Most churches are known for their charitable work. Most people can fall back on the community in the church. Churches take private donations through the community to help the community.

When you find a report recording how many free meals, clothing, food and clothing drives, how many community events churchs hold etc let me know. It should be an interesting read.

Originally Posted by Knoell Most churches are known for their charitable work. Most people can fall back on the community in the church. Churches take private donations through the community to help the community. When you find a report recording how many free meals, clothing, food and clothing drives, how many community events churchs hold etc let me know. It should be an interesting read.

So in other words you pull a theory out of your ass and then ask the rest of us to do the work to prove your theory. Yep sounds like a Knoell post.

But hey lets enter Knoell world for a minute(just a foot in to your world though, dont want to catch the crazy). Lets say your right. Lets say that Christians, hell lets take it a step farther and say all of religion combined does more good then all government and non profit organizations combined. Do you think they alone can meet the needs of the impoverished masses? Do you think they alone can feed the hungry, clothe the poor, give shots to those in third world countries and clean their water supplies?

Even if we pretended that every last freaking religious person in the world was the good hearted soul you naively believe them to be it would not be enough.

As it stands though your world is a sham that you build to back your beliefs. The reality is that not all churches do charity, those that do charity do not do so every week or even month.....yet charity is needed every day in massive amounts.

So I am sorry but it changes nothing. Most conservatives are anti abortion while at the same time pro small government. You do believe in cutting welfare programs, international aid and other vital programs. You may go and work a soup kitchen or most likely handle charity like my mother in laws church who does charity that directly benefit church members not the unwashed masses. But if you then go to the voting booth and vote to cut federal funding to these vital programs it means your a pro life Christian 2 or 3 days a month.

Originally Posted by Knoell Those conservative christians you are bashing probably do the most charity around the country. But of course if it isn't the government helping out, it aint worth it. Amiright? As for camoor telling someone they need to sit down and think about their position? lolz

To be fair, I think a lot of liberal christians do charity work too. I would bet they do just as much as the conservative ones.

O and btw Knoell. When my wife and I started dating I was on Social Security for Disabilty for several years. My wifes Presbetarian(think thats what she was then)mother called me a leach, as did her Catholic grandmother as did her step moms Baptist grandparents. Not a single one asked what was wrong with me, not a single one tried to get to know me. Not a single one offered up those great Christian hands to help me. No I was a leach and a drain on society and soon to be their daughter. Even in my own family my religious aunts have never talked to me about the issues I have, they just chalked me up as worthless and moved on. Meanwhile my family that are not church goers actually talked to me and tried to understand. A few did a few didnt, but they at least tried.

Again Christians do great charity work and the world would be much worse off without them. But the idea that people can turn to the church is a myth that has not been true for decades. Nowdays the church is motivated by people within its own flock not the greater good.

This is again why most Christians are ok with cutting such vital programs. Because they think they should have more money to look after their own. Your not interested in helping, your interested in helping people who subscribe to your ideology.

Originally Posted by MSI Magus So in other words you pull a theory out of your ass and then ask the rest of us to do the work to prove your theory. Yep sounds like a Knoell post.

You're on fire in this thread!

Originally Posted by Knoell Most churches are known for their charitable work. Most people can fall back on the community in the church. Churches take private donations through the community to help the community. When you find a report recording how many free meals, clothing, food and clothing drives, how many community events churchs hold etc let me know. It should be an interesting read.

Ha, I'm more interested in finding out why they do it rather than how much they do. And don't try to tell me it's because they're just charitable, I know better and have witnessed first hand what some churches get out of their charitable work.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...upervisor.html

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by Clak Ha, I'm more interested in finding out why they do it rather than how much they do. And don't try to tell me it's because they're just charitable, I know better and have witnessed first hand what some churches get out of their charitable work.

/nod thats another fact that I did not take in to consideration. Many churches besides doing work that mostly benefits their congregation also tend to proselytize in the process. It is rarely charity for charities sake.

My mother in law that is out twice a month for her churches breast cancer walks and fairs(which started when a member of the churchs sister got breast cancer)pitched a fit and then refused to toss my wife a Bridal shower when she said we didnt want gifts, we wanted people to donate to charity. When at Christmas we said we didnt want to get gifts and again asked for charity donations we had the same reaction(the following year we stopped celebrating Christmas).

I am not saying I think this is the typical Christian, I certainly dont...but I think its much more common then Knoell would ever admit.

Originally Posted by MSI Magus /nod thats another fact that I did not take in to consideration. Many churches besides doing work that mostly benefits their congregation also tend to proselytize in the process. It is rarely charity for charities sake.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is not charity for charity's sake. Maybe for the shrill pro-life demonstrators or folks that like to bitch about the alleged war on xmas.

However I'm sure the religious folks manning the soup kitchens or setting up hospital wards have an altruistic streak, I've done it before and it is not fun. I am loath to criticize the Christians who do bona fide charity work, it is actually one of the things I admire about true Christians. Besides, if you have an ounce of empathy in your body it's hard to be an American-style conservative after you've been face-to-face with the homeless on the streets.

Originally Posted by camoor I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is not charity for charity's sake. Maybe for the shrill pro-life demonstrators or folks that like to bitch about the alleged war on xmas. However I'm sure the religious folks manning the soup kitchens or setting up hospital wards have an altruistic streak, I've done it before and it is not fun. I am loath to criticize the Christians who do bona fide charity work, it is actually one of the things I admire about true Christians. Besides, if you have an ounce of empathy in your body it's hard to be an American-style conservative after you've been face-to-face with the homeless on the streets.

Agreed. If you look throughout my posts I have said numerous positive things about Christians doing charity work. I am sure Knoell will just think its a bunch of liberals criticizing Christians and the good work they do as always. But I believe all of us have said Christians do a lot of good charity work and most often for the right reasons. We have just also pointed out other truths that most conservatives like to ignore like the fact that their work is a drop in the bucket and that their voting history historically has made more charity cases. Basically with one hand they are taking their hand and trying to swat water out of a sinking ship, but with their other hand they are pouring a bucket of water in to the boat. At the end of the day though they want to believe they only did good.

Originally Posted by camoor It sounds like you need to sit down and think about it a little more. You need to know what your position is before you can begin to criticize others.

Somehow I figured being genuine would do nothing but provoke condescension.

Originally Posted by camoor I would draw the line based on three factors: 1) stage of biological development 2) differentiantion from other mammals at that stage 3) degree to which the organism is sentient

Give this standard to legislators and you'll end up with a different abortion statute in every state. I'll try to make my point more clearly since I think we're going in circles: Law needs a clear standard regarding when to recognize human beings as "alive," because living humans have a rights under the 14th Amendment. That standard will inevitably be forced to recognize a person as such because it is either a) actually living or b) has the potential to be alive. If based on (a), I don't see any rational legal standard besides at live birth (i.e. the one we've always had), since anything else will inevitably delve into metaphysics at some level and can't possibly support a legal argument. If based on (b), I don't see any besides at conception, since as far as I know there's no way to tell that a human being, once conceived, definitely will not be capable of live birth.

Originally Posted by docvinh To be fair, I think a lot of liberal christians do charity work too. I would bet they do just as much as the conservative ones.

If we are talking about conservative christian charities... I am not all that impressed by organizations that will raise money to do good (after taking their cut) and then support politicians who would cut off programs that would help about a thousand times more.

wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone.

To think knoell acts all shocked when someone points out nobody likes him.

Meh I just put him back on ignore. Took him off a few months ago and iv tried hard to talk to him a few times...but unlike people like uncle bob or thrust that I may not always agree with...there is just no debating with him. Bob may twist things some of the time but he at least attempts to put forth SOME kind of debate....Knoell just ignores points, facts and statistics to focus on twisted logic. I really wish everyone else here would put him on ignore too. I think we would be better off not just as a board but as a nation if we learned hard to try and find a middle ground and discuss issues civilly....but then ignore the people that prove they have no interest in facts or logic the way we would a child.

Originally Posted by MSI Magus Agreed. If you look throughout my posts I have said numerous positive things about Christians doing charity work. I am sure Knoell will just think its a bunch of liberals criticizing Christians and the good work they do as always. But I believe all of us have said Christians do a lot of good charity work and most often for the right reasons. We have just also pointed out other truths that most conservatives like to ignore like the fact that their work is a drop in the bucket and that their voting history historically has made more charity cases. Basically with one hand they are taking their hand and trying to swat water out of a sinking ship, but with their other hand they are pouring a bucket of water in to the boat. At the end of the day though they want to believe they only did good.

Good point, I was talking about liberal Christians. I think you are quite generous when evaluating conservative Chrsitians, I don't even know that conservative Christians care about charity. Take for example the self-identified Christian Walton family:

Until recently, however, they gave away little of their fortune. As Sam Walton explained in his 1992 autobiography, Made in America, he didn't believe in giving "any undeserving stranger a free ride." ... Much of Wal-Mart's philanthropy (as well as that of the Walton family) has been directed toward promoting anti-government politics, whether by lobbying against high taxes for the rich or contributing to Republican candidates, conservative think tanks and efforts to privatize education.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/walmart/2005-06/charity.php

They sound like delightful people.

Originally Posted by Magus8472 Somehow I figured being genuine would do nothing but provoke condescension. Give this standard to legislators and you'll end up with a different abortion statute in every state. I'll try to make my point more clearly since I think we're going in circles: Law needs a clear standard regarding when to recognize human beings as "alive," because living humans have a rights under the 14th Amendment. That standard will inevitably be forced to recognize a person as such because it is either a) actually living or b) has the potential to be alive. If based on (a), I don't see any rational legal standard besides at live birth (i.e. the one we've always had), since anything else will inevitably delve into metaphysics at some level and can't possibly support a legal argument. If based on (b), I don't see any besides at conception, since as far as I know there's no way to tell that a human being, once conceived, definitely will not be capable of live birth.

I was being genuine too. If you want me to be frank, you come off as a complete buffoon when you don't have a firmly held opion on abortion but you criticize others as hypocrites. If you don't ascribe to one side or the other just say you're still considering the issue - no shame in that.

And what's wrong with letting states interpret. Conservatives love to crow about states rights until it's not convenient. Abortion is a complex and nuanced issue with passionately held beliefs across the nation, why not let the states decide.

Originally Posted by Knoell wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone.

Mocking a guy who is being honest about the ups and downs in his life, what a Christian attitude.

Is that what Jesus would do?

Originally Posted by camoor I was being genuine too. If you want me to be frank, you come off as a complete buffoon when you don't have a firmly held opion on abortion but you criticize others as hypocrites. If you don't ascribe to one side or the other just say you're still considering the issue - no shame in that.

I can accept that. But I wasn't trying to criticize, I merely meant to highlight that the law is (or at least has the capacity to be) more absolutist on the issue of abortion than you were letting on.

Originally Posted by camoor And what's wrong with letting states interpret. Conservatives love to crow about states rights until it's not convenient. Abortion is a complex and nuanced issue with passionately held beliefs across the nation, why not let the states decide.

Because we're generally not in the business of letting state legislatures decide what due process, at a minimum, requires. The 14th Amendment would be a dead letter were that the case.

Or, for a more practical appeal, would you really want the status of abortion to return to what it was pre-1973?

Originally Posted by camoor Mocking a guy who is being honest about the ups and downs in his life, what a Christian attitude. Is that what Jesus would do?

I thought that you would be the first to call him out that his experience with christians is anecdotal evidence.

Anyways it was all I could say in the thirty seconds I had before I had to run to work.

I admit I spoke too soon when I said conservative christians, when I wrote that I had all christians in my head and was only quoting the term someone used.

Regardless, my point was that he criticized christians for being for smaller government and against abortion by saying they support legislation that only burdens the low income impoverished people, while eliminating programs that help them. What I was saying is that christians care for the poor and do ALOT of charity and donating so I don't believe painting them to be ignorant of low income people is accurate.