[thepostman]

people lie...the end

[thepostman]

also neither party can be fixed, they are both beyond repair

[From the class of 09]

people lie...the end

This

[ALUmnus]

[jbock13]

I do find it's funny when people come on here and have no ideas for what to do but come attack everyone else's ideas...

Not talking about you postman.

[From the class of 09]

Having said that 09, if the answer isn't cleaning up the Republican party, what is your solution to the problem?

To be fair jbock I was 100% with you a few years ago. However as I've seen more and more I'm convinced that neither political party is really above the other when it comes to being fit to run the country.

So, what are we to do if we have a bunch of people in power who all seem to be sold to the highest bidder? Well the obvious answer is too put in good people but again I'm unconvinced that doing this is possible at least on a large enough scale to make a difference. So how can you possible win? My answer is to take away their power. But that sounds libertarian and I guess in a way it is. However I'm even more convinced that you will never be able to elect people into office that will then vote to reduce their importance (especially on a large enough scale to actually accomplish the goal).

This was as far as I've been able to take this problem in my mind until fairly recently when I was having a quite time.

I'd recently been reading about the early church and for whatever reason it stood out to me that this group of people interacted very differently than any church I've been part of today. Specifically about how they took care of each others physical needs. At least in my experiance I've rarely, if ever seen a church care for the elderly and sick monetarily (which like it or not is what it takes in today's society).

So that, then brought me to the question what's wrong with the church? Why are we not doing these functions that apparently where so fundamental to the first churchs? The answer to this question was simple. The Church can't afford to. In a 2002 study of americans who self reported as born again Christian 6% tithed.

Someone else started a tithing thread and I'm not hear to say everyone needs to be giving 10% of everything. However I do know that the early church everyone gave of what they had and no one was without (yeah that almost sounds socalist). I also know from personal experiance that if you don't think you have enough money today to tithe/give regularly and sacrifically you never will have enough.

So all that to say the only way for us to truely fix our countries problems is to start giving to our local churches both of our time and equally important our money. If we as a church would step up and do this our church leaders would then have the resources to begin caring for the physically needy among us. What better way to save people, first saving the body and then the soul.

If this actually happened the poor would no longer be reliant on the government but on the church and ultimately on God. Removing the need then for these government programs would allow for their budget to shrink and eventually disolve all together.

This would by default shrink the government and hopefully allow elected officals to think about the roles of government in a whole new light, since they no longer would have the presure to provide these social services/entitlements to their constituents.


So yeah there is the short version

[From the class of 09]

I do find it's funny when people come on here and have no ideas for what to do but come attack everyone else's ideas...

Not talking about you postman.

I assume your talking about me. But I think you might be confused because I've got plenty of ideas, see above. Also remember the pay a net income tax and you get to vote thread

[jbock13]

I'm pretty disgruntled with Republicans too, and I consider myself a libertarian, however since libertarianism has been hijacked with the Libertarian Party (which in itself is a joke). But which party understand economics a lot better? No doubt, the Republicans. The Democratic Party used to be a party that embraced the free market, historically. Now they are full of socialists and Marxists. Not to say every member is, but it has been hijacked by the far left.

I just hope you aren't in support of a 3rd party, because that only guarrantees that Democrats will continue to wreck our society and our economy.

I'm also sick of all this whining about "we can't elect the right people". Bullcrap. We elect the people. But like little cheerleaders, we say "our congressman is great, but it's everyone else's that sucks". Once again, Bull. Not only this, but like typical Americans, we sit and whine and complain that we can't ever change the way things on. Bull. Give the Democrats credit, at least they believe in something, and go out and GET IT DONE.

I'm not saying I like the Republicans. The wing that wants to invade every Muslim country in the entire world irritates me beyond belief. But there's absolutely no question which party is the best for the country right now. And with folks like Marco Rubio, it gives me hope that we conservatives/libertarians will quit crying, shut up with the excuses, and get going on winning and being the change we need in our country.

For the record 09, I don't mean this as a personal attack on you, it's just something that's been on my mind since I hear it all the time that there's no difference between the parties. Name one Democrat that is against economic socialism?

[jbock13]

I do trust you understand, it's nothing personal, it's just a passion we both have for political discussion

[From the class of 09]

I've never seen a Republican president run a surplus in their term of office (in my lifetime). There is little to no correlation between our tax rates and economic growth historically. The early church of the NT would be called a socialist movement by Fox News.

All facts I stuggle with as a Republican.

[jbock13]

I've never seen a Republican president run a surplus in their term of office (in my lifetime). There is little to no correlation between our tax rates and economic growth historically. The early church of the NT would be called a socialist movement by Fox News.

All facts I stuggle with as a Republican.

Really? Wow. I guess some people aren't worth arguing with... I'm ready just in case you want to pull out the "Clinton had a surplus" fallacy.

[From the class of 09]

I've never seen a Republican president run a surplus in their term of office (in my lifetime). There is little to no correlation between our tax rates and economic growth historically. The early church of the NT would be called a socialist movement by Fox News.

All facts I stuggle with as a Republican.

Really? Wow. I guess some people aren't worth arguing with...

What? Sorry man if I did something to upset you but these are a couple facts that really bother me.

About tax rates vs GDP just look at the graphs if you want to get the point without reading it all
http://buyandholdplus.com/blog/2010/09/ ... rowth.html
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/0 ... ic-growth/
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... fraud.html

I'm not saying we should have higher taxes. I just haven't found any good data that backs up the idea that lower tax rates by themselves increase economic growth. It sounds like it would make sense but history has shown it isn't that simple.

US debt during each US President's Term
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_d ... tial_terms

Early church
Acts 2:45-47
All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.

To be sure this passage in Acts is right after Pentecost and I'm not sure if it applies directly to the current church but you have to admit that sounds very socialist.

[jbock13]

Oh, so here we go with the "Jesus was a socialist" stuff. You're very quick to say you don't believe that, but you keep repeating it over and over, which leads me to believe you actually do.

"Thinkprogress". Hmmm. Really don't need to open that link to tell you who it comes from. Slate is kinda of website where stupid people can say stupid things and act like they can have opinions (just by looking at the various articles linked at the bottom).

That and the articles you cited when I made my Warren Buffet comments. It seems obvious to me that if you're either conservative or "Republican", that you're being blinded by left wing garbage.

Look at our economy under Jimmy Carter. Look at when Herbert Hoover raised tariffs, which in part led to the great depression. But, your public school taught you he was a lassiez-faire capitalist? Well look again. And tell me that we were better off, or weren't severely impacted, with higher taxes.

While we're on the NT Bible, the reason was that Christians should help the poor. You're correct that it's unfortunate that most Christians do not tithe. What is the definition of helping the poor though? Often times they were widows during the NT, who were not allowed to own businesses, or work, for that matter. So they had to be cared for by direct support, or material donations. Nowadays, we have perfectly able men and women living in public housing screwing around and making babies they can't afford to raise. At what point do we let those who make bad decisions own up to their consequences?

[From the class of 09]

I'm happy at the old age of 20 whatever you have it all figured out. I don't. I just sited those sources cuz they all had graphs (which is all I wanted). I'm a numbers guy. I'm not saying Jesus was a socialist but that it a passage of scripture and as such something I believe to be true. I understand that I probably come across crazy liberal on this board but part of that is largely due to the fact I also like to play devils advocate. The republican side seems to have plenty of champions on this board.

If you want to be impartial at least look at the numbers if you want to be another cog tell me some more Republican talking points about Carter (in seriousness he was really bad). In all honesty I really just want people to think for themselves. If you disagree with a specific point tell me why not don't point out some other random Hannity tidbit.

[flamehunter]

You gotta remember too that in the NT Church:

1- They were not coerced into sharing - they gave freely.
2- They did not take care of all of society's poor, only their own.
3- The Bible also says it is first the family's responsibilty to take care of the widows and orphans, then the church's.

Big difference between a church taking care of those they can and the government taking our money and giving to those in "want".

[RubberMallet]

To be sure this passage in Acts is right after Pentecost and I'm not sure if it applies directly to the current church but you have to admit that sounds very socialist.

it was done willingly. socialism is devoid of willing giving. its taken.

[jbock13]

Pretty sure Hannity doesn't know enough about history to talk about Herbert Hoover. Last time I checked, Hoover was a Republican, correct?

Also flamehunter, great analysis on the NT times, much better than I could ever put it. (plus I'm not a religion major).

I don't think you're a wacky liberal 09. I think what intrigues me is that I really can't tell who you are and what you believe. I usually can but you're different. Which I honestly kinda like. Usually most people fit stereotypes but you're much different. And that's a good thing.

Plus, I mean I don't know how many times I've bashed Hannity yet you call me one

[RubberMallet]

or what flamehunter said.

[From the class of 09]

You gotta remember too that in the NT Church:

1- They were not coerced into sharing - they gave freely.
2- They did not take care of all of society's poor, only their own.
3- The Bible also says it is first the family's responsibilty to take care of the widows and orphans, then the church's.

Big difference between a church taking care of those they can and the government taking our money and giving to those in "want".

I agree 100%

This was my next thought. Since the church has failed at even taking care of their own, the government has now stepped in. Is it really wrong for the government to take on this role (doing a very poor job of it) when the church as a whole has failed in this role?

I don't have an easy answer for this one so I'll leave it open.

However I do know that God would prefer for the church to take care of its people so the goal should be to move back to that model. The great thing about this is that we don't need to change any law the first step is simply to fund the church fully and this starts with each of us. Maybe I'm crazy (I know some of you think I am) but this is really something that's been on my mind lately.

[flamehunter]

I think what intrigues me is that I really can't tell who you are and what you believe. I usually can but you're different. Which I honestly kinda like. Usually most people fit stereotypes but you're much different. And that's a good thing.

Independent thinker. We need more of those in office and in the voting booths.

[jbock13]

I think where you are erring my friend is that what the NT church would consider "poor" is not the same as today.

Let me be the crazy one here and suggest there is no poverty in America. That's right. And those of you who have traveled to Africa, rural South America, know exactly what I mean. What do the poor have in America today? In many cases: Public Housing, Food Stamps, Free Government supported cell phone, basic cable, and a TV.

What does the church I stayed at in Huanuco, Peru have? Their parents working in a market while their children play soccer in the streets all day so that way their children won't be kidnapped because the teachers are on strike. That and if you got lucky, you might just be able to buy enough water from the water store to take a 30 second shower in 40 degree water.

So, do you think that the NT concept of "caring for the poor" would be what the government is today? Quite frankly I don't think it's the roll of the church to hand out free cell phones. You also know that because as you've said the government doesn't do a good job either. I think it's the role of the church to give someone for example: meals for a week and help find them a job at Taco Bell so they can pick themselves up from there. But I stress I mean that only symbolically.

America is a beautiful place where everyone can achieve their dreams. Some just choose not to do that. That's not the role of the church to help those people.

[From the class of 09]

That's an interesting point about the poor in america vs 3rd world countries. I don't have a simple answer to that one either but I do know that there are definitely people in America who still need help (not on the same degree or scale but they are there).

Your point of helping someone help themselves is well taken and defenitly the goal. I just don't think it can always be done.

If someone is unwilling initially to work I think the church still has an obligation to them (so on this point we disagree). If the church feeds someone so broken I've got to believe at some point they could get the chance to really share Jesus with them and this would make any amount of free room and board with it. At that point they have something to live for, but I've rarely seen it be a quick process.

The problem with the government programs (among other things) is that they never fix the heart issues of the people that are constantly on welfare and without this they are only treating symptoms.

[RubberMallet]

You gotta remember too that in the NT Church:

1- They were not coerced into sharing - they gave freely.
2- They did not take care of all of society's poor, only their own.
3- The Bible also says it is first the family's responsibilty to take care of the widows and orphans, then the church's.

Big difference between a church taking care of those they can and the government taking our money and giving to those in "want".

I agree 100%

This was my next thought. Since the church has failed at even taking care of their own, the government has now stepped in. Is it really wrong for the government to take on this role (doing a very poor job of it) when the church as a whole has failed in this role?

I don't have an easy answer for this one so I'll leave it open.

However I do know that God would prefer for the church to take care of its people so the goal should be to move back to that model. The great thing about this is that we don't need to change any law the first step is simply to fund the church fully and this starts with each of us. Maybe I'm crazy (I know some of you think I am) but this is really something that's been on my mind lately.

the gvt is a totaly corrupt entity and a complete failure at taking care of anyone. God calls us to be good stewards of our money. allowing such an entity to take it from us and hand it out to many who don't even come close to the description of the type of people who we should help and saying its what jesus would want us to do is almost asinine. Jesus enabled noone during his brief stay here on earth.

[flamehunter]

The problem with churches today is that you have too many pastors and leaders who are more concerned with telling their congregations what they want to hear and are afraid of pushing people away by talking about tithing/monetary support of the church. Until they teach biblical truth unashamedly, the churches won't have the resources to take care of those that they should. You also have the whole prosperity gospel group who get boatloads of money in and build lavish empires, a la Jim Bakker. That created a whole generation of people who cast a very dubious eye on any preacher who said you should give.

So, do we become tax evaders because we don't like the way govt throws our money away? No. Even Jesus paid taxes that were due. (Of course he got his payment out of the mouth of a fish. Ever catch any loaded fish Mallet? Unfortunately, me either.) We were never commanded to live in a free society, only to submit to authorities God has allowed to be in place over us as long as they don't force us to disobey Him.

Can things be turned around in this country or the world? I have my doubts. All we individually can do is be faithful to what we are taught in God's word and take care of those we can as God provides. I also know that God does provide to those who are faithful to Him. I've seen Him do it personally in my life and in the lives of others. Give and it (what you need) will be given unto you.

[PAmedic]

the occupiers took a break from their occupying last nite to put the Phillies game* up on the big screen. Serious business indeed.

After much debate, they ended up signing a request for (and were granted) a City Occupancy Permit so they could continue occupying- only now they are able to buy electric from PECO so they can power their laptops.

ANARCHY!

*I blame them for the loss, BTW