Evidence for God from Science

I will prove to you its right and biblical for government to take care of its poor. Remember too that today we live in a global world.

Good. Can't wait. (And it will help if you use scripture.)

First all tax money goes to one coffer, If GM pays less I have to pay more or have services cut or increase debt. Either way I pay more.

Why? Are you saying that your taxes went up after the “tax cuts”? I find that hard to believe. I believe in tax cuts for everybody, rich, poor, middle class. Money in the hands of government is waste.

Woa! the trickle down theory of economics! I was hoping that died with Ronald Reagan

You mean the president who oversaw the greatest peacetime economic growth in world history? Too bad he couldn't push through his spending cuts, because deficits do matter. Let me introduce a factoid to you. The national debt isn't caused by lack of taxes. It is caused by pork barrel spending (which unfortunately hasn't gotten any better under Republican leadership.)

Land reforms. Where a corrupt dictator such as Samosa , who was support by the USA, owned much land and other riches, that should go to the government to be used/distributed to the people.
The USA wanted certain riches and lands returned to corrupt supporter of Samosa.

No argument here. Land should be owned by the citizens (capitalism), not the government (socialism).

Am I reading you wrong? Are you actually saying we should slacken our laws that protect workers? If so where the do you work? You certainly don't work where I do

.
Yes. They are too restrictive. Businesses have to pay for ridiculous stuff like the “family leave”, where employees get paid to leave work to watch their kids play soccer without taking vacation time. Workers get to abuse sick time, and get to keep their jobs despite lack of performance. If they get fired, they can turn around and sue.

Workers need protection, but so do businesses.

Again is this a misread?! We should just let companies pollute God's Creation??!

No, but again, environmental laws are also way too restrictive. Some are certainly necessary, but many are not. I supposed you support the Kyoto Treaty in light of the “global warming” hoax, but that is another whole debate. Over-restrictive worker protection and environmental laws are economic killers.

You used the words together "unfair profit" . Business do ignore laws and have unfair labour practice. You have to think global here or more to the past. I can tell you when your a big enough company you get away with a little more than others. If you can tell me what happens when a company has an environmental spill then you maybe understand that.

Not sure what that has to do with “unfair profit”. There is no such thing.

The whole thing is that Bono and friends were saying governments were not doing enough, but I think Canada new leader might move some on that. Despite the government not doing enough nobody picks up the slack.
The Church doesn't do it. The Private sector doesn't . Rich people don't.
Okay yeah Bill Gates does give a lot. My point it still not enough.
So whats the answer? Everyone has a role to play including government.
The IMF is the biggest problem if you ask me.

The church does a lot, as do rich people. They could do even more if government got out of the way. (Maybe Bono should do more. He is an excellent self-promoter).

Some might say that American wealth came from stealing from the natives
and on the backs of Black slave labour. I do agree that work ethic is lacking, that effort needs to be rewarded, and that in Canada we don't need a Senate.

Only stupid people would say that. I never stole from a native nor owned a slave. (BTW, I'm ¼ Cherokee, and I thank God that the white man came to this country and delivered my people from a life of tribal wars and trading wampum for milo. (Of course, if this is what you really want, there are plenty of undeveloped countries that you can choose to live in this kind of paradise.)

I'm still waiting for your scriptures.

So you see I am not against the original idea of the post , but you also seem to say that the Bible supports pure capitalism. The fact is that it doesn't. I think it supports something in the middle. Lets call it socialistic capitalism for the fun of it.
The Bible teach even government to care for the poor.

Scripture please? Where does it tell the civil government to care for the poor.

The problem with PL is that he can see no alternative to out and out capitalism. He and Jac seem to think that America, Christianity and Capitalism are inextricably linked. Criticize one - criticize them all. When ever did the scripture say that what a nation needs is Christianity AND capitalism. Dollar worship snook in somewhere.

There is no alternative that works other than out and out capitalism, and history has shown us that time and time again. The Bible's commandments against covetousness and theft are clear on that. The Bible demands charity, not socialism.

As for dollar worship, socialists are more obsessed with money than any capitalist I ever met, other people's money. Thou shalt not covet.

The problem is that here we see a view of culture that is not distinct from scripture. Culture should be held up and viewed in the light of scripture, that is how we apply the measuring rod of biblical principles. When we see culture and our faith as the same thing then we lose that ability.

Oh yes, the old liberal argument that God's law change with the culture. God's laws are absolute and everlasting (Psalm 119:160). We are to live by every one of them (Matthew 4:4).

I'm not anti-American per se, but for a country that prizess free speech, it jumps mighty quickly upon views that dissent from the generally accepted right wing capitalist worldview. That's the problem when you are that powerful, the power corrupts. Look at what's currently going on in academia where students are shopping any professor with a left wing bias. A national disgrace.

“Free speech” does not guarantee you an audience. Left Wing Professors can say what they want, but if it costs them their jobs, too bad. You have the free speech to criticize Capitalism all you want to. But when it is pointed out that you have no leg to stand on, then that's just too bad.

BTW, the First Amendment was only meant to apply to Congress, but that is another debate.

The bottom line for Biblical Economics:

1.) Christians should pay tithe (Malachi 3:8-10). Churches should use part of this to help the poor (Deuteronomy 26:12).

2.) A Christian's first priority (after the tithe) is his own household (1 Timothy 5:8).

3.) The Bible demands Charity (Deuteronomy 15:9, Proverbs 28:27), but does not allow for the state to enforce it, unlike liberals, who equate “care for the poor” with welfare, tax increases, and other big government programs. These have been tried before and failed, while killing millions. Just like placing a scoop of ice cream on a truckload of manure doesn't make the manure more palatable, framing socialism in terms of Christian rhetoric doesn't change what it is, a demonic heresy.

4.) God loves honest, free-market business (Proverbs 11:1).

5.) There is no such thing as an unjust profit, and there is no biblical limit to one's profit (Proverbs 10:4, Proverbs 13:11).

6.) The Bible condemns inflation and all forms of fiat money (Leviticus 19:36).

7.) There is no evil in wealth, nor virtue in poverty. God creates both. (1 Samuel 2:7)

8.) Socialism of all forms is built on covetousness and envy. It is unbiblical and doomed to failure. It has costs us 100 million lives already. Covetousness is a serious sin against God, even if the possessions are desired for the poor (Exodus 20:17).

9.) The solution to poverty is not government redistribution of wealth, but freedom and Christianity (which will result in capitalism). Even then, we will have “the poor with us always” until the fulfillment of the Great Commission.

10.) Christians should give to the poor because of the love for the Christ who has blessed them, not out of guilt created by the self-righteous, statist, pharisees who use “those poor kids in Africa” (of whom they cannot name one) for whatever axe they wish to grind. Giving to the poor out of guilt profits nothing in God's eyes. (1 Corinthians 13:3).

11.) Poverty is not caused by tax cuts. Therefore, reversal of poverty will not be caused by tax increases.

12.) Big government welfare programs actually cause destruction in the lives of the poor. For proof, read Charles Murray, Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980.

13.) Liberals view money (in the hands of government) as the solution to every problem. Just ask, “Why do we have poverty?”, “Why do we have deficits?”, “What's wrong with our schools?”, “Why is there an AIDS epidemic in Africa?”, etc. The answer for the liberal is always the same. These problems are caused because the government doesn't have enough of your money to spend (even though they spend it anyway).

Seriously guys. I'm not questioning you heart, only your heads. You both need to learn some good economics from someone other than Rock Stars. Try...

Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
George Gilder - Wealth and Poverty.
Henry Hazlitt - Man vs. The Welfare State.
Thomas Sowell — Civil Rights.

Scripture please? Where does it tell the civil government to care for the poor

In Old Testment times the civil government was after the Judges period , Kings.

Nebuchadnezzar was a King.

Daniel Chapter 4 Nebuchadnezzar's Vision of a Tree.

You should read the whole thing, but the major verse is 27.

How does a King show mercy to the poor?

What does this whole chapter mean to you?


Mike
Bluesman

"What is called sound economics is very often what mirrors the needs of the respectably affluent." J. K. Galbraith, Money (1975)

PL hates government initiatives and wants giving to be left up to the individual. The problem with this is that people just don't give as much as we need.

In a time where the average Christian's earnings has increased phenomenally their tithing is at an all time low. And many Christians simply don't tithe.

As I posted before:

Materialism continues to be an incredible scandal. The average [American] church member [from across the denominations] today gives about 2.6 percent of his or her income—a quarter of a tithe—to the church. Evangelicals used to be quite a lot better [in giving] than mainline denominations. But their giving has declined every year for several decades, and they're now getting very close to the norm. The average evangelical giving is about 4.2 percent—about two-fifths of a tithe.

Six percent of the "born-again" people tithe; nine percent of evangelicals do. Our income has gone up fabulously over the last 30-plus years. The average household income now in the U.S. is $42,000-plus. If the average American Christian tithed, we'd have another $143 billion.

In the UK people give about £170 per year in charitable donations. That's less than they shell out for an IPOD. Less than they spend on CDs or DVDs. Less than they spend on Junk Food. And just a bit more than we spend on PORNOGRAPHY.

It is also given, in the main, to more fashionable causes: Medical Research and Animals.

If we are waiting for people to help the worlds poor through private giving as PL suggests, then the poor had pretty well get ready to tighten their
belts and learn to survive on dirt.

Puritan Lad's economics certainly suit himself and it's easy for him to take his position when he was born into reasonable circumstances and has enough burgers to keep him happy.

He takes Bible verses and makes them say what he wants. For example:

From this:

Proverbs 11
1 The LORD abhors dishonest scales,
but accurate weights are his delight.

He gets this:

God loves honest, free-market business. (PLCV - Putitan Lad's Capitalist Version)

What a translation. Seems the verse is more to me about being honest when making sales transactions, and is just more about God desiring honesty than sanctioning unrestrained free markets.

PL, I don't think anyone here is advocating a limit on profit, in a Marxist sense. We are just saying that unrestrained capitalism does not work and needs checks and balances and a way for money to be channelled in the poor's direction, (apart from private giving, which won't do it).

What I am attacking is not Christian's ability to make profit, but the fact that they have bought into the luxurious lifestyle that steers their resources away from giving, and into entertaining themselves and buying things by the lorry full that they don't need for a good quality of life.

And your arguments about economics being non zero-sum. That may be correct, but capitalism quite happily allows for 2.5 million homeless in America. It has no issue with them whatsoever. So how has all that massive US wealth helped those with a shop doorway for a bed?

You have the West with it's capitalism and its rocketing obesity and the two-thirds world often without enough to eat.

People die from over-eating in America and suffer all sorts of obesity related illnesses like the rising amount of diabetes, whilst people starve to death by the millions. The system DOES NOT work, and while Christians prop it up and worship it and tell us disgusting things like 'GOD LOVES IT' then we are in danger of God's judgement.

Someone said to me the other day regarding Americas outrageous excesses, 'If God is not judging America right now, he probably owes Sodom & Gomorrah an apology.'

Blacknad.

For anyone who has eyes to see (PL you need read no further) they may want to look at the following web pages on the site of a good friend of mine who instead of spending his time propping up a selfish system, is actually devoting his life to try and solve the problem.

It is with people like him that hope rests, rather than people who can't see further than the end of their Big Mac and who have bought into the unrestrained free market propaganda.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED:

http://www.altruists.org/ideas/economics

http://www.altruists.org/ideas/economic ... ney_system

Regards,

Blacknad.

Blacknad, the problem I have with your approach is that you are creating a false dichotomy. You seem to hold that the welfare of others is the only standard of good, and that self-sacrifice is the only moral action. It is not true that all relationships involve sacrifice. The premise of altruism is that it does. Once you accept that premise, you end up with the false dilemma that if you are not helping someone through self-sacrifice, you are exploiting them.

Being benevolent is not the same as the self-sacrifice that altruism promotes.

I also find your comments about America strange. There is no country in the world that gives more to charitable causes. For example, in 2005, the USA gave more than double what the next closest country did, from the government budget. In addition to that, the majority of charitable contributions, more than double of what the government gives, comes from the American people, through foundations and charities.

August wrote:I also find your comments about America strange. There is no country in the world that gives more to charitable causes. For example, in 2005, the USA gave more than double what the next closest country did, from the government budget. In addition to that, the majority of charitable contributions, more than double of what the government gives, comes from the American people, through foundations and charities.

The US being the wealthiest, strongest and most influential nation, it is worth seeing how their actions or inaction affect other nations. One notable area is US foreign aid. Being a major part of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and even helping to formulate the United Nations over 50 years ago, their actions can be felt around the world.

Around the world for numerous years, many have criticized the US for cutting back on its promised obligations and responsibilities, and that furthermore, when it has provided aid, it has been tied to its own foreign policy objectives.

- http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

August, I'm sure you think that means something significant, but an investigation of the facts tells a very different story. Let us see how the country with the highest standard of living and one of the highest Christian populations in the world actually does in the generosity stakes in comparison to other countries:


Country Aid amount by GNP

Norway 0.93
Sweden 0.92
Luxembourg 0.87
Netherlands 0.82
Denmark 0.81
Belgium 0.53
Austria 0.52
UK 0.48
Finland 0.47
France 0.47
Switzerland 0.44
Ireland 0.41
Germany 0.35
Canada 0.34
Italy 0.29
Spain 0.29
Japan 0.28
New Zealand 0.27
Australia 0.25
Greece 0.24
USA 0.22
Portugal 0.21

Okay...let's see how that changes when private giving from the American people is factored in:


Country Quality-adjusted aid as percent of GDP

Sweden 0.5
Denmark 0.48
Netherlands 0.45
Norway 0.4
France 0.23
Belgium 0.21
Switzerland 0.21
Finland 0.19
United Kingdom 0.19
Austria 0.15
Germany 0.15
Canada 0.14
Ireland 0.12
Australia 0.11
Italy 0.11
Portugal 0.1
Japan 0.09
Greece 0.07
Spain 0.07
United States 0.07
New Zealand 0.03

Try reading Mark 12:41 The Widow's Offering

It doesn't surprise me that a country that seemingly worships a system that is built upon self-interest and is at the base about profit, gives less per capita than the others cited.

May I also point out that USAs luxury based lifestyle makes you the largest oil consumers in the world and the biggest green house gas polluters. And you didn't like Kyoto because you were afraid of upsetting big business. Yay Capitalism!!!!
Blacknad.

Why don't you try quoting the real money amounts, instead of percentages of GDP? Any calculation like that will favor smaller countries with smaller economies and smaller populations to take care of. And they had to go through significant mathematical gymnastics to arrive at those figures...."Quality-adjusted aid"? Give me a break.

Less than 1% of people in the USA are homeless, and that is a constantly revolving population, unemployment is at 4.7%, as opposed to low teens and higher in the socialist countries. I lived in Scandinavia for 2 years, paid more than 70% of my income over to the government in direct and indirect taxes, and had to wait 20 months for a hernia operation. Way to go for socialist healthcare. Almost everyone there is dependant on the government for retirement, and with the socialist economies on the verge of collapsing all over Europe, there will be many sad stories, like the old people dying in the French heatwave. In your world, everyone can be unemployed yet cared for. I would love to understand how you can make that work. As we see now in the socialist European economies, it does not work.

May I also point out that USAs luxury based lifestyle makes you the largest oil consumers in the world and the biggest green house gas polluters. And you didn't like Kyoto because you were afraid of upsetting big business. Yay Capitalism!!!!
Blacknad.

So this has now turned into a full-blown America-bashing session. So all your earlier statements about not being anti-American were nothing but lies. Do you realize how utterly offensive these statements are to American Christians who send huge amounts of money to people all over the world? I'll be glad to discuss any of these environmental issues in a separate thread, since it is nothing more than unadulterated hatred towards the USA.

Have you ever been in the USA? Have you seen this "luxury-based lifestyle" for yourself? Most people live a middle-class life, and work longer hours than most other places I have seen (Japan is the one exception). From working long hours, Americans can give, and they do, over $50-billion in 2005. It is so ironic that you want the USA to give more, because they have so much, but on the other hand you want to criticize the system which allowed the US to be prosperous and be in a position to give. Which is it? Does the USA have to be socialist, so that it can copy those "successful" European economies, or does it have continue to give the most money to charitable causes worldwide?

Try reading Mark 12:41 The Widow's Offering

What is your point? This lesson in this passage is about the attitude with which we give. The value of the gift is not measured by the amount, but by the spirit in which it is given. Gifts given grudgingly or under duress (think 70% taxes), is of little or no value when compared to that which is given out of love and gratitude.

You advocate socialism, the forced collection of money from those who work to earn it, to be spent according to the inclinations of government bureaucrats. I have seen the results of that, and you can have it, thank you.

August,

As I don't think I am advocating socialism, it may help if you define what you think socialism is.

And as for the environmental issues, my friend who lived for a couple of years in America says that people barely go anywhere without thier cars.

He told the story of a being behind a guy who parked to far away to reach for his Big Mac at a drive through. So the guy put on his reversing lights and four cars behind him had to reverse so that he could move backwards and then drive forwards so he was close enough to reach for the meal. He just wouldn't get out of his car to pick up the meal. My friend says it is just one story but it is indicative of his experience of many Americans. He did say that you are some of the friendliest people on the face of the earth though - he has travelled a fair bit. So it's not all bad.

Do you realise how hated America is in Britain because of its war in Iraq and its stance against Kyoto because your government is so closely associated with the interests of the Oil Companies and Big Business in general? But still, I'm not anti-American, and if you can't see the difference between having issues with certain USA policy, and out and out hatred, then I'm sorry.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Hi Blacknad,

Blacknad wrote:August,

As I don't think I am advocating socialism, it may help if you define what you think socialism is.

I based my conclusion of your support for socialism on your unreserved support for Bluesman on the previous page, and your opposition to capitalism. Socialism is the intent to establish a classless society through the substitution of private ownership, production and exchange with public ownership, production and exchange administered by a central government.

And as for the environmental issues, my friend who lived for a couple of years in America says that people barely go anywhere without thier cars.

Right, this is a big country with little or no public transport or provision for pedestrian traffic.

He told the story of a being behind a guy who parked to far away to reach for his Big Mac at a drive through. So the guy put on his reversing lights and four cars behind him had to reverse so that he could move backwards and then drive forwards so he was close enough to reach for the meal. He just wouldn't get out of his car to pick up the meal. My friend says it is just one story but it is indicative of his experience of many Americans. He did say that you are some of the friendliest people on the face of the earth though - he has travelled a fair bit. So it's not all bad.

That is a little bit anecdotal, don't you think? And is that not a bit unfair to be judging the morals of an entire country based on second-hand information? I had similar thoughts before I moved to the US, based on similar accounts, and found it to be mostly unfounded. Personally I have seen many people get out of their cars at the drivethrough

Do you realise how hated America is in Britain because of its war in Iraq and its stance against Kyoto because your government is so closely associated with the interests of the Oil Companies and Big Business in general?

There are two points here. Firstly, yes, I know how hated America is. I also think that it is based on a boatload of misinformation driven by a biased press. We have already had the Iraq discussion, and the facts show a different picture than what the public in general is shown. As for Kyoto, that would have bankrupted not only America, because it unfairly singled out America. In the meantime, do you know what the US govenrment policies are on pollution and emissions?

The second point is the assertion that the US government is somehow associated with "oil companies" and " big business". Do you have any facts to support that? I know it is a popular statement from those who demonstrate at the G8 meetings, but where are the facts? What do you mean with "associated with"? All companies get treated exactly the same, and, because I have personal experience with this, bigger companies are much more closely scrutinized by the goverment than smaller ones, due to the Enron and Worldcom issues.

I want to make a further point, that there is a lot of healthy disagreement within the US about its policies, which may result in a different party governing within 2-3 years.

But still, I'm not anti-American, and if you can't see the difference between having issues with certain USA policy, and out and out hatred, then I'm sorry.

Ok, but I observed that you have had little to nothing good to say about the US. I don't think there is a single person in the US that is 100% happy with all the policies, yet they still support the country out of respect for the democracy. There are those that also hate this country, and their rhetoric attacks the same things that you do.

August wrote:The second point is the assertion that the US government is somehow associated with "oil companies" and " big business". Do you have any facts to support that?

August. I haven't got time to spend googling for such obvious stuff. If you don't know the oil backgrounds of people in the Bush administration (esp. Bush), then I'm sorry. If you can't see how your government is more interested in the money and needs of the oil companies than in the needs of general American citizens then I'm sorry.

But start here:

'Big Oil Spends $400,000 on Government Junkets'

- http://www.publicintegrity.org/oil/report.aspx?aid=349


And just in case there is any doubt that the Bush administration is in bed with Big Oil.


George Bush, President
The president's best business move was to sell a small oil company he had started in the 1970s, Bush Exploration/Arbusto, to Spectrum 7. In return he received $600,000 in stock, a $120,000 yearly contract and a lot of friends in the Texas oil scene. Oil and other energy money gushed into George II's 2000 campaign coffers to the tune of $2.8 million. Another $2.3 million came from the auto sector. Enron donated more than a million dollars to the Republican National Committee.


**** Cheney, Vice President
After serving as defense secretary under Bush I, Cheney settled in Dallas to head up the world's largest oil service company, Halliburton. Halliburton has 100,000 employees in 130 countries, and a market value of $18.2 billion. Since 1992 the company has contributed $1.6 billion to Washington politicians. Halliburton now has contracts with the U.S. army to build and staff pre-fabricated bases, a program championed by Cheney when he was secretary of defense.


Zalmay Khalilzad, Special Envoy to Afghanistan
The highest-ranking U.S. diplomat in Afghanistan, Khalilzad has a long history of promoting military action as a member of the Reagan and Bush I administrations. He was a consultant for oil giant Unocal in 1997, conducting risk assessments for their proposed 900-mile Afghan pipeline to transport natural gas. In advocating the Unocal pipeline while the Taliban still ruled Afghanistan, Khalilzad wrote in the Washington Post that "the Taliban do not practice the anti-U.S. style of fundamentalism practiced by Iran. We should be willing to offer recognition and humanitarian assistance."


Don Evans, Commerce Secretary
Evans was Bush II's campaign manager and chief fundraiser in the last three elections, pulling in millions from cronies in the oil patch. Before that he was CEO and chairman of the Colorado-based oil company, Tom Brown Inc. and a board member of Sharp Drilling, an oil industry contractor. As commerce secretary, Evans oversees policy for U.S. oceans and air. Since 25 percent of domestic oil and natural gas production comes from offshore drilling, the industry must be glad to have a friend on the inside.


Condoleezza Rice, National Security Adviser
Rice spent a decade on the board of Chevron Corporation (now ChevronTexaco). She was Chevron's main expert on Kazakhstan, where the company has invested $20 billion. ChevronTexaco is also a big player in Nigeria. Rice is involved in U.S. policy toward that country. When Rice left the Chevron board, the company honored her by naming one of its supertankers "Condoleezza."



If you really feel that this issue is defensible then I'll be willing to cite a whole refinery full of stuff that will make your toes curl.

I'm surprised anyone would bother to ask the question.


Blacknad.

August. I haven't got time to spend googling for such obvious stuff. If you don't know the oil backgrounds of people in the Bush administration (esp. Bush), then I'm sorry. If you can't see how your government is more interested in the money and needs of the oil companies than in the needs of general American citizens then I'm sorry.

Such obvious stuff? Laughable....you are convinced that there is some huge conspiracy somewhere, and that there are some sinister motives somewhere.

None of what you postedis a verifiable fact that anyone in the Bush government is currently involved or promotes the interests of oil companies or big business above the needs of American citizens. All this says is that some of the members in the administration used to have a relationship with companies in one of the biggest industries in the world, which is not unusual. What specifically are they doing to unfairly promote the interests of these companies?

I based my conclusion of your support for socialism on your unreserved support for Bluesman on the previous page, and your opposition to capitalism. Socialism is the intent to establish a classless society through the substitution of private ownership, production and exchange with public ownership, production and exchange administered by a central government.

For the record I don't support the idea of socialism as a form of government.
I support a government being socially responsible. That means the government must care for its poor and sick. What the church and private sector doesn't do in this regard the government should pick up the slack.
Although, its the public that picks up the slack for what the government doesn't do.

The original idea of this thread seems to evolved into something else as
nobody here supports socialism as a form of government.

How can you argue that this world is doing an poor job in caring for its poor and hungry?!

I will end again by saying read Daniel 4 esp. verse 27

Mike
Bluesman

For the record, although my name has not been invoked in this regrd recently, I do not support Socialism as a government system.

I do believe that there are grounds for legitimate concern within Western Christendom as to the effects that affluence has had in terms of our values and treating those possessions as being held in trust by us as Stewards for God.

The remedy for that however, is not and never will be found within a government system.

Blacknad, while agreeing with some of your definition of the problem, I think that some of your comments regarding the US government and US christians in general border on the outrageous. I understand that in different countries views of the US are very strongly negative. Some of those reasons are legitimate and earned. I certainly do not advocate outright endorement of the actions of any nation and as the US is the sole super-power on the world Political scene, it certainly makes sense that the actions of the US have a tremendous impact on the rest of the world and as such, more scrutiny is warranted.

In the instances mentioned however, you do seem to be relying upon information sources that have an axe to grind with the US and portraying them in as non-flattering a manner as you can.

I have some misgivings about how everything has played out in the war in Iraq. I think there are fair issues to examine as to intelligence utilized to make decisions. I also think it remarkably easy to second guess the past and criticize and that that criticism is not particularly meaningful when it is given by people and nations who agreed with the intelligence, which went far beyond the US's sole input, and by nations at the time who supported the actions as reasonable and needful given what was known at the time and the actions of the Iraqi government in the past that gave testimony to what they were capable of and had indeed already done in the past. The decision to go it was based on far more than the intelligence that is now questioned, and frankly, the world press is being somewhat selective in their weighing of the evidence of possible transport to Syria the material in question.

Be that as it may, the decision was made, the reasons were stated and checkpoints followed both in the US and UN to a degree that is pretty much unprecedented in any other nation or in the history of similar matters.

The intent to tie US interests to Big Oil in an insider manner is pretty cheap. Are you suggesting that Oil companies are evil and therefore anyone associated with them in any manner are evil as well? Where do you draw the line?

I should warn you. I intend to fill my VW Jetta with gas later today so I may be part of the grand conspiracy.

I think Oil companies in the US exist for one primary purpose, and that is to make a profit for their shareholders, the majority of whom are middle class Americans invested through such vehicles as retirement plans, mutual funds and direct investment. I think like most other commodities there are specific needs and values that we legislate into the mix to seek to find balance and provide for the important needs of environment, national security and international policy. I think we're in a time where a tremendous litany of factors are affecting the industry and those factors include, the rise of countries formerly not high consumers that are now seeing the introduction of their middleclass such as India and China that is adding huge demand and competition for limited resources. Supply is being affected by political upheaval in the middle east, but also other nations that are becoming suppliers such as Chad, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Venezuela etc. The Kyoto accords are only one example of the issues involved, but in particular the emissions allowances inherent within them with the exceptions allowed for India and China and in particular have far more environmental impact worldwide in this century than what the US does overall. The decision not to participate was as much an environmental decision as an economic one and yet that rarely gets reported or factored in by critics.

So Blacknad, you know that I'm probably more sympathetic to what you have to say than most here and I plan on being objective and hearing what you or anyone else has to say on this or any other issue.

I do think you need to re-evaluate some of what you are tying together here and consider if there's some source bias at that very least and consider that international politics plays the same kinds of dirty pool that happen in all of our respective countries.

At the very least you can take comfort that in the upcoming fall elections in the US, unless things radically change, there likely will be a pretty strong change in direction in the US House and possibly the Senate. That's just a cold hard fact based on current polling and growing dissatisfaction with some of the issues you raise in addition to others.

Say what you want about the US, it has the means to correct itself and move forward that many other systems lack and that overall is a very good thing.

Bart

August wrote:

None of what you postedis a verifiable fact...

Interesting. You base your whole life on Christianity (as I do) that has no verifiable facts to sustain it.

And yet here you refuse to accept something because:

1. There are no verifiable facts.
2. It upsets your unconditional faith in the American government.

Putting your faith in Christ is sensible and he will not let you down. Having the same amount of faith in a man is unwise.

At least Jesus could string a sentence together.

And as for conspiracy - no. This is simply about people in power without the integrity to discharge their responsibilities ethically. The feeding frenzy over contracts in Iraq amongst friends of the administration is ample proof.

I will not expect you to agree. We are probably wasting our time. I know how pointless it is to debate with fundamentalists.

Blacknad.

Canuckster1127 wrote: Blacknad, while agreeing with some of your definition of the problem, I think that some of your comments regarding the US government and US christians in general border on the outrageous. I understand that in different countries views of the US are very strongly negative. Some of those reasons are legitimate and earned. I certainly do not advocate outright endorement of the actions of any nation and as the US is the sole super-power on the world Political scene, it certainly makes sense that the actions of the US have a tremendous impact on the rest of the world and as such, more scrutiny is warranted.

At the core of Christianity there stands the individual who has submitted his life to Christ's rule. This process of dying to oneself and subjugating the desires of the old nature is what makes Christianity different from any other religion. People are free to listen to the promptings of the Holy Spirit and shape their own understanding of the finer points of Christian living. This freedom of the individual Christian protects against the tyranny of organized religion and the corruption by power that comes with it. The believer is free to find their place within the body of Christ.

Now this has been called the quiet revolution - one individual at a time. Because Christianity understands that real change is wrought in the hearts of individuals.

This is why all government is doomed to failure. Christians should be able to critically examine government and call it out and hold it to account, and be the first to speak out when power starts to work its inevitable evil. Christ was for laying down power and taking up love. Government is often about power and is therefore often antithetical to Christianity's essence.

So the British government and Blair's selling of honours and peerages for cash donations or the American government and Bush's past refusal to take climate change seriously and instead cozying up to the oil companies, should be called out by Christians. The fact is that Blair and Bush both claim to be Christians but aren't immune from the corruption of power.

It is sad to see that some of these acts are defended or denied by Christians who have lost their saltiness.

Blacknad.