Bible pick an choose

[LiberalNation]

So been reading it a little bit and here are some of the things I like and agree with and some of the things I don't and will disregard just like what every christian church in our country does. Oh and those I'm gona save to use as ammunition in political debate

Okay a few to start out.

A good one for you so called christian who also happen to be war-mongers.


Romans

14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position.[c] Do not be conceited.
17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[d]says the Lord. 20On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."[e] 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Hate this one but hey if this is the truth then Saddam was governing with gods will and his people shoulda just accepted it so put it ammunition too.


Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then

I just like this one.


Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

[LiberalNation]

Okay after a quick scan heading now to verses from Jude.

File this one under don't like/disregard and ammunition cuz ya all like to question and say evil of our rulers.

1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the towns near them, having like these, given themselves up to unclean desires and gone after strange flesh, have been made an example, undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
1:8 In the same way these dreamers make the flesh unclean, having no respect for authorities, and say evil of rulers.

[LiberalNation]

To hebrews.

Now this right here I don't like at all. Why should you suffer and live in chains during your life for freedom in death. WHy can't you be free in life and death.

And let those who all their lives were in chains because of their fear of death, go free.

[manu1959]

last i checked saddam was not a christian...

[LiberalNation]

So, it doesn't just say for christian. You don't have to believe in it to be under it.

Another one I like on judging/condemning others from James.

4:11 Do not say evil against one another, my brothers. He who says evil against his brother or makes himself his brother's judge, says evil against the law and is judging the law: and in judging the law you become, not a doer of the law but a judge.
4:12 There is only one judge and law-giver, even he who has the power of salvation and of destruction; but who are you to be your neighbour's judge?

[LiberalNation]

This one is good against all the screw the poor, pro-capitalist types.


5:1 Come now, you men of wealth, give yourselves to weeping and crying because of the bitter troubles which are coming to you.
5:2 Your wealth is unclean and insects have made holes in your clothing.
5:3 Your gold and your silver are wasted and their waste will be a witness against you, burning into your flesh. You have put by your store in the last days.
5:4 See, the money which you falsely kept back from the workers cutting the grass in your field, is crying out against you; and the cries of those who took in your grain have come to the ears of the Lord of armies.

[glockmail]

There's not a single NT passage you've posted that I disagree with. You seem to imply that we conservative capitalists strong-defense types, or as you call us, "war mongers", do not agree with certain passages.

[Mr. P]

Bible interpretation by an 18 year old that's never read the whole thing even once, gotta love it! :laugh2:

[LiberalNation]

I love it too. If your a christian you oughta be happy I'm reading it and learning about god/whatever.

There's not a single NT passage you've posted that I disagree with. You seem to imply that we conservative capitalists strong-defense types, or as you call us, "war mongers", do not agree with certain passages.
You don't have to disagree to in reality not follow what ya preach/believe/ect.

[Dilloduck]

I love it too. If your a christian you oughta be happy I'm reading it and learning about god/whatever.

You don't have to disagree to in reality not follow what ya preach/believe/ect.

Grabbing a bunch of quotes out of context to use against Chistians is not exactly what I call learning.

[glockmail]

Grabbing a bunch of quotes out of context to use against Chistians is not exactly what I call learning. The best way to respond is like Christ would expect you to. :poke:

[Dilloduck]

The best way to respond is like Christ would expect you to. :poke:

The spirit called upon me to say that to LN.

[LiberalNation]

Grabbing a bunch of quotes out of context to use against Chistians is not exactly what I call learning.

Grabbing,
I had to read thru a lot of boring parts to get those quotes. Not like I just grabbed them off a site all nice and cut out for me.

[JohnDoe]

The best way to respond is like Christ would expect you to. :poke:


Bingo! ;)

[Said1]

Grabbing,
I had to read thru a lot of boring parts to get those quotes. Not like I just grabbed them off a site all nice and cut out for me.


I like
Matthew 7
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you.


We are to discern, not judge. There is a difference. However, I do find that the people who claim to be enlightened tend to be the most judgemental and arrogant of them all. Weird.

Also, if people are to accept who is governing them, that includes everyone, occupier/dictator/democratically elected leader all fall under the same category of leader. Wouldn't you say?

[KarlMarx]

This one is good against all the screw the poor, pro-capitalist types.
Hey kid.... why don't you put your money where your big mouth is, take a large percentage of your money and give it to charity like many of us conservatives do instead of acting like you're a candidate for sainthood?

For your information, I give a larger percentage of my income to charity than Al Gore (10%). I'll wager that a lot of others on this board give quite a bit, too. That's above and beyond what I'm required to pay in taxes, child support, college tuition for my kid, Social Security and so forth

So, shut the pie hole, kid, unless you're doing the same!

There is nothing in the Bible that tells people to remain poor... one of the Beatitudes is "Blessed are the poor in spirit (meaning humble)..."

Nowhere is there any mention made that Christians should support a coercive form of taxation that fund ineffective government programs that create phony baloney government jobs rather than helping the people they are intended to help. Instead, we are called as individuals to give to churches and charities (which is hard to do if the government has all the dough).

The best way to eliminate poverty is to make conditions that create wealth, not through charity.... charity is for those individuals who are down and out and can't make ends meet, or are unable to take care of themselves. It is not meant to be a permanent condition!

We are to give to the poor, not make damn sure they remain that way so they can remain dependent on our charity....

[JohnDoe]

Grabbing,
I had to read thru a lot of boring parts to get those quotes. Not like I just grabbed them off a site all nice and cut out for me.

You're doing GREAT! :)

one thing i would suggest that you do, is figure out who the writer is talking to and learn as much as you can about them, before you read the chapter, this will help you, and it is ''missing'' in your analysis of what you like and don't like.

Where I differ is that you really should not ''pick and choose'' the way you do.

All Scripture is justified by other scripture...

Where you think it contradicts itself, you probably are not searching deep enough in to its true meaning.

Also, before you begin reading, say a prayer asking God to please humble you enough and guide you to the ''true meaning'' of His Word that you are about to read....

I fully understand that this may seem silly to non believers, but I find this as a great tool.

-------------------------------------------------

As an example, your example from Jude that you hate.... read the whole chapter, he's talking about men that have infiltrated their church that are greedy and sexually immoral, that have joined their ranks....it could even imply positions of the Church with authority... and one could see it similar to our recent situation with Catholic Priest pedophiles and with Ted Haggard's infidelity with a Gay prostitute or with the Episcopol Church electing a Bishop to lead their congregation that is a homosexual....living with another man...

These corrupt people, in one manner or another, were trying to disrupt their church and the Word of God....that is not to be taken lightly!

This is also in the same chapter of Jude:


22Be merciful to those who doubt; 23snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.

How do you feel about this verse?

I have to get off and do some yardwork soon, so I may not answer until later!

JD

[JohnDoe]

Hey kid.... why don't you put your money where your big mouth is, take a large percentage of your money and give it to charity like many of us conservatives do instead of acting like you're a candidate for sainthood?

For your information, I give a larger percentage of my income to charity than Al Gore (10%). I'll wager that a lot of others on this board give quite a bit, too. That's above and beyond what I'm required to pay in taxes, child support, college tuition for my kid, Social Security and so forth

So, shut the pie hole, kid, unless you're doing the same!

There is nothing in the Bible that tells people to remain poor... one of the Beatitudes is "Blessed are the poor in spirit (meaning humble)..."

Nowhere is there any mention made that Christians should support a coercive form of taxation that fund ineffective government programs that create phony baloney government jobs rather than helping the people they are intended to help. Instead, we are called as individuals to give to churches and charities (which is hard to do if the government has all the dough).

The best way to eliminate poverty is to make conditions that create wealth, not through charity.... charity is for those individuals who are down and out and can't make ends meet, or are unable to take care of themselves. It is not meant to be a permanent condition!

We are to give to the poor, not make damn sure they remain that way so they can remain dependent on our charity....

SO, I take it you DO NOT support our government taking money from us via taxation, to GIVE to these private, religious charities?

Are you AGAINST Faith based Initiatives that is obviously another form of forced taxation, taking from us, giving to the Religious Institutions to take care of the poor, sick, needy, and strangers?

[glockmail]

SO, I take it you DO NOT support our government taking money from us via taxation, to GIVE to these private, religious charities?

Are you AGAINST Faith based Initiatives that is obviously another form of forced taxation, taking from us, giving to the Religious Institutions to take care of the poor, sick, needy, and strangers?
I myself are against government giving to charities. But the initiatives you speak about are government funding for specific causes that the goverment, through legislation, wishes to support. These faith-based institutions then have to compete against other private institutions that want to provide the same service. Its no different than Waste Management competing with BFI to haul off trash, of Lockeed competing with Boeing to build fighter planes.

[Abbey Marie]

LN, keep in mind that there is truth in this saying: "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing".

The fact that from the start, you picked Bible verses to make political staments, shows me that your heart is not yet in the right place. And if it is not, they are just words on a page. IMO, some of the least spiritual and most confused people on earth are those who study religious texts to teach "theology"

I do hope that your reading turns from looking for words to justify your views, to actually reading them with an open heart. God will bless you for it!

P.S. It really helps if you read a study Bible. The accompanying explanations help you understand context, odd wording, etc. I am sure several people on here can recommend a good one to you. Nelson's, for one.

[-Cp]

LN, keep in mind that there is truth in this saying: "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing".

The fact that from the start, you picked Bible verses to make political staments, shows me that your heart is not yet in the right place. And if it is not, they are just words on a page. IMO, some of the least spiritual and most confused people on earth are those who study religious texts to teach "theology"

I do hope that your reading turns from looking for words to justify your views, to actually reading them with an open heart. God will bless you for it!

P.S. It really helps if you read a study Bible. The accompanying explanations help you understand context, odd wording, etc. I am sure several people on here can recommend a good one to you. Nelson's, for one.

Additionally - I'd encourage her to not take every passage literally...

[5stringJeff]

So been reading it a little bit and here are some of the things I like and agree with and some of the things I don't and will disregard just like what every christian church in our country does. Oh and those I'm gona save to use as ammunition in political debate

LN, I'm glad to see that you're reading the Bible. I'd encourage you to read it holistically - i.e., read the whole thing to understand the main points. Then, when you come across more difficult passages, you'll understand the context in which they are written.

[LiberalNation]

Hey kid.... why don't you put your money where your big mouth is, take a large percentage of your money and give it to charity like many of us conservatives do instead of acting like you're a candidate for sainthood?

For your information, I give a larger percentage of my income to charity than Al Gore (10%). I'll wager that a lot of others on this board give quite a bit, too. That's above and beyond what I'm required to pay in taxes, child support, college tuition for my kid, Social Security and so forth

So, shut the pie hole, kid, unless you're doing the same

Hmmm, where'd you get off ont he sainthood candicacy thing. Why would I shut up if I do less for the poor than you. I don't claim to fly under a Christian banner myself and the poor don't worry me too much. Either way it says plenty in that book about submitting to the government and paying taxes. Private charities could nto come close to filling the gap the government programs provide. Many elderly live off their SS checks, not to mention the disabled who can't work. Workers comp and all those other programs.

[JohnDoe]

I myself are against government giving to charities. But the initiatives you speak about are government funding for specific causes that the goverment, through legislation, wishes to support. These faith-based institutions then have to compete against other private institutions that want to provide the same service. Its no different than Waste Management competing with BFI to haul off trash, of Lockeed competing with Boeing to build fighter planes.My issue is not that the government takes from us to give to religious institutions or other charities.

The point I was trying to make was in response to his rant regarding the government taking from us for escentially welfare for the poor. If he is SOOOOOO against it...the government forcing charity to the poor then he should be against the Faith Based Initiatives of the Republicans, because in reality, it is precisely what he is complaining about, taking via taxation to help the needy...at least that was my thought, when reading his post and in my response.

And I don't have a problem with the government helping the poor, I do have a problem with our government being the numero uno donor to the Faith based charities, Churches should not be involved with our government or trust our government imo, they will come to regret it... when they become so dependent on the gvts money to help those in need, and the gvt someday starts telling them that they can't follow their own Church Doctrine anymore if they want to continue getting the gvt's money.... The Churches may succomb, just for the money or "The love of Money" that they were accustomed to getting without having to please with a good sermon or two or witnessing to one person in their own congregation to do such....without the one on one of giving.... it takes away from giving from one's heart...precisely what I THOUGHT was the Republican's complaint about "forced gvt providing" for the needy in the first place?

Am I off base on this...?

[glockmail]

My issue is not that the government takes from us to give to religious institutions or other charities.

The point I was trying to make was in response to his rant regarding the government taking from us for escentially welfare for the poor. If he is SOOOOOO against it...the government forcing charity to the poor then he should be against the Faith Based Initiatives of the Republicans, because in reality, it is precisely what he is complaining about, taking via taxation to help the needy...at least that was my thought, when reading his post and in my response.

And I don't have a problem with the government helping the poor, I do have a problem with our government being the numero uno donor to the Faith based charities, Churches should not be involved with our government or trust our government imo, they will come to regret it... when they become so dependent on the gvts money to help those in need, and the gvt someday starts telling them that they can't follow their own Church Doctrine anymore if they want to continue getting the gvt's money.... The Churches may succomb, just for the money or "The love of Money" that they were accustomed to getting without having to please with a good sermon or two or witnessing to one person in their own congregation to do such....without the one on one of giving.... it takes away from giving from one's heart...precisely what I THOUGHT was the Republican's complaint about "forced gvt providing" for the needy in the first place?

Am I off base on this...?

As a conservative republican, I don't have a problem helping the poor, and I don't know anyone else onmy side of the aisle who does. What we don't like is the government involvement in the process, because like nearly everything else, GovCo ends up screwing it up. And they consistently have on this issue.

[KarlMarx]

I object to the attitude by some of you liberals that, because I'm a conservative, that I have a "screw the poor" attitude.

You people have a pre-conceived notion that, just because I'm pro-free market and limited government that I don't care about my fellow man.

Who died and made you the judge of me and others like me?

I wouldn't be surprised if many of the same liberals who criticize us are themselves guilty of being stingy with their charitable giving.

[JohnDoe]

I object to the attitude by some of you liberals that, because I'm a conservative, that I have a "screw the poor" attitude.

You people have a pre-conceived notion that, just because I'm pro-free market and limited government that I don't care about my fellow man.

Who died and made you the judge of me and others like me?

I wouldn't be surprised if many of the same liberals who criticize us are themselves guilty of being stingy with their charitable giving.

Karl, YOur post implied and accused Democrats or Liberals or the Left or "the other side" on WANTING and INTENTIONALLY KEEPING the poor in poverty.

Wouldn't you say that it was YOU who is being "judgemental" on this subject?

Or at least as EQUALLY GUILTY of being "judgemental" of the other side?

----------------------------------------------

Personally, I believe that the "people" in America want to help those that have less do better. And that includes people that vote Democratic and who vote Republican and people who don't vote at all etc.

I believe as a country, we are only as good as the least among us.

Republicans in OFFICE in general come "off" as they don't give a poop about those that are the least among us and appear to only care for the "wealthiest" among us.

You may say that is bullcrap, but THIS IS HOW they appear to "the other side", especially with all of their legislation that ONLY focuses on corporations or the wealthiest, continually giving them legislation to help them and corporate welfare to help them while IGNORING the rest of the entire country, the "people" within the country.

I know Republicans believe that focusing their tax cuts and their tax loop hole legislation for the wealthiest and for Big Business, will in turn "trickle down" to those that have much less.

In general, this sounds like a good idea....but it hasn't worked this time around and the worker and the poor in general have only lost and NOT benefited this time around.

Something needs to be done about it.... and this does not mean handouts.

It means legislation that focuses on the issue, just like all the legislation that focused on the wealthiest the past 6 years.... like capital gains and dividend tax cuts, tax cuts benefitting the wealthiest the most, new Bankruptcy rules and regs to benefit them over the needy, like no bid contracts given to the big gun friends of theirs, ect etc etc....

So now, it is time to look out for the average guy for a bit, don't you think?

I don't want handouts given to the poor to hold them down.

There isn't a Democratic person out there that wants such.

But the RIGHT continually lies and says this about Democrats? And it sounds like you believe it and others on this board believes it too?

I guess what I am trying to say is that this is an issue that our politicians have used to pit us against one another.

The Republicans hate the poor and think they are just lazy bums that chose to be the way they are....

and

Democrats hate the wealthy and hate big business out of jealousy, and they LOVE of redristributing wealth.

Well, the truth is probably far from either of these things, but it is hard to see through all the smoke and mirrors and hate that we have been groomed to have against one another.

[glockmail]

.....Well, the truth is probably far from either of these things, but it is hard to see through all the smoke and mirrors and hate that we have been groomed to have against one another. I look at results, not stated intentions. Democrat policies have consistently been loser ones for the poor, while Republicans ones have generally been winners.

Of course it's perfectly reasonable to look at pure selfish motives when deciding who may be the good guys are and the bad. Democrats benefit from having more poor, Republicans benefit from less.

[KarlMarx]

Karl, YOur post implied and accused Democrats or Liberals or the Left or "the other side" on WANTING and INTENTIONALLY KEEPING the poor in poverty.

Wouldn't you say that it was YOU who is being "judgemental" on this subject?

Or at least as EQUALLY GUILTY of being "judgemental" of the other side?

----------------------------------------------

Personally, I believe that the "people" in America want to help those that have less do better. And that includes people that vote Democratic and who vote Republican and people who don't vote at all etc.

I believe as a country, we are only as good as the least among us.

Republicans in OFFICE in general come "off" as they don't give a poop about those that are the least among us and appear to only care for the "wealthiest" among us.

You may say that is bullcrap, but THIS IS HOW they appear to "the other side", especially with all of their legislation that ONLY focuses on corporations or the wealthiest, continually giving them legislation to help them and corporate welfare to help them while IGNORING the rest of the entire country, the "people" within the country.

I know Republicans believe that focusing their tax cuts and their tax loop hole legislation for the wealthiest and for Big Business, will in turn "trickle down" to those that have much less.

In general, this sounds like a good idea....but it hasn't worked this time around and the worker and the poor in general have only lost and NOT benefited this time around.

Something needs to be done about it.... and this does not mean handouts.

It means legislation that focuses on the issue, just like all the legislation that focused on the wealthiest the past 6 years.... like capital gains and dividend tax cuts, tax cuts benefitting the wealthiest the most, new Bankruptcy rules and regs to benefit them over the needy, like no bid contracts given to the big gun friends of theirs, ect etc etc....

So now, it is time to look out for the average guy for a bit, don't you think?

I don't want handouts given to the poor to hold them down.

There isn't a Democratic person out there that wants such.

But the RIGHT continually lies and says this about Democrats? And it sounds like you believe it and others on this board believes it too?

I guess what I am trying to say is that this is an issue that our politicians have used to pit us against one another.

The Republicans hate the poor and think they are just lazy bums that chose to be the way they are....

and

Democrats hate the wealthy and hate big business out of jealousy, and they LOVE of redristributing wealth.

Well, the truth is probably far from either of these things, but it is hard to see through all the smoke and mirrors and hate that we have been groomed to have against one another.

Actually... that is exactly what the Democrat big wigs want to do. Government programs create government jobs, which increase union membership, which are big Democrat campaign contributors.

The political posturing of Democrats with regard to the poor is nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig. They don't actually care about the poor, they care about being in power and the way they get the power is to prostitute themselves to interests of their campaign contributors. Furthermore, they spend our money to "give" to the poor, when in fact, it's our money.

It's very easy to be generous with other people's money, isn't it? But many conservatives actually dig into their own pockets and help others. Then we get the line from the liberals about how we're all have an attitude of "f--- the poor". I'd like to tell some liberals were they can put put that self righteous attitude of theirs to cure hemorrhoids, too.

Then we have Mr Al Gore, who gave a whopping $35 to charity for a whole year, and blue states have lower per capita charitable giving than red states.

So, tell me, am I being judgemental or am I simply telling the truth?

[darin]

Government programs create government jobs, which increase union membership, which are big Democrat campaign contributors.


FWIW - I'm in a 'union' - but we don't pay dues...it's the best way to have a union, IMO. I'm unsure of any other gubbern-ment workers on the board, so dunno; maybe none of us pay any dues, etc?

[5stringJeff]

FWIW - I'm in a 'union' - but we don't pay dues...it's the best way to have a union, IMO. I'm unsure of any other gubbern-ment workers on the board, so dunno; maybe none of us pay any dues, etc?

Hell no, I don't pay dues. I neither want nor need the union's representation.

[eighballsidepocket]

FWIW - I'm in a 'union' - but we don't pay dues...it's the best way to have a union, IMO. I'm unsure of any other gubbern-ment workers on the board, so dunno; maybe none of us pay any dues, etc?

I'm a long time union member, and I think you might check or investigate closely about not paying dues.

You maybe paying a small dues via some deduction on your pay check stub, but it doesn't print out as, "Dues", but uses some other jargon.

I've been a Union Construction electrician for years, but now am retired, and we didn't send in dues payments, but had the dues deducted from our weekly pay checks. Also, our employer, or Electrical contractor contributed to our dues too.

I'd be surprised if you weren't contributing something to the union in a monetary way. It maybe coming from your employer's contribution in some way, and bypassing your pay stub.

Unions need "moola" to operate, to Lobby, to pay their business agents, and other operating costs. Unions usually have to send some of their moneys to the upper echelon or head office of the organization to.
*******
Now, back to charity: I don't think Marx was saying or indicting liberals per se', John Doe, for being hypocritical, but was bringing up the usual liberal mantra that the conservatives are not sensitive to the poor or charitable contributors. I think Marx was just saying that some folks put their collective mouths or words into action, and do something, and don't just wring their hands about the plight of the poor, and find some person/causation or scapegoat to "finger". He stated that conservatives are not lacking in empathy/sensitivity, anymore than the democrats or liberals, but have another methodology for helping that they see as more productive, and constructive in bringing or encouraging folks to climb out of poverty, or need of outside assistance.

Government assistance isn't too unlike, what psychologists refer to in their jargon, as "enabling". This word is used in addiction and abuse situations where people are helped in a way that does not encourage them to initiate in their own strength/initiative a desire to become more self-sufficient, and not reliant on the government "nipple".

Some politicians not named and were mayors of large cities, initiated a program that made it more difficult for "street people" to obtain government "dole" checks without first getting into job training or placement programs by the respective city agencies. Of course the liberal/Democratic politicians of "said" cities cried, "murder" over this alleged travesty of cruelty toward the "unfortunate".

The outcome of the program was an appreciable decrease in street or homeless folks. Not because the migrated to another city that was more lenient with the welfare, but because many became working, tax paying, city citizens.

Sadly, many folks do lose enthusiam or desire to help themselves, and a little push or threat of some perceived security concerning their regular welfare, forced many to go into programs.

There are things in my life that I don't want to do, and I should. We all get into habitual ruts in our lives, whether poor, middle class, or rich. Sometimes some outside prodding is needed. Maybe its a spouse, close relative, close friend, priest, pastor, health considerations, or just plain old life changing beyond our control, that forces us to lift our carcass off the sofa. Never the less, when we earn or gain something by our own effort, it sticks with us, and encourages us to continue further. It's the human nature of us. We aren't designed to stagnate, and sometimes we need a push, and sometimes it seems unwelcome, but maybe, just maybe, we will be thankful for the momentary/temporary discomfort of having to apply some effort of our own to help ourselves out.
******
Anyway, conservatives are indeed cast in a bad light, as uncaring, insensitive, unfeeling, and ungiving. That is so far from the truth, and is so unfair.
******