I don't think it is either, however, it would seem like welfare is somewhat correlated to the diminishment of the importance of religion. See the germanic countries or the communist block. Maybe the state subconsciously starts to take the place of God as a sort of caretaker and provider? Mmm. Way off topic, but...

I see fundraisers all the time in my city to help the needy. Every church i know of has a way to help the poor in the us, and many also help in other countries through mission trips.

Why is there a need to give them money, why not give them a place to stay instead? Why not give them meals, or cook for them.

There are many options besides the taking of money from one person only to give to a stranger. I don't know about you, but when I see someone in need in real life in need I try to help them. That is all it takes. Sometimes it may be giving them a meal, sometimes letting them use a phone. Giving advice on where to apply or helping them apply for jobs online if they dont have access to a computer or the internet. Think outside the box, money is not the answer to every problem.

And people can also be prepared for short peroids of not having a job. They should save for it. Everyone should save fora rainy day. People can choose to do so.

Both or Neither depending on your mindset.

The "godly" thing to do is to give of yourself to the needed.

The "satanic" thing to do is to keep all for yourself and be greedy.

Government welfare is to take from someone else to give to someone else. 

Why can't/don't some people get help?

Because Earth is ruled by man who is flawed.

Is it God's will to let men suffer?

No more then it's a parent's will to let their kid fail chemistry because they didn't write there paper on it.

couldnt have said it better.

And for government "of the people," welfare becomes part of the Christian mandate, if the state is the expression of the will of the people, it is the will of Christian people that the poor be cared for.

The Communists in power in Russia had specifically targeted churches there, to limit their ability to influencing by forbidding them from doing charity work.  It was a way to undermine the church's power and influence.

Are you concerned people will do this religion vs that?  I had requested people without religious beliefs to not jump in here and flamewar that way.  I do agree there is a risk that people will go this religion vs that, which undermines what could be something better, which is looking for common views and understanding among diverse religious viewpoints.

government and what comes from it are the creation of man, and therefore of man and neither god nor satan. whether god or satan are real and how they'd function in an individual's life are questions for another time, but nevertheless it can be said that government is man made.

Doing hermaneutics (study of the Bible) on this can get real tricky, because what comes into debate is what the application of the Old Testament to how to do things, vs the New Testament, for Christians.  My take is that Christians are to operate with the church being their government, and not looking to outside the church for help, if possible.  They aren't to go to courts to sue one another, and you see ample evidence from the Book of Acts, that they really looked after their own.  It really is pretty devoid in the American form of Christianity actually.  And in Europe, the state and the church had close ties, because the government would act as a agent to do what the church wanted.  Founding Fathers seemed opposed to that when writing the U.S Constitution.  And in Russian Orthodoxy, there was a big debate over whether the church itself had collective funds to do charity, or if it rested in the hands of private individuals.  The debate was on part with what you saw during the Reformation with Catholicism actually.

Now, if one does look to the Old Testament, the government of Israel was pretty much a theocracy, for all practical purposes.  It was an anarchist one with the Judges running about, and no natural king, to the more normal view of a theocracy when Israel got a King.  In this, the government did the role of the church there, and people's tithes and offerings were roughly equivalent to taxes we have now.  The tithes and offerings ran the government of Israel, and was used to pay the priests and other offerings.  If one wants to argue that this model is Biblical for government, then one can argue taxes collective and given in welfare (redistribution of wealth and income) is Biblical.  If one wants to argue more for a separation of church and state, and view it as more New Testament favored, then one could say this isn't so.

I figured I would run this thread here, to see what people of religious belief on here had, and then see people come out, if they were opposed to any form of government run welfare, as to what they saw as the alternative, even flat out arguing that those who are poor deserve to be where they are, because it fit God's will.

1. Very much agree with the first paragraph. I was going to include a citation of 1 Timothy 2:2 as a reference to such a state. As per the New Testament, there is really no argument for church involvement in the affairs of the state. Having said this, I would go further as to argue that when welfare is incorporated into the workings of the government, they have (arguably) usurped the affairs and goals of the church in one aspect of Christianity. It'd be no different if the state were to create or promote its own religion in opposition to Christianity.

2. The thing about the Old Testament and social welfare is that God's commandment in Deuteronomy actually avoids the Theocratic government entirely. This is a very unique aspect of social welfare in the OT. Almost every commandment was given with the authority of the Temple to execute judgements from the laws of the Pentatuch.

Here's the citation in Deuteronomy 26:12-13:

_______________

¹² When you have finished setting aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give it to the Levite, the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied. ¹³ Then say to the Lord your God: “I have removed from my house the sacred portion and have given it to the Levite, the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, according to all you commanded. I have not turned aside from your commands nor have I forgotten any of them.

_______________

You'll notice that no authority was given to the government to execute the order - it was a command directly from God to the Israelites, and for them to act upon it. No funds were given to a central entity to re-distribute, but directly from the halves to the halve-nots. Additionally, if you read the context, it outlines where tithe is to go: two years of tithe to the government/church, and one directly to the needy and the Levites. Therefore, the Biblical model of welfare is a full separation of the government and actual re-distribution.