The Mark cite doesn't mean there are "righteous" people. It just means that such were not the reason he came. The Luke quote is clearly hyperbole.
Because the difference needs to be made clear to the children. I know....you probably want to even confuse them as to their sexual identity too.
Amazing how you think that you know what others think, while spewing your vile ideas. You say one thing and preach another. Typical.
You're changing your own subject, which was that "slavery still exists in socialism". I guess you realize that's ridiculous and you need an escape hatch.
In your opinion only. You fail to realize that others have a different point of view and refuse to accept any idea other than your own. Egotistical of you.
This is not limited to churches. The subject is govt welfare versus private charities. As I have already provided, private charities finances when efficieny is taken into account exceed the govt spending on "welfare". We don't ask for tax returns, bank account information, etc. The govt asks for that kind of information because that's how the govt operates - the person in need has to send the information to the govt office so the faceless bureaucrat sitting at a desk can evaluate the "need". And its also so the bureaucrat can cover his/her butt in case the person turns out to be a fraud. Private charities are generally community based, they can look the person in the eye and talk to them, talk to the kids, they can go to the persons house/apt/hotel room and see the conditions and the neighborhood, they can see the car (if they have a car) the person drives. And once help is offered, there is continuous contact, help is almost never in the form of handing out cash, its providing transportation to work or school, taking them to the grocery or doctor appointment, babysitting while the person works, or tutoring, helping them clean the house. If there is financial help, its paid directly to the utility, grocery, doctor, etc. Yes, sometimes the charity gets fooled, but not often, and they only get away with it once.
Same sex marriage has been discussed in the forum to death, but my summary is that when it is forced on people it tramples on both religious freedom and property rights. If 2 people want to get married, that's their business, but they have no right to force me to enable or participate in their marriage. That includes forcing a business owner to use his property (his business, skills, time, effort) in a manner he opposes. Forcing someone to work against their will is the definition of slavery. If 2 homosexuals want to get married, fine. But they should not force a church who believes same sex marriage is a sin to perform or recognize that marriage, or force people who believe same sex marriage is a sin to condone it, and they should absolutely not cause people to be fired and harassed and threatened because they do not agree with same sex marriage. Live and let live, but that's too much for the gay community. Exaggeration. I know a lot of religious people, including creationists, and none see science as "the anti-Christ". None oppose water and air quality standards and testing, deny the harm from lead in paint and water, food monitoring and testing, refuse to use smart phones, etc. None are hermits refusing all technology. Many including myself are highly educated in scientific and technical fields. I completely disagree that opposition to the theory of evolution (that's its name, whether its a theory or a hypothesis is besides the point) and/or the belief in the Genesis creation story is the root cause of the national lack of educational ability. I will claim the opposite - that the blind belief in the theory of evolution, belief to the point of closed mindedness, contributes to the decline in scientific understanding in the general public. An inquisitive person cannot question evolution without being labeled a religious nutcase in an attempt to shut down the conversation. Global warming is the same. Both are claimed to be "accepted science" - and that claim is as anti-science as can be made.
but there isn't a difference. In this country, there is only marriage. Not different types of marriage. A "gay" marriage is identical to a "straight" marriage.
We have public accommodation and employment law. Those who open bussinesses are subject to these laws, including the prohibition on discrimination they include. Suggesting that is "slavery" is just plain disgusting. These laws are in place in opposition to the bigotry that is a continuing residue of slavery. You should not identify yourself and your religion as needing to be free of slavery by being given the right to discriminate.
Theory is the strongest truth science can possibly offer - by definition of what science is. The toe is a theory because it has a long record of surviving attempts of falsification and has correctly predicted what will be found in the fossil record. The result is that it is a foundation of all modern biology. Also, there is no competing scientific hypothesis. Now, you come along and suggest that accepting the toe is "blind"? What's next? Are you going to suggest the same for the theory of relativity? And, then you carry that thought process on to climatology! You are an example of the problem. Your religion trained you to reject science even when the entire field of science finds the precepts in question to be not just accepted, but fundamental. And, it goes farther than just mitigating for less education and respect for science. The problematic result is that including science in public policy decision making is seriously impacted. For example, people demand "proof". But, that is ridiculous for at least two reasons: - science provides theory, not proof. (Science does have proof of falsity) - NO public policy decision is ever made based on proof. TARP, the various wars, the setting of the poverty level, the Fed rate, etc. Yet, the near certainty of science is rejected on the grounds of not being "proof"!! The impact of the disrespect for science that comes from religious doctrine is a serious problem for America.
Please cite. Also, note the significant drop in charitable giving that came whe the need increased most sharply - at the recession. On the other hand, government smoothly increased safety net spending as need arose. Again, I do not disparage ngo work or giving. The problem is that it is not guaranteed to all and it is not sufficient.
The data says otherwise, I gave links earlier. You can google the subject - if you are really interested. You have already admitted the govt is not doing the job appropriately. I have shown the private organizations are far more efficient (see previous links) and do as much as the govt. If the need is not met then the logical solution is to build up private charitiable organizations, not the govt welfare programs.
No, I have NOT suggested the government has been inappropriate. I do not see evidence that ngo's (including churches) are doing more than is the government. Plus, if they WERE doing just as much as the government, that would mean they do only half the job. Half a job is not good enough, obviously. Remember that many ngo's get funded by the government - they are part of the governmental solution. You can do all the building you want to do if you see that as a good way to spend your time. I'm totally fine with that. It's certainly not as if all need is covered. This is part of the problem with private efforts that aren't funded by the gov - you can say it is a good direction, but for a number of very good reasons it does not get done. Government programs are a safety net. They catch who falls through. You and your church are free to work toward having fewer fall through. I absolutely applaud that. But, I view it as absolutely unacceptable negligence to punch holes in the safety net when and where the need is not covered.
I don't believe I understand your position here. You constantly point out what a great job your church does. And, constantly I applaud you for that. In fact, I would encourage your church to do more. But, in NO WAY do you point out ANY kind of coverage for the US nor do you propose a method for doing so. Plus, there is the problem with financing, where you do NOT have a private charity based solution. If you want to keep discussing this issue, I think you have to address those issues - NOT what a great job your church does. Also, I frankly doubt your willingness to serve all Americans when you continue to demand the right to discriminate against same sex couples, even in public accommodation and aid situations where the law states requirements against that discrimination.
Read what I posted: "I will claim the opposite - that the blind belief in the theory of evolution, belief to the point of closed mindedness, contributes to the decline in scientific understanding in the general public. An inquisitive person cannot question evolution without being labeled a religious nutcase in an attempt to shut down the conversation. Global warming is the same. Both are claimed to be "accepted science" - and that claim is as anti-science as can be made." No concept in science should ever be declared as final, beyond question, inviolate, "settled". AGW in particular, it was never beyond question, it was never proven, and as has now been shown it was advanced through deception and fabrication (Michael Mann has even essentially defaulted in his lawsuit by failing to provide the data behind his hockey stick graph - if its solid science, I wonder why he has never disclosed the data?). The theory of evolution has numerous problems, but as the last few posts from you show, as soon as someone questions the "settled science" (or should we call it a religion?) of evolution or AGW, the attitude changes from objective review to emotional antagonism, and you resort to personal attack. You have no idea who I am, my background, education, field of expertise - you just assume I am blinded by religion because I dare to question your science/religion. And that's what my last post pointed out - its your type of attitude that is anti-science, and quells scientific debate.
Govt has been waging a war on poverty since LBJ - and it has not made a dent in poverty despite massive funding. Clearly the govt approach is flawed. Time for new thinking. The links I provided show with data that private charitable groups are much more efficient than the govt. The obvious approach is not to put more money into the inefficient govt programs but to fund the private organizations. Its clear you trust the govt despite its inefficiencies, abuse and corruption. I don't trust the govt.
You are not representing the current situation. Once again, you suggest there is a possibility of proof. There is no such possibility in science, PERIOD. Yet you complain that there is some religion-like belief!! It is the very definition of science that tells you you are wrong. It is religion that has absolutes, not science. There is no problem with the toe that has any chance of falsifying the theory. And, there is no other scientific hypothesis that threatens the toe by answering the questions the toe answers. That's simply a statement of where science is on this topic. It does not mean there are no questions. There are always questions in science. But, all modern biology retains the toe as a foundation. No issues rise to the level of threatening that. As Newt Gingrich pointed out, we make public policy when the cost of the problem times the likelihood of the problem goes high. You want proof. But, again, science does not provide proof. Science provides that the cost of warming times the likelihood of mankind's significant contribution demands public policy action. There will never be a time when we get more than that from science, as there is no proof of the positive in science. Requiring proof is a demonstration not just of lack of understanding of what science is, but is active antipathy toward science - after all, we never require proof when we make public policy. So, why would we demand proof only when science is involved If we didn't actually despise science?
I have addressed some of these issues. I provided data with links showing private groups are far more efficient than the govt, and the private groups are just as active and involved as the govt. The idea that private groups cannot serve the need is bias, you have no proof of that claim. The govt however has a track record - of failure. 50+ years of waging war on poverty, with nothing to show for it. That's a different subject. Baking a cake for a gay wedding is not charity. You continue to mix unrelated issues. As an example, I will not participate in a same sex wedding, but I will help a starving homosexual person. One is engaging in sin (same sex marriage). The other is helping your fellow man. You should read about the "good Samaritan" in Luke. Samaritans were Jews who lived in the Northern Kingdom (Israel) and were captured by the Assyrians, took up idolatry, intermarried with non-Jews. Samaritans and Jews absolutely despised each other. For a Jew, the phrase "good Samaritan" is an oxymoron (and to a Samaritan, "good Jew" is an oxymoron). The Samaritan would never accept the Jew or the Jewish beliefs because he believed the Jews were sinful, yet when he saw a beaten Jew in desperate need the Samaritan was charitable. Its exactly the same with same sex marriage.
So Sheldrake is correct when he says natural law isn't absolute, set, but merely a habit which might evolve over great time? You seem to agree with him since there are no absolutes, the speed of light, etc. Until science can tell us specifically how much of warming is natural and how much is co2, they need to lose some of their unscientific certainty. Settled science is not science, it is like religion.
This is false - a cheap canard. Once again, you refused to answer the question. The reason is that you can not answer the question. Your cheap comment on government has the poblem that the gov does answer the questions you can't answer. That's a common problem. Nobody likes gov solutions. At best, they are a compromise. But, you have to have a viable alternative. Just moaning isn't interesting.
We think the speed of light is an absolute, but there is no proof of that. In fact, there are questions as well as known limits to that conjecture. My view is that there IS an absolute truth, but that we are imperfect in our knowledge. Wethought Newton was right. Now, we think that was seriously limited, and Einstein was right. Of course, that isn't a license to ignore science. As for warming, the major scientific groups from various countries agree closely on man's contribution. They have charts that show the sources of warming along with the magnitude of each. They each have error bars that show max and min, bounding the contribution. We would all like the error bars to come closer together, showing greater understanding of each contributing factor. But, there is no doubt that human contribution is the major issue. Natural sources simply palebin comparison even if you look only at the minimum possible human contribution. This is absolutely NOTHING like religion. It is analysis of a massive amount of fact. It is not absolute, as shown by the very existance of error bars. And, waiting for "proof" is bull, as there will never be proof. All we will ever getis gradually shrinking distances between the error bars. So, since we can not get proof, is it your choice to ignore science?
Bull. If you won't even bake a cake, why should I believe you will work to ensure the same sex family has the food, housing, child care, etc to ensure the success of that family? Do not lie to me, please.
