Finally!
moultano
Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
in Discussions
Comments
I'm also reminded why I always place AP articles in the "suspicious" column of my daily reading. The writer doesn't even bother to ask the current president or the coalition council members why they've chosen to stick with family issues. The compact nature of the article and the hearsay statement from Rev Hunter shows a serious lack of respect for the subject.
Which leads me to believe that the AP is taking this opportunity to rub salt in what they perceive to be an open wound for the "Christian Right".
But, I'm certain that the OP wasn't meant for such an openly negative treatment of an otherwise normal organizational disagreement. Right?
I'm not sure exactly what it is that you're looking to discuss here but I am rather curious about how you define "acting Christian".
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I contend that fighting poverty and protecting the environment is more Christian than opposing homosexual marriage and abortion while ignoring poverty and the environment. I further contend that the political objectives of the religious right are not in line with the moral priorities of Christianity, which I consider to be primarily service to those in need and forgiveness.
I condemn him for the same reason. If he's really an honest man, he can probably do <i>some</i> good as president. Even if he can't accomplish all the things he wants to, he can start to turn the gears at least, and prevent potential harm which would come from a less qualified person. I say this on the hypothetical that he is a good man - I don't really know the details.
Vanity is one of my pet peeves, though. That's the biggest reason why I don't care for heavy overall relief efforts: there's too many people wanting to stand up and be recognized for their contributions, when many times they've been carried through it all by the people they've employed to actually perform the relief.
I see why you'd say this, and I can even agree in some respects but I have to contest that. Even if he can do some good, or perhaps to push the idea to its limits; if he could reform the whole group, it is his right to choose whether he will or will not. Thinking less of him because he decided that he'd rather focus his attentions on something he considers more worth his time is coming on a bit strong. His life is public so we have the option of holding an opinion of most everything about him. But if his life were not in the public eye. If instead he were just like you or me, and he had the choice of either, paying tithes at church or donating an equivalent amount to the Red Cross, and despite being a Christian he actively chose to give that to the RC where he felt it's better spent? I don't think there's anyone here who could argue his choice. Is there the possibility that his money might go towards making his denominational Church more like the Red Cross in it's policy towards helping others? Sure, you can't doubt that the right guy in the church could actually get a hold of that cash and send it to the people who need it.
This situation isn't the same, but it's not entirely dissimilar. He's a public figure so if say CForrestor wanted to come in here and scream "God that guy has a bad taste in shoes!" well he gets to scream it to the heavens, maybe even paint some billboards with that without it being considered slander. But the decision this guy made seems more personal than that. He's obviously not doing this cause he craves attention.
Frankly, I too would declare that organisation a lost cause if I were him. What good would it do me to have to sit there and have to say "God hates ######" and "pro-choice is pro-murder" all day? I commend him for foregoing a prestigious (if dubious) position in favour of personal integrity.
I see why you'd say this, and I can even agree in some respects but I have to contest that. Even if he can do some good, or perhaps to push the idea to its limits; if he could reform the whole group, it is his right to choose whether he will or will not. Thinking less of him because he decided that he'd rather focus his attentions on something he considers more worth his time is coming on a bit strong. His life is public so we have the option of holding an opinion of most everything about him. But if his life were not in the public eye. If instead he were just like you or me, and he had the choice of either, paying tithes at church or donating an equivalent amount to the Red Cross, and despite being a Christian he actively chose to give that to the RC where he felt it's better spent? I don't think there's anyone here who could argue his choice. Is there the possibility that his money might go towards making his denominational Church more like the Red Cross in it's policy towards helping others? Sure, you can't doubt that the right guy in the church could actually get a hold of that cash and send it to the people who need it.
This situation isn't the same, but it's not entirely dissimilar. He's a public figure so if say CForrestor wanted to come in here and scream "God that guy has a bad taste in shoes!" well he gets to scream it to the heavens, maybe even paint some billboards with that without it being considered slander. But the decision this guy made seems more personal than that. He's obviously not doing this cause he craves attention.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, you're right. That's really why I have mixed emotions about it. What I'm hanging on is that it seems the only reason he turned down the position was because he couldn't get his way - not that he didn't want the responsibility. If I'm wrong about making that distinction, then my opinions on the matter would change dramatically.
By this new NACE standard, the following organizations should be disbanded or restructured:<ul><li><a href="http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn.nsf/vw-dynamic-arrays/85256DDC007274DF80256B7D004E8E3A?openDocument" target="_blank">The Salvation Army</a> - this organization hasn't been involved in environmental protection for 100 years! Hard to believe they slipped passed the net.</li><li><a href="http://www.dove.org/aboutdove.asp?ArticleID=1" target="_blank">The Dove Foundation</a> - unbelievably, this group doesn't focus on abortion, homosexual marriage, the environment, OR poverty! How dare they call themselves Christian!</li><li><a href="http://www.focusonthefamily.com/aboutus/A000000408.cfm" target="_blank">Focus on the family</a> - acting Christian? Yeah right. These guys don't even mention the ozone hole on their website. Bah!</li><li><a href="http://www.targetearth.org/about/about_main.html" target="_blank">Target Earth</a> - here we go! They're out to help the poor AND the environment! But wait...they don't mention abortion or homosexual marriage. I guess they don't meet the NACE standard.</li></ul>Hard to believe these people would even bother calling themselves Christians. I bet they don't even know what it means.
/end sarcasm implosion
So I have trouble understanding how hating people, or proclaiming God's hate for people, did ever become accepted behaviour among any christians. YES, not all christians. I know. Westboro, I'm looking at you. How can they claim to be christian if their very actions go against everything they are supposed to stand for?
I think I'll adopt a new policy: Anyone who acts against the central tenets of christianity is no longer a christian in my eyes. Thus I can criticise them as much as I want without having to worry about offending true, decent christians.
This includes the Christian Coalition of America, by the way. Due to their policies, they are no longer christians, making their name oxymoronic.
Ahh.. now we have a working standard by which to evaluate organizations that are Not Acting Christian Enough.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Give me a break. You know exactly what I was saying.
Ending entitlements, reducing the degree of progressive taxation, ignoring the environment when it conflicts with the interests of industry, and promoting the death penalty are all central Republican positions. As I see it, all of them pretty clearly conflict with the Christian values of charity, respect for God's creations, and forgiveness, yet most political Christian groups ignore all of this when advocating candidates and focus solely on homosexual marriage, abortion, and objectionable content in the media. I'm arguing that the former values are so much more core to Christianity than the latter, that when they conflict Christians should ignore the latter to act in line with Christian values.
So charity is good, and grace and mercy are good, but entitlements are none of these things. I don't know that Christianity is specifically at odds with entitlement programs, but it certainly has no fundamental reason to support them.
Christianity has never been about "entitlements". In fact, its a pretty central tenet of Christianity that we have what we have through Grace, not because we "deserve" any of it, or are "entitled" to anything.
So charity is good, and grace and mercy are good, but entitlements are none of these things. I don't know that Christianity is specifically at odds with entitlement programs, but it certainly has no fundamental reason to support them.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree. Entitlements is the Republican word for those programs, that's why I used it, but I don't think it correctly describes the programs it is used for: Welfare, Medicare, etc. I view them as effectively institutionalized charity. I could give creedence to an argument that while charity is a Christian value, enshrining it in the government isn't, and thus Christians shouldn't necessarily support Welfare. However that seems to be a weaker argument to me than the fact that these programs do help people in poverty that would likely otherwise go unhelped. Jesus was certainly a lot clearer on the virtue of aiding the poor than he was on the proper division of powers between private organizations and the government.
We can also probably all agree that there is more than 1 method we can use to try to help the poor, and that some of these methods are probably going to be more effective than others.
Where we don't agree is on which methods are which. But could you not see the possibility that someone might be perfectly eager to help the poor, and just consider Welfare an ineffective method for reaching that goal? They could then be a perfectly moral Christian without needing to support government entitlement programs.
I think we can all agree that helping the poor is a good thing.
We can also probably all agree that there is more than 1 method we can use to try to help the poor, and that some of these methods are probably going to be more effective than others.
Where we don't agree is on which methods are which. But could you not see the possibility that someone might be perfectly eager to help the poor, and just consider Welfare an ineffective method for reaching that goal? They could then be a perfectly moral Christian without needing to support government entitlement programs.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Definitely, but I don't see people very often proposing alternatives. It seems that when most people talk about Welfare reform, what they mean is Welfare reduction. I would argue that the moral Christian stance if you believe current welfare programs to be ineffective would be to argue for a restructuring of the program, but not for cutting its funds.
Definitely, but I don't see people very often proposing alternatives. It seems that when most people talk about Welfare reform, what they mean is Welfare reduction. I would argue that the moral Christian stance if you believe current welfare programs to be ineffective would be to argue for a restructuring of the program, but not for cutting its funds.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is where you cut to the heart of the title should be about.
It's not about what you don't do.
It's about what you actually do that conflicts with what you shouldn't.
(Subtle difference)
Advocating for death and entitlements is many times at odds with core religious values.
As a result, you end up getting those that are "selectively religious".
ex. This killing is bad, that killing is encouraged
Charity is only a good thing if I can personally claim it on my tax return