploited when we allow certain emotional appeals to run unchecked.
As a pastor, I field plenty of requests for assistance. We are blessed to have dedicated members who fund our fund for this purpose. I am typically flexible & lenient with a first time request. I state up front, though, that future requests must meet specific requirements, which include the preparation of a personal financial statement. I usually do not get further requests.
There is one person who is a chronic user of the assistance system in the community where she lives. Many local pastors and agencies know her. My church has helped her more than most, but after instituting our additional guidelines, we have significantly limited our support, too. I know, for instance, that she maintains cable service, goes to bingo regularly, and purchases lottery tickets. Is this person poor? Definitely. She needs every bit of assistance she can get. But how do I justify applying donations from my members, which are their hard-earned resources, to a person who has refused to make some lifestyle changes that would help her situation? Even though our resources go directly toward food or utilities or car repairs, etc., we subsidize her less-than-wise choices when we assist her. Until she changes her behavior, I cannot justify the use of our resources for her assistance any more.
This is just one case. Another family (mother & four children living at home) attended the church before moving away. Again, we provided assistance over a long period of time. Nevertheless, our charity was sometimes abused. For instance, a frequent request at the beginning of school was the need for shoes and supplies. And we would usually respond. After all, it's for the children. But the parent (and parents when they were together) could be observed on almost any given day buying their cokes and smokes at the local mini mart. Why couldn't that money be used to provide for their children before being used for their cokes and smokes?
I have been told many times by some of the more liberal colleagues in my denomination that "no one wants to be on welfare." I used to believe that, but after years of personal experience and observation, I disagree. By their refusal to make lifestyle changes that would improve their condition, there are some (notice the word some) recipients who clearly indicate that they intend to remain on welfare. And because a secular state operates on emotional appeals without much responsibility required, it is allowed to continue.
I acknowledge that it's a tough problem. It will likely never be solved this side of the return of Christ. The experiences I have shared do not cause either my church or me to become so cynical that we refuse to be charitable. We continue to respond to God's instructions to be compassionate to the extent that He enables us.
At the same time, neither they nor I are wrong to incorporate accountability into our ministry. Neither are those such as Malott and others here wrong to point out that the picture of the plight of the poor not completely accurate as portrayed by (mostly liberal) politicians and Big Media. It is more frequently used as a means to acquire more control over our lives by stripping more of our earnings away from us. Again, that is not compassion; it is extortion.
So speaking for myself, these are not jabs against the poor. Yes, Tsofah, you make a valid point by reminding us that there may be other factors involved in a photo like the one in this post. Still, it remains starkly ironic that a person needing to stand in line at a "soup kitchen" (God bless their ministry) is affluent enough to take a picture of the First Lady with his camera cell phone. Perhaps he falls into the category I have described above; maybe he could make some personal choices that would significantly alter his circumstances, but because of the "nanny state" he has no motivation to change. Subsequently, I can understand why Malott draws the conclusions he has made in this post. Those of us who want to see the poor treated with compassion would like to see a system that does more of that instead of creating dependence and perpetuating poverty. That is certainly not taking jabs at the poor.
Chuck,
Great comment! In fact, that would be my "comment of the week" if I had one.
There is nothing quite like real-life examples to uncloud an issue.
Cokes and smokes... Priceless.
ChuckL:
About the photo: How do you know the person taking the photo was a poor person? I know around here, be it a soup kitchen, or a food pantry...if a politically famous person shows up, so do the photo seekers.
You said about a person your chucrh helps out: "I know, for instance, that she maintains cable service, goes to bingo regularly, and purchases lottery tickets."
We recently got cable service for the FIRST time; and really didn't want to then. Why? Because it was the only way we would continue to get ANY type of television due to the FCC analog/digital conversions.
In the case of this woman, however: What does she have in her life? Cable TV, and going to Bingo. Now, how many places do you know you can go to for socialization at a lower price than Bingo? Around here it's about 1 dollar a game, and churches are usually the ones sponsoring it! If that's her case, that money is going to a church function. If not...well, why not start Bingo in your church?
Bingo money she might win could make a difference in if she has to come to a church for help or not, you know?
As far as the lottery: one dollar a week for the hope of maybe getting out of her situation. Isn't she just like so many others?
Why does this make a difference in if she gets assistance or not?
Ted's comments about scriptural instructions to the poor is one I was rather saddened by. Jesus talked about taking care of the poor more than almost ANYTHING! He lived among the poor. He was first of all dependent upon His Father, of course. But He was also dependent upon that which was given to Him. When the loaves and fish were given to Him, freely, what did He do with it? Keep it? No, He multiplied it to help feed 5,000 men. (That translates to a minimum of 20,000 men, women, and children if there were one wife and only 2 children per man there).
What about Matt 19:21? What about His rebuke to the Pharisees in Luke 11 for their outward appearances but their not giving to those who are poor? (It doesn't say if they had this or that - but they are poor)
Have you ever been poor - I mean really poor? I have. I have slept on a couch of a generous person's home many a night. I have been thankful for a shower and the opportunity to wash out my clothes by hand. It took years to be able to get a job, and only then it was because someone knew someone that gave me a chance. At that, it sure didn't pay a whole lot. But I was grateful.
And despite the job I still needed help with food. Bread was my staple. If I was fortunate, I had a jar of peanut butter to help for a month. Or, someone gave me some potatoes or carrots. Tuna was a treasure! During this time, yes, I smoked cigarettes. Want to know why? To trick my stomach into thinking it was getting more food than it was. And many times those cigarettes were given to me before I could get food from a church, or any other ministry.
I wore $50 tennis shoes, so they decided I didn't need the food. I should have spent the $50. on food instead.
Well, I did neither. Those shoes were given to me by a co-worker who had an extra pair and asked if I would like them. I learned after that day it was best to keep old worn out shoes to wear to the church so I could get some sort of food. Or to have TP so I wouldn't have to use one of my three washrags over and over again.
When it came to bringin my lunch; the people I worked with thought I was just being stingy by eating "sandwiches". (They didn't know many times it was just two pieces of bread put together for appearances) No, I wasn't stingy.
Many times I didn't have more than two outfits at a time to alternate to work in. Sometimes the someone in the church I attended would ask if I would like their hand me downs...and that was a wonderful thrill for me!
The holidays were the pits. Even when I finally was able to pay for my own apartment, there was no money left over for gift giving. For a special Thanksgiving meal, I had a Hostess Cupcake, or a whole can of soup, or whatever I was able to stretch. I could make 30 dollars last a month for groceries, or I didn't eat a few days a month.
I walked the two miles to work and back each day, grateful work was close enough to do so. My prayers of gratitude were increased when a neighbor gave me an umbrella. No more getting soaked when I walked to work!
Remember, I was actually a working person then, and still struggled.
Things have improved greatly for me now. I thank G-d for my husband, and I thank G-d for his job. We still struggle, but there is food on the table for my family that is more than just bread. There are clothes on my son's back. My husband stretches our clothing budget so tightly that he still wears a shirt he has had for over 25 years! And we are grateful.
So...I am not impressed by the judgements and assumptions of the self-righteous doings of those who have never been in the situation of need.
Life is more than meat or drink and if this lady's worst faults are having cable TV and playing Bingo (and you don't know who pays for her to do so, btw), and because she buys a lottery ticket or two, or even 20...where did G-d ever tell you to give only if you THINK the person needs it?
There's a song Keith Green did called "The Sheep and the Goats" based on the parable in Matthew. It is worth a listen.
No wonder Jesus hung out with the hookers and hudlums and such instead of the Sanhedrin.
I'm done with this subject
Tsofah,
I understand that you have indicated you are done with this subject, and that is fine. But I would encourage you to at least re-read my earlier comment. Your latest post says that you were "saddened" by my comments about "scriptural instructions to the poor." I have to say, I do not understand your remark at all.
If you look at my post again, you will see that I first identified the Isaiah passage you quoted as representing a rebuke of the audience for the inappropriate nature of their fasting. You confirmed thereafter that you have the same understanding of that passage.
I then proceeded to point out that the passage you cited does not indicate that helping the poor is something we are to be forced to do, but rather something that our Heavenly Father wants us to do (note that the passage itself says: "Here is the sort of fast I WANT...").
Surely you have no quarrel with that observation. What did you think I was saying that caused you to be saddened?
In one of your earlier posts, you said "How do we know who needs what? How do we know how hard they work? Or IF they can work? What about the man who used to make 750K and now delivers pizza to put food on the table? We really don't know what's going on by looking at the surface."
Assuming that to be true, and assuming that decisions with respect to who receives support (and how much) must be made by someone, since there is a finite amount of assistance that can be given, do you really believe that the government is the best source for making those determinations? If so, we must simply agree to disagree on that fundamental question. If not, then why should we continue to pour money into a welfare system that requires those decisions to be made by bureaucrats, rather than giving to churches and other community organizations who (in my opinion) are in a much better position to identify those who need help and provide the type of help needed?
Again, this is just my opinion. I do not mean to offend. I am deeply saddened to read about your struggles, and it pains me to know that people go through such experiences. But I firmly believe that the best way to help those who do is to reach out to our fellow man personally and through local organizations, not by allowing the government to take our money with the expectation that a faceless bureaucrat will make the right decisions with respect to who is worthy of help. Please note that this does not mean I believe the poor are undeserving of help. It simply means I don't believe government programs provide the most effective means for supplying the help they need.
Indeed, how are we abiding by the exhortation to help the poor in the Isaiah passage if we simply pay our taxes and believe that the government will "take care" of those in need. Surely you don't contend that this is all we are called to as Christians? Indeed, if we are called to personally help those in need, then why do you find it offensive that the others who have posted feel that it is more effective to provide that help through personal and local community efforts, rather than the government? Respectfully, I would think, given your experiences, that you would champion anything that results in a more effective provision of help to the needy. Assuming that to be true, perhaps our disagreement is the fundamental one I alluded to earlier: if you believe the government is the most effective way of providing help to those in need, then we must simply agree to disagree.
All I suggest is that responsibility and accountability are good things in this entire process. Yes, Jesus "hung out" with those you specify. But read the Scriptures completely. He called them to repentance - just like the Pharisees and others. In that regard, there was no difference between them. The difference that emerged was that the "poor folks" of their society accepted Jesus' mercy more than the Pharisees, et. al.
Now perhaps someone can demonstrate to me how and where Jesus suggested that anyone - poor or not - lie, cheat, and steal. Demonstrate where he absolves his children of responsibility and accountability. Indeed, he calls us to "go and sin no more."
This is only taken by some as judgmentalism, but it is not that at all. It is, in actuality, merely pointing out that everyone has choices to make. If someone needs to put food on the table but insists on paying for non-essentials, then that is the choice he/she makes. He/she should also bear the consequences of those decisions. Jesus calls his followers to act with compassion, but I do not see where he calls us to make poor stewardship decisions. BTW, this is a reason why our church will not be hosting bingo or anything similar; it would be a poor practice indeed to sponsor an activity designed to separate money from those who so desperately need it to provide for their needs. If they insist on making such poor choices and engaging in these forms of false hope, then someone with less care for those in poverty can provide the service.
I also know that the cable service she has is paid for by no one else because I have gone over her personal finances with her and have given her my recommendations. Even with the income limitations that she has, if she made a few minor changes, she could meet her needs and still have some discretionary spending available. It's her choice. That's what freedom is all about.
Tsofah,
I have been a long time reader of Malott's Blog, but rarely comment. However, I think the first thing that must be stated, and probably everyone who has posted here would agree with, is that no one is accusing you of being irresponsible with your personal finances and in your particular situation. To take these comments personally is a mistake.
However, surely you can also agree that there are many who do abuse the welfare systems provided both by the federal government and the church. And whenever that welfare is abused, it leaves less for those who do truly need it. That is the main point of the those who have posted here. Their contention, as I understand it, is that the government welfare system as it stands today, does not require any type of personal accountability and instead, actually encourages those who are so inclined to continue to abuse the system. The other posters here, myself included, simply believe that the role of helping the poor (the truly poor and helpless) belongs to the Church. The Bible makes that clear.
Chuckl has made some excellent points regarding the role of the church in helping the poor. In the New Testament, this generally refers to "widows and orphans" or those who are physically unable to work or provide for themselves. I see no mention of providing for those who are unwilling to work.
I have no problem helping those who are doing all that they can to provide for themselves, but are still coming up short. I have a BIG problem with giving money to able-bodied men and women who are unwilling to do anything to help themselves. I think every single person who has commented here will agree to that. In fact, I have a feeling that enabling those who will not help themselves would not be something that Jesus would endorse either, as it would not truly help the person.
Again, try to separate yourself from this discussion. I am truly sorry to hear of how very difficult life has been for you and your family. I wish that I could help in some way. This isn't a discussion about someone who has done everything that she can and still can't make end meets, it's about those who aren't willing to even try.
And may I just add that it sounds like you may have had some bad experiences with churches in the past. You are absolutely correct that not all churches are created equal or act in a way that would please God. The Church is imperfect, as we all are. I just hope that you are able to look past those imperfections and find a place that does try to conduct itself in a Christ-like manner.
April:
I try to separate myself from this, but I usually have updates posted to me in email and that is what is happening this time.
Since I had done that, (separated myself), why are people still posting to me?
The only person I have read on this posting comment that has compassion which shows through is Ted. That saddens me. Only one person who is successful is communicating some sense of compassion.
You know, there have been cuts to state budgets, etc., because of people who are able to cheat the system. Guess what? Those cuts only keep those who need the help from getting it because the cheats always seem to find a way to get what they want. It's unfair, yes. No one said life would ever be fair. Tell that to those who need the help that don't get it.
Its' not who pays what that has concerned me with this discussion. It's the attitude about those who may appear to not need help but ask for it. I maintain we don't always know that for certain...and definately not by the photo Chris posted.
But why are people so angry? I don't understand that anger, especially from those who say they love Jesus.
It's the same kind of anger as a Jew one has encountered and still does sometimes encounter, especially from several who call themselves Christian. (These are people who apparently don't know what it means to be a Christian). That anger can be used and abused by evil to bring about evil. That concerns me.
As far as the Christian Scriptures go, please remember they are founded on Hebraic Scriptures. You can't discard either and give a balanced understanding.
Regardless, I don't think Chris has exhibited nearly as much anger as some of the others who have posted on here.
I can make no excuses for those who need help, regardless of their situations. That is for myself. If I see a bum on the street and they are panhandling - I give them money. Be it in the U.S. or in Israel. It's a mitzvah to do so.
What that person does with the money is up to them. I am commanded to give, not to control. If another does not give, that is fine too. I will not begrudge that person.
But anger aimed at any other human being only because they ask for help - I think it must make G-d sad too.
What you guys think and feel is between you and Him. I just tried to share a different way to look at it. If you agree or disagree, it's up to you.
Now I have to re-weigh the teachings I know from the Jewish Jesus I believe in - and the words of American Christians. There has to be a way, for my peace, to reconcile the two.
April,
Nicely put. Thank you for your summary on compassion & accountability.
Tsofah writes, "But why are people so angry? I don't understand that anger, especially from those who say they love Jesus."
It is impossible to comprehend the source in this discussion of your references to anger.
I witness the sacrifices that the fellowship in the church I serve - an American Christian church - make on behalf of the plight of others in our communities. It is odd that you choose to ignore this reality in order to cling to your own particular conclusions.
I do not find it difficult at all to "reconcile" the Jewish Jesus with American Christians. Neither, I suspect, do the others posting here.
Freaking-A, Tsofah... You weren't poor... You were destitute.
What happened? Were you thrown out of your home? Did you leave home? Were your parents poor?
Yours has to be an interesting story, because the average person with your past isn't well educated and doesn't express himself as well as you do.
Now I don't mean to be unkind, but I figure a person with your character, determination, and work ethic represents maybe 5% of the people getting assistance from the government. Yours is the kind of story that liberal politicians tell when they want to raise our taxes.
You are the kind of person that people want to help.
My problem is with the government and its crippling effect upon the 95%. And I still beleive the poor overseas are the -real- poor. Our poor are the people who need help if they are going be able to afford cable.
Thanks for sharing your story with us. Am I going to be nicer to you now that I know about your troubled past?
No.
:)
Tsofah...If you're still checking in on this...your story is amazing and in complete sincerity, I think we'd all benefit from understanding what worked to lift you out of poverty. That's what we all want to get to.
Tsofah wrote: "As far as the Christian Scriptures go, please remember they are founded on Hebraic Scriptures. You can't discard either and give a balanced understanding."
Now here is an amazing "coincidence" (re: Providential will of God). I am currently leading a Bible study on the book of Acts. As I studied the story of Stephen being hauled in front of the Sanhedrin in chapters 6 & 7, I wondered why Luke (the author of Acts) went into so much detail concerning Stephen's speech to the Sanhedrin. After all, it's all in the Old Testament; Luke could have given us the "Reader's Digest" version and moved on to more important topics that we don't know as much about. But he didn't.
I believe that what is in the Bible is there for a reason, I pondered the reason for this. And I did develop a reason. In combination with the testimony from Peter, Paul, and other early disciples, the truth that they carefully emphasized is that Christianity is not a new faith with a new god that they made up. It is the faith of the Hebrews (our Old Testament) with the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies. The Christian faith is the completion of the Redeemer promises made in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, et. al.
As Tsofah observes, the disciples were emphasizing to everyone they witnessed, including the religious leaders of their day, that they were not inventing a new religion. Even though he was the "missionary to the Gentiles" and frequently confronted Judaizers who sought to subvert Gentile Christians with religious legalistic schemes, Paul told the Gentile church in Rome that they were to respect the heritage of the Jews because they were their spiritual forefathers. The Deliverer and salvation came through them.
This is my well-crafted & long-winded way of saying that I agree with you, Tsofah. We cannot have a true knowledge of the Christian faith without the Hebrew Scriptures. Or, as I was told by a professor: "The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed."
Post a Comment