If I recall correctly, that was an individual mandate. I don’t recall him giving advice that the mandate could simply be transferred to the government.
He left the specific details up to us.
Round and round we go. Where do we stop? Nobody knows…
I agree, as long as our decisions are in the spirit of the message given I can’t see a problem.
He didn’t say we couldn’t utilize government either. Are we a Christian nation or not?
I’m thinking you should write a book all about the teaching of Christ based on what he didn’t say. It would no doubt be a best seller.
And saying that Christ didn’t give a mandate to transfer the care of the poor to government is different how?
You quoted it several times.And saying that Christ didn’t give a mandate to transfer the care of the poor to government is different how?
faces. I seem to recall you chastising me for using them.The difference is that I advocate what He did say. I don’t have to justify my belief in giving my own time, treasure and talents by saying, “well Jesus didn’t say we couldn’t…”And saying that Christ didn’t give a mandate to transfer the care of the poor to government is different how?
We couldn’t is the same as we don’t have to. I say we can, you say we shouldn’t. In actuality, Christ didn’t say either. So you are advocating by what He didn’t say. I believe that utilizing the best avenue to reach a maximum of people is acceptable. You prefer private avenues only.
Nope. Once again, you are misstating my position. If you are going to keep ignoring what I post, why should I bother posting?
How would you expect him to hold up his end of the discussion without using that tactic?
This is decent morality. It is indeed unfair to cut programs for the poor and the middle-class given the glaring income-inequality that has developed in the US in recent years.
the top 25% of earners in the United States pay 84% of all federal income taxes. . When you say they should pay more what do you think the proper level is?
Doesn’t really advance the discussion does it? I agree with you, but I have fallen in to the old “one liner” tactic. I don’t think Jesus would necessarily reject any assistance from government, but I would question whether Jesus would give government carte blanche to tax and spend to impunity and have programs that are contrary to Catholic teaching - which in my opinion (and the opinion of many prominent economists and sociologists) have made worse the very problems they were designed to help.The one liners have an appearance of ‘one up man ship’ instead of an honest discussion. Are they really necessary? How do people feel they add validity, one way or another, to a discussion? Or, is it a simple tactic in an attempt to quiet those you disagree with?
Are you being serious? The reason they pay a high percentage of taxable income is because of income inequality in the first place. If wages were higher for the lower brackets, they could pay a higher percentage of taxable income. The fact that the higher bracket pay a large percentage of income tax would be a problem if they paid a high percentage of their own income. They don’t. Taxes are at a historical low. When the higher brackets can pay such a high percentage of income tax without paying a high percentage of their own income, there cannot be much income for the lower brackets to pay with, can there? This is the situation. So, unless you suggest some way for wages to increase dramatically for the lower brackets, higher taxes seem quite acceptable. The rich can certainly afford it.
Charity is obviously insufficient or there would be no need for these government programs in the first place. These things are obvious. We have to work with the reality in which we find ourselves, and in this reality it is not feasible to hand over responsibility to charities.
:yawn: Prodigal Son was right. There ya go again. One topic off topic as usual regardless of the topic. But if you’re going to bring up Church teaching, you probably would better serve those lurking to actually get it right. According to Catholic Church teaching, not Estesbob or even some others on CAF, who is a Catholic has to do with Baptism and Confirmation. And yes She means that when She says it.That doesn’t make any sense in reference to Bob’s post.:yawn: Prodigal Son was right. There ya go again. One topic off topic as usual regardless of the topic. **But if you’re going to bring up Church teaching, you probalby would better serve those lurking to actually get it right. According to Catholic Church teaching, not Estesbob or even some others on CAF, who is a Catholic has to do with Baptism and Confirmation. Not voting. **
It absolutely makes sense.That doesn’t make any sense in reference to Bob’s post.
He didn’t say anything about who a Catholic is. If anyone is confusing lurkers, it is you.
