Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Jan8: Bearing Fruit
"You two do not own Christianity. You cannot say someone is not a Christian. If you have not sinned, please cast the first stone as Christ taught us."
You are correct on the first point. I do not own Christianity. I would not want to either.
On your third point. I sin daily. As do you. As do we all. I won't be casting any stones.
On your second point...I answer yes and no.
YES. I am in no place to say someone is not a Christian. Scripture is clear that only God can be the judge. Only he looks and can see the heart. No other being can do this. He instructs us to focus on our own lives and sins before looking at the ones of other people.
NO. I CAN say someone is not a Christian. Scripture also asks us to watch for the type of "fruit" a person bears. Do they even bear any? What do their actions tell us? Question peoples' motives and be weary of following those who would lead us astray.
Is this contradictory to the first point about not judging? On first glance, it sure can seem that way. But it isn't.
Jesus came and replaced the law in the salvation process...meaning that people could not be saved through adherance to it (works based). They could only be saved through faith (faith based). Although he changed how salvation worked, he did not do away with the law. The law remained as a means to guide, curb and mirror so people could have clear indications of how to live, serve and lead godly lives. The law remained as a gauge of peope's intentions and behaviors.
As Christians we cannot judge; however, we can and should hold people accountable and responsible for behaviors that are not in line with God's words (either the actual letter of them or the spirit of them [see my PP on Abortion]). There is a great difference between judgment and accountability.
When somene says they are a Christian, I look to their words and actions as the Bible instructs me to. Do these outward tellings depict a person who follows God's words? Yes or no? What fruit are they bearing? Are they bearing any?
Are their behaviors in line with Biblical teachings or in line with popular culture? This is telling for orthodox Christians, while capable of mistakes, tend to say and do things that are contrary to popular culture.
I will not judge anybody. But I will look for indictations. If the fruit or indications are not there, it's fairly certain the person is not a Christ Follower at all or in the very least does not take it seriously, no matter how much I wish they were/did.
Re: Jan8: Bearing Fruit
As Christians, we all sin. We all are bearing rotten fruit. Sinning does not preclude you from being a Christian. If Obama has accepted The Lord as his Savior, he is a Christian. We ALL struggle in our daily walk with Christ and I assume he is no different.
In the garden, God told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit but he gave them free will to do what they please. Being that God is God, he could have removed the fruit and not given them free will. Allowing individuals free will does not imply you are not walking with The Lord. God was walking with himself. The free will to have a gun, have an abortion, to not give money to charities to help the poor, etc.
I (and I think Obama as well) are free will and social justice Christians. I cannot look at what fruit others are bearing and declare they are not a Christian. I can say a particular action was not Christ like or in line with Christianity.
I do agree that "orthodox Christians" may do things or say things not in line with popular culture but that does not mean the actions are Christ like or bearing his fruit. Matt 26:52-54 (pastor preached on it two weeks ago. So good.). Then Jesus said to them, put your swords back in place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think I cannot appeal to my father, and he will at once send me more than 12 legions of angels?" I dont need a gun. My kids dont need guns to protect them at school. We appeal to our Father and his will will be done. Anything less to me is not bearing the fruit of His teachings bMatt 25:40 - What you do for the least of these, you do for me. So raise my taxes because people need food, health care and shelter. Anything less is not bearing the fruit of what He has taught and commanded.
So am I to say if you don't want higher taxes to help your people, if you want to cut entitlement programs you are not a Christian? If you support the second amendment, you are not a Christian. No. I am to say, I do not believe you are acting on Christian principles. But ultimately how you live your life and how anyone lives their life is going to be judge by God. I cannot questions someone's heart and walk with The Lord or if they are a Christian. I don't think it's in your place to question how faithful Obama or anyone is. If you think some of his actions are not Christ like, fine. Say it. But you cannot question his faith without examining your own actions in doing so.
I disagree about raising the taxes. As Christians, we are called to take care of the widows and orphans (the poor). We are NOT called to force other people to do it from the lens of Christianity. In Matthew 22 Jesus says to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's but give unto God that which is God's. Caesar represents the government and the costs of running such a government. It is God's calling that we help those less fortunate so we would give to God though whatever method we feel would be most helpful that money which we would see used to complete God's purposes here on Earth. I cannot justify taxing small businesses (not people) at a higher rate to fulfill a spiritual call. If you wish to give more by paying more taxes because you see that as a way to fulfill the call you have always been free to do so. Forcing other people to give money to the in order to take care of the poor because of your spiritual beliefs to a government who notoriously does not steward that money well is #1 forcing your religion on somebody else which is typically what I would expect the social justice believers to be firmly against and #2 not fulfilling your stewardship and charity call from God because you know it will not be used to fully leverage what you have for God's purposes.
Don't want to quote bc it would be too long.
First, corporations are people is this country according to the s. ct. Second, I do not think the govt is not managing its income for entitlement programs poorly. I also know that they can get more done than the Red Cross or other charities. The Red Cross alone cannot rebuild all that was lost from Sandy. Therefore, I think as Christians its acceptable for us to advocate for taxes to help the poor. I think govt is mismanaging the excessive military budget and spending to much money on war.
Also, the scripture calls us to pay our taxes, tithe and give to charity. I am in full support of giving to Cesar what he ask, which is higher taxes on the wealthy as of Jan. 1. I actually advocate Cesar asking for more, so to speak, since our charitable organizations do not have enough funds to provide care for all the poor because God has called on us to help the poor and clearly people aren't doing it enough voluntarily.
Yes. This is pushing my religion on others. That I agree with but the secular argument for raising taxes is that we are spending more than we take in. I believe that is what Obama and democrats were arguing as a reason to raise taxes. I was just speaking at it from a Christian perspective and how I believe it aligns with my faith. I do think the govt should stick to secular reasons.
Why do you say the government necessarily is less effective at providing for the poor than charities?
The thing is, charities get to pick and choose who they will help. They can turn you away for being a single mother. They can turn you away for being a drug addict. They can turn you away for being gay. They can turn you away for no reason whatsoever. The government can't. If you need help and you meet the eligibility requirements, the government MUST help you. This is how causes that aren't as 'sexy' get funded. This is why people give tons of money to breast cancer 'awareness' while heart disease, which kills FAR more women than BC, is more or less ignored. Charity is at the whims of the giver, while government assistance is guaranteed.
Considering that government healthcare programs are actually more efficient, dollar for dollar, than private insurance, I don't think it's fair to say that government programs are automatically and necessarily less effective than private programs.
For every story you have about 'government waste', I can show you a story about corruption, embezzlement, and inefficiency in private charities.
I do not think that Obama's voting record and stance on abortion is Christ like. I think his viewpoints are in direct contradiction to the love that Christ extends to all human beings regardless of their station in life.
While I support women receiving health care regardless of their financail ability to pay for it, I do not think that promoting or aligning onself with people who promote abortion procedures, or abortion causing agents, is Christ like...it kills innocent babies whom God loves and it harms women very, very deeply on extreme emotional levels. Allowing this to happen to the unborn and permitting this emotional pain on women (some of who are our sisters in Christ) is not loving.
Out of one side of many Christian mouths, including ones here, I hear/read words imploring others to care for their fellow human being regarding healthcare and other human care services. Out of the other side of these same mouths, I hear/read a refusal to care for little lives whom God also loves. How do you get to decide who to care for? Are you not playing God?
I would scare me to be in those shoes, toeing the line of loving the oppressed and the poor, but then turning a back on the small and the weak...how do you reconcil this?
By saying they are not people?
God's word says they are. He knows them before they were formed. They are made in His image. He knows the plans He has for them. He wants the little children to come to Him. Again, I am paraphrasing Scripture here. It's just blantantly clear that He knows, cares about, and loves these unborn children.
The bolded is a bit over-generalized don't you think? Charities are set up by certain people for certain reasons. It's not really that they pick and chose, it's that some are specific to certain demographics, diseases, and locales.
Should I be offended if I go to Habitat for Humanity for help getting my kid to go to Disney World? No. Habitat builds homes. Make a Wish sends kids places.
Also, if a charity it set up by a certain set of people, why should they provide help to people who do not fall into their area of service? Some charities might not have the resources to help drug addicts, for example, so they have to turn them away.
Also, smaller charities are far more nimble in many ways to provide assistance than the federal or state governemtn is....we can use Hurricane Sandy relief efforts as an example. The private charitable organizatins have done a ton to assist and have been more organized and at the ready then, ah hem, FEMA has.
No. Government assistance is not guaranteed. Government assistance is only possible for as long as there are funds to support it. It is not an ever-flowing faucet.
What if you're a person who doesn't fall into *anyone's* line of service? Who's going to help you then? What if you're in an area where there are few local charities, and none of them are willing to help you?
Which private charitable organizations are you referring to that have done more to assist Sandy victims than FEMA? What is your source for this information?
And yes, government assistance IS guaranteed if you meet eligibility requirements. We're talking about two separate things. I am saying that under the law, if you meet the eligibility requirements for, say, food stamps, you WILL receive food stamp benefits.
You're talking about "but what if the money runs out!" which is also completely true of charities as well. In fact, in many areas, we have seen charities run out of money and be unable to meet the need. Food pantries are empty, people are turned away who need help. Which is another reason why relying on charities puts people in a far more precarious situation than relying on the government.
Two things to ML.
Are you conceding that you cannot question Obama's faith as you did in the other post?
Second, if private charities have been so effective with Sandy, why would a Republican governer be pissed when congress moved back the vote (Christie)? Apparently, they do not need the money since the private charities have been better.
Lastly, you asked how do I reconcil a woman having an abortion with my Christian values. It is easy for me. We are all given free choice. It is the same way I reconcil Christians owning guns or advocating for the right to own guns. I don't think it is what God calls us to do but we are all giving free will and God can and will forgive. I am going to worry about my journey with Christ and let others handle theirs. It is very easy. I am firmly pro-choice. Everyone needs to use their free will to decide how they are going to live their lives. God gives us options and free will.
How do you decide not to provide health care to everyone under a universal system? Are you not playing God? We prayed for better healthcare coverage and God gave us the ACA. God upheld it in the high court. God is all powerful and his will was done. So are you playing God in your opposition and deciding who should and shouldn't get coverage? I can't even see how this issue can even be framed as free will. Some people wanted insurance and flat out could not buy it.
God knew them, formed them and let's not forget will protect them if it is his will. I don't need to play God or tell people what they need to do with their bodies. God is capable. If God wants a 4 week old fetus to survive outside the womb, it will. Correct? Isn't that our belief? That God is all powerful? I don't understand why you think you and your beliefs need to be the standard? Why not let God be the standard? He gave everyone free will. Let people use it. It is the same reason I don't think all guns should be banned. Guns are not Christ like but people need to make their own choices. Why do you hold the second amendment higher than the 14? I think we can all agree that guns have killed PEOPLE. If you say no abortions because they kill babies, you have to say no guns because they kill people too.
Yes. This is pushing my religion on others. That I agree with but the secular argument for raising taxes is that we are spending more than we take in. I believe that is what Obama and democrats were arguing as a reason to raise taxes. I was just speaking at it from a Christian perspective and how I believe it aligns with my faith. I do think the govt should stick to secular reasons.
Then why in the HEII are they not cutting spending? No, let's just ravage and pillage the rich people and spend all of their money.
Yeah, Obama raised taxes because he felt it was the Christian thing to do...whatever.
I am not sure why the Republicans are against cutting the defense budget. Please tell me why they won't stop spending. They would rather buy guns than medical care. Awesome.
I have not forgotten, and just because a Republican was in office doesn't make it right.
We are on an unsustainable path of spending in this country. When I look at my family budget and there is more money going out than coming in...it is just common sense to stop spending. I will never understand why that doesn't apply to the government.
I have no problem cutting defense. In fact, I believe we should cut one penny our of every dollar we spend on EVERYTHING for six years and then cap spending at 18 percent of GDP...by 2019 we could have a balanced budget.
I don't give a rats azz who is in the white house. Something has to change.
So you don't have cc debt? I thought I read differently on the mm board. Not to be personal but don't act like you looked at your budget and decided not to spend. I have debt too. A mortgage. As you know, sometimes in life we buy things and pay for it later.
I think the govt needs to live within its means but don't act like you looked at your budget and decided not to spend. Why even lie?
I have no reason to lie, yes I do have debt (too much). But you fail to mention the steps I am taking to rid myself of the debt. Perhaps you missed the post on MM where I am working 3 jobs and DH is working 2...or maybe you missed the post where we are now following Dave Ramsey's TMM plan. But sure, that wouldn't help your argument to note I am taking personal responsibility for the bad choices I have made. So much for not judging others....but OK.
So, while I do have debt, I certainly don't have 16 trillion. Hell, the government couldn't even qualify for a mortgage because their DTI is over 50%.
The way you make it sound, just because I have debt I have no room to speak about the government being in debt. On the contrary, I think it qualifies me MORE to speak about how dangerous being too much in debt is....because I have lived it. I can say unequivocally it is an unsustainable path. And just like I took responsibility for my personal finances, I feel the government should do the same.
Yes, but living beyond your means is universally dangerous. Can you say Greece?
Really Jeni?
Clearly one is larger than the other, but she is comparing apples to apples here.
A budget is a basic explanation of money coming in, money going out, ideas for cutting expenses, ideas for saving money, and plans for future in- and out-lays of money.
Whether it's for a household, a business, or a government, the monetary and fiscal principles of a budget, no matter the size or complexity, are the same.
But why are you working additional jobs? I thought you could balance a budget and reduce debt just by cutting spending.
Here's why it's not as simple as "cut spending": government spending is putting money into the economy. It employs people. It employs direct public sector workers and it employs contractors. It employs people indirectly because there are many businesses who rely on, say, those workers going to work at a federal building.
Let's say we just cut tons of spending and close down a bunch of government offices to save money. OK, now there are 200 people out of work in XYZ Federal Building. They no longer get paychecks, no longer pay taxes, no longer have that money to spend on their groceries, buying clothes, etc. They're probably collecting unemployment now. They no longer go into work every day and no longer get that coffee or breakfast sandwich at the shop next door to XYZ Federal Building. Now the coffee shop has lost 90% of its customers and it has to shut down too. Its employees are out of work and no longer get paychecks or pay taxes. They no longer patronize businesses either, so those businesses suffer reduced revenue.
And now all of those people - the federal workers, the janitors who used to clean the building, the employees of the coffee shop - are all dumped into the unemployment pool. You may know that there's already pretty fierce competition for jobs these days - now instead of competing with 100 other people for that job, I'm competing with 150, because all those newly-unemployed workers are looking for a new job too. The excess labor depresses wages because employers say "hot dog, now I have 50 MORE people competing for this job! I can lower the pay to $10 an hour instead of $14, and people will still be competing for it. And while I'm doing that, I might as well pay EVERYONE $10 an hour instead, because what are they going to do, get another job? good luck with that!"
Now if you're the lucky 1/150 to get the job, you're not going to earn nearly as much, which means you're cutting your personal spending, which means those businesses you patronize are making less money too. You're also not paying as many taxes, which means the government takes in less revenue which means...you guessed it - a higher deficit! Or, they have to raise tax rates.
Repeat this across the country, times however many hundreds of thousands of people you cut out of government.
So, how does this benefit the economy again?
No. It's not.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/24/opinion/la-oe-craighead-spending-20110824
Politicians of both parties have furthered the misunderstanding by frequently drawing an analogy between the federal budget and household budgets. "Families across this country understand what it takes to manage a budget," President Obama declared in a February radio broadcast. "Well, it's time Washington acted as responsibly as our families do." While this comparison appeals to a general belief that we should "live within our means," it's also misleading.
Decisions about the federal budget are fundamentally different from those of individual households, because policymakers need to account for how their choices affect the economy as a whole. It is more appropriate to liken government budget deficits to prescription medicine. Just as medication can be helpful to a sick patient, deficits can aid a failing economy.
The U.S. economy slumped largely because of a reduction in spending by households and businesses. For households, this was a reasonable response to declining property values, job losses and insecurity. Likewise, it made sense for firms to cut back on investment as their customers spent less. If the federal government were to act this way, though, it would reinforce the decline in economic activity, not alleviate it.
To stabilize the economy, the federal government needs to counterbalance the swings in consumer and business expenditures by moving in the opposite direction. When consumers and firms cut back, government can help replace the lost economic activity through direct spending (on infrastructure projects, for example) and through indirect means, such as tax cuts, which increase households' disposable income.
This idea of "counter-cyclical" policy was the basic principle behind the tax cuts and spending in the stimulus bill of early 2009, as well as the one-year payroll tax cut agreed to as part of the budget deal at the end of 2010. Though the stimulus proved inadequate in scale, it helped reduce the depth of the downturn. Without it, the unemployment rate in 2010 would have been between 0.7 and 1.7 percentage points higher, according to an estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. That is, the economy has been lousy, but it would have been considerably worse without government action.
In short, the fact that the government is taking in less in tax revenue than it is spending is helping, not hurting, the economy. Immediate large spending cuts or tax increases to close the budget gap would be a severe blow to an already weak recovery.
This does not mean that deficits are always harmless. Like prescription medications, large deficits are appropriate only under certain circumstances. In a healthy economy, large-scale government borrowing can drive up interest rates and draw money away from private business investment. This is the main reason governments should not run large deficits when the economy is operating near capacity. The fact that long-term interest rates are at their lowest level in decades ? and have remained so despite Standard & Poor's downgrade ? shows this is not a problem now.
Really? And you have intimate knowledge of my financial situation?
If you must know, my DH was out of work for 2 months. So, I was REPLACING an income as well as trying to balance a budget.
Now that he is back to work, and budget is balanced extra income from a second (or third) job works nicely to create an emergency savings fund.
I have never suggested HUGE CUTS. In fact, I believe if we cut 1 penny out of every dollar the government spends over the next 6 years and then cap spending at 18% of GDP we could get a balanced budget by 2019.
http://www.newsmax.com/LannyDavis/Mack-Penny-Plan-budget/2011/08/03/id/406026
You're missing my point. My point is that you (and many conservatives) are violently opposed to the idea of generating additional income in order to balance the federal budget (i.e. taxes), yet you recognize that generating additional income is crucial to balancing your household budget and that you cannot effectively balance your household budget simply by cutting your spending.
OK so what cuts are you suggesting? You want to cut 1% of the federal budget, but from where? Laying off public employees? Purchasing fewer supplies and products? Where do these cuts come from?
Is the deficit really only 1% of the budget?
I am not opposed to raising taxes when the economy is good. Hell Bill Clinton raised taxes and I wasn't screaming because the economy could handle it.
But to raise taxes during a down economy doesn't make sense to me. You and I have had this conversation a million times. I believe higher taxes slows the economy...I know you don't agree so we shall just leave it there.
Obviously the deficit is more than 1% of the budget, but this is a start. I am suggesting cuts in ALL government spending. Cut 1 penny out of every dollar the government spends. It is a more balanced approach than the scenario you posted above.
I would recommend reading the article. I know it is a conservative news outlet, but the article is written by Lanny Davis who is a liberal.