Alcohol & Welfare Programs: Topics on today's show

[steve]

As I thought.

[brody196]

Wow! The plot thickens!

[Homer]

Paidion,

You wrote:

Wow, Homer! You and I agree on something! We both support the needy through World Vision.

I think we agree on many things! Its just that we disagree strongly on a few.

[Homer]

Was there an answer to the dorianleigh question in there somewhere? I seem to have missed it.

Methinks Steve nailed it.

[steve]

jesusrules777,

It is hard to give answers some of your questions, because they seem disconnected from the realities of this dialogue, and, in most cases, I cannot make out what you are talking about. They mostly sound like rhetorical questions (which, by definition, are not seeking answers). However, since you say you would like for me to answer them, I will make a stab at it here:

Why would you place a stumbling block in my path by asking me to violate Scripture? I'm shocked that you aren't familiar with this passage…Why would you try to cause me to violate Scripture and lose my reward, as this is the second time you have asked me to do this? Didn't you say your response to me was Biblical?

Yes, my response was biblical (didn’t you read the verses?). There is no violation of the scripture you quoted in the question I asked. The scripture does not say “don’t tell anyone what you gave,” it says, “do not [give] in order to be seen by men.” There is a world of difference, since the scripture talks about motive, whereas you are confusing it with mere speech. I could tell you (but I won't) what percentage of my income goes to charity, but it would have nothing to do with what my motivations may be for giving. By the way, the scripture does not say anything about the possibility of “losing your reward.”

Don't forget that you also said, "the government is stealing from us." Do you feel those statements were edifying, loving and Biblical?

This is a non-sequitur. How could my statement about the government (which is true) be unedifying or unloving (toward whom?)? As far as it’s being biblical or not, I believe it is, insofar as the Bible does define stealing. It is taking from someone else what is rightly theirs, against their will and without rightful warrant. On this definition (have you another definition?) I think it is obvious that the government steals. I am surprised you would find anything objectionable in the observation.

So are you saying that I have not exhibited the Spirit of my Father? If so, why do you say that?

I am indeed saying that. Why? Because it is the case.

Why is it when I have shared that your words felt unkind, you have not asked for my forgiveness and apologized? Wouldn't that be Biblical?

Biblical? For me to apologize for someone else’s hypersensitivity? Does the Bible suggest such a duty? I have no objection to apologizing to you (or to anyone else), but I would have to be aware of having wronged you (or someone else). My answers to your posts have been a didactic and unemotional as are my answers to anyone else. Very few would take such informational comments as being either "kind" or "unkind"—unless they credit me with kindness for my time spent even seeking to answer people at all. The words I used were not unkind, nor were they uttered with any unkindness in my disposition, so I do not think I bear responsibility for how they “felt” to anyone in particular. Shall I apologize that you felt offended? It seems that you would be the one to apologize for getting offended without provocation.

Steve's position is that the government is stealing from us, women on welfare are getting pregnant on purpose

And this is something you know to be false? It would only require my knowing of one case of the government confiscation what was not rightfully theirs, or of a woman using serial pregnancy to qualify for perpetual welfare to render my statements correct. I did not say that every dime the government takes is stealing (they are owed something, just not everything), nor did I say that all women on welfare continually get pregnant. My statements were correct. Why do you find fault with them?

Can you provide some evidence that the government is not taking from its citizen more than is warranted, and that no women ever get pregnant repeatedly in order to stay on welfare? If you can demonstrate this, I will be more than happy to withdraw my statements.

and he believes that people who are addicted to alcohol deserve to be penalized and he is advising that Believers not give them any provision which would help they to stay alive.

I have never said any such thing. Would you care to document this?

Steve advises that Believers should discern which poor people would deserve provision.

Not so. I don’t believe anyone “deserves” charity. I believe charity is an exercise of mercy, not justice. We all deserve justice—but, if I am poor, for whatever reason, I do not have an innate claim on the possessions of any rich person. He may be unmerciful for not helping me, but he is not unjust. Likewise, if he helps another poor person, instead of helping me, because relieving that person’s needs aligns more with his convictions, that is no injustice. Being poor does not translate into a rightful claim on other people’s property.

Steve feels that it is not wrong to drink alcohol as he says the Bible does not forbid drinking alcohol. He believes that if a person takes that drink and their body happens to become chemically addicted to what he is advising people they can drink, Steve believes they should be penalized and should not be provided for.

Have you no convictions against bearing false witness against a “sibling”? I have never expressed any such sentiments. If a person is physically addicted to drugs or alcohol, I do not think they should be neglected or penalized. I do believe that, if they continue to indulge their habit, without repentance, then supporting them financially is not loving them, but enabling them.

So if a poor person listens to Steve's Broadcast and is told "the Bible says it is ok to drink alcohol," but if after that first drink his body becomes addicted, they deserve to be penalized and he is advising that Believers should not give them food, water, shelter, clothing etc.

Can you give some example of my actually saying anything like this?

“The Scriptures Steve gave, were about "church funds", NOT about a Believer's personal funds.

You apparently believe that the Christian should be directed in their stewardship by principles that are contrary to those followed by the church. Can you provide some reason for making this distinction? Who is the church, if not the Christians?

Are you saying that you are no longer arguing against giving to the poor unconditionally?

I believe that gifts can be given with or without conditions attached—at the discretion of the donor. My grandmother offered to pay my full tuition, if I would go to a certain college. I did not go, and she did not give me the money. Was she wrong to place such conditions on her gift? I gave my daughters a car on the condition that they would keep it insured—otherwise I would take it back. This was a conditional gift. Are you opposed to such conditions?

Are you saying that you were wrong in saying that "women on welfare get pregnant on purpose, people with alcohol addictions deserve to be penalized and not receive provision and the government is stealing from us?"

These three things seem to be the pet peeves to which I previously made reference. Are you saying that no woman gets pregnant in order to stay on welfare? I believe that I know of cases. I never said that every welfare mom does this. If you wish to say that none of them do, please provide some research to demonstrate this universal negative.

You will never find any place where I suggested that we should penalize people who have addictions. I did say that we should discriminate between people’s lifestyles. Addictions and lifestyles are not the same things. There are drug addicts that are not using drugs. There are people using drugs who are not addicts. You are confusing two very different things. Addiction is a weakness; Lifestyle is behavior.

What is your objection to my statement about the government stealing from people? Are you under the impression that this does not happen? Or is it that you agree that this happens, but that it is “unedifying” or “unloving” for me to make reference to it?

How do you know what goes on in the welfare office if you haven't ever received their help? Do you erroneously believe they just hand out money to anyone who says they are in need? If so, you are ignorant to the process.

I have made no reference to what goes on in the welfare office. I am talking about the behaviors of many welfare recipients, not of the workers in the office. One thing that I know without visiting the office is that the government does not instruct its workers to follow biblical principles of stewardship.

Didn't you mention on your Broadcast last week that someone wrote to you and told you not to talk about the government because you didn't know what you were talking about?

Yes, I did. What about it?

The tax dollars are not providing enough for those in poverty and I have been attempting to share how the Bible commands ALL Believers to give to the poor and the needy without judgement.

Can you show me in which verse of scripture you are finding this last part (“without judgement”). The other part of your statement we all agree with. I am interested in the scriptural basis for the part you are adding.

It is not a matter of "leaving it to anyone" as it requires BOTH the government as well as Believers to provide for the poor and needy.

For me to pay for my children’s college education may also "require" that I rob a bank. However, this is not a statement of ethical necessity or propriety. There are legitimate and illegitimate ways to cover expenses. I am against the use of illegitimate means. Thiese would include robbing a person at gunpoint, which is what unjust, confiscatory taxation is.

The amount of monthly money given to poor single parents has remained the same for many years, even though the cost of living has increased. No one has lobbied for an increase in provision for the poor and in the last couple of years, there have been huge financial cuts in these programs. A parent with one child is expected to live on $440.00 per month. How is that possible?... There is also a five year limit for cash assistance so if a single parent gets sick and has used the five years, there is NO help available for her or her children.

You give much evidence of being an insider to the programs. Perhaps you are a welfare worker? Or perhaps a recipient? In either case, it would explain your lack of objectivity about the system.

Can you see that the tax dollars can't even begin to meet all the needs. Do we even realize how many single parents are living in their cars, shelters and tents because there is simply no one who is providing for them? These are not "drunkards," these are parents! …This is happening all over our country because people who believe like Steve are judging the poor and needy.

On what basis do you make this claim? You do not know to what degree I or anyone else may or may not be judging the poor and needy. Why do you jump to uncharitable conclusions about things concerning which you have no knowledge?

Your own statement says that the tax dollars (presumably those applied to welfare) cannot meet the needs. Perhaps there is a reason for this. As a policy, injustice does not generaly work out well over the long term.

Steve, what are you talking about with regard to calling me Madame and assuming I am someone whom you were previously threatened by?

I do not assume that you are anyone that I have ever thought of as any kind of a threat. I am convinced that you are a certain MS. Dorian Leigh. I call you “Madame” because, based upon the spirit you exude, it does not seem appropriate to call you “Sister.”

The Spirit you are recognizing could be the Holy Spirit attempting to convict you?

Not unless He has developed a personality disorder and has begun to behave like His arch enemy has always behaved.

Don't you see the pattern here?

I do indeed! That is how I recognized you, despite your attempted anonymity.

Why would you ban anyone from this forum who disagrees with you?

That’s a good question. Why would I do that? And why would anyone ever accuse me of having done so? I can assure you that, in the ten years of this forum's existence, no one has ever been banned due to any disagreements they had with me (have you not ever read this forum?).

Why would you even threaten to remove a person's voice? Is that loving and Biblical?

I have, at times, given up on my attempts to communicate with a caller on the air, and finally ended the call before the caller would have preferred. However, it was not because the caller disagreed with me. I actually prefer to receive callers who disagree with me. Being loving or biblical really have nothing to do with such cases. Neither love nor the Bible dictates that I must listen to nonsense endlessly. Nothing in the Bible suggests an obligation to listen to a caller ranting without hanging up.

Why do you continually attempt to distract from the subject with regard to what you have said? You claim that I will not answer your questions, yet have you looked back at the posts on this thread, where I have asked you many, many questions which you refuse to answer? Yet, if you ask a question of me, I'm accused of all these behaviors with regard to not answering YOUR questions.

Your questions are nonsensical. It is as if you asked me, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” If you were familiar with this forum or with the radio program, you would know that I have no objection to answering any question which is intelligible to me, and for which I know the answer.

Why do you feel the need to turn this discussion into name calling and accusing me of being against you?

Is not your name Dorian Leigh? How does my saying so become “name-calling” in any objectionable sense. If you wish for me to address you as another name, let me know what it is, if it is not Dorian Leigh.

I have been respectful in my responses to you

Really? Which ones?

Was it in the first one, where you said that my position was “judgmental” and “legalistic”?

Or maybe your second one, where you continued in the same vein and added that I am trying to “play God” by making decisions about who should and who should not be supported by my charity—and suggested that I “feel that we are somehow better and more deserving of provision” than others?

You might be referring to your third post, where you said that I attempt “to discredit a sibling in the Lord by criticizing the format of their communication,” and that I was not “displaying love and humility.”

Was it your fourth response, where you wrote:

“It is interesting that everything you directed toward me is exactly the way I have felt about you for many years. It seems that you understand YOUR issues which you attempt to project on anyone who disagrees with you, but for those of us with wisdom, those tactics don't work.”

AND

“Why do you feel so threatened by anyone who knows more about an area than yourself? Why aren't you able to lovingly disagree and actually learn without threatening to eliminate them from this website?”

(By the way, since this comment was made without my having made any threats of eliminating anyone from the website, this was my first clue that you are someone who had been banned in the past).

Etc., etc., etc.

In addition to such comments, you have consistently misrepresented my actual statements in order to demonize them. I do not require participants here to respect me, but if you think that you responded with respect, I would beg to differ (do you allow people to differ from you?).

[jesusrules777]

Steve,

Now, I understand how you were "triggered" with my posts. It appears as though you are holding a grudge against someone who behaved in ways you didn't like? Resentments will live on in your heart until you forgive and let them go. Is the Lord really telling you to "ban" people from communicating? I'm shocked and saddened you feel so victimized when anyone cross examines you.

I will say that I have not ever been "banned" from any website including this one.

[steve]

My answers to you were not based on anything any former participant had ever posted here. I have responded to your actual posts, and nothing else. There is no residual grudge against anyone from the past that has informed my answers here. In fact, I had not yet recognized you as the same person when I posted the first several responses. If there was such a grudge, since I believe you are someone who was banned previously, I would simply have enforced that ban with you before this.

Anyone who would read your posts here, and the dorianleigh posts here: http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.ph ... orianleigh would be convinced of the common authorship of both sets of posts. It is just difficult to believe that there are two people out there who have the exact same personality—who refuse to respond to questions asked them, who attack me personally without provocation, who continually say, "Where in the Bible does it say...?", whose entire posts accuse others of being self-righteous and unloving, while exhibiting those very characteristics in spades.

If you are not dorianleigh, what is your name? It is only fair for a man to be able to face his accuser. You have leveled many false accusations here against me. You know my name. What is yours? Are you too cowardly to identify yourself?

[steve]

Dorianleigh,

You have clearly lied about your identity, in saying you have not been banned from any website. You refuse to identify yourself honestly, so I have taken the option of removing your last two rambling and crazy posts. You are clearly obsessed with me in a very unhealthy way, and give no evidence of being a Christian.

In your posts that I just deleted, you denied being dorianleigh, and tried to imply that Dorian Leigh was someone with whom I was myself obsessed, who mattered a great deal to me and who had, perhaps, broken my heart! This is very sick stuff. You know very well that I have never met you, nor seen you, other than in the unsolicited picture you sent me last fall. In my first communication with you, I told you I was not interested and was in a relationship. Beyond that, we have never had any communication at all apart from at this forum. The rest, apparently, is in your fantasies, Madame.

You are, I'm afraid, a very sick girl. Do not post here any more, under any pseudonym.

[backwoodsman]

I'm sure everyone is way ahead of me here, but we need to remember to pray for her. I have no idea whether or not she really believes any of what she wrote, but either way, she has some really serious issues that only God can help her out of.

[steve]

I just went to the administrative panel (where the users' email addresses are displayed). As per my suspicions, jesusrules777 has the name "dorian" in her email address, notwithstanding her lying about her identity. She is now banned. She may emerge again under another username, despite my requesting that she not do so. If she does, she will not be hard to recognize. I seldom encounter such a foul spirit in our users here.