Was Lazarus A 'Bum'?

[Town Heretic]

Webster's does nothing to either establish your narrative or deny my definition.

Rather, Merriam-Webster's definition of charity is met by welfare in every particular needed to establish it.

We collectively elect people to stand in our place and speak for us. Their actions are voluntary in establishing the institutions of that public giving as is the yearly budgetary allowance for it. The point is to address those in need and establish and thereafter maintain institutions engaged in that relief. Welfare is, therefore, a willful, intentional giving to those in need from a common purse that meets the definition in authority give below, evidencing goodwill toward humanity, being an expression of generosity and helpfulness, especially toward the needy and suffering, as aid given those in need and provided by an institution engaged in that relief. Or, a public charity.

From Merriam Webster: "1. benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity 2. a: generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also: aid given to those in need b: an institution engaged in relief of the poor c: public provision for the relief of the needy 3 a: a gift for public benevolent purposes b: an institution (as a hospital) founded by such a gift 4: lenient judgment of others.

The rest is you, Stripe, making noise and moving goalposts. The rest is you being loudly wrong and demanding respect for the effort. You will not have it. I respect the right to hold any opinion that suits you. The opinion itself will either have to stand on merit or, as is the case in your rejection of a clear, demonstrable truth, fail.

What you believe is the legitimate function of government is has no impact on what actually is or the point you contend with. What you feel those who receive welfare are doing to those of us who pay the bill is similarly irrelevant. What you think of those women, children, the disabled and elderly who comprise almost all of our charity is of no importance and controls nothing on the point as well, which remains established above. It is sand and noise created by you to fashion something you never will, a contrary argument that rebuts the plain truth and fact, presented above.

Now then, everyone brace for his next "nope".

when a person resorts to dictionaries, they are simply resorting to popular bias.

Not if you understand the function of language. Words mean particular things. When you alter the meaning to suit your disposition you work at cross purpose to the point. People who do that are attempting to force the truth into a shape that pleases them. It's a sort of willful delusion that insists everyone share it, but it isn't a truth beyond that expression of distortion and bias.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Ah. OK.

I think a lot of what we get from the Bible about how a government should work comes via an understanding of the big picture that are illustrated in seemingly obscure details.

That's generally correct. For instance, we get the right to own property from the law against theft. We get the right to life from the law against murder, the right to carry weapons from Jesus telling his disciples to bring weapons with them to the Garden, etc.

Cool. Are you going to be on the radio?

Unfortunately no. I was going to be on this week, but they're starting their telethon this week, so they had to cancel, and the topic I had planned to talk about with Bob was the Trinity, specifically Keypurr's beliefs. (see "The Trinity" thread)

They are, however, planning to make that government series available soon (through the sermon subscription)

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Crucible]

Charity is of the Three Graces which evidence one as a Christian.

Charity, Faith, and Hope.

Muslims and Jews are not charitable, atheists have no faith, and no other worldview retains hope.

These graces are what separate the elect from the damned.

So, be charitable, or stop complaining about welfare

 

[ok doser]

So, be charitable, or stop complaining about welfare

seems to me that most Christians (and I'm not counting leftists) are charitable and see welfare as a means of theft by the state, that results, whether intentionally or not, in creating a permanent underclass of impoverished dependents

 

[Stripe]

The rest is you being loudly wrong and demanding respect for the effort.

Nope.

I don't demand respect for the fact that I can hold any opinion I like. You can think what you like about my ability to believe what I do; you're up against reality if you think opinions should be regulated from outside.

What you need to do is think through what is being said to you rather that looking for something to disagree with.

That is what I mean by respecting others' words.

I have clearly defined what I mean by charity to show why I think welfare does not fit.

However, you're not interested in discussing the possibility of a welfare-charity divide, because you're determined to keep welfare in a good light.

So you've invented a lengthy and convoluted narrative to make welfare into charity and are insisting that everyone accept your ideas.

Your aim is to call welfare charity, because nobody can possibly say "charity" is wrong.

This is the classic Darwinist tactic of defining the problem out of existence. What you need to do is define your terms, quit conflating ideas and respect what others have to say.

Now then, everyone brace for his next wall of text.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Stripe]

That's generally correct. For instance, we get the right to own property from the law against theft. We get the right to life from the law against murder, the right to carry weapons from Jesus telling his disciples to bring weapons with them to the Garden, etc.



Unfortunately no. I was going to be on this week, but they're starting their telethon this week, so they had to cancel, and the topic I had planned to talk about with Bob was the Trinity, specifically Keypurr's beliefs. (see "The Trinity" thread)

They are, however, planning to make that government series available soon (through the sermon subscription)

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

Excellent.

I look forward to hearing it.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Stripe]

seems to me that most Christians (and I'm not counting leftists) are charitable and see welfare as a means of theft by the state, that results, whether intentionally or not, in creating a permanent underclass of impoverished dependents

That was not my quote.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nope.

I don't demand respect for the fact that I can hold any opinion I like. You can think what you like about my ability to believe what I do; you're up against reality of you think opinions should be regulated from outside.

What you need to do is think through what is being said to you rather that looking for something to disagree with.

That is what I mean by respecting others' words.

I have clearly defined what I mean by charity to show why I think welfare does not fit.

However, you're not interested in discussing the possibility of a welfare-charity divide, because you're determined to keep welfare in a good light.

So you've invented a lengthy and convoluted narrative to make welfare into charity and are insisting that everyone accept your ideas.

Your aim is to call welfare charity, because nobody can possibly say "charity" is wrong.

This is the classic Darwinist tactic of defining the problem out of existence. What you need to do is define your terms, quit conflating ideas and respect what others have to say.

Now then, everyone brace for his next wall of text.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

"Classic Darwinist tactic"?

You're not on a creationism thread Stripe. Why do you keep up with that silly and irrelevant little mantra?

 

[Stripe]

Rather, Merriam-Webster's definition of charity is met by welfare in every particular needed to establish it.

Only because you ignore the concept of choice. People do not get to choose whether they pay taxes toward state welfare. It is coerced.

Webster's does nothing to advance this conversation. We both understand the concepts of "charity" and "welfare," but your narrative is advanced if you can say that welfare is charity.

We collectively elect people to stand in our place and speak for us.

It does not matter how many people you can get to agree with you; taxes are coerced from people with the threat of prison. Just try not paying, you'll see what happens.

What you believe is the legitimate function of government is has no impact on what actually is or the point you contend with.

English, dude. English.

Legitimate functions of government include emergency response. Putting emergency response alongside welfare — knowing I accept one and reject the other as a necessary function of government — is just an attempt to muddy the waters.

Clarity is what we seek. There are necessary functions of government. Welfare is not one of them.

What you think of those women, children, the disabled and elderly who comprise almost all of our charity is of no importance and controls nothing on the point.

:AMR:

"I don't like this tiger, he reads minds."

What have I said about them? Quit pretending you can discuss with any certainty my motivations.

It is sand and noise created by you to fashion something you never will, a contrary argument that rebuts the plain truth and fact, presented above.

Words mean particular things. When you alter the meaning to suit your disposition, you work at cross purpose to the point. People who do that are attempting to force the truth into a shape that pleases them. It's a sort of willful delusion that insists everyone share it, but it isn't a truth beyond that expression of distortion and bias.

 

[Stripe]

"Classic Darwinist tactic"? You're not on a creationism thread Stripe. Why do you keep up with that silly and irrelevant little mantra?

Because we know it gets a reaction out of you. :thumb:

 

[ok doser]

That was not my quote.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

that was weird

i fixed it

Because we know it gets a reaction out of you. :thumb:

:banana:

 

[Town Heretic]

Only because you ignore the concept of choice.

I absolutely didn't do that (see: my discussion of representative government and the voluntary nature of both the institution of public charity and its continuance by budgetary process yearly).

People do not get to choose whether they pay taxes toward state welfare. It is coerced.

Rather, we collectively decided that taxes were a necessity (not something many if any disagree with) then decided the more controversial nature of what to do with them.

Webster's does nothing to advance this conversation.

That's untrue. It defines a charitable work and those elements are present in the public charity of welfare, as noted in this post:

Webster's does nothing to either establish your narrative or deny my definition.

Rather, Merriam-Webster's definition of charity is met by welfare in every particular needed to establish it.

We collectively elect people to stand in our place and speak for us. Their actions are voluntary in establishing the institutions of that public giving as is the yearly budgetary allowance for it. The point is to address those in need and establish and thereafter maintain institutions engaged in that relief.

Welfare is, therefore, a willful, intentional giving to those in need from a common purse that meets the definition in authority give below, evidencing goodwill toward humanity, being an expression of generosity and helpfulness, especially toward the needy and suffering, as aid given those in need and provided by an institution engaged in that relief. Or, a public charity.

From Merriam Webster: "1. benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity 2. a: generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also: aid given to those in need b: an institution engaged in relief of the poor c: public provision for the relief of the needy 3 a: a gift for public benevolent purposes b: an institution (as a hospital) founded by such a gift 4: lenient judgment of others.

It does not matter how many people you can get to agree with you; taxes are coerced from people with the threat of prison. Just try not paying, you'll see what happens.

Declared by you a few times and answered, though it doesn't really impact the above for the reasons given prior.

English, dude. English.

There was an extra "is" in there, the danger of having a couple of thoughts about expression and sloppy editing. I'm sure it didn't stop you from understanding the line you didn't then address, but given how you've read a few things here it is again without that addition: What you believe is the legitimate function of government is has no impact on what actually is or the point you contend with.

Legitimate functions of government include emergency response.

We agree with that, have established an agency to address the handling of that sort of thing.

Putting emergency response alongside welfare

In noting that there are simply things done better and more effectively when the resources of government are marshaled and directed, yes.

— knowing I accept one and reject the other as a necessary function of government

Your irrational rejection of a thing found in authority and met on points should not and cannot control my reasonable use, though again, it wasn't offered to support the definition, which was already met, but in illustrating the reason why your notion of the individual is less effective, how larger issues demand a less scattershot approach.

Clarity is what we seek. There are necessary functions of government. Welfare is not one of them.

So you keep declaring. But a) your opinion on that isn't the issue and b) would be wrong in any event at least in our house. What you fellows do where you come from is your business.

"I don't like this tiger, he reads minds."

Except, of course, I did nothing of the sort. To the contrary, I said what you think on the point of how we deal with it doesn't matter. Or, I don't need to know what you think about it as it controls nothing related to the issue, settled reasonably above, your disagreement notwithstanding absent some point of negation in the parts that comprise it. "Nope" and a foot stamp demand that welfare, however defined, isn't a proper concern of government is as pointless as it is off center.

What have I said about them? Quit pretending you can discuss with any certainty my motivations.

Supra.

It is sand and noise created by you to fashion something you never will, a contrary argument that rebuts the plain truth and fact, presented above.

Words mean particular things. When you alter the meaning to suit your disposition, you work at cross purpose to the point. People who do that are attempting to force the truth into a shape that pleases them. It's a sort of willful delusion that insists everyone share it, but it isn't a truth beyond that expression of distortion and bias.

Yes, I certainly wrote that bit. Nicely quoted, except for the, you know, quote function part that would give proper attribution. lain:

 

[ok doser]

Now then, everyone brace for his next wall of text.

:darwinsm:



:idea: maybe we could hire him out for that wall trump keeps talking about building

 

[Town Heretic]

You can think what you like about my ability to believe what I do; you're up against reality of you think opinions should be regulated from outside.

Just for the fun of it, "English, dude. English." :think: No, that's boring. I'll leave the practice to you. Leaving off an article or leaving in a verb isn't really the undoing of readily comprehensible thought, is it...

I have clearly defined what I mean by charity to show why I think welfare does not fit.

I've answered that how you define isn't the issue. The issue is the actual definition and how it is met. Similarly, what you believe about the place of that public charity as an extension of popular will, in government, alters nothing at all.

So you've invented a lengthy and convoluted narrative

Not true at all. See my last post. The argument is made, with authority and connection, in two brief paragraphs.

Your aim is to call welfare charity, because nobody can possibly say "charity" is wrong.

Rather, I recognize that welfare is charity on the state level because it literally meets the definition in authority. It's not about how either of us feel about it.

And for someone who hates a mind reading that wasn't you're awfully keen on providing one that is. lain:

Now then, everyone brace for his next wall of text.

Well, that's one way to avoid the quote function... I understand how a fully engaged answer must seem to someone who conflates "Nope" with rebuttal, but two paragraphs are all I needed on the point, again, as per my last. The rest is addressing your scattershot harrumphing. I cut back on some of that in this post.

 

[Stripe]

I absolutely didn't do that (see: my discussion of representative government and the voluntary nature of both the institution of public charity and its continuance by budgetary process yearly).

Your convoluted means of making taxes a "choice" just make your narrative incomprehensible.

You are required to pay taxes. Just try to see what happens if you don't.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Stripe]

It defines a charitable work and those elements are present in the public charity of welfare.

Declared by you a few times and answered, though it doesn't really impact the above for the reasons given prior.

Welfare is only charity if we buy in to your narrative.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Town Heretic]

Declared by you a few times and answered,

I agree that you wrote something in response, but not something that undid the authority or came between any part of the definition and the meeting of it.

Welfare is only charity if we buy into your narrative.

Only if you mean by my "narrative' an understanding of the actual, literal definition. lain:

 

[Stripe]

There was an extra "is" in there, the danger of having a couple of thoughts about expression and sloppy editing. I'm sure it didn't stop you from understanding the line you didn't then address, but given how you've read a few things here it is again without that addition: What you believe is the legitimate function of government is has no impact on what actually is or the point you contend with.

Your writing style is difficult to read to begin with; minor errors can make it close to impenetrable.

I have to guess what you mean most of the time because you speak in pronouns.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[ok doser]

I have to guess what you mean most of the time because you speak in pronouns.

i wonder if there's a treatment for that :think:

 

[Town Heretic]

Your convoluted means of making taxes a "choice" just make your narrative incompressible.

That's not a word. Did you mean incomprehensible? Again, two paragraphs. I'm not interested in how you feel about them, only if you can object to them rationally. The legislators who fashioned the programs to meet a present and ongoing public need did so voluntarily...wait, why reinvent the wheel.

This is what seems Faulknerian to Stripe:

We collectively elect people to stand in our place and speak for us. Their actions are voluntary in establishing the institutions of that public giving as is the yearly budgetary allowance for it. The point is to address those in need and establish and thereafter maintain institutions engaged in that relief. Welfare is, therefore, a willful, intentional giving to those in need from a common purse that meets the definition in authority give below, evidencing goodwill toward humanity, being an expression of generosity and helpfulness, especially toward the needy and suffering, as aid given those in need and provided by an institution engaged in that relief. Or, a public charity.

From Merriam Webster: "1. benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity 2. a: generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also: aid given to those in need b: an institution engaged in relief of the poor c: public provision for the relief of the needy 3 a: a gift for public benevolent purposes b: an institution (as a hospital) founded by such a gift 4: lenient judgment of others.

Easy-peasy.

You are required to pay taxes. Just try to see what happens if you don't.

I don't eschew taxes. Most people don't, though they argue about how much and where the money should go. And it doesn't control the above.