AssemblyBoard

 In his final post on the Matt 25:40 thread, TomM suggested that folks generally do better at tryin to make the world a better place by working OUTSIDE the political framework, rather than INSIDE.

I'd like to talk about this question in several ways, cause I think it goes to the heart of why there is so little true and meaningful dialog between believing Christians (in the sense that Mark/Marcia/Claude/Tom/summer007 would use the term) and many "secular" Americans.

I think I have some new light to shed on the topic, involving, in particular, how and when and why the notion of a "corporation" was ratified as a legal entity in this country, and how it has led to a  very odd political system.

But if folks feel that discussions of politics and Christianity don't belong at the AB, please post to say so.  If there are no "no, don't go there" posts after a few days, I will pick up the thread then.

Thanks as always for the privilege of being here with y'all.
Dave

In one of his posts, Mark C mentioned that the grace vs works distinction seems to correlate with the division of cultures or societies into Protestant and Catholic - with Protestant cultures based on a work-ethic favoring grace, and Catholic cultures without this work-ethic favoring works.  

This seems contradictory, but it isn't.  I know what Mark C. is referring to - it is kind of a "slimmed-down" version of the point of view advanced by Max Weber in his famous book "The Protestant Ethic and the Rise of Capitalism."  What Weber argued is that the rise of capitalism was supported by the Protestant idea that worldly success was a sign that the successful person was one of the elect pre-destined for salvation.

But the point I want to make here is slightly different.  Somewhere between 1800 and 1830 (I can't remember exactly when), the Supreme Court  of the US ratified the notion of "corporation" as a legal entity, i.e. an entity which had the same legal rights as individual human beings.  This ruling is what permitted corporations to actually do business - to sign contracts. sue and be sued, etc.

The argument I wish to make in this thread is that the US Christians of the time willingly or unwillngly participated in one of the biggest swindles of history when they permitted the Court to pass this ruling.  Because essentially what they did is to create a social entity, a "corporation", with all of the rights of people but none of the responsibilites.

Further, in answer to a post a long time ago by Tom M, I want to argue that the real reason why a political party called "The Christian Left" is needed in the US is to elect legislators who will undo this swindle resulting from the "legalization of corporations", i.e. will work to pass laws that effectively say. "OK, Mr. Corporation, you can HAVE all the rights of real people, but only if you accept the moral responsibilites of real people as well."

To effect this change, it is not enough to work within private voluntary charitable organizations, as Tom M was suggesting in his post.  It can only be done by a political party.

Best regards as always
Dave

Dave,

I see a few problems with your "crusade":

1. You have not made it clear at all why this is a "Christian" position.

2. It seems to me that one should make sure one actually is a Christian before trying to force others to act as you feel one should act.  :-\

3. Your "none of the responsibilities" idea seems to me to be rather uninformed.  Who do you think most of the environmental legislation, social legislation like family leave policies, health insurance requirements, anti-discrimination laws, health and safety regulations, and on and on and on is aimed at???

Corporations, my friend.

4. You are talking about a complete re-organization of the entire world economy.  Good luck with your project.   :)

Thomas Maddux

TomM -

Your reply cuts to the quick of the issues, as usual.

1) it is a Christian position to those who believe in a works interpretation of M25:40 which is NOT  the CONVENIENT interpretation, i.e the one that says that  private voluntary efforts are enough.  A Christian is obliged to make sure that the rulers of a society act in a Christian manner - this was foretold in Isaiah and Jeremiah's "downing" of the post-Solomonic kings for being so drunk that they forgot to institute social structures which take care of the widows and the orphans.  In our society, as in all advanced western societies. the rulers are no longer kings - they are corporations.  Hence, a Christian is obliged to help ensure the morality of corporations, or to replace them with something else.

BTW, Tom - why would J & I bother to have foretold the Coming if the One who came did NOT preach in a way consistent with THEIR very clear interpretation of social justice ??? You don't like it when I take Falwell/Robertson/Reed to task for their hypocrisy, but the question I just asked points to the ESSENCE of their hypocrisy.

2) you are probably as aware as I am that Otto Bismarck instituted social welfare packages in Germany with the BLESSING of Kaiser Wilhelm I.  This was NOT to ensure any sense of morality in the sociopolitical sphere - it was to ensure the loyalty of the people to a central German government, which had only a few years before been formed out of the various pre-Kaiser principalities.

In the same way, all the social legislation that has been passed WAS passed simply to ensure a stable economic environment, not to insist that corporations behave as MORAL ACTORS.  We all know, for example, that FDR did NOT institute the NewDeal out of the goodness of his heart; he did it cause Winnie Churchill and other European leaders realized that unless some excesses of capitalism were fixed, there WOULD be a Red revolution.

With respect, as always
Dave

Dave,  

I'm not sure what a "works interpretation of Matt 25:40" is.  But I am sure that the key to the meaning of any passage is the author's intent.

The application of this text to "social justice" has been popular for many years, at least since the days of the "social gospel".

However, in order to do so they had to divorce the meaning from the text.  This practice is popular in our post-modern era.  A text means whatever you think it means.

However, what that boils down to is that a text means everything and nothing at the same time.

The whole idea is nonsensical.


Simple,

Israel was the covenant people.  They had entered into a covenant to obey God, and the prophets called upon them to be faithful to their covenant.

You seem to believe that all the nations of the world are bound by the Old Covenant.  What this shows is that you have little to no understanding of the OT.

Last time I checked, no other nation has ever made such a covenant with God.

Why did J & I fortell the Coming of Christ?  

"For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."  (2 Pet 1:21)  

That's why.

I would say that you need to demonstrate the factuality of your premises, rather than just repeat a bunch of allegations you have picked up somewhere.

How do you know what Bismark and Roosevelt were thinking?

You are commiting a reductive fallacy here called "nothing buttery".

Thomas Maddux

TomM -

I'm gonna let the antibodies in your system disperse a while before replying - the ones that make you over-react when first presented with an idea you haven't had to think about before.

But I will repost to your reply soon, cause I think it's a valid question - why would God have two prophets with a STRONG sense of social justice be the ones to foretell the COMING most clearly?  

Best regards
Dave

Hi Dave!

  Since you mentioned a previous post of mine I will enter the waters here, but I do so in the fear that they may be over my head  ;).

  In re. to "Catholic cultures and Protestant one's":  I didn't mean to suggest by making such a comparison that a culture experiences saving grace via being subjected to some kind of social engineering.  I was just talking about influence of a whole culture via the particular belief system that most within that nation ascribe to.

  This country was established by those who strongly believed in a kind of Protestant Christianity that believed:

 1.) God created each individual , and with that creation gave him certain unalienable rights.

    They believed it was God, not government that gives folks these rights.  This was a big deparature from European thinking that held rights flowed from the State.

 2.) Those holding power can't be trusted because all are sinners.

   This caused our Founders to create a govt. based on checks and balances.

  Grace must start with an individual life; it can't be communicated via membership in a church, parental belief, indoctrination, being born into a Christian culture, etc.

  The work that grace produces will have a profound influence on society.  The "awakening" in England produced such movements as abolition, child rights, hospitals, etc.  

  This doesn't mean societies/governments are perfect, because they are heavily influenced by Biblical teaching on grace, as even the regenerated struggle with their sinful natures.  Those on this site know only too well how power, even held by religious folks, can corrupt the leader if not held in great humility.

  A perfect World waits the coming of the King and the establishment of His Kingdom here.

  I too have a concern about Corporations and how they function in America.  There was a period in our history where they held too much power (i.e. the Robber Barons), but their power has been reigned in considerably in modern times.

  The problem now is not so much with Corp.'s controlling individual's lives, but with a too powerful government. They do so "for our own good", to the point where personal liberties are subjected to the dictates of the secular state! (many examples come to mind)

  If there was a Constituitional change that I oppose most strongly it would be the Amendment that allowed the Income Tax to be allowed into our lives.  This, and other laws, take away individual rights and make us slaves of the State!

  "Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus!"  God Bless,  Mark C.

Dave,

Over-react???   "Haven't had to think about before"??

You believe that you can read my mind, and know my life experience?

I would be most interested in learning how you attained such abilities.   ::)

Thomas Maddux

     Just about everyone thinks he has "some new light," and in a sense it is true because no two people have exactly the same perspective on any topic.  The question becomes whether or not the new light one has received is indeed "to be shed," or whether the revelation is for one's personal edification.  Inasmuch as the mind of man naturally presumes that it couldn't be any wiser than it is at any given moment, added to the prospect that new information generally brings with it the implied need for change, the decision that the "light" one has seen is meant for others can be an easy one.

     Ah, but where and how to "shed" it?  A few years of rubbing elbows with society asserts to the discerning that people in general are much too preoccupied with establishing the credibility of their own ideas to be actively pursuing, or even passively open to, new thoughts from someone else.  Admitting interest in someone else's concepts can and may imply the deficiency of one's own.

     So, then, what is one to do with one's burning message?  Where is one to go where it may be received?  

     Christians!  Aren't they supposed to be good people:  thoughtful, courteous, open, considerate of the feelings of others (perhaps even gullible)?  Find a group of open-minded Christians, and try out the new ideas on them!  Tell them of your intention to learn from them, and beg them to stop you from doing any harm among them-- that should assure them of your genuineness and put them off their guard against you (even make them feel guilty for doubting the sincerity of your quest for truth).


     The problems start when the nice Christians don't forbid you to speak on a topic, but neither do they lie down and roll over for you.  Rather, they have intelligent answers, which obviously have been considered prior to your "revelations" to them.  You don't quite comprehend their answers (but you must maintain the pretense that you do), while they apparently both understand , and agree upon their positions.  Your logic should dislodge them from their untenable beliefs, but they stand firm in their faith and profession.  Of course, you have promised that you are not out to convert or subvert their thinking.  But do they believe you?  Do you believe yourself?

     How to respond to an even-keeled reply which refutes your ideas?  Better call it a reactionary blast!  Put them on the defensive...

---

---

David,

     Ever since you twisted my last communique to you, I have refrained from posting on your threads, in order to allow you to have your friendlier conversations with those more tolerant than I, and I am praying for the eyes of your understanding to be opened.  I say this latter, not as one who feels or thinks himself superior to you in intellect, but as one has been redeemed by the grace of God from a state of self-delusion not unlike your own.

     Have you considered at all the proposition that it is impossible for you to see spiritual truth and reality because your soul is befouled and polluted with sin which separates you from God and blinds you to His light?  Have you ruminated over the thought that you must be born again or else there is no hope for you to ever understand God or what He wants to do in your life?  Can you honestly say that you want what God wants for your life, no matter what it is, and whether or not it agrees with your preconceptions?  I ask because unless you can make such a claim, and unless you receive the new, spiritual birth that is offered you from God through Jesus Christ, there is no hope for your soul.  You will remain, as you presently are, extremely intelligent, extremely confused and utterly lost.

al

P.S.-- Having known Tom Maddux for well over half of my 62 years, I can assure you that he has not posted anything even remotely resembling an emotional reply on this thread.

Al -

I have no idea what you mean about "twisting your last critique", so please explain if you have a moment.   I thought I answered each and every one of your points exactly as you stated them, e.g. whether I had posted to other boards before, what my motivation was, etc.  So please, help me out here.  If I did twist anything, I can assure you it was inadvertent and something for whch I am nonetheless sorry.  But again, I can't imagine what you mean.

Now, as far as your saying that I'm trying to mislead some "nice gullible Christians", I'm gonna say to you what Gene Hackman's character (the FBI agent) said to the young Klansman in Mississippi Burning:

"Al - don't make the mistake of confusing me for a whole nother person."

Christians are "nice" people ????

Believe me, I don't think of Christians as "nice" people.  Most "Christians" I have met, i.e. those who consider themselves saved, are as viciously condemnatory as Paul when they are pushed.  They are not at all "nice", except when they say after each condemnation, "oh, but we hate the sin, not the sinner"; "we love the SINNER."  This ever-present lame excuse permits them to do what they really want to do, which is to feel the wonderful emotional release that "righteous" hatred and anger always bring, and then to beg off from any responsibility for this departure from the ideals of brotherly love which they have supposedly been taught to espouse.  Kinda "having your cake and eating it too", in my book.

Gullible? I hardly think of "Christians" as gullible when it comes to buying into ideas that are essentially foreign to their belief-systems.

"Christians" ARE gullible when it comes to buying into the nonsense that Falwell/Robertson/Reed put out about voting Democratic being equivalent to bringing-on the AntiChrist, and more recently, the nonsense that the Orthodox Rabbis in Israel put out about Israel's Biblically-guaranteed "right" to Greater Judea and Samaria.

But when you say something really simple, like, "that bum holding out his tin cup might be ChristJesus testing you" - believe me, "Christians" ain't gullible at all.
They remember just where their wallets are and where they're gonna stay.

As far as TomM's post is concerned, I will reply to his post separately.  IMHO, Tom and I have already proved our ability to EVENTUALLY reach rational levels of discourse after a few initial rounds in the sparring ring.  For my part, I don't think he needs any defending by you from me.

Best regards
Dave

   

Tom M must be a "saint" eh??  ;)

Tom M does not post emotional replies.  That's news to me.  I must be mis-reading his posts.  It does not 'bother' me however, if Tom M gets emotional sometimes.  Do you TomM?

Mark C (got to pick on someone) has this 'straight-face' sense of humour, I can't tell if he is serious or joking sometimes. 8)

BTW, a confession Al,  I am very emotional and animated when I speak to people.  Posting on the BB helps me to think before I post and come across as being somewhat level headed.  It is only an illusion.  Ask my husband and kids.

Dave H has already replied to you, and I can see and understand his point of view.

Dave H, you must have met too many Christians like me.  Definitely I can relate to the Christian you portray, especially when I was an assemblyite.  Hoping that will change with time now that I am out.

Lord bless,
Marcia

P.S.  Al, I did not intend to come across as harsh.

When I was "in" there was this tendency to "protect" grown up adults from influences that might take them away from the Lord, in actuality from the assembly.  The saints did not mature in Christ, but rather they got entangled in assembly red-tape.

It is now my opinion that grown up adults should act like grown up adults and be able to know why they believe what they believe.  This BB presents that opportunity.  We will all meet our Dave Halitsky's out there in the real world.  If our 'faith' is so easily shaken when we encounter an opposing viewpoint then we have not truly matured as we ought to.

Lord bless,
Marcia

Dave,

Actually, Christians give a far larger share of their earnings to charity than non-christians, according to all the info I have ever seen.

Regarding the "Christians are gullible" statements above, out of the 25-40 million Evangelicals in the USA, what percentage have you surveyed about this?

Or are you just informing us about your personal prejudices?  ::)

Telling someone that a bum might be Jesus Christ is actually pretty complex.  So complex that I'm not sure I understand it at all.

You see, Jesus Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father.  So he can't be the bum.  But if he is the bum then he isn't the Jesus the new testament talks about, so just who is he, and how do you know that he really wants my nickle?  And, if he isn't the Jesus the New Testament talks about, why should I care what he wants me to do anyway since he is just another bum?

Perhaps you could shed some light upon we the "gullible".


BTW, regarding "things I haven't had to think about before".  You may feel that you are bringing new ideas to the table, but so far I have read nothing in your posts that Walter Raushenbush didn't say 120 years ago.  He was the author of several books about the "social implications of the gospel" that were very popular from about 1880-1920.

The "mainline" denominations bought into his ideas as they became "liberal".  Much of the Leftist agenda of modern America is nothing more than these old ideas.   The modern Democratic party is where these ideas finds a sympathetic hearing...but they seem to have forgotten where they came from.

The problem is that as they deconstructed Jesus to make him the social reformer they wanted...they ended up with a Jesus that had nothing special about him.

But, at least he wasn't a panhandling bum.

Thomas Maddux

     Me defending Tom Maddux?  Thanks, Guys, I needed a good laugh! ;D  In case you missed it, I was just in his face on another thread about his being too sarcastic.  And, no, I didn't say he doesn't get emotional (although, according to scripture, he is a saint! ;))-- what I said was that he hasn't shown an emotional reaction on this thread; my response to David's suggestion that he had.

     But I'll tell you this:  If I was ever in a fix, Tom Maddux would be the man I'd want defending me!

---

     I am constantly amazed at how folks misread one another on this BB.  For example, from Marcia:


     Nope-- mine!  :)

     Or this from Dave H.:


     ...in reference, I presume, to my having posted:


     ...but a communique is not necessarily a "critique."  Well, no great harm done there, but what of:


     Here is the text to which David refers:


     As you can see, nothing was said of posting to other groups, but David had made evident in earlier posts that he had had other Christian contacts prior to contacting us.  His immediate response to my post was:


     You will also find that I did not accuse him of posting to sow dissent.  That part of my post was in reference to personal messaging to which I had become privy.

---

     I am glad for those who are mature enough in faith to recognize the wolves come in among the sheep.  It is those very ones who are not yet mature, many of whom are "wounded pilgrims," for whom I am concerned.  When one comes among us professing to be an honest seeker of truth, but later reveals his true thoughts as being hostile to the people of God:


     ...we are constrained to speak out.

al

Al -

If you have not already done so, please see my response to your last post on the
"without sacrifice" thread before reading this post further.

As I said in that other post, your spiritual life appears to be an equal mixture of two activities: a) self-congratulation for being saved; b) attacks on others not as willing to engage in such self-congratulation before putting in a whole lot more of sweat equity into their spiritual efforts.

This view of Al Hartman as little more than a modern Pharisee, shamelessly self-congratulating himself on every street-corner for the degree of his piety, receives further support from a phrase you used in your last post on this thread:

"but later reveals his true thoughts as being hostile to the people of God"

Please find me one place in any response to me from MarkC, TomM, or Marcia, in which one of them has found it necesary to introduce the notion of themselves as belonging to some "people of God" to which  others do NOT belong.  They seem to do quite well in countering my arguments without such overtly inflammatory remarks.

But as I said in m other post, it is critically important for folks like you to use phrases such as "the people of God" - because their belief system is so intrinsically weak that they have to buttress it with vain and self-congratulatory statements proclaiming their status as one of the "people of God."

Really, Al, have you no shame?  Who do you see when you look in the mirror i nthe morning? One of the "people of God" ?   Boy, what a great way to start out your day - better than Corn Flakes with sliced peaches!  I wish it was that easy for the rest of us who do not have your skill at acquiring vanity and calling it grace.

Dave,

You posted this to Al:

A few comments of my own:

1. To condemn others for being, "viciously condemnatory" while pouring out this kind of vitriol is just a tad hypocritical.

I wouldn't exactly call this kind of thing sweet reasonableness.

2. I suspect that your dislike of Paul is rooted in his condemnation of homosexual behavior.  If this is so, (please inform me of what it is you actually object to if I am mistaken), don't you think it is a little illogical to speak in some of your posts of the "fictitious Paul" and then get mad at him?  You are mad at someone who never existed?

3. This statement is revealing...of how you think.

My, such omnicience!  You know what people really think.  You discern their inner psychological processes and motivations.

Or, you are merely revealing your personal prejucices.

I vote for the second option.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Now, I'm wearing my Global Moderator hat.  

Dave, you are descending to nasty personal attacks on Al.

Please stop.  

If you wish to discuss ideas...have at it.  But lay off the nasty attacks on individuals.

Thomas Maddux

Al et al,

Yup, we all misread posts from time to time.  It is an indication of my humanity, not an indication of malicious intent on my part?

I suppose I am one who is not mature enough in faith since I have not recognized any wolves among the sheep.  The "wounded pilgrims" for whom you are concerned can EM or PM the moderators if they have a problem with any discussion on the BB.

IMHO, though I believe that Al is sincere and has good intentions, it does not necessarily follow that he has correctly evaluated the motives and intent of various ones posting on this BB.  It has been clear from the beginning that Dave H is a skeptic re. Biblical Christianity, so I am not surprised nor amazed when he makes -ve comments about Christians.  In fact I know some ex-assembly agnostics (wounded pilgrims) who are of the same opinion as Dave H.

Personally, I do not have a problem with his queries.  If he is forbidden from posting on this BB then I suppose the discussion could always continue on another.

Lord bless,
Marcia

OK - I really (sincerely!) think this is a well-constructed question that TomM is gonna have to think a LITTLE while about - not too long - but maybe a little longer than he usually has to before he decided the right argument to use.

Here's the deal - the four main people I chat with here (Marcia, TomM, MarkC, and summer007) all have one very important "article of faith" in common.

They all believe that God had a perfect plan for the world going from day 1 of genesis, and that the Crucifixion and Resurrection of his Son was the perfect fulfillment of this perfect plan.

They also all believe that Isaiah (and Jeremiah, I THINK) were two of the major Hebrew prophets thru whom God spoke to foretell the coming of Emanuel.  (By the way Marcia. don't you miss the choir in your old Catholic church singing Emmanuel at Christmas - such a beautiful song - so peaceful but still purposeful.)

So, the question to me is: WOULD God use less than perfect prophets to fulfill a perfect Plan? Wouldn't this be like a master cabinetmaker using chisels from Sears when he had just gotten a set of the best from Germany for his birthday.

OK - Tom - that;s the part I THINK you're gonna have to think about a while.

Cause if God wouldn't think of using imperfect tools to fulfill a perfect plan, then I & J were perfect prophets in His eyes.  And therefore, He wouldn't have let perfect prophets preach nonsense about how the rulers of Israel in their time did NOT take care to take care of the widows and the orphans - IF  He thought that this criticism of the rules WAS nonsense.

From which I PERSONALLY conclude that a "works" or "social gospel" interpretation of Matthew 25:40 IS the correct and perfect interpretation.

And further, that inasmuch as  the CEOs of multinational corporations ARE the real rulers of our world, we are duty bound to take them to task for failing to take care to take care of the widows and orphans, i.e. the "dispossessed" of our society.

Blessed are we in Christ, however he has chosen to enter our hearts.
Dave

Dave,

I am not aware that anyone on this board has said that Isaiah or Ezekiel preached nonsense.   They, as far as I know, faithfully discharged their missions of warning God's people of their unfaithfulness and faithlessness, and called them to return to God by obeying his law.

So, I don't think they were poor quality prophets, I just don't believe that they were talking to modern America, Europe, or anywhere else.

The issue is not the quality of their work, it is the purpose for their commission as prophets.   Your perfect/imperfect idea does not even address the key issue of your "argument".

The reason I typed "argument" is that I am still waiting for you to make one.

You are trying to slip in a few hidden premises, my friend.

Who told you that their statements are applicable to all men, in all situations, in all countries, in all times?  If you think that this is the case....you need to provided an argument for each one.

You have not done so.

Who told you that when Jesus said the nations would be gathered before him, that the "goat" nations represent CEO's of corporations?

You need to inform us why we should believe that this is so.  

You have not done so.

You have merely made assertions that seem nonsensical to most, if not all, of us.

If you wish to be taken seriously, you need to get serious.

Until you at least provide some arguments as to why we should understand your arbitrary assigning of symbolic meanings to passages, your assertions do not rise above the "I'm a pickle" level.

Thomas Maddux

I cannot remember the song (for some reason).  Could be oldstimers??
But then, I don't even remember the choir singing at Christmas time.

I remember Handel's Messiah (post Catholic days).  Now there's a performance well worth attending.


God used imperfect men to speak and prophesy His Word.
Your perspective of God may be a bit skewed.  He is the "Father" God.
When my kids were little, I had them do certain tasks that I knew that I could do much quicker and better than they would do it.  But they did it nontheless, and the task got done.  This is not to say that the prophets of old were inexperienced or immature re. spirituality, but definitely they were less so than their heavenly Father.


Re. the prophets preaching nonsense, TomM has answered this already, but I am curious if this is your opinion, or did you read this somewhere?

Looks like I misunderstood you here.  I have italicized my previous answer.
IMO God used imperfect men to prophesy, as I've aldready stated.


Re. the "dispossessed" of our society.  The government taxes its citizens and we trust uses the monies to aid the dispossessed and defend the country...  However, as is evident in most governments, people take advantage and abuse the system and there are always loopholes that need to be closed and.....

Christians also have programs to help the less privileged ones.

It is not possible to "christianize" society via a political agenda.  However, there has to be laws in place to protect society from total de-gradation.

Lord bless,
Marcia

Folks,

You will notice that "DHalitsky" has not replied to my last post, that on Oct. 1.

There is a pattern here: a.  He makes bizarre interpretations of the scriptures which support weird criticisms of Christianity and Christians.  b. I, or someone else, challenges him to support his ideas with some sort of evidence or logical argument.  c. He ignores the challenge.  d. He comes back a few days later with a new criticism of Christianity.

Notice his really strange idea about which scriptures are relaible: only direct quotes from Jesus.

Paul is judgemental so anything he says is untrue.  The gospel authors can't tell us anything so whatever they say is unreliable, etc. (If they quote Jesus, suddenly they can be trusted???)  He hasn't pronounced upon Peter, John, James and Jude yet.  

He sounds like he has been influenced by the Jesus Seminar.

If that is true, he is drinking from a poisoned well.  The members of that crowd are materialists.  Jesus didn't do miracles, (beyond psychosomatic levels), didn't prophecy of a coming kingdom, didn't rise from the dead.

Although they mask their attack behind methods of "higher" criticism...the real basis is that nothing miraculous took place, because miracles are impossible.  

But remember, they haven't proved their basic argument.  If it is not true, just about everything they say collapses.

So, Dave, when are you going to do some serious thinking about Jesus Christ?   (The real one).

Thomas Maddux

Just a comment: I realize I'm going out on a limb here. Perhaps Dave needs some time to construct a well thought out post. (an exercise in the patience of the saints). BTW Dave or anyone else have you checked with your church to see how much they give to the "widows and the orphans". And who qualifies as a widow or an orphan anyway?. Most of the orphans today are in foster care. Are you, yourself Dave planning on taking in foster children? If so how many. Also theirs plenty of convolescent patients row after row of elderly left in beds waiting to die. How often do you visit the abandoned widows? Also to take to task corporations does'nt make sence to me. As most of the tax dollars are used for medicare/medical that fund these beds and pay for the fostercare. I'm not saying oh just let the state do itf. But the church has guide-lines for the "widows". The most I've seen for the homeless/ dis-possessed is a box of grocerys and maybe some used clothes given out, and then some program to help them get back on their feet that most won't follow and then are termed irresponsible. Sort of then written off by the church. So if anything your question did spark for me a good question to ask at the two churches I frequent. Matthew 5:48 ' Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect'. Summer.

IMO, "the widows and the orphans" can be substituted by "the dispossessed and the needy" in modern day terminology.   I know that many widows and orphans are very well taken care of, and are in an even better 'financial' and 'social' situation than I am; and I say good for them.

DaveH is on a course and may be the reason that he has not replied.  But I do not know for sure.

Interesting that you think that Dave has similar beliefs to the Jesus seminar folk.  I've never heard of them.

Lord bless,
Marcia

Tom----

The picking and choosing that David H. seems to do reminds me of the Jefferson Bible. Though Thomas Jefferson was an extremely intelligent person, he showed little intelligence when compiling "his" Bible. he picked which verses he wanted, and the ones he didn't like he simply kept out.

Also, a word on the "social Gospel". In my opinion it has always done far more harm than good. Not that we shouldn't help the poor or give to them. But when we try to "clean up" the world through Christianity, it is an awful error. Remember the "temperance leagues" back in the 20's who tried to "clean up" America by getting rid of all alcohol? They used  Christianity as their soapbox, and they did get an amendment passed banning alcohol. What did this lead to? Some of the worst crime of all time, with gangsters taking advantage of this "ban" and making millions off of it. It proves that trying to "reform" evil will lead to only greater evil.

As J. Vernon McGee used to say "The Lord didn't send us to clean up the fish pond, just to catch fish out of it". I think this is a simple yet very valid point. We, as Christians, will be led to help the poor, but helping the poor is not the message of the Gospel--salvation is the message of Jesus Christ. It goes back to Ephesians which states that we are "saved UNTO good works" not BY our works.

--Joe

Tom/Joe/Marcia -

Sorry that incorrect conclusions are being reached concerning my delay in posting back to this thread.

Reason for the delay is threefold:

1) I was in Vancouver last week and Montreal this week taking training; so am very tired;
2) I have found from experience it is bad to post when tired; tied = cranky, usually;
3) I posted the exact question re the perfection of God's prophets and the perfection of His plan to the FBB which I mentioned here a little while ago.  The question engendered a LOT of posts both from traditional believing Christians, non-traditional questions, and the usual assortment of atheists and agnostics with axes to grind.  I am in the process of collecting all this discussion, which is difficult, because the format of the FBB is a "tree structure" in which different independent discussions branch off from the main thread.  But when I am done, I am going to post all the discussion at my own web-site, because it may be of interest to people here.

NOTE: I am not doing this (collecting the FBB posts) to "propagandize", but actually to provide evidence of how many people actually want to think about questions like this; to me, that is encouraging, not discouraging.  As you will see, there are many posters who share the opinions of Al/Joe/Marcia/summer on the question.

4) I am trying to satisfy Tom's criteria for what he considers an "argument"; hate being called a "pickle" and so am working hard at trying to come up with a good argument.  To give y'all a heads-up, though, the argument will turn on the issue of perfection in God's intelligent design of man and the universe in relation to his bringing forth prophets to foretell the Coming and Its Aftermath.

Apart from these points, there is one simple observation I would like to make.  When ChristJesus preached Matt 25:40, there WAS NO CHURCH yet.  And therefore, his remarks can ONLY be interpreted as addressed to INDIVIDUALS,  This moots all discussion of what this or that congregation is or is not doing.  The question is simply what we are each obliged to do as indiviudals.  For some, charity work or volunteer work is enough.

I say it is not enough; that not even Mother Teresa's work was enough.  Because she did not confront the machinery of modern societies which create and foster conditions in which:
a) the widows and orphans are not taken care of; b) worse than that, NO ONE thinks it is necessary to take care of these conditions, except of course, by a little voluntarism.

The analogy I always use is the following: When the US AirForce expends tens of thousands of dollars in jet and chopper fuel to rush snake anitvenom to a child in danger of death in a remote location, everyone applauds.  When it is suggested that the same taxpayer's money be spent on eyeglasses so that poor kids have a better shot at advancing themselves thru schooling, that is anti-Christian socialism.

You guys figure that one out.

I've given up trying.

Hope to have the posts on my site by Sunday, and also a post back to Tom by then.

Also, I have never heard of the Jesus seminar.  Sounds suspiciously like another feel-good operation to me, one which lets people buy a sense of Grace on the cheap.

But again, don't know anything about it at all.

Blessed are we all in ChristJesus, regardless of how he has chosen to enter our hearts.
Dave

actually, here are two links to the discussion at the other board:

http://fray.slate.msn.com/?id=3936&m=12378415

http://fray.slate.msn.com/?id=3936&m=12390284

The first is to the long thread initiated by my initial post.

The 2nd is a second equally long thread which I had no role in starting.
I have NO idea who O_Hellenbach is (the guy who started the 2nd thread.)

Dave

Here's a song that Americans of good-faith used to sing in the 1940's.

It is one interpretation of Matthew 25:40.

Remarkably, people who sang this song were considered likely Communists.  Does anyone agree with this assessment.

Don't know who wrote the song.  Maybe Pete Seeger.
If so, that's why it was considered Commie propaganda.
Seeger was a known Communist at one time.


PASSING THRU

Passing thru, passing thru
Sometimes happy sometimes blue
Glad that I ran into you
Tell the people that you saw me passing thru

I saw Adam leave the garden
with an apple in his hand
I said now you're out
What are you gonna do
Plant some crops and pray for rain
maybe raise a little cain
I'm an orphan and I'm only passing thru

I saw Jesus on the cross
On that hill called Calvary
Do you hate mankind for what they've done to you
He said speak of love, not hate
Things to do, it's getting late
I've so little time and I'm just passing thru

I shivered with George Washington
One night at Valley Forge
I asked why do men freeze here like they do
He said men will suffer, fight,
Even die, for what is right
Even tho they know they're only passing thru

I rode with old Abe Lincoln
On that train to Gettysburg
And I asked him what he thought to be most true
He said every man must be
Unconditionally free
We're all brothers and we're only passing thru

I was at Franklin Roosevelt's side
Just a while before he died
He said one world must come out of World War II
Yankee, Russian, Black or tan
Still a man is just a man
We're all strangers and we're only passing thru

I was with those freedom riders
on that bus to Birmingham
They said all men are equal, that is true
And the answer when it came
Brought those freedom riders fame
Freedom's colors are red, white, black, and blue

Dave:

Who are you?  I don't recall ever seeing you before in connection with anything assembly-wise.   You sound like an "artsy-fartsy" type to me.


Matt

I was reminded of this story when I read your comment about Mother Teresa.  The only parallels I want to draw between MotherTeresa and the woman in the story is that she did what she could, and the Lord was pleased with her service.

MAR 14:3 ¶ And while He was in Bethany at the home of Simon the leper, and reclining at the table, there came a woman with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume of pure nard; and she broke the vial and poured it over His head.
MAR 14:4 But some were indignantly remarking to one another, "Why has this perfume been wasted?
MAR 14:5 "For this perfume might have been sold for over three hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor." And they were scolding her.
MAR 14:6 But Jesus said, "Let her alone; why do you bother her? She has done a good deed to Me.
MAR 14:7 "For the poor you always have with you, and whenever you wish, you can do them good; but you do not always have Me.
MAR 14:8 "She has done what she could; she has anointed My body beforehand for the burial.
MAR 14:9 "And truly I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, that also which this woman has done shall be spoken of in memory of her."


God bless,
Marcia

Tom or Mark -

Care to adjudicate BEFORE-HAND this time (re message from Matthew S. below) ?

Or do you just want to wait till I am sufficiently provoked, and then chide
ME out for being intemperate ?

Since I am the guest at this board and Matthew is more than likely someone with  a "historical" right and reason to be here, that imposes even more of an obligation on him to be polite.

Or, do you think that terms like "artsy-fartsy" lead to productive discussion ?  To me, it sounds like Matthew may have been listening to a little too much Rush L over the past few years.  Rush uses labels as rhetorical devices also, e.g. his favorite tag "liberal", which he personally has reduced to a meaningless appellation, but which nonetheless still resonates with folks who don't want to or can't think BEYOND labels.

Dave

Message from Matthew S.
***************************************************************
Dave:

Who are you?  I don't recall ever seeing you before in connection with anything assembly-wise.  You sound like an "artsy-fartsy" type to me.

Matt
*******************************************************************

So sorry to hear about Rush's fourth marriage being on the skids. How strange that people who seem to have all the answers are frequently wholly unsuccesful in the pursuit of that most basic and fundamental of human endeavour - the establishment and maintenance of stable relationships. My sympathies to him and Martha... :(
Verne

Matthew,

"Dave Halitsky" has protested your use of the term, "artsy-fartsy" in describing him.

I think his protest is justified.  Although I must confess that I do not know what the term means, I have never seen the word "fart" in ANY form used in a complimentary sense.  

So, I think "Dave's" protest is justified.  You are name calling.  

Please don't.

BTW, just what does "artsy-fartsy" mean?

Thomas Maddux

Tom -

Au contraire, I haven't "protested" anything.  If you and Mark wanta look the other way while Matthew and I step outside for a few moments, I assure you I can handle this matter myself.

However, last time I handled it myself, it seemed to upset you that invective can be slung by non-traditionalists as well as traditionalists.

So either way you want to play it is OK with me.  If Matthew wants to admit he was playing Rush's game (badly, I might add) and agree not to do it, I will remain polite.

If he doesn't, then all I need is your permission to ask him to step outside a few moments.

As a master rhetorician, you of all people should know how easy it would be to wipe the floor with ANYONE who has the usual reason for posting to this board.  So just lemme know when I can stop pulling my punches on people who seem to be looking for a fight.

Dave

To vernecarty -

Hi - since we've never chatted via posts, I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic at my expense or not.  Either way, it's a good observation you made about Rush.  (Also, unfortunately about me - took me 1 common-law marriage and two legal marriages before I finally got it right on the 4th try.)

Anyway, if you are a Christian traditionalist (in the sense of that term here at the AB_ and also not fooled by Rush, I salute you.  You are one of the VERY few, in my opinion.  (Tom M will of course chide me here by asking for my evidence that most Christian traditionalists are pro-Rush; to which I would respond, certainly more than there are pro-Franken or pro-Garofalo.)

Dave

David,

Years ago, I listened to parts of a few of Rush's programs and gave it up because of his vulgarity.  My impression at the time was that he was indirectly discrediting the conservative agenda by associating it with vulgarity, but the way all of society has become so much more vulgar than it was at that time has proven me wrong.  The following seems quite unlike Rush.

James 3:17-18
But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.  And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

You might like a number of other things that James said.

---

Each election we're given the oportunity to choose whether we would rather be abused by big government or by big business.  The ordinary person has little chance against big business, but against big government he has no chance at all.

No sarcasm intended David. I feel quite badly for the man.
Verne

Stephen M -

You never fail to impress; me, at any rate.

I would give ten or more years of my life to know exactly the thought process which led Blaise Pascal (who as you know was the co-father of projective geometry, along with Desargues) to give up his mathematical pursuits in favor of religious ruminations.  I know that his sister was "big" in the Port-Royal group of French Protestants, but I don't think that alone can account for her brother's change of heart.  If you have any thoughts on this matter, perhaps you might want to start a new thread, because it's off-topic for this one.

Speaking of matters off-topic, the mathematical line of inquiry started by CumulativeInquiry is doing quite well - see the post-stream at http://www.CumulativeInquiry.com/Forums.  CI is lucky to have obtained the services of Dr. David Wagner of UWaterloo, who has found a 1980 paper observing the correspondence between dim2/N-free posets with Baxter permutations.

With respect, as always
David

to vernecarty -

I wish I could be as good a person as you.  I cannot feel bad for Rush and his ilk after all he and they have done to destroy real political discourse in this country.

Meaning his corruption of political terminology via his conflation of anything to the left of Ford into the term "liberal".  I have little patience with liberals also, but NOT from the same side of the spectrum as "conservatives"

Dave

Dave,

I hear what you are saying and I half agree with you.  Unfortunately, reasoned, balanced arguments are seldom heard in today's sound-byte society.  When Rush started, there was very little outstanding conservative voice in the media.  You did have folks like Norman Lear who used entertainment to cast all conservatives as Archie Bunker.  I think Rush simply used the same tool to help swing the pendulum the other way.

I don't like the us vs. them one-way-or-the-other mentality of politics in our country, but unfortunately that is the way it is.

I wish we could ask thoughtful questions such as:

How can we support women's needs, bring male accountability to childbearing AND preserve the rights and needs of the unboard child as well?

How can we we have a business environment that makes the US a place where people want to do business but at the same time is a good steward of the environment?

How can we genuinely help the poor without creating a welfare mentality?  When is there a legetimate need which merits a handout and when do we require the person to demonstrate responsibility?  Is the government the best organization to do this or is there a way to mobalize organizations of compassion (regardless of their religious or non-religious affiliations)?

What is the best way to educate our children today in a pluristic society where we no longer gather at the schoolhouse with a common values system?

Unfortunately, politics works best when it is black and white.  Bush is a bumbling liar who misled the nation.  Kerry is a flip-flopping, arrogant opportunist.  Cut and dry.  Nice and simple.

This is why the Rush Limbaughs and Norman Lears and Jerry Fallwells and Al Frankins and Michael Moores have been so successful.  You can't blame Rush for using the same tools that liberals have always use and without Rush, you would only have liberals using those tools.  So, even though I don't like this process, they do kind of cancel each other out.

-Dave

P.S.:  To the original point, I wasn't happy about Rush's latest divorse either.  It demonstrates to me a disconnect between the message and the man.

to Dave Sable -

A very thoughtful post in my opinion, and one well-worth considering carefully.

Re helping the poor without creating a welfare state mentality:

Don't know about you, but my grade school and high school buildings were built by funds provided by Roosevelt's WPA.   Also, I know plenty of my parents' friend who were GRATEFUL for a chance to work in Roosevelt's CCC and send some money back home for the famil.

Do you distinguish between welfare-state hand-outs and public works projects for the common good?  Do you agree that the young men in the CCC were NOT welfare-state ne'er-do-wells?

If so, the answer to your question is easy.  Stop this senseless war and spend the money on WPA-style projects to repair this country's infrastructure.

And if that isn't enough money, close the off-shore loopholes which permit corporations to pay NO TAXES while off-shoring the jobs of our fellow-citizens.

Sorry - didn't mean to get into a left-of-liberal rant there, but the topic of tax-free corporations HQ's in the Cayman Islands is relevant to the main thrust of this thread.

Best regards
Dave

to TomM -

I haven't forgotten your request for an "argument", and am still working on a post worthy of your question.  But in the meantime, it would be useful to know your opinion on creationism and intelligent design in relation to the existence of genetically-determined diseases.  I'm serious here - the question of "perfection" in God's plan for our salvation is directly related to the question of why He did not create a "perfect" genome, i.e. one which did not give rise to diseases from which many innocents suffer.

Dave

Actually Dave what I was thinking specifically is this:  I grew up in Inglewood CA which, in 1959 was a nice, middle-class neighborhood.  When I was there in the 1960's, they were planning on building a freeway (which they finally did in the last decade or so).  In the meantime, they bought up all of the houses on 119th street and decided to make it into a low-income housing project.  I saw first-hand the destructive nature of a system where it was more condusive to receive a welfare check than work to better one's skills and get a job.  I saw the wild, low-incentive kids it produced who would often, as they say, "hit me upside my head".

Now, I understand that telling that welfare mom to work two full-time shifts and McDonalds and Wal-mart and even then you probably won't have enough money to pay rent and child care and car insurance isn't the answer either.  Sometimes if people are victems (even of their own doing), they could use some charitable help, but what form does that look like?

How do you provide for that woman training skills to better herself to get a better job?  How can the church pool together so she doesn't have to worry about child care?  At what point, when she is not taking responsibility, do you drop provisions and let her stew in her own misery?  Or, put another way, when do we stop looking at her as a victem but simply lazy?

Possibly the Roosevelt-like programs you suggest might not be a bad idea.  It certainly ties the needed help to the dignity of doing honest work.  

It is the shameful conduct of we men, that is primarily responsible for the state of the family in America today.
My fellow African-American men get their hackles up whenever I get going on this topic. Forget about welfare, forget about racism.
The number one cause for what you see in the inner city today is that so many men, and escpecially we who ought to know better, are responsile for sixty percent of black childfen being born out of wedlock. Don't get me started...it is a betrayal
Verne

I do have to agree with you Verne.  When I was living in Inglewood, the conventional thinking was that the problem was poverty and that we would solve the problem with bussing.  All that did was cause people who could afford to move to move.  Then, of course, there was much talk about racism.

It was about the time when Dan Quale made his much-maligned Murphy Brown speech that I realized that the kids who had the most problems were without a male-role model (please note that I am not saying that all blacks had problems or that none had good family life.  I am just saying that the most wild and confused ones that I think back on didn't have a man in the house).  Now, both Mr. Quale and I are WASPs (white anglo-saxon protestants for those who forgot the term) so I can't necessarily speak with credibility.  However, when I saw the film Boyz In the Hood, the black filmmaker came to the exact same conclusion - the one boy who made it out of the hood was the one whose father took an interest in him.

The director of that film, John Singleton ((in which Cuba Gooding Jr played the lead role) was right on the money. There was a time in America when black families were far poorer than they are today, and racism was much more overt, yet the family was substantially more intact. We have produced now several generations of young men who view the essence of manhood as becoming a skilled sexual predator, and as well as of young women who do not know the meaning of the word chastity. Yes let them criticise me as they did Bill Cosby. I am as Black as the blackest of them.
Most of those parading themselves as having the right to speak for the community are living profligate and Godless lives, religious mantle notwithstanding
Some of you who are well-read and informed on this topic will be quick to remind me that while young black girls have their babies, pregnant white teens abort theirs and you would of course be quite right.
Ultimately, sin is truly color-blind is it not?

Verne

Spencer Holland, a D.C. phsychologist did an incredible study that showed that the academic performance of young black boys started to really fall behind at just about the age when these young men became fully cognizant of the absence of male role models in their lives. He theorised that the rapid increase in rebellion and dilinquency at that age was an almost unconscious reaction against the matriarchal system they found themselves trapped in - mothers or grandmothers at home, mostly female teachers at school. Man this study was  such a heartbreak I can't begin to tell you. Holland has been able to make a tremendous diffference by introducing many of these young men to Black men of stature and achievement in the community. This I believe is one of the best means of reversing the dismal trend we see today. We have to take some personal responsibility for this situation....

I knew that didn't sound right.  It's John Singleton.  John Newton was a good guy too once Christ got ahold of him and he gave up that slave business.  ;)

Oops! Freudian slip?  ;D
I stand corrected.



The charge of hypocrisy has always been the achilles heel of outspoken conservatives, and sadly, the accusers have frequently made it stick; whether you are talking about a Bob Barr, a Newt Gingrich or a Bob Bennet. This is why I think it is so dangerous to tie the gospel of Jesus Christ to a political point of view.
Even men in the ministry today are being decimated and miserably failing to adorn the doctrine.
I still remember the first time I suddenly became convinced practically, of the truth of the gospel and what a wonderful thing it was. It is a voyage of discovery that I think everyone who is redeemed ultimately makes and it is the discovery that even though we sometimes still struggle with our weaknesses, we realise that Christ has truly broken the power of sin in our lives.
Say what you will, there is no denying the power of a life of holiness. This is a reality that is humanly impossible to counterfeit and in my view is the only genuine test of those who are truly born of the Spirit...gives me goose-bumps just thinking about what Christ has done for us.... :)
It makes you wonder seeing people who glibly name the name of Christ yet have failed to depart from iniquity...these are certainly troubled times...

Verne

Verne, (I know a little off subject) I was wondering, you being so bright, how did you get mixed up/taken in with the Assembly? Could it have been the elitist attitudes you encountered?  You may have answered this in previous posts. (I know the Assembly is a lifetime away for most )   Summer

I am quite embarrassed Summer thinking about that period.
I was a newly minted graduate student at U of I and understandably feeling a bit lonely and lost on a huge campus when I met the then Sondra Quinlan of the SWTE web site who invited me out to a Bible study.
As was the case with so many who got involved in the assemblies, the thing that kept us there for so long were the friendships we formed. At the time the group in Champaign was traveling to meet in Tuscola every Sunday and there were some very close friendships formed with a number of families there.
I must say that apart from the influence of George Geftakys, I believed I experienced real spiritual growth many of those years and benefited from the godly example of several men in that gathering such as Mike Houk. Jim McCumber and others.
I too was initially impressed with Geftakys for he was a master psychologist and had an uncanny ability to tap into the desire of those truly desiring to plumb spiritual depths.
Unlike the former Ms Quinlan, now Ms Jamieson, I have come to see that while there were many sincere and devoted Christians involved in gatherings associated with Geftakys, he himself was a profoundly wicked man and in my view, the best intentions of those around him notwithstanding, was never a man called and annointed by God. It is to my own shame and spritual dullness that it took me as long as I did to see that I was involved in at best an abusive and corrupt system and at worst a full-blown cult. I have written about this at length in the past and have in my own mind concluded that the real failure of that era was that of the men around George Geftakys, especially those in Fullerton, who knowing exactly what kind of man he was,  miserably failed to excercise their God-given authority to stand for righteousnes, whatever the cost, and so permitted him to deeply damage the physical and spiritual well-being of hundreds of innocent people. I hope that little summary helps Summer!
Verne

to VerneCarty

I gotta say I agree with you pretty much.

I went to HS on 110th between 5th and Lenox in NYC; they called that street the Golden Fringe because it was where uptown and downtown met - Harlem and the Big White Apple.  

This school had the center in it run by Kenneth Clark, whose name you might know.
It's principal was Mabel Smythe, a black woman of great dignity and decency.

I do not believe that Mr. Clark or Ms. Smythe would countenace what goes on today.

On the other hand, having driven a cab in all neighborhoods in NYC from 1968-70 (including the feared BedStuy, Brownsville, and the South Bronx of Fort Apache fame), I do not think that you can discount the easy money of drugs as another contributing factor to the decline of the black inner city social fabric.

This is one of the reasons I have not aged out of my youthful left-of-liberal political positions.  It is WELL-KNOWN that the government CANNOT stop the drug-flow, at least not from South America, because it is drugs that allows S American nations to make their loan payment to CITI corp and other NY banks, which would have a hard time otherwise.

ci-inc
PS - the school building is now kind of a halfway-house/prison facility - a sad commentary on NYC .

The drugs are a huge problem. Personally I think the psychic in additional to organic damage done to themselves (and others) by abusers is virtually impossible to repair in this life.  I think we have to catch young people before they get caught. I don't know if you rember Allen Bloom's book of a few years ago The Closing of the American Mind in which he talked about invariably being able to spot kids in the college classroom who had dabbled in drug use.
It has to be obvious to any but the most obtuse observer that the so-called war on drugs is anything but. The issue of balance of trade payments  had frankly never occurred to me but makes perfect sense (I can already see the conspiracy nay-sayers screaming "foul!"). Obviously the viability of the trade depends on the money being effectively laundered and by all appearances that is happening at the highest levels.
It seems as if so many people have still not figured out the age-old rubric of "follow the money".
It is the exact same reason that opium is now even more plentiful in and around Afghanistan than when the Taliban were in charge...
Verne

Howdy,

Interesting discussion.

I'm glad to see that we are tolerant here:  We believe ALL conspiracy theories.    ;)

Well, maybe not quite all.


I am interested in Halitsky's idea though:
He claims that it is a "well known fact" that the reason that the drug trade goes on is that it allows S American countries to make their loan payments to big US financial institutions.

So, a couple of questions come to mind:

1. How do you know this?  

2. What are the amounts paid, and who pays them?

3. How does this apply to countries like Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and several others who, as far as I know, aren't involved in the drug trade at all?


IMHO, the real problem with the drug trade is that there are millions of people in OUR country who continue to take them.  All the big business in the world has never, in my knowledge, held anyone down and shoved the pills, powders or needles into them.

The crack cocaine of poverty people that we hear of on programs like Cops are just the tip of the iceberg.  Millions of left leaning teachers, businessmen, professors, bureaucrats, artists of various stripes AND lots of kids use billions of dollars of drugs on a regular basis.

If we didn't buy it, no one would grow/make it.

The fact is that no really serious reform is possible because the left, who are the pot smoking residue of the flower children of the 60's, will not allow it to happen!

Several Asian countries have miniscule drug problems.  This is because dealing drugs carries an automatic death penalty.

We could do this, but don't hold your breath.

Uh Oh, here comes some executives from New York financial interests to hold me down and drug me.

Got to get out of here fast.

Thomas Maddux

to TomM -

I haven't mentioned this here at the AB, but I work in the defense industry as a subcontractor dealing with IT.

Sometimes a big software vendor will try to sell the government a package, and they ask us subcontractors to evaluate the package.

So as part of the evaluation, we ask the vendor who its past clients are in government.  And some of them reply:

"We could tell you, but we'd have to kill you right afterwards".

This is the standard joke which is told when a company has done business with one or more of the "3-letter" agencies where all employees need TS if not crypto clearances to work with cetain software.

So in answer to your question re "how do I know", I can only reply:

"I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you right afterwards."

Dave
PS - not really serious here, just kidding you because you're doing again what I respectfully asked you NOT to do - which is to ask me for sourcing in a way that I do not ask you ...

to VerneCarty -

I have previously mentioned here at the AB that I am serious about my desire to start a 3rd party (here in Tennessee where I live) called "The Christian Left".  Purpose of this party is to run candidates in elections for Federal Senators and Representatives, i.e. it is not a silly attempt to run candidates for President.

My traditionalist friends here at the AB say that I am confused about the meaning of Matthew 25:40.  My atheist and agnostic friends kid me about the idea, saying that the party should really be called "The Christians Left" - meaning there ain't too many real Christians left anymore.

But these opposing views have not deterred me.

So, would you happen to know any like-minded people in TN who might be interested in the proposition.  I particularly need to know of some lawyers familiar with the processes required to get such a party formed as an entity and on the ballot legally.

Also, by Christian Left, I mean a group of people who believe that as a matter of Christian principles, their Federal representatives should strive to enact laws that take back for the people the power which the people have more or less given up to the multinational corporations whose only allegiance is neither to ChristJesus nor the UnitedStates, but rather to their own bottom-lines and their shareholders.

Dave
PS - forgive me if I have misread your politics; I am frankly blown-away to find a person of your points-of-view posting to this board.  So maybe it has made me over-hopeful here.

Dave:

It's amazing what kind of a can of worms my comment opened.  First Rush Limbaugh, then a debate on poverty, then trading thoughts on our ever-increasing dependence on government to solve our problems, then a few other byways.

What I meant by "artsy-fartsy" was not meant to be a compliment.  It seemed to me that you were off on a variety of religious and other types of tangents to such an extent that not much more than hot gas was being offered.  But I should have mercy on you even though you are a tad long-winded (your posts, I mean) and are daunting to read, seeing they are solid paragraphs.   I have been off a number of times on this forum and people have not always called me on it.  

I guess

I prefer

bullet points

like this

but without

the bullet

Of course

that probably

goes for

whoever

happens to

be bugging me

at a given moment

and that particular

evening,  it was

YOU.

Please forgive me.  

Matt  

PS.....go ahead and call me "Matt" ...I have put my full name on as my sign in because at one time there was a Matt of another type posting complete garbage and I did not in any way want to be confused with him.

I tend to be apollitical Dave. I  believe it is virtually impossible to be a commited Christian and a successful politician. Somone said the art of politics is compromise.
You will find that both current parties will unite to to enure your nascent party goes nowhere. They like the monopoly.  Even with as much dough and popular support Ross Perot once had, he could not pull it off.
Verne

Matt -

No problem.  

My favorite movie line
was spoken by Gene Hackman
in Mississippi Burning.

It went:
"Don't make the mistake
of confusing me
for a whole 'nother person"

Since this is a family boad
I can't tell you what Hackman
was doing as he spoke this line.

But as long as you
don't confuse me
for a whole 'nother person,
I'm sure we'll eventually
become friends

Dave

to vernecarty -

yeah, you're probably right.

but after making some progress in accomplishing
something tangible in this world, I want to do
something which is "not about me" and which
also is "in the face" of the right people.

the voluntary charitable activities which have
been suggested at this Board meet the first,
but not the second criterion.

dave

To do good is better than to do evil David so your desire is commendable.
Unlike many of my fellow believers, I am not convinced that everyone who does not profess saving faith in Christ will be condemned to the second death. While they will not be a member of the bride of Christ which is the church, I believe there will be many, who when their works are judged will be found written in the Book of Life. I don't want to be dogmatic about that but I think that is what the great white throne judgment is all about - a judgment for life or death and one's manner of life will determine the outcome.
Tnank God, I do not intend to be at that session. All my transgressions have already been paid for in full.  :)
Verne

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Hi all here at the AB -

I want to apologize for not posting recently.  I have been in an extremely combative and argumentative frame of mind due to an argument I have been having on another board about how guilt over the Holocaust is being used as a weapon to force people into agreeing with the politics of the Likud party currently in power in Israel.

I don't want to post here in that kind of mood; it would be inappropriate.

Anyway, you're probably all bored to tears by my ramblings.

Best regards
Dave

Hi again DaveH,  :)

One of my favorite topics to discuss, the Holocaust, so I know I will not be bored by it.

I know you disagree with me, but IMO the enemy has focussed his attacks on Jews and Christians.  The Jews deserve the support of those that sympathize with their cause.

God bless,
Marcia