The state of the world
- Thread starter RickyZ
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Ricky,
It isn't necessary to know everything about you in order to disagree with things you say.
If a thing comes directly out of your mouth, plainly stated, and I disagree, well, that is that.
It's not a big mystery when two people disagree.
Disagreement doesn't mean I dislike you.
Disagreement doesn't mean I can't appreciate you as a fellow Christian.
Disagreement doesn't mean I'm out to get you.
But Christians disagree on things.
It's not a big deal.
It isn't necessary to know everything about you in order to disagree with things you say.
If a thing comes directly out of your mouth, plainly stated, and I disagree, well, that is that.
It's not a big mystery when two people disagree.
Disagreement doesn't mean I dislike you.
Disagreement doesn't mean I can't appreciate you as a fellow Christian.
Disagreement doesn't mean I'm out to get you.
But Christians disagree on things.
It's not a big deal.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I'm not at all surprised you characterize me and my worldview as off the mark. It would be nice though if your critique were more thorough so long after my first response.
Where have I erred in my assumptions? In my guess that you would favor wage and price controls? In my insistence that most Christians of the American Right are not as you caricature them?
Where have I erred in my assumptions? In my guess that you would favor wage and price controls? In my insistence that most Christians of the American Right are not as you caricature them?
-
1
- Show all
Some constructive criticism here, Ricky- you don't define yourself very well. You define what you are against so blatantly that one is very tempted (and can't be faulted) in affixing some sort of label.
But when it comes to questions of policy and philosophy behind that policy (who governs, their scope of power, etc.), you're nebulous for whatever reason (or non-reason).
Maxwel's a pretty level-headed dude who's been here a while, if you assert he cannot describe your views with passing accuracy, then I'm afraid you need to do a better job on the soap box.
But when it comes to questions of policy and philosophy behind that policy (who governs, their scope of power, etc.), you're nebulous for whatever reason (or non-reason).
Maxwel's a pretty level-headed dude who's been here a while, if you assert he cannot describe your views with passing accuracy, then I'm afraid you need to do a better job on the soap box.
-
1
- Show all
Maybe so. But God made provision for the poor, and Christians are to apply this principle: And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God. (Lev 23:22)
So if a despot tries to wipe out the poor, the Christian has God's authority to disobey that evil law.
Since Judas was stealing from the apostles treasury, we know this was just a sham.
Of course. But for Christians the principle to be applied is this: He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? (Micah 6:8).
So if a despot tries to wipe out the poor, the Christian has God's authority to disobey that evil law.
Since Judas was stealing from the apostles treasury, we know this was just a sham.
Of course. But for Christians the principle to be applied is this: He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? (Micah 6:8).
-
2
- Show all
The problem is that no one even recognizes a middle ground any more. If I don't tow the Republican line, which I don't, it is automatically assumed I'm a bleeding heart commie pinko liberal. But if you read my posts with the intent to hear instead of respond, you'd understand that I rail against the libertards just as much as I do the republicans. I state over and over again that BOTH sides are Equally guilty for where we are now as countries and the world. Yet the only thing you guys hear is "he's bashing Republicans so he HAS to be a libertard". The problem isn't in what I've been saying, it's in what you are allowing yourself to hear.
But your stated economic views (or rather dislikes) are very Left of center and it's a favorite topic of yours on this forum. Perhaps it's that the venue is Right-of-Center.
Consider the OP of this very thread. "Railing against the poor."
I'll do some clarification of my own here so:
You do not bear the markings of somebody on the modern Left. Anybody who's followed you for sometime recognizes you're not a Leftist where social issues are concerned. I've asserted as much in a previous thread where I likened you to old-timey populists.
That said, the fact you declare yourself to be a centrist holds no water for the following reasons:
1. Philosophical- Strict centrism is an illusion. All centrists have values and assumptions which cleave one way or another. In the cosmic scheme of things, I consider myself Center-Right. I recognize hierarchies exist and that traditional institutions (civil, religious, fraternal, etc) are a net good, but not worth expanding in some repressive neo-aristocracy like the Far-Right.
2. Rhetorical- Centrism, being essentially a vacuum of values, has been reduced to a nonsense term. Inter-war fascists described themselves as "Third-Way" centrist types. Apolitical people delight in calling themselves centrist because it sounds more thought-out than "uninformed deadbeat."
3. Empirical- You don't really look or quack like the Center-Leftists and Center-Rightists I know. Both typically find agreement on matters concerning the free market and oppose thoroughgoing Leftist policy and rhetoric. Their main differences are usually found in social welfare policy and 90's/00's era social issues.
There is merit to your self-identification as distinct from the modern political spectrum, but I part ways with you on describing it as centrist or characterizing it as morally prophetic to "both sides." It's definitely not unlike the Leftism of an earlier time.
Consider the OP of this very thread. "Railing against the poor."
I'll do some clarification of my own here so:
You do not bear the markings of somebody on the modern Left. Anybody who's followed you for sometime recognizes you're not a Leftist where social issues are concerned. I've asserted as much in a previous thread where I likened you to old-timey populists.
That said, the fact you declare yourself to be a centrist holds no water for the following reasons:
1. Philosophical- Strict centrism is an illusion. All centrists have values and assumptions which cleave one way or another. In the cosmic scheme of things, I consider myself Center-Right. I recognize hierarchies exist and that traditional institutions (civil, religious, fraternal, etc) are a net good, but not worth expanding in some repressive neo-aristocracy like the Far-Right.
2. Rhetorical- Centrism, being essentially a vacuum of values, has been reduced to a nonsense term. Inter-war fascists described themselves as "Third-Way" centrist types. Apolitical people delight in calling themselves centrist because it sounds more thought-out than "uninformed deadbeat."
3. Empirical- You don't really look or quack like the Center-Leftists and Center-Rightists I know. Both typically find agreement on matters concerning the free market and oppose thoroughgoing Leftist policy and rhetoric. Their main differences are usually found in social welfare policy and 90's/00's era social issues.
There is merit to your self-identification as distinct from the modern political spectrum, but I part ways with you on describing it as centrist or characterizing it as morally prophetic to "both sides." It's definitely not unlike the Leftism of an earlier time.
Ricky, I can't speak for how everyone interacts with your posts; I'll only speak for myself.
1. I never claim there isn't some "middle ground" somewhere.
(But I will add that tossing out the the phrase "middle ground", without some explanation, is so vague it could mean anything or nothing. Without being defined, it's virtually meaningless. Everyone here might define a "political middle ground" in a different way. So when you say "middle ground", we have absolutely no way to know what you even mean.)
2. I never claim one political side is completely right, and the other is completely wrong.
3. All I do is read your posts, and see certain clear, plain, explicitly stated propositions, with which I disagree... and I challenge you on them.
When I challenge you on a statement, I'm not addressing everything else you may or may not believe.
When I challenge you on a statement, I'm focusing on ONE PARTICULAR THING YOU SAY, which is very explicit, and which I don't feel holds up to scrutiny.
4. If I challenge a particular thing you say, and it won't hold up to scrutiny, you don't get to be a victim and claim I'm not addressing all your other beliefs.... that is logically irrelevant.
A. If you claim some PARTICULAR thing to be true, and I challenge your claim, you should be able to back up your claim.
B. If you cannot back up your claim on that particular thing, then you have no warrant to make your claim.
C. If you cannot back up your claim on a particular thing, then you have no warrant to make your claim... and that claim falls.
The claim falls.
The claim falls if you cannot back it up.
And if you merely want to change the subject, instead of backing up your claim... then that is evidence you cannot back up your claim.
5. If you make claims which I do not think are valid, I may challenge them, and it is YOUR responsibility to back up the things you claim.
A. If I challenge a claim you make, and you can logically support your claim... then that claim holds.
B. If I challenge a claim you make, and you cannot support your claim... then that claim falls.
C. Simple as that.
This isn't complicated.
6. I'm not out to get you, but sometimes I'm going to challenge what you say, just like anyone else on the forum.
I also get challenged on claims I make.
There's no reason for you to get a pass.
We're all in the same boat.
-----------
-
2
- Show all
7
so then the state of the world is 'all good' but Ricky should go behind the barn and shoot himself at least in the foot
I disagree often enough with Ricky but reading from where I left off yesterday, the nitpicking and desire to find fault, with
what he said and how he said it and the cherry on top saying Jesus said you will always have the poor with you while blatantly leaving out what the NT says about feeding widows etc, is a find example of why so many leave this site
and that's a shame
we give $$$ to an organization that smuggles Bibles into certain countries and gives them out in others
so arrest me
I disagree often enough with Ricky but reading from where I left off yesterday, the nitpicking and desire to find fault, with
what he said and how he said it and the cherry on top saying Jesus said you will always have the poor with you while blatantly leaving out what the NT says about feeding widows etc, is a find example of why so many leave this site
and that's a shame
we give $$$ to an organization that smuggles Bibles into certain countries and gives them out in others
so arrest me
-
3
- Show all
7
so then the state of the world is 'all good' but Ricky should go behind the barn and shoot himself at least in the foot
I disagree often enough with Ricky but reading from where I left off yesterday, the nitpicking and desire to find fault, with
what he said and how he said it and the cherry on top saying Jesus said you will always have the poor with you while blatantly leaving out what the NT says about feeding widows etc, is a find example of why so many leave this site
and that's a shame
we give $$$ to an organization that smuggles Bibles into certain countries and gives them out in others
so arrest me
I disagree often enough with Ricky but reading from where I left off yesterday, the nitpicking and desire to find fault, with
what he said and how he said it and the cherry on top saying Jesus said you will always have the poor with you while blatantly leaving out what the NT says about feeding widows etc, is a find example of why so many leave this site
and that's a shame
we give $$$ to an organization that smuggles Bibles into certain countries and gives them out in others
so arrest me
-
1
- Show all
Wow. Obsessed are we? That's ok, I obviously need a good shrink. What do you charge for the hour
I answer and you don't hear it. And I'm not evading; What I'm not doing is letting you back me into a corner. You don't hear what I say because you strain at the gnats hoping to trap one. I'm not that idiotic and ignorant, despite what D says about me
I answer and you don't hear it. And I'm not evading; What I'm not doing is letting you back me into a corner. You don't hear what I say because you strain at the gnats hoping to trap one. I'm not that idiotic and ignorant, despite what D says about me
IN MY OPINION
The Bible is very clear:
1. First and foremost, if you are able to work and choose not to, you don't get to eat. And by extrapolation I assume that also includes no roof or medical care either. But that last part is just me assuming.
Funny how few ever remember me saying that, or forget it when I touch a nerve later on in the list.
2. If you are an employer, you are to treat your employees fairly. Now, we all have different definitions of fairly, but mine is that they are able to secure:
a. A roof that is more than a tent.
b. Food that is more than ramen noodles
c. Medical care that is more than a bandaid.
But again, that's just me. And I do understand that I am in a verrrry small and empty boat.
3. As we are able we may live comfortably and enjoy the blessing God bestows upon us as a reward for our faithfulness.
4. We are NOT allowed to horde riches. There are curses set upon unjust accumulations of money/property. I have 45 verses so far that say exactly that. I have presented them before. I think I may have God's backing on this one. But then again that's just me and how one defines hording and unjust accumulations.
5. God says every dollar we bank here is one we won't have on the other side. I'm not poor but, when my bank account starts getting too big I start getting nervous. Same when it starts getting too small. Both tend to say I'm not giving enough. At least, in my opinion.
6. We are NOT to take part in the things of this world. A lot of that is contained within the verses outlawing riches. (*) What are the things of this world? In my opinion, that includes bickering, name calling, and endless fruitless effort-spending.
I might also throw in straining for gnats in a corner. But that's just a personal one, not a Biblical one. Oh wait the gnats part is, isn't it?
Oh and one last thing...
Just because I'm paranoid ... doesn't mean you're not out to get me
The Bible is very clear:
1. First and foremost, if you are able to work and choose not to, you don't get to eat. And by extrapolation I assume that also includes no roof or medical care either. But that last part is just me assuming.
Funny how few ever remember me saying that, or forget it when I touch a nerve later on in the list.
2. If you are an employer, you are to treat your employees fairly. Now, we all have different definitions of fairly, but mine is that they are able to secure:
a. A roof that is more than a tent.
b. Food that is more than ramen noodles
c. Medical care that is more than a bandaid.
But again, that's just me. And I do understand that I am in a verrrry small and empty boat.
3. As we are able we may live comfortably and enjoy the blessing God bestows upon us as a reward for our faithfulness.
4. We are NOT allowed to horde riches. There are curses set upon unjust accumulations of money/property. I have 45 verses so far that say exactly that. I have presented them before. I think I may have God's backing on this one. But then again that's just me and how one defines hording and unjust accumulations.
5. God says every dollar we bank here is one we won't have on the other side. I'm not poor but, when my bank account starts getting too big I start getting nervous. Same when it starts getting too small. Both tend to say I'm not giving enough. At least, in my opinion.
6. We are NOT to take part in the things of this world. A lot of that is contained within the verses outlawing riches. (*) What are the things of this world? In my opinion, that includes bickering, name calling, and endless fruitless effort-spending.
I might also throw in straining for gnats in a corner. But that's just a personal one, not a Biblical one. Oh wait the gnats part is, isn't it?
Oh and one last thing...
Just because I'm paranoid ... doesn't mean you're not out to get me
Wow. Obsessed are we? That's ok, I obviously need a good shrink. What do you charge for the hour
I answer and you don't hear it. And I'm not evading; What I'm not doing is letting you back me into a corner. You don't hear what I say because you strain at the gnats hoping to trap one. I'm not that idiotic and ignorant, despite what D says about me
I answer and you don't hear it. And I'm not evading; What I'm not doing is letting you back me into a corner. You don't hear what I say because you strain at the gnats hoping to trap one. I'm not that idiotic and ignorant, despite what D says about me
1. "...you strain at the gnats hoping to trap one."
I never strain out gnats... they're extra protein.
2. "I answer and you don't hear it."
This is starting to sound like a bad marriage... and that's just weird.
3. "I obviously need a good shrink. What do you charge for the hour?"
Since you're a friend, you get a discount.
But an hour won't be enough.
4. "What I'm not doing is letting you back me into a corner."
You seem to have some kind of persecution complex like I'm always trying to trap you.
Now, there may have been an accident once, where I may have accidentally constructed an ontologically proper, formal logical dilemma, and accidentally positioned it to split a particular proposition that held no epistemic warrant.
But I certainly didn't trap anyone.
Accidents happen.
--------
-
2
- Show all
Moral questions may be at the basis of political ones, but their taxonomical distinction relates to questions of authority.
Let's pick something you and I agree upon- shoplifting is evil. A man is caught stealing by a loss prevention officer. Who is best suited to judge the shoplifter? An impartial judge or the loss prevention officer? Who has the proper authority? What are the practical ramifications of authority failing or somebody violating that authority? What is the appropriate punishment?
I'm not looking for anybody to answer these questions, but rather acknowledge these questions are proper ones to ask. Answering them requires a set of values and principles in addition to whether we want something or that something ought to be punished.
A fine qualifier.
The nerve touching has something to do with that. Most of them see statements like "hording" and "railing against the poor" as mischaracterizations. The personal offense may play a part in their disregarding of where you agree.
I never missed you saying that, but it rings somewhat hollow in view of history.
Many of those who crafted welfare policies held the same value up until the failure of the Great Society. The Kennedy and Johnson Administrations saw their program as a jumpstart for a shrinking class of poor people, not a means toward permanent dependency.
They may have indeed believed "if ya don't work ya don't eat." but their abuse of authority gave rise to "eat and work when it's convenient if at all."
Exactly! Who defines and enforces "fairly?" How is it enforced?
If you do not have an answer for that, people will likely assume it's da gubmint.
And who is charged with putting a stop to "hoarding" and "unjust accumulation?" What are they authorized to do to address these concerns?
That's nice. I'm glad you're so generous.
Hahaha
I suppose in closing, I want to note that the differences you have with Right-leaning Christians has more to do with that question of proper authority than anything else.
They assume you take up the position that the government should decide largely because proper authority in these practical decisions remains, as of yet, untouched.
I'm only out to get SovereignGrace
Let's pick something you and I agree upon- shoplifting is evil. A man is caught stealing by a loss prevention officer. Who is best suited to judge the shoplifter? An impartial judge or the loss prevention officer? Who has the proper authority? What are the practical ramifications of authority failing or somebody violating that authority? What is the appropriate punishment?
I'm not looking for anybody to answer these questions, but rather acknowledge these questions are proper ones to ask. Answering them requires a set of values and principles in addition to whether we want something or that something ought to be punished.
A fine qualifier.
The nerve touching has something to do with that. Most of them see statements like "hording" and "railing against the poor" as mischaracterizations. The personal offense may play a part in their disregarding of where you agree.
I never missed you saying that, but it rings somewhat hollow in view of history.
Many of those who crafted welfare policies held the same value up until the failure of the Great Society. The Kennedy and Johnson Administrations saw their program as a jumpstart for a shrinking class of poor people, not a means toward permanent dependency.
They may have indeed believed "if ya don't work ya don't eat." but their abuse of authority gave rise to "eat and work when it's convenient if at all."
Exactly! Who defines and enforces "fairly?" How is it enforced?
If you do not have an answer for that, people will likely assume it's da gubmint.
And who is charged with putting a stop to "hoarding" and "unjust accumulation?" What are they authorized to do to address these concerns?
That's nice. I'm glad you're so generous.
Hahaha
I suppose in closing, I want to note that the differences you have with Right-leaning Christians has more to do with that question of proper authority than anything else.
They assume you take up the position that the government should decide largely because proper authority in these practical decisions remains, as of yet, untouched.
Oh and one last thing...
Just because I'm paranoid ... doesn't mean you're not out to get me
Just because I'm paranoid ... doesn't mean you're not out to get me
E
do you? This is now thread number what in your rail against the works/grace debate and your hatred towards it (I know of a few, and a few others you tried to bring this stuff in, and that does not include any threads that got deleted with the upgrade) and now you bring it to the news thread?
Its not news man. Its life, Its been going on since Cain and Abel (works vs grace) and it will continue in some aspect until the end. You harping about it because you do not like it is not going to stop it.
Its not news man. Its life, Its been going on since Cain and Abel (works vs grace) and it will continue in some aspect until the end. You harping about it because you do not like it is not going to stop it.