Political discussion thread

I just can't side with a party that backs the genocide of babies. Sorry. Christ says to care for the least of these and babies who have no voice at all, fit the description as the least of these. Yes the Republican party is full of crap too, I won't deny, but it makes me sick to my stomach that since Roe V Wade close to 50 million lives have been slaughtered. The choice is having sex and reaping the consequences of what that brings. It not the choice of having that baby or not, it all started with one's choice to have to sex and understand that pregnancy is a result. 

HackettFan wrote: The T wrote: Epignosis wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Epignosis wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: On welfare, I don't think Jesus would care if he was in church or in congress, he'd be giving to the poor, man! Giving to the poor of your own volition is not the same as taking someone else's money to give to the poor. Tell that to the poor... I've been there.  I still had the same opinion then. Spoiled little poor kid. Churches have always taken other people's money to help the poor and other things. It's a little more voluntary nowadays, but, since tithing is a part of doctrine, it certainly isn't lacking coercion. Historically there was a non-distinction back in times when church and state were one. Now we have separation of church and state. I've heard many reasons for separating church and state. Taking government out of the business of helping the poor was not one of them. As a non-believer (sorry), I would prefer government do it.

I am a member of a church and I do not tithe.  I also eat pork and shrimp and sometimes work on the Sabbath.

HackettFan wrote: I'd prefer welfare come from the federal government. Liberals don't trust state and local government. I do realize the trust level is the opposite for conservatives.

It isn't a matter of trust- it's a matter of competence.  That, and it's easy to squander other people's money, which is what happens.

I am a member of a church and I do not tithe.  I also eat pork and shrimp and sometimes work on the Sabbath.


How come you don't tithe?

Edited by AlexDOM - January 02 2013 at 15:33

How in the world does a church function without funds coming in? This is just a practical reason 

Edited by AlexDOM - January 02 2013 at 16:19

Epignosis wrote: HackettFan wrote: Epignosis wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Epignosis wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: On welfare, I don't think Jesus would care if he was in church or in congress, he'd be giving to the poor, man! Giving to the poor of your own volition is not the same as taking someone else's money to give to the poor. I've worked at companies that donated to various organizations. I don't see much difference between that and welfare - I'd prefer some of the money they take from my paycheck to go to worthy causes as opposed to useless wars of idealism in countries we have no business being in. I don't see how the Right-Wing can attack the Left's patriotism over not supporting wars they disagree with and then claim to be patriots themselves while they threaten civil war over taxes going to worthy causes. A donation is free and voluntary.  Welfare takes money from people who may not have been willing to give it. All taxes do that. I don't see your point. Coercion is not charity.

Okay, It's not charity then, as we define that word. Why is it supposed to be? It's welfare, mentioned in the preamble of the constitution. I make the point again too that tithing is a part of church doctrine, so I don't really call that free of coercion.

Edited by HackettFan - January 02 2013 at 16:13

timothy leary wrote: The original Christian Church 4:34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 4:35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

 

AlexDOM wrote: I just can't side with a party that backs the genocide of babies. Sorry. Christ says to care for the least of these and babies who have no voice at all, fit the description as the least of these. Yes the Republican party is full of crap too, I won't deny, but it makes me sick to my stomach that since Roe V Wade close to 50 million lives have been slaughtered. The choice is having sex and reaping the consequences of what that brings. It not the choice of having that baby or not, it all started with one's choice to have to sex and understand that pregnancy is a result.  And there are many other issues too!!!

As an agnostic I fully respect your church's right to tell you and its members how to behave and how to act and for you as a member of that church to choose to behave and act in such a manner.  However, that church has no authority over how I behave and act and I do not want it in my government telling me that I need to behave and act in the manner that the church tells its members to behave and act. 

HackettFan wrote: Churches have always taken other people's money to help the poor and other things. It's a little more voluntary nowadays, but, since tithing is a part of doctrine, it certainly isn't lacking coercion. Historically there was a non-distinction back in times when church and state were one. Now we have separation of church and state. I've heard many reasons for separating church and state. Taking government out of the business of helping the poor was not one of them. As a non-believer (sorry), I would prefer government do it. @Ambient Hurricanes I'd prefer welfare come from the federal government. Liberals don't trust state and local government. I do realize the trust level is the opposite for conservatives.

Echoing what Rob said, tithing was part of the Mosaic law, which Christians are not bound to (see the entire book of Galatians, or Romans 3-8).  This doesn't mean that Christians shouldn't follow the 10 Commandments; instead it means that our morality flows out of thanksgiving for our redemption and love for God and for others, not out of rigid adherence to a legal code.  Christians give freely of themselves to the Church; they are not bound by a strict number or percentage, but are expected to give to others in love as they are able.  Any church that requires its members to give a certain percentage of their income is misusing their authority.  If you're showing up to church and giving absolutely nothing, then that's a different matter: it shows that your heart is hard and unwilling to give out of love.

I don't trust government, period.  I just think that, at the local level, there's more ability for people as a community to decide fairly how they want to help the poor, and it's easier on a smaller scale to determine who should receive assistance, how much they should receive, and for how long they should receive it.  With our current system, it's easy for lazy people to mooch off the government and any federal welfare system is going to either facilitate dependency or leave legitimately helpless families wanting.  I do think that there should be basic laws at the federal and state level that regulate local welfare, though, because on a smaller scale it's easier for governments to get away with discrimination.

HackettFan wrote: Okay, It's not charity then, as we define that word. Why is it supposed to be? It's welfare, mentioned in the preamble of the constitution.

In the context of the Constitution, the word "welfare" meant the general well-being of the people of the United States.  "Welfare" today means something related, but different.

[QUOTE=Epignosis]The Bible says many things.  The greatest danger lies in assuming that every bit of it applies to you personally.  If I respond to anyone on this page, I'll do so in the appropriate page.

Except you Timmy.  No, your two verses in Acts don't mean we adopt socialism.
[/QUOTE

rushfan4 wrote: [QUOTE=AlexDOM]I just can't side with a party that backs the genocide of babies. Sorry. Christ says to care for the least of these and babies who have no voice at all, fit the description as the least of these. Yes the Republican party is full of crap too, I won't deny, but it makes me sick to my stomach that since Roe V Wade close to 50 million lives have been slaughtered. The choice is having sex and reaping the consequences of what that brings. It not the choice of having that baby or not, it all started with one's choice to have to sex and understand that pregnancy is a result.  And there are many other issues too!!!

As an agnostic I fully respect your church's right to tell you and its members how to behave and how to act and for you as a member of that church to choose to behave and act in such a manner.  However, that church has no authority over how I behave and act and I do not want it in my government telling me that I need to behave and act in the manner that the church tells its members to behave and act.  [/QUOTE