Christian values

[meeskamouska]

I think that many people forget that our country was not founded on Christian values, but on the belief that we each have a choice to believe as we see fit.

Many of the founding fathers were not Christians. Our country was founded during the Enlightenment, a period in history that focus on the logical, not the supernatural. Many of the ideas and principles that we adhere to were written and constructed by the free thinkers of that time.

 

[NMAmy]

This is something that has been nagging at me through the past months, as the election hyperbole is ramped up. I've seen many examples of people calling upon others to act in accordance with the "Christian values" this country was founded upon, especially with regard to helping out people who are less fortunate. Yet, some of these people are the same ones who are against legislating morality and having others' Christian views forced upon them.

I don't see helping our fellow man as only a Christian value but as a duty to society. I'm not a Christian but I think it is very important.

What I find amazing are the Christians who are adamantly against abortion and yet the moment they find their taxes may go up, are yammering on about the welfare mom with 6 kids and how she should not have had so many children. Would they support abortion in this instance? This hypothetical woman (I've yet to meet a welfare mom with 6 kids) has apparently done things the "right" way and yet I hear a lot of comments on these boards like, "She should never have had so many children if she couldn't support them." This makes no sense to me at all.

 

[mhsjax]

Well, I have met this woman with 6 kid and on welfare, I even talked with her and she admitted that she would not stop having kids cause the govt paid her more, and she had no intention of working. oh and by the way, she had 3 of them taken away from her. there are many more just like her. I am a Christian and I have no problem helping those who need it, but I do get a ittle upset with the attitude that the govt will take care of me, so why shoud I have to work. OH and by the way, Homosexuality is in fact is discussed in the Bible.

 

[just4today]

I don't see helping our fellow man as only a Christian value but as a duty to society. I'm not a Christian but I think it is very important.

What I find amazing are the Christians who are adamantly against abortion and yet the moment they find their taxes may go up, are yammering on about the welfare mom with 6 kids and how she should not have had so many children. Would they support abortion in this instance? This hypothetical woman (I've yet to meet a welfare mom with 6 kids) has apparently done things the "right" way and yet I hear a lot of comments on these boards like, "She should never have had so many children if she couldn't support them." This makes no sense to me at all.

I think most of them would advocate for birth control.

 

[Wishing on a star]

There is no way to dissect most opinions/values as 'Christian' or 'Human'...

I do not think that shedding blood and invading ones body to end an innocent unborn life (whether it be considered 'potential' or 'religiously bona-fide') is a positive human/moral value. (in other words, what any religious writings may say, or not say, have no bearings on my feelings on the human morality)

I do not think that systemically taking advantage of ANYONE... (Yes, including those who have worked hard and who are fortunate enough to be financially successful) in order to benefit somebody else, is a positive human/moral value. NOTE: The bible does not promote this kind of governmental redistrubution of wealth...

I do think that the word 'marriage' is debatable, and 'marriage' could be argued to be a religious value/institution. So, hey, if there needs to be another term for a union create outside of a religious institution (whether it be hetero or ****sexual) then, whatever....

In any case, I, just like some previous posters, have a hard time understanding how there are those who would promote the right to murder an unborn child... and then turn around and use either morals or religion to try to justify a socialist system of wealth redistribution.

So, a loser crackpots so called 'right' to have everyone else pay for unlmited benefits (public assistance, housing, health care, etc...) is more important than the human life of an innocent unborn child.

I really do think that people are just sooooo deluded and confused by their own agendas.

 

[Colleen27]

So, a loser crackpots so called 'right' to have everyone else pay for unlmited benefits (public assistance, housing, health care, etc...) is more important than the human life of an innocent unborn child.

This goes both ways, because I cannot understand advocating that women continue every unwanted pregnancy, then turning around and condemning women who need assistance to provide basic like food and shelter to their children as "loser crackpots".

There's no right answer to the abortion issue. You see it as a child from the moment of conception; I don't. There is no way to factually resolve that fundamental disagreement. No such debate exists over welfare - children make up the majority of recipients, and there's no question of fact in whether or not they need food, shelter, and medical care.

 

[shelemm]

The government taxes it's citizens in order to run the society and do things that individual citizens can't do for the benefit of the whole. It's that simple. If you don't like part of it, well that's too bad, you still have to pay your taxes.

Of course, your redress is to elect political leaders who think like you do. Since I haven't heard too many political leaders say recently we should change our tax rate to be equal to everyone, then my guess is that you are never going to see in your lifetime a system like that.

Most of of the govenrnment programs we have in place are there because a need was seen, and a law was passed to address that need. Banking system falling apart? The banks are nationalized. Insurance programs start going belly up? Voila, Nationalized Health Care. Don't like it? Howl at the moon. If it happens, that's the way it will go down and it doesn't matter who is elected the next president.

If you are speaking strictly about anti-poverty programs, then I have not heard one politician from either political party calling for their abolition. Even though many of these programs were reduced under Reagan, they were not eliminated, so even then it is just a question of 'how much' not IF the programs should survive.

No combination of private giving or non-govenmental agencies could possibly do anything to reduce child malnutrition in the same way as Head Start. The same could be said for prenatal care programs like WIC.

From a Christian point of view, I'd say that support of these programs, in light of no other clear solution, would put you in good stead if you read Matthew 25.

 

[LaraK]

If you are being taxed by the government to spread around your wealth, it's not "Christian"...it's mandated. If you donate money of your own free will, it's "Christian".

Forced actions are not coming from the heart or the soul.

 

[jimmiej]

OP, I posted the same sentiment on the conservative thread a few days ago. It certainly seems hypocritical.

 

[SteveInBrooklyn]

I don't think abortion is mentioned in the Bible, is it?

As for homosexuality, it is mentioned, but I don't believe there is a prohibition of it that applies to most of us. It was specific to the time and place of the Bible.

 

[jimmiej]

I don't think abortion is mentioned in the Bible, is it?

The word abortion, no. However, there is plenty of Scripture in support of life beginning at conception. Out of respect for the OP's request, I will refrain from posting them here.

As for homosexuality, it is mentioned, but I don't believe there is a prohibition of it that applies to most of us. It was specific to the time and place of the Bible.

Why would it not apply to today?

 

[Uncle Remus]

It's a dang shame people need religion to tell them the difference between right
and wrong, do Christians just lack basic common sense 'n critical thinking?

And I wonder what some Christians think about other religions,
I guess they think those other folks are really dumb as dirt.

 

[SplashMtnCrew]

This is something that has been nagging at me through the past months, as the election hyperbole is ramped up. I've seen many examples of people calling upon others to act in accordance with the "Christian values" this country was founded upon, especially with regard to helping out people who are less fortunate. Yet, some of these people are the same ones who are against legislating morality and having others' Christian views forced upon them.

When did Christianity become an a la carte menu from which we (collective) could pick and choose what suits us? Why is it OK to call upon others to behave in a Christian manner for some things, but not others? For example, isn't government welfare, whether it be food stamps, housing, EIC, or any other benefit that hasn't been earned, a form of government mandated charity? If so, why is that acceptable when other forms of government mandated moral behavior are rejected?
I am not interested in debating the merits of particular Christian doctrines. I am not interested in posting scriptures here and arguing about their validity. I am just puzzled by the apparent contradiction. I find it interesting to look at the various lines and gray areas that exist, and the arguments that are used to justify thinking.

To answer your question (in bold) yes, I do think all of those things are a form of government mandated charity.
To your next question about government mandated moral behavior, for a Christian only God can set the moral behavior standard.

 

[Took]

I would agree it's a value that should be held by the human race as a whole.

However, with the rise of the Welfare State, we've decided to do this STRICTLY through a nameless, faceless, distant government beauracracy and relieve individuals of any responsibility beyond writing out that check to Uncle Sam.

Witness so many people's reaction to the news that Obama has an aunt living in public housing.

Actually, obama has a step-aunt that he didn't know was in the country (and she's not here legally) living in public housing.

However, your point about "nameless, faceless" nature of public assistance is well-taken, and, perhaps, the reason that "welfare" went from a positive human (or Christian) value to a "dirty word" is connected with this "namelessness" and "facelessness" (although I don't want to over-simplify the issues).

But, the reason welfare was taken out of private hands and put into public control is because so many folks needed it (at various times) that private groups simply could not keep up with the demands. Many of these private groups (often Christian, in fact) were the ones who WANTED welfare to be taken over by the government as a part of improving the overall public good.

Back to the OP's question about Christian values: if you look back at church history, you'll easily see that Christians have rarely agreed (for any length of time) on what's Christian and what is not. So to wonder why some people cite Christian values for some things and not for others really is a bit naive. Europe fought for at least 100 years and killed tens of thousands of people over the Protestant Reformation and its attendant divisions of the "faithful." The truth is that religious interpretation varies widely. There are very few agreed upon tenets of Christianity or any other religion.

 

[jimmiej]

It's a dang shame people need religion to tell them the difference between right
and wrong, do Christians just lack basic common sense 'n critical thinking?

Because God determines good & evil, IMO.

 

[just4today]

It's a dang shame people need religion to tell them the difference between right
and wrong, do Christians just lack basic common sense 'n critical thinking?

And I wonder what some Christians think about other religions,
I guess they think those other folks are really dumb as dirt.

Good question. Unfortunately, since I'm a Christian and possibly lacking in basic common sense and critical thinking, I'm not qualified to answer.

 

[SteveInBrooklyn]

The word abortion, no. However, there is plenty of Scripture in support of life beginning at conception. Out of respect for the OP's request, I will refrain from posting them here.



Why would it not apply to today?

I've read that the prohibition of homosexuality in the New Testament refers to ritual homosexuality that was practiced as part of Greek and Roman pagan religion.

In the Old Testament, I think in Leviticus, it says homosexuality is ok, but don't treat the man you are having sex with as a woman. In those days women were considered property, and didn't have the same rights as men. Treating a man as a woman was an abomination in those days. So guys could have sex, but had to respect each other.

 

[jimmiej]

I've read that the prohibition of homosexuality in the New Testament refers to ritual homosexuality that was practiced as part of Greek and Roman pagan religion.

In the Old Testament, I think in Leviticus, it says homosexuality is ok, but don't treat the man you are having sex with as a woman. In those days women were considered property, and didn't have the same rights as men. Treating a man as a woman was an abomination in those days. So guys could have sex, but had to respect each other.

I believe you are misinformed.

 

[SteveInBrooklyn]

I believe you are misinformed.

I guess I interpret the scripture one way, and you interpret it another way. I guess that's the problem with trying to understand a 2000 year old document written in foreign languages. Add to that the fact that it was transcribed by hand over centuries. taken together, that means there will be a lot of different interpretations. Who is to say which one is correct?

 

[jimmiej]

I guess I interpret the scripture one way, and you interpret it another way. I guess that's the problem with trying to understand a 2000 year old document written in foreign languages. Add to that the fact that it was transcribed by hand over centuries. taken together, that means there will be a lot of different interpretations. Who is to say which one is correct?

How can you interpret "Do not..." more than one way?

You said:

In the Old Testament, I think in Leviticus, it says homosexuality is ok, but don't treat the man you are having sex with as a woman. In those days women were considered property, and didn't have the same rights as men. Treating a man as a woman was an abomination in those days. So guys could have sex, but had to respect each other.

I looked it up. It says just the opposite. Have you actually looked at the passage?