 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/17/2011 11:57 AM (GMT -6) |   | |
I wonder how many of those 400 persons are Christian. How many do you think? Hmmm...
Forbes 400 List
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/17/2011 12:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Oh. Is it just me or are 4 of the top 10 FAMILY MEMBERS (the Waltons of Wal-Mart)??
W.T.F.
(Sam Walton was a Presbyterian...)
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 3/17/2011 5:27 PM (GMT -6) | | "Just 400 Americans -- 400 -- have more wealth than half of all Americans combined."
If half of all Americans decided years ago not to do business with the people on the list and the companies they represent, then the majority of the people on the list would not be on the list. So, exactly who are you telling what they should do with their money...the 400 on the list...or half of all Americans?
Unless you are claiming about any particular person on the list that they acquired their wealth through dishonesty, malfeasance, or outright force; then what is the criteria you are using to say how much money a person should have? Once a person reaches the $100,000/year mark should they then give away anything else they make that year? $50,000? $20,000? Where is the mark? And WHY is that the mark? Either the money is theirs, or it's not...if it's not theirs, whose is it and why? If it's theirs, and by your own agreement in other threads, if we refer to all possessions as stewarded possessions...how are you standing judge over someone else's stewardship? By what right or authority do you disparage the stewardship of another when you are only the steward of your own possessions?
And even if we for the sake of argument grant the right to disparage other people's stewardship...why are you not just as outraged at the majority of Americans who made those 400 rich? Are they off the hook with regards to their stewardship that allowed these 400 to amass such wealth? Again, if you have specific claims of dishonest dealings about anyone on the list, let us take them off the list, strip them of their dishonest gains, and talk about whoever the 400 are then, that have their wealth through honest dealings.
<enter self-righteous socialist> "Even if they weren't outright dishonest, they only amassed that wealth because the system is rigged."
The only system that CAN BE rigged is government. And if you are coming out of the woodwork to call for the abolishment of government, then I'm way ahead of you, let's do away with government and see how the Forbes 400 list changes (See, I'm not denying that it would change...but there would still be 400 people who are the wealthiest people in America...and you would still want to tell them what to do with their possessions.)
Dwayne: "I'd like anyone to tell me how starvation still exists in this country."
Is starvation a rampant problem in America?
------
From wikianswers:
According to the World Health Organization, 120 Americans died from "lack of food" in 2004.
Starvation rates in the United States are generally not recorded due to the relative infrequency of the occurrence. Generally speaking, most people do not starve to death in America as a result of lack of access to food. A combination of government food programs and private charities help to ensure this. However, Americans do have a serious problem with malnutrition. Starvation (that is, death due to lack of food) in America, in the relatively rare instances that it does occur, is not usually an indication of poverty but rather a variety of other social issues.
-----
...a variety of other social issues. There is the answer to your question. When we unpack the answer to see what exactly we are talking about by "a variety of other social issues." then it actually becomes a very complex answer.
Look, I'm not denying there are problems and I'm not denying that there are some relatively easy answers to some of the problems that are not being implemented...but again, why are we pointing the finger at these particular 400 people...do half of all Americans not have enough resources to address the actual problems? No, they do. So, we could just as easily be incensed at half of all Americans. Half of all Americans could just as easily address the issue you pointed out as the 400 could...and they're not doing it! Half of all Americans are just as greedy as the Forbes 400. Probably the other half of all Americans are as well. To call out the 400, is to assuage the responsibility of half of all Americans. It's to enlist half of all Americans to likewise blame the 400, and feel morally good about themselves that they are incensed at the greed of the 400. Because but for the greed of the 400 obviously we wouldn't have the problem you pointed out. Well, half of all Americans are not off the hook...because if the one statement is true (But for the greed of the 400 there wouldn't be starvation, etc fill in the blank) then it is just as true about half of all Americans.
So, once again, in my opinion, the appropriate Christian question to ask ONESELF is...what can I do with resources that I actually have control over to address societal issues.Post Edited (Asher) : 3/17/2011 5:39:28 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/17/2011 8:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher:
Unless you are claiming about any particular person on the list that they acquired their wealth through dishonesty, malfeasance, or outright force; then what is the criteria you are using to say how much money a person should have? Once a person reaches the $100,000/year mark should they then give away anything else they make that year? $50,000? $20,000? Where is the mark? And WHY is that the mark? Either the money is theirs, or it's not...if it's not theirs, whose is it and why? If it's theirs, and by your own agreement in other threads, if we refer to all possessions as stewarded possessions...how are you standing judge over someone else's stewardship? By what right or authority do you disparage the stewardship of another when you are only the steward of your own possessions?
I'm thinking of the "covenantal socialism" that you and I have talked about. That which is compatible with free Christian people doing this.
Wouldn't...SHOULDN'T...that contextualize things for believers in a so-called Christian nation?
If I have a billion dollars...and I know 10 people in my "church" who are homeless because of the financial crisis...
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 3/17/2011 11:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Dwayne: "I'm thinking of the "covenantal socialism" that you and I have talked about. That which is compatible with free Christian people doing this."
Yeah, but you seem to be putting more emphasis on the "socialism" than on the "covenantal". 1) If you have to do it...or else! Where's the covenant? It's like valued people that are going to be able to covenant on the kind of level we're talking about, and that probably means, especially in initial stages that there will be fewer people willing to enter the covenant. And that's alright. Are we gonna motivate others to join by shaming them? By tightening the grip of "other control" on their lives? It's only by releasing grip that there's even a chance something like this could work.
Dwayne: "Wouldn't...SHOULDN'T...that contextualize things for believers in a so-called Christian nation?"
So...motivate people by successful example, not shame. And the first example that has to be followed is not slighting anyone, even in a small way, even when that slight means fulfilling many needs of others. It's only as people see that every one of their own concerns are respected that they are gonna be able to loosen their OWN grip on the resources in their control.
Dwayne: "If I have a billion dollars...and I know 10 people in my "church" who are homeless because of the financial crisis..."
What if you don't have a billion dollars? Bam! Your off the hook for helping those 10 people in your "church"? What does having a billion dollars or not having a billion dollars have to do with having entered a covenant? Sure, if I have entered a covenant and I ALSO have a billion dollars I'm gonna be able to do more than if I don't have a billion dollars...but guess what, if you castigate someone who has a billion dollars for not entering the covenant, I think you'll quickly find that the guy who has $50,000 is gonna be less likely to enter the covenant as well. You're laying claim to someone else's resources for your covenantal group...before they've even entered the covenant...and that's gonna be a hard sell to people at all economic levels...about something that's already gonna be looked at with suspicion.
In short, if it is perceived that "the covenant" is just a way for someone else to control the resources that you currently have total control over...you're only gonna have the needy agree to join, but no one with resources.
And that's why you must have a fastidious accounting on the side of "covenant" not on the side of "socialism" in "covenantal socialism"....because without it, it's just socialism...and very few people want to put THEIR OWN resources into that pot. That's why socialism sans the covenant must rely on force as the bedrock principle of it's organization.Post Edited (Asher) : 3/18/2011 11:01:15 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/18/2011 8:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Dwayne: "I'm thinking of the "covenantal socialism" that you and I have talked about. That which is compatible with free Christian people doing this."
Asher: Yeah, but you seem to be putting more emphasis on the "socialism" than on the "covenantal". 1) If you have to do it...or else! Where's the covenant? It's like valued people that are going to be able to covenant on the kind of level we're talking about, and that probably means, especially in initial stages that there will be fewer people willing to enter the covenant. And that's alright. Are we gonna motivate others to join by shaming them? By tightening the grip of "other control" on their lives? It's only by releasing grip that there's even a chance something like this could work.
My running assumption would be the the "covenantal socialism" of the Church would be grounded in Jesus' Great Commandments. That is to say, that each person in the Church truly endeavors to love God with all of their heart, soul, mind, and strength (including financial resources)...and loving one's neighbor as oneself. My thought is that one's love for Jesus would be the main motivation one's participation. They would (hopefully) not be motivated primarily by whether or not they are being shamed by others...but being compelled by the love of Christ towards the needs of others.
[Digression: I am absolutely, unchangably convinced that any "church" or so-called "Body of Christ" that is not first and formost embodying the Great Commandments are completely 1) missing the point and 2) being directly DISOBEDIENT to the Lord Jesus Christ. Any motivation that neglects or minimizes the importance of the Great Commandments is not truly "Christian" ]
They would really take Paul's words seriously...
So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
*****************************
Dwayne: "Wouldn't...SHOULDN'T...that contextualize things for believers in a so-called Christian nation?"
So...motivate people by successful example, not shame. And the first example that has to be followed is not slighting anyone, even in a small way, even when that slight means fulfilling many needs of others. It's only as people see that every one of their own concerns are respected that they are gonna be able to loosen their OWN grip on the resources in their control.
We are talking about the Body of Christ working together...so HOPEFULLY the motivation people are working by is not societally-enforced shame, but true vibrant love for God and God's Creation. I'm hoping that people would not be so myopic as to prioritize their OWN concerns above all else. See Paul above.
******************************
Dwayne: "If I have a billion dollars...and I know 10 people in my "church" who are homeless because of the financial crisis..."
What if you don't have a billion dollars? Bam! Your off the hook for helping those 10 people in your "church"? What does having a billion dollars or not having a billion dollars have to do with having entered a covenant? Sure, if I have entered a covenant and I ALSO have a billion dollars I'm gonna be able to do more than if I don't have a billion dollars...but guess what, if you castigate someone who has a billion dollars for not entering the covenant, I think you'll quickly find that the guy who has $50,000 is gonna be less likely to enter the covenant as well. You're laying claim to someone else's resources for your covenantal group...before they've even entered the covenant...and that's gonna be a hard sale to people at all economic levels...about something that's already gonna be looked at with suspicion.
We are talking about people have supposedly ALREADY entered the covanent, ie they are CHURCH-GOING believers. If you were to ask them "Are you a member of the Body of Christ?" at least some of them would say "yes." So, they ARE in the covenant, insofar as they are "in" a CHURCH.
And the situation is pretty simple: A church is supposed to be free from greed in order to help meet all needs in the congregation. That's the very least that can be said. So, when there is a church where some people have millions and millions of dollars...who sit a coupla rows from those who are close to financial ruin and homelessness...it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see what can be done.
If the Love of God isn't constraining people's hearts, they are still gonna be motivated primarily by SELF-ORIENTED concerns. Unlike what Paul described above.
**************************
Asher:
In short, if it is perceived that "the covenant" is just a way for someone else to control the resources that you currently have total control over...you're only gonna have the needy agree to join, but no one with resources.
If I went into a church...and someone basically said something like this:
"I would go to this church, but there's too many people in need, and they'd probably want me to give some of my resources for these needy people...and I don't want that."
...then I'd strongly wonder about whether of not their love for God was the PRIMARY CONSIDERATION of their economic choices.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 3/18/2011 8:08:59 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/18/2011 8:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Let's see if we agree on something, Asher.
Christianly speaking, I would say that any financial considerations that effectively nullify, minimize, or ignore the primacy of Jesus' Great Commandments in the realm of one's financial dealings are de facto "missing the mark" (ie. disobeying God)...regardless of how financial lucrative the financial considerations make you.
Would you agree with this?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 3/18/2011 8:14:33 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 3/18/2011 11:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Dwayne, you're talking in all or none terms with regard to whether any given Christian is meeting the ultimate moral value. I think we can probably come to terms on agreeing what that ultimate moral value is, I think we can probably find that most Christians will end up closely agreeing with us. And we will then find that not a single one of us is praxiomatically fulfilling that ultimate vision. And the disparity between the two, quite frankly, causes most people to give up even trying. We do not have to point out the standard that we are failing to meet, I think most people are pretty well aware of it. Secondly, even given the ultimate moral value that is implicit in covenanting to become a part of the "church"...it does not follow that any given member has explicitly internalized that value and integrated it into their life, so that their praxis matches their theory. In fact, we could say that everyone has a gap between the two. So, to point to someone else's gap and call notice to it is 1) a little hypocritical and 2) a dismotivation to that person, not a motivation.
We need to look to principles (that holistically respect bodily, spiritual, psychological aspects of being a human being) that practically speaking help people to move further along the spectrum and close the gap between theory and practice. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/18/2011 11:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Not sure this is realted, but...
I got an email from my Daniel's (my son, a senior in High School) dean a couple days ago asking me about a particular class for which he was absent last week on Tuesday. The dean told me that the reason given was that he was at the dentist. I told the dean Daniel certainly was not at the dentist that day and should have been in all his classes.
That same day I dscussed it with Daniel. He said he skipped that class because he wasn't prepared for a presentation, and if he skipped he'd have an opportunity to present it later. Turns out that his girlfriend attends the same class, and when the teacher asked here where Daniel was she said (knowing that he was skipping), "He's at the dentist."
The dean was trying to confirm that that's where Daniel really was. I told him there was no dentist.
So I told Daniel (who assured me he didn't ask his girlfriend to lie for him), "Make it right. Don't let that falsehood hang lose out there." He said he would.
But he didn't (as far as I'm concerned). He said, "If the dean or the school ASKS me about it, I'll tell the truth about my having skipped the class and do whatever detention they require. That's what I mean by 'taking care of it'." I told him that's not what I meant by "making it right." He said, "Dad, all the kids do this and the school doesn't even really care. It's no big deal." I said, "Are others the measure of your integrity? If so, you can always find someone living low enough to accommodate your weaknesses." He knew exactly what I saying but fought compliance. I just let it settle.
NOW...my wife Anita was present in the care when Daniel and I were having this discussion. She didn't say a word. When we got alone she asked me, "Are we still parents or what? Are we gonna parent him? Come on..." and she proceded to explain why we needed to compell him to "make it right" and let the truth be known...
I said (and THIS is my point HERE): "What's the goal here right now? Is it to compell Daniel to expose the lie and apologize for skipping whether he thinks he needs to or not OR is it to convince Daniel to WANT to make it right because he values integrity and truth?"
My goal is the latter. It's HARDER because you have to watch your kids compromise when you know you could force arrange a confrontation that would make it impossible for them to do anything but tell the truth. But they didn't CHOOSE to pursue the truth on their own accord. Sometimes--in training--we can be more involved (like feeding a baby). But eventually (at Daniel's age) you have to make plain what their integrity amounts to AND THEN LET THEM SELF-DETERMINE to establish their own moral character.
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTA | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/18/2011 12:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher:
Dwayne, you're talking in all or none terms with regard to whether any given Christian is meeting the ultimate moral value. I think we can probably come to terms on agreeing what that ultimate moral value is, I think we can probably find that most Christians will end up closely agreeing with us. And we will then find that not a single one of us is praxiomatically fulfilling that ultimate vision. And the disparity between the two, quite frankly, causes most people to give up even trying. We do not have to point out the standard that we are failing to meet, I think most people are pretty well aware of it.
I don't see how pointing out the standard in light of ALL being "sinners" who "fall short " is a problem. Is the alternative to NOT talk about the standard to let us feel better about our lack of conformity to the standard?
Seriously?
I think a better option is to help ourselves and others conform STEPS AT A TIME...rather than just not talking about it.
****************************
Asher:
Secondly, even given the ultimate moral value that is implicit in covenanting to become a part of the "church"...it does not follow that any given member has explicitly internalized that value and integrated it into their life, so that their praxis matches their theory.
Of course not.
****************************
Asher:
In fact, we could say that everyone has a gap between the two. So, to point to someone else's gap and call notice to it is 1) a little hypocritical and 2) a dismotivation to that person, not a motivation.
We need to look to principles (that holistically respect bodily, spiritual, psychological aspects of being a human being) that practically speaking help people to move further along the spectrum and close the gap between theory and practice.
Ok. Let me use an example. Let's say that a pastor wants to preach about "unwholesome speech". Now, he knows that half his congregation are veritable gossips...and that he himself has had more than his share of unwholesome talk and foolish jesting.
Is this pastor supposed to NOT TALK about what the Bible says about that simply because he and many in his congreation indulge in that sin? Is the pastor supposed to feel it "demotivating" to talk about God's full loving acceptance of WHERE WE CURRENTLY ARE...and his call to move WHERE WE CAN BE, via God's grace?
Well?
***************************
Tom:
I heard a report that quoted George Soros giving a speech in which he said essentially, "I'm a very wealthy person, and I'm only paying 28% in federal taxes! But I should be taxed 50% at least so that more people could be helped!" and I thought to myself, "So why don't you GIVE 50% to the feds if you believe you OUGHT to? ANYBODY can give MORE than they're required. There's space provided on our returns to do so." I just think such talk so so disingenuous. Some people won't help the poor UNLESS the government constrains them to do so, so beholdened are they to the socialist mindset.
They are bound to a socialist mindset. Not being COMPELLED by one's love for God, and the ensuing compassion for one's neighbors.
That's the problem whenever the Greatest Commandment is NOT empowering humanitarian efforts.
****************************
Tom:
But I will agree that in a church of 2,000 that enjoys the membership of several very wealthy people, something is DESPERATELY wrong with anybody in that church going hungry or not having a bed to sleep in at night or warm clothes to wear in the Winter.
Damn straight.
How many churches YOU know like that, yo?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 3/18/2011 12:08:52 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 3/18/2011 1:01 PM (GMT -6) | | What I'm saying does not negate what you're saying Dwayne, it's more about approach and method...and intimacy level. For example, let's say I am failing at a standard. Best case scenario in which I am most objective with regards to my own failures; anyone who points out to me my failures (which I'm probably already familiar with myself) is doing me a service, so that even Satan whispering to me my failure is not inflicting the harm that he intends, but is giving me an opportunity to set it aright. So, let's ask ourselves...why would Satan want to do something that ends up benefiting us, not harming us? And the overwhelming answer is that way, way more often than not...it doesn't benefit us, it harms us. It cripples us. It's stops us dead in our tracks. That's why I DO question the praxiomatic validity of the kinds of sermons you pointed to...how often do they actually effectuate change? Even if they theoretically should, how often do they ACTUALLY benefit anyone? Rarely.
On the other hand, when you are surrounded by supportive, trusted people...it's like iron sharpening iron...it's like scaling a mountain together, all attached to tethers together. Your gain in ascent, is my toehold to the same ascent...we are able to lock in success and minimize failure. But you from 15,000 ft shouting down to me at 12,000 ft that I haven't achieved the summit of 20,000 ft doesn't help me any. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 3/19/2011 6:47 PM (GMT -6) | | | How is the wealth calculated? E.g., for the Waltons, does it count the value of the Wal-Mart's themselves? If so, their wealth provides a benefit to many. On the other hand, if the money is just sitting somewhere, neither creating value-producing jobs and valuable services, then it's a whole different thing. But typically, the very wealthy DO have their money invested. And in that sense, their wealth is creating wealth more than likely. Of course if you're wealthy because you're doing great in the porn industry, that's different. But that's the kind of thing we need to know.
I certainly agree that when people live in ridiculously excessive states of luxury, that's a bit hard to justify no matter how the rest of their wealth is invested. But it doesn't follow that the State has the moral authority or deserves the confidence, given their own LONG history of malfeasance, misfeasance and dereliction of duty in every aspect of their delegation from God, to intervene in wealth redistribution. So living out the example is the best we can probably do, for the most part.
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:52 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|