acemona

Ace, are you doing anything to "help the poor"? Volunteer to help others, give money, used articles to groups, offer your time for kids in low income areas, write your leaders with your concerns, take someone to lunch, go on Missions trips? Writing on here is one thing but your actions speak...well you know.

Yes I do, and I will list the things if you so choose - do I do enough, not nearly - do I think our country/world would be better off if we expanded our notion of values votes and created policies that helped the poor YOU BET.

So you are simply doing what everyone else does; pick the issues of most importance to you and voting for the people you think can make them come about. Different people, different values, different votes. Not so much being hypocritical but more prioritizing one's values.

That is my whole point. I am pro-choice and pro-healthcare for committed couples. I am also anti poverty and anti-suffering a pro-health care for all people. The latter three, you would think, are christian priorities, yet people will say I don't have good values b/c I don't support politicians who are pro-life and anti-gay marriage. I simply believe there are more values than those and the Christian right should stop telling the general public that b/c I am a liberal that I don't have values.

We should expand the definition of what Values Voting is and all Christians should look at the policies created by our government to see who they harm and who they benefit.

Other than through keeping the issue in peoples mind religious organizations are powerless as to the abortion issue. They can only hope to elect enough people who share their views to be able to change the laws.

 

The church however, can do plenty to help the hungry. Its not a hypocritical stance as you would suggest.

It is hypocritical if you feel free to use the government to cure some social ills, but suggest that you cannot use it to cure others.

I think the government can do a lot to cure the ills of the 46 million children without health care, so I will cast my votes for the politicians that want to help the children who are here. I will also cast votes for those who work to reduce the conditions that lead to abotion - better quality pre-natal care for poor women, work against systemic poverty, etc...

The 14 year old is a result of his actions. What actions did the unborn child have to warrant losing his life?

This suggests that the injustices perpetrated upon the 14 year old had nothing to do with his actions.

Have you ever been truly poor, or hungry, or unloved? Any of those things might cause you to do things that you would normally not do.

Have you seen Les Miserables?

Fair point Hatz and I will have to give that some thought. Obviously, we don't want to kill all children to secure their salvation. That's nuts.

 

But surely God does not think abortion is right either.

 

I do think hunger is not in God's plan either but I see that as an issue that Church's can do a much better job in helping with than the government. And think that God expects the church should be the one aiming to solve society's woes instead of government.

This is what I don't understand . . . you want the government tofix the abortion problem, but you don't want it to fix the hunger problem.

There is scripture that refers to JC and the unrelenting hound.

if you were the parent of an unloving child, when would you give up on the child and ultimately turn your back on them. i would say never. So God, who loves us much more than we can love our children, will never relent and will constantly be striving to win our affection.

None of us can live the life Jesus lived because he was perfect and we are not. None of us can do the things that Jesus did because we are not perfect.

 

I will ask though a question posed to me that has really threw me for a loop. In the destruction of Sodom and Gomorra, do you think there were children, maybe even infants in that town that was completely destroyed. Would the infants have not been innocents?

Not sure that I believe in an Historical Sodom and Gomorra. Paints too ugly of a picture of God that I have seen through JC

I person who is hungry can still come to Christ and spend life in eternity with him. A person that is dead cannot do that.

 

I do agree that this should be a huge aim of the church. I do not think that Jesus came to make sure that governments do the job of the church. I believe he came to set up the church to do this and not government.

 

My view is that the church has neglected their role in this and let government try and solve the problems that only the church can solve.

 

I define the church as NOT a building or group of buildings or denominations. But those followers who go out in their communities and try to make positive changes and help people's lives through their daily actions in the name of Jesus Christ.

 

Absolutely it is my responsibility to help the poor and unfortunate in the communities I live.

Maslow will tell you that a person who is hungry cannot come to know JC b/c that would require some self-actualization and a truly hungry person cannot meet that aspiration.

So all fetuses destroyed during abortions are in Hell? WOW What an awesome God who is full of love and forgiveness?? (SARCASM that was hard for me to write)

How do you know that a dead person cannot come to know Jesus? Does the scripture say that somewhere?

I person who is hungry can still come to Christ and spend life in eternity with him. A person that is dead cannot do that.

 

I do agree that this should be a huge aim of the church. I do not think that Jesus came to make sure that governments do the job of the church. I believe he came to set up the church to do this and not government.

 

My view is that the church has neglected their role in this and let government try and solve the problems that only the church can solve.

 

I define the church as NOT a building or group of buildings or denominations. But those followers who go out in their communities and try to make positive changes and help people's lives through their daily actions in the name of Jesus Christ.

 

Absolutely it is my responsibility to help the poor and unfortunate in the communities I live.

Holy Cow, such contradictions from other posts - then why vote values at all. The church should stop abortions too - why leave that to the government.

I believe the mindset of the people we are fighting is the same mindset or ideology that happened on 9/11. And just so you will know, I have no cable or satellitte so I don't get FOX news channel.:thumb: I could count on 2 fingers the number of times I have seen a Bill Reiley or Hannity/Combs show.

 

As far as you Scripture quote, were we wrong in WWII, too? WWI? That ended up in taking a lot of innocent lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Would Jesus have dropped the atomic bomb?

JFTR - The dropping of the second bomb was really not necessary to end the war with Japan, it was done as a deterrent to the Russians to show what kind of force we had - kind of breaks your heart doesn't it, but that is another thread.

Do you vote your faith when you vote pro-life but also vote for the same candidate who is for tax cuts and budget policies that leave 46 million AMERICAN children without adequate health insurance?

 

I believe this is called begging the question

 

Do you vote your faith when you vote pro-life but also vote for the same candidate who is for the death penalty?

 

I'm pro life, anti-death penalty. They are factors in my vote, but not the only ones.

 

Do you vote your faith when you vote pro-life but also vote for the same candidate who supports the war in Iraq where 2660 innocent Iraqi civilians were killed THIS MONTH are those civilians not God's creation, regardless of their beliefs?

 

Everyone votes their faith. But once again you are asking an ambiguous question that makes assumptions that may be incorrect.

However, they may be completely correct if you vote Strict Conservative and use Abortion as a litmus test. Are these not Republican issues?

Pro-life is the deciding factor for me. Two candidates are pro-life and then I use the other things to decide between the two candidates.

 

I understand the other things, but any type of life if better than NO life at all.

 

I believe the death penalty is different because OT Scripture indicates there are times that the death penalty is justified and you have an adult who has made a consious action to warrant this compared to an innocent life whose only action was to be conceived.

 

 

 

I see the Iraqi citizens killed as not a direct result of the actions of this country but as the actions of those who want to fly planes into skyscrapers. I believe the Bible indicates that there are times where countries have to say no more will we accept and allow this to happen. Darfur, from my little knowledge, would be a place I would have no problem with us going in, if we could, and stop what is happening.

 

The OT lists several times that countries including the nation of Israel went to war with God's blessings.

JC - "You have heard it said an eye for an eye but I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons (and daughters) of you father in heaven." Matt. 4:38 -45a JC fulfilled the law and said if you want to keep all of the commandments 'love God and love your neighbor.'

Not much room in here for killing innocent Iraqi civilians or even Iraqi soldiers for that matter.

Just so we have the FOX facts straight the Iraqis flew no planes into no part of the US - the terrorists were primarily Saudis (whom we will certainly not attack).

There are over 2000 scriptures in the Bible that deal with the poor. Jesus even said that "I am come to bring good news to the poor."

Shouldn't eliminating poverty and economic injustice created by our system be THE #1 issue in the voting minds of Christians?

Whatever:rolleyes:

I can read the Bible for myself.

 

 

I believe Christians have a responsibility to vote their Christian faith. And part of that Christian faith would be the protection of children and even unborn ones. Jesus told us to protect the children.

 

Should I not be allowed to vote my faith?

Do you vote your faith when you vote pro-life but also vote for the same candidate who is for tax cuts and budget policies that leave 46 million AMERICAN children without adequate health insurance?

Do you vote your faith when you vote pro-life but also vote for the same candidate who is for the death penalty?

Do you vote your faith when you vote pro-life but also vote for the same candidate who supports the war in Iraq where 2660 innocent Iraqi civilians were killed THIS MONTH are those civilians not God's creation, regardless of their beliefs?

Are these not also Christian/non-Christian issues? Why vote on just two (I am assuming the other is same sex marriage)

For this person, I see an unborn baby as a human being that is taking their life from them. To me, that is murder. Someone making a conscious effort to end another human being's life.

YOU see it that way, but if the country is split - why should one half have to live the way you tell them? If you think it is murder don't do it . . .

Just a really tought issue.

First off it is not well understood that it is murder. I would say the medical community is as split on abortion as the public is. The AMA's main concern is they don't want medical practices legislated by the government, period.

Why then do many people in the general population think it is murder. Who has told them that it was?

If the medical community is split, why would we want to legislate the practice? Those who "think" it is murder would not perform the procedure, and those who do not "think" it is murder would?

Do we have to have a medical group decide with certainity to know that a life has stopped?

i guess the biggest concern is deciding when it started

I have to ask - why did you choose to use the term "murder" in your question?

 

 

Frances

That would be the only reason for outlawing it I would think? Would it not?

i got it on the partial birth, but what about the first 24 weeks. Thank your for the non-snide reply.

If it is well understood that that it is murder, then why sooo many doctors? Are they all just stupid idiots that want the money, and why are they not prosecuted?

What group has decided (with a medical certainty) that Abortion is murder? Does the AMA have a stance on it?

Slick move to make government sin a partisan issue. Affirmative action= a sin. (favor one group over another) Taxes=a sin. (steal from one group to give to another). Let's face it, as you threw off abortion so easily so could some of these other points be simply legitimate disagreements.

Well certainly - I could have picked more conservative views but I went with things that I thought most would consider at the very least "wrong", however, I did not know that collecting a fee for services (Taxes) was steeling. I should prosecute all lawyers and doctors for stealing b/c of the fees they collect.

The point is that you can allow an institution to commit wrongs for you and by not working to change it . . . society suffers and thus punishment is so rendered

Will do. I'll reread Andy too.

 

I am not saying it but it does say it in the Bible. I would say the point might be that can unrighteous men raise righteous children? I would want to say yes, but you point out that there would be children there when it was destroyed.

 

I believe it was for the community based upon the actions of individual's. It was not the actions of the community that caused Lot's wife to suffer her fate.

 

Again, am I to be held accountable for the abortions going on in this country if I vote based upon those who are against that stance?

 

Good discussion that is giving me some things to meditate on over the next few weeks. Might see another version of this thread as I progress through that meditation.

Let's move away from the abortion issue - you see, with that argument there are some who think it is a sin and others who do not so there is legitimate disagreement - however . . .

Did the goverment under Hitler sin? Yes

Did the government under Hussein sin? Yes

Does our government/society sin when we establish policies and institutions that allow 46 million children to go without adequate health care? Yes

Will I be held accountable for that? Yes, based on what I did/do to change the system.

Did the government sin when it SUPPORTED segregated facilities based on race? Yes

Does our government sin when it continues to devise policies that allow the wealthy to become more wealthy while allowing the suffering to continue to suffer? YES

There is always a possibility that anything humans have recorded contains errors. That is why it is so important to study the Bible (and any historical document that claims truth) in its truest context in light of archaeology, historical facts, eyewitness accounts, etc.

 

The problem I have with most people doing this with the Bible is that they tend to be too capricious in the facts they choose to believe and the facts they choose to ignore.

 

I find the modern penchant for labeling the Bible as a book of good moral lessons communicated through fanciful myths to be equally distasteful.

 

There are no legitimately proven facts available to debunk the truths recorded in the Bible. Granted, many of the stories challenge our ability to believe. I suspect that the biggest problem is our discomfort with the idea of a righteous God who is going to judge each of us for our thoughts and actions.

It is just awfully hard to reconcil the "God" of the Old Testatment, with the "God" that Jesus teaches about in the new. If I read the Old Testament through the life of Jesus, I have to assume that some of the stories are just that - stories - to teach me about some important issue, but not for me to take a historical fact

I hate these people that bring actual issues into a Political debate. :sssh:

 

Just kidding acemona and my view on the issue.

 

I don't believe the Bible called on government to feed the poor. I believe that is the church's job and not the government. Unless you believe that the government has replaced the church of the Bible. And I don't believe that has occurred. I believe the Church has neglected and even gave this responsibility up to the government and it is a key problem with this society.

 

The way to help the poor is for the church in the form of all the local churches in communities getting out and providing programs to serve the poor in their area.

 

Simple example. So many churches have Wednesday night meals in a community. Why couldn't they spread those meals out to one on Monday, one on Tuesday, etc and the poor in a community would have somewhere to go in their community every single day and receive a meal.

 

Yes the Bible continually mentions the poor and how the church but not government is the answer for the poor.

I agree, the church has acquiessed (sp) a great deal, but the Bible does not allow us to allow our social institutions, i.e. The Government, to commit sins for us. It is the churches responsibility to bring justice to the unempowered - sometimes we have to do it through laws and policies - 1964 civil rights act.

Is it possible that the story is simply a truth myth? That there is a greater point to the story and that it was passed on so people could understand that greater point, but that the "facts" are not exactly the facts?

Just asking.

So if Sir Isaac indicates that there is an equal and OPPOSITE reaction to everything and we know that William J was low on the moral/value scale, does that mean GW is the opposite and high on the moral/value scale???????

I understand that WJC has a character flaw - don't we all - but his policies in regard to the poor (the most talked about group in the Bible) were much more moral and "value"-able than current policies.

The tax cuts were met with some spending cuts over the last six years, but those spending cuts were in social programs - hurting what JC would call "the least of these."