Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

My3Boys

No Soda Bought With Food Stamps?

Recommended Posts

I'm sure Eliana will have more to say on this than I can. There are a lot of ancient principles followed by Orthodox Jews that are completely ignored by modern society.

 

In the mean time, do you also suggest our society starts following principles such as, "lend money to My people…[and] exact no interest from them," (Exodus 22:24)?

 

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hidden
Ouch! Very ugly.

 

Right. As was the poster to whom I was referring.

Share this post


Link to post

 

With all due respect your choice of spelling Christianity is very offensive. How would you like it if I referred to you as "Orthodox X"? You chose to cut out the most important part of the most important word in "Protestant Christianity". Again, I don't mean to be rude, but I just couldn't let this pass.

 

*sigh*

 

Here is something I posted in another thread on this topic:

The abbreviation is from the Greek... it doesn't change the meaning, or dismiss anything.

 

Here's a Wikipedia article on the term Xmas with some history.

 

a quote:

 

Quote:

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and the OED Supplement have cited usages of "X-" or "Xp-" for "Christ-" as early as 1485. The terms "Xpian" and "Xtian" have also been used for "Christian". The dictionary further cites usage of "Xtianity" for "Christianity" from 1634. According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, most of the evidence for these words comes from "educated Englishmen who knew their Greek"

and another one:

 

Quote:

The word "Christ" and its compounds, including "Christmas", have been abbreviated in English for at least the past 1,000 years, long before the modern "Xmas" was commonly used. "Christ" was often written as "XP" or "Xt"; there are references in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as far back as AD 1021. This X and P arose as the uppercase forms of the Greek letters χ and ρ used in ancient abbreviations for Χριστος (Greek for "Christ"), and are still widely seen in many Eastern Orthodox icons depicting Jesus Christ. The labarum, an amalgamation of the two Greek letters rendered as , is a symbol often used to represent Christ in Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Christian Churches

and one more:

 

Quote:

In ancient Christian art, χ and χρ are abbreviations for Christ's name.[16] In many manuscripts of the New Testament and icons, Χ is an abbreviation for Χριστος

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

With all due respect your choice of spelling Christianity is very offensive. How would you like it if I referred to you as "Orthodox X"? You chose to cut out the most important part of the most important word in "Protestant Christianity". Again, I don't mean to be rude, but I just couldn't let this pass.

 

X is Christian symbol. It comes from the Greeks and is in the original new testament depicting Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think I ever called it insulting. I can only be responsible for my actions. However, you phrased it much differently just now than y ou did before. Before, your statements *sounded* something more like, "wow, these people should not be drinking soda on my dime, they need some nutrition classes!!!" Saying, "maybe it would be a good idea to provide a structure, sort of like the one WIC has?" sounds completely different. Can you see what I mean?

 

See I never said that! I said I was called insulting not that you called me insulting.

 

I said we should reform the system and that education would be in order after such a drastic change. I also said that I don't beleive FS should be spent on soda and that I don't beleive people are "entitled" to soda. I said my tax dollars fund the program. The above is how mis-representation happens, especially in a thread of this size. When you put your own spin on someone else's words in a thread of this size people take your new interpretation of someone else's ideas as that person's idea. Not cool. :thumbdown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

With all due respect your choice of spelling Christianity is very offensive. How would you like it if I referred to you as "Orthodox X"? You chose to cut out the most important part of the most important word in "Protestant Christianity". Again, I don't mean to be rude, but I just couldn't let this pass.

 

No, it isn't offensive. X *means* Christ in Greek. This is an ancient convention, it isn't a modern invention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

*sigh*

 

Here is something I posted in another thread on this topic:

 

I see where you are coming from. I am not offended by your source. Thanks for clarifying.

 

ETA: In today's society, using the "X" HAS been commonplace by secular people to "remove" the element of Christ. That is what I've been told by those doing so. I now understand your intentions. For the rest of you, it really wasn't intended to hijack the thread. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...but having everyone currently on any form of assistance all reapply would cost a *fortune*.

 

...and who would set the criteria by which we tax paying, non-benefit receiving citizens would decide who was worthy and who wasn't?

 

I, too, would rather see "my" tax money going to those who genuinely need it, but I don't see a cost effective way to improve enforcement of existing standards let alone to add more stringent qualification guidelines.

 

 

 

...and, honestly, my first emotional reaction is: do we also get to decide which corporations/industries should get (corporate) welfare, and other forms of handouts of our tax dollars?

 

 

I would rather bite the bullet and have it cost a fortune to be done with the whole system. It will be cheaper in the long run. I personally feel that the government should not be in the business of supplying, or bearing the responsibility to supply food for its people. Control the food and you control the people.

 

As to who would set the criteria? Well, it would not be politicians who could use their ability to help or not help as an election platform. It should be an outside company. Conduct it like the DMV.

 

Now, as to the military families who can't afford food. I say- disgusting. Any president, congressman, senator or elected official that cut the military budget should be drawn and quartered. I cannot imagine anything more inhumane that volunteering to serve your country and then have your family suffer because of it.

 

The military wives that have posted in this thread have my utmost respect and this post is in no way, shape or form directed at them in a disparaging way. They, of course, would not be in my reapply category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it isn't offensive. X *means* Christ in Greek. This is an ancient convention, it isn't a modern invention.

 

umm, as this thread proves, if it offends "me" then it is "offensive". you don't get to tell me what i find offensive. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to see dramatic spending cuts at a different level first. What if we stopped illegal wars and brought soldiers home? What if we stopped bailing out corporations? What if we stopped wasting money on frivolous corporate lawsuits and all the ways that Big Business and Wall Street play Monopoly with America's money? What if we made the fines and taxes for American businesses operating overseas so burdensome that they would return to our shores and get the factories up and running again? What if we changed our entire system of taxation? What if we gave states back the rights delineated in the constitution instead of having five layers of government for every little thing? I read somewhere that doing just that very thing would save enough to almost eliminate the national debt. Federal involvement with all things fiscal in a nation this size is unconstitutional and inefficient.

 

When Washington cleans up its own spending mess our politicians will have some respectability when they (rightfully) ask Americans to sacrificially tighten their belts. Our lawmakers should find ways to reward fiscal responsibility at every level instead of perpetuating the myth that the answer to every problem is more federal cash.

 

After all that, we should change the food stamps and welfare situation. I don't think cdrumm's ideas will work, though. Even if we must acknowledge that the system is broken, even if we must all agree that if things don't change these debates will end by default as the nation goes broke, we have to be sensible about our solutions!

 

If across-the-board cuts are made, people will get hurt. It is not overstating the case to say that babies will die. The reasons why so many Americans are unable to help themselves won't matter if they are all suddenly cut off from food stamps or welfare.

 

There is no force on earth more desperate than the mother of a hungry child who has never had to deny her child food before. She will steal, at the very least, if she has always received free food and the flow dries up suddenly without giving her time to find tools and resources to fill the gap. She will steal in the meantime. And I wouldn't blame her.

 

There is no force on earth more dangerous than a population that has been denied equal education and equal access to quality food. If the flow of benefits from the government that enslaved them dries up suddenly, the anger in our cities will be more than can be contained. And I wouldn't blame them.

 

If the entitlements are suddenly cut, there will be riots. There will be tax revolts. There may be civil war.

 

That's why we have to encourage each other in frugality and personal responsibility! The more we voluntarily wean ourselves off the free fizzy drinks and government comfort, even if it causes serious personal hardship, the more the limited resources can be used for the disabled and otherwise truly helpless. Everyone on aid should take the least they need to get by, not the most they are allowed.

 

If the educated folks with the ability to homeschool can't deny themselves these luxuries, the uneducated and uninspired will never do it. We have to go first.

 

Also, the people working on real solutions consisting of education, urban gardening, reducing entitlement spending in phases, and encouraging religious and civic groups to teach skills and offer aid...these people are right. You can't pull out the props and leave nothing! Something must be put in their place. That 'something' should be a combination of personal responsibility and community partnership.

 

If a better system can't be implemented for whatever reason, at the least the entitlements must be reduced very slowly. People must have some time to adjust. Rationing would be one way to do it. It worked in London during the Blitz. (Of course, the community aspect was absolutely critical. People shared the work, taught each other skills, etc. We are lacking that spirit in America 2011.)

 

However our lawmakers decide to do it, I hope we can make necessary changes before we all have to learn economy the hard way. The financial headlines are terrifying right now! We do not have unlimited time to pull this nation up by the bootstraps.

 

And what shall we do when we run out of money to pay for these things? Oh, wait, we're already borrowing forty cents on the dollar to pay for everything people demand.

 

I think you'll see riots, but for the opposite reason. Most of the 50% that are footing the bill are getting tired of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think sharing everything in common is more like it.

 

Jesus clearly takes giving personally:

 

"For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.

 

Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?'

And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'"

Matthew 25.35-40 ESV

 

Prooftexting works both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
umm, as this thread proves, if it offends "me" then it is "offensive". you don't get to tell me what i find offensive. ;)

 

You didn't say "I find it offensive," you said it IS offensive. Spycar got taken to task for something like that just the other day, ask him.

 

Here is the first post of yours *I* could find in the thread that someone called insulting:

Originally Posted by Cheryl in NM viewpost.gif

But it all goes back to choices made at the beginning of an adult's life. you=universal you in the following questions. Do you start a family before having the means to support that family? Do you insist on a standard of living that you cannot afford? Why not live at home until you can afford to rent or own a house? This is what I'm saying we should teach our children. Fiscal responsibility begins as soon as our children begin wanting "things". Personal responsibility should be taught across the board. Don't have s*x unless you are ready and able to support a family. Don't spend money you don't have or make commitments that you can't, right now, afford to pay for.

The post that called it insulting said that you were assumptions about how people got in a bad situation. I don't see any reform suggestions there. Maybe you can point me toward the posts you meant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hidden
If the government wasn't in the way, and people could give directly to other people, the thank you notes would go directly to the giver.

 

So then you are admitting that you want the thank you note?

 

And what shall we do when we run out of money to pay for these things? Oh, wait, we're already borrowing forty cents on the dollar to pay for everything people demand.

 

I think you'll see riots, but for the opposite reason. Most of the 50% that are footing the bill are getting tired of it.

 

You keep posting these statistics that have proven false over and over and over. At this point I can only believe you are beating the drum so that someone, with less information, will believe you.

Share this post


Link to post
Hidden
Jesus clearly takes giving personally:

 

"For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.

 

Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?'

And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'"

Matthew 25.35-40 ESV

 

Prooftexting works both ways.

 

Um, those verses, unless I'm not reading English, prove her point. :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
And what shall we do when we run out of money to pay for these things? Oh, wait, we're already borrowing forty cents on the dollar to pay for everything people demand.

 

I think you'll see riots, but for the opposite reason. Most of the 50% that are footing the bill are getting tired of it.

 

Perhaps if corperations were held to the same standard of taxation it would be less of an issue.

 

I paid more in taxes than GE did last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hidden
Um, those verses, unless I'm not reading English, prove her point. :confused:

 

They do not prove her point. Those are personal mandates, not mandates for governments. Jesus did not say, 'The state shall take that man's money by force of government power, and give it to that woman, so she can eat.'

Share this post


Link to post
Hidden
I was waiting for this accusation. I posted this experience to show that offense does not need to be taken. Dignity has it's place.

 

Just because he acted offensively doesn't mean I have to take offense. My personal opinion regarding that episode is that he had some guilt over something and took it out on me. It didn't really have anything to do with me; I was just his toilet. I can chose to be upset about it or not let it upset me. Long story short, why in the world would I let something get to me that was said by someone who doesn't know me or my situation in life? Besides that, the man had a good point. My food choices were not healthy; it just wasn't his place to tell me since I was asking him to provide it. If I was asking him to pay for my food how could I possibly take offense at the food he wished to provide for me?

 

 

No, it doesn't mean you have to take offense, but that doesn't mean he was right, and I doubt it was guilt he was acting out of, more like self righteousness.

 

Giving comes with no strings attached, otherwise it isn't a gift. Those taxes I pay to support others who need are my gift, I don't want a tally sheet, I don't want a thank you note. Give the person their dignity or is that a required sacrifice of obtaining help, too?

 

Reform does need to happen, but it cannot happen to those who need help the most.

Share this post


Link to post
They do not prove her point. Those are personal mandates, not mandates for governments. Jesus did not say, 'The state shall take that man's money by force of government power, and give it to that woman, so she can eat.'

 

You say personal, I say societal, yes he used an I, but he was giving an example for ALL. Or the bible was just written for some of us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They do not prove her point. Those are personal mandates, not mandates for governments. Jesus did not say, 'The state shall take that man's money by force of government power, and give it to that woman, so she can eat.'

 

But posters keep claiming it is "their" money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it doesn't mean you have to take offense, but that doesn't mean he was right, and I doubt it was guilt he was acting out of, more like self righteousness.

 

Giving comes with no strings attached, otherwise it isn't a gift. Those taxes I pay to support others who need are my gift, I don't want a tally sheet, I don't want a thank you note. Give the person their dignity or is that a required sacrifice of obtaining help, too?

 

Reform does need to happen, but it cannot happen to those who need help the most.

 

Food stamps are not a gift. They are a government program.

 

Miriam Webster's defines gift as: something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation

 

Federal taxes are not money voluntarily transferred by me to the FS recipient. Federal taxes are money taken from me at the threat of imprisonment and given to another without compensation to me OR to the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You say personal, I say societal, yes he used an I, but he was giving an example for ALL. Or the bible was just written for some of us?

 

The verses you quoted (or more precisely responded to), are clearly written to His followers. Not to a state or government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They do not prove her point. Those are personal mandates, not mandates for governments. Jesus did not say, 'The state shall take that man's money by force of government power, and give it to that woman, so she can eat.'

 

Oh good grief! Governments have responsibilities towards the people. Always have and always will.

 

But posters keep claiming it is "their" money.

 

Thank you!

 

 

BTW, my husband points out that God condemns Israel in the OT for not caring for the poor. It's everyone's responsibility. The government sometimes will create ways for EVERYONE to help in this manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But posters keep claiming it is "their" money.

 

It was theirs, before it was confiscated from them. It can't be a gift if it's confiscated. Christ was talking about voluntary charity as a fruit of the spirit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In NM, besides food stamps, we have WIC. WIC is for pregnant women and is paid until the baby's 1st birthday. There is a list of food that can be purchased with your WIC money and no other food is allowed. It's stuff like milk, certain whole grain cereals, dried beans, cheese.

 

IMO, foods stamps would work better if they were handled this way. Instead of the list of stuff you can't buy, have a list of stuff you can buy. There are strings when you are using someone else's money. If you don't like; don't use it.

 

For those who say they would starve to death without food stamps; almost all churches have food pantries and will give anyone food regardless of denomination or church attendance. If the churches in your area don't, go to the LDS church.

 

Mrs Mungo, here you go. here's my first post in this thread that states my idea that the FS system should mimic the WIC structure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Federal taxes are not money voluntarily transferred by me to the FS recipient. Federal taxes are money taken from me at the threat of imprisonment and given to another without compensation to me OR to the government.

 

You receive compensation from the federal government for your taxes, we all do. This is like me complaining that the federal government takes my money at the threat of imprisonment and builds roads for you or watches the borders in NM for you or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh good grief! Governments have responsibilities towards the people. Always have and always will.

 

 

 

 

I disagree. The responsibility is on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was theirs, before it was confiscated from them. It can't be a gift if it's confiscated. Christ was talking about voluntary charity as a fruit of the spirit.

 

And with that, we have a winner.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hidden
Mrs Mungo, here you go. here's my first post in this thread that states my idea that the FS system should mimic the WIC structure.

 

I saw that post, I didn't see anyone call that one insulting (not saying it didn't happen, just that I can't find it if it did).

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...