Ep. 105: Was Jesus a libertarian?

[Matt]

Humanguy,

I disagree with Joey's theology. I do not think that God allows poverty so that wealthy people can have someone to help.

[Keep The Reason]

He certainly affected the government and ultimately many subsequent governments for millennia... even today. But his 'task' was not to teach us how to run governments, but how to live as God's people.

I think you're making the exact same mistake. What is "government" if it's not people, and how they behave? If someone is living "as god's people" this isn't within a vacuum-- it has actual real-time consequences. When a mullah in Iran is spouting sharia law, he is "living as god's people" and impacting many, many other people. This attempt by Christians to place a bubble of disconnection between their beliefs and political impact is disingenuous. It is one of those "my ideology has / does not have involvement in human affairs" apologetics. On the one hand, you claim JC's philosophy is a superior one and the world would be better for adopting it, and on the other hand, it's somehow not applicable to every day living and social models?

What does it mean "to live as god's people"? Where? In heaven, after you've died? What's the point of Jesus telling you any of these things if not to have practical applicaitons here on earth while alive? This idea that you are supposed to live and operate a certain way -- but that is not somehow a socio-political model -- is literally absurd.

How are you going to help the poor at all if this is some rarefied internal "heart" mode and not an actual external behavior expected of you? You can't! You are merely "Christian In Name Alone" ("CHINA" -- I just submitted this to The Urban Dictionary) if you argue that there is no practical applicaiton to these tenets.

And you guys don't argue this-- you just seem to be saying that these practical behaviors don't have socio-political ramifications.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to help people get over their poverty. I applaud that, and I also can easily see how the poor might feel shame in being poor. But how is this a Christian tenet?

It's not a notion that Jesus says anything about. Jesus talks about lots of chairty towards them, but nothing about remvoing their poverty. He extols rich people to adopt poverty in fact.

In fact he too says there will always be poor people. And look at yjoeyh specifically saying that "we need poor people so we can remember not to be cold hearted"-- as if their suffering has such a noble reason to be there! What nonsense! We don't need suffering to have opportunities to do good, and the ethics of such a belief is totally alien to me. How about no poor and suffeirng and we still do good things for one another?

Have you ever worked with the poor?

I do work with the poor and that is exactly what they think.

Why do you think low-income Americans will often forsake essentials like health care in order to drive a nice car? Why do people often get their utilities shut off or get evicted from their homes while they are wearing designer clothes and sneakers? Because when they buy these things, they forget for a short time the shame of being poor.

Yes, I've worked for them. Yes, some feel shame. Yes, the have-nots want what the haves have.

These are all natural human drives, but it has nothing to do with Jesus NT assertions. Where does Jesus say that you should seek to remove this shame from them? Is it here, in Luke 6:20?

Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.

And again, Jesus asks people to adopt poverty as a way to heaven

21Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

Mark 10:21

The NT does say specific things aobut poverty, the poor, and how we are to treat them. This treatment of them translates into real-time behaviors, and real time behaviors translates into social models -- which is the engine which drives politics and government.

[Keep The Reason]

As soon as we take the conversation to the area of government and society we are talking about force. This is what government is, power. Government has nothing but power. Anything it gives away it has first taken by force. How many people write checks to the US Treasury voluntarily? So, I will not drop the whole "force thing" since the use of power is at the very heart of this discussion. For me the fundamental question is whether or not it is moral to force people to do the right thing.

Government that is not tyrannical only has the "force" granted to it by the people. You live in a country where the government is for, by, and of the PEOPLE. We all live in this society with an implicit agreement to adhere to certain rules and regulations. This I am not FORCED to do. I would not drive maniacally at 120 MPH not because I might get a ticket, but because I don't want to die in a fiery crash.

Again here you are mistaken in your synopsis of my position. I am totally willing to help people around me, because I choose to. I choose to practice the teachings of Jesus. I would rather not help people because someone else MAKES me help them. Also, you are conflating the ideas of fools and "least of these" and most likely the ideas of "love" and "enabling." I do not think it is good to protect people from every consequence of their behavior. Do you? Jesus certainly did not.

You are conflating this into "force" because you don't get what government actually is. If you were a chimpanzee in a pod of chimps, you'd adhere to rules as well-- all gregarious social animals do this. They do it because it's a natural instinct to compete and cooperate. They aren't being "forced". Humans happen to have codified this tendency, and made it complex, but governance is not "force" unless you live in a totalitarian social construct (which you don't).

And the irony here is that your GOD is the one telling you to be charitable-- and indeed ties it directly to eternal rewards -- and that you don't consider force! Even if it's implicit force (via an unspoken threat), it'd still a stick instead of a carrot. But that you don't see as force.

Again you are misrepresenting biblical teaching and misapplying the idea of individualism and how it relates to charity. Jesus' teachings about cloaks and miles and cheeks were about how you should CHOOSE to respond to those who take advantage of you. This is not a teaching of how we should FORCE others to respond when people take advantage of them. Are you purposely being obtuse, or can you really not see the distinction? If someone takes advantage of me and I choose to respond with generosity I am practicing the virtues of grace, charity, and forgiveness. If someone takes advantage of me and someone else forces me to respond by giving even more to the one who takes advantage of me I am not practicing any virtue at all. I am being treated as a slave.

Again -- the only person obsessed with force here is you. I am not arguing that the government should hold a gun to my head and say, "Give to charity!" I'm saying that the balance of cooperation and competition is what keeps a social structure functioning. Yeah, I'm going to have to pay taxes for all sorts of things I agree with and disagree with -- because my needs and your needs might be different. But I don't see my extra taxes paid for your church's tax free status to be a cost I'm totally unwilling to pay if it guarantees a freedom for people to pursue their beliefs.

You are certainly profiting over my higher taxes so your church can be tax free. Am I willing to pay it for religious freedom? Well, I'm not completely comfortable with it but I understand it. And the reason I'm not totally comfortable with it is because you religious exemption people were supposed to supply a shit load of Charity to the poor that most of you have defaulted on. That's why you got the exemptions-- to supply charity to the down and out, and to build hospitals and asylums and maintain them. Instead, most of you just pocket the cash and state things like, "I don't want to be FORCED to support the morons!"

Oh really? Then give up your tax-exemptions.

Your "mandate" as a Christian is to do Christian things. Well, tell us Scott-- what is "a Christian thing"? If all people would do the "Christian thing" -- we wouldn't need government at all, would we? So there's no muddling of "mandates" here by me. Jesus is outlining a Utopian vision and he is specifically saying "If you want such, here's how to do it". Not "you HAVE" to do it-- but how it could be so if only you'd do it.

I am not sure I understand you here. Please restate?

Everything Jesus says in the NT about social structures (i.e., how we should treat one another) would, if followed by all people, result in a pretty decent world. As Emery points out, it's the sine qua non of Communism-- if everyone gives to everyone else all they have, then everyone winds up with an equal amount. your mandate, if you are a Christian -- is to do Christian things. Well, here's your Christ telling you what to do -- as an individual, and individuals make up governments. If you would DO what your Christ tells you to do -- rather than declaring how you DON'T want to do it for "morons" -- then Utopia would ensure. So why don't you just do it?

False. Or should I ask, is it necessarily loving my neighbor to be forced to give them money? Or health care? Let me ask you this, should all members of society be forced to pay so that others do not ever have to pay the consequences of their bad decisions? I don't think so, and I don't think it's loving for us to do so. In my opinion, Christian love is defined as a self-sacrificial concerned for the well being of others. In some cases, this concern should motivate me to give a homeless person shelter. In other cases this concern should motivate me to let them stay homeless. In either case it is a virtue if I choose to do it, it is not if it is forced on me.

Again with "force". You're being told by your god specifically what you need to do to create a heaven on Earth. No one is forcing you to do it. But just like you reap benefits from the government collecting taxes from me, then the less fortunate should reap benefits as well. You're getting all hot and bothered over me arguing that your Christ delineates a formula for a pretty good world-- and you're fighting it! Which is not surprising because your libertarianism is directly at odds with your Christianity. Because they contradict one another.

Yes, I believe he would. Like I said in the podcast, Jesus was concerned about the hearts of people as well as their actions. He would want us to do the right thing for the right reason. He would want us to become the kinds of people who choose to love our neighbors. Nowhere does he advocate a no-holds-barred charity towards all people regardless of what they've done. To the contrary, he often spoke of steep consequences. Furthermore, Paul applied restraining guidelines to the charity of the church because he wisely saw that some charity enables sinful behavior.

Luke 10:29-37

But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor? And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbor unto him that fell among the thieves?

And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

What is this parable supposed to be about? Other than the superficial moral stating that your neighbors are the most unlikely people you'd think should be-- Jesus specifically says, "Go and do thou likewise". He doesn't say, "This is sort of what I'd like you to CHOOSE to do" -- no, he says it directly, without qualification: "Do this!"

Again, I think it comes down to force. For those who are followers of Jesus, yes we have a mandate from God to behave a certain way. But I certainly do not want to legislate all of this behavior. I do not want to impose a Christian version of Sharia on the rest of society.

Again, you're shoving this off the lap of your Christian responsibility and making it "the government forcing people." I'm talking about your choice as well, but clearly if we are living in the same social model, your choices are going to create consequence for me -- we all affect one another. That interaction rolls up to "governance". My issue with you in all of this is the statement that you don't want to "pay for the actions of morons" whereas Jesus makes no such disclaimer. He simply says "help the poor". One way we help the poor is through charity and safety nets to help them get on their own two feet. Those programs cost money, and that money is collected in taxes. One day, and I hope this never happens-- you or your loved ones might be in need of those programs as well. If you don't support them now, they will not be there for you if you need them.

There is no "forcing" in this-- it's the people agreeing to pitch in together to establish and maintain such systems-- which is what our "government" is. Including health care, which costs what it costs thanks to greed -- and the lack of what you might call "Christian charity."

Not really, because in most cases the government has power that you and I do not have.

Because we the people grant it thus. And I'm not suggesting it hasn't gotten away from us; it has in many ways. Primarily because people are uneducated and do not realize the government is here to serve our liberties, it does not grant us our liberties. And I submit that you have forgotten this as well. You see government as some Juggernaut entity that demands being fed; meanwhile, your entire life you have benefited from it in a myriad of ways.

see-sue-run.png (79.06 KiB) Viewed 134 times

I simply do not accept that I must be willing to legislate my convictions on the rest of society in order for me to honestly hold those convictions.

Red herring. I'm not suggesting that.

[Matt]

The NT does say specific things aobut poverty, the poor, and how we are to treat them. This treatment of them translates into real-time behaviors, and real time behaviors translates into social models -- which is the engine which drives politics and government.

I am not sure you understand my argument. For one thing, I am not arguing along the same lines as Scott.

Scott and I both recognize that Jesus called his followers to help the poor. That is not in dispute. Scott objects to people being compelled to help the poor. I don't have a problem with the government compelling people to do things.

My objection is that there are plenty of ways to help the poor, and government is not the best way. Emery notes in the podcast that the government can't discriminate in its helping the poor. It is for this very reason that it fails. The government does not treat the poor as capable human beings who possess the power to succeed, but rather as problems. In giving the poor unconditional handouts, it shames them.

I think Christians have a duty to help the poor. You argue that it is this individual duty that drive's society's duty, but I would counter that government is not the only social model. There are also families, churches, NGOs, neighborhoods, mosques, clubs, etc. The libertarian Christian argues that the duty to help the poor occurs at these levels, and not at the government level.

[yjoeyh]

I've never heard anyone say that they view poverty as being any kind of an opportunity.

Really? You've never had anyone solicit donations to help someone else in need? Where's the United Way or the Red Cross down your way? Take a look at this: http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/give/gik-opps

I'm sure that the poor and suffering in this country are extremely grateful to you for acknowledging their significant contribution to society.

There's no reason why they should be grateful for that.That doesn't make it untrue though.

[Keep The Reason]

The NT does say specific things aobut poverty, the poor, and how we are to treat them. This treatment of them translates into real-time behaviors, and real time behaviors translates into social models -- which is the engine which drives politics and government.

I am not sure you understand my argument. For one thing, I am not arguing along the same lines as Scott.

Scott and I both recognize that Jesus called his followers to help the poor. That is not in dispute. Scott objects to people being compelled to help the poor. I don't have a problem with the government compelling people to do things.

My objection is that there are plenty of ways to help the poor, and government is not the best way. Emery notes in the podcast that the government can't discriminate in its helping the poor. It is for this very reason that it fails. The government does not treat the poor as capable human beings who possess the power to succeed, but rather as problems. In giving the poor unconditional handouts, it shames them.

I think Christians have a duty to help the poor. You argue that it is this individual duty that drive's society's duty, but I would counter that government is not the only social model. There are also families, churches, NGOs, neighborhoods, mosques, clubs, etc. The libertarian Christian argues that the duty to help the poor occurs at these levels, and not at the government level.

I don't disgree with you at all, but why the litany of methods sans government?? Distribution and organization at governmental levels can be pretty damned effective, like when we use our military and our National Guard to help communities in crisis. The government is still people.

And I disagree that a government is somehow handcuffed into treating poeple only as problems and not as people. There are good solid programs out there that help people get on their own two feet and they are driven by our taxes.

It's a bogus argument is all. And it's not "force".

[yjoeyh]

This attempt by Christians to place a bubble of disconnection between their beliefs and political impact is disingenuous.

If you notice, that's exactly what I said. Of course we can't divorce our beliefs from our political influence, even when charged specifically with determining public policy.

On the one hand, you claim JC's philosophy is a superior one and the world would be better for adopting it, and on the other hand, it's somehow not applicable to every day living and social models?

No I don't. I think Jesus' philosophy is better for me… not for you. I would feel a lot better if you just ignored what he said and didn't try to apply it to your life. But there's no reason I can see that a lesson on "how to be a better Christian," is directly applicable to "how to run a better government."

What does it mean "to live as god's people"? Where? In heaven, after you've died? What's the point of Jesus telling you any of these things if not to have practical applications here on earth while alive?

You're right. It's about how we live here on Earth that matters. The false assumption would be that it applies to all people, all the time, and it simply does not.

This idea that you are supposed to live and operate a certain way -- but that is not somehow a socio-political model -- is literally absurd.

I don't know why you think that. Even looking at the US government, it's easy to see that what is good for one state is not necessarily good for all.

It's not a notion that Jesus says anything about. Jesus talks about lots of chairty towards them, but nothing about remvoing their poverty. He extols rich people to adopt poverty in fact.

Yes, exactly right.

How about no poor and suffering and we still do good things for one another?

I'm all for it. It would be great to live in such a reality. But I wouldn't be a better person for it. I would not know the true meaning of love, sacrifice or thanksgiving.

[ScottBarger]

Government that is not tyrannical only has the "force" granted to it by the people. You live in a country where the government is for, by, and of the PEOPLE.

No, this is not really true. I live in a society that is for, by, and of the powerful. Whether it is power granted to the majority and then forced on the minority, or power taken by the wealthy over the poor.

We all live in this society with an implicit agreement to adhere to certain rules and regulations. This I am not FORCED to do. I would not drive maniacally at 120 MPH not because I might get a ticket, but because I don't want to die in a fiery crash.

This is certainly true of things like social norms and values, but the role of government goes way beyond social norms and innocent slap-on-the-wrist suggestions like speed limits, doesn't it? What happens to you if you don't pay taxes? It doesn't matter what you think about the way government uses the money it takes from you, you have no choice. You WILL be forced to pay.

You are conflating this into "force" because you don't get what government actually is. If you were a chimpanzee in a pod of chimps, you'd adhere to rules as well-- all gregarious social animals do this. They do it because it's a natural instinct to compete and cooperate. They aren't being "forced". Humans happen to have codified this tendency, and made it complex, but governance is not "force" unless you live in a totalitarian social construct (which you don't).

Again, if you want to know what kind of force the government can and does use, just talk to someone who has lost their home because they can't afford property tax. Or someone is forced under threat of an audit to pay double taxes to the IRS, or someone who is suspected of terrorism. It is naive to assert that government is simply a codified extension of a familial camaraderie shared by our society.

And the irony here is that your GOD is the one telling you to be charitable-- and indeed ties it directly to eternal rewards -- and that you don't consider force! Even if it's implicit force (via an unspoken threat), it'd still a stick instead of a carrot. But that you don't see as force.

Where did I say this? I do not tell you what YOU think, please do not tell me what I think.

You are certainly profiting over my higher taxes so your church can be tax free. Am I willing to pay it for religious freedom? Well, I'm not completely comfortable with it but I understand it. And the reason I'm not totally comfortable with it is because you religious exemption people were supposed to supply a shit load of Charity to the poor that most of you have defaulted on. That's why you got the exemptions-- to supply charity to the down and out, and to build hospitals and asylums and maintain them. Instead, most of you just pocket the cash and state things like, "I don't want to be FORCED to support the morons!"

Oh really? Then give up your tax-exemptions.

This is an overly simplistic view of tax exemption. As a society we have decided not to tax NPOs and not to delineate between sectarian/religious and non-sectarian/religious NPOs. This pertains only to corporate income tax though. We still pay sales tax, and social security, etc.

I am absolutely willing to pay property taxes, and think all NPOs should.

Everything Jesus says in the NT about social structures (i.e., how we should treat one another) would, if followed by all people, result in a pretty decent world. As Emery points out, it's the sine qua non of Communism-- if everyone gives to everyone else all they have, then everyone winds up with an equal amount. your mandate, if you are a Christian -- is to do Christian things. Well, here's your Christ telling you what to do -- as an individual, and individuals make up governments. If you would DO what your Christ tells you to do -- rather than declaring how you DON'T want to do it for "morons" -- then Utopia would ensure. So why don't you just do it?

I do. Again I am actually shocked that you do not see the distinction between the good I choose to do and good I am forced to do.

Again with "force". You're being told by your god specifically what you need to do to create a heaven on Earth. No one is forcing you to do it.

What happens to me if I decide not to pay my taxes?

But just like you reap benefits from the government collecting taxes from me, then the less fortunate should reap benefits as well. You're getting all hot and bothered over me arguing that your Christ delineates a formula for a pretty good world-- and you're fighting it!

Again, I am not telling you how you think please don’t tell me how I think. Since you cannot or will not see the distinction between charity I choose to do and charity I am forced to do, I will stop discussing it after this post (we both have better things to do, I’m sure).

Which is not surprising because your libertarianism is directly at odds with your Christianity. Because they contradict one another.

False. I have demonstrated this is not true.

He doesn't say, "This is sort of what I'd like you to CHOOSE to do" -- no, he says it directly, without qualification: "Do this!"

First, he is telling is followers what to do, not what his followers should force others to do. That is why I love my neighbor, because it is what followers of Jesus MUST do. I want other people to choose to follow Jesus as well, but I will NOT force them to. A distinction that I know you do not appreciate, but for me makes all the difference in the world. Second, just because he makes no qualification in this story doesn’t mean there IS no qualification. After all, he did allow for some uses for financial resources that were more important than helping the poor.

And I submit that you have forgotten this as well. You see government as some Juggernaut entity that demands being fed; meanwhile, your entire life you have benefited from it in a myriad of ways.

You secretly think I am right and are very afraid of the consequences of this new revelation. You desperately want to become more Christian and libertarian, but do not know how to get there without the humility required to truly repent. You hate being stuck in this conundrum and desperately want to be more like me.

It’s nice to have other people tell you what you think, isn’t it?

OK, just giving you a hard time, but seriously, you do not know my thoughts. I think we must have a government, and that our current iteration is broken but necessary. If we are to improve I think we need to move towards libertarian ideals. What we have now is not sustainable and I do not think it is the best path.

[humanguy]

I've never heard anyone say that they view poverty as being any kind of an opportunity.

Really? You've never had anyone solicit donations to help someone else in need? Where's the United Way or the Red Cross down your way? Take a look at this: http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/give/gik-opps

YES! Really! I've never heard anyone say that they view poverty as being any kind of an opportunity, not until you said it. "We need the poor to give us the opportunity to become better people," isn't that pretty much it? No, I've never heard anyone say that other than you.

I'm sure that the poor and suffering in this country are extremely grateful to you for acknowledging their significant contribution to society.

There's no reason why they should be grateful for that.

On that we agree.

That doesn't make it untrue though.

Doesn't make what untrue?

[yjoeyh]

YES! Really! I've never heard anyone say that they view poverty as being any kind of an opportunity, not until you said it. "We need the poor to give us the opportunity to become better people," isn't that pretty much it? No, I've never heard anyone say that other than you.

I just gave you three examples of major organizations who say that.

Doesn't make what untrue?

The fact that the best qualities to be found in humanity is when people respond to people in dire need. That's not some intrinsic quality. It has to be learned by people getting their heads out of the clouds and seeing what the world is really like and becoming committed to making a difference.

[mitchellmckain]

Was Jesus a libertarian?

No. He was a 1st century Jew in Palestine, who was not a zealot, or a Saducee but raised in the Pharisaical tradition although He had many criticisms of the Pharisees. The closest he ever came to taking a position on a political issue was to say that we should pay our taxes and by defying efforts of some Jews to make him their king.

Political views: you know you got 'em.

Sure do. But they are political views not religious views. This is about deciding what is best in a society that is free to believe as they choose with regards to objectively undecidable issues and thus ones personal religous views are not the proper basis for doing that.

Who's views are closest to Jesus in this podcast?

You have got to be kidding! Pocket Jesus anyone? I would not use Jesus as my own little tool of power and manipulation and I would be offended by anyone who did so.

Would Jesus have been for food stamps and Obamacare, or would he have left it to the private and corporate sectors to care for the poor?

I think He would have done exactly what He did do which was to exit the stage and leave us to decide what we want to do with our public money just as He leaves us to decide what to do with our personal money.

[humanguy]

YES! Really! I've never heard anyone say that they view poverty as being any kind of an opportunity, not until you said it. "We need the poor to give us the opportunity to become better people," isn't that pretty much it? No, I've never heard anyone say that other than you.

I just gave you three examples of major organizations who say that.

Look, are you understanding what this is about, what we're talking about here? It seems that whatever you say you come back later and try to make those words mean something else, either that or you just can't express in writing what it is you want to say.

Can you understand the difference between helping the poor and needing the poor? That's what we're talking about here, based on what you said, that we need the poor to give us the opportunity to become better people. Do you believe that or not?

[Emery]

That aside, Christian Libertarianism? This is entirely contradictory. Christians should feel in their heart to help the poor, to solve healthcare problems? You guys have the money, your churches get out of paying taxes, you have your megachurches - if you really wanted to help anyone, you guys would.

It is not contradictory. Yes we ought to help the poor, but should we take from some individuals to help other individuals? Should we force people to help each other? Are people with resources less entitled to property than those without? Let's say you have a house, and Emery is homeless. Assuming I have sufficient power, is it right for me to FORCE you to share your house with Emery?

And taxes are stealing? What crap that is.

It depends on what your definition of theft is, doesn't it?

The question of force is an interesting one. Even if we don't require people to pay directly for the poor through taxes, we all are "forced" to pay indirectly. If the poor have no health insurance, they wind up in much more expensive care later on which they cannot pay for. If we do not have programs to help people deal with poverty, we end up with ghettos that we all have to live next to, properties with declining values, streets that are less safe, and all the social ills that go with hopeless poverty.

The problem is that we are forced to live on planet earth, and we are forced to live in society with each other. Therefore it becomes a question of "pay now or pay later." Life will force us to pay--it is only a matter of how we choose to do it. We can choose to do it up front on our own terms, or wait for a disaster and address the problem then.

[yjoeyh]

Look, are you understanding what this is about, what we're talking about here? It seems that whatever you say you come back later and try to make those words mean something else, either that or you just can't express in writing what it is you want to say.

What you said was,"I've never heard anyone say that they view poverty as being an opportunity," a declaration that sounds pretty unrealistic to me. Yes, it seems like you are trying to change the meaning of what I said originally, so I am very much so making those words (that you are using to represent what I said) mean something else (what I actually said.)

Can you understand the difference between helping the poor and needing the poor?

Of course, but my point is the symbiosis between the two. We can't help people who don't need it.

That's what we're talking about here, based on what you said, that we need the poor to give us the opportunity to become better people. Do you believe that or not?

Yes. Do you disagree? If so, then how else can we possibly become as good as those people who choose to sacrifice their time, money, relationships, and lifelong dreams, to help people in desperate situations?

[JustJim]

That's what we're talking about here, based on what you said, that we need the poor to give us the opportunity to become better people. Do you believe that or not?

Yes. Do you disagree? If so, then how else can we possibly become as good as those people who choose to sacrifice their time, money, relationships, and lifelong dreams, to help people in desperate situations?

Well, then - in the interest of providing opportunities for people who sacrifice their time, money, relationships, and lifelong dreams to help people in desperate situations - we as a society should do everything within our power to make sure the poor never escape poverty! How could we live with ourselves if we denied them those opportunities? How TRAGIC for them!

I don't think you get it, Joey....

Jim