^MaxWilder

My posts are almost always more biting than I intend. It gets me into trouble all of the time, so no worries.

I think I can safely say that I understand where you are coming from, and your logic is right on based on what Christians have lead you to believe about salvation. But that is just the thing about most Christian churches that I dislike. They teach salvation as if it is some sort of checklist. But I think that if you assume God is perfect, you must assume that he is perfectly just. That is, if there were a final judgement, God would make up for all of the inequities of this world and forgive you for things that you could not help. My foster sister lived with us for many years after being taken out of an extremely abusive situation. We did the best we could to help her, but her life is in shambles and will probably never fully recover. Her life is full of what I would call sin. Do I believe that she will be eternally damned? Absolutely not. She is not accountable for her parents' actions.

That is not to say that God overlooks everything. To be religious, you must truly believe in agency and that all or most of your choices are truly your own. Even if it is hard for people to make good choices, they still could have made them and God will judge them accordingly. It's called accountability. Obviously this depends on if the person knows they are sinning or not. Children are not accountable. Insane people are not accountable. I'm not God or anything, but I would think that a trained and indoctrinated terrorist would not be as accountable for murder as I would be, because I have grown up in a healthy society and a good environment.

As for being skeptical and not knowing which religion to choose out of thousands, that may or may not be your own fault. If the right thing has never come your way, of course it isn't your fault. If you have done your best to do what feels moral and correct, you're not going to be eternally damned. If Christians believe that, you don't really believe that God is just and merciful and loving. If I'm right, God does love us. He is not waiting in the shadows to catch us in the act and then throw us into hell.

As for picking and choosing, I don't really believe that I do that. These "opinions" that I speak of do not include important points of doctrine. Most of the stuff Christians "ignore" is the Law of Moses, which I explained was thrown out by all but the Jews after Christ's birth. If you would like to point out something specific from the Bible that you think we (or I) ignore, I would be happy to explain to you why I think it isn't relevent or doctrinal.

Also, I believe in prayer, personal revelation, and modern-day scripture and prophets and all of that, so that always helps with Bible interpretation. I'm an odd duck, though. Most Christians believe that God stopped communicating with us on that level at some point in the past. Don't ask me why he would do that. I guess he doesn't love us as much or something.

I know you guys probably think I'm off my rocker, but I just hope that you realize that there is more to Christianity than meets the eye. Logical thought and theism are not always mutually exclusive.

You bring up a lot of good points. I think you just raised the sophistication of my attitude towards this discussion.


Lemme tell you a little about Deedub81: I was raised with 5 siblings plus a foster sister. We lived in a 4 bedroom condominium in San Jose, CA. My parents got one room, my foster sister had another, my other two sisters had the third room, and us four boys shared the fourth. My mother and father both worked two jobs while I was in my elementary and middle school years, both of them have a BA from ASU. We ate oatmeal for breakfast, PB&J for lunch, and veggies from the garden with beans and rice for dinner. My mom would pick me up from school, when I was just 10 years old, and I would sit on the tailgate of our station wagon and throw the newspapers my mom had just rolled. I know "poor."

After I graduated high school, I took a job at the Grill on the golf course of a private resort in the Silicon Valley of California. The entry fee for membership in this club was $250,000. I was on a first name basis with many of the members -some of the wealthiest men in the world: John Chambers, Thomas Siebel, Ronnie Lott, and many others. Some of them would golf 7 or 8 times a month, often with only their caddy as a companion. One of the highlights of my job was the time I spent with these men as I served them their lunch on the terrace overlooking the golf course. My favorite thing to do was to ask them how they got to be where they were. How did they start? What made them successful?

Now I'm self-employed. I supply factory direct construction materials and arrange labor for large, custom built homes owned by some of the wealthiest men in Colorado. Today, for example, I spent all day working with a developer on his 15,000sf home. I've been working with him for the past 3 months and we're not done yet. In short, I know "wealthy."

The wealthy and the poor have more in common than you give them credit for. Many modern millionaires live in middle-class neighborhoods, work full-time and shop in discount stores like the rest of us. I tend to believe that millionaires are more average than most other people think.

In an article in the Reader's Digest, Kristyn Kusek Lewis writes, "The reality is that 80 percent of Americans worth at least $5 million grew up in middle-class or lesser households."

T. Harv Eker, author of Secrets of the Millionaire Mind says,“For the rich, it’s not about getting more stuff. It’s about having the freedom to make almost any decision you want.”

Being a self-made millionaire is the "American Dream" realized, isn't it? I'm not saying they don't have a responsibility to use their success for good. I do believe, however, that they should have the freedoms that we're all entitled to. They already pay a higher dollar amount than the rest of the country. Why isn't that good enough?



Back to McCain and his wealth: How could you possibly say that McCain led a life free of hardship? His family wasn't wealthy, he married into wealth. Also, consider the time he served in the military. Do you consider that "ease?"

Does the fact that Obama had, in your opinion, a tougher life than McCain make him a better candidate for President? Not at all. That has nothing to do with qualifications. When has Obama ever stood up to his party's leadership when he knows something isn't right? I can tell you when McCain has. What has Obama done to extinguish Pork Barrel spending? I can tell you what McCain's done. When has Obama reached across the isle to get legislation passed? Not very often.

Don't get me started (and I don't even like McCain)! I didn't choose John McCain to represent the republican party. It's just so hard to keep my mouth shut when the other option, at this point, is clearly a lesser candidate. All this talk of Obama's lack of experience is getting old, but they have a really good point. Of course, that's just my opinion.



I didn't mean for you to believe that I think the only cause of homelessness is laziness. What I mean to say is, thanks to the many social programs already in place, there is no reason for anyone to sleep without a roof over their head, warm clothes, and a full belly.


Not being wealthy" isn't a disease. All people need is food, shelter, and opportunities.

Don't Americans already have these things?

Some do. Some don't. I had great opportunities being born to a well-off family, and sent to private school. Most of my neighbors didn't have much opportunity, while many of my classmates wasted the opportunities that they'd been given.

I wholeheartedly agree that a lot of us waste opportunities. I'm curious, what opportunities did most of your neighbors not have?



This question remains unanswered: I still don't understand how republicans are taking my money and giving it to corporations.




Commentary on the more stable economy in other countries: I was in Japan this summer with my chamber choir. This was our second tour in Japan. I look up to the Japanese people for many different reasons. Americans could learn a lot from their attitudes, philosophies; not to mention their economy. One thing in particular stood out to me on this last trip. I couldn't ignore it. Everywhere I turned it was staring me in the face. "Made in Japan"

We have strayed too far from that kind of patriotism, haven't we?



I agree that there are many countries with great programs funded by the government. I just wouldn't want to live there. I don't want to pay higher taxes. I want the freedom to spend my money how I see fit. Let me give you an example: I donate a substantial portion of my income to non-profit organizations every year, almost 12% in 2007. I hand picked where I wanted to donate based on my personal research and opinions. Some of my donations go to assist the poor. 100% of my donated money goes straight to where it's needed because it's handled by unpaid volunteers, not salaried government workers and politicians.

I don't pay very much for my health care because I don't need much. I maintain a policy for emergency health care, and I pay my doctor in cash when I get an ear ache.

Tell me how my lifestyle (and the life of the families that benefit from my donations) would improve if my money was paid in taxes rather than donations?





In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Wow, quite a straw man argument you started off with. I'm more thinking places like Germany and Sweeden, or even Japan as countries who manage their economies more wisely than we do.

Scandinavia is particularly highly ranked in schooling and health care statistics, and all of the countries involved use a mix publicly funded schooling (even at the university level), and a mix of nationally sponsored free healthcare, and privately available healthcare.

Only in their mix, they've made the public half so good that there's not a lot of demand for the private arms for each.

I strongly disagree with laziness being the only cause of homelessness. Many have mental health issues, or physical health issues...and government programs don't help as much as you're thinking, because no one's choosing to be poor or homeless.

"Not being wealthy" isn't a disease. All people need is food, shelter, and opportunities.

Don't Americans already have these things?

Some do. Some don't. I had great opportunities being born to a well-off family, and sent to private school. Most of my neighbors didn't have much opportunity, while many of my classmates wasted the opportunities that they'd been given.

I don't think there's any inherent superiority to people with money, nor inferiority (or laziness) in the poor. I buy my lunch from a deli across the street from where I work every day, and I guarantee you every one of those people work harder than I do. My education lets me earn more with less effort, and I see no reason why we couldn't make the same (or at least better) education available to everyone, because what I do isn't that much harder than making a sandwich (programming), it just takes longer to learn.

As for your comparisons, I get that it's part of your ideology to assume that all government programs suck, but in my opinion that's a self-fulfilling prophecy brought about by the conservatives who've wormed their way into government. Other countries make government solutions work, why can't we?

I don't know what's wrong with public schools, but the conservative argument that private schools have some magic power that public schools don't is simply silly. My private school was nice because a) they had a tremendous budget b) they had a high bar for acceptance, and c) only families with tons of resources could afford it, which all by themselves self-selects against having lots of kids from troubled homes, or mental/social disorders, underpaid/overworked teachers, and large classes.

In short, when you only let fairly gifted students in, it's going to have a better than average performance. I don't know what would happen if you pumped the same kind of money into an inner-city public school, but I imagine it would improve, but not to the degree where it could compete with my snooty upper-crust school.

As for saying the difference between rich/poor isn't a problem, how many top 1% income earners do you know personally? They're in a bubble, and most have no idea what life is like for the rest of us, because they were born to a life of privilege.

McCain was born into it to a certain degree (Dad and Grandad were both Admirals), and Cindy was born to it.

Obama wasn't. He had a decent enough situation, and his talent brought him good opportunities, but it wasn't like the life free of hardship the two McCains grew up in (and stayed in for the most part).

As someone with firsthand experience with the kind of people that grow out of a family with lots of money, I can say that their personal situation is very relevant to the kinds of policies they will try to enact.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I still don't understand how republicans are taking my money and giving it to corporations.

Communism is great on paper. It makes you feel all warm inside, doesn't it? If we want a smaller gap between the rich and the poor, we need not change our economy and government. We could move to Cuba or North Korea; I hear they're great places to live. None of those evil corporations.

The rich already pay a larger tax than the poor. They are already punished for their success. The poor already have numerous social programs available to them in this country. There are also thousands of private and religious, non-profit organizations. The problem with governmentally run social problems (taxing the rich to support the poor): when the government is left in charge of an organization, they don't work as well as they should.

As for messing with the tax code to win elections, you've got to have noticed that both parties do that, right? Hell, even Libertarians and Greens do that (when people notice they exist at all).

Both parties have also generally moved the tax plan in their advertised direction (if not always right away, or to the degree they originally promised). Republicans generally flatten taxes (mostly by reducing the high end), while Democrats widen the differences at each end (often by raising taxes at the high end).


Have you ever been to a DMV? Why isn't the USPS as fast as FedEx? Is Public Education getting better or worse? If money and/or time was no option, would you send your children to public, private, or home school to get them the best education available? Most Americans would say private, and yet they vote to give the government more money for social programs. Why? Because they spend our money so well?

The wealthiest 1% of the country donate millions to charities so that they can get tax breaks. I'm not saying they're saints, I'm well aware that they are just working the system. BUT - I'd rather have their money going into the private sector where those charities can fund research, give scholarships, and provide assistance to the poor and unfortunate more effectively and efficiently than the government does.

Nobody in this country should go hungry. Nobody should ever have to sleep with no roof over their head, or not have access to a college education. Thanks to the many federally and privately funded social programs they don't have to. ...unless they're lazy. In that case, what do we do? Support them for life on food stamps?

The gap between the rich and the poor in this country isn't the cause. It's the result. The result of poor education, low expectations, over-medication, and constant distractions. We could talk about taxes.... but they're fine where they are. When somebody promises to lower taxes here, and raise taxes there simply to get elected, I just shake my head.

Why don't we debate more substantial and longer term solutions? "Not being wealthy" isn't a disease. All people need is food, shelter, and opportunities.

Don't Americans already have these things?