Who is your pick so far for the next US president?

[Hank77]

Well, if "christian values" are indeed things like compassion, empathy, charity, etc.
Aren't christians supposed to feed the hungry and help the poor and sick and all that?

Why would they be against their nation doing exactly that?

I find it incredibly ironic that those who are most against such programs in the US, always seems to correlate with the most fundamentalist christians.

I can answer that question because I talk to Christians who are against the government taking money from one person and giving it to someone else. It is because they believe that it is the families and Christians, the churches, that should be the ones providing for the poor and needy and that they should be able to do this by their own decisions in giving, not through the government.
I know many Christians who pay taxes and give at least 10% more of their gross income to the church and other charities on top of the taxes that they pay.
They see that the government spends too much of the taxes that should go to these programs on administrative costs and are inept at what they do. There is a lot of waste in government. And that there are people receiving from these programs that shouldn't be, they are scammers and thieves. If these cares are taken care of mostly locally and through non-profit charitable organizations, that are monitored for honesty, more people who need it could be helped. The federal government just isn't good at money management, that is obvious.

In fact, there seems to be a trend that the more "christian" one calls himself, the less importance is given to these "christian values" - even to the point where they are firmly against it and would scream bloody murder if their government would even only CONSIDER implementing sich programs.

They are not against Christian values, they are against big governmental agencies taking their money and deciding which poor, sick, disabled people it should go to and forcing them to participate in huge, poorly managed governmental charity programs. At least that is what I hear most of them say.

I don't think American Christians are the same as the Christians of old, today American Christians say all the words but do not act on those words, for them they are just words they must say to identify with their Christianity, loving one another and turning the other cheek were Christ's values, for them that's a weak and watery kind of Christianity

Do you give at least 10% of your gross income, over and above the taxes you pay to charity? (That is intended as a rhetorical question, it is not any of my business what you do with your money.) Because many, many of them do, and many do volunteer work in hospitals, soup kitchens, etc.

It's more than ironic. It's outrageous. But then much of the Christian right in America - while pretending otherwise - really secretly believes in the prosperity bible,

In my almost 40 yrs. of being a Christian I have talked to people on both sides of the prosperity doctrine. Reading the scriptures I can understand where both sides are coming from but personally do not agree with the Modern Word of Faith prosperity doctrine, tithing is not taught in the NT, and the OT does not teach this modern approach to tithing either. Personally I believe that we are called to give, and if the Lord chooses to bless us with more then we are called to give more.

 

[Hetta]

I can answer that question because I talk to Christians who are against the government taking money from one person and giving it to someone else. It is because they believe that it is the families and Christians, the churches, that should be the ones providing for the poor and needy and that they should be able to do this by their own decisions in giving, not through the government.
I know many Christians who pay taxes and give at least 10% more of their gross income to the church and other charities on top of the taxes that they pay.

They see that the government spends too much of the taxes that should go to these programs on administrative costs and are inept at what they do. There is a lot of waste in government. And that there are people receiving from these programs that shouldn't be, they are scammers and thieves. If these cares are taken care of mostly locally and through non-profit charitable organizations, that are monitored for honesty, more people who need it could be helped. The federal government just isn't good at money management, that is obvious.

They are not against Christian values, they are against big governmental agencies taking their money and deciding which poor, sick, disabled people it should go to and forcing them to participate in huge, poorly managed governmental charity programs. At least that is what I hear most of them say.

And I would call them liars on that, based upon the comments I see on CF and elsewhere, which betrays only contempt for the poor, sick and disabled. Therefore, I would not trust them to make the decision on who is most worthy of money. I know they like to say that the church will take care of its own, but if that was true, there would be no need for government programs because there would be no poverty. But it simply doesn't happen.

BTW, I don't begrudge paying my taxes, which also go to maintaining infrastructure if you didn't know that. Perhaps all the anti-taxers would like to stop using the highways right now. I also donate my time to a variety of charities that help the sick and needy. But what I won't ever do again is tithe to a church, because all that pays for is church jaunts.

 

[Albion]

It's surprising (or is it?) that so few people here support Hillary.

 

[Hetta]

It's surprising (or is it?) that so few people here support Hillary.

Evidently it doesn't surprise those of us who won't be voting for Hilary. However, if she was the choice, I would vote for her over a Republican every time.

 

[Albion]

Evidently it doesn't surprise those of us who won't be voting for Hilary. However, if she was the choice, I would vote for her over a Republican every time.

That's probably right. If she wins (and she's just about the favorite at present) it will be America agreeing to not get what it wants in a president. Wonderful.

The Sanders people will hope she'll be better than every Republican, and the Republicans will hope she'll be better than Obama.

 

[Hetta]

That's probably right. If she wins (and she's just about the favorite at present) it will be America agreeing to not get what it wants in a president.

Actually if she wins, that means the majority of America wanted her, and as we live in a democracy, that's the way it works.

 

[Albion]

Actually if she wins, that means the majority of America wanted her

No, it doesn't.

It means that the majority wanted her IN PREFERENCE TO THE OTHER NOMINEE, that's all.

 

[Hetta]

No, it doesn't.

It means that the majority wanted her IN PREFERENCE TO THE OTHER NOMINEE, that's all.

Well that's true OF EVERY SINGLE ELECTION.

 

[Albion]

Well that's true OF EVERY SINGLE ELECTION.

Yes, but you're obscuring the point here. USUALLY, the nominee of one or the other party does indeed have the favor of the majority of American voters.

From the way it's shaping up, that won't be the case in 2016, but that if Hillary wins, she won't have been the first choice of anywhere near the majority of Americans, regardless of party.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I can answer that question because I talk to Christians who are against the government taking money from one person and giving it to someone else. It is because they believe that it is the families and Christians, the churches, that should be the ones providing for the poor and needy and that they should be able to do this by their own decisions in giving, not through the government.
I know many Christians who pay taxes and give at least 10% more of their gross income to the church and other charities on top of the taxes that they pay.
They see that the government spends too much of the taxes that should go to these programs on administrative costs and are inept at what they do. There is a lot of waste in government. And that there are people receiving from these programs that shouldn't be, they are scammers and thieves. If these cares are taken care of mostly locally and through non-profit charitable organizations, that are monitored for honesty, more people who need it could be helped. The federal government just isn't good at money management, that is obvious.

They are not against Christian values, they are against big governmental agencies taking their money and deciding which poor, sick, disabled people it should go to and forcing them to participate in huge, poorly managed governmental charity programs. At least that is what I hear most of them say.

Do you give at least 10% of your gross income, over and above the taxes you pay to charity? (That is intended as a rhetorical question, it is not any of my business what you do with your money.) Because many, many of them do, and many do volunteer work in hospitals, soup kitchens, etc.

In my almost 40 yrs. of being a Christian I have talked to people on both sides of the prosperity doctrine. Reading the scriptures I can understand where both sides are coming from but personally do not agree with the Modern Word of Faith prosperity doctrine, tithing is not taught in the NT, and the OT does not teach this modern approach to tithing either. Personally I believe that we are called to give, and if the Lord chooses to bless us with more then we are called to give more.

They are just correlations that I observe.

I know very well, off course, then when you confront them, they will obviously give a whole bunch of reasons why they are against social programs - none of which will be "because it is too christian".

Nevertheless, it is my observation (at least when it comes to americans) that usually there is a strong correlation between religiosity and capitalistic ideas.

It's not what I would expect.

And to answer your (rhetorical) question, yes, I do volunteer work at least once a month. I used to do something almost every weekend, but I just don't have the time anymore to do that since I started my own company. Now, I have even less time since my lovely son was born about a month ago

I still do what I can though. The last thing I did was help out with the Syrian refugees in Brussels a couple weeks ago.

I don't give money to charity every month, no. Primarily because I'm not really in a position to do so. I have enough to live a comfortable life, but not to give away. I would if I were rich I think. But let's take up that subject again when I'm actually rich, if ever

Nevertheless, part of my income goes into charity by default, through taxes going to social programs (universal health care, social housing, welfare, etc).

We do a lot of charity shows with the band though. We actively promote ourselves to play for free on shows in support of whatever that needs support. They are always fun gigs, we always meet interesting people and we contribute in the process. I love it.

 

[cow451]

I mean I'd want to leave (I'm leaving anyway in a few years). I'll let you guys deal with him.

Go Hetta! And take Dr. Carson with you!

 

[cow451]

It's surprising (or is it?) that so few people here support Hillary.

Let's see ....... most posters on a conservative Christian forum don't plan to vote for Hillary Clinton....shocking!

 

[cow451]

........as we live in a democracy, that's the way it works.

Actually, it's a Republic, but you're forgiven.

 

[Albion]

Let's see ....... most posters on a conservative Christian forum don't plan to vote for Hillary Clinton....shocking!

When did this become a "conservative Christian" forum??

I was referring to the whole of the postings from the whole spectrum, including all those Democrats who posted that they were for Bernie instead of Hillary.

 

[Hetta]

When did this become a "conservative Christian" forum??

Oh. come. on.

 

[Hetta]

Go Hetta! And take Dr. Carson with you!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. LOL.

 

[Albion]

Oh. come. on.

??? Have you noticed that it's just 'American Politics' and a large number of posters are Leftists and Democrats, precisely because it's NOT confined to Conservatives or even Christians? Five of the previous seven posts, for just one example, demonstrate that.

 

[Frenzy]

.

 

[Hank77]

I know they like to say that the church will take care of its own, but if that was true, there would be no need for government programs because there would be no poverty. But it simply doesn't happen.

I would say that there weren't enough people taking care of the elderly and so we have SSI. I see that these programs have developed over time because the needs of the poor were not being met, so I think we agree on this.

BTW, I don't begrudge paying my taxes, which also go to maintaining infrastructure if you didn't know that. Perhaps all the anti-taxers would like to stop using the highways right now.

There is no need to be snarky. This is the every reason that communications break down rather than people coming together to come up with working solutions to our problems in this country. That goes on far too much between the politicians in Congress.
If you want to know what percentage of your taxes go to these programs compared to infrastructure, etc. you can look at the combined percentages of the US budget that goes to these things and that is the same percentage of your taxes that are going there. It's not rocket science or I wouldn't have been able to work in the field of accounting and tax preparation for 30 yrs.. I'm not smart enough to be a rocket scientist.

I also donate my time to a variety of charities that help the sick and needy. But what I won't ever do again is tithe to a church, because all that pays for is church jaunts.

And that is your right to make those decisions. I appreciate your participation in helping to better our country and peoples lives in general. The more helping hands the better off we will all be.

 

[Hetta]

Yes, but you're obscuring the point here. USUALLY, the nominee of one or the other party does indeed have the favor of the majority of American voters.

That's simply not true.

From the way it's shaping up, that won't be the case in 2016, but that if Hillary wins, she won't have been the first choice of anywhere near the majority of Americans, regardless of party.

Not being the first choice =/= not being the majority choice.

These are two different things. Just because someone isn't the first choice of voters doesn't mean that they can't be the choice of the majority of voters.