From all of your past comments, it’s readily apparent that your economics is nothing but a bunch of liberal talking points and fanciful but discredited wishful thinking posing as theory.

By hiring people, or spending money.

Who gets to decide what is distributed? Charity without personal love is nada, to wit our welfare system.

Also I fail to see any mention of personal responsibility. How does your sense of responsibility interact with ‘justice’?

Have you ever thot about how socially disruptive the miracles that healed were? I mean, here these blind, deaf, crippled and otherwise handicapped folks were ekeing out a living from begging.

Along comes Jesus and/or the Apostles and just flat out took that option away from them and then sent them on their ‘merry’ way, with nary a penny for their alms. Surely most of them have been this way since birth and never had the chance to learn a trade, usually the family business. Now as unskilled newly unemployed, they have to go find a job or means of supporting themselves, since they can no longer beg. How fair is that?

If by distributive justice, you mean the government, on what, and whose, authority does any government have to do such? The communist also believed in distributive justice and we all know how evil that type of goverance was.

To take my God-given blessings from me and redistrubute to the sloth, sluggard, and any other un-PC Biblical term of scornment for these wicked people I can think, is nothing short of thuggish governance.

I certainly didn’t take how a business operates out of the moral realm, I took the girly-man crapola about distributive justice out of the moral realm. I alone am personally accountable to God, not government, for how I use my wealth to support or not support the needy. Please refer to the parable of Lazarus & the rich man.

I also refer you to multiple parables that illustrate how arbitrary the master can be — the talents, the virgins w/ & w/o lamp oil, the field workers who all were paid the same regardless of how long they worked that day. If you will notice, the ones that protested or otherwise wimped out were the ones that were cursed.

Jesus used parables to illustrate how he’s going to deal with you, me and everyone else. So before you get knee deep in “justice” or fairness, you better make sure that your definition of justice is in alignment with Jesus’ definition.

So far, you haven’t used any Scripture whatsoever, that I have seen, to support whimsical notions of distributive justics and things that you have defined as morally bankrupt.

Can you cite any Scripture that refutes the notion that one who refuses to work, doesn’t deserve to eat. Please note, the needy are not in the same class as the sloth/sluggard.

No wonder you caught grief with IVCF, and here I thot they were losing their edge.

Furthermore, I wouldn’t concern myself with marginalizing Christians on the liberal end of things. If they stand on the truth, then there is nothing to cry/pout about.

Warriors can disagree on philosophical things, weaponry and still retain the esprit d’corps, but certainly not why they fight. On the other hand, if they’re wimps, then they’re gonna get thumped or bumped.

This is the same for Believers, because we wrestle against the pricipalities of darkness. Satan is in this game for keeps and the stakes are nothing less than our souls, not our social well-being.

I also question your reference to your religious faith and beliefs. I can find no reference to the men and women of the Bible being described as religious. Righteous, devout, walking with God yes, religious no.

-I side with the vast majority of the western religious and ethical tradition which believes that distributive justice matters, helps us to determine whether we live in a good society or not. That means the very things you took out of the moral realm (say how a business operates) belong within it.

=There is the question of what policies will further that. And I suspect we’d disagree on what those would be. And we could debate it of course. But my only point is that these things, and a whole number of other issues ought to be considered in the moral realm.

-While I have confidence in my religious faith and the beliefs I hold, what I worry about is whether there will be room within the church for Christians who are on the liberal end of things. While my faith is my own, the ability to live that out in community is affected by others in that community.

-Would I work on Clinton’s campaign? Hard to say. I think he missed an opportunity to do much good, only seemed skilled at self preservation, not building the momentum behind important issues (health care for example). IVCF was pretty conservative (which seems to be the case today as well) and so my political work was a bit of a problem who called my faith into question.

Since when is the gubmint responsible for jobs? Better yet, how can a gubmint create jobs? Granted, there are plenty of tweaks that should be made to make conditions conducive to creating jobs, but not to the extent that liberals think can be done.

1) If I as an employer decide I’m not going to grow, but will maintain or even cut back, NO One can tell nor make me do otherwise. See France & germany where the gubmint & unions DO interfere with the hiring/firing process and look at the resultant double digit unemployment. Our current rate is as good or better than Clinton’s best years. What of the proverb that it’s better to be dirt poor and intact, than to be rich and broken?

2) If the gubmint decides that it is in the jobs business and nationalizes (steals) my property under eminent domain, then the jobs arena becomes a corrupt and politicized environment. Take the former USSR or any number of desptic African or South American country where you have people pretending to work while the “employer” pretends to pay. Or worse, your “right” to work is predicated by your loyalty to the party, regardless of your credentials. Again, look at the USSR for prime examples.

Bottom line moral values are about how you live your life and how you do with what you have or don’t have. Governments are by nature incapable of establishing values in of themselves, they can only reflect the values of the rulers.

I’m curious as to why you worked on Slick’s campaign and knowing what you do now, would you do so again. I’m guessing that Intervarsity Christian Fellowship isn’t what it used to be.

I also notice you take issue with the “Fakers” label in La Shawn’s “Faking God” thread. As I responded there and touch upon it again here, if one is overly sensitive about their belief being questioned, it’s a purty good sign that one’s foundation isn’t all that stable.

Remember, Scriptural truths are compared to a sword, which is an no less than offensive combat weapon. To defend your faith, you need to put on the whole armor of God — Shields up! and duke it out.

Be hot or be cold. Lukewarm, touchy-feely, equivocating Christians only leave a bad taste in God’s mouth.

I’m not sure what would life be like in a congregation dominated by folks who have such disdain for us, though. Maybe similiar to my experiences working for the Clinton campaign in 92 and working on leadership of Inter-Varsity. Though this election was far more polarizing then the 92 one was.

My problem with values language is that it never gets around to talking about the vast majority of what we say and do in our lives. Which is to say that whether it’s economics, foreign affairs, whether you give the ok for torture, whether poverty is alive and well…none of these are treated as moral concerns. If moral values related to the whole of life, then it could have something of importance to say to our country.

Renee
The disagreement is this: Those economic issues, etc. do have bearing on the strength of the family. When dad is jobless, when parents are living pay check to pay check, when a medical costs criple a family’s possibilities…these relate to whether one supports families or not.

All Democrats have to do is sway a few unconvinced voters with a “look how religious we are” ploy in order to make it work. And they will successfully do that.

Anyone arguing that self-proclaimed “Christians” are smart enough to see through that forgets that 100% of self-proclaimed Christians did NOT vote for Bush–some percentage voted for the other guy. In fact, many self-proclaimed Christians voted for the other guy since the voting pattern for Christians in this election was nearly identical to the voting pattern in 2000.

What changed in this election is that the undecided voters decided to vote in larger numbers for Bush than for Kerry. Every analysis of the 2004 election has proven this point.

So in the end, it doesn’t matter what the Christian voters do since they will laregly vote in the same numbers and same patterns as they have for the last ten years. The election is decided by the undecided/swing voters. And the Democrats will be able to convince more of them next election that they are just as religious a party as the GOP.

Should the Democrats lose in 2008, it will not be because of the “religious” issue, but for some other reason of their own making.

“The left has religion.
Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton are proof of that.
They roll the two of them out when they need them, and then put them back in storage after.”

I write: Like Christmas, and Easter.

But I thought John Kerry “had religion.” Oh, but he can’t “take what is an article of faith for [him] and legislate it for someone who doesn’t share that article of faith.” Yes, we know that about you John; and we call it – spineless. You’ve got to stand up for what you believe! President Bush could have very well lost this election for being so straightforward. Maybe the Dem’s were learn something from this – You can’t please all the people all the time, but if you take a stand, you may pick up the 270 electoral votes it takes to win.

Thank you for the love and concern you seem to have shown for those of us who are gay and lesbian Christians. Although, I have to admit you seem to have a very simplistic view of the world. As a matter of fact, there are Christian child molestors, bank robbers, and muderders. Christians have been known to do all these sins and more. Their sexuality had little to do with any of those acts. Please don’t confuse the topic of sexuality with murder. By the way, I don’t attend gay pride. However, I do belong to a Christian gay bowling league. (all the money that we raise from the league goes to aids.) I suppose you “condemn” and think our bowling league is “wrong” as well? oh well..

The relationship I have with God is not a matter of debate; it is between myself and God, as is every person’s relationship with our creator. The fact of my salvation is not for any person to weigh up or judge, and Jesus did warn his hearers against judging others(see Matthew 7: 1-5). Nowhere in scripture does Jesus condemn loving relationships between people of the same sex.

I believe that all God has made is good, does not scripture assure us of this fact? That we are different of each other demonstrates the diversity of God’s creation. In the past there was a tendency to twist scripture to justify slavery and apartheid. Nowadays most Christians deny the validity of such arguements. I believe God loves all that has been created, and that includes you and me. I believe we have the capacity to discover the fullness of God’s love, forgiveness and grace.I believe we could start the process of mutual understanding by regularly praying for each other, asking that we hear each other’s voice clearly and that we may be reconciled in Jesus.

Rick, may God continue to bless you!

God the Parent, eh? Tells me all I need to know about your sweet-as-honey words about God-Love = Man-Love.

I’m sorry, Gary, but you’re stretching where the Scripture is “thin” and dismisive where otherwise plain as day. But I can understand why cHillary and sKerry can swallow your interpretation, as you provide them the basis to be relativist vis a vis having religion.

All this opposition to laws in the scripture…

Amazing how practicing them, in all reality, does not harm us…

Amazing how when we do eveything it says not to, we have grief and suffering…

Go figure???

The other thing that irks me is the use of statements like “there are many pro-choice or gays or adulterers” who have faith. They forget, Gods laws are absolute and pretty clear in what they say. You don’t pick and choose the ones you like and act like the ones you don’t like are not there. It is a struggle for every Christian, every day to obey the laws, even man made laws. I guess one of the differences is, when a Christian sins (and we do sin), break the law,etc., it is not status quo to run to court and try to get it changed to make you feel better and to rationalize that it is not a sin anymore. You know you did wrong, you ask for forgiveness and pray you learned your lesson and don’t do it again.

Geesh… you would think it was rocket science.