You brought up the theory of God favoring the US for religious reasons. The onus of proof, then, would lie on your side, not DREAMer's. Way to bring up the Phillipines, Desert Scar. We sure did kill a lot of devout Christians there some 100 years ago. Anyway, I can speak from direct experience that, for some reason, Filipino culture is very open towards homosexuality. Anyway, an interesting point that I have not brought up before is the sexuality of Jesus. Early Christians saw Jesus as quite different than we do. He is often androgynous or feminine in description. Moreso, there are many artistic representations of Christ with breasts, wide hips, smooth face, etc. Theories are that this was an attempt to beat pagan gods at their own games, so to speak. Gods such as Apollo, Dionysus, etc. Of course, the Jupiter model won out and that is where we get our current image of Christ.
I guess I missed the commandment about “thall shall maximize the shillings in your pocket” I would say Christ's acts directed to the poor and diseased a whole lot more easily and straitforward applied to policies favoring a good safety net than they are to such issues as abortion rights, the death penalty (yes, there are contradictions to this in scripture), gay rights and p*rnography. At least the Pope is somewhat consistent on this even if the American CR is not. Also, you use the term "socialist economic arrangements", in the US we generally describe them as social security, Medicare, Medicaid, workers comp, unemployment comp., etc. If you are against these institutions that is your prerogative, but I think it would be more transparent of you to use the language they are commonly understood as and with the terms that are actually meaningful to the people that use those resources rather than some abstract ideological terms.
<b>rimbaud</b>: the onus is on anybody to prove anything that they assert-- or at least make a valiant effort. I offered up my evidence; he practically dismissed it out of hand, so I ask for his evidence. Fair is fair. <b>DesertScar</b>: If the Christian Right weren't kept so busy holding ground from assault they might have more time, energy and money for the kinds of family-friendly changes that you are recommending.
Sorry RR, I don't believe your reading of them is accurate, I think it is a very clear identification of where their priorities are. It generates a whole lot more publicity and controversy to take on 2Livecrew, a "pornographic" art exhibit, a school book with slang, or a local gay club. Taking on an exploitive gas company that turns up the screws on the poor in the winter or a company who gives no time for sick leave or family leave--things that effect far more people's everyday lives, well that just isn't "sexy" enough for them. As I said, at least the Pope is consistent in his approach (though I don't agree with him on many issues) and tries to apply Christ's model to all policies they are relevant rather than picking and choosing the "sexist" battle to fight.
Yet what you describe is forcing individuals to do good works by being taxed to pay for those programs. Christianity is, in theory, and in practice for some, definitely not about force. Also, obviously individuals in this nation elect to assist those in need outside of their taxes. Given the track record of government run charity programs, I don't think it can or should be automatically assumed that those programs are indeed a 'good' work to begin with. Opposing charity run by the government is not "un-Christian".
RichRocket, typically Christians don't run arms wide sanctioning a discussion of the problem of evil. If you're going to prescribe gloom, or try to interpret God's will, what will your response be to the oodles of trite logical games about the problem of evil? I assume it will be the equally trite response "you can't interpret God's will". I'd advise you to actually adopt that stance proactively.
RichRocket, The Roman Empire The Ottoman Empire The Aztecs The Incas The Mayans The Egyptians The Chinese Dynasties The Nazis I think it's high time Christians realize that there should be a seperation of church and state. Our government is not our church. One day our government will lose its power, but we will still be Christians. Ours and all governments are man-made. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be involved in how our government operates. But, we should realize that our government was not designed to govern "Christians". It was designed to govern its "citizens", be they Christians or not. Therefore, even Christians should realize individual rights, as laid out in our Constitution, should be upheld. Individuals have the right to do things as long as they do not affect or infringe on someone else's individual rights.
<b>DREAMer</b>: "This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be involved in how our government operates. But, we should realize that our government was not designed to govern "Christians". It was designed to govern its "citizens", be they Christians or not." <b>RR</b>: What a strange idea. My idea of a "Christian" government is that it governs with "Christian" principles and "Christian" values. No wonder you are so dead set against religion in government; I would be too were your interpretation mine. <b>achebe</b>: I"m not prescribing gloom as you say. Notice my inclusion of the words "or" and "may." These imply option and/or possibility. I was doing the manly work of stating the obvious!
<b>achebe</b>: I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about. Why am I being "disingenuous?" You get to be the one to "state" God's will........ Jesus was a Fisher of Men. Do you think he used bait-poles or fly-fishing rods?
That's a joke, from a great movie. It's not an indictment for a group in society by suggesting that God may or might not be intolerant of that group. Some people are willing to explain the horror that occurs on our planet, not often, but it does happen. Since you're playing "what ifs" and "how does God think" and the such w/ your God, I'll ask for your opinion... on where God was on 09/11. Was s/he in New York? Your aside about the "prescription for the doom of our country" or whatever now seems to echo the words of Falwell and Robertson... points of view you were quick to defend after 09/11. Did God send the planes into the buildings b/c outlaw's gay or b/c rockHead smokes pot? Was God somewhere else? I have to get to work... I'll trade posts w/ you later on tonight. Have a good day.
<b>achebe</b>: "Since you're playing "what ifs" and "how does God think" and the such w/ your God, ,,, <b>RR</b>: I don't believe I was playing any such game. <b>achebe</b>: "...I'll ask for your opinion... on where God was on 09/11. Was s/he in New York? Your aside about the "prescription for the doom of our country" or whatever now seems to echo the words of Falwell and Robertson... points of view you were quick to defend after 09/11. Did God send the planes into the buildings b/c outlaw's gay or b/c rockHead smokes pot? Was God somewhere else?" <b>RR</b>: I don't know where God was on 9/11. Some who died knew Him and some who died didn't know Him. Some who live know Him and some who live don't know Him. Evil men, not God, flew those planes into those buildings. Who is/was responsible for motivating those evil men? Our world is a spiritual battlefield. We win some and we lose some; mostly we know when we lose... because there is evidence then. I didn't find Falwell's idea so preposterous; his comments were stupidly timed, for sure, and maybe a little to simplistic. I never saw the video; I only read the reports. He made the comment on a religious broadcast and people treat it and him as if he had made it on "Face The Nation." Irregardless, it would have been better if he had held his tongue and maybe even tried to provide fewer explicit answers. The Bible says that there is a risk at turning your face away from God. Our nation is increasingly doing just that. I think that is what Falwell was trying to get across. Unfortunately, he tried to include a few political jabs. MAYBE that's why our foreign policy is so upsetting to so much of the world. Do we have an American arrogance that has brought these retaliations on us? Were we a more humble, Christian nation, would this possible arrogant characteristic be washed away, some questionable foreign policy countermanded, and resultingly the horrible retaliatiion have been unnecessary and thus never occurred? God is where he always has been: waiting to welcome us. What movie?
Falwell should've said that we are a nation of many sinners, for that we are. I did not see the interview, so all the info I have seen about it is secondhand. Only God knows why God let 9-11 occur.
I think that is a very good perspective, I wish most of us shared it. Next time the CR tries to ban books or art, intimidate gay persons, make laws about smut, or physically block and harass women seeking reproductive information, it would be good of them to remember this perspective. I can understand your point of view here, I would just add it is <i> even more of a stretch </i> to call persons "un-Christian" who believe government should not be involved in defining what personal private behaviors are legal or those who are against many of the tactics and issues described above. I am cool with it if Christain (or non-Christian as well) persons feel the government is a bad vehicle to try to enact any of Jesus's examples (that rather it should be done through persuasion and individuals personal examples rather than through governmental laws and coercion), but the American CR surely does not share this view. Further for activist Christians who do view government is an acceptable vehicle to impact larger society, trying to develop governmental policies based on Jesus' life is a lot more ambiguous and difficult to decipher for many of the controversy generating (e.g., "sexy") issues the CR often choose to pursue than it is for such issues as taking care of the poor or sick. Further, on a pragmatic level, there are a whole lot more poor and sick people than there are gay people, p*rn addicts, drug users, Satanists, women seeking abortions, etc., etc, so the logic for focusing on the latter loses out there on that front as well.
Please don't get me wrong, I don't mean to imply that those who favor government intervention are any less faithful. To me, it's a debate over the best means of assistance.
I hope I didn't imply this as well. I am just saying if somebody is for government as a vehicle to bolster Christian tenets, the issues the CR pick do NOT seem to be the most important ones either for their reach in society (pragmatically) or in terms of being closely aligned with Jesus' life (based on ideals/faith).
