real people (us), legal people (corporations), and Christianity

[dhalitsky]

 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

[dhalitsky]

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

[Oscar]

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

[dhalitsky]

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

[Oscar]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

[dhalitsky]

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

[Mark C.]

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.

[Oscar]

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

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

[al Hartman]

I think I have some new light to shed...
Dave

     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).

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.

     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.

[dhalitsky]

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

   

[M2]

...
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.

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.

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

[Oscar]

"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.
   

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

[al Hartman]

     Me defending Tom Maddux?  Thanks, Guys, I needed a good laugh!  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:

Tom M does not post emotional replies.  That's news to me.  I must be mis-reading his posts.

     Nope-- mine!  

     Or this from Dave H.:

Al -

I have no idea what you mean about "twisting your last critique"...

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

David,

    Ever since you twisted my last communique to you...

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

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...

     Here is the text to which David refers:

From: Matt.25:40 & Grace vs works, Aug 20:

   I have no authority on this board, and I have no present reason to exercise it against you if I did, but you are on the fringe of a territory that can be very dangerous to you, and I am compelled to warn you of it:  You have been told that this is a recovery site for souls who have suffered a great deal of pain and damage from a false ministry.  Now you have begun to find out some who are weak and doubting, and you are sowing further seeds of doubt among them, seeking to identify with them in ways that I can only guess you may think are subtle.  (It is possible that it is all taking place so subtly that you don't even see it, but I think you are far too intelligent for that to happen.)
    Here is the warning:  It is impossible but that offenses will come: but woe unto him through whom they come!  It would be better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. Luke17:1-2.  It is the weak among God's children that He calls His little ones.  Be very careful that you do nothing to dissuade them from their faith in Him.

    I would love to see you receive Christ, David.  I pray for you and would do whatever I could to assist you in honest search for Him.  But I also have a resposibility to protect God's flock, and to warn you, too, of danger. It seems quite evident from your posts that this is not the first group of Christians you have engaged in discussion.  Maybe your quest is in earnest; maybe you just like the attention.  Maybe you keep asking whether we are going to tell you to leave because that is the M.O. by which you convince yourself that you are unappreciated (about the time someone is getting too close to the truth for your comfort) and move on to bamboozle the next group you can find.  Maybe you'll use my post as an excuse to bail...

    I have said what I have to say at present, and I wish you, David, the gift of life eternal through faith in Christ Jesus our Lord.

     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:

from Matt.25:40 and Grace vs works, Aug 21:


I am sorry you think that I have posted to other Christian boards before the AB, and that I do so to get attention or to sow dissent.  

     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.

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

     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:

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.

     ...we are constrained to speak out.

al

[dhalitsky]

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.

[Oscar]

Dave,

You posted this to Al:

"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."  
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.

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.

"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."

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