oldzimm Posted June 11, 2011 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 85 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,874 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 348 Days Won: 12 Joined: 03/10/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/08/1955 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Capitalism can work, and it has worked in the past. The governmental frame work of the USA was designed around a system of checks and balances, in both government and private enterprise (so there wouldn't be an monopoly on trade). The only problem is over time our leaders seem to be forgetting that there is a system of checks and balances. I think the whole problem started from the get-go, when it was decided that only the Presidents were allowed to appoint Supreme Court Judges, they appointed Judges that agreed with their agenda and may not of followed the Constitution. I think Supreme Court Judges should be elected by the people. Think about it, we vote on the Executive branch and the Legislative branch, but we don't vote on the Judaical branch. Don't you think that not voting on the Judaical branch sorta throws the system of checks and balances out the window? Just my humble opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted June 11, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 11, 2011 Capitalism can work, and it has worked in the past. The governmental frame work of the USA was designed around a system of checks and balances, in both government and private enterprise (so there wouldn't be an monopoly on trade). The only problem is over time our leaders seem to be forgetting that there is a system of checks and balances. Pure capitalism does not have any government checks and balances, what you have is a hybrid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldzimm Posted June 11, 2011 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 85 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,874 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 348 Days Won: 12 Joined: 03/10/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/08/1955 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Capitalism can work, and it has worked in the past. The governmental frame work of the USA was designed around a system of checks and balances, in both government and private enterprise (so there wouldn't be an monopoly on trade). The only problem is over time our leaders seem to be forgetting that there is a system of checks and balances. Pure capitalism does not have any government checks and balances, what you have is a hybrid... I can go along with that, when our government was formed, there wasn't another one like it, so I guess we could call it a hybrid. I will still say the weak link in our governmental system is the Presidents picking Supreme Court Judges. Now I realize that the Legislature must approve of the Supreme Court nominee the President puts forward, but that's an "give an take" issue, let the people vote for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 I think the whole problem started from the get-go, when it was decided that only the Presidents were allowed to appoint Supreme Court Judges, they appointed Judges that agreed with their agenda and may not of followed the Constitution. I think Supreme Court Judges should be elected by the people. Think about it, we vote on the Executive branch and the Legislative branch, but we don't vote on the Judaical branch. Don't you think that not voting on the Judaical branch sorta throws the system of checks and balances out the window? Just my humble opinion. In principle, I agree oldzimm. However, the electing of judges is not without checks and balances. The people vote in representatives who are supposed to act in theirs stead, representing them. In that way, the judiciary is not under the control of the president, just like spending is not. The Pres can propose a budget, but congress gets to approve or disapprove, and even after that, they can still withhold pending to effectively end any program a president institutes. Unfortunately, too often it is not the best qualified individual that gets the nod. We have seen too often in the U.S., that there is a party that does not believe in the principle laid down in the constitution. The constitution is seen as an obstacle to the changes that they would like to implement. When the party of the president, has majorities in both houses of congress, they often will rubber stamp the presidential appointment or in their interviewing process, make sure that the prospective judge will tow the party line and reinterpret the constitution if necessary. This is tantamount to having a bible translation committee, with a number of atheists, agnostics and cultists comprising the majority, If we were to allow the public to elect judges, on what basis would they do so. Would they go wtih the cuteist, or the most charismatic? Perhaps the one with the most money to spend on publicity (or the one that some special interest would sponsor)? Isn't this how we elect presidents all too often? Voters are not willing to do their homework, I do not have to provide evidence, you know it to be true. If they will not do so for the office of president, are they really going to do so for men (or women) in black robes? It is a rhetorical question. While I grant that the current system is flawed, I am not sure that it can be improved (except by electing Omegaman for Dictator). This is the problem with having things that resemble democracy, you put power into the hands of all equally, When poor people outnumber rich people, they vote money to themselves from others. If the criminal element were to outnumber the more law abiding, would they vote in lawlessness? Till He comes, we will just have to get buy as best we can. This has been and Omegaman Editorial. All views expressed herein are solely Omegaman's, and are not intended to represent Worthy Ministries. We notw return you to your regular programming. Sorry for hijaacking your thread candice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just_abc Posted June 12, 2011 Group: Senior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 901 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 538 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/06/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted June 12, 2011 (edited) deleted by poster Edited June 14, 2011 by just_abc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted June 12, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted June 12, 2011 hi Please note that this post is NOT about politics. It is also NOT about capitalism or socialism etc etc. This post is just a question about what Christians / churches are expected to do. Question : If the percentage of Christians in a non-wealthy country is just a small percentage of the population.... are the Christians / churches in those countries also expected to financially meet all the needs in the entire population? For example if say the percentage of Christians in a population was 5 percent, does that mean the churches there are supposed to financially meet all the needs within the 95 percent? Please note that I am ONLY refering to genuine needs and not simply people being lazy etc. Also once again this post [and question] is NOT about politics or about capitalism / socialism etc. This question is only about the expectation for Christians and churches in such countries. Thank you. Here's your answer; 2Co 9:7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. God will take care of the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldzimm Posted June 12, 2011 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 85 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,874 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 348 Days Won: 12 Joined: 03/10/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/08/1955 Share Posted June 12, 2011 hi Please note that this post is NOT about politics. It is also NOT about capitalism or socialism etc etc. This post is just a question about what Christians / churches are expected to do. Question : If the percentage of Christians in a non-wealthy country is just a small percentage of the population.... are the Christians / churches in those countries also expected to financially meet all the needs in the entire population? For example if say the percentage of Christians in a population was 5 percent, does that mean the churches there are supposed to financially meet all the needs within the 95 percent? Please note that I am ONLY refering to genuine needs and not simply people being lazy etc. Also once again this post [and question] is NOT about politics or about capitalism / socialism etc. This question is only about the expectation for Christians and churches in such countries. Thank you. The title of this topic is.......... Thoughts on Christian Politics... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiloh62 Posted June 12, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 83 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,683 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 1 Joined: 11/14/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/14/1962 Share Posted June 12, 2011 God does not support gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted June 12, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted June 12, 2011 God does not support gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smalcald Posted June 12, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 32 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,258 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 3 Joined: 06/16/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/22/1960 Share Posted June 12, 2011 In regards to the question about the responsibility of the Church for the poor, the first responsibility would be for the poor who are in the congregation, this would follow the first Churches in Acts and also the direction by Paul to those in Corinth about taking care of widows in their congregation. But all poor should be the responsibility of Christians in general once the local church is taken care of. I don't think we have the ability in our Churches to take on the poor of the world thus we need help from the government. For example are we really ready to take on social security are really ready to get rid of that and tell old people well go down to the Church and get a check? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts