I think that other economic systems did and do meet the needs of the societies they serve, it is just the prejudice of those who will accept only capitalism that blinds people to the fact.
Doyle--you say that I must be in favor of abortion because I'm a 'liberal'. You have lots to say about the 'Democrat stand' on abortion, same-sex marriage and gay adoption. Can you back up all of your statements? Here's a link to the 2000 Democrat party platform to help you out: Democrat Party Platform 2000 (http://www.democrats.org/about/2000platform.html#progress)
Your statements are not only simplistic but untrue. You may truly believe them, but that's not good enough. We are responsible for making sure that what we say is true. And, in my opinion, we also have a responsibility to use the intelligence God gave us to think about our opinions, not just make up easy categorizations to make ourselves feel righteous.
As to your inability to understand how a Christian can vote Democrat, luckily, you don't have to. NOWHERE in scripture does the Almighty indicate that he needs your help or mine in deciding who is Christian and who is not.
Please show me anywhere in scripture where God's endorsed any political party. You can't, because it's not there. So quit trying to bind me with your man-made laws!
Sorry for the rant, but I am sick to DEATH of this narrow-minded, unscriptural mindset that some cofc'ers and others have that they somehow know God's will better than the rest of us.
Skip, you point out that Christ blasted the Pharisees, though Nicodemus & Joseph of Arimathea belonged to that group as well. But your example proves my point. Did Jesus tell Nicodemus that because he was a Pharisee, he must, therefore, be like all the others? Or did he consider Nicodemus as he was, without using exagerations and lies?
Janine, re stereotyping-Yes, you do have a point that the broad strokes provide a shorthand way to understand trends. BUT they also prevent us from knowing each other. Isn't that a problem?
And when we do use stereotypes, how 'bout we at least make sure they're TRUE?
Could someone please tell me how the blanket condemnation of each other over our political beliefs serves to advance the cause of Christ?
kmv and Lucybelle,
Thank you!
Are you saying that in peace time, Republicans are the pro-life party, but not in war time? Furthermore, have you ignored what happened 2 years ago when Bill Clinton gained Senate approval to "take out" Sadam?
Please answer me this. If the ONLY issue you can take against the Republican party is that it tends to support attacking our enemies, does this mean that all the other issues that DEMOCRATS push such as the homosexual agenda, abortion, taking God out of public life, etc. equal that "evil" of the war issue?
And what if Democrats and Republicans saw eye to eye on taking Sadam out of power? With that issue taken away, the Republican party would be your choice. Is that right?
By the way, if we battle Iraq, we will fight an army. An army of terrorists. This will be done to free the opressed who are opressed by Sadam. Sometimes war is necessary.
Lee
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (susieface @ Oct. 03 2002,8:38)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]For those of you who want to banish taxes, I would like to ask this; how many of you give away every single penny or a large part of that nice tax refund check each spring? Or is it more likely that God is lucky with 10%? How many use it to pay off bills? Take a big vacation? Buy a car, house, furniture, clothes or whatever?
Susie[/quote]
What world are you living in? Some of us PAY taxes quarterly and never see a refund.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Do you consider a political liberal to be a fellow Christian?[/quote]
..and again I spring out of the shadows...
Let me put it this way - I think that political affiliation is irrelevant to Christianity with only one caveat - Christianity always comes first.
Under the Old Testament during the time of the patriarchs, judges, and kings, political parties simply did not exist.
In the New, we see that Jesus accepted as disciples members of several movements that were analogous to political parties. For example, Simon the Zealot, and the apostle Paul, who long after his conversion still called himself a Pharisee (Acts 23:6).
That said, one must be careful of associating oneself with groups; for instance, the KKK on the extreme right, and ELF on the extreme left are examples of groups that carry a very negative connotation with the public in general (for good reason), for they oppose the government with violent means.
It is obvious that several who post here have strong negative opinions of the major parties, particularly the Democratic Party.
The last time the Senate race rolled around, I had a "choice
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ Oct. 09 2002,10:55)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Unfortunately they also learn not to tolerate others who have, through Christ come to different ideas and solutions for the fallen world than those authorised by the group.
That is where we become centered on the axis of the world and our reach is extended to all. Words like Democrat, Republican, Cabbalist ... all disentigrate in the excruciating light that makes concepts like tolerance unnecessary.[/quote]
Am I to understand that faith in Jesus Christ leads one to learn the ways of Qabbalah? We are not to place our faith in Jesus only to gain further knowledge through the application of astrology and numerology. I can accept that Christians will have various political ideas. But participating in the occult in order to find solution for the fallen world? I don't think so.[/quote]
It appears that a few here feel they have studied Kabballah, but they seem to believe Kaballah is witchcraft and sorcery. I have two questions. I wonder if these are aware that there are witches who call themselves Christian and study the Bible? Knowing this, do you consider yourself a accomplice in the dark arts? Maybe you've been reading the comic book version (Chic Publications perhaps?) of Kabballah? If so, I am happy to direct you to some reputable and historic writings about Jewish mysticism and the mystical writers ... but it might be kind of boring for you. They sound quite a bit like Albert Lemmons and Richard Foster with a little bit of George MacDonald thrown in for color ... pretty boring stuff for witch-hunters ... but I am happy to share at your request.
For what it's worth, this is my 2 cents. Too many Americans (and christians) believe it is ok to vote for a man or woman who say it is alright to kill babies, promote homosexuality, wipe out prayer in public, pass out condoms at school, have a heart attack worrying about "the earth" (God made this world and he's the only one who is going to destroy it), believe it doesn't matter what someone does in their private life as long as they do their job(or not and give them free money) as long as WE have a job or the "underdog" is taken care of.
I get so tired of it. I flat out do not understand how a christian can go along with all of this, all for sake of a job.
Susie
I find it amazing that the same people who write things like this rant and rave if anyone dares even question the purity of the Republican party. I grew tired of the ridiculous "you can't vote for a Democrat and go to heaven" political posturing disguising itself as Piety decades ago. Clean up your own house! Show some concern for the post-born, then maybe some of us will believe that the Republican party is really as "pro-life" as it claims, and is not just using this issue to dupe people into believing the party is something other than a vehicle for the rich to obtain power and make sure they remain rich.
Terry,
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]When I hear that a Christian is totally supportive of the democaratic party I question if they understand that we are in a moral/cultural war or if these issues are minor to them and they just don't care.[/quote]
The problem with being a single issue voter is that there's more than a single moral issue at play in our society right now. While some of us see abortion as the most important concern, others might be concerned about the abuse of children already born, or sexual violence against women, or racism, or corporate looting. Or the killing of innocents in war. ALL of these are moral issues, and no party has a lock on the 'right' stance.
It's good that we all have differing areas of focus. Perhaps, if each of us pray for, vote for, work for the areas that the Spirit is leading us to focus on, our nation can win this cultural war.
JerryBrooke's right, we have to THINK about our vote. We can choose to keep informed or we can all just keep clinging to our sterotypes and misinformation. ;)
Kari.
I am so sick of hearing, "one party wants to protect the lives of babies (Republicans) but Democrats want to save innocent lives in Iraq."
What a bunch of crap.
It wasn't 3 years ago that Bill Clinton (der slick mister) asked the senate for the same thing that George Bush is asking them for know--to take Sadam out of power because he WAS and IS a threat not only to the U.S., but to his own people. They practically approved the request over night!
Do you think Sadam is LESS of a threat now? If you do, where have you been? Sadam has people radomly killed. About 4 years ago, he picked someone off the street for his sons to learn how to "shoot on." Prime Minister Tony Blair, hardly a conservative, told parliment that, indeed, Sadam is not only a threat, but directly involved with Al Queda.
How soon people have forgotten Sept 11. Good grief. Yes, war is a terrible thing, but sometimes necessary. Taking that modern-day Hitler out of power is VERY important and will probably save many, many lives.
One day, those who just decided that they would "over look" the abortion issue, the pro-homosexual agenda issue, the "take the Christian God out of public schools but put any and all other religions in and force everyone to read their material" and vote for those spineless, immoral, anti-Christian men and women who call themselves Democrats will answer to God for it. I am not so sure He won't say to them, "I never knew you."
After all, would you define someone who voted for all those things a Christian? A Christian shows his or her faith by their actions-James 2.
Danny
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]. My main point was that there is no official platform for the Democrats or Republicans stating that we will be prowar and we will invade foreign countries...even though both parties supported the invasion into Afghanistan 100%. Just remember, the democratic president prior to Bush launched plenty of missles as well.
[/quote]
Arghhhh! THAT'S MY POINT!!! Every platform has good and bad points! Every party has good and bad points! Every political ideology has good and bad points! Every politician has good and bad points! Every human institution has good and bad points!
***Every human entity is imperfect.***
So, everyone who thinks a Christian has to be right-wing, unless you've got a copy of the Almighty's voter registration card, quit telling me how a Christian has to vote. It is God's call, not yours, and He may be getting tired of you using His name for your political agenda.
By the way, no one has ever answered the question as to how many souls are turned away from Christianity because of this political garbage.
Skip-I'm not sure in my own mind about whether war w/Iraq will eventually be necessary. But it is not an easy question, and blithe, simplistic answers aren't enough. No matter who the bad guy is, innocents will die. We have to address that. But I guess that's another thread. By the way, you've never struck me as one of those with easy bumper-sticker political beliefs.
So, although I think Skip's wrong, he's still a brother in Christ. See how that works?
I'm going to have to join Lucybelle, because people are stopping by to ask why I'm banging my head repeatedly against my desk.
Kari.
p.s. Terry, isn't one of those freedoms bought by bloodshed the right to disagree?
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ Oct. 03 2002,4:39)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Susie,
Your statement about buying more stuff is an important concept in ending poverty. Let me show you how buying more stuff helps the poor. Suppose due to tax relief you suddenly make $500 a month more. Since you are a Christian, you will likely give some of this to the church. But, since you have a family and needs you will likely buy more stuff. When you buy this stuff you are putting money back into the economy and boosting corporations. You have just created a job for someone in need. The corporations stock price goes up and the shareholders receive nice size dividends. They take their dividends and buy stuff. More jobs are created, companies grow, stock prices grow, wealth in general grows. This begins to have a domino effect until there is a huge demand for workers to manufacture stuff. Consequently, more banks open, people need more services, and the economy becomes huge. People go out to eat, they travel, go to the theatre. The more they do, the more the economy grows. See how this works? You are in control of what happens to your money while ending poverty.
Now, look at $500 in taxes. You pay your money to the federal government through a govt beuracracy that manufactures nothing and has no market worth. It sits in a 0 interest account while politicians fight over how to spend it. Meanwhile they vote themselves a raise. Once the money is determined to be used for helping the poor, studies paid for by the govt must be conducted to make sure it is paid out fairly. The $500 goes through numerous agencies without market worth while paying the employees of these agencies who manufacture nothing. Finally it reaches the community worth about $50. No jobs have been created and no companies have grown. Worse yet, the money has shrunk, not grown.
Many people think the best way to help those in need is by raising taxes to give to the poor. Please understand that when this occurs, no one profits. Not the payers nor the payees. Actually, taxes are extremely damaging to the economy because they take money out of the economy. The only reason why we pay taxes, is to keep politicians in power.[/quote]
Quint, are you an economy major? That was good.
Kevin
Janine, thanks for your reply. You're very right when you talk about our actions growing out of our relationship to Christ, although I personally would have said "whether one takes in the pregnant teen to help her along, or whether one votes to cancel her welfare payments... whether one takes that last $25 in the bank at the end of the month, to send it to the NRA or the Christian Coalition, or to buy a goat and six chickens for a struggling family in Africa...", but both versions are valid.
However, I still do not understand exactly what you mean by [!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]What, exactly, is it that I respect about people I do not agree with (on important matters which I consider way beyond the realm of opinion or preference)?[/quote]
What are those important matters beyond the realm of opinion?
I'm not looking to further the mindless name-calling this thread has occasionally descended to, but I really want to know. Can 'one' be both liberal and Christian? This is important to me, because I've seen a whole lot of people driven away from the church over this.
I'd like to hear from people who actually think things through, a straight-out answer to the question I've asked over and over since this thread began- Do you consider a political liberal to be a fellow Christian?
Of course, the thoughts of those who don't think for themselves aren't really edifying, so keep them.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (patriciaredstone @ Oct. 09 2002,07:44)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Unfortunately they also learn not to tolerate others who have, through Christ come to different ideas and solutions for the fallen world than those authorised by the group.
That is where we become centered on the axis of the world and our reach is extended to all. Words like Democrat, Republican, Cabbalist ... all disentigrate in the excruciating light that makes concepts like tolerance unnecessary.[/quote]
Am I to understand that faith in Jesus Christ leads one to learn the ways of Qabbalah? We are not to place our faith in Jesus only to gain further knowledge through the application of astrology and numerology. I can accept that Christians will have various political ideas. But participating in the occult in order to find solution for the fallen world? I don't think so.
It says in the proverbs:
"Better a wise youth than an old foolish king"
and
A young man who knows the word of God is as wise as a man with gray hair"
Kari,
I don't know why you're bothering trying to defend yourself. If Doyle and anyone else who has trouble believing that a person can be both Christian and liberal, let them believe what they want. I think it makes some people feel more righteous to think that the rest of us are going to burn in the flames for eternity. I see no reason to let them think otherwise. I don't expect people to agree with my opinions, absolutely, I only try to talk to the people who are open minded enough to see that another person can have a valid, yet different, opinion (and still be Christian).
The real problem comes when the rest of us have to undo the thinking of non-Christians who characterize our religion on the basis of what a few narrow-minded bigots think and believe.
Hey Doyle,
Why don't you go ahead and register and become a member of GCM. It's easy, painless, and free.
Kevin
Doyle,
Regarding rape, you have a point. However, I would like to point out the following:
1. There are more women in the world than there are gay men, therefore the incidents of violence against women are naturally going to be higher.
2. Women, unfortunately, are easier targets.
3. You're right that rape against women shouldn't be an inferior issue politically. Unfortunately, even with the continuous pushing, we are still treated as second class citizens in many cases! Just think of all of the women's groups who were pushing for birth control coverage and then when Viagra came out, it was almost immediately covered by insurers.
I hope you had a good weekend. I had a wonderful one, away from the computer. ;) Unfortunately, it was waaay too short.
So Dante, should an army invade the US to end abortion? Would you like bombs to fall on top of your head for a good cause?
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ Oct. 01 2002,4:35)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]And what if Democrats and Republicans saw eye to eye on taking Sadam out of power? With that issue taken away, the Republican party would be your choice. Is that right?[/quote]
Well, except for racism, treatment of the poor, violence against women, education, judicial fairness, attacks on the bill of rights (especially due process), forcing my children to say someone else's prayer at school, gender equality, children's rights, healthcare, corporate responsibility, inequitable application of the death penalty, immigration, corporate welfare and our treatment of the environment. Otherwise, I think the political right is doing fine.
Lee, Terry, Janine, et al: Tell you what. As soon as the Republican party, in general, starts dealing with Christ's command to feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, and take care of the sick and imprisoned the way I believe He wants us to, y'all let me know. I'll run right out and change my voter registration. Until then, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Kari.[/quote]
Hmmm. Sounds like a fellow libertarian to me! Kmv, I'd vote for you in a heartbeat! Take it away!!!
By the way, Lindy Adams told me that the Christian Chronicle never recieved more mail on any topic other than the one they ran over a year ago about members of the church of christ who are active democrats. If you can believe it, manymanymanymany members of the church believe that being COC means being GOP. I guess the next step will be confessing Jesus Christ as lord and savior, being baptised, and living life republicanly ... ???
"The tax rate is quite reasonable in our country. Compared to most European nations, ours is certainly not confiscatory." -- boodha
Well, sure... but I have small gratitude for the fact that I only have a metaphorical arm cut off here, as opposed to 'an arm & a leg' in England...
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ Sep. 24 2002,3:17)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Lee-
Thanks for responding. I do have a point or two remaining, though:
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I am shocked at the number of people calling themselves "liberal." A liberal in today's society is pro-abortion, pro-gay agenda, humanistic, pro-gun control, believes in no absolute truth, etc. [/quote]
Where did you get that definition? If a whole lot of folks call themselves liberal, and DON'T fit your definition, then you've got the wrong definition. 'Liberal' isn't a profanity, it's just a word, in normal usage, describing the political ideas of people who (in this country anyway) tend to vote Democrat. It doesn't mean we don't support our country or even our economic system. It just means we tend to favor the underdog. By the way, how do we know God's opinion on the NRA?
In fact, where in scripture do we find God's opinion on taxation? Corporate welfare? Environmental protection? Affirmative action? These are political ideas, and debatable as such. Feel free to disagree with me on any of these. Tell me if you think I'm wrong on any of them-I can defend my position or change my mind. Just don't tell me that I'm not a Christian because of these opinions.
I don't hold my political beliefs lightly. I've thought about them, prayed about them, and I truly believe-and I know you disagree-that the opinions I hold on these issues are the truest to Christ's will. So, do I still want to be called a liberal? Yes, I do.
p.s. Jerrybrooke - I had to read your post twice before I got the right/left idea. Apparently we liberals are a little slow off the mark tonight. :)[/quote]
In early times it was a virtue to be liberal, but in the last few decades the early meaning or connotation of the word has changed. I'm basically conservative, but I credit the Republicans for the new usage, and it's a fighting word. It's very much as Lacy has portrayed. Right wing conservatives use the word "liberal" as a code word for socialist and communist tendencies or preferences.
There may be a basis for the charge that liberals are to be viewed as a menace to freedom and comforts like those found in capitalism. This is a little tricky, but be patient.
In early times a liberal was the champion of personal freedom and spoke out against government oppression. Along came socialism and its sicko cousin, which is communism. Unscrupulous self-centered people seized the opportunity to prey on people's misery, especially under the Russian zsarist regime. They promised freedom from this tyranny and packaged it in the form of Marxism. What started out as an idealistic dream ended up as a horrible nightmare for the common Russian.
It's because of the tragic Russian experience with being "liberated" that conservatives use this as a fighting point.
I can't say as I blame them.
Just looking at who came out against the article, I am reassured that I understood the author's opinions for what they were, and I agree with them at face value.
A capitalistic/free enterprise loving society of some sort is the single best option right now that allows us to work with our own hands so that we may have the wherewithal to care for our own, so that we won't be worse than infidels, and to help others.
People of good will sit here in the middle of said capitalistic/free enterprise setup, enjoying its benefits, and disagree with me. They have that luxury in such a society.
So, were you still willing to vote for the Clinton/Gore regime even after they vetoed the ban on partial birth abortions? Or is this not mentioned specifically in the bible?
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (lucybelle @ Sep. 27 2002,12:21)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Actually, I think Christians are quite responsible for the current homosexual campaign. The gay movement only began because gays were sick of being harassed and attacked by Christians and other similarly-leaning conservative groups. Prior to that, they were deeply afraid for their lives and well-being to even reveal themselves as homosexual, let alone ask for any other rights.
Gays didn't start speaking out until the very late 60s. Christians, being indignant that gays were demanding to be treated like human beings went further and the whole thing has pretty much been an escalating tit for tat ever since. If we had not behaved toward them in an un-Christian manner in the first place, the history of the gay movement over the last 30 years may be very different.[/quote]
Actually, gay men are much more likely to be attacked by other gay men. But, you don't see hate crime legislation pending over sex on sex crimes. This legislation is about trying to elevate a deviant lifestyle to that of legitimate. The media would have you believe that hundreds of gay guys are killed every year. It's just not true. Gay guys typically get killed in their own spats.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (JerryBrooke @ Sep. 29 2002,5:03)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Doyle,
I see what point you are making but there are more than one way to say things and some ways are nicer and more tactful.
However,
There are homosexuals who lobby and particpate in the Republican Party. Their are those in the republican party who believe in the right to choose to abort. Their are those in the republican party who are bad apples just as their are in the Democratic party.
Things are not as black and white as you seem.
I am not a card carrying republican or democrat but my values are conservative. There have been good democrat people and good republicans, and bad democrats and bad republicans. Sometimes its seems an election is about choosing the lesser of two evils. One should vote for the person running NOT the political party. Just like in Christianity, one should choose to follow Jesus, not the church.
Ganging up on Kari is not going to change her mind and treating her like that is not good in any way. I disagree with her views BUT i will not treat her like some have.[/quote]
This has been an interesting thread. Jerry, I agree with you to an extent. However, what we have to consider is that even though both parties have good and bad eggs, the parties do have official platforms. When I was growing up, I remember the Democrats were for the working class and the Republicans represented the upper class. Things have changed now because we are in a middle of a cultural war. The lines have been drawn along moral issues and the proponents of such issues have found their homes within certain political parties. We all know which issues and people belong to which parties.
When I hear that a Christian is totally supportive of the democaratic party I question if they understand that we are in a moral/cultural war or if these issues are minor to them and they just don't care. I'm not writing specifically about anyone on the board as I have encountered this other places as well. However, I do question that when we willingly vote for someone that clearly endorses immoral behavior, do we become guilty of endorsing the same behavior?
take care,
terry
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ Sep. 30 2002,2:46)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Terry, [!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Kari,
Are you saying that morality and truth are different from person to person? Or that they are determined by individual perception[/quote]
Not at all. What I'm saying, repeatedly, is that no single party has a lock on morality. Indeed, seldom is a single issue as 'black & white' as we'd like it to be.
For example, the killing of innocents. One party is, for the most part, against abortion. The other party is (or will be), for at least some part, against a war with Iraq. BOTH of these situations involve the killing of the innocent. Yet the Republican party opposes abortion and seems to be less concerned with civilian death in Afghanistan, Isreal & Iraq. See--one morality, more than one issue.
NEITHER PARTY has a lock on morality. In fact, sometimes a single issue can be complex. For example, withholding health or family funds from groups that may be connected with pro-choice policies. Won't a lack of birthcontrol availabity result in MORE abortions?
My point, way back years ago, was that no one, not you, not me, can say a Christian 'must' vote a certain way. And it was poor oversight on the editor's part to sponsor slanted, slanderous editorials such as the one that started this whole mess.
Kevin:
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Another quote by Jeremy Renalds that I thought was good:
"While the events of the last few months have shown us that capitalism can be abused, let's remember that these abuses are aberrations of a good system. At its heart capitalism is a good system which encourages people to be the best they can be. Liberalism is a discouraging system of defeatism which at its heart discourages personal effort and kills economic incentive. "
What do you think?
Kevin[/quote]
No offense, but are you CRAZY starting this whole thing up again? :)
Kari.[/quote]
I don't see the comparison at all between national defense and the killing of unborn children. One is innocent, the other is done when innocent lives are in danger. I also don't see war as usually being drawn along political lines. Looking back in history war has been declared by presidents from both parties fairly equally. The war in Afghanistan was solidly backed by both parties, so you cannot say that it was a Republican war. Some are just a little louder this time because they want their domestic agenda on the table during the election.
Looking to the bible on the issue of war vs.abortion you will find that God always refers to the unborn as a child or baby. Never as product of conception or fetus. There is never a negative view of a child in the womb from the bible. He also refers to those who threaten peace as enemies, invaders etc.. He never refers to evil leaders as innocent victims. Positive terms are never used for a description of evil leaders either. Of course we are to pray for our enemies, and we should, but nowhere are we instructed to roll over and allow our innocent country to be threatened and invaded. Also, we have never declared war on a country without first being provoked, and without first giving ample time for the situation to resolve peacefully. I think the U.S. under leadership of both parties has always handled this well. When it comes to national security, we do what we have to do to protect ourselves. Both parties equal. Just like when Clinton fired missles into Iraq. It's the same country with the same leader.
How you can compare this to babies who have never threatened anyone I'm not sure.
take care,
terry
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]And what if Democrats and Republicans saw eye to eye on taking Sadam out of power? With that issue taken away, the Republican party would be your choice. Is that right?[/quote]
Well, except for racism, treatment of the poor, violence against women, education, judicial fairness, attacks on the bill of rights (especially due process), forcing my children to say someone else's prayer at school, gender equality, children's rights, healthcare, corporate responsibility, inequitable application of the death penalty, immigration, corporate welfare and our treatment of the environment. Otherwise, I think the political right is doing fine.
Lee, Terry, Janine, et al: Tell you what. As soon as the Republican party, in general, starts dealing with Christ's command to feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, and take care of the sick and imprisoned the way I believe He wants us to, y'all let me know. I'll run right out and change my voter registration. Until then, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Kari.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ Oct. 03 2002,6:39)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]When my father was alive he owned a business. He made money on the tax system. For example, candy bar's and pop each cost a dime (This was in the 1960's). The tax he collected for each one sold was one cent. When he sold ten of them he had collected 10 cents in taxes. However, the state tax rate was based on total dollar sales, and was six cents per. My father pocketed 40% of the taxes he collected on those small item sales! And if the eighth grade drop out owner of a mom and pop grocery store and bait shop in the middle of nowhere Indiana could figure this out, shrewder businessmen can figure out how to prosper (and create jobs) under our current system of taxation.
Taxes are rent. Think of them as the fee we exchange for services we take for granted.
If you want to eliminate taxes on the spurious whim that some might possibly use their windfall to toss a couple of extra pennies in the Salvation Army bucket, please tell me what tax funded services you wish to give up?
Treated potable drinking water?
Garbage pick up?
Rural electrification?
The interstate highway system?
Air traffic control?
Free public education (quality notwithstanding)?
Police, fire, emergency services?
Military protection?
The Emergency Broadcast system?
The National Weather Service?
Veterans Administration hospitals?
The Center for Disease Control?
OSHA?
The tax rate is quite reasonable in our country. Compared to most European nations, ours is certainly not confiscatory.[/quote]
Most of the things you mention are fairly neutral. That is most people don't object to paying for civil defense and clean water. But what about forcing people to pay for things they are morally opposed to? Should we really have to pay for those who fornicate and abort? I really do believe that these should be paid for by optional taxes for those who want to contribute to the cause of the fornicator themselves. This is where I have a big problem with the democrats.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]..and again I spring out of the shadows...
Let me put it this way - I think that political affiliation is irrelevant to Christianity with only one caveat - Christianity always comes first.
Under the Old Testament during the time of the patriarchs, judges, and kings, political parties simply did not exist.
In the New, we see that Jesus accepted as disciples members of several movements that were analogous to political parties. For example, Simon the Zealot, and the apostle Paul, who long after his conversion still called himself a Pharisee (Acts 23:6).
That said, one must be careful of associating oneself with groups; for instance, the KKK on the extreme right, and ELF on the extreme left are examples of groups that carry a very negative connotation with the public in general (for good reason), for they oppose the government with violent means.
It is obvious that several who post here have strong negative opinions of the major parties, particularly the Democratic Party.
The last time the Senate race rolled around, I had a "choice
I DID NOT SHARE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS WITH ANYONE NOR DID I EVEN STATE THE NAME OF THE BOARD I MET YOU AT, OTHER THAN MENTION BOOTY VISITS OCCASSIONALLY AS WELL.
This is Lee Wilson's board and he is the one to decide if I go or not, not you. I think Lee actually is glad I am here to a certain extent because I will call a lot of people on their foolishness and make them THINK.
You speak of being a traitor but there are people who no doubt think you are a traitor for leaving the Church of Christ instead of staying behind and trying to change things within. You need to pull the board out of your own eye friend before you pull the log out of mine.
There are lots of places in the Bible where particular problems are addressed and corrected (Read I and II Corinthians for a starter and if you cannot find them let me know and I'll help you). These problems are dealt with first hand and upfront directly without the pseudo-philosophical babble people have become accustomed to from their preachers.
I am well within my rights to demand an answer to my questions. If there are no answers to just what "exploitation" is then we have been given a command we cannot follow, not through our fault but because somebody did not tell us what we should watch out for and avoid. If you say "It is a matter of personal conscience to decide what is fair or unfair" I will say that people can take one issue and have totally different ideas about it and what should be done. The Bible should solve that problem for us and if it does not, well, we are just up the creek. I ask nothing of you I would not ask of another preacher, imam, or rabbi.
If you do not wish to correspond with me anymore that is fine. I will bother you no more with private messages.
As to my age, I will not reveal how old I am, whether young or old. I do not like to give out personal information on the web unless the situation absolutely calls for it. As far as the elderly gentleman and uncle you referred to, I think they should have kept their mouths shut for I doubt they had the answers to the kind of questions I have asked you. It seems to me that when someone asks questions that you do not have the answers to you either say it is not important, it is a foolish question, so-and-so asks the questions because he is young and naive, he/she is insane, ect because you just do not have the answers nor does the Bible and IT IS AN EMBARRASSMENT TO YOU. You whine and whine about the person asking the questions and carry on pseudo ad hominem attacks instead of dealing with the issue at hand.
Bluntly yours,
BH
PS -It says in the Bible "Be ready to provide an answer to everyman ...."
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (janine @ Sep. 25 2002,4:25)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][/quote]
JANINE:
How hard someone works or how many units -- hours -- of work someone puts in are not determining factors in how much pay they are worth, when comparing across lines. A doctor is not worth a bricklayer is not worth a welder is not worth a french fry fryer, interchangeably.
BH:
What absolute objective value do you base this assessment on? The threat the doctor will not put a band aid on the french fryer's hand if he spills grease on it? The point is that ALL JOBS are important to our society whether it is a teacher, policeman, garbage collector, ect.
JANINE:
As unfair as it is to let pay be determined by what the traffic will bear, by whatever people end up earning due to company or community whims, I would not want to submit myself to some arbitrary Socialist/Communist-style determination of what I'll be allowed to earn.
BH:
That is your whim only. I would personally like to see the government make sure we are paid fair wages, barring Lacy producing a Bible verse that tells us exactly what is fair pay for every job in existence.
JANINE:
Yes, everyone can take a jump and find a job making more money. In this country, at least, and assuming they are not mentally incompetent.
BH:
You have a theory only. If I can produce one person who always tried to find a better job, was mentally competant, and worked hard, ect. I have refuted your entire position. In fact your own Bible disagrees with you here. I'll let you find the verse that proves it. :D
JANINE:
The problem comes in when we are not willing to pay too stiff a price. For example, if the changes involved would throw you in with a company you considered immoral; if you simply cannot move to another city because elderly relatives you are responsible for won't go with you... different reasons, often good ones. The opportunity is here, though.
BH:
Again you assert but do not prove. Please find the Bible verse I mention above and it will refute your statement above as well as the one above that.
JANINE:
As for the article, back to that... the man was speaking in generalities. Broad brushing and statistic-based group ID doesn't cover every eventuality. It's groupspeak, you know.
BH:
Thanks, you concede I am correct in what I wrote above for the most part
JANINE:
Just because you personally have lovely reasons why you think parts of a so-called "liberal" ideology are OK, but you resent being tarred with that broad brush, does not negate the position the writer has taken.
BH:
I like being a liberal and being tarred with a broad brush.
JANINE:
It's like a nature special about the migration of wildebeest... wildebeestes... wildebeesties... Gnus!
No two are alike, some are brighter, some are healthier, some are different colors, ages, genders... But it is a useful thing to talk about them as a group, as a force of nature, because you're talking about trends and the whole group's impact on the world around them.
BH:
Yes, but you better not exploit your people or they will turn against you. Why support a system that does not serve my best interests?
Janine, don't take any of this personally. I like you.
As for the rest of you if you jump my butt over this I'll jump you right back using your own "sword of the spirit" against you to defeat the false doctrine/economic system called capitalism. BEWARE! :0
Discussion of the value of the individual to God, to society, to fellow men or to Auntie Fanny is something completely different from the broad brushstrokes we use when we're talking about a whole society, its trends, its gestalt, what have you.
Of course I'd find it distasteful if some idiot thought I endorsed David Duke for anything just 'cause I'm from Louisiana.
I'd possibly be more disgusted touching on more areas of life, character assessment, estimation of my intelligence, etc., if someone assumed I ever endorsed Edwin Edwards for anything besides the one time he was the keynote speaker at my Free Enterpise event when I was a teen.
But the broad strokes remain the only way to talk about the 'societal chemistry' that went into Edwards being in power so long, and Duke even thinking he had a chance at the governorship... although I don't think he ever seriously wanted it, he just wanted the campaign war chest he'd be left with when he did not win.
Which was fine with me, as long as the only people he bilked were Klan sympathizers and folks who want to keep their ethnic heritage pure for what I consider the wrong reasons! :p
Anyway, I know individual Independents and Democrats and Socialists and so on are just like me, with their various 'bright spots', their various places in life where they each look a little like the Father God who made them. And, of course, they, and I, have our spots where we look uncomfortably like the opposition. :(
The generalizations and broad brushstrokes are the sort of tools you have to work with numbers in the millions, societal trends, etc.
There is very little value statistically in discussing the habits or beliefs of one lemming, one gnu, one Monarch butterfly.
But Janine, you haven't answered the question. In truth, what do those actions show to the outside world? Do they say, "this is what the love of Christ looks like"?
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (B. H. @ Sep. 30 2002,5:33)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]So Dante, should an army invade the US to end abortion? Would you like bombs to fall on top of your head for a good cause?[/quote]
B.H.,
I don't know of anyone else on this board, but I'd be willing to give my life over this issue.
terry
Kari and PatriciaRedstone,
No Thank YOU!!! hahaha.
Actually, I think I'm bowing out of the argument, for now. I'm tired and have other irritations going on. ???
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Why do you vote to have your money taken away and tied up in the government doing no one any good at all?[/quote]
Quint, while I'd agree that private enterprise and individuals can do some things better-that is, more efficiently-than goverment, surely you don't believe that government does no one any good at all?
Would we be better off with out government spending on public works? Should each of us build our own roads and bridges? Should private companies be responsible for flood control or fire fighting? Should we go replace our police departments with private security firms? What about scientific research that isn't market-driven-should we give up the study of astronomy and sub-atomic physics because no private company wants to sponsor it?
How about the chronically ill and the disabled? Should special needs children receive no education if their parents aren't well-to-do?
How about the FDA? Meat inspectors? The Coast Guard? The CDC? What about the highway safety folks? The patent office and the weather people? Customs? Corrections? Mine inspectors? The FCC?
It is easy to say all government, or all taxation, or all liberals, or all conservatives, are bad. It is much harder to come up with constructive ways to improve the system.
By the way, over the last 100 years, has government increased dramatically? Has taxation increased dramatically?
Over the last years, hasn't poverty decreased as well? Hasn't our lifespan increased and our overall health improved as well? Hasn't our technology increased?
Hmm...could there be a connection there?
K.
By the way, here's a fair summation of what I have against most Republican ideology:
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--] But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court?
Do they not blaspheme the fair name by which you have been called? --James 2:6-7
Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and which has been withheld by you, cries out against you; and the outcry of those who did the harvesting has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned and put to death the righteous man; he does not resist you. --James 5:4-6
[/quote]
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (spurly @ Oct. 04 2002,04:28)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Susie,
Your statement about buying more stuff is an important concept in ending poverty. Let me show you how buying more stuff helps the poor. Suppose due to tax relief you suddenly make $500 a month more. Since you are a Christian, you will likely give some of this to the church. But, since you have a family and needs you will likely buy more stuff. When you buy this stuff you are putting money back into the economy and boosting corporations. You have just created a job for someone in need. The corporations stock price goes up and the shareholders receive nice size dividends. They take their dividends and buy stuff. More jobs are created, companies grow, stock prices grow, wealth in general grows. This begins to have a domino effect until there is a huge demand for workers to manufacture stuff. Consequently, more banks open, people need more services, and the economy becomes huge. People go out to eat, they travel, go to the theatre. The more they do, the more the economy grows. See how this works? You are in control of what happens to your money while ending poverty.
Now, look at $500 in taxes. You pay your money to the federal government through a govt beuracracy that manufactures nothing and has no market worth. It sits in a 0 interest account while politicians fight over how to spend it. Meanwhile they vote themselves a raise. Once the money is determined to be used for helping the poor, studies paid for by the govt must be conducted to make sure it is paid out fairly. The $500 goes through numerous agencies without market worth while paying the employees of these agencies who manufacture nothing. Finally it reaches the community worth about $50. No jobs have been created and no companies have grown. Worse yet, the money has shrunk, not grown.
Many people think the best way to help those in need is by raising taxes to give to the poor. Please understand that when this occurs, no one profits. Not the payers nor the payees. Actually, taxes are extremely damaging to the economy because they take money out of the economy. The only reason why we pay taxes, is to keep politicians in power.[/quote]
Quint, are you an economy major? That was good.
Kevin[/quote]
Kevin,
Thanks. I was an economics major at one point, but switched to Business. I now work in human resources which is the best of both worlds.
I don't know a thing about Kaballah, whether the Clinton's have ever heard of it even or whether it is any more of a real threat than the tre-lateral commission or Mothman, but a visit to the site of the man who wrote the article found that he also warns of the "occult" dangers of Harry Potter.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ Sep. 24 2002,4:25)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]No disrespect meant, but why would it not be discrimination if congress vetoed presidential nominees because they were pro-gay rights, pro-limited abortion, evolution in schools, ect.[/quote]
It is discrimination. Both sides have done it, and let's face it, it's not particularly honorable of either.
Both 'conservative' and 'liberal' politics have given us long-term disasters. And I think all of us are to blame. We demand easy answers to hard problems and so we deserve the junk we get.
It's our duty to weigh ideas against God's will as best we can , and vote the way we see to be right.
Also, maybe not calling each other names would be good thing for Christians to do.
Kari.[/quote]
kmv,
You are a wise and discerning person.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Richard, I think we are in agreement.[/quote]
Patricia,
I'll have to take your word for it 'cause I'm not sure I understood the rest of your post. ;) I've told you before, I'm not very deep.
I do know one thing though - Money is not the problem. The love of money (or wealth) is the problem.
I did not intend to turn this into a discussion about the relative value of art. I don't know anything about art. I was simply refuting the assertion by B.H. that everyone should receive monetary compensation relative to their labor regardless of the value of what they produce.
And at the risk of repeating myself.......the best way to influence what society values is to introduce as many people as we can to the Love of Jesus Christ.
Richard
I wanted to make something clear to some of you who have misunderstood what I wrote yesterday. I in no way stated that poor people should be ignored,or that we should thumb our noses on the way to the car dealership. In fact, I specifically stated that since you are a Christian, you will most likely take care of their needs first. I then went on to talk about other money that would then be going to the government. The comparison was only about what happens to the money in the hands of politicians verses the free markets. Seeing as how this is a Christian web site no one is making an argument against helping the poor. The argument is about how one can do more. I would like my money to arrive to the poor $1 for $1. Not ten cents on the dollar while my representatives are buying new mansions.
And while we're talking about Christian giving, there are very specific scriptures about how this is to be done. I don't have my bible right now but I can basically tell you from memory. The poor and the widows are to be taken care of by their families first. If their families can't take care of them, the church is to help next. God intended on people to take care of each other on a personal level by families and church. When we hand this over to the government, we have specifically violated the very thing he instructed us to do to begin with. My guess is because families can also provide emotional support and love that the government can't. This personal giving also gives those in the church the chance to evangelize that the government takes away by welfare. Do you know how many people on welfare never set foot into a church because they don't have to? The government completely cuts out the opportunity to share the goodness of Christ by this system. They totally undermine the responsibilities of families and church thus making people cold. I'm not sure why some vote for this system, other than they don't understand all the pitfalls.
q
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]That is why capitalism is false, even if it is the most successful economic system in the eyes of the world. It does not pay people according to their labor per see, but what a bunch of people's whimsy in that given society tells them it is worth.[/quote]
B.H.,
If I labor really hard at building sand castles which get washed out by the tide every day, will you pay me according to my labor?
Richard
Skip,
We are representatives of Christ, but sometimes we are extremely poor examples of who Christ was and what he represented. Bad behavior by Christians doesn't correctly show the world who and what Christ was. That is why it becomes difficult for Christians, though still sinful, to have a genuine dialogue with many people in the world who were burned by so-called Christian behavior. I have spent a lot of hours just trying to SHOW people that Christians aren't all hypocritical and evil. It's a lot of work.
So when I say that Christian behavior led to the Stonewall incident and the gay-rights movement, I mean that people who identify themselves as Christians, but are not demonstrating the love of Christ, contributed to what is going on right now.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ Oct. 01 2002,05:56)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Terry
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I don't see the comparison at all between national defense and the killing of unborn children. One is innocent, the other is done when innocent lives are in danger. [/quote]
I guess I'm somehow not being clear enough. My point, as best I can recall, was that these are not simple considerations. For example, if we bomb Iraq, innocent people will die. Including children. Including the unborn. Period. Are unborn Iraqi lives precious to you? If so, then you cannot say the Republican stance is always the moral one.
I don't think that can be any clearer, if you really want to understand.
In fact, if I were to use the simplistic reasoning many of our posters have used, I could say that, if you, Terry, vote for Bush, you've voted to kill unborn children. And it would be just as true as what Doyle or Danny have said.
You don't have to agree with the choices I make, just try to be open-minded enough to understand that another Christian just might have reached another conclusion.
And please, could we quit arguing points that no one has made?
Skip, doesn't your citation about not bearing the punishment for another's sin really make the case against bombing children in Iraq to get revenge on Saddam?
Admin (Lee?) [!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]B.H.
Your answer to Dante, ridiculous. Comparing a war against armies to take a dictator, killer, and psycopath out of power to bombing U.S. citizens to stop abortion??
That is a very illogical comparison. It's like comparing apples to oranges.[/quote]
Actually, though BH may forget his manners sometimes, this is a perfectly valid comparison. A war against a psycopath dictator is going to result in dead innocents, just as pro-life bombings would and do.
PatriciaRedstone-No, thank you & Lucybelle!
Kari.[/quote]
Kari,
If I have argued a point that no one has made, please show me. My main point was that there is no official platform for the Democrats or Republicans stating that we will be prowar and we will invade foreign countries...even though both parties supported the invasion into Afghanistan 100%. Just remember, the democratic president prior to Bush launched plenty of missles as well.
terry
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (terry @ Sep. 30 2002,6:01)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]So Dante, should an army invade the US to end abortion? Would you like bombs to fall on top of your head for a good cause?[/quote]
B.H.,
I don't know of anyone else on this board, but I'd be willing to give my life over this issue.
terry[/quote]
But what about your family's?
Did I not even make a little dent when you and I had our debate on abortion a while back? Geesh.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Marc,
When was the last time you got a job from a poor guy? [/quote]
Curious. Did you read my post, or did you just pick a reply at random? I ask this because it has nothing at all to do with what I said.
Do you ever deal with have-nots directly? Do you live in their midst? Or do you simply pass them by and say "get a job"?
When you live in their world, it makes a difference. I know. This has been my world much of my life.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (patriciaredstone @ Oct. 09 2002,3:34)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I wonder if these are aware that there are witches who call themselves Christian and study the Bible? Knowing this, do you consider yourself a accomplice in the dark arts?[/quote]
Can one be a Christian and a witch at the same time? One cannot serve two masters for he will hate one and love the other. Knowing this, I am not an accomplice to the magic arts as I do not share the body of Christ with someone who is split between masters.
B.H.
"There was one time in my life. and I can not remember when, I was actually proven wrong on something, and maybe I just missed the answer." B.H.
Well, B.H. maybe this the answer as to why no one wants to answer your points above; what chance would us mortals have with an infallible infidel? And perhaps it's because you are so arrogant and forceful in your manipulative demands that people just don't want to communicate with you.
Secondly, I told you three times that I didn't want to debate with you, that I don't want you annoying letters sent to me personally but would prefer staying on the board. And once I told you that I didn't want to go with you to the "Infidel board" to debats Jesus with you. My God man, what part of NO don't you understand?
Then you presume to impose a manditory questionaire upon me as if I am under divine compulsion to answer your quaries. I am not interested in either your questions or in answering them. And I certainly have neither responsibility nor accountibility to you.
You say, "So off to the infidel board." And, like the good traitor to our board that you are, you will give all the infidels my address so they too can harass me. I gave my address hoping to communicate with brothers and sisters in Christ. You are the only one who has used it. If I had had any idea that there were such characters as you on this Christian board, board, I certainly would not have given it.
I'M SURPRISED THAT THE MANAGERS OF THIS BOARD WOULD PERMIT YOU TO BE SO DISRESPECULUL AND CONTEMPTABLE.
Isn't this a Christian board? And isn't there a code of conduct?
When I was young, B. H., an elderly retired school teacher came to me after hearing one of my sermone, and said, "Brother Lacy, I'm glad I am not as young as you are." And in those days and uncle said about me,"Lacy has a lot to learn."
B.H., I don't understand why you are so pretentious, presumptuous, persistent and argumentive, unless it is the fact that you are young and have a lot to learn.
Cherish this post, B. H., or despise it, but be assured that this is the last word you will ever hear from me. And if you call I will not answer. I have better things to do with my precious time.
Lacy
kmv,
I would assume that you are pro-abortion because you stated that you are a card carrying liberal. The Democratic stand on abortion in the 21st century is that abortion should be available on demand throughout all nine months of pregnancy. It should superceed the rights of parents to consent to their own children's healthcare, it should be fully paid for by taxpayers, it is a procedure that medical students must partake in order to graduate. Is this what your carrying a card for? How about same sex marriages and gay adoptions? When I read the parties platforms it is apparent that we are in a cultural war. Voting is DEFINITELY along the lines of morality (at least nationally) and I honestly don't see how someone can vote for the things mentioned and still profess to be a Christian.
Skip-
Lucybelle is right on this. The Stonewall incident WAS the birth of the gay-rights movement. Without the actions of the police who beat those men, who knows if such the movement would have formed?
As to [!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]the only impact Christians will have upon sinners is either to turn them away from sin (and to Christ) or be rejected by the sinner [/quote]
is this born out by scripture? I recall Christ telling us that if we cause another to sin, it'd be better if we were thrown into the sea.
Do you truly believe that someone who calls himself a Christian cannot turn a sinner away from the Lord? Imagine someone who doesn't know Christ. He knows there is something missing from his life, but hasn't found it yet. He comes across this website, looking for that 'grace' he's heard about. And maybe he reads Doyle's commentary. Or one of those nice dead Iraqi jokes. Do you believe, honestly, that they'll have no impact?
I'm not just trying to win an argument here, I'm trying desperately to somehow make us see how much our actions can harm the cause of Christ. It's not sufficient to just pat ourselves on the back for being 'graceminded' and better, therefore, than those legalistic folks. We have to actually, in truth, everyday, show the LOVE that Jesus has for all the lost. And we absolutely cannot do that when we despise each other.
Kari.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (B. H. @ Sep. 30 2002,6:05)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]So Dante, should an army invade the US to end abortion? Would you like bombs to fall on top of your head for a good cause?[/quote]
B.H.,
I don't know of anyone else on this board, but I'd be willing to give my life over this issue.
terry[/quote]
But what about your family's?
Did I not even make a little dent when you and I had our debate on abortion a while back? Geesh.[/quote]
I thought you were prolife now! What happened? ;) Of course my family too.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Skip, doesn't your citation about not bearing the punishment for another's sin really make the case against bombing children in Iraq to get revenge on Saddam?
--Kari[/quote]
Sorry, no.
As I read it, it applies directly to the individual sinner, and is not applicable to governments. I had originally used it in reference to the homosexuality topic a few pages back.
I noticed that your remark looks a lot like the news that I often endure --
Since when is the military target in Iraq children?
...Though the Western world is doing a great job of killing off its children without any outsiders bombing them.
Though probably children will be killed, since in the latest strategic analysis of the Iraqi defense plans, they will probably use Taliban-like tactics - hide their military units in mosques and civilian-populated areas in hopes that Allied forces will not strike them, and if they do, then they will hold up the bodies of the dead as evidence of Western brutality.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (marc @ Oct. 03 2002,10:58)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Marc,
Many companies, small to medium businesses in particular cannot pay decent salaries or benefits because they are overtaxed. Taxes that are wasted on govt pork projects. Please don't say that if they didn't have to pay these taxes they would pocket the money themselves. I know alot of business owners who are Christians that don't think this way. In fact, many will tell you that if they could pay more, they could hire better talent. This is what they would use the money for. Recruiting good help.[/quote]
You're talking to a real person here, not a canned argument. Any attempt to assume I will respond in a certain way based on political assumptions is futile.
I agree that small businesses are overtaxed, and believe our local economic system would be helped greatly if some of that burden were relieved. But small businesses cannot bear the load themselves. Large corporations are necessary for our economy to remain healthy.
I work for a large corporation--United Airlines. Over the past year, for obvious reasons, we have received a great deal of help from the federal government--from tax money. If that money had not been received, this company would no longer exist. Furthermore, though there have been some positive signs in the past week, our company needs more help from the government.
In other words, the big guys, the small guys, those who can't fend for themselves all need help from the federal government. Our tax system makes this help possible.
And btw, when all is said and done and the corporations are as healthy as they can be, there will still be many who fall through the cracks. As a Christian, I believe in helping those who need the most help in any way possible. My tax money is a small sacrifice when I know how much need exists.[/quote]
Marc,
I realize this may sound harsh, but I totally disagree with the government bailing out ANY business, including an airline company. If a company can not make it on their own, they ought to go out of business. Other people, who can set up companies that can make it on their own, would fill the gap. My tax dollars should not be spent to keep inept managers who go into too much debt, or have poor business plans, in business.
Kevin
2 Thessalonians 3:10
"For even when we were with you we gave you this rule: If a man will not work, he shall not eat."
3:12 "Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat."
3:14 "If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother."
Yeah, I'd say it's ok for the church to screen whats going on with the needy. Notice that we should even make him feel ashamed? It's a little different process than blindly paying the unknown masses the way the liberals prescribe. Their way is to make everyone feel real good and lovey touchy about themselves. No matter how scummy the situation really is.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (patriciaredstone @ Oct. 09 2002,7:45)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]By the way, I'm not up on numerology but I know there are several second-rate Christian apocolypse books which use the numerology based on the writings of SOME of the Jewish mytics. Many of these believe there are messages hidden in the NT. I do not discount their claims that the NT writers may have encoded messages in some of the numbers used (for instance the woman who touched Jesus in Capernaum bled for 12 years and the daughter of Jairus who was 12 years old) however I do not think it was sorcery anymore than the Jewish Mystics did.[/quote]
Patricia,
If it was done, as suggested in some recent books, I doubt it was the New Testament writers who embedded the code. It was the Holy Spirit working through them. I doubt they even knew it was happening - if it was happening.
Kevin
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]No disrespect meant, but why would it not be discrimination if congress vetoed presidential nominees because they were pro-gay rights, pro-limited abortion, evolution in schools, ect.[/quote]
It is discrimination. Both sides have done it, and let's face it, it's not particularly honorable of either.
Both 'conservative' and 'liberal' politics have given us long-term disasters. And I think all of us are to blame. We demand easy answers to hard problems and so we deserve the junk we get.
It's our duty to weigh ideas against God's will as best we can , and vote the way we see to be right.
Also, maybe not calling each other names would be good thing for Christians to do.
Kari.
On broad brushes and generalizations...
Consider Jesus.
Read Matthew 23, where Jesus rails against the Pharisees.
Consider, then, that Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were in that group that Jesus broad-brushed in Matthew 23.
:0
And consider the Amalekites of 1 Samuel 15, who were obliterated man, woman, child and infant at God's command. For the act of a man of a prior generation.
:0
Honey, there are very, very few people I despise, and so far none of them have posted to this board. ;)
B.H.
Your answer to Dante, ridiculous. Comparing a war against armies to take a dictator, killer, and psycopath out of power to bombing U.S. citizens to stop abortion??
That is a very illogical comparison. It's like comparing apples to oranges.
I do have a question in general for anyone who is a fan of Utopian ideology. If you find that defending our nation is so immoral than is it not hypocritical to live here and enjoy the freedeoms that were bought by bloodshed through war? Wouldn't the truly politically correct action be to move to a "peaceful" country who has never been involved in self defense or war? If I did not believe in a countries right to self defense, than I would certainly not live in that country if my freedom was bought through the very actions that I say I despise. Just a thought.
terry
Personally, I would get government out of everything except National defense and infrastructure (roads, sewage systems, etc). And even the infrastructure should be based on a use tax to pay for the services. Tolls should be charged on all roads so that the people who don't use them should not have to pay for them. The users should pay for the sewage systems, refuse systems, etc. depending on how much they use - and no more. National defense is a little different, because we all use it. A small tax would have to be levied for that.
But get the government out of the business of fighting diseases, predicting the weather, OSHA, and so many other things they think they should do - including food stamps, welfare, etc. Those things should be provided by friends, neighbors, family, and the church.
Kevin
Can any of you Clinton/Gore lovers tell me why the liberals insist on holding my money hostage in a bankrupt social security system? If I could contribute my ss withholdings to a money market fund I would yield 3 times as much at retirement. Why are they so afraid of financial freedom?
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ Oct. 09 2002,10:55)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Unfortunately they also learn not to tolerate others who have, through Christ come to different ideas and solutions for the fallen world than those authorised by the group.
That is where we become centered on the axis of the world and our reach is extended to all. Words like Democrat, Republican, Cabbalist ... all disentigrate in the excruciating light that makes concepts like tolerance unnecessary.[/quote]
Am I to understand that faith in Jesus Christ leads one to learn the ways of Qabbalah? We are not to place our faith in Jesus only to gain further knowledge through the application of astrology and numerology. I can accept that Christians will have various political ideas. But participating in the occult in order to find solution for the fallen world? I don't think so.[/quote]
By the way, I'm not up on numerology but I know there are several second-rate Christian apocolypse books which use the numerology based on the writings of SOME of the Jewish mytics. Many of these believe there are messages hidden in the NT. I do not discount their claims that the NT writers may have encoded messages in some of the numbers used (for instance the woman who touched Jesus in Capernaum bled for 12 years and the daughter of Jairus who was 12 years old) however I do not think it was sorcery anymore than the Jewish Mystics did.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]May I also say that hard work doesn't necessarily mean financial success. God has given everyone different talents and some talents are valued more in our society than others. [/quote]
That is precisely the point.
Financial success is not determined by a person's level of work but by the value of what they produce. What a society values is not determined by its economic system, but by the people living in that society. What we value is determined by our belief system.
I think it may have been de'Tocqville who said that the most desirable form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. Given the obvious problems with trying to establish that, I think our best bet is to introduce as many people as we can to the Love of Jesus Christ - thereby impacting what our society values.
Richard[/quote]
That is why capitalism is false, even if it is the most successful economic system in the eyes of the world. It does not pay people according to their labor per see, but what a bunch of people's whimsy in that given society tells them it is worth.
I should say, to clarify, that the gay movement officially began at a gay bar after police harassed a group of men mourning the death of Judy Garland. They were in their own bar minding their own business and had had enough of the constant harrassment and threats. For those with a sense of humor, the visual is actually kind of funny - some of the men were in heels and skirts chasing down police with beer bottles.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Lucybelle / Kari,
My point was that, first of all, "Christian" is now as broad a brush as the "Liberal" and "Conservative" and "Democrat" and "Republican" brushes.
Second, consider that the actions that 'started the gay rights movement' may have started the movement, but they do not justify the movement.
Just as a teenager in a too-strict household is not justified when he or she rebels against rules or punishments with sinful activities.
After all, consider this for harsh:
God eradicated Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone...[/quote]
... and this one, "Fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath."[/quote]
And this...
Ez. 18:20 "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
Freebie,
Unfortunately, your right. Do any of you remember when Daschle and Gephardt stood on the lawn of the capitol next to a shiny new Lexus saying it would be equivalent of Bush's tax cut to the wealthy? The ironic thing about that is that you want that money out of the government and into the Lexus dealer. You want it anywhere that creates production. This creates jobs. I wondered why the reporters didn't call them on that?
BTW, the educated democrats in congress know all this economic stuff. They also know that their uneducated constituents don't. Instead of educating them they play into the ideas of class envy and inequality. They encourage people to wait for their check from the benevolent government when all the while they could be working at the Lexus plant.
Could some of you that claim to be liberals tell me why you vote for this? I mean, without saying I vote against such and such. Why do you vote to have your money taken away and tied up in the government doing no one any good at all?
What, exactly, is it that I respect about people I do not agree with (on important matters which I consider way beyond the realm of opinion or preference)?
Um... That they are human, made in the image of my God? That my Jesus died for them too? Those are good thoughts...
That this is a discussion sort of forum & they have a right to state their opinions? Yeah, that's good, too.
Do I respect their opinions?
Not on your life!
Janine,
I just looked back at the first post on this thread and realized that you are the one who innocently started this mess.
How dare you? :D
Kevin
I guess no one has any responses to my points above. Hey guys, got a hint for you. A lot of that I got from the Bible!
Hello patriciaredstone,
I agree with your assessment. The man just was not competant to write the essay he did. He is no real thinker nor did he come across to me as capable of critical thought. I have been trying to start an intelligent conversation about capitalism with reflections using the Bible, but for some reason no one cares. I think capitalism is just a simple animal like "passion and pleasure" to some people who follow their own lusts and natural instincts, whose god is their belly, and have absolutely no real concern for the poor regardless of what they say otherwise. Liberation theology with its Marxist origins is the only way to help the poor effectively.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]The mom, the firefighter, the teacher, every one of them, could always do something else, somewhere else, for more money.
They have chosen to put up with a smaller pay and sometimes less acclaim from society, to accomplish something they see as a noble purpose. Good for them.
They still have options here that they don't under many, maybe most, systems.
As for you two, B.H. & patriciaredstone, I restate, that I agree with what the author said at its face value. I'm not talking about some tangenital or deeper philosophical issue somewhere, or what someone or some culture might be doing to use capitalistic principles wrongly. I'm talking nuts-and-bolts practicalities.
And... I've never noticed that it takes an Everest-sized mental brilliance to make a good point. I make a good point from time to time & I ain't exactly the sharpest tool in God's shed.[/quote]
Not everyone can just take a jump and find a job making more money. Again you are back to subjective definitions of what constitutes a fair and just pay for work done. If a teacher, policeman, or firefighter are actually doing more work than someone else, they should get paid more than that particular someone else regardless of whatever value society places on the product.
I have been good. I have kept quiet. I do not wish to be drawn into a long discussion on these matters, but I do want to make a couple of quick points.
First, many of us make Democrat vs. Republican judgments on the local level more so than on the national level. And the local level often looks nothing like the stereotypes presented here.
Second, even on the national leel the idea that the Republicans are God's party and the Democrats are Satan's party is absurd! Politicians are politicians, and a large number from both parties are corrupt. Abortion is hardly the only issue, and even it doesn't belong as completely to the Republicans as many would have us believe (check out the recent Republican-backed law in Florida which would force mothers to publish the names of possible fathers before putting their infant up for adoption, for instance. This law is a prescription for abortion over adoption).
Third, as to the contempt shown for the "lazy" poor in this article, I quote once more from James:
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]James 2
Favoritism Forbidden
1My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. 2Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. 3If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," 4have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?
5Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?
8If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself,"[1] you are doing right. 9But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11For he who said, "Do not commit adultery,"[2] also said, "Do not murder."[3] If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
12Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!
[/quote] (NIV)
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ Sep. 27 2002,08:10)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]We're living in a world in serious need of someone to show the light of Christ's love, and this is what we show instead. [/quote]
Would you please answer my question? How does sucking the brain out of a living child show Christ's love? For that matter, how does marrying two men show his love? By placing a child in the foster care of two gay guys am I showing Christ's love? By telling a mother that she may not have a voucher for a private Christian school, that she must keep her kids in govt controlled public school am I showing Christ's love? In voting to keep churches from using schools for Sunday worship to those who can't afford a building am I showing Christ's love? I just don't see how liberals are about showing Christ's love. They are about taking everything perverted, and making it legal and cramming it down the throats of those who would object to immorality. It is apparent to me that making the extreme case legal is not enough. They want everyone else to endorse and embrace their immorality and accept it on the level of whats good and pure.
Kari, I'm sorry that you are disillusioned. It's ashame that you blame Christianity when the real problem is you have been totally sucked into the liberal religion of tolerance and political correctness.
Actually, I think Christians are quite responsible for the current homosexual campaign. The gay movement only began because gays were sick of being harassed and attacked by Christians and other similarly-leaning conservative groups. Prior to that, they were deeply afraid for their lives and well-being to even reveal themselves as homosexual, let alone ask for any other rights.
Gays didn't start speaking out until the very late 60s. Christians, being indignant that gays were demanding to be treated like human beings went further and the whole thing has pretty much been an escalating tit for tat ever since. If we had not behaved toward them in an un-Christian manner in the first place, the history of the gay movement over the last 30 years may be very different.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (winky @ Sep. 27 2002,12:43)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Of course there are other moral issues, but no one is asking for insurance coverage for liars, adulters and drunks.[/quote]
Doyle,
I agree with your political position, but this argument is flawed because drunks, adulterers and liars all have insurance coverage. Do you see what I mean? Lack of sin in your life can't really be a determining factor for whether or not you should have insurance coverage or none of us would have any insurance either!
Also, it's none of my business, but it seems to me that you'd have better luck getting KMV to debate with you and listen to your perspective if you were a smidge more tactful and less attacking. You know, the old saying about attracting more flies with honey than vinegar. (Am I mixing up that saying? Suddenly as I read it, it looks wrong.)[/quote]
Winky,
What I'm trying to say is that we don't take other sins and try to make them into legitimate government sanctioned lifestyles. So, naturally homosexuality is the sin that gets debated. If my city council wanted to hava murderer pride parades I'd be yelling about that instead. But as it is, it's gay pride parades. Sorry for the tone, I just don't sugar coat things. I was mainly speaking in regards to same sex benefits that cities and companies are ramming down everyones throats. If these people really wanted to be fair, they would endorse each person adding on a person to their insurance. Perhaps your grandma or neighbor in need. But, the issue is not about insurance. It is about legitimizing homosexuality as a lifestyle choice.
Terry
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I don't see the comparison at all between national defense and the killing of unborn children. One is innocent, the other is done when innocent lives are in danger. [/quote]
I guess I'm somehow not being clear enough. My point, as best I can recall, was that these are not simple considerations. For example, if we bomb Iraq, innocent people will die. Including children. Including the unborn. Period. Are unborn Iraqi lives precious to you? If so, then you cannot say the Republican stance is always the moral one.
I don't think that can be any clearer, if you really want to understand.
In fact, if I were to use the simplistic reasoning many of our posters have used, I could say that, if you, Terry, vote for Bush, you've voted to kill unborn children. And it would be just as true as what Doyle or Danny have said.
You don't have to agree with the choices I make, just try to be open-minded enough to understand that another Christian just might have reached another conclusion.
And please, could we quit arguing points that no one has made?
Skip, doesn't your citation about not bearing the punishment for another's sin really make the case against bombing children in Iraq to get revenge on Saddam?
Admin (Lee?) [!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]B.H.
Your answer to Dante, ridiculous. Comparing a war against armies to take a dictator, killer, and psycopath out of power to bombing U.S. citizens to stop abortion??
That is a very illogical comparison. It's like comparing apples to oranges.[/quote]
Actually, though BH may forget his manners sometimes, this is a perfectly valid comparison. A war against a psycopath dictator is going to result in dead innocents, just as pro-life bombings would and do.
PatriciaRedstone-No, thank you & Lucybelle!
Kari.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ Oct. 02 2002,12:58)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I sense frustration among many of you who dislike big government even when run by conservatives. Please look into the Liberterian party. They have a excellent web site that states in detail their position along with how to fix things.
Terry you mentioned getting rid of all government agencies that get in the way. That statement is very LP in nature. We are for totally eliminating most agencies and allowing the private sector to take it's course. We believe that poverty exists because of over-taxation of businesses and individuals while we send our money to people oversees. I think some of you will find their sentiments refreshing.[/quote]
No political party is a perfect fit, but the Libertarian Party is the closest one to my anti-institutional heart.
When a person who cannot afford medical care is given medical care, the benefit is immediate and very, very real. All of the statistics in the world won't change that.
I am not interested in getting into this nonsensical debate. I know how statistics can be twisted. But I live in the real world, see poverty every day, and understand that rich people making more money provides no economic relief to the very poor. Jobs will be created in areas where it makes economic sense to create jobs. Making money will still be the bottom line. And many people will still fall through the cracks and suffer.
The end result of profiteering is not paradise; it is Enron.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ Oct. 03 2002,5:59)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Approximately 100,000 people die every day from starvation, malnutrition, or related diseases. Approximately 40,000 are them are children. — Ron Sider, Christian Scholars Review 26, 3 (Spring 1997).
Over one billion people live in "desperate hunger
I would rather see us or the government give the money to those poorer than us and let THEM go out buy what whatever they need to create more jobs. I do not much agree with the concept of saying " I will help you with your immediate financial needs by going out and buying a $20,000 vehicle so you can have a job, instead of giving you financial support each month."
What you are saying sounds good, but I live in the real world where most do not give unless they know of specific need or tragedy(9/11). They have to be asked, they do not normally go out and look for people to help. If you don't know about it, it is forgotten or overlooked.
For those of you who want to banish taxes, I would like to ask this; how many of you give away every single penny or a large part of that nice tax refund check each spring? Or is it more likely that God is lucky with 10%? How many use it to pay off bills? Take a big vacation? Buy a car, house, furniture, clothes or whatever?
Susie
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ Oct. 04 2002,3:24)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]But of course, the big guys never play with their own money. [/quote]
Precisely. They play with tax payer money which is why we have to keep companies separate from government. Have a good weekend.
Quint
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]It just seems odd to me that Christians and Atheist can have the same goals.[/quote]
Terry, your comment is both harsh and unfair. I haven't said to you "It seems odd to me that Christians and the Klan can have the same goals."
You aren't obligated to agree with me, but please try to maintain just a bit of the spirit of fair play. I know that it is tempting to vilify those who disagree with us, especially when we feel strongly about something, but I don't believe it appropriate in a Christian forum.
I'm sorry to be disagreeable, but this is a Christian site, and the rules call for truth-telling and respect. And both of those have been occasionally lacking in this thread.
I apologize if anyone feels I have been disrespectful of their views. I do not mean that in any way. I simply do not agree, which is okay. In return, I don't ask that everyone agree with my opinions. But I do expect the respect owed to a fellow Christian.
Kari.
Yet another good article.
I guess that makes me "a (relatively) conservative advocate of Free Enterprise" and an admirer of Hungarian concert pianists. :p
Will a group of Christians trying to function in daily life together, a group reaching for that "mind of Christ" we're supposed to have, that willingness to take ourselves off the throne & put ourselves on the Cross...
Will such a group think in lockstep? Will they all see as necessary all the same actions and votings and servings and lovings? The rubber-meeting-the-road stuff, the "Bible says this, so I'll do that on the sidewalk downtown" stuff?
*********************************************
Last night my Mike brought up Jesus' teaching on "the greatest commandment and the second one like unto it".
He said, that when we think and act, in worship or work or anything else, when we try to act upon our understandings of Scripture, we must pass it all through that greatest-command-and-the-one-like-it.
If our action and our chosen bits of Scripture cannot be filtered through the two, then our interpretation needs adjustment. There will be no error in the Word, so we must assume the error is in us, and change accordingly.
I thought he put it well, sitting there beside black Bayou Terrbonne, under a ceiling fan, over espresso & beignets, with Christian friends.
We have some of our best Bible studies there, behind B.J.'s Coffee Station in downtown Houma.
Patricia and Janine, I think we're on to something here. Forgive me for being so unclear, but some of these things I'm just getting a handle on as I speak (or type).
Maybe, as it relates to our Christian relationship, your political opinions are absolutely none of my business (unless I see something dangerous to your salvation), just as your style of dress or diet, or taste in music are none of my business.
I just don't see how we can bring Christ to the world if we can't come to any unity among ourselves. It's one of those things that sounds easy, but is pretty hard to apply, isn't it?
One thing that has concerned me for many years is that assigning Christianity to conservative politics has
1) driven away the politically liberal from Christianity, and
2) given the so-called 'secular' segment of the political left free reign.
Kari.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]KMV,
If you want to call yourself a liberal, fine. I have to wonder, are you a supporter of abortion? Democrats and other liberals are. If you don't have an opinion on this issue, I suggest visiting www.prolife.com and taking a look at some of the pictures of murdered babies.
Tom Dashcle and Hillary Clinton (each liberals) are keeping President Bush's judge nominees from being considered for confirmation. Why? Because they are pro-life. Sounds a bit like discrimination to me. But then, I have never heard anyone charge a democrat of that. They have a free pass from the media. Especially Tom and Hillary.
A vote for a liberal (Democrat) is a vote for abortion (killing innocent HUMAN life, aka-murder). Period. Is that something you feel comfortable with? Have you prayed about that?
Lee Wilson[/quote]
No disrespect meant, but why would it not be discrimination if congress vetoed presidential nominees because they were pro-gay rights, pro-limited abortion, evolution in schools, ect.
The mom, the firefighter, the teacher, every one of them, could always do something else, somewhere else, for more money.
They have chosen to put up with a smaller pay and sometimes less acclaim from society, to accomplish something they see as a noble purpose. Good for them.
They still have options here that they don't under many, maybe most, systems.
As for you two, B.H. & patriciaredstone, I restate, that I agree with what the author said at its face value. I'm not talking about some tangenital or deeper philosophical issue somewhere, or what someone or some culture might be doing to use capitalistic principles wrongly. I'm talking nuts-and-bolts practicalities.
And... I've never noticed that it takes an Everest-sized mental brilliance to make a good point. I make a good point from time to time & I ain't exactly the sharpest tool in God's shed.
bh:
i see what you meant. this is the thread you were refering to.
sorry, i thought otherwise. i haven't kept up here. i withdraw to peruse the statements of the wise and undoubtedly filthy rich!!
dj
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (janine @ Sep. 25 2002,5:43)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Come on. Government?
That might appeal to the poor guys on the back of the garbage trucks. They deserve $20 an hour.
But, for any paying job I've ever held, I wouldn't trust the government to establish, or desire the government to limit, my income.[/quote]
Did you know that in France and other European countries being employed by the government as well as the idea of governemnt is regarded as an honorable thing? You should not hate government the way you do.
If it was not for government interference we never would have ended segregation, have child labor laws, a minimum wage, and many of the safety regulations for business we do today. Government is a good, honorable thing.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Here's my question (I think it's generally addressed to B.H., but anyone else who wants to answer, feel free). In a society where everyone is paid equally regardless of their specific occupation, who will go through eight years of schooling to become a doctor if they can make the same amount of money by dropping out of high school and working at the local grocery store sacking groceries? Wouldn't this cause everyone to take the jobs that require less training and less skill?[/quote]
No, the posts above concerning artists and teachers makes the point.
The problem is that the WRONG people are being trained for the professions everyone thinks are worth so much. Stop training those who are doing it just so they can make the big bucks (use their skills to exploit others in need of them) and train those who are doing it out of a genuine concern to help others and be a productive member of socie
Kari,
My example proves your point, yes.
But do not forget that those of the Pharisees could not remain Pharisees and come to Christ; Nicodemus and Joseph (and Saul of Tarsus, later) proved that by either covertly seeking Jesus or overtly rejecting the way of the Pharisees.
I say that not to condone or condemn liberal or conservative or Democrat or Republican, but to point out that associations are important, and that we will be judged by our associations (in case you hadn't noticed :D ).
I know a man who will not vote for a particular political party because of their stances on some moral issues, lest he be considered as taking part in morally wrong (in his opinion) stances.
It's much the same as a bar or tavern. He will not go into such a place just to 'hang out with the boys' because of the associations and example to other Christians and to his family. He would, however, have no problem with evangelism to patrons of a bar or tavern - as such an attitude is consistent with his feeling that those who frequent such places, in his opinion, need Christ, not a drinking buddy.
Take care. :)
Kari,
You don't care to discuss this because you can't explain why you carry a card that supports radical immoral change to society. If you voted for Clinton or Gore then you DO support the homosexual and proabortion agenda. It's that simple. Again there you go with the emotional rhetoric of look at the far right. I can at least give you a detailed explanation of why I support certain issues of the right. For example, I believe that legislation should be passed lowering taxes and honoring couples (man and woman) who choose to get married. I think this is congruent with what God had in mind. I think elevating a same sex or unmarried couple to that of marriage undermines the values of a society. I believe that stay-at-home parents should receive a tax credit because when children are raised by their own parents it does a society unbelievable good.
What specifically about the far right do you object to. Prayer in schools? "One nation under God" remaining in the pledge. What exactly is it that you don't like?
Furthermore, I am not necessarily a Republican. I don't agree to everything in the party. Therefore, I don't carry a card and go around boasting that this is my party, but run and hide when someone asks me to defend my position.
No, I don't think that merely being anti-homosexual is enough to make someone a good Christian. However, your party has placed this in the forefront of their domestic agenda, and as Christians we have a duty to at least not support it by not voting for it. Ive been talking about this, because the domocrats have created the issue. Not because I dislike gays. It is an issue because it is an issue. Of course there are other moral issues, but no one is asking for insurance coverage for liars, adulters and drunks. No one is trying to elevate the status of a drunk to that of a sober thinking person. If you don't like this being an issue, then perhaps you should look to your party for change.
Janine,
I know that single people (yes, another pain in the butt group) are trying to get coverage for other people on their insurance besides children.
And let's face it, this country is extremely litigious. Fat people are suing for larger seats in cars and airplanes and health coverage that isn't affected by their weight. Gluttony, I believe is also a sin, but I think we all know why that issue isn't pursued in the churches.
I'm signing off here. Enjoy your weekend folks!
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Skip @ Sep. 30 2002,11:28)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Lucybelle / Kari,
My point was that, first of all, "Christian" is now as broad a brush as the "Liberal" and "Conservative" and "Democrat" and "Republican" brushes.
Second, consider that the actions that 'started the gay rights movement' may have started the movement, but they do not justify the movement.
Just as a teenager in a too-strict household is not justified when he or she rebels against rules or punishments with sinful activities.
After all, consider this for harsh:
God eradicated Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone...[/quote]
... and this one, "Fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath."
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (lucybelle @ Oct. 02 2002,08:11)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Quint,
The people within the parties have flip-flopped. Republicans used to be considered liberal and Democrats used to be considered conservative. Again, I agree with you regarding welfare, but you haven't addressed Jim Crow. It's the same people supporting Jim Crow who used to call themselves Democrats but now call themselves Republican.
And generally speaking, I don't recall anyone here saying that capitalism is bad, except for maybe B.H. (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong). You can be both liberal and a capitalist. The arguments are against the negative stereotypes that many Christians have against liberals and the fact that some people in other countries may actually be happy not being capitalist. In other words Capitalism does not equal Christianity and Republican does not equal Christian.[/quote]
I can't address Jim Crow because I don't know of anyone personally who supported JC laws and now vote Republican. I'm sure they exist, I just don't know of any personally.
They do say alot of very interesting things. I have more to say about this later, but right now I've gotta get ready for a great big hurricane heading my way!
terry
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (marc @ Oct. 03 2002,4:15)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]When a person who cannot afford medical care is given medical care, the benefit is immediate and very, very real. All of the statistics in the world won't change that.
I am not interested in getting into this nonsensical debate. I know how statistics can be twisted. But I live in the real world, see poverty every day, and understand that rich people making more money provides no economic relief to the very poor. Jobs will be created in areas where it makes economic sense to create jobs. Making money will still be the bottom line. And many people will still fall through the cracks and suffer.
The end result of profiteering is not paradise; it is Enron.[/quote]
Marc,
When was the last time you got a job from a poor guy?
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Taxes have gone way up since the 1960's. [/quote]
I'm not sure you've noticed, but the tax rate in constant dollars is lower today than it was in the 1960's. And, gosh, things are so much better now!
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Do you all really think that the govt does the best job it can with our money? [/quote]
In fact the combination of tax revenue support and user fees allows government to sometimes offer services at below cost.
Privatization is a risky scheme. In my lifetime I have lived through the privatization of natural gas and electrical service. The pattern for both was identical: Initially several companies jumped in the fray; cut throat competition culled some, the others were bought up by the bigger, better funded companies until only one was left standing. Basically we replaced a public utility with a private one. The lack of competition (which was exactly the reason we told privatization was needed) has had it price: Service has deteriorated, and costs have escalated until, using 1984 dollars (pre-privatization in these parts) we pay 240% more for less services.
And when the churches or families are not able or willing to help, then what happens?
because in the real world, this is the scenario.
Kari,
I would like to share a scripture with you.
Proverbs 3:9 Honor the Lord with your wealth, with your firstfruits of all your crops; then your barns will be filled to overflowing, and your vats will brim with new wine.
I believe that we are extremely blessed in this country because the Lord has looked upon us with favor. As a nation, we help other countries in need, we feed those outside of our country who wouldn't have food otherwise, we give freely of our talent and time to those in need. Just look at all our missionaries at work. Medical people volunteer their time in countries without doctors. We rebuild other countries after disasters whithout charging them. I don't think God hates us over wealth. In fact, I think the more we give, the more he blesses us. The result is blessings that are so great that we have abundance. Our wealth is by no means achieved from selfishness. God gives us the talent and minds to make this wealth possible, through whatever econoic system we see fit. It's up to us to use our wealth to honor him. What do we do with this wealth? Do we use it to throw God out of society and kill our children? Or do we continue to honor him and receive more blessings?
I don't think that God hates wealth as long as you use it to honor him. The bible is full of scriptures stating this. There are warnings about abusing riches, but it's contradictory to say God dislikes wealth, yet all wealth is from God.
Personally, I think our days of blessings are coming to an end. It seems as we legislate God and his creations out of our lives, he moves further and further from us. The terrorist attacks may very well have been our first warning that he is removing his hand that has been protecting us for so long. I'm sorry I sounded harsh. I just find it very frightening that we are finding ways to legislate dishonoring God. It just seems odd to me that Christians and Atheist can have the same goals. Btw, that local group trying to shut us down is the federally funded group known as Planned Parenthood.
It's been nice talking to you about these things, but I've got other things that need my attention.
God bless,
terry
Sorry to do so many posts in a row, but after thinking about this for a while, I decided to do one post that (perhaps finally) will lay out where I'm coming from on this, and why I believe it to be a Biblical issue.
I guess I just have trouble understanding why we separate our political selves from our Christian selves when it comes to helping the needy.
We live in a Republic. Our founders decided that our government comes from the people. It does the will of the people and its power comes from us. Thus our government's actions represent our actions. Shouldn't we, then, want our corporate (government) money spent for the same type of things the scriptures suggest our personal money should be spent for?
We have no trouble understanding this concept when it comes to abortion. Since our governmental power comes from us we do what's in our power to oppose legalized abortion and to oppose our tax money being used for this. Why do we think differently when it comes to helping the poor?
The suggestion has been made that by letting the government take care of the poor, churches are abdicating their responsibilities. I do not see this. God never said that we should do good with our money only through our organized church bodies. And I believe that rather than abdicating our responsibilities when we let the government help take care of the poor, we are, as a part of this government, letting our money be used in areas and for needs we would otherwise not see.
Let's face it: the churches in the poorest areas are poor. The churches in the areas where the most help is needed are not able to take care of the need themselves. As Christians we can work with our government to help those who need help who would not be reached by either churches or individual Christians in their areas.
I believe it's time we took what Jesus said about helping the hungry, the naked, the prisoners seriously, and perhaps put these principles above our political principles.
http://www.ericbarger.com/articles/Tikkun.htm (http://www.ericbarger.com/articles/Tikkun.htm)
Add this link to the suggested reading above. The author describes in more detail where the new leftist ideology comes from. Christians need to be concerned.
I heard an interview recently with someone who has written a book about finding elements of the gospel in Harry Potter. I understand this is not what the author intended, but the author's points were rather convincing.
Congratulations.
We have reached a new record for straying from the original topic of a thread.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Congratulations.
We have reached a new record for straying from the original topic of a thread.[/quote]
If we keep going the way we're going, we may come full circle and end up where we started.
:p
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]A vote for a liberal (Democrat) is a vote for abortion (killing innocent HUMAN life, aka-murder). Period.[/quote]
This is like saying "A vote for a conservative (Republican) is a vote for war (killing innocent HUMAN life, aka-murder)". It's easy to say, but that doesn't make it true. It's much harder to have a real discussion; to trade real insights into each other's understanding of complex issues.
I do know that we both agree that we are living under the best possible political system. And in a system like this, we will always find (at least) two sides to each question, good and bad in each candidate, positive and negative in each party.
I think that's part of the glory of the way God gave us Scripture. He could have given us a laundry list of do's & don't's. Instead, we have the privilege to discover his will for ourselves.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Is that something you feel comfortable with? Have you prayed about that?
[/quote]
Yes.
Kari.
May I also say that hard work doesn't necessarily mean financial success. God has given everyone different talents and some talents are valued more in our society than others.
Is an underpaid school teacher who stays late to tutor inner-city children, personally visits them at home and maintains relationships with them long after they are in her (his) class hardworking? Is the artist who takes a job beneath his ability so that he can devote his time to his art (while not being paid) hardworking? Is the single mom who works as a legal secretary, often grueling hours, to support her two children hardworking? What about the firemen? It took 9/11 for anyone to recognize that they are grossly underpaid.
How hard someone works or how many units -- hours -- of work someone puts in are not determining factors in how much pay they are worth, when comparing across lines. A doctor is not worth a bricklayer is not worth a welder is not worth a french fry fryer, interchangeably.
As unfair as it is to let pay be determined by what the traffic will bear, by whatever people end up earning due to company or community whims, I would not want to submit myself to some arbitrary Socialist/Communist-style determination of what I'll be allowed to earn.
Yes, everyone can take a jump and find a job making more money. In this country, at least, and assuming they are not mentally incompetent.
The problem comes in when we are not willing to pay too stiff a price. For example, if the changes involved would throw you in with a company you considered immoral; if you simply cannot move to another city because elderly relatives you are responsible for won't go with you... different reasons, often good ones. The opportunity is here, though.
As for the article, back to that... the man was speaking in generalities. Broad brushing and statistic-based group ID doesn't cover every eventuality. It's groupspeak, you know.
Just because you personally have lovely reasons why you think parts of a so-called "liberal" ideology are OK, but you resent being tarred with that broad brush, does not negate the position the writer has taken.
It's like a nature special about the migration of wildebeest... wildebeestes... wildebeesties... Gnus!
No two are alike, some are brighter, some are healthier, some are different colors, ages, genders... But it is a useful thing to talk about them as a group, as a force of nature, because you're talking about trends and the whole group's impact on the world around them.
Skip-
So now being a Democrat is the same as being a barfly? Just kidding-I know you aren't making that kind of false analogy. I've seen enough of your posts to know that although I may not agree with all of them, your opinions are thought-out and backed up by facts.
And, yes, I have noticed a willingness to judge another based on his or her associations! I'm not sure how well that fits with Matthew 7, but that's another discussion. (Side note--I was told by a woman on another cofC board that 'Judge not ..." only applies to sins we are actually committing ourselves-that the Lord has left us free to judge another over sins we aren't personally prone to.)
Of course, if we can only vote for the sinless politicians/parties, we're not going to need to spend much time at the polls, are we? If a vote for Clinton was a vote for an adulterer, then so was a vote for Reagan, who committed adultery when he divorced his first wife. It's foolish, childish, simple-minded to assert that one political party is more 'moral' than another.
You can tell me my politics are wrong-I can tell you yours are too. But you CANNOT tell me I'm not a fellow Christian.
By the way, Skip, as I think about it more, maybe you do have something in that bar analogy. Perhaps it is a good thing so many posters here are in the Republican party-because those tax-evading, corporate-thieving, pro-war business suits could sure use a little evangelism. :D
p.s. All those posters who claimed they couldn't understand where kebecer or hawkeye got the idea that there were vicious, judgemental or narrowminded folks on this board might want to check out some of the preceding posts then give kebecer & hawkeye and apology.
Come on. Government?
That might appeal to the poor guys on the back of the garbage trucks. They deserve $20 an hour.
But, for any paying job I've ever held, I wouldn't trust the government to establish, or desire the government to limit, my income.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]KMV,
You never answered my question. Are you an abortion advocate?
[/quote]
Of course not. Why would you ask such an insulting question? Have I revealed anything at all about myself that would suggest I like or favor abortion?
Kari
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ Sep. 27 2002,10:03)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Perhaps it is a good thing so many posters here are in the Republican party-because those tax-evading, corporate-thieving, pro-war business suits could sure use a little evangelism. :D[/quote]
Hmmm, would that be the same pro-war folks that won you the freedom to make these comments and to go around saying that your a near Socialist? After all, if it wouldn't have been for a few wars, you really would be living in a Socialist country most likely not enjoying the freedoms that enable you to make your ill thought out comments.
There's one bit that's undeniable, Doyle... At least I've never yet heard a pro-and-con fuss over anyone with employee health & other benefits assigning second-person benefits to anyone. The folks pushing for it always want it for homosexual psuedo-spouses.
It's as much social engineering as it is any 'honest' push for elevation of same-sex shacking up to 'marriage' status.
Terry, [!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Kari,
Are you saying that morality and truth are different from person to person? Or that they are determined by individual perception[/quote]
Not at all. What I'm saying, repeatedly, is that no single party has a lock on morality. Indeed, seldom is a single issue as 'black & white' as we'd like it to be.
For example, the killing of innocents. One party is, for the most part, against abortion. The other party is (or will be), for at least some part, against a war with Iraq. BOTH of these situations involve the killing of the innocent. Yet the Republican party opposes abortion and seems to be less concerned with civilian death in Afghanistan, Isreal & Iraq. See--one morality, more than one issue.
NEITHER PARTY has a lock on morality. In fact, sometimes a single issue can be complex. For example, withholding health or family funds from groups that may be connected with pro-choice policies. Won't a lack of birthcontrol availabity result in MORE abortions?
My point, way back years ago, was that no one, not you, not me, can say a Christian 'must' vote a certain way. And it was poor oversight on the editor's part to sponsor slanted, slanderous editorials such as the one that started this whole mess.
Kevin:
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Another quote by Jeremy Renalds that I thought was good:
"While the events of the last few months have shown us that capitalism can be abused, let's remember that these abuses are aberrations of a good system. At its heart capitalism is a good system which encourages people to be the best they can be. Liberalism is a discouraging system of defeatism which at its heart discourages personal effort and kills economic incentive. "
What do you think?
Kevin[/quote]
No offense, but are you CRAZY starting this whole thing up again? :)
Kari.
Quint,
fair enough
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ Oct. 03 2002,7:16)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Taxes have gone way up since the 1960's. [/quote]
I'm not sure you've noticed, but the tax rate in constant dollars is lower today than it was in the 1960's. And, gosh, things are so much better now!
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Do you all really think that the govt does the best job it can with our money? [/quote]
In fact the combination of tax revenue support and user fees allows government to sometimes offer services at below cost.
Privatization is a risky scheme. In my lifetime I have lived through the privatization of natural gas and electrical service. The pattern for both was identical: Initially several companies jumped in the fray; cut throat competition culled some, the others were bought up by the bigger, better funded companies until only one was left standing. Basically we replaced a public utility with a private one. The lack of competition (which was exactly the reason we told privatization was needed) has had it price: Service has deteriorated, and costs have escalated until, using 1984 dollars (pre-privatization in these parts) we pay 240% more for less services.[/quote]
Boodha,
I will admit the govt is good at managing some things and bad at others. I think you need to go back and read Susieface's post. The question was about using taxes to solve the problems of the poor. My point was this is a mind-set problem in nature and cannot be resolved by a monthly check from the govt. I'm talking about work abled bodies here. We were discussing how much more effective it is to create jobs through more spending by tax cuts than through govt social engineering. Maybe you just came in late on the conversation. I noticed you used the words sometimes which is important. They don't always, and we should demand better when they don't.
I am currently taking an economics class at a local university. One of the items I took note of was the fact that only about 40 percent of tax dollars stolen, I mean collected, from Americans for welfare actually gets to "poor" people.
Someone asked the teacher how that was possible. She said, "Well, people are making money on welfare. There's lots of money in "helping" the poor." She later went on to explain that these government employees get more $$$ for each person on welfare.
So the motivation to get people on welfare and KEEP them on it is there.
Taxes for defense, yes. Taxes for roads, yes. Taxes for schools, yes. I object to most taxes for any other reason. But, then again, I am a conservative, God-fearing, Bush loving, NRA supporter.
:D
Lee Wilson
Does it seem ironic to anyone else that the type of things Jesus went about doing are the very things that people object their tax money being used for?
I'd rather my taxes be used to buy food or health care for the poor than new missles or roads any day.
So...
Brace yourself...
:p
(That's as close as we have to a "tongue-in-cheek" emoticon)
I think that Capitalism corrupted Harry Potter; that is to say, the author of Harry Potter...
Because there's been no new books since the Harry-Potter-movie dollar signs blinded what's-her-name who wrote them.
Fortunately, Tolkien died before the technical wizardry (pun intended) existed to movie-fy his excellent Lord of the Rings.
And, in the spirit (another pun intended) of getting back off topic, did you know that C. S. Lewis converted J. R. R. Tolkien to Christianity?
Have a great Friday :)
I sense frustration among many of you who dislike big government even when run by conservatives. Please look into the Liberterian party. They have a excellent web site that states in detail their position along with how to fix things.
Terry you mentioned getting rid of all government agencies that get in the way. That statement is very LP in nature. We are for totally eliminating most agencies and allowing the private sector to take it's course. We believe that poverty exists because of over-taxation of businesses and individuals while we send our money to people oversees. I think some of you will find their sentiments refreshing.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (marc @ Oct. 03 2002,4:15)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]The end result of profiteering is not paradise; it is Enron.[/quote]
Or Imclome, or Global Crossings if the profeteers are democrats.
BJ
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Marc,
I realize this may sound harsh, but I totally disagree with the government bailing out ANY business, including an airline company. If a company can not make it on their own, they ought to go out of business. Other people, who can set up companies that can make it on their own, would fill the gap. My tax dollars should not be spent to keep inept managers who go into too much debt, or have poor business plans, in business.
Kevin [/quote]
Hey, remember this little thing that happened last September, around the 11th? that was a bit out of the airlines control.
Who was it that just sort of grew... Topsy?
I didn't mean it, honestly!
I still think capitalism provides the best scope for Christian living.
I quite enjoy Harry Potter. I have read all of the books, and have seen the movie. I really enjoy it.
Dr. Rubel Shelly has a good article on the subject of Harry Potter. Just go to the archives. It's called, "Harry Potter: An Invitation to Evil?"
Lee
Janine,
I agree with you completely that these people made a choice and that they have a choice unlike someone else under a different government. Being liberal doesn't mean you're necessarily anti-capitalist or against a free market. I'm merely pointing out that you can be liberal and/or struggling financially and still be hardworking.
Feel free to completely ignore the following unrelated points... :D
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]If his statements aren't true, then they're lies. Period.
--Kari[/quote]
I agree with this logic -- if not true, then a lie.
If the reader (that's all of YOU) also agrees, then may I make a point that will allow you to see an atheist's point of view about the Bible. Applying Kari's statement to, say, the creation account, what if creation by evolution is true and the Genesis creation account is false? Atheists have, logically enough, concluded that if evolution is true and the Biblical creation account is false, then the Judeo-Christian holy book is, well, lies. Period.
The moral of the story: You can't have it both ways...
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]When I bind my thinking on someone, it is legalism.
--Bill[/quote]
Thought question:
Since God bound His will upon us, does that make Him the consummate legalist?
:0
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (janine @ Sep. 25 2002,5:21)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Of course no one thinks it's great that an entertainer, say, or athlete, may earn more than some nations' GNPs, while a gradeschool teacher or EMT makes so much less. Looking at the impact on character formation, eternal consequences, etc., that's backward, ain't it?
But, I'll take whatever the market will bear, whatever I can convince people to pay me, with enthusiasm, over something arbitrary set by the (eeeew) government.[/quote]
But what if the government would make sure you got a fairer pay?
So, just because I think that sucking the brains out of a living infant is evil, and those who would vote to protect such an industry are endorsing evil, I'm narrow minded and biggoted? I'm only stating an opinion to those who are open minded enough to think about it. Can someone please explain to me how you can be a Christian and endorse these activities? No hateful language or look at the Republicans etc... Just explain to me how a Christian can make a calculated vote for known immorality? I find the idea mind boggling.
Kari,
You have ignored my specific questions to you. Please give specific answers. Also, I don't believe that because a politician has sin in their background makes them unworthy of holding office. It is the endorsing of and approving of making sin part of the mainstream life for all Americans that I object to.
I'm not trying to persuade anyone to my point of view. All I want is for Kari to answer this question. Why do you vote for things that you don't believe in such as same sex marriage and partial birth abortion. It's a really straight forward question.
Gee, talking about having a thread highjacked.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ Oct. 01 2002,4:35)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]And what if Democrats and Republicans saw eye to eye on taking Sadam out of power? With that issue taken away, the Republican party would be your choice. Is that right?[/quote]
Well, except for racism, treatment of the poor, violence against women, education, judicial fairness, attacks on the bill of rights (especially due process), forcing my children to say someone else's prayer at school, gender equality, children's rights, healthcare, corporate responsibility, inequitable application of the death penalty, immigration, corporate welfare and our treatment of the environment. Otherwise, I think the political right is doing fine.
Lee, Terry, Janine, et al: Tell you what. As soon as the Republican party, in general, starts dealing with Christ's command to feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, and take care of the sick and imprisoned the way I believe He wants us to, y'all let me know. I'll run right out and change my voter registration. Until then, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Kari.[/quote]
Kari,
Can you name one school that FORCED it's students to say a prayer?
Oops, I sent to soon. I just think the federal govt in particular is way too big and too far reaching. I would like to see the IRS abolished, along with the FDA, the EPA, and every other agency that causes inflated costs and just gets in the way. I don't think the founding fathers had any of this agency stuff in mind.
Btw, I'm considering the Lib party even more after witnessing all that nonsense in NJ by both parties. I'm really sick of these politicians thinking the govt revolves around themselves and going to court to prove that they're above the law. Even worse is the 7-0 ruling by the NJ Supreme court which affirms my suspicions that the two party system is mostly corrupt.
terry
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Marc,
Many companies, small to medium businesses in particular cannot pay decent salaries or benefits because they are overtaxed. Taxes that are wasted on govt pork projects. Please don't say that if they didn't have to pay these taxes they would pocket the money themselves. I know alot of business owners who are Christians that don't think this way. In fact, many will tell you that if they could pay more, they could hire better talent. This is what they would use the money for. Recruiting good help.[/quote]
You're talking to a real person here, not a canned argument. Any attempt to assume I will respond in a certain way based on political assumptions is futile.
I agree that small businesses are overtaxed, and believe our local economic system would be helped greatly if some of that burden were relieved. But small businesses cannot bear the load themselves. Large corporations are necessary for our economy to remain healthy.
I work for a large corporation--United Airlines. Over the past year, for obvious reasons, we have received a great deal of help from the federal government--from tax money. If that money had not been received, this company would no longer exist. Furthermore, though there have been some positive signs in the past week, our company needs more help from the government.
In other words, the big guys, the small guys, those who can't fend for themselves all need help from the federal government. Our tax system makes this help possible.
And btw, when all is said and done and the corporations are as healthy as they can be, there will still be many who fall through the cracks. As a Christian, I believe in helping those who need the most help in any way possible. My tax money is a small sacrifice when I know how much need exists.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (kmv @ Oct. 04 2002,11:37)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Terry, James is the one who accused the rich of oppressing the poor. I'm just pointing that out.
As to this
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Should we really have to pay for those who fornicate and abort? I really do believe that these should be paid for by optional taxes for those who want to contribute to the cause of the fornicator themselves. [/quote]
I posted a link the 2000 Democrat platform in its entirety. Where exactly is the proposed fornication subsidy? What on earth are you talking about? Welfare payments to unwed mothers? I've got no clue where you find a fornication subsidy. [/quote]
Yes and I'm just pointing out that politicians are getting rich and fat off the people while their constituents remain poor. The rich politicians oppress the poor by taking money intended for the poor. Somehow you exclude your representatives from this passage. You seem to think James is speaking only to Republicans. And who is dragging who to court in this passage? Company owners are not withholding pay from employees and taking them to court. It's the workers who wont show up, they act like total slackers and then yell discrimination when they are reprimanded. Open your eyes and look. What business man can run a successful company by not paying his employees? James is talking about having someone do work and refusing to pay them when their done. He is not saying all rich people are evil. Refusal to pay employees is not tolerated by either party. At least not in this country.
You might want to read 1Tim 5. This is in reference to the order of giving that God has instructed us on. You will find no instructions to go and register with the gov for assistance. If the gov could manage to get 100% of the money collected and keep their greedy hands out, I'd say you have a point. Otherwise, they're all thieves in my book.
As for paying for some to fornicate, yes I am talking about welfare and the fact that it punishes women who choose to get married. It is not a proposal, it is a here and now reality that you and I pay for. Yes these people need help, but not by the govt who totally does not understand the need for a two parent family. They need spiritual help as well. So here goes Terry working at a CPC finding and arranging aid myself and lo and behold the democrats want to shut us down for being pro-life. If that party is so great then why don't they believe in our right to peacefully assist women who come to us because they don't want to terminate?
I get the idea that you have never thought about the origins of your own material blessings. Most likely, someone started a company, made the things that you bought, and eventually became wealthy off your purchases. Everything around you has come from capitolism, yet you would have every company in the US shut down from what I'm reading because you don't like to see people prosper. You would bite the very hand that feeds you. Somehow, you have this idea that the government is the only thing in this country that should make money. They will then decide how we all should live. Maybe when your through with getting us there, we'll just call it Mexico.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (kmv @ Oct. 04 2002,11:37)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]It is an economic rule that when you place a project in the hands of the private sector it will be done better, cheaper, and quicker. [/quote]This is a myth. It only holds true IF every individual involved in a private company puts the good of the company ahead of the good of the individual and IF the ultimate good is to make the most possible profit. Those are two pretty shaky assumptions.
And you are ignoring the fact that government exists for the good of all, not just the good of some. You might compare the performance of the USPS and FedEx. Yes, FedEx delivers some items more quickly at lower cost. But that ignores the fact that the post office is charged with making sure that every citizen can communicate, by mail, with every other, at a modest cost. And that FedEx can't do.
It is the same with other agencies. Private drug companies exist to make profit. What about medical conditions that aren't wide-spread enough to make private research pay? Those folks should just die?
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]For starters I'd get rid of the IRS, CDC, and OSHA. [/quote] Of course you'd get rid of OSHA-you're in HR ;) But do you truly believe that businesses will treat people fairly without coercion? You think that management is sitting around thinking "You know, we could make more money if we sped the line up 17%, but that would place our employees at increased risk of injury, so we won't do it"? Get real. History has shown us that people are all too often willing to harm and endanger others for money.
But you are right in that there is certainly room to debate the government programs that do and don't work well. Some ideas, like faith-based initiatives, are good ideas but need to be thought through before implementing. [/quote]
Kari,
Your logic is a little flawed. You are assuming that if a job is given to the government they will put the good of the people before themselves. We have all seen enough tv to know of the abuses in government. It has to do with total immunity from lawsuits. The private sector is better if it is truly private. By this I mean that individuals put up their own money and take the risk to make the company work. Who would put up their own money and not want to make a profit? Real business people don't start companies just to see if they can drive them into the ground. I know you would like to point to Enron, but they were floating on government grants and borrowed money. The whole thing was a scam from the ground up. I can guarantee you that if the people involved would have put up their own money things would have been different.
OSHA? I don't want to see them go away because I'm in HR. After all, all that red tape means long-term job security for me. They really burden us down with paper work, but they're not too serious about going after the real violaters. If you can pay them enough, they leave you alone. They are definitely tied in with the big corporations that you don't like.
Has fed-ex ever tried out mail delivery service? I don't think they have. It's not that they can't, it's just not a good business option for them. So, we will just let the post office continue to lose money.
I agree. Some things should be from the private sector and a few things should be from the govt. I do however think it is a mistake to believe that the govt can always out perform the private sector.
Kabballah is mystical yes, but it is not more occult than Christianity. That some rabbais say Kaballah is unorthodox is no more surprising than a member of the Church of Christ asserting that people who subscribe to Wineksins is unorthodox.
This is very interesting, you never know what you're going to learn here! First, I am not a Clinton fan. Didn't vote for him either time, but neither did I vote for the Republican. I always vote third party unless the candidate is Jimmy Carter. I have never heard of Tikkun Magazine or the guy who runs it, but I am a big believer in the redemption of humankind. Jesus was "tikkun" he was the Great Mender. I have mentioned "tikkun" in many of my lectures. Now I am wondering how many conservatives out there think I'm a Hillary fan ...?!
This article is trash. It assumes that anything mystical other than good clean Protestant/Evangelical/Republican living is occult. Many people in the church think Catholicism is occult! Some Christians throw the word "occult' around like a hot potato. Please don't do that. Educate yourself. This is why people who do not agree with you might snicker at you behind your back.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (spurly @ Oct. 04 2002,08:26)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Marc,
I realize this may sound harsh, but I totally disagree with the government bailing out ANY business, including an airline company. If a company can not make it on their own, they ought to go out of business. Other people, who can set up companies that can make it on their own, would fill the gap. My tax dollars should not be spent to keep inept managers who go into too much debt, or have poor business plans, in business.
Kevin [/quote]
Hey, remember this little thing that happened last September, around the 11th? that was a bit out of the airlines control.[/quote]
Even though that was out of the control of the airlines, that does not mean that the government should bail the airlines out. Companies should not get themselves so extended with debt that they can not weather the hard times. And government should not bail out any business who doesn't plan for down times, or any business at all for that matter.
If any airline had gone out of business, and there was need for others to fill the gap, the gap would have been filled by airlines that are solvent - like Southwest - or by new companies.
Kevin[/quote]
Okay, and when all those people need alms we will just abolish your job at church and give them the money used for your salary. Since you love the Lord you no doubt won't mind doing youth ministry on a volunteer basis. Enjoy sacking groceries for a living. :p
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]. One of the items I took note of was the fact that only about 40 percent of tax dollars stolen, I mean collected, from Americans for welfare actually gets to "poor" people[/quote]
I am honestly shocked that the percentage is this high, given the size of the federal beaurocracy.
Of course when Paul said "This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's service who give their full time to governing. If you owe taxes, pay taxes" he didn't sound like he considered his tax dollars stolen. Neither did Jesus with that "Give to Caeser" thing.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Right-o old chap. And I think George MacDonald was an influence on Lewis as well. The three liked to pub together.[/quote]
Yes, the three of them, and a few others, had a little 'club' called the Inklings that met in a pub in Oxford to share thoughts and writings.
Kari,
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]So now being a Democrat is the same as being a barfly?[/quote]
LOL!!!
Though I must admit that for a brief moment, I thought that I was going to be flamed!
That quote, plus the mention of Ronald Reagan, brought to mind the scene in Dark Victory where Betty Davis and Reagan are conversing while drunk, sitting at the bar...
---
Politics are just ugly all around, in my opinion. Just when I'm about to sort out who stands for what, they compromise their positions again. Currently, when I vote, I am basically voting against what I perceive at the time to be the greater evil, because no one has earned my vote... especially the more I learn about them... but that's the nature of things in this world, isn't it?
Janine,
Your right it is alwaysfor the same sex pseudo-marriages. Why can't it just be like this. We're giving each employee insurance and you can each add one additional person on other than a spouse or child. This type of liberalism would have my support. Everyone benefits, and sin is not made special and legitimate.
Lucy, yes straight men are more likely to attack gay men then the other way around. But they are far more likely to attack women. So why doesn't rape get labeled as a hate crime. In this case, the liberals are yelling about too harsh of punishment.
I'm really tired of talking about this. I just question why we vote the way we do. I think it's important to keep the truth in focus, don't let the lines blur and realize that there are people out there who want us to all live a dangerous lie that God approves of everything we do.
Have a good weekend
Doyle
I tend to vote Republican because of the abortion issue, but I can definitely see how brandishing one's political sensibilities in church can do irreparable harm in alienating people.
I have a question to those of you on this board who are Democrats and/or consider themselves politically liberal. What do you think of the Dem. Party's stance on abortion, and how does this affect your decision on election day?
Of course no one thinks it's great that an entertainer, say, or athlete, may earn more than some nations' GNPs, while a gradeschool teacher or EMT makes so much less. Looking at the impact on character formation, eternal consequences, etc., that's backward, ain't it?
But, I'll take whatever the market will bear, whatever I can convince people to pay me, with enthusiasm, over something arbitrary set by the (eeeew) government.
I read the Democratic 2000 platform. There sure were alot of "bravos" to Clinton for being dedicated to having tax funded abortions available to federal employees.
I just noticed there is a thread about homosexual activism in the category "Discuss Articles on GCM". Maybe a lot of this conversation should be moved to that thread.
Kevin
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ Oct. 01 2002,4:35)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]And what if Democrats and Republicans saw eye to eye on taking Sadam out of power? With that issue taken away, the Republican party would be your choice. Is that right?[/quote]
Well, except for racism, treatment of the poor, violence against women, education, judicial fairness, attacks on the bill of rights (especially due process), forcing my children to say someone else's prayer at school, gender equality, children's rights, healthcare, corporate responsibility, inequitable application of the death penalty, immigration, corporate welfare and our treatment of the environment. Otherwise, I think the political right is doing fine.
Lee, Terry, Janine, et al: Tell you what. As soon as the Republican party, in general, starts dealing with Christ's command to feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, and take care of the sick and imprisoned the way I believe He wants us to, y'all let me know. I'll run right out and change my voter registration. Until then, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Kari.[/quote]
Kari,
Just thought I would point out, these are NOT responsibilities of the govt. They are commandments given to the church. The govt should protect the borders and deliver the mail. Period. Also, on childrens rights does that include the right to be born? Or does it include the right for the rape of children as prescribed by the Man Boy love association who is so comfortable in the democratic party?
You know, we had your president in office for eight years. If these problems would have been taken care of, I'd say you have a point. However, things definitely got worse in the 1990's so your points are seemingly invalid. I'm through with talking about this as well. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
terry
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (pdwblw @ Oct. 02 2002,10:40)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]By the way, regarding the responsibilities of government, just who is the government in this country? We are. [/quote]
Actually we aren't the government. We are a republic and we elect representatives to be the gov't for us. If we were a democracy and majority ruled Albert Gore would be the president of the United States right now. I am grateful for a republic that was well founded. The appliction of the system today is not what the founders had in mind, IMO.
Patrick[/quote]
Good point. As I understand it, we are a representative republic and not a democracy at all.
I line up closely with Libertarian party. But, I will not waste a vote on them. I vote for Republicans because they line up very close to the Libertarian party in terms of the government leaving us alone. Hence G. W. Bush's tax cuts, and desire to do away with many unecessary government programs. Also that whole baby killing thing with Democrats...I couldn't sleep at night if I vomited a vote for one of those pathetic, sickening jerks.
J.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]If you want to eliminate taxes on the spurious whim that some might possibly use their windfall to toss a couple of extra pennies in the Salvation Army bucket, please tell me what tax funded services you wish to give up?
Treated potable drinking water?
Garbage pick up?
Rural electrification?
The interstate highway system?
Air traffic control?
Free public education (quality notwithstanding)?
Police, fire, emergency services?
Military protection?
The Emergency Broadcast system?
The National Weather Service?
Veterans Administration hospitals?
The Center for Disease Control?
OSHA?
[/quote]
I vote for the National Weather Service. They're usually wrong anyway.
What? This isn't a poll? ;)
Okay, okay. Just get rid of the ones that don't help me personally. Yeah, wouldn't it be great if the government would get off our backs and let us live the way we did a hundred years ago? Just think of how much money the decreased life expectancy alone would save in medical costs.
Spurly,
How exactly do you define "user" in your "user taxes" scenario? Is usage only active or could there be passive use? Is usage the same as benefit or is it just actual usage by the driver of the vehicle?
How about the people who profit from the roads usage but don't necessarily use them? Like perhaps a farmer who has his produce picked up or hospitals which need the roads for patients to get to them or schools which need the roads to transport kids etc... (hey, my examples may not be the greatest but I think you get the drift ;) )
Also are we taxing only drivers or vehicles or are we taxing people who use them with the toll? Do you tax every passenger? How about on buses?
I think this idea needs to be thought through a little bit. Just my non-taxable two cents. :D
As a complete radical, I believe we should tear down all of our preconceptions of what government should and shouldn't do and start from scratch. What parts of our national budget are beneficial? What parts are wasteful? I have discovered that when I look deeper, the answers aren't always as they first appeared.
Personally, I believe that a justifiable function of our government is to, as an extension of "we the people", act as a stopgap, a safety net. When things happen that are beyond our control, to help us get on our feet again. While I know that the government hasn't always filled this function well, I don't believe that is any reason to abandon this.
A couple of other notes: I believe user fees can work well in certain circumstances. They are currently being used at our national parks, for instance, and seem to be a reasonable way to help preserve these areas. Also, building needed roads that the funds aren't immediately available for can sometimes be accomplished using these fees. On the other hand, the agencies created to collect these fees can become just another runaway bureaocracy. This has happened locally with our Turnpike Commission.
And a note about airlines: Southwest and maybe one or two other airlines have remained solvent by focusing on different areas than the other carriers. I know that United has looked at the Southwest plan, and I believe has basically decided it doesn't really fit the structure of the airline. The discount carriers fill a niche, but they don't represent a credible way to run the whole industry.
And I'm still not convinced that in 2002 churches and neighbors will step in and fill all the areas needs. I just don't see it happening in too many areas where real needs exist.
"gee, lets see, little Bobby seems to be choking, but if I call 911 that's going to be a pretty big bill, seeing as how the cost is only shared among those who actually use the service. Maybe I should wait and see if he turns blue first."
This type of scenario is much more common than those with plenty of money realize.
What was it Jesus said about the love of money?
Moderators,
Upon sending the above message I noticed that you prefer no links be posted. Sorry for the link. I do hope you will allow it to stay, as it is very important and relevant to the conversation.
Thank you,
Quint
Don't know why Charlie's Oct. 17 post wouldn't show up until I posted.
I have always loved Tolkein & Lewis... I need to find stuff by the other Inklings, if I can get a list of who they all were.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ Sep. 30 2002,7:13)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]B.H.
Your answer to Dante, ridiculous. Comparing a war against armies to take a dictator, killer, and psycopath out of power to bombing U.S. citizens to stop abortion??
That is a very illogical comparison. It's like comparing apples to oranges.[/quote]
You have spoken erroneously and falsely. It is a valid comparison in the fact that both would be done in the name of "good' but would never the less result in innocent people being killed regardless of the flag they pledge allegience to.
:0
[!--EDIT|patriciaredstone|Sep. 24 2002,10:43--]
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]May I also say that hard work doesn't necessarily mean financial success. God has given everyone different talents and some talents are valued more in our society than others. [/quote]
That is precisely the point.
Financial success is not determined by a person's level of work but by the value of what they produce. What a society values is not determined by its economic system, but by the people living in that society. What we value is determined by our belief system.
I think it may have been de'Tocqville who said that the most desirable form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. Given the obvious problems with trying to establish that, I think our best bet is to introduce as many people as we can to the Love of Jesus Christ - thereby impacting what our society values.
Richard
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I agree with this logic -- if not true, then a lie.
If the reader (that's all of YOU) also agrees, then may I make a point that will allow you to see an atheist's point of view about the Bible. Applying Kari's statement to, say, the creation account, what if creation by evolution is true and the Genesis creation account is false? Atheists have, logically enough, concluded that if evolution is true and the Biblical creation account is false, then the Judeo-Christian holy book is, well, lies. Period.
The moral of the story: You can't have it both ways...
[/quote]
No offense, Skip, but, well, duh...If an atheist claims the Bible to be lies, does that make his claim true? If an author claims all liberals to be lazy, does that make his claim true? That is the point!!!
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Thought question:
Since God bound His will upon us, does that make Him the consummate legalist?
[/quote]
Surely this is unconnected to the political debate, right?
Charlie, regarding the abortion question--it isn't quite so clear to everyone that human 'life', the initialization of the soul, so to speak, begins the moment a sperm meets an egg. If life does begin at the very moment of conception, then abortion is, of course, killing. And every fertilized egg that doesn't implant in the uterus is a miscarriage. But is that known for certain? The old testament seems to use 'quickening' as the time life begins. Is it? There is some uncertainty here. Those on the pro-life side aren't all evil monsters, drunk on the blood of innocents. They're people like you who see the beginning of life at a different time. And I will certainly admit, as science has decreased the age of viability, I have changed my stance on later-term abortion.
Start throwing stones now.
Richard,
One more thing. Thank you for in theory at least admitting that ones labor may be deserving greater pay than what society values it as being. :p
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ Sep. 27 2002,10:03)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]It's foolish, childish, simple-minded to assert that one political party is more 'moral' than another.
You can tell me my politics are wrong-I can tell you yours are too. But you CANNOT tell me I'm not a fellow Christian. [/quote]
So if one party votes to suck the brains out of living infants, and another party votes to make this illegal I am wrong to make a moral comparison between the two parties? Kari, you are wrong. It is not foolish, childish, and simple-minded to assert that one political party is more moral than another.
One stands for upholding traditional family values, the other stands for eroding all values and blurring the lines of right and wrong. There is definitely a comparison to be made. These parties are not equal in how they view issues. It is foolish, childish, and simple-minded to assume that they can't be compared. If they were equal, then we would not be having this discussion.
You are loosing all credibility with me because you wont answer my specific questions about Clinton's veto on the ban on partial birth abortion and the democrats approval of same sex marriages as evidenced by the Vermont state legislature.
All you have to do is come out and say that you think these activities are fine, if that's how you feel. I know alot of people who think these things are fine and vote for these activities to become a part of everyday life. If you don't think that they are fine, then do you search out candidates within the dem party who are prolife and pro marriage (man and woman only)
When I read the dem platform it discusses things like making the homosexuals specially protected citizens, and their vow to keep abortion legal and have us all pay for it. If you are a card carrying member of this party, then you support these things as well. There are no exceptions.
Please respond with something other than emotional rhetoric.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Of course there are other moral issues, but no one is asking for insurance coverage for liars, adulters and drunks.[/quote]
Doyle,
I agree with your political position, but this argument is flawed because drunks, adulterers and liars all have insurance coverage. Do you see what I mean? Lack of sin in your life can't really be a determining factor for whether or not you should have insurance coverage or none of us would have any insurance either!
Also, it's none of my business, but it seems to me that you'd have better luck getting KMV to debate with you and listen to your perspective if you were a smidge more tactful and less attacking. You know, the old saying about attracting more flies with honey than vinegar. (Am I mixing up that saying? Suddenly as I read it, it looks wrong.)
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Actually, I think Christians are quite responsible for the current homosexual campaign.
--lucybelle[/quote]
Alas, it is a sad day when Jesus Christ is faulted for homosexual behavior.
For Christians represent Christ, so you may as well have said, "Actually, I think Jesus Christ is quite responsible for the current homosexual campaign."
Even considering that possibility turns my stomach.
Of course, the truth is that "fools mock at sin", and the only impact Christians will have upon sinners is either to turn them away from sin (and to Christ) or be rejected by the sinner (just as those at the foot of the cross laughed Him to scorn).
Kari,
That was very well said.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]By the way, regarding the responsibilities of government, just who is the government in this country? We are. [/quote]
Actually we aren't the government. We are a republic and we elect representatives to be the gov't for us. If we were a democracy and majority ruled Albert Gore would be the president of the United States right now. I am grateful for a republic that was well founded. The appliction of the system today is not what the founders had in mind, IMO.
Patrick
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (susieface @ Oct. 02 2002,8:51)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]If one has the attitude of "keeping my hard earned money" that person will do just that if allowed. They will keep it for themselves. God would still only get 10% if he's lucky and the poor would only be helped when asked. Nothing would change. I firmly believe the more you give, the more you receive in blessings. But our faith must be lacking, we say we will do so much if we had more, but do we? Or do we just buy more "stuff", bigger houses, better or 2nd car?
[/quote]
Susie,
Your statement about buying more stuff is an important concept in ending poverty. Let me show you how buying more stuff helps the poor. Suppose due to tax relief you suddenly make $500 a month more. Since you are a Christian, you will likely give some of this to the church. But, since you have a family and needs you will likely buy more stuff. When you buy this stuff you are putting money back into the economy and boosting corporations. You have just created a job for someone in need. The corporations stock price goes up and the shareholders receive nice size dividends. They take their dividends and buy stuff. More jobs are created, companies grow, stock prices grow, wealth in general grows. This begins to have a domino effect until there is a huge demand for workers to manufacture stuff. Consequently, more banks open, people need more services, and the economy becomes huge. People go out to eat, they travel, go to the theatre. The more they do, the more the economy grows. See how this works? You are in control of what happens to your money while ending poverty.
Now, look at $500 in taxes. You pay your money to the federal government through a govt beuracracy that manufactures nothing and has no market worth. It sits in a 0 interest account while politicians fight over how to spend it. Meanwhile they vote themselves a raise. Once the money is determined to be used for helping the poor, studies paid for by the govt must be conducted to make sure it is paid out fairly. The $500 goes through numerous agencies without market worth while paying the employees of these agencies who manufacture nothing. Finally it reaches the community worth about $50. No jobs have been created and no companies have grown. Worse yet, the money has shrunk, not grown.
Many people think the best way to help those in need is by raising taxes to give to the poor. Please understand that when this occurs, no one profits. Not the payers nor the payees. Actually, taxes are extremely damaging to the economy because they take money out of the economy. The only reason why we pay taxes, is to keep politicians in power.
When my father was alive he owned a business. He made money on the tax system. For example, candy bar's and pop each cost a dime (This was in the 1960's). The tax he collected for each one sold was one cent. When he sold ten of them he had collected 10 cents in taxes. However, the state tax rate was based on total dollar sales, and was six cents per. My father pocketed 40% of the taxes he collected on those small item sales! And if the eighth grade drop out owner of a mom and pop grocery store and bait shop in the middle of nowhere Indiana could figure this out, shrewder businessmen can figure out how to prosper (and create jobs) under our current system of taxation.
Taxes are rent. Think of them as the fee we exchange for services we take for granted.
If you want to eliminate taxes on the spurious whim that some might possibly use their windfall to toss a couple of extra pennies in the Salvation Army bucket, please tell me what tax funded services you wish to give up?
Treated potable drinking water?
Garbage pick up?
Rural electrification?
The interstate highway system?
Air traffic control?
Free public education (quality notwithstanding)?
Police, fire, emergency services?
Military protection?
The Emergency Broadcast system?
The National Weather Service?
Veterans Administration hospitals?
The Center for Disease Control?
OSHA?
The tax rate is quite reasonable in our country. Compared to most European nations, ours is certainly not confiscatory.
As far as user taxes and roads, some of the taxes on gasoline go to maintenance of the roads. At least in the state I live in.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (spurly @ Oct. 05 2002,06:54)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]It should be the same way with 911 service. Every month I have to pay for that on my phone bill, but I have never used it. It should be set up where those who use it, pay for it. Ambulance service should be the same way - it should not be something that is provided free of charge to anyone. Where did we get the idea that we ought to be able to work the system to get something for nothing?
Kevin[/quote]
Kevin, isn't this somewhat like health insurance? Or do you believe in health insurance? We can take any of these things to an extreme in either direction where government does everything on one end to gov't does nothing on the other. Where is the best balance, well that will depend upond the individual but IMO neither end is the proper place.
I do not mind paying for 911 service even if I never use it. It is used and my neighbor has needs and I don't mind helping them. Also I might need it someday and if I didn't pay a little every month, I might not be able to afford it when the need arose.
Bill
Kari:
Not being God, when would I ever be able to claim being 100% right?
And even if I do luck out & find myself 100% right on something at some point, as far as implemeting or manifesting something I believe, does that mean my attitude or my motive in the situation is always right?
I can control my actions as far as not robbing the bank, but that dosn't make me stop wishing I could! My heart is a wilderness which I have to keep opening up to the Lord so it won't be overgrown again...
All I meant by the stuff you quoted is basically just what I said, no hidden meanings and as little hubris as I, with my self-centered personality, can manage.
God and my belonging to Him is all. Jesus was God incarnate and we are nothing but ruined hulks of wasted potential if we do not follow Him (as far as I can tell by (1)digging into Scripture and (2) by seeing results of the Way).
Stuff in life, political stuff and what one claims to do in the name of God, grows out of that following of Jesus, whether one takes in the pregnant teen to help her along, or whether one pats her on the head & provides an abortion... whether one takes that last $25 in the bank at the end of the month, to send it to Greenpeace or PETA, or to buy a goat and six chickens for a struggling family in Africa...
[Notice my wrestling with that pretentious "one" business so as to avoid making it sound like a personal attack of some sort!]
It's a free country & people's thoughts are their own, including my thoughts about whether someone is darned bloody wrong or not.
That's all I meant.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I think that Capitalism corrupted Harry Potter; that is to say, the author of Harry Potter...
Because there's been no new books since the Harry-Potter-movie dollar signs blinded what's-her-name who wrote them.
Fortunately, Tolkien died before the technical wizardry (pun intended) existed to movie-fy his excellent Lord of the Rings.
And, in the spirit (another pun intended) of getting back off topic, did you know that C. S. Lewis converted J. R. R. Tolkien to Christianity?
Have a great Friday [/quote]
A couple things:
1. Joanne 'what's-her-name' Rowling (pronounced row, row, row your boat rowling) got married not long ago and was also involved in litigation over the alleged plagiarizing of the word "muggle" for non-magic folk. This is the official reason as to why the fifth book is so long in coming out (latest update is that "Order of the Phoenix" will be released Summer of 2003). We shouldn't make the mistake in thinking that British publishers release their books in lockstep with Hollywood. Sorry, they do that in America. Not so much across the pond. Also, it is true, as another poster mentioned, that Rowling has finished the conceptualization of all seven books. All that's left now is to write them. By the way, the first draft of the Order of the Phoenix was finished well over a year ago. It was originally to be published around Christmas of 2001.
2. Tolkien was a Catholic pretty much his whole life, and certainly during his entire friendship with Lewis. It was Lewis who was converted by Tolkien, if by anyone, not the other way around.
Happy Columbus Day, everyone!
The writer was just trying to be an expert about something he knows absolutely nothing about so the article comes off as unintelligent, staged idle chatter to add to the pile of meaningless debate about what proper people title themselves and what responsible do and think. I know conservatives who would be embarrassed by this article.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]As for you two, B.H. & patriciaredstone, I restate, that I agree with what the author said at its face value. [/quote]
Janine, the point (or at least my point) is not that our system is not, practically speaking, the best. I agree that it is. The point is that the author's generalities-ALL 'liberals' are bad-aren't true. If his statements aren't true, then they're lies. Period.
Janine & Susieface, we can tell from your posts here that you don't hold with the conservative agenda on all points. Why would you assume that we hold with the liberal agenda on all points?
Why must we, as Christians, bind each other to a particular set of political beliefs, when God has not chosen either set? If we're serious about this "grace-centered" movement, then we MUST get past the idea that Christians have to agree politically. Of course, if we aren't serious about Christian unity, then this movement is worthless.
Here's something to consider: 1) Our last presidential election showed the country to be pretty well split 50/50. 2) The Church of Christ/Independent church tends to be pretty darn conservative politically. Does that mean that the coc-type groups are just 'righter' politically than everyone else? Or could that mean that people of differing political beliefs feel turned away by the church? Could this insistence that 'real Christians' must follow the conservative agenda be causing lost souls to miss the chance of salvation because they don't fit the political mold?
I think there's room in the church for all of us.
Kari
p.s. Anyone who thinks that our system always or exclusively rewards hard work and contribution has never spent any time in corporate America. Frequently, our system rewards connections and boot-licking abilities (called 'ingratiating behaviors' in business school).
In addition to Kari's point:
I don't think pro-abortion is the correct representative term (just as I don't think anti-choice correctly represents the opinions of pro-lifers). My basic opinion is that although abortion is a cruely violent and destructive thing, legal abortion can save the life of a mother even if it's purpose is to destroy the fetus. I believe that teaching someone the truth rather than legislating morality is a more effective way of preventing abortion. There are people who will have abortions whether or not they are legal and I'd rather see one person emerge from the operating table than none at all.
At the same time, I fully understand the point of pro-lifers, I just happen to see another viewpoint.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Richard @ Sep. 25 2002,4:47)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]That is why capitalism is false, even if it is the most successful economic system in the eyes of the world. It does not pay people according to their labor per see, but what a bunch of people's whimsy in that given society tells them it is worth.[/quote]
B.H.,
If I labor really hard at building sand castles which get washed out by the tide every day, will you pay me according to my labor?
Richard[/quote]
If that is what your position is and you actually do your job, yes. I doubt seriously anyone would employ you to do that and I think you know that too. The point is moot.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (lucybelle @ Sep. 27 2002,4:21)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Actually, I think Christians are quite responsible for the current homosexual campaign. The gay movement only began because gays were sick of being harassed and attacked by Christians and other similarly-leaning conservative groups. Prior to that, they were deeply afraid for their lives and well-being to even reveal themselves as homosexual, let alone ask for any other rights.
Gays didn't start speaking out until the very late 60s. Christians, being indignant that gays were demanding to be treated like human beings went further and the whole thing has pretty much been an escalating tit for tat ever since. If we had not behaved toward them in an un-Christian manner in the first place, the history of the gay movement over the last 30 years may be very different.[/quote]
That is a very insightful comment, and a very sad commentary on the church in our day. How do you think Jesus, the friend of sinners, would treat them.
(By the way, this thread has gone a long way from it's original intention, hasn't it :D )
Kevin
Boy,
This thread sure has heated up! By the way, if you were to ask me what was wrong with captialism, I would not blindly say: "nothing". One of the main things wrong with capitalism is that it fosters an environment of greed and working ourselves to death to have the latest and the greatest stuff.
However, I do think it is about the best economic system going, and we as Christians just have to be aware of this pitfall.
Kevin
Lucybelle / Kari,
My point was that, first of all, "Christian" is now as broad a brush as the "Liberal" and "Conservative" and "Democrat" and "Republican" brushes.
Second, consider that the actions that 'started the gay rights movement' may have started the movement, but they do not justify the movement.
Just as a teenager in a too-strict household is not justified when he or she rebels against rules or punishments with sinful activities.
After all, consider this for harsh:
God eradicated Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone...
Does anyone believe that...
If the Government let you/me/us keep more of your/my our hard earned wages, wouldn't you/me/us give more to our congregations, charities, and other organizations that do "good works" that you/me/us agree with?
I cringe at the thought of anyone believing the government can do a better job dispersing your/my/our hard earned wages.
Quint,
My friend you are making a very good economic argument. Unfortunately, as I'm sure you are aware, logic has no place in this argument. This argument is about emotion. If the Clinton years and the current state of the Left has taught us anything, it is that "our feelings" is/are the only things that truly matter. Moral relativity reigns. "Fairness" rules. An example:
It is not fair that a woman should have to carry a baby for 9 months to put up for adoption if she didn't really want to be pregnant; pregnancy is hard... let's get rid of the baby.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ Oct. 03 2002,6:39)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]When my father was alive he owned a business. He made money on the tax system. For example, candy bar's and pop each cost a dime (This was in the 1960's). The tax he collected for each one sold was one cent. When he sold ten of them he had collected 10 cents in taxes. However, the state tax rate was based on total dollar sales, and was six cents per. My father pocketed 40% of the taxes he collected on those small item sales! And if the eighth grade drop out owner of a mom and pop grocery store and bait shop in the middle of nowhere Indiana could figure this out, shrewder businessmen can figure out how to prosper (and create jobs) under our current system of taxation.
Taxes are rent. Think of them as the fee we exchange for services we take for granted.
If you want to eliminate taxes on the spurious whim that some might possibly use their windfall to toss a couple of extra pennies in the Salvation Army bucket, please tell me what tax funded services you wish to give up?
Treated potable drinking water?
Garbage pick up?
Rural electrification?
The interstate highway system?
Air traffic control?
Free public education (quality notwithstanding)?
Police, fire, emergency services?
Military protection?
The Emergency Broadcast system?
The National Weather Service?
Veterans Administration hospitals?
The Center for Disease Control?
OSHA?
The tax rate is quite reasonable in our country. Compared to most European nations, ours is certainly not confiscatory.[/quote]
I'm not sure if you've noticed. Taxes have gone way up since the 1960's. So have insurance premiums. For starters I'd get rid of the IRS, CDC, and OSHA. I would then privatize lots of these other services so the govt could get more bang for the buck. Of course we need the military and police protection. Look, no one has said get rid of all taxes and services. The govt could just manage our money better if they allowed some competition, thus allowing more of our own money to be used for other purposes. It's funny when you mention streamlining the govt to liberals they all panic and think we're going back to no electricity and hauling our own water. Do you all really think that the govt does the best job it can with our money?
Kari,
I wanted to say more about your examples, but I had to go take care of something. Take your example of an industry speeding up production by 17% risking injury. This is a good, realistic example. But, your assuming that the govt watch dog agency over the industry will check in with the company after they pay all their agency fees. This rarely happens. If it does happen and they find faulty practices, they usually issue a warning letter or give a small fine. Usually they announce their coming for an audit way in advance. Even when consumers and employees complain, they rarely look seriously into companies.
Now, take the same company and same example, but have a private insurance company watching. Because the insurance company is out to protect their own profits, they are going to watch the companies they insure like hawks. Thats because some guy working at an insurance company saved his own money to buy his own insurance company, and he is dead serious about his investment to the point that he doesn't want to pay out on injury claims. He is in the business of collecting premiums and wants it to stay this way. So he pops in frequently to make sure people on the line aren't being placed in harms way.
Business owners are fearful of insurance companies, not the government. The govt is not really a threat because they are not protecting any assets or investments. The insurance guy has to send kids to school. The govt agency workers are just doing their 9-5 job and receiving good benefits. They have no personal interest vested in their work. See how this works? So, when we see a problem and say we need a new agency, all you really need to do is find out who they are insured by and give them a call. It's much simpler and saves the tax payers a whole bunch of money. Anytime you can find out who has personal, vested interest, that is who will do a good job.
Now, take all that money from those agencies and you've got alot more freed up to pay teachers and cops what they really deserve. Isn't that what we should really be striving for?
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ Oct. 04 2002,7:24)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Spurly, if all our roadways were Oklahoma toll roads, our civilization would fall into ruins before Christmas! Economies of scale are one of the greatest benefits of government-how would it work if we had to stop and pay a toll to get on our neighborhood street, then pay another toll to get onto the artery, then another for the crosstown expressway? We'd never get anywhere!
Kari.[/quote]
Kari,
If what you described was actually the way it was done, you would be right. However, in Oklahoma (and most other states that have toll roads) people who use the roads a lot get an electronic card that computers read as you pass the toll collection center - at 75 mph, or however fast the speed limit is. You don't have to slow down to pay a toll.
However, other states might try a different way to collect user taxes for the roads. Charge enough tax on each gallon of gas that is sold to pay for road construction and upkeep - and then use the money ONLY for that. That would be another way to accomplish the same goal. Those who use the road, pay for the road.
It should be the same way with 911 service. Every month I have to pay for that on my phone bill, but I have never used it. It should be set up where those who use it, pay for it. Ambulance service should be the same way - it should not be something that is provided free of charge to anyone. Where did we get the idea that we ought to be able to work the system to get something for nothing?
The government should also start working toward totally getting out of Social Security through privatization. Let people decide where (and even if) they want their own money to go. The government gets way too much and does way too little with it.
Just some random thoughts from a tired brain.
Kevin
Link to a good article.
http://www.founding.org/risingtide.html (http://www.founding.org/risingtide.html)
Unfortunately, I've only been able to vote for Carter once, back in 1980 the first time I voted. I would have felt much better about many of my votes since if he had been on the ballot.
But what's this about not posting links. Did I miss this somewhere? I'm always posting links, didn't realize it was verboten.
Right-o old chap. And I think George MacDonald was an influence on Lewis as well. The three liked to pub together.
Off to the Infidel Board my questions will go with an address to Lacy.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I think our best bet is to introduce as many people as we can to the Love of Jesus Christ - thereby impacting what our society values.
[/quote]
Amen, Richard.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]As for the article, back to that... the man was speaking in generalities. Broad brushing and statistic-based group ID doesn't cover every eventuality. It's groupspeak, you know.
Just because you personally have lovely reasons why you think parts of a so-called "liberal" ideology are OK, but you resent being tarred with that broad brush, does not negate the position the writer has taken.
It's like a nature special about the migration of wildebeest... wildebeestes... wildebeesties... Gnus!
No two are alike, some are brighter, some are healthier, some are different colors, ages, genders... But it is a useful thing to talk about them as a group, as a force of nature, because you're talking about trends and the whole group's impact on the world around them. [/quote]
Janine, I'm afraid I have to disagree. Dealing in 'groupspeak'; relying on generalities to make our points keeps us from the truth. Not only were his statements not true, they serve to obscure that truth. And they are hurtful and harmful, which ought to be reason enough for a Christian think twice before making them.
As to the helpfulness of using this groupspeak to talk about a group--We know that Louisianna voters elected David Duke to the state legislature. Does that make EVERYONE in the state a racist? Of course not. But would you be happy being tarred with that broad brush? Of course not.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]the problem is not the system, it is what we value. The best way to change what we, as a society, value is to introduce as many people as we can to the Love of Jesus Christ.
[/quote]
Richard, you are absolutely right; thank you for reminding me.
Kari.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ Sep. 27 2002,10:03)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]p.s. All those posters who claimed they couldn't understand where kebecer or hawkeye got the idea that there were vicious, judgemental or narrowminded folks on this board might want to check out some of the preceding posts then give kebecer & hawkeye and apology.[/quote]
Again, how does my objection to same sex marriages and partial birth abortions make me vicious, narrow-minded, and judgemental? Afterall, the reason I oppose these things is because of their detrimental effects on society. BTW, these are the only issues I have mentioned. It's curious that you think I'm a narrow minded bigot when I have voiced an honest opinion about two issues.
Now, defend your position on why you think these things are good (at least worthy of your vote) and why Jesus would be ok with the spreading of these values into our society.
Thank you, JerryBrooke. You cannot know how much your comment means to me.
Kari.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (lucybelle @ Sep. 30 2002,11:44)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Skip,
God can do whatever He wills. The rest of us, however, have to treat each other as we would like to be treated.
I agree that the word Christian is used with too broad a stroke. That is why I find myself in discussion with non-Christians (mostly agnostics) who have a very definite negative opinion of who we are based on the actions of a few.
My point regarding homosexual legislation is that we are not completely clean on the whole matter. We can get as angry as we want against anyone who we perceive to be undermining our beliefs or country, but we must take responsibility for our own actions as well.[/quote]
Lucybell,
I'll have to go back and read in detail what is being discussed here re the homosexual agenda. However, are we sure that the agenda was sparked by Christians? Or did the media just assume that they were Christians. I have never really heard this story, but it doesn't sound like these were people demonstrating fruits of the spirit. Therefore, I would question whether or not they were really Christians to begin with.
Even so, there agenda is about much more than self defense and protection from bodily harm. It is about indoctrinating our kids that their chosen lifestyle is good, natural and that any moral teaching they have received has been false. I agree that we ALL should be free from harm, but I really do see this agenda as trying to win the hearts and souls of our kids not for protection, but so that these folks can make THEMSELVES feel normal. They say if you tell a lie long enough, you'll start to believe it yourself.
terry
There is no potitical party that gets everything the way I want it gotten. Unfortunately, if I want to be able to vote from the ground up on the candidates I tend to want, at least in LA, I need to register as a Republican.
As soon as there is a custom-fitted party out there for me, I'll switch to it.
I'd love to see federal income taxes abolished, for example. But, the couple of squeaky little parties that advocate that either haven't much of a voice, or they also advocate weird stuff I can't stomach.
So, I'll just keep plugging along, helping people where I can, and mentoring and giving time, and money/food/clothing, which I have access to thanks to God and capitalism!...
...sometimes in concert with fellow Christians and sometimes alone...
...and I'll do it all while being a prayerful Republican, God bless me!
Are we so jaded that we believe the government can take care of the sick, poor and less fortunate than the church?
My blood boils when I read or hear someone implying that allowing the American Taxpayer to keep more of his/her income is a bad idea because some people would keep the extra money for themselves.
Unlike the Left/Liberals, I happen to believe in the goodness of people, and that if left alone and taxed less, we, especially Christians, would develop and run better, more efficient, more loving, and, most importantly, Christian programs that would bring unbelievers and those that don't know the Lord into a relationship with Jesus Christ, Our Savior. Show me a governmental program that will do this consistently. It is sure not happening in governmental schools, Planned Parenthood, etc. In fact, haven't we been hearing the Left bash President Bush and his "Faith Based Initiative" to give Christian programs taxpayer money?
Quint, sorry about the over-generalization. Maybe you didn't realize it, but you said [!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Why do you vote to have your money taken away and tied up in the government doing no one any good at all? [/quote]
My point was that our tax dollars are doing good.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]It is an economic rule that when you place a project in the hands of the private sector it will be done better, cheaper, and quicker. [/quote]This is a myth. It only holds true IF every individual involved in a private company puts the good of the company ahead of the good of the individual and IF the ultimate good is to make the most possible profit. Those are two pretty shaky assumptions.
And you are ignoring the fact that government exists for the good of all, not just the good of some. You might compare the performance of the USPS and FedEx. Yes, FedEx delivers some items more quickly at lower cost. But that ignores the fact that the post office is charged with making sure that every citizen can communicate, by mail, with every other, at a modest cost. And that FedEx can't do.
It is the same with other agencies. Private drug companies exist to make profit. What about medical conditions that aren't wide-spread enough to make private research pay? Those folks should just die?
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]For starters I'd get rid of the IRS, CDC, and OSHA. [/quote] Of course you'd get rid of OSHA-you're in HR ;) But do you truly believe that businesses will treat people fairly without coercion? You think that management is sitting around thinking "You know, we could make more money if we sped the line up 17%, but that would place our employees at increased risk of injury, so we won't do it"? Get real. History has shown us that people are all too often willing to harm and endanger others for money.
But you are right in that there is certainly room to debate the government programs that do and don't work well. Some ideas, like faith-based initiatives, are good ideas but need to be thought through before implementing.
Terry, James is the one who accused the rich of oppressing the poor. I'm just pointing that out.
As to this
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Should we really have to pay for those who fornicate and abort? I really do believe that these should be paid for by optional taxes for those who want to contribute to the cause of the fornicator themselves. [/quote]
I posted a link the 2000 Democrat platform in its entirety. Where exactly is the proposed fornication subsidy? What on earth are you talking about? Welfare payments to unwed mothers? I've got no clue where you find a fornication subsidy.
Marc, I know what you are saying about the reality of poverty. I am so fortunate to have resources - family, education, etc- that others don't have. Without them, how easily a single bad break could have thrown me into poverty like so many others.
***But why do we assume that Christians are handing off their obligation to take care of others to the government? My husband and I pay our taxes gladly, AND we care for our parents, and tithe, and donate to various charities, AND volunteer our time. What is wrong with that?***
As to' scriptural Christian giving' -- Jesus Christ said feed the hungry. Period. He didn't say how, he didn't exempt any group (individual, family, church, business, government). Every single one of us is obligated.
Hmmm. . . I don't trust government at all, really. Too many politicians.
But on the other hand, in our form of government, the government is us. So I guess my question is: isn't our call to help the poor present in every aspect of our lives? And in the Republican form of government we have, isn't the government an aspect of our lives?
In other words, we were given the responsibility of feeding the poor, caring for the sick, etc. And our government is "we the people".
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (patriciaredstone @ Oct. 08 2002,07:15)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Kabballah is mystical yes, but it is not more occult than Christianity. That some rabbais say Kaballah is unorthodox is no more surprising than a member of the Church of Christ asserting that people who subscribe to Wineksins is unorthodox.
This is very interesting, you never know what you're going to learn here! First, I am not a Clinton fan. Didn't vote for him either time, but neither did I vote for the Republican. I always vote third party unless the candidate is Jimmy Carter. I have never heard of Tikkun Magazine or the guy who runs it, but I am a big believer in the redemption of humankind. Jesus was "tikkun" he was the Great Mender. I have mentioned "tikkun" in many of my lectures. Now I am wondering how many conservatives out there think I'm a Hillary fan ...?!
This article is trash. It assumes that anything mystical other than good clean Protestant/Evangelical/Republican living is occult. Many people in the church think Catholicism is occult! Some Christians throw the word "occult' around like a hot potato. Please don't do that. Educate yourself. This is why people who do not agree with you might snicker at you behind your back.[/quote]
The definition of occult is mystical, hidden, magic arts, secret, beyond human understanding. Teachers of the Kabballah claim it is a secret power possessing all of these traits.
Jesus said I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. Clearly following Jesus and being a Christian is not of the occult.
It has been a pleasure talking with you all, but I am unable to have anything to do with a Christian web-site whose very own moderator calls Christianity an occultic religion. God bless you all in your endeavors.
Loved it. I must be a (relatively) conservative advocate of Free Enterprise.
B. H.
In answer to your letter (and I have told you twice that I don't want to debate with you by exchanging letters), I have no fear of you, its just that I have better thngs to do than to wrangle over ramblings to no profit.
Lacy
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (kmv @ Sep. 25 2002,09:26)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Why must we, as Christians, bind each other to a particular set of political beliefs, when God has not chosen either set? If we're serious about this "grace-centered" movement, then we MUST get past the idea that Christians have to agree politically. Of course, if we aren't serious about Christian unity, then this movement is worthless.[/quote]
Seems to me that this is called "legalism". When I bind my thinking on someone, it is legalism. "Liberals" or "Conservatives" no matter how you define the terms can be legalistic, IMO That said, I don't believe that stating one's opinion in every case means that all out there should see this just as I do. Somehow I think we need to understand this if we are truly grace centered.
I'm not a fan of Jeremy Reynalds so I'm somewhat biased before I even read the article. One thing I will say is that his articles generally bring about some discussion.
Bill
Richard, I think we are in agreement. I think all people should be valued equally. And what we value in society is largely determined by how much money we assign to it. This is wrong. I do not believe that value is necessarily addressed through monetary compensation. Value can be understood in terms of acceptance and encouragement. The people who value me and my contributions are not my primary source of income but they are my livelyhood. I need them. Money will come and money will go, but I pray God that I do not loose my community which does not place a dollar value on my work. This is how our society preserves truly valuable things, we refuse to market them. Many artists these days never sell their work. They know that collectors will buy their work and escalate the price when they die. So the artist puts her work away and leaves it to her dependents or an organisation when she goes so that the work will not be another contribution to the lie that money generates value. I work in theatre. We get paid, but the work we do is much more time consuming and labor intensive than film and TV work -- but stage work is artistically rewarding. Still the stage artist is continually asked by individuals who don't understand the value of stage work why he or she does not "go to hollywood and get into film and TV." Money and popularity are equated with success in our society. The life of the artist is full of proof of that. A job that compares closely is that of preacher and minister. Ministry work requires a high level of education and mastery in literary, business, personnel management, counseling and psychology ... Are these people really compensated in terms of their actual value to society? Is it right and just that they are not? We say, "well, it is a choice they made?" But why does a person who makes a choice to work in a field that fosters spiritual growth rather than wealth not deserve to have their value expressed in dollars as much as the CEO who writes his or her check? I think it is because we value those who desire to use their education and gifts to generate income more than we value those who don't. Society and the love of money has created the confusion here, not the hearts and minds of individuals who just want to bless the world. I know that there are rotten preachers and rotten artists who should not be encouraged or compensated, but that is not what we are talking about here. Missplaced individuals are in every field. Money destroys society. Think about how much value used to be placed on school teachers. They were underpaid but highly esteemed members of our society. They were compensated in a thousand ways by the community for what their contributions. Their worth was unquestioned. But when society changed the meaning of "a good education" from the building of "good citizens" to those who score high on SAT's and secure high-paying jobs, the teachers are now undervalued members of society because they are not being fairly compensated for their work.
Skip-
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]That quote, plus the mention of Ronald Reagan, brought to mind the scene in Dark Victory where Betty Davis and Reagan are conversing while drunk, sitting at the bar...[/quote]
I, myself, am way too young to have seen that movie. :)
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Politics are just ugly all around, in my opinion. Just when I'm about to sort out who stands for what, they compromise their positions again. Currently, when I vote, I am basically voting against what I perceive at the time to be the greater evil, because no one has earned my vote... especially the more I learn about them... but that's the nature of things in this world, isn't it?[/quote]
Some days I feel that way about politicians; some days I feel that way about my fellow man in general! But then some days I wake up, drive the kids to school, and notice that the streets are (somewhat) paved and (reasonably) safe and the school's doing a good job. Our Democrat mayor left and a Republican came in, and everybody behaved pretty well. My neighbor & I always support opposing candidates but we get along okay and water each others plants when we go on vacation. All-in-all, things work much the way they should, and then I am amazed that despite the temptations and the bureacracy and the occasional roadblocks to good sense, our politicians do a pretty good job putting the common good ahead of their own. Then I thank the Lord that He lets me raise my family here.
Doyle, please listen up, because I really don't care to talk with you after this: No, I'm not a supporter of partial-birth abortion, nor same-sex marriage, nor any of the other boogie-men of the far right. AND, if you somehow think that these are the only moral issues in our society, then you are being childish and simplistic. Do you think that merely being anti-homosexual is enough to make someone a good Christian? Or even a good politician?
Ahh.... ummm... what thread was this, now? :p
Kari,
I forgot to mention, I have never seen a political party take an official pro-abuse stand against women and chilren or racism. These things are present in society right now, but there is no official political party platform stating that they want these people beaten up further. They have been here throughout a variety of administrations.
I can argue differently about abortion, because it is an official party stance of the democratics to keep it alive as a "right." To me, that is the difference. Which activities do candidates and parties endorse, and which are simply present in society because they just are.
Yay, Quint. :)
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Or Imclome, or Global Crossings if the profeteers are democrats.
BJ [/quote]
Who cares, really , whether the profiteers are Democrats, Republicans or little furry creatures from Andromeda. Part of my point is that when we see real suffering, politics and economic theory no longer matter.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]What, exactly, is it that I respect about people I do not agree with (on important matters which I consider way beyond the realm of opinion or preference)?
Um... That they are human, made in the image of my God? That my Jesus died for them too? Those are good thoughts...
That this is a discussion sort of forum & they have a right to state their opinions? Yeah, that's good, too.
Do I respect their opinions?
Not on your life![/quote]
Janine-how about the fact that they are your fellow Christians, your brothers and sisters in Christ?
Or do you recognize the rest of us as Christians?
By the way, what are those important matters which you find beyond opinion? The sanctity of life? The imperative to proclaim Christ through both our actions and our words? Gratitude for the blessings He's given us and the understanding that there is no way we can ever earn them through our works? Oddly enough, we liberals believe in those too!
Seriously, what exactly is it that you think you are 100% right on that we liberals have wrong?
Kari
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ Oct. 08 2002,09:41)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Kabballah is mystical yes, but it is not more occult than Christianity. That some rabbais say Kaballah is unorthodox is no more surprising than a member of the Church of Christ asserting that people who subscribe to Wineksins is unorthodox.
This is very interesting, you never know what you're going to learn here! First, I am not a Clinton fan. Didn't vote for him either time, but neither did I vote for the Republican. I always vote third party unless the candidate is Jimmy Carter. I have never heard of Tikkun Magazine or the guy who runs it, but I am a big believer in the redemption of humankind. Jesus was "tikkun" he was the Great Mender. I have mentioned "tikkun" in many of my lectures. Now I am wondering how many conservatives out there think I'm a Hillary fan ...?!
This article is trash. It assumes that anything mystical other than good clean Protestant/Evangelical/Republican living is occult. Many people in the church think Catholicism is occult! Some Christians throw the word "occult' around like a hot potato. Please don't do that. Educate yourself. This is why people who do not agree with you might snicker at you behind your back.[/quote]
The definition of occult is mystical, hidden, magic arts, secret, beyond human understanding. Teachers of the Kabballah claim it is a secret power possessing all of these traits.
Jesus said I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. Clearly following Jesus and being a Christian is not of the occult.
It has been a pleasure talking with you all, but I am unable to have anything to do with a Christian web-site whose very own moderator calls Christianity an occultic religion. God bless you all in your endeavors.[/quote]
See? A hot potato looses its momentum when it's not hot anymore.
<BH just shook his head back and forth when reading the article>
Hello everyone,
It's BH the friendly rationalist again here to bring you some questions about capitalism.
Lacy, you told me not to email you any more private messages but direct them at you via the board, so here we go!
1. The Bible says we are to not exploit people and it is a noble suggestion indeed! But the fly in the buttermilk is that we just are not told in the Bible in an absolute objective fashion just when, what, and how someone is being exploited. However, there was one time in my life,and I cannot remember when, I was actually proven wrong on something and maybe I just missed the answers. So Lacy, below I am providing you space to tell us just when someone is being exploited, using the Bible to guide you:
----------------------------------------------------
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
----------------------------------------------------
2. After letting us know how and when we are being exploited using the Holy Bible, let Lacy tell us what a fair wage is for a particular job.
Here is my box:
---------------------------------------------------------
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
---------------------------------------------------------
3. The Bible also tells us that masters are to be just and fair to their slaves and servants. Gee, the Bible has a whole lot of nice ideas so it no doubt has an absolute objective way to determine when a boss is unfair or unjust regardless of what the person's position in the company is. I can just read the Bible and determine whether I am being done wrong regardless of my rank in the company, my pay and education level, ect. Let Lacy tell us what the church is to do with members who violate the "pattern" of fairness shown in the Bible. Again my box makes an appearance:
---------------------------------------------------------
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
---------------------------------------------------------
Lacy I am going to let you have time to answer these questions before giving you some others.
If these questions are censored in any fashion I will post them over at II with an address to Lacy. If he cannot answer them here I will provide ample opportunity at II.
B.H.,
"One more thing. Thank you for in theory at least admitting that ones labor may be deserving greater pay than what society values it as being. "
That is the point I made in my original post. As I stated originally, financial results, or pay, is based on the value of what one produces, value is determined by people, people's values are determined by what they believe. Your premise was that people should be paid according to their labor, regardless of the value of what they produce. I was trying to determine if you really believe that.
Patricia,
I, personally, believe that much art has tremendous value and I am willing to support those artists financially. The problem is that I do not believe ALL art has value, at least not to me. I believe I should be able to base my financial support of an artist on what I perceive to be the value of that artist's work. B.H. seems to be stating that all who labor at art should receive wages based on their labor, not on the value of what they produce.
The idea that all labor is worthy of equal pay and people will work because they want to is usally bandied about by intellectuals who don't have to dig ditches, clean sewers, and build roads to earn a living. If the people who do these jobs could receive the same amount of pay building sand castles, most of them would be building sand castles and we would all be standing around ankle deep in our own waste.
As I stated in my original post, the problem is not the system, it is what we value. The best way to change what we, as a society, value is to introduce as many people as we can to the Love of Jesus Christ.
Richard
Skip,
God can do whatever He wills. The rest of us, however, have to treat each other as we would like to be treated.
I agree that the word Christian is used with too broad a stroke. That is why I find myself in discussion with non-Christians (mostly agnostics) who have a very definite negative opinion of who we are based on the actions of a few.
My point regarding homosexual legislation is that we are not completely clean on the whole matter. We can get as angry as we want against anyone who we perceive to be undermining our beliefs or country, but we must take responsibility for our own actions as well.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ Oct. 01 2002,8:35)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Lee, Terry, Janine, et al: Tell you what. As soon as the Republican party, in general, starts dealing with Christ's command to feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, and take care of the sick and imprisoned the way I believe He wants us to, y'all let me know. I'll run right out and change my voter registration. Until then, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Kari.[/quote]
Kari,
Are the things you mentioned in the list above really functions of the government. I don't think so. THose are responsibilities of the church. Part of the problem today is that the church has abdicated her role to government, and now our society is in a mess. It would be like the elders abdicating their role to the Junior High Sunday School class. Chaos results.
The church needs to get back to being the church, and part of that includes meeting the needs you mentioned. That is not the role of government.
Kevin
I applaud Bush for his faith-based intitiative. Anything that helps allieve the suffering most of us don't even see is great. Churches need to get more involved in helping the poor. It is more the duty of the church than the government.
But. . . .
To rehash something I've talked about on another topic--many of our churches are too tied up in themselves to realize what's going on around them. When they receive a windfall of money, they improve their buildings, they build, they buy tracts, they pay for television programs. Even when poverty is rampant around them, they just don't see. I wish I were just being cynical, but I'm talking about a current situation in the church I am a part of. I've discussed the details elsewhere.
Also, according to recently released statistics, only 35.9% of the people in my state are members of any church. This state--West Virginia--is extremely poor. Do you want to make a guess as to what percentage of that 35.9% is poor? Do you really believe that those of us who are Christians even have the financial capacity to take care of all of the needs around us, even if we did have the vision to do so?
I mention that I have lived in poverty. How much help do you think Christians around offered me?
I wish Maurine were around. She has better stories than I do.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (kmv @ Oct. 04 2002,3:41)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]By the way, Spurly--[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Tolls should be charged on all roads so that the people who don't use them should not have to pay for them. [/quote]
Aren't you from Oklahoma? This is the system we already have here! :)[/quote]
Yep, I'm from Oklahoma and I like the toll roads. I think we should have more of them. User taxes are the only fair taxes.
Kevin
Just to clarify what boodha wrote about what they think I said.
I do trust the government to do it's God appointed function of bearing the sword (Rom 13). To bring justice on evildoers and to protect the innocent.
However, government was never given the responsiblity of feeding the poor, caring for the sick, etc. That is the job of families, churches, and other concerned Christians in the body of Christ.
Sorry Boodha, there is no contradiction.
Kevin
Never have I seen a Christian site where witchcraft is so defended, and in such a rude manner. Qabbalah is attempting to gain the powers given to Moses through the practice of sorcerey. It is Jewish witchcraft, and it is rapidly gaining in popularity. Please do not present practicing witchcraft as harmless, or God forbid, on par with claiming Jesus as savior and Lord. Anyone who does not understand what Qabbalah is needs to go straight to their web site for an explanation.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Don't know why Charlie's Oct. 17 post wouldn't show up until I posted.[/quote]
This is a top-of-the-page thing that's been driving me crazy lately and causing me to double-post repeatedly.
It seems pretty clear to me that this guy has never had personal contact of any sort with a liberal let alone knowing how we think and behave. I think this article is very irresponsible.
B.H.
Well, hi B. H.
The Bible is not an economics text book, nor do I try to establish or prove everything by the Bible, because the Bible doesn't deal with EVERYTHING. But the Bible does deal with life and has a lot to say about business and frugality.
I choose rather just to say that capitalists conservatives believe in capitalism and free enterprise because this system reinvests and produces the means of livlihood for both employer and employees--and the community, by investments and exchange. Whereas socialism destroys this incentive by over taxation, unfair distribution and government control, rather than individual, ownership. And socialism (Marxism being the best example) destroys both the incentive and means of production by depriving individuals of their right to what they produce and earn. Examples? North and South Korea, China and Tiwan and perhaps the best contrast of all is provided by North and South/ Latin America.
I'm not interested in debating either economics or politics; these contrasting examples of free interprise and personal ownership vs government control and ownership by excessive taxation provide the best proof I know of the value of the American syster over that of the nations that are controlled and in bondage to their governments.
The Bible provides both encouragement and proof of this by its teaching on ownership and stewardship and with many other instructions and examples.
so I'll just leave it at that.
Lacy
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]If that is what your position is and you actually do your job, yes. I doubt seriously anyone would employ you to do that and I think you know that too. The point is moot.[/quote]
Are you saying that we should all be assigned our positions and then receive wages based on how hard we work at our assigned jobs?
Richard
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ Sep. 30 2002,11:07)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Terry,
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]When I hear that a Christian is totally supportive of the democaratic party I question if they understand that we are in a moral/cultural war or if these issues are minor to them and they just don't care.[/quote]
The problem with being a single issue voter is that there's more than a single moral issue at play in our society right now. While some of us see abortion as the most important concern, others might be concerned about the abuse of children already born, or sexual violence against women, or racism, or corporate looting. Or the killing of innocents in war. ALL of these are moral issues, and no party has a lock on the 'right' stance.
It's good that we all have differing areas of focus. Perhaps, if each of us pray for, vote for, work for the areas that the Spirit is leading us to focus on, our nation can win this cultural war.
JerryBrooke's right, we have to THINK about our vote. We can choose to keep informed or we can all just keep clinging to our sterotypes and misinformation. ;)
Kari.[/quote]
Kari,
Are you saying that morality and truth are different from person to person? Or that they are determined by individual perception? I agree that we should pray and focus on that which we have been called to, but, I also can't help but notice that most politicians either believe in morality or they don't.
terry
As the son of a black mother and white father I can tell you first hand about democrats. They voted in 1857 that a black man was not legally human and was the property of his white owner. He could be bought, sold, killed, starved, whatever. A very good Republican man thought otherwise thus sparking a war which led to the ultimate freedom of slaves held by and large by southern Democrats. The democrats were wrong on the Dred Scott decision, and they are wrong on their definition of human life now.
The democrats have participated in keeping the poor down by encouraging the dependence on government through welfare instead of stressing the importance of education and personal responsibility. In black neighborhoods, the schools are totally out of control, yet the democrats refuse the idea of school accountability and parental control of education. They have been promising a check in the mail to solve all of your problems for the last 40 years while the problems are still present.
I will say though that many of the democratically oppressed are waking up and realizing that through education and abstinence they can have a pretty decent life. Government has never been nor will it ever be the ticket to a good life. Bad decisions have been made by democrats in the name of retaining power and this will continue as long as there are those to trick and oppress.
Kari,
Most of the agencies you mentioned are absolutely unnecessary. It is an economic rule that when you place a project in the hands of the private sector it will be done better, cheaper, and quicker. This is because of competition for the job. Many of the jobs you mentioned are already contracted out by private firms. Civil engineering, rocket building, astrophysics are usually private in nature. Yes, we have to have some government with limited taxation. But the way the system is now, the money never leaves the govt. There is this gigantic myth out there that states that govt can handle things with ease and efficiency. Anyone who has ever dealt with them directly knows this is not true.
Kari, please don't over generalize what I said. I never said anyone was bad, good, or anything like that. I was responding to a quote by Susie stating that if we pay less taxes we might be inclined to spend the money on our selves. Go back and read my post. She was assuming that money is better off in the hands of the govt in order to help poor people. The fact is, the money gained through taxation arrives to the poor people much smaller than when it was collected. Compare this to spending that same money on goods or services and it will grow and have a domino effect on creating jobs. I was only showing her how economic principles work.
Poverty has definitely increased. In particular it has been since the social engineering programs implemented in the 1960's. Welfare and subsidized housing programs are nothing more than govt run plantations. Taxation was implemented during WWII. So yes, I would say that taxation has increased dramatically. Definitely technology has increased dramaticaly. Not because the govt gave checks to those unwilling to work, but because people dared to dream. Look at Bill Gates. He started in his garage without a dime from Uncle Sam.
I urge you to read up on each of the specific agencies you mentioned and then get back with me. Some of these are total failures in respect to the services they give. We get far more out of private funded medical research than the CDC could possibly ever give us. Anyway, look into it for yourself.
I have a specific question for you. If a person has an extra $1000 are they better off to hand it over to the federal government or to go buy goods and create jobs?
Kari, in all respect your quote reminds me of those who would tax workers in order to keep themselves in power. It is absolutely illegal to keep wages from folks unless it is through govt taxation. This is the very same thing alot of us think about the govt withholding the money we work so hard for.
By the way, Spurly--[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Tolls should be charged on all roads so that the people who don't use them should not have to pay for them. [/quote]
Aren't you from Oklahoma? This is the system we already have here! :)
'T'wasn't a cheap shot, Marc, 't'was a true observation.
That's assuming the website you find has the authority to define/speak for Kabballah.
Thanks, Marc, for the confirmation that I'm not hallucinating, there is a problem with the board! (*sniffle*) Thanks so much!
Oddly enough, though a card-carrying-liberal, I have neither whined nor mooched all day. And I haven't robbed a rich person in more than a week. :)
More seriously, is everything in this essay actually true? Mr. Reynalds uses some pretty harsh generalities:[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]It's a concept called "deferred gratification," and one that's foreign to liberals.
[/quote]Really? Like most couples with responsibilities toward children, older parents, church and community, my liberal husband and I know a LOT about deferred gratification.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]While conservatives work for what they've got, liberals whine about what they don't have (as a result of not working hard). At the same time, lazy liberals expect cautious conservatives to share from their bounty by championing an overburdensome tax system
[/quote]Lazy? Really? We've both been in the workforce from the age of sixteen and paid our way through college and grad school. We teach Sunday school and serve on church committees. We take care of our children and our parents when they need us. My just-this-side-of-socialist husband also leads the Cub scout den, coaches t-ball in the spring and assists with soccer in the fall, 'cause so many of the dads are too busy pursuing that property. I call him lots of things, but lazy isn't one!
Lee, I know this is your site, and as a capitalist you have every right to put whatever you want on it. But as a Christian, could you cut us liberals a little slack? Please? Most of us are really nice people just like you guys. :)
There's one last thing I think both conservatives & liberals need to remember more often:
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]"At the heart of American capitalism is the principle that what a man earns by his creativity and effort, no matter how much or little, is his own. [/quote]
Actually, it is His.
KMV,
If you want to call yourself a liberal, fine. I have to wonder, are you a supporter of abortion? Democrats and other liberals are. If you don't have an opinion on this issue, I suggest visiting www.prolife.com and taking a look at some of the pictures of murdered babies.
Tom Dashcle and Hillary Clinton (each liberals) are keeping President Bush's judge nominees from being considered for confirmation. Why? Because they are pro-life. Sounds a bit like discrimination to me. But then, I have never heard anyone charge a democrat of that. They have a free pass from the media. Especially Tom and Hillary.
A vote for a liberal (Democrat) is a vote for abortion (killing innocent HUMAN life, aka-murder). Period. Is that something you feel comfortable with? Have you prayed about that?
Lee Wilson
KMV,
You never answered my question. Are you an abortion advocate?
Lee
Another quote by Jeremy Renalds that I thought was good:
"While the events of the last few months have shown us that capitalism can be abused, let's remember that these abuses are aberrations of a good system. At its heart capitalism is a good system which encourages people to be the best they can be. Liberalism is a discouraging system of defeatism which at its heart discourages personal effort and kills economic incentive. "
What do you think?
Kevin
Approximately 100,000 people die every day from starvation, malnutrition, or related diseases. Approximately 40,000 are them are children. — Ron Sider, Christian Scholars Review 26, 3 (Spring 1997).
Over one billion people live in "desperate hunger
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (marc @ Oct. 04 2002,11:56)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]And when the churches or families are not able or willing to help, then what happens?
because in the real world, this is the scenario.[/quote]
If the churches and families can not help, or are not willing to help, then neighbors pitch in. I see it done all the time.
WHen people in our family fall on hard times, we don't turn to the government for support, because we don't believe that is the job of government. Our family helps each other out. When my brother was inbetween jobs and didn't make enough money to make ends meet, our family came to his side to help.
That would happen more if government would get out of the way - and it might even foster closer family relationships.
What did people do before welfare, food stamps, etc.? People helped people. THe same thing could happen today if government would get itself out of the business of handing out assistance.
Kevin
Lee, I agree with you and I feel the whole welfare system needs to be changed. I have seen it abused often. I also have seen social security abused for disability recipients. But the thing is there is still a need for it. There are actual people out there who really do need it. I also live in the midwest where the churches (some)ask if they(poor) are receiving agency help before helping. Or the concept of "if a man doesn't work, he shouldn't eat." This is reality here in a very conservative state. I personally know of no one who will go without something to give to someone who is needy. Those who have it in abundance will help once, but that is about it. It is sad, but here it is easier to get agency help than it is from churches. food banks are about it. Now, I do attend a congregation where they help considerably with very few questions asked. This is such a change from what I am used to.
Susie
Quint,
The people within the parties have flip-flopped. Republicans used to be considered liberal and Democrats used to be considered conservative. Again, I agree with you regarding welfare, but you haven't addressed Jim Crow. It's the same people supporting Jim Crow who used to call themselves Democrats but now call themselves Republican.
And generally speaking, I don't recall anyone here saying that capitalism is bad, except for maybe B.H. (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong). You can be both liberal and a capitalist. The arguments are against the negative stereotypes that many Christians have against liberals and the fact that some people in other countries may actually be happy not being capitalist. In other words Capitalism does not equal Christianity and Republican does not equal Christian.
---edit---
Okay, now I'm convinced that this forum is contributing to the double posting. That's okay. at this rate, I'll catch Janine before the week's out.
Kari-
"God and my belonging to Him is all. Jesus was God incarnate and we are nothing but ruined hulks of wasted potential if we do not follow Him (as far as I can tell by (1)digging into Scripture and (2) by seeing results of the Way)."
Sorry that wasn't clear. That's the unnegotiable, that's the beyond-opinion area. Loving the Lord with all you have and all you are and your neighbor as yourself.
If you define "Christian" as anyone in a blood-bought, through-the-Door, inside the kingdom/church relationship with the Christ... then of course a liberal person can be a Christian. Or a conservative. Or a Luddite, or a phrenologist, or a breeder of pedigreed silkworms...
Anyone can get to be a Christian. It is not necessary that all opinions held by the candidate must line up with Janine's opinions. Aren't I gracious about it? :D
The only caveat I propose, if you can call it that, is that grace is not boundless if you leave it behind.
I can't stand up on a soap box and use my handy-dandy laser pointer to show the exact moment when the actions a person has taken, or the actions of others he's promoted/paid for/made possible, have influenced his relationship to the Redeemer enough, so that he has run ahead and left Jesus behind.
But, from the beginning of Romans, if nowhere else, I do see that we can leave Him behind. I don't want to do that, and I don't want anyone else to.
I had a part in some guy, who was just doing his job, hammering iron spikes through the flesh of my God. There's enough guilt in that, and enough power in the forgiveness I've received for it, to handle my eeeviiilll political & economic persuasions.
If you've received the same forgiveness for your part in that event, in the sad necessity for that event, who am I to say that the workings-out of your political & economic persuasions are too much for the blood of my God to cover?
I just want us all to be aware that we'd best be fully convinced in our own minds, lest we put something ahead of our God, and in so doing leave Him behind.
So that's why I continue to tell others about the manifestations of my own persuasions; they are a natural as well as a spiritual product of trying to live out my faith.
*********************************************
Hey, Quint... If you leave a Christian message board to the witches, what does that accomplish for the Lord?
*********************************************
Re: posting links... I always figured that was OK, to give background to your point or to offer help to someone who needed it, but that it was to be avoided if it tended to just advertise.
Clarification, Lee?
Personally, I have come to the following conclusions on the matter:
1. Those who have done well under capitalism support it
2. Those who have not done well do not like it (and that is not saying it was because they are lazy or anything)
3. People are paid according to how much money they potentially bring their employer, not by how much work they really do, physical or brainwise.
4. The less money you bring your employer, or less important you are to him, the less you will make. Regardless of how much work you actually do for him.
5. Capitalists are blind to the problems of their own system while liberals tend to fall into the same error as well.
However, I think it is easier to convince a liberal of the shortcomings of his view than you can a capitalist.
6. Capitalists support capitalism and seek their wealth out of jealousy of what someone else has. A person employed in a said business sees what his boss makes, has, ect. and out of jealousy works hard to try to get his bosses job when he retires, dies, or is fired.
7. I think that capitalism erodes personal loyalty to the point that people's "hearts grow cold toward one another." One could arguer that it is the person's fault not the system with some justice, but nevertheless the end is the truth.
8. Capitalism emphasizes skill rather than good citizenship and morals as the key to success in life. Need I say more? I have seen plenty of Christians on discussion boards ask the question "When is it better to use inept people knowledge wise as teachers instead of knowledgeable people who do not even try to live a godly example with regards to what they teach."
The context of the qoute was regarding people hired as preachers and Sunday School teachers.
I have yet to hear someone say "Well, Fred is the best engineer we have but he curses every thirty seconds, not to mention he is a flaming homosexual. We can't have a cusser and gay person making all this money in a position of leadership and give a wrong impression to people so we better hire Billy who completely stinks but has a spotless Christian character."
9. Capitalism never does define absolutely or objectively what a "fair wage" is or "exploitation" for that matter.
Maybe Lacy can give us an absolute, perfect, work without fail plan regarding economics using the Bible as a guide. I doubt it.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (JerryBrooke @ Sep. 24 2002,2:58)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]What does the bible say about all of this?
Ecclesiastes 10
2 A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left.
(By the way I am just giving you liberals a hard time. Repeat just a joke.)[/quote]
That was a very funny joke Jerry Brooke. How is married life treating you so far, buddy?
Lucy,
Thanks for explaining. I'll have to read more about this.
terry
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Kari,
Can you name one school that FORCED it's students to say a prayer? [/quote]
Yep. You probably need a cofC background to understand, but in the fourth grade, I went to sleep every night afraid I was going to go to hell. You see, our fourth grade teacher (in the seventies) made us all stand up and say the Lord's Prayer. Those of you raised in the church of Christ know that, at least back then, most of us were taught that any rote prayer was unscriptural, therefore a sin.
We had a long list of sins back then! :)
Although this political debate's been interesting, maybe future such discussions should be divided by issue. It'd probably be more edifying to discuss one thing at a time. There might even be a chance to learn something from each other! Nah, who'd want to do that!
Quint-I do agree with some of what you say. The Republican party definitely needs more input from black Americans; a more diverse party can only help the country in the long run. And I do agree that the Democrat party has too often down-played personal responsibility.
Actually, neither party has really made enough of the importance of responsibility for our individual and collective actions. I see the Dems as wanting the well-to-do and corporations to accept more responsiblity; Republicans want the poor and minority members to take more responsibility. We all think the other guy needs to change!
In fact, what would happen if everyone who posted on this topic took one single personal action to correct the deficiencies of their own party? Wow!
By the way, regarding the responsibilities of government, just who is the government in this country? We are. The failures of our government are our individual failures, and the triumphs of our government are ours as well.
Does Christ's command to feed the hungry apply just to individuals? I think every group-government, corporations, churches, clubs, everyone-is obligated. We're all part of the whole, aren't we?
And I do think that this country has the best government around, and I wouldn't trade with anybody.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (marc @ Oct. 03 2002,5:30)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Marc,
When was the last time you got a job from a poor guy? [/quote]
Curious. Did you read my post, or did you just pick a reply at random? I ask this because it has nothing at all to do with what I said.
Do you ever deal with have-nots directly? Do you live in their midst? Or do you simply pass them by and say "get a job"?
When you live in their world, it makes a difference. I know. This has been my world much of my life.[/quote]
Marc,
Respectfully, people need to work. The only way to create jobs is to have more money being spent. Not tied up in government. Yes. I have been poor a great part of my life. I worked my way through college and got a job. I saved my money and bought a few things when I could. After a while of frugal living and hard work, I could finally say that I was no longer poor, but certainly not rich. I have family members that are still waiting for their check though.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (marc @ Oct. 04 2002,11:58)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Marc,
I realize this may sound harsh, but I totally disagree with the government bailing out ANY business, including an airline company. If a company can not make it on their own, they ought to go out of business. Other people, who can set up companies that can make it on their own, would fill the gap. My tax dollars should not be spent to keep inept managers who go into too much debt, or have poor business plans, in business.
Kevin [/quote]
Hey, remember this little thing that happened last September, around the 11th? that was a bit out of the airlines control.[/quote]
Even though that was out of the control of the airlines, that does not mean that the government should bail the airlines out. Companies should not get themselves so extended with debt that they can not weather the hard times. And government should not bail out any business who doesn't plan for down times, or any business at all for that matter.
If any airline had gone out of business, and there was need for others to fill the gap, the gap would have been filled by airlines that are solvent - like Southwest - or by new companies.
Kevin
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]working at a retail store does not deserve as much money as an engineer or a doctor.
One job takes no real skills the others take a lot of skills.
Life isn't fair and we have already been shown that the utopian ideals of true communism and socialism cannot exist within the confines of the human condition.[/quote]
The above is just your opinion Jerry Brooke. The so called "skills" argument is a fallacy, because if everyone in the world went to college and earned PhD's some of those people would have to be toilet scrubbers, regardless of any special skills they have. Besides, one thing I have learned in life is that NOTHING is as easy as it seems. Who says the reatil clerk does not use any skills? You have to have people skills, knowledge of products, ect.
As for the doctor, he/she chose to go to medical school without anyone pointing a gun at their head. People in many parts of the world like Russia, China, ect have gone to medical school to become doctors only to receive no larger wages than the factory worker. However, they did their jobs and continue to do so because they wanted to help their fellow man. In fact, many people were turned away from medical studies simply because there was just not enough manpower to train them all! Those people wanting in knew what the situation would be like too!
The problem is is that you have been sending the wrong people to medical school Jerry Brooke. You should send those whose purpose is to serve the community and not those whose purpose is to exploit those sick and get big wages
As a matter of fact, I read where the Canadian Medical Practioners Union has been lobbying the government not to expand medical training facilities with the purpose of training more students, so as to keep doctors salaries higher.
I think the Russian wage differentation between the factory worker and doctor was fair. If the doctors here do not like it is because they chose not to like it. They control their own attitudes and could chose to go along with the socialist system if they wanted to. The problem is not socialism but the mentality of the doctor him/herself. In a case a doctor or any person with training refused to do their job out of spite over salary, they should be prosecuted and made an example out of.
Thanks Janine.
If this is the absolute: [!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]"God and my belonging to Him is all. Jesus was God incarnate and we are nothing but ruined hulks of wasted potential if we do not follow Him (as far as I can tell by (1)digging into Scripture and (2) by seeing results of the Way)."
Sorry that wasn't clear. That's the unnegotiable, that's the beyond-opinion area. Loving the Lord with all you have and all you are and your neighbor as yourself.[/quote] then beyond that we have liberty to discern His will as best we can as we follow him. Therefore...
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Do I respect their opinions?
Not on your life![/quote]
Isn't your refusal to respect the opinions of those you disagree with, on disputable matters, flat-out wrong?
Assuming that our fellow Christians have actually thought and prayed about their political or other actions, don't we have some obligations, due to the fact that we are all one, to respect each others ideas?
Kari
Another reason I think the government should get out of the welfare business and let churches and families handle it is that they know (or at least have a better chance of knowing) the real needs of the people who need help. They know if they are someone who is just abusing the system, or if they are someone who really needs help. They would know when the best help you could give them was to help them get on their own two feet.
Kevin
spurly thinks goverment is inefficient at running the welfare programs and shouldn't be in the business. but...
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Yes. I do trust the government. And I am supposes to submit to that government, unless that [/quote]
he apprently highly trusts goverment to mete out justice or send our sons and daughters to war.
the same goverment that jacks up the welfare program is an utter failure at justice, and since the 1960's, war too.
I am so glad people in South America preach Liberation Theology and fight the error found in the ministers of the Church of God denomination.
May I have Lee's and/or a moderator's permission to delve into this issue of capitalism more deeply?
Lee-
Thanks for responding. I do have a point or two remaining, though:
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I am shocked at the number of people calling themselves "liberal." A liberal in today's society is pro-abortion, pro-gay agenda, humanistic, pro-gun control, believes in no absolute truth, etc. [/quote]
Where did you get that definition? If a whole lot of folks call themselves liberal, and DON'T fit your definition, then you've got the wrong definition. 'Liberal' isn't a profanity, it's just a word, in normal usage, describing the political ideas of people who (in this country anyway) tend to vote Democrat. It doesn't mean we don't support our country or even our economic system. It just means we tend to favor the underdog. By the way, how do we know God's opinion on the NRA?
In fact, where in scripture do we find God's opinion on taxation? Corporate welfare? Environmental protection? Affirmative action? These are political ideas, and debatable as such. Feel free to disagree with me on any of these. Tell me if you think I'm wrong on any of them-I can defend my position or change my mind. Just don't tell me that I'm not a Christian because of these opinions.
I don't hold my political beliefs lightly. I've thought about them, prayed about them, and I truly believe-and I know you disagree-that the opinions I hold on these issues are the truest to Christ's will. So, do I still want to be called a liberal? Yes, I do.
p.s. Jerrybrooke - I had to read your post twice before I got the right/left idea. Apparently we liberals are a little slow off the mark tonight. :)
I think this Swedish proverb translated by W. H. Auden graces this discussion of occupations and the way we evaluate a person's worth.
"Nought is given 'neath the sun,
Nought is had that is not won."
Here's my question (I think it's generally addressed to B.H., but anyone else who wants to answer, feel free). In a society where everyone is paid equally regardless of their specific occupation, who will go through eight years of schooling to become a doctor if they can make the same amount of money by dropping out of high school and working at the local grocery store sacking groceries? Wouldn't this cause everyone to take the jobs that require less training and less skill?
Terry,
No, it was the police - not a media issue here, sigh. My point is that groups and individuals who call themselves Christians did treat homosexuals as less than human. This had been going on for who knows how long. The Stonewall incident was when gays finally decided to fight back. That one night sparked the gay movement that had been brewing for years because of the treatment that they had been receiving for years by Christians, other religious groups, other conservative groups, government, ad nauseum.
And at the time (even now), the majority of people in this country who have power call themselves Christian. This includes members of the police force - I doubt most of those policeman out there that night were Jewish - leaders in government and other secular institutions.
So while there weren't people out there throwing Bibles that night, Christians ultimately do have a certain amount of responsibility on what happened.
I don't mean to start yet another issue here, but remember, in 1969 we were still in the midst of the civil rights battles. Now if a group of people who can justifiably claim that they were born black and yet still were treated as they were because of race by fellow Christians, how can we now say that Christians did not contribute to the things that happened to gay people? Evil is often done in the name of Christ.
Again, I state that regardless of how society believes, it is up to us to teach our children. Gays are going to continue to push this issue because they believe it to be as right as Christians believe. It's not going to go away and will probably only get louder because neither side can stop for a moment and just listen.
Quint,
Both parties have changed their platforms several times since the Republican party was created. I think you know that. I think you also know that the majority of black Americans, regardless of religion vote Democrat. Every good Democrat politician knows to attend a black church at least once during their campaign.
I do agree with you regarding welfare, but many of the same people who formerly considered themselves Christian southern Democrats and supported Jim Crow now vote Republican in national elections.
Susie,
I have to respectfully disagree on a few points. I do think it is in the nature of Americans to be charitable. Just look at 9-11. And that was with pocket change from alot of people. Also, if people can give directly without money having to go all the way up to D.C. and trickle slowly down, while all the beuracrats take out their share, alot more can be done with much less. I know I love to give to the programs I believe in, but I just can't give as much as I want due to my tax burden. And taxes force me to pay for garbage that I just don't believe in.
Patricia and Libby, I have read the Libertarian party web site along with our state version. First, I think their site is great. It's alot of easy straight forward reading on some important topics. I really love the idea of removing the government out of the way. I did not know that privatizing many of these things like SS could be such a good thing. Of course yall know I'd like to see a pro-life stand, but I like that they don't believe in forcing others to pay for abortion. They would also protect the liberties of those working in Crisis Pregnancy Centers which is currently under attack by the left. I really don't mind if the govt stays out of moral issues as long as they don't force me to accept immoral issues.
terry
I'll have ever so much more to give if I can keep the government out of my pocket. :p
Ah, well, while the politicos slug it out, I'll continue to share all the resources I can... time, money, talent, whatever.
Sometimes I can't wait to go home.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (susieface @ Oct. 03 2002,8:38)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I would rather see us or the government give the money to those poorer than us and let THEM go out buy what whatever they need to create more jobs. I do not much agree with the concept of saying " I will help you with your immediate financial needs by going out and buying a $20,000 vehicle so you can have a job, instead of giving you financial support each month."
What you are saying sounds good, but I live in the real world where most do not give unless they know of specific need or tragedy(9/11). They have to be asked, they do not normally go out and look for people to help. If you don't know about it, it is forgotten or overlooked.
For those of you who want to banish taxes, I would like to ask this; how many of you give away every single penny or a large part of that nice tax refund check each spring? Or is it more likely that God is lucky with 10%? How many use it to pay off bills? Take a big vacation? Buy a car, house, furniture, clothes or whatever?
Susie[/quote]
Has anyoneon this thread said they want to banish taxes? I'm seeing frustration at paying too high of taxes for things like welfare, planned parenthood, huge government salaries and such. Some of our programs are pretty good, but a few of us would prefer to give our money directly to help the poor since tax dollars really never reach them.
I see alot of benevolent hearts on this topic, but I also see alot of people that don't understand how government and money combined can sabotage the benevolent spirit.
Susie, I don't think Quint was talking about ignoring poor people at all. He was only showing how much more effective money can be in the private sector than trapped in a beauracracy where it never does anyone any good.
terry
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (marc @ Oct. 04 2002,07:56)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]And when the churches or families are not able or willing to help, then what happens?
because in the real world, this is the scenario.[/quote]
As people of faith we do not need to have fear of God's instructions possibly not working out. I totally agree with you Marc that we spend way to much on buildings and gyms etc...Most likely it is because we don't actually see poor people coming to us for help. Some do, but not like it would be if welfare suddenly ended tomorrow. I have wondered whether or not the church is suppose to even own property at all. I'm not a NT legalist, but there is certainly no example of this in the bible. You read about coming together to disburse goods, not to build monuments. I firmly believe that we are supposed to be a family within the govt taking care of our own. There is no examples of God instructing us to turn our responsibilities over to the govt in case his plan for poverty doesn't work out.
Ah, the courage of the anonymous.
No.
Paul had a few things to say about accepting my brother... and not letting quarrels over peripheral things usurp all our time so that we cannot love & function in the central things...
But he did not tell me I had to accept my brother's idea, if it violates things that look pretty central to me.
See the difference? Or am I, to you, splitting hairs? Or atoms? :p
Everyone in entitled to an opinion... but that does not make everyone's opinion right, or equally useful.
One can be sincere... and wrong.
See what I mean? I can see a person who differs from me in some area of thought, as my brother, or if not that, at least as another human being made in my Father's image and worth my Firstborn Brother dying for... and that's wonderful, and right.
But why would that necessitate me respecting, placing any value at all, upon his actions, opinions, statements, or upon any other product of his thinking?
I might say that I have relatively more respect for someone's position, even if I disagree with him, when I can see he has simply come to different conclusions of logic than I did, after his consideration of source material I respect, such as the Bible.
I might feel comparatively more respect for, say, a very strict vegetarian who looks down on my meat consumption, if she makes every effort to not wear leather and to balance her children's diet, with supplements if necessary...
And comparatively less respect for her if she heedlessly lets them grow up all sickly, because she has a Pharisaical addiction to not eating Bambi, a zeal, but she doesn't search out knowledge of how to avoid meat yet still nourish her God-given kids.
I'm very sorry to take up all this space and slather on all these words to try to express a teeny-tiny fleeting concept.
In a nutshell (appropriately enough, as I am a bit of a walnut :p ), it is not necessarily a crime for me to think someone else's idea is a Gucci bag full of sewer froth.
Why should I respect an idea I think is incomplete, or wrong, or maybe even downright sinful?
Must I smile and bow and agree, or at least by my silence allow the speaker to think I agree, when he spouts some obnoxious Klan trash, or when he touts a diet which include regular doses of mercury and lead (or any other crazy example you can think of)?
Not that my opinions are God's gift to mankind.
I just think they are a better gift than some other opinions I've heard. :D
But, the value does not appear within them just because I hold them.
Have I been fairly clear, or is it all a feather-headed mess? Please let me know.
Hi,
Yes, I am a capitalist. Just like the founding fathers of the United States I believe in free enterprize and hard work. I am proud to live in a country where anyone--anyone can be rich or poor based on how hard they are willing to work and use their imagination and learning capacity.
I don't believe that ALL liberals are lazy. The article was simply Mr. Reynald's opinion.
I am shocked at the number of people calling themselves "liberal." A liberal in today's society is pro-abortion, pro-gay agenda, humanistic, pro-gun control, believes in no absolute truth, etc. Dr. James Dobson, Billy Graham, Gary Bower, and other leaders among Christians speak out against liberalism quite often.
There is a difference in being Grace-Centered and just plain liberal. Paul talks about it in his letter to the Corinthians. Remember? There were some men in the congregation sleeping (having sex) with their mothers. The church was so proud of how accepting and open it was that no one would call these men and women on their sin. Paul basically told them they were being spineless and were not holding to convictions. He told them to demand that these men change, or that they leave the congregation. Definitely not the act of a liberal.
In science in High School, I was blessed to be taught both the worldy athestic evolution (hopeful accident) view, and also the Judeo-Christian view of creation. While studying evolution, I ran across a quote by one of the leading scientists of evolutionary theory. The quote baffled me. I remember it to this day word for word, and kept the article which quoted him. He said, "We do not believe in evolution because the fossil record supports it. In fact it does not. We believe in evolution because it has become a symbol of our liberalism."
Still want to say you are a liberal?
Lee Wilson
[!--EDIT|admin|Sep. 24 2002,12:59--]
What does the bible say about all of this?
Ecclesiastes 10
2 A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left.
(By the way I am just giving you liberals a hard time. Repeat just a joke.)
Thanks Marc for your balanced and biblical perspective. We are all deceived -- republican and democrat -- if we live in the illusion that we cannot learn anything from the other. There is nobody from whom I cannot learn. Before God who speaks through ALL of humankind, I am always at the bottom of the class in nursery school. We open the door to chaos when we attempt to move God's hand of approval this way and that. One's position on a particular moral issue never gives you the right to command others to follow you or else ... or else what? You are not one of "us" ... the approved, the sactioned, the authoritative ... the holy. This only imposes on you the duty of keeping the illusion of your rightness over all else. It makes you the cuckold of your Self. I'm at the age where I am looking for truth over authority. Neither the Republicans or the Democrats hold the corner on truth.
working at a retail store does not deserve as much money as an engineer or a doctor.
One job takes no real skills the others take a lot of skills.
Life isn't fair and we have already been shown that the utopian ideals of true communism and socialism cannot exist within the confines of the human condition.
"As one writer put it so succinctly, "That a man does not have riches and another does, is no excuse for the first to rob the latter--neither is it a moral justification for the state to rob the first for the benefit of the latter."
I saw this quote at the end of the article under discussion that started this thread and thought it was great.
What's so great about capitalism? We are able to allow GOd to work through us to accomplish what he wants to accomplish through us financially - instead of the state dictating it. We are freed up to give more generously. We are freed up to hire people and get them out of poverty.
Is capitalism the perfect system - No. People will still take advantage of it. But it is the best one we have right now. Do any of you all have a plan for a better system brewing in the back of your mind that you have yet to put into writing?
Kevin
The parties have never flip-flopped their platforms when it comes down to making determinations about who is human and who is not. Two times the question of whether a human is a human has gone to court and both times the decision to declare someone as not human has been determined by democratic courts and later adopted as being a right by the democratic party platform.
Of course I know that the majority of blacks vote the democratic ticket. Many though are waking up after all of our recent democratic years and are realizing that nothing has changed.
While I'm here, I would like to add a word about democrats, poverty and power. One issue that never leaves the party is poverty. As long as you can keep people poor, you give them the hope of not being poor. You run candidates for office exploiting the hope of poor people. But, if you really solve poverty you have a problem. People will then want the government out of their lives and their own assets protected. Thus, they become Republicans.
With all of our countries resources and assets, the problem of poverty should easily be solved. That is not really a starvation problem as some would think. Honestly, you have to get people away from government dependence. Take all the money spent on welfare, use is as a reward for those seeking higher education and you will solve numerous problems. Give them a bonus for choosing a profession in demand and you solve even more problems. See how this works? You reward good behavior and give job experience while meeting the demand of needed professions. All the while your decreasing the dependence of those who would be otherwise waiting for a check.
Kari, if your following this I admire your benevolent attitude. But alot of the problems you mentioned are somewhat exagerated. America is the most benevolent country on earth. If you are hungry, you will be fed. Children are given clothes and school supples often by total strangers. Hospitals do not turn away patients, even if they can't pay. Our prisoners are fed, clothed, and educated. They can even get a law degree for free. How much better can it get than that? I think private charities do a wonderful job of looking out for those in need. In all due respect though, you make it sound as if millions of Americans are starving to death or running around naked. I live in an area with alot of poverty, but it's not that bad! You really don't want the government to take over these things because money meant for helping will get lost somewhere in the paperwork.
I know that Capitolism is not perfect, but it sure beats everything else. Mostly, I think you have to understand that capitolism is a part of everything including politicians cashing in while giving hopes of one day solving poverty.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (susieface @ Oct. 03 2002,00:51)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]No, I do not think people will or would disburse of their funds more liberally if taxes were taken away. People don't do enough now and we always want more. We live in the best country there is, but we do not want to help it out financially. But we will definitely take from it. We are greedy! If one has the attitude of "keeping my hard earned money" that person will do just that if allowed. They will keep it for themselves. God would still only get 10% if he's lucky and the poor would only be helped when asked. Nothing would change. I firmly believe the more you give, the more you receive in blessings. But our faith must be lacking, we say we will do so much if we had more, but do we? Or do we just buy more "stuff", bigger houses, better or 2nd car?
What I do not like is how the welfare system works. We pay people to live together without being married, because they will lose their AFDC or food stamps if they are married. It is easy to lie about a man living in the house. Social Security is almost just as bad. It is so abused it is pathetic, but it is still needed. We just need to reevaluate the welfare system. The ones who need it don't get it too easy because they do not know how to cheat the system like so many on it.
Two of my children receive death benefits due to the death of their father(my first husband). When I remarried I told the social security office we did not need the benefit anymore due to my husbands income. You know what? They treated me like I was neglecting my kids by not wanting this money each month. I said I just wanted it to go to someone who probably needed it more. I was told no and the checks are still coming. I just dropped it because they made me feel weird, like I was withholding some need of my children.
Seems wrong to me. I do not get it. I never even asked for the benefits.
I do feel the USA does more for their citizens than anyone else.
I just have a real problem with the abusers.
susie[/quote]
Susie, I for one have to disagree with you. I think that if the government stopped taking as much money as they do, and they stopped trying to be the provider for the poor and downtrodden, that good people (of which there are many) would step into the gap.
People would have much more money to give. I give as much as I can now, and I know I would give more if the government stopped taking part of my income away. And I know there are a lot more people like me out there.
Our church is one that believes in meeting the needs of its people, and needs of others in the community that our people know are legitimate. When the tornado came through here a few years back the church disbursed so much money and goods that it became known in the community for its heart.
Yes, there are some people who would not let go of their "hard earned cash", but I think they would be in the minority.
I'm not talking about "waiting for a check". I am talking about people who are forced to take minimum wage jobs with no benefits to support a family. I am talking about a job market that is so tight that people with advanced degrees are hired for secretarial jobs. I am talking about every decent job that opens up finding thousands of applicants. I am talking about company after company shutting down and people losing the jobs they have had for decades. I am talking about some becoming so despondent over this they take their own lives. I am talking about people working as hard as they possibly can and still coming up short.
And I am talking about people literally dying because they are too proud to go see a doctor when they cannot afford to pay.
This is the real world. Stereotypes do occur occasionally, but they are the exceptions.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ Oct. 03 2002,4:54)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]By the way, here's a fair summation of what I have against most Republican ideology:
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--] But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court?
Do they not blaspheme the fair name by which you have been called? --James 2:6-7
Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and which has been withheld by you, cries out against you; and the outcry of those who did the harvesting has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned and put to death the righteous man; he does not resist you. --James 5:4-6
[/quote][/quote]
Kari,
Perhaps you could go the Republican platform and specifically show me where they want to withhold wages from workers. Do you really think that this is a good business strategy? Companies don't become successful and grow without good paid help. That's sort of like saying I'm going to put my money into a new car to drive, but refuse to fill it up with gas.
terry
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (marc @ Oct. 04 2002,11:56)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]And when the churches or families are not able or willing to help, then what happens?
because in the real world, this is the scenario.[/quote]
If the churches and families can not help, or are not willing to help, then neighbors pitch in. I see it done all the time.
WHen people in our family fall on hard times, we don't turn to the government for support, because we don't believe that is the job of government. Our family helps each other out. When my brother was inbetween jobs and didn't make enough money to make ends meet, our family came to his side to help.
That would happen more if government would get out of the way - and it might even foster closer family relationships.
What did people do before welfare, food stamps, etc.? People helped people. THe same thing could happen today if government would get itself out of the business of handing out assistance.
Kevin
Sorry--that was a bit of a cheap shot.
I would suggest, though, that if you wish to contribute to the discussion it would help to 1)use a consistent identity so you can actually take part in the conversation and 2)avoid generalities and slurs.
For what it's worth, I voted for Bush and support him. Yet I would bet you would automatically, because of my comments above, label me a "Clinton/Gore lover" (oooh, how awful!)
My argument is simply that Christianity doesn't stop as soon as money is being discussed. An overall collection of the passages concerning money would be nice. Some relevant ones from James have been posted a couple of times in this discussion, but have not been addressed.
No, you're clear, Janine, just wrong.
Respect, in common usage, is not the same as a agreement. I find many of the ideas you've expressed ill-conceived and sometimes shallow, but I still respect them as the truthful products of your attempt to live as you believe God expects you to.
Maybe it would help if you thought of it from the other direction. For example, suppose I say to you that, because I believe you politics to go directly against Christ's teachings with regard to feeding the hungry, etc, I have absolutely no respect (not on you life) for your opinions. Does that seem, to you, to fit in with the unity we are to have as Christians?
Perhaps, though, respect is not the word I should use. Maybe 'respect' does have too much connotation of acceptance. (It does help to look at something from the other direction, doesn't it) Perhaps I really mean courtesy, or just acknowledgement.
Now, its my turn to ask if I've been clear. :)
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (admin @ Sep. 24 2002,12:53)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]"We do not believe in evolution because the fossil record supports it. In fact it does not. We believe in evolution because it has become a symbol of our liberalism." [/quote]
"Liberal" means different things to different people, just like the term Conservative.
Where did you read that qoute?
Be careful Lee if you read it in a creationist propaganda phamplet, for creationists have been caught misqouting or forging qoutes by evolutionists.
Lee,
I'd rather not get into arguments regarding specific political issues here, but I am completely aware of what liberals in today's society believe (I don't completely agree with your definitions, though). Don't assume that Christian liberals - and there are plenty of us, even in the CofC - are merely accepting of what society wants to do. Clearly, you cannot see our side of things, but it doesn't mean that we haven't chosen our opinions carefully and prayerfully.
Conservatives are no more Christian than liberals, in my experience. MOST of the conservatives I know are fiscally conservative and vote Republican for those purposes. I had a boss who was a staunch Republican, but stated quite plainly that he couldn't care less about issues like abortion, homosexuality and drugs. For all he cared, people could do whatever they wanted. His issue was big government and all he wants out of the government is for them to defend the shores, deliver the mail and stay out of his business (and this is the cleaned up version).
It has been my experience that conservatives within the Bible belt are more concerned with morality (though liberal Christians in the Bible belt, I would imagine are equally concerned about moral issues) than conservatives elsewhere.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Richard @ Sep. 25 2002,4:47)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]That is why capitalism is false, even if it is the most successful economic system in the eyes of the world. It does not pay people according to their labor per see, but what a bunch of people's whimsy in that given society tells them it is worth.[/quote]
B.H.,
If I labor really hard at building sand castles which get washed out by the tide every day, will you pay me according to my labor?
Richard[/quote]
Richard,
This is what artists do every day. We make art -- theatre, special installations, firework displays, chalk murals, music -- knowing that these works will be blown away by the elements within hours, seconds, minutes. Therein lies their value. Some artists are paid well for their work but most are not. Yet, without artists where would society be? Artists hold civilisation together. This is why they are the first to die when oppressive leaderships take over a government. Your post reminded me of a man who works out on a beach near me. He stacks rocks and boulders in unbelievable ways that defy gravity. People come from all over to see his work. They speak of his work in deeply spiritual terms. Well, no wonder! He is building altars of unhewn stone! He is quite poor but incredibly intelligent. I believe he lived in a shelter at one time. Even though he has an impressive following of admirers he refuses to accept donations or pay. His work is an offering. But I can recite many, many bios of artists who fit this profile. Their work would be defiled if they accepted money for it. It is part of their artistic process to give it away. What they give to society is of far more value to us than anything they will recieve for their life's work.
Lucybelle, [!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]The real problem comes when the rest of us have to undo the thinking of non-Christians who characterize our religion on the basis of what a few narrow-minded bigots think and believe.[/quote]
This is the only reason I bother. How many lost folks will never find Christ because they're so turned off by that narrow minded junk? We're living in a world in serious need of someone to show the light of Christ's love, and this is what we show instead.
It makes me heart-broken and angry. I was raised in the Church of Christ; I grew up believing it to be a shining example of Christ's way. And now I feel robbed, as though I was delusional all that time.
Kari
Doyle,
One thing you're right about is that gay men are more likely to be attacked by gay men. This is true for all demographics, I believe (blacks turn on blacks, women are most unfair to their own). It's really a self-hatred thing - not helped by the way they have been historically treated. However, gay men are MUCH more likely to be attacked by straight men than the other way around.
And as a general comment, not necessarily directed to you Doyle, I have seen Christian media be just as unfair, biased and untrue in their reporting first hand (we're not perfect). Just imagine being at church and having someone come up to your own mother with a misquoted, misrepresented and untrue article about her in a Christian newspaper.
No, I do not think people will or would disburse of their funds more liberally if taxes were taken away. People don't do enough now and we always want more. We live in the best country there is, but we do not want to help it out financially. But we will definitely take from it. We are greedy! If one has the attitude of "keeping my hard earned money" that person will do just that if allowed. They will keep it for themselves. God would still only get 10% if he's lucky and the poor would only be helped when asked. Nothing would change. I firmly believe the more you give, the more you receive in blessings. But our faith must be lacking, we say we will do so much if we had more, but do we? Or do we just buy more "stuff", bigger houses, better or 2nd car?
What I do not like is how the welfare system works. We pay people to live together without being married, because they will lose their AFDC or food stamps if they are married. It is easy to lie about a man living in the house. Social Security is almost just as bad. It is so abused it is pathetic, but it is still needed. We just need to reevaluate the welfare system. The ones who need it don't get it too easy because they do not know how to cheat the system like so many on it.
Two of my children receive death benefits due to the death of their father(my first husband). When I remarried I told the social security office we did not need the benefit anymore due to my husbands income. You know what? They treated me like I was neglecting my kids by not wanting this money each month. I said I just wanted it to go to someone who probably needed it more. I was told no and the checks are still coming. I just dropped it because they made me feel weird, like I was withholding some need of my children.
Seems wrong to me. I do not get it. I never even asked for the benefits.
I do feel the USA does more for their citizens than anyone else.
I just have a real problem with the abusers.
susie
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (marc @ Oct. 03 2002,6:05)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I'm not talking about "waiting for a check". I am talking about people who are forced to take minimum wage jobs with no benefits to support a family. I am talking about a job market that is so tight that people with advanced degrees are hired for secretarial jobs. I am talking about every decent job that opens up finding thousands of applicants. I am talking about company after company shutting down and people losing the jobs they have had for decades. I am talking about some becoming so despondent over this they take their own lives. I am talking about people working as hard as they possibly can and still coming up short.
And I am talking about people literally dying because they are too proud to go see a doctor when they cannot afford to pay.
This is the real world. Stereotypes do occur occasionally, but they are the exceptions.[/quote]
Marc,
Many companies, small to medium businesses in particular cannot pay decent salaries or benefits because they are overtaxed. Taxes that are wasted on govt pork projects. Please don't say that if they didn't have to pay these taxes they would pocket the money themselves. I know alot of business owners who are Christians that don't think this way. In fact, many will tell you that if they could pay more, they could hire better talent. This is what they would use the money for. Recruiting good help.
I noticed that Enron has been brought up a few times. Well, living in the heart of Enron country I thought I might say a few things. First, much of what went on over there didn't make the national news. For example, the day after all those people lost their jobs Houston and other local school districts announced that they were desperate for teachers and many of those guys could have jobs teaching. There weren't many takers. It seems they thought holding Jessie Jackson's hand while marching around DC was a better idea. This is what yall most likely saw on the news.
Second, these folks had choices in retirement plans. Many were greedy and chose what they thought was a promising stock. My neighbor on the other hand chose boring old bond funds and did just fine. He also was living way beneath his means and had six months of living expensed saved. He leisurely looked for a job, while his wife taught school. He will tell you that he found a good job as did most of the others. It doesn't pay 80k, but they're doing fine.
Corporate greed did devastate some people's lives, however, it is through personal responsibility and other decent corporations that these people are all back at work.
take care,
terry
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I get the idea that you have never thought about the origins of your own material blessings. Most likely, someone started a company, made the things that you bought, and eventually became wealthy off your purchases. Everything around you has come from capitolism, yet you would have every company in the US shut down from what I'm reading because you don't like to see people prosper. You would bite the very hand that feeds you. Somehow, you have this idea that the government is the only thing in this country that should make money. They will then decide how we all should live. Maybe when your through with getting us there, we'll just call it Mexico[/quote]
Actually, Terry, everything of value, material and otherwise, has come from God; there is nothing whatsoever that I have done to deserve any of it.
The wealthy (which would include almost everyone of us in this country) are not wealthy because they deserve it. Material blessings are not evidence of God's favor. We could just as easily be living in a cardboard box on a Venezuelan hillside.
All of scripture tells us the danger in material wealth, and I think we need to remember that capitalism is no more Christian than any other system. Let's face it, does a system based on each person striving to get the most for himself really fit with Christ's teachings?
Terry, please do not assume that you know my views well enough to determine my goals. You know nothing whatsoever about me. I have posted nothing to indicate I don't wish to see people prosper or that I would shut down every company. If you can back up that statement, prove it. Otherwise, you owe me an apology.
My only point, all along, has been that there can be political differences of opinion among Christians. Assuming that you are willing to grant me Christian status, I believe this whole debate has proven that.
As to welfare being a fornication subsidy--nonsense. Welfare is a temporary aid to those families which simply do not have enough money to live. If we were paying a fornication subsidy, we'd have to pay a whole lot more people than welfare touches. And yes, we've got a HUGE problem with single parent families. I will admit, no-fault divorce was the worst mistake the feminist movement made, and one that will haunt us for a long time.
I'm sorry about your center's problems. I assume some local group is trying to shut you down-I hope that does not prevent you from doing your work.
Quint, yes, my logic is flawed if I assume all government agencies to be efficient and successful in their mission, just as your logic is flawed if you assume all private companies to be efficient and successful to their mission. You're right, we would be better off if the private sector were truly private. But of course, the big guys never play with their own money.
Spurly, if all our roadways were Oklahoma toll roads, our civilization would fall into ruins before Christmas! Economies of scale are one of the greatest benefits of government-how would it work if we had to stop and pay a toll to get on our neighborhood street, then pay another toll to get onto the artery, then another for the crosstown expressway? We'd never get anywhere!
Perhaps, rather than try to decide to get rid of one sector or another, we'd be better off finding ways for the public, private and religious sectors to solve the countries problems together. It wouldn't be as exciting a debate, but it might be more profitable in the long run.
Kari.
I think this is a case of lost identity. In a world of philosophical, political and social ideas Christians have lost the Christological identity in living for Christ alone. We want to clarify Christ by attaching explanations to the cross ... "King of the (Your Political Party or Religious Idea Here)" in order to avoid discussion about it creating a very happy and content community of believers who are likeminded in all things. Unfortunately they also learn not to tolerate others who have, through Christ come to different ideas and solutions for the fallen world than those authorised by the group. Then those who find themselves "on the other side" but still within the group are caught between expressing a need for tolerance or just staying quiet or tucking our heads in the sand in order to keep the peace or avoid confrontation. It boils down to a lack of character on both sides. All too easily we confuse a fear of standing up for our beliefs, a tendency to be more influenced by the convictions of others than by our own -- or simply a lack of conviciton -- with the need that the strong and mature feel to give full weight to the arguments of the other side. It is a game of hide-and-seek. When the Satan wishes to play on our lack of character, he calls it tolerance, and when he wants to stifle our fist attempts to learn tolerance, he calls it lack of character. Our escape from this ridicuous game is Christ. Christ and NOTHING else ... no other players. That is where we become centered on the axis of the world and our reach is extended to all. Words like Democrat, Republican, Cabbalist ... all disentigrate in the excruciating light that makes concepts like tolerance unnecessary.
The Potter author has the whole series either already written out (in longhand on legal pads?) or at least blocked out in her head. Already. The timing of movies is due to the $ signs blinding the movie-makers.
I do see a difference between how the search for & handling of POWER was dealt with, a fair difference, between the Harry Potter stories and, say, the Narnia or LOTR series.
But, ultimately, a story is a story. What you do with it is up to you.
So Lewis, the atheist who talked himself into being a believer, got ahold of his friend Tolkein & converted him? Was he a nominal Catholic before? Or a "nothing", as Lewis was?
They both lamented the lack of spirituality in stories, and how the "best bits" were stunted and de-emphasized. That's why they made up whole worlds in their writings, and that's why they cared so much about how right and wrong and good and evil were presented, I think; more than they might have without the God-influence.
See why I don't start threads very often? I might kick off a firestorm.
Capitalism thrives on instincts about self-improvement, while other economic systems (i.e., socialism) thrive on instincts about group security.
Capitalism feels more complicated, since it must account for individual greed and the desire to free oneself from political authority once monetary prosperity has been achieved.
Some critics of capitalist USA who believe that libertine economics is dangerous to moral values engage in acts of anti-American infrastructure destabilization (i.e., airplane hijacking), seeking to deliver the message that Wall Street greed must be subverted with acts of fire and brimstone.
Perhaps capitalism creates a proverbial 'darkside' in the human soul, since it compels people to evaluate the boundaries of self-gain and greed.
I was thinking the other day that Americans are fascinated by cryptic mobility fantasies. For example, fairy tales about mermaids (half-human, half-fish creatures that can live and move under-water) abound in the USA and catalyze the marketing of various urban legends about terrestrial conquest. Maybe this is why the Taliban seems obsessed with hijacking American planes.
We need to find a way to negotiate the capitalist American Dream which appeals to many immigrants across the globe with dialogue about prudent banking.
::applause::
[deleted]
: link=topic=482.msg12207#msg12207 date=1032923739
I think that other economic systems did and do meet the needs of the societies they serve, it is just the prejudice of those who will accept only capitalism that blinds people to the fact.
Caveat: I am more narrowly definitive of the ideal(s) of capitalism, but since you utilize the term capitalism as a broad brush term for a specific type of economic system, so will I in this response.In my opinion, you are confusing the term capitalism, in its most basic sense, with the representation of today's united States capitalism under the fiat based currency provided by and through the auspices of the private banker owned and private banker operated Federal Reserve. Any and every economic system operating under the heavy hand of a debt based fiat currency, such as we have here in the united States under the Federal Reserve, is not limited to the economic rule or governance according to the precepts of capitalism proper, but rather our economic system has, is, and will continue to operate according to the whims and manipulation for gain of a very limited number of individuals.
Were it not for the forced guidance of these self-proclaimed, global elite and their forced manipulation of our, if you will, economic ebb and flow, capitalism as a Biblically derived economic system would be an accurate, welcome, and fair system of placing economic value on both goods and services within our economy. Without a debt based fiat currency mandated for trade of goods and services, capitalism would also harmonize quite nicely with all those who followed even the most basic of Holy Bible based principles.
So knowing, capitalism has rarely been given the reins to run freely in this country, but when it has, our economy has NEVER been stronger.
-PW