markomalley

Then there's the truth in advertising issue. The Way International is not "The" Way, it is merely "A" Way.

Then there's the truth in advertising issue. The Way International is not "The" Way, it is merely "A" No Way (to go).

There. Fixed it for you. No charge, either. ;)

Aside from the people here and a relatively small handful scattered around, how many people have even heard of TWI?

They are not exactly NASA or Microsoft or even J.C. Penney

I dont know exactly how this works..I have been in many churches that have the same name as unaffiliated churches hundreds of miles away or sometimes even in the same town! ...Christ Church, Saint(pick any name)Church etc...

Of course, then there's this:

Or there is this:

Surprised that TWI hasn't gone after Opus Dei for a clear trademark infringement. LOL.

Interesting site, Mark.

Also interesting to note that in the Preface, he doesn't mention TWI. Only in the Lexicon.

Is Paul Y0unan some exWayfer? Note, he makes it freely available.

Actually I think he might be a Maronite. They still say their church liturgy in Aramaic.

This thread isn't about the accuracy or inaccuracy of "the tithe".

It's about the sudden feeling of vulnerability one experiences when realizing their avenue of "tithing" has been closed.

Roger.

And thank you for making that clear.

While we were in The Way, one of the concepts that was pitched to us was the supposed importance of tithing and abundant sharing.

It started in PFAL with Christians Should Be Prosperous. There was all the talk about how 9/10ths could go farther than 10/10ths and how our giving was like a form of health and life insurance, etc.. If we didn't do it, we were leaving ourselves susceptible to attacks from the adversary .

So, anyhow, when you left, did you wonder to yourself how and where you would now tithe so you could stay in God's good graces?

Did it ever cross your mind that you might be walking away from God's protection by not tithing?

Think about it.

It's like a woman walking out on an abusive spouse and worrying if the SOB will have a decent dinner tonight.

I know of a LOT of Christian groups that teach the tithe.

As a matter of a fact, MOST if not ALL do, in some fashion or another. Including a lot of groups who have likely not ever even heard of TWI.

Just because TWI abused the teaching for their own ends doesn't mean that the teaching is wrong...

I think they need to get a life! Good grief! Like there's a huge market for either version! I mean, I heard about it but never saw it in print in the bookstore for sale or anything.

WG

Believe it or not, the interlinear is used. Take a look at this site: (the old bbs software used to edit the URL for the Pe*hitta version, so I "tinyurl'd" it)

The Aramaic lexicon has the following copyright disclaimer: © The Way International 1988-89. All rights reserved. The contents and results of this search tool may not be used without the prior written consent of The Way International.

The following are pertinent registered trademarks:

W WEBJAM THE WEB THE WAY YOU WANT

WE ARE THE WAY. WE CAN TRUST OURSELVES.

LEADING THE WAY TO FINANCIAL KNOWLEDGE

LIVE LIFE. THE WAY YOU WANT.

LEARNING. EVERY STEP OF THE WAY.

IMPROVING THE WAY BUSINESS GETS DONE

PREPARE THE WAY

LEAD THE WAY

THE WAY TO PRODUCT FIRST

WE TEACH THE WAY YOU LEARN

THE WAY OF SUDDEN AWAKENING

SELLING THE WAY EXECUTIVES BUY

IBA ILLINOIS BANKERS ASSOCIATION LEADING THE WAY

THE WAY OF THE SHAMAN

WINE, WOMEN, & HORMONES RELIEF IS ON THE WAY

REALIGN THE WAY YOU LIVE

CHANGING THE WAY PEOPLE ARE HELPED

A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE CAPITOL

THE WAY I SEE IT

THE WAY OF PURITY

CHANGING THE WAY THE WORLD PLAYS

CHANGING THE WAY THE WORLD WORKS

LOVE THE WAY YOU LIVE!

LIGHT THE WAY

CHANGING THE WORLD BY CHANGING THE WAY WE SEE THE WORLD

CHANGING THE WAY THE WORLD DOES BUSINESS

CHANGING THE WAY THE WORLD WALKS...ONE FOOT AT A TIME

LEADING THE WAY

CAREADVANTAGE TOGETHER...EVERY STEP OF THE WAY.

ORAL HEALTH AMERICA LEADING THE WAY TO A HEALTHY FUTURE

BETAPLUS LEADING THE WAY IN MS THERAPY SUPPORT

THE WAY OF STORY

THE WAY CME SHOULD BE

THE WAY INTERNATIONAL

THE WAY PEOPLE LEARN

THE WAY OF EASE

LEADING THE WAY

THE WAY OF THE PRACTICAL MYSTIC

PROJECT LEAD THE WAY

THE WAY INTERNATIONAL NEW KNOXVILLE, OHIO THE PREVAILING WORD

THE WAY CORPS

DISCIPLES OF THE WAY OUTREACH PROGRAM

THE WAY OF ABUNDANCE AND POWER

THE WAY THE WORLD LEARNS TO DIVE

THE WAY CORPS IT IS WRITTEN APOSTLES PROPHETS EVANGELISTS PASTORS TEACHERS

THE WAY

Looks like they've got a long ways to go before they have eliminated all competition.

(On edit, I got rid of a table that didn't format properly. This BBS software doesn't like tables, does it?)

And to think that there are people who argue _against_ the death penalty.

But seriously Mark, I know that (well I think anyway) that you come out against the death penalty, and I respect your reasons for it, really I do.

But as far as I'm concerned, ... crank up Sparky for all of the punks. All of them!

It is not that I'm necessarily against the death penalty, rather I think it needs to be applied more as a risk mitigation than as retribution. Face it, no matter what happens to the perps, the murder victims aren't coming back. So can we make sure that these punks can't commit more crime in the future?

And if we are to use the death penalty as retribution, it needs to be done a whole lot faster than what happens these days. And if we are to use the death penalty as a deterrent, it needs to be applied far more widely than it is.

And what happens if the judgment is wrong? (As has happened in not a few cases where DNA evidence has cleared people who were behind bars for decades)

That's why I think it should be done on a risk management basis. Can the State assure that this person never be in the position to harm others in the future? Not just from the possibility of release or escape...but could the perp direct others from behind bars or, for that matter, continue to do what he is doing to other prisoners or staff (regardless of the means used to protect others from the perp)?

Of course, cases like these make it very difficult for me to advocate for Christian mercy, in all honesty.

More importantly, though, I think we, as a society, need to take a good, honest, hard look at ourselves. When you have more than 1% of the population of the country behind bars and horrific crimes such as these happening more often than any of us would like to admit, I have got to wonder what is going on now that wasn't going on 40 years ago. I really have to wonder if Charles Manson did what he did now, rather than 40 years ago, would that have even made the national news?

FWIW

Google Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome. Ask why this horrible, unthinkable crime never made headlines.......

Or this one: Slain pastor was discovered nude in a 'crucifix position' at Anadarko (Oklahoma) church

But (IMHO) neither the Christian/Newsome case nor this one beat the first one in the thread. Again, IMHO / YMMV

crap

That one took the wind out of my sails....Its hard to know whats going through anyones head when something like that happens---Drugs? Crack? Cocaine? a combination of incredibly dysfunctional lives, mob mentality and totally fried brains? I dont know--I just dont know---its way beyond me--and probably the subject of someones masters thesis in criminal thought.

Its sick, Im much too stunned to give a cogent answer on the punishment phase. My initial reaction was to skin them alive or toss them over Niagara Falls but that was as I said an initial reaction...I'd have to settle down and think about it for awhile before I could give a serious answer

Didn't want to make you lose your lunch.

But one thing to consider is that this crime, although fairly unique in its scale, is not at all unique in its type. That's why I ask about the societal issue with this.

...that I have heard about, for at least many, many years.

<blink>Caution: the following crime is not suitable for reading by young children nor by those with weak stomachs. </blink>

If you fit either description, I suggest you hit the "back" button before continuing (and, yes, I have left the more graphic portions to the news articles and didn't put them here)

A 35 year old woman and her 16 year old son were attacked by a gang of 10 teenagers. She was repeatedly raped and sodomized by the gang. She was then forced to perform sexual acts on her own son. She was then doused in nail polish remover and the criminals were asking if any of them had a lighter. Accounts of the crimes are here and here. A 16 year old defendant pleaded guilty and testified against others. A 20 year old was just convicted of the crime and a jury is deliberating in the case of an 18 year old defendant, while the trial of a 17 year old has yet to occur. See here for reports of the conviction.

I don't know about any of the other defendants.

Apparently, the 20 year old received two life sentences.

Does the punishment fit the crime? What do you think would be going through these kids' heads to get a group of 10 of them to do something like that?

MOG Privileges

Back in the day, when eyebrows were raised about VPW's material excesses (ie: hot motorcycles, classic cars, jets, vacation property, expensive hunting and fishing gear, etc.), people were prone to rationalize it by saying VP was under great pressure because of the "greatness of his mission" and he needed these things to relax so he could continue to stay receptive to "revelation". There's even a section in one of the classes that talks about how important it is for a MOG to find ways to relax. So, how far do such privileges extend? Do they extend to the MOG's family members? How about his cronies? How would their use of these things heighten any supposed ability of the MOG to "move The Word" ? Let me take a wild guess. It must have "relaxed" him to know he could use ABS to provide his kids and buddies with hot cars, and such, to use.------------- Sounds like plain old fashioned exploitation and opportunism to me.

I'm just sayin'

Consider this: many religious denominations accept donations of material items from their membership. If you go into old churches, of any particular denomination, you likely will see that most of the stained glass windows were donations from people, as are other works of art. Many times, autos are donated by followers who own car dealerships. In other cases, retreat houses, camps, and other properties are donated by members of the church.

In most cases, the ownership of the property does not fall to the MOG in question, but remains with the church group. When it is used by the MOG of the group, it is being used exactly as it was intended to be used at the time of the donation.

Where I have a problem with it is when donations are solicited for one purpose and then are diverted for another use. For example, if you look at PTL and the luxury that Jim and Tammy Faye had, most of the donations were solicited based on a stated goal of evangelisation, not with the goal of building a palace for Jim and Tammy Faye.

I think that is the biggest issue: not the properties themselves, but the fact that the funds solicited and used were solicited not to provide those properties but to "move the word."

I post the above because I feel that the properties (motorcycle, motorhome, clothes, houses, etc.) were not the fault, but rather the deception used in gathering the funds for the properties.

One important question, though, how many meals did the Vicster actually pay for? Vice how many meals were paid for by his "hosts?" How many bottles of Drambuie?

The Way International Seeks to Ban Bible by Suing Jewish Group

I hope they have enough money and chutzpah to put TWI in it's place.

This version is published by a group called, the Institute for Scripture Research. They state they are from South Africa and were founded in 1992.

People who have been identified as directors are:

Lew White

Dr. C. J. Koster

Don't know if either name is familiar to anybody.

Graphs. . . charts. . . JP2???

The graph literally took less than 5 minutes to create:

• Download the data: 1 minute (I already knew where it was)(+ a 30/10 FIOS connection is sometimes useful)
• Create the chart: 30 seconds (Excel is a beautiful thing)
• Screenshot and cropping: 30 seconds (Irfranview is a beautiful thing)
• Upload to Photobucket: 1 minute
• Insert into the post: 30 seconds

(it took longer to write the above than it did to make the chart)

As to the JPII and PioXI quotes, I knew exactly where they were, as well.

I have studied the subject for several years. The reason why is that I wanted to make sure that my conscience was properly formed regarding this area, as it is so vital to one's Christian walk.

The reason I say you take a narrow biblical perspective is because you take one thing Jesus directed we as Christians to do. . . . and extrapolate or to be blunt. . . justify. . . an entire political agenda. You magnify one portion of scripture and interpret it to mean something it doesn't. It doesn't make any sense to me. Why are you saying that it is a grave evil for the government to offer social assistance programs? Because that is not the way Jesus commanded Christians to treat the poor?

What does one have to do with the other?

I, frankly, would have mentioned those documents earlier on, but I've learned that it is generally more productive to restrict myself to Biblical quotes when arguing with non-Catholics.

The last time I checked we had a secular gov't . . . a Muslim rep. . . atheists. . . gays. . . a Jewish Senator. . . we are not a theocracy. Not a Christian nation.

Why then do you call what they do as our reps. . . collectively. . . evil and not just evil but, grave evil? Are they lining people up and shooting them in the streets? Are they ignoring the poor by offering no assistance? No, those who represent we the people in gov't are doing what we as Christians are told to do. It is still the same principle.

Romans 2:14&15 They show the work of the law without having the law. . . but it is written on their hearts. It is an innate knowledge of God. . . people value and practice the most basic of tenets. . . compassion and goodness towards others. This reflects what is written on their hearts. Christian's don't have a monopoly on good.

Just because we live in a country that has non-Christians and does not have a State religion, does not mean that I should stop arguing for Christian virtues to be advocated in the laws and policies of this State. Murder and theft are both considered sinful acts by Christians. Does that mean that we should tolerate them in a "secular" society? Of course not. Should we tolerate the sacrifice of virgins because we are "secular" and have a diversity of religious beliefs? Never. There is something that is called the "natural" law (which you quote a passage referencing). ALL people of good will should be able to recognize those things. Respect for life and respect for private property are two elements of this.

There are four cardinal virtues: prudence, temperance, justice, and fortitude. Those are widely taught in moral theology courses (whether they are identified as "cardinal virtues" or are just spoken of). Those cardinal virtues are simply thrown away because one is not a Christian or that we do not live in a "Christian Society": they should be advocated all the stronger for those reasons. (And, btw, they predate Christ -- they come from Plato, of all sources)

You mentioned the fact that we had a Muslim in Congress. Well, if I was in Congress and wanted to set up a system of private charity to supersede the current government system, one of the FIRST people I would go to is Keith Ellison. Why? Precisely because he IS a Muslim. Islam has a tremendous system of charity. And, frankly, if I knew of any orthodox Jews in the House, I would likewise try to work with them on the subject, too. Again, based upon their traditions.

One other little point: I call the practice gravely evil. I call the practitioners and advocates for the practice mistaken or, perhaps, fooled. The only way, in relation to this practice, that I would call a person evil, would be if the person full well knew the slavery to which its "beneficiaries" are ensnared and the person still advocates it -- particularly if the person advocates it for that reason.

It doesn't usurp your responsibility. . . or mine. . . . it doesn't take the burden off from us as Christians to help those who need it. Jesus still commands us. . . in fact. . . He commands us to love our enemy and to give to them as well.

Now, if you were to say. . . I don't have to give. . . I pay taxes. . . as a Christian THAT would be wrong. Jesus commanded us to do both. It is surely not an either or proposition.

You're right and I am not saying that.

If you got the impression that I was saying that, I apologize for not making myself clearer.

What it does is that it reduces the amount of resources that I have available to give. (If I didn't pay as much tax as I do, then I would have significantly more available to give)

In addition, the government doesn't really encourage charitable giving as much as they could. Let me give you an example:

- Let us say that a doctor wanted to treat some patients on a charitable basis. The doctor cannot do this as a charitable contribution, for two reasons: first, he cannot consider the value of the time he spends doing the charitable work as a deduction. Second, he cannot consider his time, his staff's salaries, or the materials he expends as a deduction, because you can't deduct a contribution to an individual. (Source: IRS Pub 526)

- The same applies to hospitals, labs, pharmacies, and so on.

- The above is not to say that doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, labs, and so on, do not treat patients for free? Absolutely not. I know enough to know that they do, but the way they have to handle it is as a write-off from their profit, not as a charitable donation. (And, of course, there are charitable medical organizations set up to do so and to which contributions are deductible)

Can you picture what a change it would be if primary care physicians, pharmacies, labs, and so on were allowed to provide a portion of their services available and consider the expenses to be charitable deductions?

You say it creates a culture of entitlement. . . that is quite a judgment to make on an entire group of people. . . do you know everyone on assistance? Their circumstances?

To my ears. . . when I hear that. . . it just sounds like rhetoric.

You are apparently drinking too much of the liberal bathwater here (speaking of rhetoric).

A "culture of entitlement" means that somebody owes you something -- and this becomes totally ingrained in our society.

This refers to people like the widows of 9/11 bankers who had their nice houses in Westchester County, large life insurance policies, but yet who felt as if they were entitled to large payments from the government in compensation.

This refers to military retirees, rated at 100% disability, who have nice GS-13 or GS-14 jobs ($75K - $105K per year) in the government (through preferential hiring) and collect a tax-free VA disability pension. (No problems so far) Who then lobby for collecting a taxable DOD pension on top of their tax-free VA pension. (That's where the problem comes in) (and, btw, I am a military retiree who was encouraged to submit disability paperwork but who didn't do so because it's not right)

This refers to people who build expensive houses on hurricane prone beaches or mudslide-prone cliffs, who, after the houses are repeatedly destroyed from hurricanes or brush fire induced mudslides, rebuild in the same spot, knowing that the government will continue to finance the reconstruction through disaster funds.

This refers to major wall street banks or major auto companies driving their businesses into the ground and then demanding government assistance to bail them out.

A "culture of entitlement" does not simply refer to the needy. It infects all of us.

We as a society caring for our needy is not a sin. . . where do all good gifts come from? The earth is the Lords and the fullness thereof. . . who does it all belong to?

We, as a society, absolutely have an obgligation to care for the needy. You and I agree on this much.

By not understanding that it all belongs to Him and He sets up the authorities and uses what He will. . . .

Do you know who is actually not giving God the glory here?

You.

And you accuse me of being judgmental? My oh my. Time to pull the plank from your eye, dear.

God's provision can come from anywhere He pleases. He rained food down from heaven. . . When it is provided, we give Him the glory. . . by calling His provision evil. . . you are missing the mark.

But, you are right. . . it isn't working so we as a nation need to be doing more.

Albert Einstein is often attributed as saying, The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Money is not the issue. Changing the overall paradigm needs to be the issue.

Let me use schools as a subset of this. We spend an inordinate amount of money on schools. In DC, the amount spent is around $15,000 per student per year.

Parochial schools in DC spend, on average, less than $6,000 per student (this is subsidized through contributions of people like me so that there are lots of scholarships out there). The parochial schools uniformly turn out far more qualified students than public schools.

Why? Because their paradigm is different.

- Parochial school teachers are there, not for the money, but because they want to teach kids. (They make on average about 2/3 of what they would make in a public school setting)

- Parents are more involved, because they have a sense of community membership and obligation (all of them had to make at least some kind of contribution, even if the contribution was doing maintenance work on the school at night)

- Parents and students recognize that being in a parochial school is a revokable privilege, not a right -- and so the learning environment is far more productive

- One thing, it's not because of some strong Catholic identity (although the Church is deeply involved in schools) -- on average, only about 1/3 of the students within a DC parochial school are Catholic

The point being not that all schools should be Catholic parochial schools. But the paradigms illustrated above (teachers having a sense of mission, strong parental involvement, and a lack of feeling of entitlement replaced by a feeling of obgliation) is what's needed...not simply more money flushed down the toilet.

And. . . I am not trying to convince you of anything. . . . I just think it is an indefensible position to have. . . . along with giving people a hole wide enough for a truck to drive through and speak ill of God.

But, I appreciate your time. Take Care.

You're right, you likely won't convince me of anything. And I won't convince you of anything. But there are always the lurkers who might be convinced one way or the other.

wouldn't the "poverty population" remain somewhat constant due to immigration?

One might think so, but in the Excel sheet from the Census that I linked to above, it shows the poverty rate for Hispanic families being pretty much constant, as well, even though the number of total families (both below and above poverty) rose dramatically. (And that is something that the utterly closed borders types should consider in their rhetoric)

Mark,

That wasn't the interpretation in post 13 at all. . . . it is you who have actually extrapolated that definition. Here is what I said. . .

I am not a socialist nor do I advocate a socialist state. God wants us to depend on Him and Him alone. . . . okay. . . at the end of your work week. . . tell your employer God has you covered and say no thanks to your pay check.

Who are we to tell God how He will provide for those in need?

Everyone must submit to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist are instituted by God. ² So then, the one who resists the authority is opposing God's command, and those who oppose it will bring judgment on themselves. ³ For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do good and you will have its approval. ⁴ For government is God's servant to you for good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, because it does not carry the sword for no reason. For government is God's servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong. ⁵ Therefore, you must submit, not only because of wrath, but also because of your conscience. ⁶⁷ Pay your obligations ⁽to everyone: taxes to those you owe taxes, tolls to those you owe tolls, respect to those you owe respect, and honor to those you owe honor.

Government does not take the place of God. . . but God uses governments. . . for His purposes. In our society. . . which is governed. . . we have social welfare programs in place to help care for the needy. Thank God.

I think you are arguing a point that was never made.

We have a secular gov't which embraces the care and concern for it's citizens. . . . you call this a grave evil because it is the STATE doing this and God wants us to depend on Him.. . . . my point is. . . all good gifts come from God. It IS God who gives the bounty of food on the table. . . . whether it comes from the food stamp program or your paycheck. . . . one way or another. . . the food, clothing, and shelter we have ALWAYS comes from God. . . NO MATTER how it is paid for . . . . . a gov't voucher or a paycheck.

God sets up government for His purpose. . . . to wield the sword. . . . keep the peace. . .not even a tyranny will allow lawlessness. You want to protest the use of gov't money collected in taxes for the use of social programs. . . . SOCIAL PROGRAMS. . . I think your outrage and use of hyperbole such a grave evil is sadly misplaced.

Is it any LESS God's blessing because it doesn't come from the source YOU believe it should? I pointed out to you that God has even used bad men for His purposes. . . He can use what He wants and when hungry people eat. . . it is a blessing from GOD.

I never said Christians should not resist gov't. . . . read Acts chapter 5. . . . it is better to obey God rather than men. . . . and it is also right to have regard for good things in the sight of all men.

Well, thank you very much for clarifying that point. Now we can move beyond that and deal with the real subject.

Yes, I do believe that the government, particularly the national level government, providing social assistance, particularly long-term social assistance, is a grave evil.

Sorry that you feel that it is a narrow, Biblical view (I guess that is supposed to be a bad thing). And, with reference to somebody in the peanut gallery, it grieves me that my views make Evangelicals, in general, look bad :blink: .

It might be of some comfort to let you know that I am not the only one who holds those views. Let me give you a couple of examples:

And then another one:

The two passages above illustrate that my views might not be quite so narrow and "Biblical" as you might consider on first blush. Or at least that there are other narrow-minded people out there who believe as I do.

We have had a fairly significant amount of "social assistance" payments go out since LBJ declared "war" on poverty. You can see that we are spending somewhere in the neighborhood of three quarters of a trillion dollars a year on it. But yet it is utterly ineffective.

The above chart, based on <a href="http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov4.xls">census numbers, show that since 1966 the relative level of poverty is the same in 2007 as they were in 1966. The blue line represents the poverty rate reported by the Census Bureau. The black line is a "trend line."

After spending trillions of dollars on poverty, you'd think that the number would shrink. Think about this a second: In 2007, $724 billion was spent on "human resource" programs (I exclude both Medicare and Social Security, as well as veterans health). There were 7,623,000 families identified as living below the poverty line. You could give each one of those families $94,987 for the amount of money spent on those programs. And this is not just this one time: it has been along that order every year for at least the past 10 years. Don't believe me? Look it up yourself. I gave you the links to the documents.

Bottom line: In addition to being morally wrong, this federal government sponsored "social assistance" paradigm simply doesn't work.

We wonder why evangelicals get such a bad name? Could it be because they call things like food stamps for a mother with kids grave evil. It doesn't make God look so nice either. I wonder if Jesus made sure everyone had a job when he fed the 5000.

Just to let you know, since I'm the one arguing against it (and used the term "grave evil"), I'm not an Evangelical.

As to Jesus feeding the 5,000, I never realized Jesus was a representative of the civil government.

Wow Garth. . . coming from you that means something to me. . . .

Mark,

We live in a secular society not a theocracy.

If you are being prevented from speaking the gospel. . . obey God rather than men as the Apostles did in Acts 5. Here in this country you are afforded the right to choose your own religion or faith. You can preach the gospel without fear of incarceration. These protections are written into our Constitution. . . a big deal.

You live in a society that embraces the ideal of bearing one another's burdens. A secular society which seeks to care for it's poor.

Kiss the ground you walk on Mark. The authority or rule you live under is put in place by God. He determines the bounds of our habitation. . . . everyone. You get 60-70 years here. It is not your eternal dwelling place. . . . we obey so God is not spoken ill of. . . we don't give people an opening.

In TWI we had a real knack for twisting things so that evil became good and good was evil. We had a narrow scriptural view and were convinced we knew what was right. . . when in truth, and I think you might agree we embraced bad things.

Compassion for the poor is a good and Godly thing. . . . how often did Jesus remind us of the poor? Yet, when we as a society use a portion of tax money . . . .collected by law . . . . to help the less fortunate, to reach out a helping and. . . . it becomes an ungodly thing? No it doesn't.

Well, you could tell me that it doesn't really help. . . some hyperbole about human dignity. What good is dignity when one can't feed their family?

Reach down and grab your bootstraps. . . pull as hard as you can. . . you will never lift yourself that way. But, if you are down and someone reaches down with a hand. . . . you may get up. . . . . if you are really heavily burdened it may take two. . . . sometimes we have to carry people until they can stand. . . . some may never stand. . . do we as a society step over them?

There are places where the poor sleep in the streets.

It is not just the Christian who has compassion. . . we are all made in His image. . . . those who confess no faith can be fine moral and kind people. . . . who KNOW the difference between right and wrong. . .

To add: We were posting at the same time. . . . protesting is not illegal is it?

Geisha,

The reason I am so blasted opposed to government assistance programs is not out of a desire to not feed the poor, it is because the programs damage our society as a whole. They tend to create a culture of entitlement rather than a culture of obligation. It's that simple.

I think we both agree that individuals have obligations to the poor. I think our point of disagreement is whether individuals can fulfill those obligations through government action or whether those obligations must be fulfilled directly by that individual. I have cited Biblical examples of where individuals have obligation but have asserted that there is no basis in either the Bible or in the tradition of the early church showing that this should be translated to the government. If you can show me, out of either Scripture or out of the tradition of the early church to show me where I'm wrong, I'll be happy to review that.

Your example from Romans 13 shows that I am obliged to pay my taxes and be a good citizen. But it does not put an obligation on the government to care for the poor. Therefore, the obligation still resides with the people.

You may think that I have a very narrow, Biblical view. I know a lot of Calvinists who would gravely disagree with you. But I'll accept your slam on me. After all, Christ and His message should change society...society should not attempt to change Christ and His message.

You have a good point about us not living in a theocracy. We don't and I'm thankful for that, because my particular brand of Christianity has been suppressed by the majority in this country in the past and would surely be again in the modern day if it was allowed. Despite the fact that we do not live in a theocracy, I am still obliged to follow my moral conscience, which is formed through my religious beliefs. The difference is that I have to respect the rights of others to disagree with my specific religious beliefs. It does not mean that I have to not follow my conscience, properly formed, in discourse.

As to the country being blessed, we will likely have to disagree on this. I believe that the country is blessed by God only to the degree that the society and its members live godly lives. That does not mean a theocracy, that means walking upright in our day to day lives.

Mark,

After reading your latest post, the one with all the pictures, I couldn't help but think "Wow! Talk about your loaded statements!"

You might think so on the surface, but that would not be looking at it in the context of Rom 13:1-7, which is the verse originally cited back in post #13 of this thread.

The assertion is that all government, no matter how evil, no matter how cruel, no matter what, is of God and that Christians have a duty to not resist the government, again, no matter what the policies they put in place. and that we simply have a duty to pay our taxes, and give the government respect and honor. In other words to shut up and let Øbama do whatever the heck he wants to do. And if we don't do so, we are wrong and God is going to get us in the end.

I challenge that interpretation and instead assert that, while we have an obligation to be good citizens, that obligation does not extend to subordinating our moral consciences to support policies that are morally objectionable. And, in fact, I would assert that we have a moral obligation to oppose policies that are morally objectionable.

While others have tried to limit the application of this Romans 13:1-7 passage to an attempt to cow opponents, like myself, to support government-imposed socialism, I assert that if this passage is applicable in this case, it must also equally be applied to other opposition movements. Thus, the pictures.

And yes, of course, I picked out famous pictures of movements that would likely be approved of by liberals. Why? Because I know of only a very few people who would oppose movements like civil rights, women's suffrage, etc., if Romans 13:1-7 is a moral constraint on my right to protest socialized medicine then those movements were equally in violation of Romans 13:1-7. And since I would doubt that most would say that those movements were sinful for the virtue of them being anti-government policy movements (w/o regard for what they stood for), then it goes to show that Romans 13:1-7 should not be applied here either, because Romans 13:1-7 does not give a context of any policy imposed by a government.

But this little jewel you said kinda stood out to me:

I have opposed the government usurping a task assigned to individuals. There is a difference.

I'm sorry, but since when did _any_ of the 'gravely evil' (?) government social programs 'usurp', ie., take away, prohibit your ability, right, and obligation to help the poor, speak out on their behalf, and do all those other charitable activities? Like it's an either/or situation?

Government participation doesn't 'usurp' your participation in the least! ... At all.

Usurp: 1 a : to seize and hold (as office, place, or powers) in possession by force or without right <usurp a throne> b : to take or make use of without right <usurped the rights to her life story>

2 : to take the place of by or as if by force : supplant <must not let stock responses based on inherited prejudice usurp careful judgment>

First of all, I am not limiting the statement, I have opposed the government usurping a task assigned to individuals., to "social" issues. It was about government powers in general.

Secondly, government usurps powers reserved to the states or to the people all the time in multiple areas. The most egregious examples are through regulatory activities. A couple of examples: I have had to, through my time in the military, learn to do industrial electrical wiring. (One of the jobs I had was to travel around and install communications sites in "exotic" parts of the world) I am amply qualified to install electrical circuits in my home. However, I am constrained from doing so by government regulation. (Since my job currently does not involve this, I felt no obligation to go out and get my "master electician" license). Frankly, in most cases, that would be a regulation that makes sense: most people would be clueless and, thus, dangerous, poking around an electrical panel. But the government regulation covers it all. Another example are some new regulations that will be coming out in the next year that will make construction of low income housing (such as habitat-type homes) far more costly, as they will have to comply with some far more stringent energy efficiency regulations. As costs increase, it will become more challenging and more expensive to build. One other such regulatory concern is the return of FCC regulation on political broadcasting (link is to a broadcast law blog, not a r-w extremist blog)

Third, government programs and government handouts (whether they be to low income people or to Goldmann Sachs) cost money. That money is either raised through taxes, through increased national debt, or through monetization. In the case of taxes, that removes available capital that can be used for private charitable concerns. In the case of increased debt, that furthers extended taxes or inspires monetization. And monetization reduces the buying power of capital that hasn't been taken by taxes, thus reducing the effectiveness of money that is contributed.

Fourth, and most importantly, peoples' attitudes change. They expect government to act. What is the government going to do about this, that, or the other. This is not to say that when there is some disaster that we Americans do not open up our hearts and wallets. But on a day-to-day basis, we expect the government to do something. Interestingly, when one advocates direct action as opposed to government programs, the person is assailed as trying to take food out of the mouths of children.

take away, prohibit your ability, right, and obligation to help the poor, It doeesn't prohibit it, but it removes a significant capability to do so, for the reasons outlined above.

speak out on their behalf Not yet, it doesn't. However, it does impact it on a more macro basis: my message is not received well by most "social justice types", who largely advocate for more government involvement. I know in my church, we deal with constant appeals for money, are called on to lobby politicians to increase government spending, and so on, but the calls to directly participate in social work are very, very muted: limited largely to youth group activities or Knights of Columbus activities. Which is the opposite of what I believe should be.

Like it's an either/or situation? It isn't, Garth, a totally either/or situation. Otherwise, I would be sitting back fat, dumb, and happy while the government takes care of my obligations.

Mark,

Since your post is so long I didn't want to copy and paste. . . . God's providence does not exempt you from civil obedience. . . nor from paying your taxes or from obeying the laws of the land.

We are to be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves. . . . what you think you understand about grave evil may in fact be wrong. You may have taken a political agenda and mingled it with a narrow biblical perspective and come up with a uniquely American Christian phenomenon. . . . truth, justice and the fear of social values.

If you break it down. . . what is your complaint? That your taxes are being used for the health and welfare of others? And that this somehow goes against what is right in the sight of God?

Because you believe God didn't say that is how to see to the care of others? Because it is the State using your money to help feed, clothe, and house those less fortunate? Widows, orphaned children, those disabled and not able to care for themselves? Or is it just unwed mothers that bother you? People with addiction issues?

Take another look at what it is you are opposing. The help, care, and concern for those less fortunate. You are justifying this as evil. Why? Because you are taxed? In a society where you live and enjoy the benefits afforded? Because it is the State offering these helpful programs.

Food on the table of a hungry family is God's bounty whether it comes from food stamps or a pay check. As long as it is received with thankfulness does it make it ANY less a blessing???

A hungry kid get's a school lunch on your dime. . . My goodness. . . the grave evil just sucks the air from the room.

Jesus said. . . pay your taxes. . . the society in which you live says. . . part of this money is going to help the poor. . . this reflects our values as a society. . . . not some conspiracy against God. Take another look at what you think is grave evil. Not a chance it is close.

Paul tells us to obey the laws of the land. . . pay your taxes. . . and Mark says. . . I have to, but I will speak out against such grave evil. . . . what evil. . . that part of your taxes are used for the good of others??? Yeah. . . okay?

Yes, I feel it is a grave evil for government to take a function that should be carried out by each and every individual. What part of that do you not understand?

You say, Take another look at what it is you are opposing. The help, care, and concern for those less fortunate.

That is a dishonest, deceitful, and loaded statement. I never once have said, nor have I implied. I have opposed the government usurping a task assigned to individuals. There is a difference.

But let us try to understand here the hard lesson you are trying to teach: are you saying that it is sinful an evil to oppose the government or that it is sinful and wrong to oppose the government on matters where Geisha779 and GarthP2000 agree with the government?

This gentleman is acting sinfully, in your mind. He is opposed to Health Care Reform. If he doesn't repent, he will go to h3ll.

These people are acting sinfully, because they oppose government policy, right?

This woman is sinful, because she refused to accept a sham re-election of Ahmadinejad in Iran.

In this case, the people with the pro-"choice" signs are acting in accordance with the Scriptures, because they are supporting government policy, but those with the pro-"life" signs are evil, because they are not giving respect where respect is due (Rom 13:7).

These Iraq War protesters and these Vietnam War protesters are horribly sinful, because they dare to oppose the "ministers of God" (Rom 13:6)

"Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." (Rom 13:2) -- these folks should have simply gone back to their segregated schools, segregated neighborhoods, and gotten back in the back of the bus and gone home and pay their taxes and shut up.

And, of course, these people are already in H3ll. They committed the ultimate sin: they opposed their government and started a revolution, over, of all things, taxes.

--------------

Geisha, let us separate the arguments. There is a legitimate discussion as to whether or not it is a government function to provide social services to the less fortunate, there is a separate function as to the government's function to take over the healthcare industry, and then there is a discussion whether one may morally dissent from the government in any case.

You, Geisha, are too new around here for me to know your position on the Iraq War based upon your posting history. Garth and I have had many discussions on the subject and so we know each other's position on the matter. So I don't know whether you would say that Iraq War protesters were morally wrong in protesting that effort. Based upon Garth's posting history, I would surmise that he would have a really hard time saying that Iraq War protesters (or Vietnam War protesters, for that matter) were acting in a morally illicit fashion (of course, some did, I am talking about peaceful protesters, not those who used violence).

I would imagine, though, that you would support the aims of the civil rights protesters of the 60s and the women's suffrage movement of the early 20th century. (If I'm wrong in my assumption, please let me know). But these people, whose pictures I've linked, were protesting in opposition to established government policies and the authorities who enacted and enforced those policies. Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.(Rom 13:1-2). Were these people, the civil rights protesters and women's suffrage protesters, acting in morally illicit fashion? Will they (or have they) incured the judgment of God?

So before dealing with the moral licitness of the government performing certain functions, let us deal with whether a person can legitimately oppose the government or rebel against the government in any case.

Is it always wrong or is it only wrong when one disagrees with Geisha?

(And, by the way, what kind of veil do you use when you pray? (1 Cor 11:5) And, of course, I don't need to ask if you keep silent in the church (1 Cor 14:34) -- of course you do)

Mark,

Uhh, ... liberal leaning churches? ... You mean to tell me you don't see conservative churches doing the same thing? .... you know, Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson? Focus on the Family? Ted Haggard, who even had a direct line to the White House under Dubya? All the fundamentalist churches who either downplay separation of church and state, if not outright opposing it (all because they decry the 'loss of God' in the public square). ... Where do you get your news from?

Most of the conservative church groups try to influence public policy...but they, for the most part (to my knowledge) stay off the public teat. For example, Christendom College (probably the most conservative Catholic college in the country) refuses to accept any government assistance (they do not even accept federal tuition assistance for their students). Hillsdale is the same way. I understand that there are a number of Baptist primary and secondary schools that completely refuse any student assistance (such as textbook programs and school lunch programs) from the government, as well (I'm not a Baptist so I can't cite examples).

I don't have a problem with religious groups from either side of the aisle attempting to influence public policy. They have a legitimate voice and a legitimate perspective. So do environmental groups, business groups, "community organizers," etc. I do have a problem if one group and one group only has the ear of a president, regardless of whether it is a religious group or a non-religious group.

(And if you try to cite Bush, let me tell you, several of my evangelical friends feel, in retrospect that he played them like a fiddle)

First off, it isn't the _individual_ exp​ression of religion by individuals in the public square that many of us SOCAS supportes are against. It is using the 'public square' ie., the government facilities to propagate, evangelize, and otherwise propound religion that we are non-apologetically against.

I agree, to a certain extent. While I agree that a government employee should not be using government time to proselytize, nor should the Bible, Koran, or any other text be quoted as the basis of a government policy, I do think there is some legitimate role...without the government officially endorsing a particular religion.

The biggest example I can consider are organizational chaplains, to include paid positions. They provide important services to organizational personnel. Now, in a government that does not endorse a specific religion, obviously, chaplains from multiple faith groups should be on staff in the relative proportion of the religious affiliation of the personnel within that organization and, if there aren't sufficient members of a given religion available to justify a full-time staff position, the organization should make provision to bring in part time chaplains or volunteer chaplains, trained in the nature of the chaplain job (as opposed to traditional clergy). Obviously, special consideration needs to be provided by these chaplains to avoid the appearance of proselytizing, and, yes, some consideration needs to be made for atheist and agnostic organizational personnel to care for their needs.

Now (believe it or not) I have noticed those on the SOCAS side who do/have overreacted (particularly school officials who go kneejerk because they're scared of attorneys), and overreached in that manner. I also recall a particular court case that struck down a school's ban on a voluntary bible meeting by individual Christian students, meeting _after_ school hours on school property. Yes sir, it did. ... But it wasn't and isn't SOCAS supporters as a whole that supports that kind of overreacting behavior.

Ie., if said religious behavior is using government offices/property/equipment/influence/etc. to propagate religion, conservative or liberal, then it is contradicting the 1st Amendment.

And, believe it or not, I agree with you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently you have more-or-less accepted the "They are trying to banish Christianity from this country", townhall-level-of-hype (that really has no basis in reality). If you have any _evidence_ that this type of banishment is occuring (and at the wide spread level please. Isolated occurances doesn't count.), please show me.

P.S., sort of here, yet maybe not so much. (At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist ;) ) As for the term 'public square' (ie., just another term for 'government' when you stop and think about it), the term is a more vague and round about way of saying the more specific term 'government', but its used that way for a reason, I think. To cloud it. Use the term 'government', and people get a kind of hard edged view (almost like Ron ;) ) about government. Ie., "they make laws, they tax us, they can throw you in jail, etc.". But you say the term 'public square', people have a more friendly image of government; a place where people meet and deal with the issues of the day, voice their opinions in the townhall, stuff like that. Things that also occur in government, but 'public square' seems to be more accomodating to people.

We are mixing threads up between this one (that should be discussing the relgious aspects of government / church entanglement with the current administration) and the one down in the 'tacks sewer. So, just to keep it brief, the current issue is that this is obviously a desperate attempt to co-opt liberal religions. Why obvious? Because of the timing of the religious references.

Now if it was stated that "God was being kept from government", not too many people would be up in arms, (except maybe fundamentalist politicians who want to be elected) as more people would think of the part of the 1st Amendment that says "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion", ... but if it was stated that "God was being kept from the public square", a different reaction often occurs. Ie., "OMG, they're trying to ban God from the public square, and eventually drive Him from the country! ... We have to fight this!!", ... you know, garbage like that. <_<

Again, this is basically my observation re: 'public square'. YMMV.

OK.

A yes or no answer doesn't work. . . nor does trying to explain to you about God's sovereignty. . . God is justified in overthrowing anything He wants. . .the rest you figure out.

You gave me the answer.

And, not surprisingly, it was the correct answer: God is justified in overthrowing anything He wants

Now, I would add one thing to that. God can use whatever tools He deigns fit for the task. A lightning bolt, an asteroid, disease, pestilence, or anything else, including people. A survey of the Old Testament would reveal this, as I am utterly confident that you are aware.

An overly strict application of Romans 13 would indicate that people are to stay in a state of oppression when God is calling them to do otherwise. And there are those who love citing that section as a supposedly "biblical" justification. Using that theory, there should have never been a civil rights movement, both for women and for people of color, during the first half of the 20th century. Because, after all, all government comes from God.

Obviously, recognizing the basic human rights of women and minorities (the franchise, speech, movement, assembly, etc.) is the appropriate thing for a government to recognize. But yet, it would have never happened unless there was a push for it. So were the rebels who supported human rights in the wrong? Of course not. God made use of them for His purposes.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled thread.

A few posts ago, you made the assertion, You are not seriously telling me that taxes impede charitable giving are you? Because of net and gross? Well, I guess you are. . . not much I can say to that kind of logic. I think you really miss the heart of the matter.

Well, excuse me, but I certainly can't imagine how.

You will note with the example I gave above,

You will note that I separated consideration of a tithe from charitable giving. And you will note the order. Taxes (which are deducted involuntarily before I ever see my paycheck), then the tithe, then bills, then savings, then charity (above and beyond the tithe).

As with you, I believe that the tithe should be the firstfruits. But, you will notice that charitable giving, as described in Acts 4:34-35 (posted upthread), involves the giving of surplus vice hoarding it. Likewise, the Leviticus examples refer to a surplus, as well (leaving the excess on the vine so that the poor can glean).

Hopefully pointing out the subtle distinction that I made between tithes and charitble giving helped clear up your misunderstanding.

One other statement you made was Persecuted Christians in dangerous countries submit to laws and governments. . . .even to the point of death, but still perfectly obeying God. . .

I would contend that most martyrs who died in the name of Christ did so precisely because they would not submit to the government. For example, most of the martyrs that occurred during the early era during persecutions by Nero, Diacletian, and so on. They would not follow government orders: orders to give worship and adoration to their pagan gods. A more recent example would be St. Thomas More:

And I will list one other example of a martyr for Christ: St. Paul. He stood in opposition to both the Romans and the Jews. Consider this: with a government that had declared his religion illegal, He continued to preach and to encourage others to go against the law. He refused to submit, either to the Sanhedrin or to the Romans, either by shutting up or by compromising and worshiping their gods. So He went to His death.

You mention the example of Christ, Did Jesus perfectly submit to God's will? Did He overthrow the Romans? Isn't that what they were crying for Him to do? Was God's providence and sovereignty what happened?

I would hardly think that Jesus submitted. In fact, He stood His ground. He knew the battle He was fighting and He overthrew principalities and powers because of it. And, yes, I would say that He overthrew the Romans, because He overthrew their pagan gods, resulting in the conversion of the Empire to Him. But He knew His battle. As He said to Peter: Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?

Does this mean that I believe that all rebellion is of God? No.

The cause must be clearly just and the regime to be rebelled against must be clearly operating in an gravely unjust fashion that puts members of the society in grave danger, either temporally or spiritually. Of course, all peaceful means of effecting change must have been exhausted. And there has got to be real opportunity to emerge victoriously (after all, to rebel otherwise would be literal suicide).

But short of that, no person is under the moral obligation to act sinfully. If you are a medical doctor and the government orders you to perform abortions, you have the moral obligation to not do so. If you are a soldier and are ordered to go into a village and kill every man, woman, and child, you must not obey that order. If, in some country, a woman is placed in a state-run brothel, no government can order her to spread her legs voluntarily (and, yes, that does happen to this day in some parts of the world). "Respect for authority" does not extend to excusing personal sin.

And so how does that relate to this current situation? Well, while I am morally obliged to pay my taxes. But I am also morally obliged to speak up about what I consider to be a grave evil.

You know the Right has had the hand of the Christian right in elections for the past couple of decades. Now someone on the Left uses their faith in a positive and honest way to win an election and suddenly they are "God's partner?"

Can you say double standard? In fact that is all I have heard from the right lately, double standards.

I'm sure it is.

Sure would be a lot easier if we all just shut up and sat in a corner, wouldn't it?

But, hey, look, I learn from the victors. For example, I learned this from Hillary:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

Further . I'm keeping track of all the 'green votes' vis-a-vis' the 'red votes' here, and I agree with MarkO (I think it was MarkO). They are a rather stupid ... no, infantile, way of showing approval/disapproval in various posters. For example, I disagree with MarkO a lot, but I _know_ he's someone who speaks honestly and gives us all something to think about, ... yet he's being bombarded with negative 'red votes' as tho' he's the bad boy here. ... Gimme a break.

ok, done with my rant.

P.S., Here MarkO, want some of my 'green votes'?

Garth,

Thanks, but chill out. If somebody doesn't like what I say, then they've got every right in the world to indicate so. However they want (be it via voting or via responding or both).

C'mon, man, I fought in wars to preserve that right.

Mark,

You are not seriously telling me that taxes impede charitable giving are you? Because of net and gross? Well, I guess you are. . . not much I can say to that kind of logic. I think you really miss the heart of the matter.

One thing is not the same as the other and God does not say if your taxes are too high. . . don't give. He says pay your taxes. He says give. And he tell us do to things without whining or grumbling, moaning and complaining. Do you think God actually NEEDS your money?

Money is a great heart indicator. Render unto the government what is theirs and to God what is His. . . doesn't get much simpler than that. . . . Jesus did not say if your taxes are being used this way don't give. . . if it has an effect on the net don't give. If you want to give 10% of your income. . . you know what you earned. . . give it.

________________________________________

As for the examples you cited about countries that overthrow despotic government. . . did you read the verses I gave you? Did you follow my line of reasoning? God is Sovereign over nations and NOTHING happens that He does not allow. God does not carry out His will in spite of man. . . we are ALL subject TO His will. . . . and if He has a purpose for something. . .

Forget it. . . it is not worth more of my time. . . you figure it out.

Let's try this one more time. We'll make it simpler. Just a yes or no answer. Is it ever justified to overthrow a government?

Ahh, nostalgia

Looks like NYC may get nailed and Boston is right down the center of the storm right now.