Political discussion thread

But to clarify when one becomes a believer we should submit to those the Lord has put into power including church leadership. Only when leadership is so blatantly against God and the truth of the Gospel, should we purposely disobey

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.

Epignosis wrote: HackettFan wrote: 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. Please show me the context of the word "welfare" in the US Constitution.I do not go to jail or get kicked out of the congregation if I do not tithe.  I have never been forced to give anything, and I've been in church my whole life.  If I don't pay my taxes, the IRS will seize my property, fine me, or send me to prison.

Seizing property, fining, and imprisoning are not the only way of coercing someone, and the power of one type of coercion versus another depends on the person being coerced. Clearly for most tithing is not terribly coercive, but it does affect some people on a spiritual level, and that is coercive. Nevertheless, let's say the coercion level is at zero. The larger question is why should we evaluate the merits of welfare based on whether it fits the definition of charity?

AlexDOM wrote: How in the world does a church function without funds coming in? This is just a practical reason  With Christ giving me a new heart, and His Spirit daily working in my life to grow closer to Him. To the sacrifice He went, The Whole Gospel, I can't not out of the desire of my Heart (or really the spirit entrapped in these earth suit still fighting in much opposition to His work) and what Christ has done for me and us all, not want to give Him what is rightfully His. Nothing I own including my body, thoughts, possessions, talents, and money are mine. They are all His. I'm still challenged by giving the bare minimum or tithe, I should really give everything including my life which really if I truly accept Christ is that proclamation. We should be giving beyond the ten percent, that is the starting point. Giving to the church is a solid way to first give back to God and fulfill the great commission in  reaching others. (which is what the body of Christ has the wonderful privilege and blessing to be a part of. God does not need us at all for anything).

Responded here.

AlexDOM wrote: Epignosis wrote: 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. 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness  Oh and don't think socialism is Biblically supported since there is notsuch thing as perfect socialism because perfection does not exist on this side of heaven.

I have no idea whom you are speaking to or...could the Bible perhaps teach you to quote a post? 

Oh come on Doc saying "take it or leave it" is no way of debating. I usually watch your exchanges with interest but that type of assertion is the one that some in the left (and the other sides) do that kill debate and tries to assume for the debater a moral high ground. I can agree there is an advantageous position to the employer in many contract situations but coercion? Coercion is force. Nobody forces nobody to get employed by nobody (at least no legal job).

Oh, well yes I misunderstood . Anyway, I still don't see coercion proper. That would be "you sign this contract or I'll kill you" or "hurt X person" or other situations. There is still no actual force. I know what you mean and in today's world the option to say no is lower and lower but it still exists.

I think that's where we disagree Teo.  I don't see the threat of physical violence as the only way to coerce someone.  I also see economic duress and abusing the lower economic power of others as forms of coercion.  The best and probably most extreme of this is in the recent cases of employers telling their employees "If Obama wins (basically, if you vote for Obama), you're going to lose your job."   But there are other forms as well.  Someone without a job may not have the economic means to decline an extremely unfair contract.  To take advantage of that is coercion, even if there is no threat of physical violence.

Slartibartfast 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. Well, you are obviously better than the rest of us.  You have an appaling lack of empathy for someone who claims to have been there...

"The Rest of Us?"  Are you poor?  You are an architect yes?  You ever been poor?

By poor I mean this:

1. Pawning your possessions to pay the rent?
2. Selling your plasma to buy groceries for almost a year?
3. Eating flour and water baked in an old oven to get by?
4. Getting robbed during this time?

That was us, friend, for quite a time.  If you don't think that's poor, then what is it?



 


Edited by Epignosis - January 02 2013 at 20:02

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!!!

I believe there are more important issues than abortion, for the simple fact that it HAS been legal for multiple decades now.  I believe that because too many people talk like this, the Republican party has been allowed to take the church hostage.  To me, the most important issue, the one that gives me an imperative to stand against the Republican party is that it is too ingrained in their nature to lie, to con the American people, to spread fear and prejudice.  Now, first, a practical example - Mitt Romney is a pathological liar.  Every position he took, he took because at that time it was convenient.  Don't believe me?  Watch this:



Now, abortion is important to you, eh?  Does this disturb you:



He was a pathological liar - Mitt Romney told 27 myths in 38 minutes in one debate, 24 myths in 41 minutes in another, and 31 myths in 41 in another.  That's a skill.

Now, as to whether this is ingrained in the collective personality of the Republican party?  I'll let this guy demonstrate that since he does it so eloquently.