Welfare State (is it something God wants or agrees?)

[Jesus4ever]

Hello, dear brethren!

I´ve been struggling a bit about this question, lately. Although I´m one of those who does think that Socialism and mostly Communism are wrong, I can´t ignore that many countries that have a capitalist economy also have an Welfare State. So, they´re not Socialist countries just because they have an Welfare State, as if they were, the State would control everything, means of production and economy included.

I do not agree with progressive taxation and with Socialism/Communism by any means, but I can´t help thinking about those who really need help. So, how should the Government act with:
- Abandoned babies/little children?
- Severely mentally and or physically disabled people?
- Lonely elders who can´t take care of themselves?
- Shouldn´t education be given (free) to those children and free medical care be given to all of them? OR, should this be a task for the church alone?


Blessings!

 

[wwjd_kilden]

The bible is crystal clear that we should share what we have.

If Norway hadn't been based on some degree of Socialism, I'd be dead (as my hospital bills would have been unbelievable),
as would several of my friends.

That being said, a well- functioning socialism. based society should make sure that people work according to their ability, rather than their laziness. Problem with that again, is it's hard to define. People with depression and anxiety might be ten times more weary after full work day than someone who does not have those problems.

All in all, yeah. we should share, but keep a few guard dogs out to keep people from exploiting.

I know many of the users of CC will say that charity should take care of those people, but then they should ask themselves "Do I take part in helping these groups? How often? How many others do? Is it really enough to take care of them all?#

 

[trofimus]

In my country, when I sum up all income taxes, mandatory health and retirement insurance, state takes 27% of my salary every month.

Then, there are taxes from buying or using things like VAT, its 22% in my country.

So I am forced to give several times more than I would be required by the Old Testament Law (10%).

Is it too much? I do not know. I think state should care about less fortunate people but is should not care about lazy people.

 

[Jesus4ever]

The bible is crystal clear that we should share what we have.

If Norway hadn't been based on some degree of Socialism, I'd be dead (as my hospital bills would have been unbelievable),
as would several of my friends.

That being said, a well- functioning socialism. based society should make sure that people work according to their ability, rather than their laziness. Problem with that again, is it's hard to define. People with depression and anxiety might be ten times more weary after full work day than someone who does not have those problems.

All in all, yeah. we should share, but keep a few guard dogs out to keep people from exploiting.

I know many of the users of CC will say that charity should take care of those people, but then they should ask themselves "Do I take part in helping these groups? How often? How many others do? Is it really enough to take care of them all?#

I see your point! One should share, that´s a fact.

The only problem I have is this: Does the Bible states that one must share because State should coerce us to do it, or because we want to share from our free will?...

 

[wwjd_kilden]

the latter
but it is quite clear that we don't want to (otherwise, this wouldn't be a topic would it? There would be no needy if we all did share by free will)

 

[Willie-T]

Hello, dear brethren!

I´ve been struggling a bit about this question, lately. Although I´m one of those who does think that Socialism and mostly Communism are wrong, I can´t ignore that many countries that have a capitalist economy also have an Welfare State. So, they´re not Socialist countries just because they have an Welfare State, as if they were, the State would control everything, means of production and economy included.

I do not agree with progressive taxation and with Socialism/Communism by any means, but I can´t help thinking about those who really need help. So, how should the Government act with:
- Abandoned babies/little children?
- Severely mentally and or physically disabled people?
- Lonely elders who can´t take care of themselves?
- Shouldn´t education be given (free) to those children and free medical care be given to all of them? OR, should this be a task for the church alone?


Blessings!

You might have a worthwhile post if you replaced both those identities with Individuals.

 

[tanakh]

We have had a welfare state since 1948 when the National Health Service was introduced under a Labour Party government.
We were all in a very poor condition prior to that. Actually we have a television series at present where a group of people live and experience life in a Victorian slum through the period from 1860 to 1900 and believe me no one would want to live like it today. Much of the misery and squalor of the Victorian poor was brought about not so much by lack of modern amenities but by the attitudes of the middle and upper classes of those times. It was through those same attitudes and conditions that our Socialist Party was created as a defender of poor.

 

[Willie-T]

We have had a welfare state since 1948 when the National Health Service was introduced under a Labour Party government.
We were all in a very poor condition prior to that. Actually we have a television series at present where a group of people live and experience life in a Victorian slum through the period from 1860 to 1900 and believe me no one would want to live like it today. Much of the misery and squalor of the Victorian poor was brought about not so much by lack of modern amenities but by the attitudes of the middle and upper classes of those times. It was through those same attitudes and conditions that our Socialist Party was created as a defender of poor.

So, there we have our justification for forcing people to cough-up money to support others.

 

[Susanna]

So, there we have our justification for forcing people to cough-up money to support others.

Come do some real blue collar work with me and learn some about what the politicians in this country are creating.

 

[Jesus4ever]

the latter
but it is quite clear that we don't want to (otherwise, this wouldn't be a topic would it? There would be no needy if we all did share by free will)

Some don´t want to share, neither want to help, that´s a fact.

I don´t recall seeing in the Bible that Governments should have a Welfare State, forcing those who earn more to give more to those how earn less or earn nothing. My question is not with those who earn less, but with those that aren´t able to take care of themselves (and by these, I´m clearly pointing to serious cases, like those I pointed in my OP). There´s a difference between Welfare State, where you have free education and medical care, etc, and from a scenario where one have social policies to help ONLY serious cases of people that aren´t able to survive on their own.

 

[Word_Swordsman]

God has approved of giving beggars alms, sharing a special annual tithe with the needy when in Jerusalem to attend certain feasts, and taking up special offerings for persecuted saints. None of that is associated with anything government or secular.

God is on record declaring through the apostle Paul that people that choose not to work should not eat.

Rather than pay attention to spiritual needs, deal with reasons why so many people don't seem able to do any work not matter how easy, the masses of people prefer to leave all that to government. There's a comfortable separation between the "haves" and "have nots'. The haves let the government tax them, and the non-workers get some anonymous assistance. When many people see helps issue out from churches, the tendency these days is to suspect them of devious plans to raise their membership numbers.

There are now over 1700 jobs staying unfilled in our county, rising every month. It appears nobody wants to actually work, finding it much easier to stay on welfare. That problem grew out of a socialistic desire to increase government spending, creating more dependents who count on the success of hard workers.

In the founding days of America, aged pilgrims increasingly relied on younger hard working men to grow and hunt for food, while the elders persisted in taking their comfort. The time came for the young men to move on, caring for their own families, leaving those lazy elders in a quagmire.

If a severely disabled American can speak adequately, he or she ought to be able to operate as a call center clerk. They have headphones so a disabled person doesn't have to use hands or arms. Handicap amenities abound. Special elevators are installed, retail aisles widened, but then those potential workers dropped out, choosing a free ride across the board. I see people who took disability claims that are regular shoppers in WalMart, riding the electric carts, well able to eat and talk.

Nobody that could be doing something to augment their living, while declining to work if they would lose welfare benefits, is not deserving of anything from any Christian. Let them go hungry, then they will suddenly be able to work for a living. "It's a miracle!"

Let the lost bury the lost.

 

[Willie-T]

Come do some real blue collar work with me and learn some about what the politicians in this country are creating.

Exactly the reason to vote a man who is not a politician and who knows what true work is, into office. His name is Trump.

 

[eph610]

God has approved of giving beggars alms, sharing a special annual tithe with the needy when in Jerusalem to attend certain feasts, and taking up special offerings for persecuted saints. None of that is associated with anything government or secular.

God is on record declaring through the apostle Paul that people that choose not to work should not eat.

Rather than pay attention to spiritual needs, deal with reasons why so many people don't seem able to do any work not matter how easy, the masses of people prefer to leave all that to government. There's a comfortable separation between the "haves" and "have nots'. The haves let the government tax them, and the non-workers get some anonymous assistance. When many people see helps issue out from churches, the tendency these days is to suspect them of devious plans to raise their membership numbers.

There are now over 1700 jobs staying unfilled in our county, rising every month. It appears nobody wants to actually work, finding it much easier to stay on welfare. That problem grew out of a socialistic desire to increase government spending, creating more dependents who count on the success of hard workers.

In the founding days of America, aged pilgrims increasingly relied on younger hard working men to grow and hunt for food, while the elders persisted in taking their comfort. The time came for the young men to move on, caring for their own families, leaving those lazy elders in a quagmire.

If a severely disabled American can speak adequately, he or she ought to be able to operate as a call center clerk. They have headphones so a disabled person doesn't have to use hands or arms. Handicap amenities abound. Special elevators are installed, retail aisles widened, but then those potential workers dropped out, choosing a free ride across the board. I see people who took disability claims that are regular shoppers in WalMart, riding the electric carts, well able to eat and talk.

Nobody that could be doing something to augment their living, while declining to work if they would lose welfare benefits, is not deserving of anything from any Christian. Let them go hungry, then they will suddenly be able to work for a living. "It's a miracle!"

Let the lost bury the lost.

Yeah you and many others in the church get all indignant over the welfare state. The Bible also says we should pay taxes, but every church/ministry has filed for a 501 3C tax exemption and then cry for religious freedoms...

If the church paid their taxes and rendered unto Caesar what was Caesars then we might not have many on the welfare rolls and if the church practiced undefined religion then things might be different....

 

[Persuaded]

It is a man's responsibility to care for his family.
It is a family's responsibility to care for family members who can not care for themselves.
It is the responsibility of the local church to care for the members of that local church who are in need and do not have family to help.
It is the responsibility of all saints to help other saints who can not help themselves.
That is where Biblical responsibility ends.

I count it a joy when I have the opportunity to help someone in need but it angers me when the government takes a very large part of my income and spends it on those who are just as able as I am to work but are just to lazy or have made themselves unemployable through stupid living.

I have no problem with LOCAL governments helping those who are truly in need and have no where else to turn.
But the simple fact is that most government money spent to help the needy is wasted on people to lazy to work and on the overpaid people who run all government programs.

 

[jaybird88]

Hello, dear brethren!

I´ve been struggling a bit about this question, lately. Although I´m one of those who does think that Socialism and mostly Communism are wrong, I can´t ignore that many countries that have a capitalist economy also have an Welfare State. So, they´re not Socialist countries just because they have an Welfare State, as if they were, the State would control everything, means of production and economy included.

I do not agree with progressive taxation and with Socialism/Communism by any means, but I can´t help thinking about those who really need help. So, how should the Government act with:
- Abandoned babies/little children?
- Severely mentally and or physically disabled people?
- Lonely elders who can´t take care of themselves?
- Shouldn´t education be given (free) to those children and free medical care be given to all of them? OR, should this be a task for the church alone?

Blessings!

you have to have social programs to look after those in need. and a government that will protect the people from exploitation. USA used to have good programs but in the late 60s they started a slow process of rolling these things back and redistributing the tax money. now 90% of tax goes to military and Fed interest, and every day these 2 exist they make the world a worse place.
abandoned kids, elderly, mentally ill and public schools are so poorly funded they are hopeless. mentally ill are treated like animals, but what would you expect from workers making 8 dollars an hour. of all developed countries we are at the bottom in education, and with a military budget bigger than all other developed countries combined we cant even provide basic med care for vets that risk their lives in combat.

 

[OneFaith]

Hello, dear brethren!

I´ve been struggling a bit about this question, lately. Although I´m one of those who does think that Socialism and mostly Communism are wrong, I can´t ignore that many countries that have a capitalist economy also have an Welfare State. So, they´re not Socialist countries just because they have an Welfare State, as if they were, the State would control everything, means of production and economy included.

I do not agree with progressive taxation and with Socialism/Communism by any means, but I can´t help thinking about those who really need help. So, how should the Government act with:
- Abandoned babies/little children?
- Severely mentally and or physically disabled people?
- Lonely elders who can´t take care of themselves?
- Shouldn´t education be given (free) to those children and free medical care be given to all of them? OR, should this be a task for the church alone?


Blessings!

I believe that it did start with the church, and that church members started help programs in their communities, and that some of the church members were in politics, and that they (who were also government) started government help programs. I know that a lot of our founding father's speeches were actually sermons. There was a time when church and state were not separate.

Yes it is the churches responsibility to look after the poor, the orphans, and the widows. But, let me insert an example here- let's say you see someone approaching a door with their hands full. You respond (response-ability... the ability to respond to the needs of others) by opening the door for them. Now I see this also, and also have the ability to respond to th need, but you beat me to it. Now there would be no sense in me going to open the door, now that you both are long gone. So I fulfilled my responsibility by making sure the need was met- even if it wasn't by me. In the the same way, the church should make sure the poor, orphaned, and widowed in their congregation are having their needs met- which isn't always financial.

And it's a good things there are government programs, because the church doesn't have enough to support all the needy. What would happen, if there weren't government programs, is the richer members would have to sell their homes, and make finances equal among all members, and that would dwindle down quickly until all are homeless. But before it got to that point, people who do not seek Christ would flock to the church. Then due to lack of finances, they'd have to sell the church building where all the homeless members now dwell.

Yes, so many times yes, God started and wants programs to help those who cannot help themselves. God does not use only Christians to bring about His will. And His will is love, and every thing that stems from love- mercy, justice, kindness, etc.

 

[mcubed]

Deuteronomy 15:7-11
If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need. Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward the needy among your fellow Israelites and give them nothing. They may then appeal to the Lord against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. Give generously to them and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore, I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land.

“When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field…Leave them for the poor and the alien” Leviticus 23:22.

This is the equivalent to paying taxes for the poor. Even Y-shua said: Mathew 26:11: The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. But maybe He forgot He had written what He had written in His Law.

 

[Test_F_i_2_Luv]

In my country, when I sum up all income taxes, mandatory health and retirement insurance, state takes 27% of my salary every month.

Then, there are taxes from buying or using things like VAT, its 22% in my country.

So I am forced to give several times more than I would be required by the Old Testament Law (10%).

Is it too much? I do not know. I think state should care about less fortunate people but is should not care about lazy people.

In O.T. times, there were 3 separates tithes...a Levitical Tithe, Festival Tithe, and Poor Tithe.

That's more than the 10% the typical tithe-advocating church teaches.

In the Poor Tithe tithe, the poor were helped. In addition, they were able to glean the fields. Those in agriculture were encouraged to not thoroughly reap their harvest(Lev 23:22).

 

[tanakh]

Hello, dear brethren!

I´ve been struggling a bit about this question, lately. Although I´m one of those who does think that Socialism and mostly Communism are wrong, I can´t ignore that many countries that have a capitalist economy also have an Welfare State. So, they´re not Socialist countries just because they have an Welfare State, as if they were, the State would control everything, means of production and economy included.

I do not agree with progressive taxation and with Socialism/Communism by any means, but I can´t help thinking about those who really need help. So, how should the Government act with:
- Abandoned babies/little children?
- Severely mentally and or physically disabled people?
- Lonely elders who can´t take care of themselves?
- Shouldn´t education be given (free) to those children and free medical care be given to all of them? OR, should this be a task for the church alone?


Blessings!

You should be asking does God want us to help those who are in need? Charities do a very good job but they are limited
and rely on the good will of others to keep them running. The main purpose of any Government is to look after its citizens
especially the weakest members of society. Anyone claiming to be Christian would support that concept whatever Party they belong to. james said that true religion is to support Orphans and Widows. Christ spent much of his ministry among the poor and outcast of society.

 

[jaybird88]

You should be asking does God want us to help those who are in need? Charities do a very good job but they are limited
and rely on the good will of others to keep them running. The main purpose of any Government is to look after its citizens
especially the weakest members of society. Anyone claiming to be Christian would support that concept whatever Party they belong to. james said that true religion is to support Orphans and Widows. Christ spent much of his ministry among the poor and outcast of society.

when we give i think its important to do it not only because there are those in need but also to set an example for others to follow. but how do we balance this? we want to be a good example but we dont want to give and announce it with trumpets drawing attention to our self. or should we give in private? i over think everything. . . .