04 Oct 07
3 edits
I would just like to add that we can see the Godly principle of servanthood gaining power in this present secular world. Take for example the US. They fork over billions and billions of dollars in foreing aid as well as welfare to its local citizens. Why? Is it soley because they are "good hearted"? I think they are well aware of the Godly principle of servanthood equals power. These people who accept these "gifts" begin to be swayed by thier influence. In effect, they are slowly relinquishing their power over to others by accepting such gifts. Perhaps we can see this truth in the proverb that it is better to give than to recieve seen in the Bible. It seems counterintuitive but it is true nonetheless. The Bible says that we are purchased with a price which was Christ's sacrifice on the cross. So if we accept this "gift" we are accepting his power to be influenced in our lives. 😉
04 Oct 07
Originally posted by whodeyWhy? Is it soley because they are "good hearted"?
I would just like to add that we can see Godly principle of servanthood gaining power in this present world. Take for example the US. They fork over billions and billions of dollars in foreing aid as well as welfare. Why? Is it soley because they are "good hearted"? I think they are well aware of the Godly principle of servanthood equals power. These pe ...[text shortened]... So if we accept this "gift" we are accepting his power to be influenced in our lives. 😉
It's because we're rich. I don't believe we give more of a percentage of our incomes than others do. We just have more to give.
04 Oct 07
3 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI would argue that we give such foreing aid in order to have a voice and sway in foreing affairs. For example, if we do not like the policies of a particular country, guess what? No more aid. In fact, we can then begin to actively boycott your country and get others to join us. How can we get them to join us? Why not threaten to reduce their foreign aid? I reject the notion that it is done simply because we have to much money. In fact, have you seen the national debt of the US? The question then must be asked, who is the US selling out to through such debt?
[b]Why? Is it soley because they are "good hearted"?
It's because we're rich. I don't believe we give more of a percentage of our incomes than others do. We just have more to give.[/b]
In terms of welfare to local citizens it is much the same. As people begin to become more and more dependent on government money, they are then more inclined to listen to such leaders and vote for such leaders.
04 Oct 07
Originally posted by StarrmanThere is nothing inherently wrong with aggression, rather, it all depends upon how and why it is used. In fact, I would assess Christ and Ghandi to have used aggressive tactics, granted, they were nonviolent ones to be sure.
The problem is that people equate a lack of humility to aggression, arrogance and a lack of care for one's fellow man and in no small part to the influence of religion. Instead of championing man's excellence and encouraging strength of character and will, religion has spent two millennia undermining people's perception of humanity to convince them that only ...[text shortened]... by humility and without that strength of self, they would never have achieved what they did.[/b]
As far as championing man's excellence, I would say that there is a certain degree of servanthood associated with this and therefore a certain degree of humility in the mix. There is nothing wrong in encouragement and, in fact, we all need such encouragement from time to time.
In terms of Christ and Ghandi being selfish I would say that such a broad use of the word selfish would make having any goal of any kind equivalent to selfishness. However, there is no escaping the fact that there are good goals and bad goals. Goals that neglect the the overall common good is what I would call selfish. Did Christ and Ghandi do this?
04 Oct 07
3 edits
Originally posted by whodeyI agree that we, via the government, use money to get what we want from people. However I think that this is simply because we have money. I believe statistics show that we don't give a particularly high percentage of our income. I don't see any reason to believe that other wealthy countries don't also use their money to manipulate people.
I would argue that we give such foreing aid in order to have a voice and sway in foreing affairs. For example, if we do not like the policies of a particular country, guess what? No more aid. In fact, we can then begin to actively boycott your country and get others to join us. How can we get them to join us? Why not threaten to reduce their foreign aid? ...[text shortened]... vernment money, they are then more inclined to listen to such leaders and vote for such leaders.
The debt is because of the war. It has nothing to do with why we give away money.
04 Oct 07
Originally posted by whodeyIn the US budget, welfare entitlements are less that one tenth of one percent of the budget. It's a fact. Far and away the largest line item in the US budget is the military, and Billions are being squandered in Iraq that completely unnacounted for.
In terms of welfare to local citizens it is much the same. As people begin to become more and more dependent on government money, they are then more inclined to listen to such leaders and vote for such leaders.[/b]
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAll of this is a bit off topic, however, I would challenge the notion that the war is the reason for our debt. Granted, it is part of the reason, however, the US had a huge debt long before the war ever began.
I agree that we, via the government, use money to get what we want from people. However I think that this is simply because we have money. I believe statistics show that we don't give a particularly high percentage of our income. I don't see any reason to believe that other wealthy countries don't also use their money to manipulate people.
The debt is because of the war. It has nothing to do with why we give away money.
05 Oct 07
As regards US aid:
The US spends more on farm subsidies than they do on aid. If they really wanted to help other people, scrapping farm subsidies and canceling all aid would benefit poor countries more.
The US spends more on arms than any other country.
The US gives less aid as a proportion of GDP than many other countries.
If, for example the US had instead of spending money on the war in Iraq, simply provided free education to all Iraqis, they would have probably done more good.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by whodeyI think you are right, I don't know the facts but I believe that the government is using the war as an excuse to cover the debt.
All of this is a bit off topic, however, I would challenge the notion that the war is the reason for our debt. Granted, it is part of the reason, however, the US had a huge debt long before the war ever began.
20 Jun 08
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderThe “knowledge” you speak of here is knowledge of a fantasy for delusional minds.
Perhaps you should. Knowledge is never a bad thing.
It is “knowledge” in the sense that facts about a fairy tail is “knowledge” except it is presented before us in advance of reason and evidence as proposed facts. But, it is not valid or useful ‘knowledge‘.
“…Knowledge is never a bad thing”
Wrong! or at least learning that knowledge can be a bad thing if it is not 'useful' knowledge such as knowledge about a particular fairy tail that you don’t want to know about because you are not into fairy tails and you don’t want to waste your time learning fairy tails when you could be spending your time doing something you do want to do or even spend your time doing something useful. Many atheists would find reading about the various religions boring and completely irrelevant for the same reason.