Timothy Dukeman #fundie

Timothy Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

Two people see a poor person starving to death. Here are their respective reactions:

Charitable Giver:

“That person is in need. Since I have more than I need, I will buy that person a sandwich so they don’t starve to death.”

Socialist:

“That person is in need. I could help them myself, but instead I’ll simply create a government that forces a rich person to buy that poor person a sandwich. That way I don’t have to help that poor person myself, and I get to feel morally superior to people who don’t force other people to buy sandwiches for poor people.”

All together now: Socialism is not sharing. Sharing is voluntary, socialism is forced.

Jesus advocated sharing, not socialism. Never did Jesus command "feed the poor with other people's money." No, Jesus commanded us to give our own money to help the poor. But we don't like to sacrifice, so we replace the beauty of sacrificial giving with the brute force of socialism.

Jesus deserves and demands that we do better.

41 comments

old comment by dionysus

Socialist:

“That person is in need. I could help them myself, but instead I’ll simply create a government that forces a rich person to buy that poor person a sandwich. That way I don’t have to help that poor person myself, and I get to feel morally superior to people who don’t force other people to buy sandwiches for poor people.”

I had no idea socialists were all tax exempt. Who knew? Seriously though, if anyone is like this straw Socialist it's the Vatican and mega churches. They command their followers to help others and give whatever money they can yet the church leaders sit atop some of the largest stockpiles of wealth in the world.

old comment by birdboy2000

I'm a socialist.

I don't have that much money. I give to the hungry when I can. But even if I was completely selfless and fed every hungry person until I was as hungry as they were, I wouldn't manage to end hunger.

My money was never sufficient to end hunger - both because it isn't that much to begin with, and because it does nothing to remove the systemic societal forces responsible for ensuring many people go hungry.

(Which is to say, a capitalist economy reliant on the coerced labor of the lower classes, and a state far more controlled by capitalists than voters. The safety net therefore has plenty of colossal holes, the human cost of which can be seen begging on the street corners of every major American city.)

Camara was right. "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." Giving to the poor will help the recipient, but it takes public policy changes to make a dent in poverty, and the socialists are the ones fighting for said changes.

old comment by

Haven't you ever heard the phrase "give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime"? The later is what social security, Medicare, food stamps, etc. are. They are safety nets designed to catch people if they fall on hard times.

Social security has enabled people to retire and enjoy life when they reach of age.

Medicare (and would be even better if it was a national health care system instead of the for profit model we have now) is there so that people don't just go to the hospital when they are really sick. Why? Because if that happens, they most likely won't be able to afford the emergency care, declare bankruptcy and drive up costs for the rest of us.

I could go on, but I'm sure you'd just scream "Commie Nazi" and run away back to Ayn Rand'(herself a massive hypocrite in this regard) nightmare world.

old comment by nigelD

@pyro
"He magically materialized it from nothing, genius."
I see that, but what of the source for this supposed miracle? The 5 loaves of Bread and 2 fishes.
"Matthew 14:16 But Jesus said unto them, They need not depart; give ye them to eat.
Matthew 14:17 And they say unto him, We have here but five loaves, and two fishes.
Matthew 14:18 He said, Bring them hither to me.
Matthew 14:19 And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to [his] disciples, and the disciples to the multitude."
Unless the disciples stole that food it's a clear cut case of,
"feed the poor with other people's money."

old comment by Canadiest

It been tragically and overwhelmingly proven the Christians are NOT helping the poor, are NOT feeding the starving masses of the world and are NOT nearly as charitable or giving as they portray themselves.

The little (and noted and appreciated) isn't cutting it and never has, Social Programs, on the other hand, have shown amazing results when implimented.

One of the churchs greatest influences have been the too few that organize and petition the goverments to increase social benefits as opposed to the many other churchs that collect money for the starving children of the Sudan then keep it for themselves (these churchs being some of the rich others are asking to simply pay their fair share back to the system as all us low to middle working class Joes and Jills do year after year).

Working class tax rates= 35% in much of the free world
Once you're pulling in a couple hundred thousand a year in America (and some other countries, like Ireland and Spain)tax rates plummet to 15% or lower (two years ago Romney could only demonstrate 12%, and this was before all his write-offs were caculated in, write-off claw backs which effectively reduce many ultra rich folks contribution to 0%) Under W Bush last tax break to the rich, for a few years there, the ultra-rich were getting more back then they paid.

Another notable thing about these 'feel for the rich' articles is they're always from the states. If they were about the heavy taxes laid on British Entertainers or German Industrialists you'd have at least a case but since Ronald Reagan Americas been a tax-free Utopia for the wealthy.

I myself am not by any means rich and lose about 5 grand a year to taxes (pay out over 9 grand on income in good years) after a broken leg and a foot thats not yet recovered from it I'm looking destined to not being able to do as much as i used to and will therefore make less and pay less and get less back.
Over the years I've worked I would, if not actually loseing money as the Romneys don't, could coast to retirement on all that extra money they keep. Maybe coulda wrote my morgage off by now.

Eat the rich, it's the only damn thing they're good for.

Sorry for the rant folks.