Charity / welfare

[AnandaHya]

Too many people think that being charitable means writing a check. If someone were to come by and interview everyone in your neighborhood and ask them if they think you are loving and charitable, what would they say? Would they have any clue who you are?

I agree that being charitable is MORE then writing a check but it doesn't matter how charitable the neighbors think you are but what God thinks of you. There are things you can do that is charitable that no one sees but you, the person you help and God.

it is more than just money, it is time, love, compassion, listening to others and sharing with them the gospel of Christ.

Eugenics has nothing to do with Christian charity, to connect the two is to make a mockery of the cross.

Jesus did not say to only help others in order to enslave and control them and their future. No that is something Satan would teach. As mentioned Hitler believed in eugenics and that is what he used to justify the concentration camps and his mass genocide. It is NOT a Christian notion.

It contradicts so many scriptures and the very basics tenets of love and compassion that Jesus taught that I'm still baffled at how someone who calls themselves Christian and has read the Bible can serious prompt the concept.

Poverty is a SOCIAL condition NOT a GENETIC inheritable trait. there are many people who were born poor and are no longer poor. There are many who were born rich who lost everything. its not connected to genetics but to social and economic conditions of the person. therefore you can't "solve" the problem of poverty in a generation by sterilizing all the poor people.

There is no credible scientific research linking intelligence or poverty to genetics. The studies in intelligence and learning have found that early childhood environment and nutrition has MORE of an influence upon the child's mental capabilities and growth then the initial genetic makeup of a person.

Matthew 5:43-45
New King James Version (NKJV)
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

Do you think you have more right to determine who lives and who dies then GOD does?

 

[rainacorn]

Do you think you have more right to determine who lives and who dies then GOD does?

No. But then again, I'm not a doctor or a politician.

 

[distinctiveministry]

Do you think you have more right to determine who lives and who dies then GOD does?

You are talking about people with mechanical pumps instead of hearts. God spoke pretty clearly, but the people did not listen.

 

[rus_lady]

then dont decide who has right to live and whos not !

No. But then again, I'm not a doctor or a politician.

 

[AnandaHya]

You are talking about people with mechanical pumps instead of hearts. God spoke pretty clearly, but the people did not listen.

no actually my comments were directed at Sharp and his eugenics program in place of welfare where he proposes to eliminate poverty in one generation by force sterilizing all poor people and not allowing them to have babies.

he's probably doing this right now:

and might try to hide behind the side conversation you and raincorn are having concerning extending life for the elderly beyond the time God has given them to live naturally without the aid of technology or modern science and medicine. That is a whole other topic and I have not commented upon it. Personally I believe God gave us medicine and knowledge to heal one another. However life of the body should not be prolonged artifically after the soul has fled. At that point they are already spiritually dead and the body is but a shell, a suit of clothes that has already been shed.

this is not the place Sharp is coming from if he promotes eugenics and his comment of "you good Christian" is highly suspicious.

 

[distinctiveministry]

no actually my comments were directed at Sharp and his eugenics program in place of welfare where he proposes to eliminate poverty in one generation by force sterilizing all poor people and not allowing them to have babies.

he's probably doing this right now:

and might try to hide behind the side conversation you and raincorn are having concerning extending life for the elderly beyond the time God has given them to live naturally without the aid of technology or modern science and medicine. That is a whole other topic and I have not commented upon it. Personally I believe God gave us medicine and knowledge to heal one another. However life of the body should not be prolonged artifically after the soul has fled. At that point they are already spiritually dead and the body is but a shell, a suit of clothes that has already been shed.

this is not the place Sharp is coming from if he promotes eugenics and his comment of "you good Christian" is highly suspicious.

You began your post with a quote, so I assumed you were addressing your post to rainacorn. My bad.

 

[rainacorn]

then dont decide who has right to live and whos not !

Turn down the hysterics like 100% and then point out where I said who has a right to live and who doesn't.

 

[rus_lady]

you are rude person ... i feel sorry for you ! I am not going to point it our smart men you know it yourself !

Turn down the hysterics like 100% and then point out where I said who has a right to live and who doesn't.

 

[AnandaHya]

Turn down the hysterics like 100% and then point out where I said who has a right to live and who doesn't.

sorry she's mixing you up with Sharp. I guess I should have made two separate statements or made a better distinction with my words.

You made a previous statement you thought you knew Sharp was coming from, I have to respectfully disagree.

Sharp is coming from a totally different place then your statement, though you were very kind and considerate to give him the benefit of the doubt and try and see the best in his statements. You can see by his following statements that he is not talking about welfare programs or elderly care but eugenics.

Whether he is a wicked person or not is not the issue but the entire concept behind eugenic is NOT Christian and is demonically inspired. Force sterilization in exchanged for food should not even be on the table for discussion in a Christian forum.

Trying to see the best in others is a noble thing, but should not blind one when the wolves so obviously have exposed themselves.

Yes you can ridicule me for being offensive and judgmental or you can actually stand up for the gospel that Jesus died for which does NOT include allowing people to commit atrocities and mass genocide while still claiming to be "Christian"

Eugenics is NOT Christian. It is NOT morally right or acceptable. It is sinful and demonic.

When will you speak out? When it is too late?

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller: "First they came for the Socialists..."

what about these Bible verses?

Exodus 23:6-8
New King James Version (NKJV)
6 “You shall not pervert the judgment of your poor in his dispute. 7 Keep yourself far from a false matter; do not kill the innocent and righteous. For I will not justify the wicked. 8 And you shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the discerning and perverts the words of the righteous.

Proverbs 31:8-10
New King James Version (NKJV)
8 Open your mouth for the speechless,
In the cause of all who are appointed to die.[a]
9 Open your mouth, judge righteously,
And plead the cause of the poor and needy.

do you plead the cause of the poor and needy? Do you speak for those who can not speak for themselves?

 

[rainacorn]

The word 'eugenics' has exploded this discussion into something I don't think it was intended to be, hence my defense of the OP.

Eugenics is practiced the world over, however, whether it's just the mild form of mate selection (preferring someone with 'good genes') or the 1 child policy in China or endogamy in a variety of racial and religious cultures. Doctors can perform tests on couples to find out their likelihood of passing on a genetic or hereditary disease before they decide to have children. That's just a test, but if the results of that test influence the couple's decision to have a baby, then it's eugenics.

I don't think the OP meant that he supports perpetrating some kind of holocaust or mass genocide, which is what people are making it seem like. We have veered way off track just so people can pile onto this guy and make him out to be the devil.

In the post, he suggested that we focus more on saving people's souls than just feeding them a sandwich or whatever. He said he only wants to support charities that actively try to convert people to Christianity. You guys have skipped right over that part because you don't think he isn't sympathetic ENOUGH to the plight of people living where there are no natural resources so they are completely dependent on charities and welfare for survival. I think that's unfair, personally.

 

[AnandaHya]

I've got some problems with charities. Please don't be offended here; some of the content may be harsh. I just want to discuss this with someone.

Historically, population has fluctuated with food supply. In times of plenty, we decided to breed because there was enough food to support offspring. Population increase then shrank food supply per person. Famine results and many people die. As a result, the food to person ration increases, and people breed again. The cycle continued on...

...Until we decided to intervene with charity.

Charity keeps people alive who theoretically should die. These people who are subsidised/supported then reproduce and create more people in the same dire situation as themselves. The need for charity then grows as more hungry mouths are produced. Our refusal to let natural population controls take effect means that we have been supporting people who can not support themselves for decades. This will go on indefinitely.

The world could solve the hunger/poverty crisis within a generation if we really wanted to, through a huge sterilisation program. This will never happen though.

The question I am asking is this. Are the world's poor put there by God as a test for us? To see what Christians will do with them? Jesus said to his disciples that the poor will always be with them... but technically there doesn't need to be any poor people.

I only give to charities from now on that specifically try to convert people to Christianity. I think that is the only useful form of charity. Feeding and clothing people only to then have them go to hell is a futile waste of money in my opinion. I'd rather have a starving person die as a starving Christian than have them live a long life as a healthy happy atheist and then suffer eternal torment.

I'm disillusioned with charities and I'm reluctant to give to them, because they waste money. I think the efforts of Christian charities should change, from keeping people alive, to making sure they get to heaven.

Any thoughts?

the sterilization program idea is wrong.

Christians charities should focus both on keeping people alive and making sure they get to heaven. If they did not focus on making sure people get to heaven they are not really Christian, just a charity.

If you are disillusioned with charities you should take your money and time and used it to help people locally one on one giving them both food and the gospel instead of wasting both.

 

[AnandaHya]

The word 'eugenics' has exploded this discussion into something I don't think it was intended to be, hence my defense of the OP. are you sure? he mentioned eugenics even in his OP. if that was not intention then why did he introduce the concept of sterilizing all the poor people?

Eugenics is practiced the world over, however, whether it's just the mild form of mate selection (preferring someone with 'good genes') or the 1 child policy in China or endogamy in a variety of racial and religious cultures. Doctors can perform tests on couples to find out their likelihood of passing on a genetic or hereditary disease before they decide to have children. That's just a test, but if the results of that test influence the couple's decision to have a baby, then it's eugenics. not the same concept. see his original post about sterilization programs to solve the poverty problem

I don't think the OP meant that he supports perpetrating some kind of holocaust or mass genocide, which is what people are making it seem like. again read his OP

We have veered way off track just so people can pile onto this guy and make him out to be the devil. he may not be the devil but the idea of mass sterilization of the poor definitely comes from that source.

In the post, he suggested that we focus more on saving people's souls than just feeding them a sandwich or whatever. He said he only wants to support charities that actively try to convert people to Christianity. He alludes that Christian charities do not already do that. If they are truly Christian they would preach the gospel and feed and clothe people

You guys have skipped right over that part because you don't think he isn't sympathetic ENOUGH to the plight of people living where there are no natural resources so they are completely dependent on charities and welfare for survival. the factors that influence poverty is more complex then that. when the corrupt government ship the food grown to other countries so they can line their pockets instead of feed their people, then the people should not be the ones to blame.

I think that's unfair, personally.

its about truth not false compassion and compromise.

 

[Abiding]

ok one more time around the track
and itll be time to head on in

 

[zone]

ok one more time around the track
and itll be time to head on in

Adrian!

 

[rainacorn]

The word 'eugenics' has exploded this discussion into something I don't think it was intended to be, hence my defense of the OP. are you sure? he mentioned eugenics even in his OP. if that was not intention then why did he introduce the concept of sterilizing all the poor people? Because it's perfectly valid to think about, in regards to people who are literally dying of starvation (not 'poor people'). He also said it would never happen, and I think he's definitely right about that. It crosses serious ethical lines, but I see how those ethics get fuzzy when you consider something like 'the greater good.' Is it morally wrong to have a multitude of children when you live in such extreme conditions that people literally resort to cannibalism? Which is worse in that situation- eating dead people or making more mouths to feed with dead human flesh? It's not an easy thing to think about so most people don't. Should we even mention the percentage of these starving babies that are born with incurable diseases like AIDS?

Eugenics is practiced the world over, however, whether it's just the mild form of mate selection (preferring someone with 'good genes') or the 1 child policy in China or endogamy in a variety of racial and religious cultures. Doctors can perform tests on couples to find out their likelihood of passing on a genetic or hereditary disease before they decide to have children. That's just a test, but if the results of that test influence the couple's decision to have a baby, then it's eugenics. not the same concept. see his original post about sterilization programs to solve the poverty problem. It actually is the same concept, even though it wasn't what he was talking about.

I don't think the OP meant that he supports perpetrating some kind of holocaust or mass genocide, which is what people are making it seem like. again read his OP. I did. I still don't see it. I see that he mentioned sterilization (which is not genocide).

We have veered way off track just so people can pile onto this guy and make him out to be the devil. he may not be the devil but the idea of mass sterilization of the poor definitely comes from that source. Why do you keep saying 'poor' like it's people that are just down on their luck or something.

In the post, he suggested that we focus more on saving people's souls than just feeding them a sandwich or whatever. He said he only wants to support charities that actively try to convert people to Christianity. He alludes that Christian charities do not already do that. If they are truly Christian they would preach the gospel and feed and clothe people. I agree there. Now, is every Christian charity truly Christian? That's an entirely different topic.

You guys have skipped right over that part because you don't think he isn't sympathetic ENOUGH to the plight of people living where there are no natural resources so they are completely dependent on charities and welfare for survival. the factors that influence poverty is more complex then that. when the corrupt government ship the food grown to other countries so they can line their pockets instead of feed their people, then the people should not be the ones to blame. Is that what we're talking about? How about this... you tell me what country you're picturing when he talks about those who rely solely on charity to survive. We may have completely different ideas on what absolute poverty means.

I'll stop here. OP can defend himself. I just get sick of all the piling on where people don't even read the OP, they just react to the reactions until we're all carrying torches and pitchforks.

 

[zone]

the late Michael Crichton said it well:

MichaelCrichton.com | This Essay Breaks the Law

 

[AnandaHya]

the late Michael Crichton said it well:

MichaelCrichton.com | This Essay Breaks the Law

the sad part is that it is still happening and the question of why is there poverty is not asked when the Earth provides enough that all can be taken care of because that is the way God made it.

God would not allow more people to be born then the Earth could sustain. However men's greed and lack of compassion have caused the gulf between those who have and those who do not to widen into a gulf.

Eugenics has not disappeared it has gone underground and undercover. People are still passing out smallpox blankets to the Indians, they just disguise it better.

The propoganda war is the first frontal assault before the mass slaughter begins. God tells us in Revelations and in these scriptures:

Matthew 24
6And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

7For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

8All these are the beginning of sorrows.

9Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

10And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

11And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

12And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

13But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

he did get one thing right. how we treat the poor is a test:

Matthew 25
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

 

[zone]

the sad part is that it is still happening.

of course it is. i do not know why this is a surprise. why don't we know history and current events?

same playahs over and over.
how ironic.
same inbred crackpot paranoid families running it.




Eugenics Record Office Records
1670-1964
330.5 Linear feet
Mss.Ms.Coll.77


Eugenics Record Office Records :: American Philosophical Society

~

A wealthy Rockefeller family friend, England’s Sir Julian Huxley, led the eugenics movement in England. Upon setting up the United Nations, Huxley became the first Director-General of the United Nation’s human-rights organization, UNESCO. In his 1946 sixty-page document titled, “UNESCO: Its Purpose and Philosophy,” he states:

The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific world humanism, global in extent and evolutionary in background…its education program can stress the ultimate need for world political unity and familiarize all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to world organization…Political unifications in some sort of world government will be required…

Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible [thanks to Hitler], it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenics problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable.

~

On July 29, 2011 the Department of Global Health and Population at the Harvard School of Public Health sounded the population alarm bell in the international science journal, Science, advocating for international contraception efforts to be funded by wealthy countries.

On August 1, 2011 the Obama administration announced its plan to force health insurers, beginning in 2013, to pay for “free” birth control for all U.S. women, including free birth control pills, morning after pills, sterilization, and any other “FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling.”

Americans should understand that Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Margaret Hamburg is well-versed in eugenics theory, as both of her elite psychiatrist parents have headed the American Eugenics Society.

http://theintelhub.com/2011/08/11/the-revitalized-eugenics-movement-the-fda%E2%80%99s-role/
​

 

[Sharp]

Wow.

Over reactions people.... relax...

Whenever the word 'eugenics' is mentioned, people are so quick to mention the words: Hittler, Stalin, genocide, murder, death, etc. etc.

Yes, eugenics can be done in different ways, but never have I advocated actively killing anyone. Zone, you're overreacting. Ask yourself, how many people are YOU letting die right now by sitting there at your computer? That's the same as going into the wilderness and preaching the gospel to starving, dying people and not giving them the apple in your backpack. You're not giving them anything right now. Neither would I be. Except, I'd be giving them a chance to meet Jesus.

In my opinion, there's "hard" eugenics: genocide, murder, forced sterilisations, abortion, etc., and "soft" eugenics: voluntary or persuaded sterilisations, incentives for breeding or not breeding, selecting gender of babies, IVF, etc. Hard eugenics is obviously against the bible, for it involves murder/abuse (even though forced sterilisation would be good for people in the long run. Yes, I'm saying that people don't know what's best for themselves sometimes). But show me precisely in the bible where eugenic ideas are prohibited. (I know the word eugenics won't appear in the bible, so don't start...). Some people will cry, well where do you draw the line! Today it's sterilisation, tomorrow its genocide!!! Well, many countries today pay their citizens to breed. Many western nations confiscate children from drug addicted parents. Are we getting trigger happy and killing people on welfare? No. But the state should have a role in family planning.

Zone, if any of my family members were considering breeding irresponsibly, I would encourage them not to. If they had serious genetic diseases, I would encourage them not to breed. If they were somehow STARVING to death and had no access to contraception, I would strongly encourage them to sterilise themselves, in fact I would pay for it. YES, I could bankroll their irresponsible breeding and pay to feed their children, or I could do something for them with much more long term value. If their situation improved, I would encourage them to adopt an African. Then hopefully one less African would grow up starving, practising voodoo, dying, and going to hell.

Abortion is not compassionate. Everyone knows that. Genocide is not compassionate. Eugenics can be. Why should we allow people to be born to go straight to hell when they die of malaria at age 29? We should stop these people from ever existing. What I believe, is that if God wants a person to be born, they will be born, regardless of what eugenicists do. A "person" consists of their soul; their body is the earthly host. God could easily put the soul into another body who is instead born on the other side of the world, in, say, downtown New Jersey, once a body in Africa is prevented from breeding. The body is not attached to the soul. We need better bodies, and we need people to be born in places where they will survive, and become Christians. We don't need souls being born into bodies out in the desert in Africa, where they will die young without ever having heard of Jesus.

Charity in its current state is failing. The "business as usual" approach does not lead to a net gain of zero, it leads to a net loss, because the short term "solution" causes long term problems.

Anyhow, as you can probably tell, I think about these things alot. What I am getting it is... even though poverty has a solution (albeit one that makes people irrationally upset)... does God allow it to go on, to see what Christians will do? To see whether we will feed them and clothe them and keep them alive? I'm starting to think so.

 

[Sharp]

Yes you can ridicule me for being offensive and judgmental or you can actually stand up for the gospel that Jesus died for which does NOT include allowing people to commit atrocities and mass genocide while still claiming to be "Christian"

Eugenics is NOT Christian. It is NOT morally right or acceptable. It is sinful and demonic.

Alright. This right here is just nuts.

You're putting words into my mouth. I or no-one else has advocated genocide here. So be rational.

The bible verses you have quoted are very nice. But they do not prohibit Christians from using eugenics policies to help people.

Demonic? oh please....

You said in another post that poverty is a social problem, not a genetic one. I mostly agree. Some poverty is clearly inherited. Even if most poverty is a social problem, I still advocate sterilisation.

Why do people see giving birth as a right? And not a priveledge? Something to be respected. Something to be done by responsible people in sustainable situations... Yes I know what you're thinking... Sometimes it just happens, its not planned. Well, try as I might, I can't sympathise with people who find sex/marriage difficult to avoid. Its easy to avoid. You just don't do it. Especially if you don't know what you're going to eat for breakfast tomorrow. See, some of these people don't know what's good for them, they can't make their own decisions. They need our help. So long as we guarantee their breakfast tomorrow with no strings attached, they will go on producing more people who depend on us for food, and generations will be brought up this way. Its unsustainable.