Flirting with Elvis: Episode 31
by Lisa Anderson on 08/22/2008 at 6:00 PM
 iTunes | Listen Now/RSS |
The Boundless folks finally got my references back, and apparently have been sufficiently convinced that I am, in fact, a Christian. As a result, they're going to let me write the podcast post most weeks. What's more, they even included my bio and photo among the Boundless Line elite, so you can now read my whole life story in a paragraph. You will be blessed.
To celebrate, I sent some of you about 392 copies of Boundless flair on Facebook this week. Sorry about that. Something went awry, my system shut down, and several of you wrote to me saying, "Um, thanks for the outrageous amount of duplicate flair." Again, my apologies, but please find and post the flair on your boards and forward to friends. Please do this without a spirit of bitterness. And please send M&Ms to me here at Focus as a thank-you.
As we chatterboxes kick off this week's show, we wish those in college a "Happy Back to School." We reminisce a bit about our undergrad and graduate years: the stops and starts, laughter and tears -- and the Sponge Man.
The Art of Flirting -- 9:22
Eye contact, hair tossing, "sidewinder" hugs ... file all of these under "flirty behaviors." Join the Boundless team plus Schelau and Mark, two flirty singletons, as we unpack what's hot and what's not when it comes to flirting. Is flirting appropriate for Christian singles? Can you flirt with more than one person at once? Can you flirt while wearing a WWJD bracelet? We'll ask the questions and offer some helpful answers. Except Ted, who apparently started flirting with his wife by looking at her bookshelf. But she married him, so what can I say?
Social Justice -- 29:58
This week, Focus Sr. Vice President Tom Minnery is in the studio to unpack the topic of social justice. Tom, author of Why You Can't Stay Silent, takes on government assistance, tax hikes and the responsibility of the Church while offering a strong case for the continued fight for the unborn and the sanctity of marriage. As the Democratic National Convention kicks off in Denver, check out this segment for some issues-related insight. Tom will teach you a new Greek word in the process. Bonus!
The Heart of Rock and Roll -- 43:33
Steve's dad met Elvis. Yes he did. He was also a musician himself. But aside from the coolness (and you'll see this coolness in a couple samples of his music this week), he learned what it's like to use his gifts in some unexpected ways. So if you can roll your tongue, lick your elbow, walk on stilts or impersonate J-Lo, listen up: there may be a ministry waiting for you.
Relationship Rewind -- 50:14
Bruce and his wife are trying to mentor some dating couples in their church, but feel these couples have put the cart before the horse. Or maybe they can't even see the cart anymore. These couples are excluding others, getting physical, becoming emotionally involved and/or dependent on one another ... all without tackling some of the foundational issues necessary to ensure a solid relationship. What is Bruce to do? How can he and his wife get these couples to take a step (or eight) back in order to get some clarity in their relationships? Motte Brown draws from his own experience to offer guidance to those involved.
As for me, I'm off to practice my flirting skills (insert hair toss and eyelash flutter here).
1. Boston Matt said the following at 12:55 AM on Aug 23:
I think the best way to summarize when "flirting" is wrong is to go back to the 90's and that wonderful, powerful, inspirational song: Mambo # 5.
They lyric in question?
"to me flirting is just like a sport"
Yeah, not cool!
2. Jeremy said the following at 1:36 AM on Aug 23:
When asked about "abortion fatigue", evangelicals becoming disillusioned with abortion as a sole defining political issue with nothing to show for it over the last 30 years, Tom Minnery responded that the work over those years has been important, and stated, "Slowly, we are returning to a pro-life majority view in this country."
... is that based on anything more than wishful thinking? Every poll I have seen indicates exactly the opposite. Here is a summary page of many abortion polls; it would seem the vast majority is still in favor of abortion being legal.
3. A.M.C. said the following at 3:06 AM on Aug 23:
I have a few thoughts regarding the segment on social justice:
1. I do agree that using higher taxes on the rich is the standard "liberal" response, while "reaching into your own pocket" is the correct "Christian" response. But if we want to find an application in terms of public policy, we might reach the conclusion that the libertarian position (defined as "the government should govern as little as possible") is best, simply because a small government could lead to lower taxes and, consequently, enable the rich to reach into their own pockets.
==> The problem, however, is that statistics show that the rich gives proportionally less of their income to the church or to charity. Since the "liberal" response of forcing them to give more (by raising taxes on the rich) is considered ineffective, it seems that the second step after downsizing the government would be preaching the Gospel (and the tithe) to the upper class. After all, the richest people of a society are in the best position to provide financial support for administering social justice.
==> But even that isn't enough, because certain rich people may still give to organizations that go against our cause of Biblical "social justice." For example, the Wikipedia Page for Bill Gates states that Gates and his friend Warren Buffet (currently the 3rd and 1st richest people in the world, respectively), are major donors of Planned Parenthood. If this is true, it is not surprising that our pro-life cause is difficult, simply because the money that we give to pro-life organizations are no match for the millions of dollars that people such as Gates and Buffet are giving to pro-choice organizations!
***Disclaimer: By no means do I intend to single out Bill Gates or brand him as an agent of the Devil. My point is that we'll have to convince the rich to join our side to administer "social justice" more effectively.
2. Again, I agree that maintaining the integrity of the family is essential for fighting poverty. The problem, however, is that critics could always find counterexamples to show that this alone is not enough-- surely some people are barely surviving on two incomes even though they are not wasteful spenders (because their jobs don't pay much, etc.). In addition, critics could even choose to disagree with us on our opposition of gay marriage by saying that having a child financially supported by a gay couple is better than having the child supported by a single parent. We certainly need a better defense against this charge.
4. Paxton said the following at 10:18 AM on Aug 23:
hahaha winking
it's a grandpa thing
5. Ron said the following at 10:31 AM on Aug 23:
What in the world are sidewinder hugs?
6. hxcjf said the following at 11:46 AM on Aug 23:
The libertarian creed is not only the correct, exclusive and logically consistent moral view of government, it contains within its political theory the secrets to vast wealth that can be obtained in the currency and financial markets. All the socialist/fascist regimes in 6000 years of recorded history have fallen in the same manner, and it is up to those who understand truth to use their knowledge to enter the markets and apprehend the wealth that is being transferred. Then they can create a new order on the remains of the old that is closer to the biblical understanding of the role of government. This is what Proverbs means when it says the wealth of the wicked is transferred to the righteous. Evil ultimately destroys itself, and we must position ourselves to profit from it and take over. Einstein said the most powerful [non-deity] force in the universe was compound interest. That is how the wealthy have become wealthy. We pay them in interest on everything from car loans to credit cards to house mortgages. We get poorer and they get richer. We must use what we understand about free market economics to turn the system on its head and use that financial power to create a culture of liberty.
7. Marika said the following at 12:35 PM on Aug 23:
I interpret a "sidewinder hug" as that friendly arm around the shoulder hug, with just your sides touching. Way different than the "frontal"-type hug (for a lack of other descriptive word!). For instance a “sidewinder” clearly communicates “friendship only”, while the “frontal” communicates “I’m comfortable enough to actually embrace you”...and whatever they might mean with that. (Yes, I’m slightly confused by some men’s flirting / charisma to a point where i've actually given up on trying to read/interpret the signs.)
8. Jo said the following at 3:33 PM on Aug 23:
I don't really get the point of the sideways hug. I mean the only reason for it is to avoid a 'frontal' hug, and I don't really see why that's necessary. :/ Among my friends, we all hug each other. Women hug women, men hug men, men hug women. Never is a simple hug taken to mean more than friendship.
9. Paul said the following at 5:49 PM on Aug 23:
I agree largely with AMC (#3). The libertarian ideal is a brilliant one in theory, but it has been tried and found wanting. Generally the rich will not voluntarily part with their money, which is why the notable exceptions are so notable. I can't think of any way that governments could come close to matching the inefficiency in using money to benefit society that is demonstrated by the rich.
The argument that supporting government programs is a liberal way of shirking responsibility just doesn't wash either. It's a lazy straw man argument. As Christians we should be giving and working to meet spiritual and material need by sharing our gospel and our resources at every opportunity, yet Jesus tells us that whatever we do there will always be poor people among us. If there are government programs designed to assist some of the most poor people that we might fail to reach, then I don't see how we can object to the government helping us to achieve our mission but still say that we have genuine compassion for people. Where is the biblical mandate for this obsession that we have with maintaining the right of rich people to hoard resources and dominate the poor?
10. kristin said the following at 6:10 PM on Aug 23:
I really appreciated this episode, especially the discussion on flirting. It's a topic that I haven't heard discussed often and it gave me much food for thought!
11. a sister said the following at 8:29 PM on Aug 23:
I don't listen to podcasts...
But, I must say, I would feel very honored if a guy flirted with me by examining (hopefully complementing) and engaging with my bookshelf.
Of course, he would have to be a believer and have a real conversation with me first and then he would have to manage to see my bookshelf. That could be a pretty tall order.
12. Mike Theemling said the following at 2:59 AM on Aug 24:
The most powerful flirt that a woman has towards a man is a smile.
13. Mike said the following at 5:50 AM on Aug 24:
AMC and Paul -
I'm not sure where you folks are getting your information, but the studies on charitable giving are quite clear: As a percentage of income, the "poor" (families under $30K a year) and the "rich" (families over $100K a year) consistently do reasonably well (i.e. 10% or better). It's the middle class that tends to fall down.
Multiple theories for this abound, but one that stands out is our Marxist tax structure - the stairstep percentage system. (And, no, that's not just a slur; the stairstep tax system is straight out of the Communist Manifesto.) You see, at low incomes, very little of a family's income goes to taxes. Also, 10% of $30K is a small amount compared to 10% of $100K. Therefore, a "poor" family is in a better position to give. For example, if they pay a net 5% in taxes and give 10%, they pay out $4,500 and are left with $25,500 to live on. This is not huge by any means, but compared with their overall salary, it's not such a huge chunk lost.
The "rich" fare reasonably well, too. If they pay 30% in taxes and 10% in tithes, they keep $60K. Not bad.
It's the middle class who get slammed. Say the family make $60K. They pay 23% in taxes. That leaves them with $46,200. If they give an additional $6,000 in tithes, they're left with $40,200 - a 57% increase over the "poor" family despite making 100% more money. That creates a huge perception that they're being dramatically hurt (which they are). They are also not likely to be able to get the government assistance for which they are paying. Plus, there's significant social pressure to "keep up with the Jonses" when you have a middle class job - live in the suburbs, send your kids to the right schools, and so forth.
Please note I'm not defending such practices; I'm just saying that the tax structure, as it currently stands, contributes mightily to the problem of a lack of charitable giving among the middle class.
Now, as far as the comment about government programs not being a way for liberals to shirk responsibility - repeated studies consistently indicate that "blue states" (i.e. liberal) donate far less to charity than "red states" (i.e. conservative). G. Gordon Liddy said once, "A liberal is a person who feels a great debt to his fellow man, said debt he intends to pay off using your money." Liberal-minded folks most assuredly DO feel it's the government's responsibility to take over the charitable function - and that's WRONG, for several reasons.
1) "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's." - The first endorsement of separation of church and state. Government is not a charitable organization by nature; it is an instrument of brute force. It exists for the sole purpose of forcing people to respect other people's space when they will not do so voluntarily. Ah, but what if they won't contribute to charity voluntarily, you might say?
2) Charity, by nature, is voluntary. It's an issue of the heart. You can't hold a gun to someone's head and say, "Feel charitable!" and expect it to work.
3) Government's function is to protect the rights of the individual - and that includes property rights. Hey, but everything belongs to God - there are no individual property ownership "rights", you'll say.
4) Well, if we are merely stewards and everything belongs to God, then why do we have a commandment that says, "Thou shalt not steal"? Because it interferes with God's plan for stewardship. He wants us to give of the resources He has entrusted to us according to His plan - and government using its brute force to take from us without our consent interferes with that plan.
Paul, you asked how we could object to government helping us with our mission and still feel genuine compassion. The reason is simple. Charity brings heart change. We can feel good about helping those in need. But government forces us - at gunpoint - to part with the resources God has given us, to programs that promote dubious purposes. Such actions kill the charitable heart. And it's the heart God's really interested in.
14. Mike said the following at 5:54 AM on Aug 24:
Jeremy (#2) -
The comment about attitudes turning more pro-life comes in from different polls that start asking more detailed questions than whether abortion should be legal or not. The polls that ask "when life begins", or whether certain restrictions on abortion (such as requiring an ultrasound), or the like, indicate a growing support for a Christian worldview in this area.
15. AJ said the following at 10:24 AM on Aug 24:
Social Justice:
Sometimes the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are necessary terms, but I think we as Christians overuse them, really to the point of obscuring truth, and short-curcuiting thoughtful discourse.
Instead of really discussing the fine details of a social issue, we label a response or stance as "liberal". It's like trying to paint a beautiful landscape with a 12" paint roller.
I'd like to see a more detailed discussion that focuses on things like values, actual scriptures, intentions, consequences, hurdles (the finer details.
16. John said the following at 1:41 PM on Aug 24:
"The argument that supporting government programs is a liberal way of shirking responsibility just doesn't wash either."
Wrong!
It, in fact, is just that.
"It's a lazy straw man argument."
No it isn't. You don't know logical fallacies.
"As Christians we should be giving and working to meet spiritual and material need by sharing our gospel and our resources at every opportunity,"
We must be wise stewards, too. We mustn't simply toss about material assistance where it will benefit no one or would be better used somewhere else. There is such a thing as enabling, which hurts, not helps.
"yet Jesus tells us that whatever we do there will always be poor people among us."
This is true.
" If there are government programs designed to assist some of the most poor people that we might fail to reach, then I don't see how we can object to the government helping us to achieve our mission but still say that we have genuine compassion for people."
Problem 1: Government is not supposed to "design" any such programs. It is not the responsibility of the government, no matter the justification. It is the responsibility of the church.
Problem 2: The government can only "help" us in our mission by staying out of our way and allowing us to keep more of our money to do with it has we choose. Forced charity is NOT charity.
Problem 3: That you don't understand that is not unique. There are far too many "christians" who are walking, talking Marxists. They make "helping the poor" their gospel and the ends justify the means. Never mind if the means damn souls.
"Where is the biblical mandate for this obsession that we have with maintaining the right of rich people to hoard resources and dominate the poor?"
Thou shall not steal. Bible basics 101. It's called private property. Who says they're "hoarding"? What do you define as "rich"? Who is saying it is okay to "dominate" the poor? What examples can you give of the "rich" "dominating" the poor?
Property rights, the rule of law, the Puritan work ethic and the Christian mores of this country have benefited more people, here and throughout the rest of the world, than any government ever has or will.
17. Paul said the following at 6:19 PM on Aug 24:
Mike,
The point about the relative effect of different levels of tax on different social classes is an interesting one. If you take into account the official poverty line (a fairly conservative measure of the cost of a basic standard of living), then a typical family with 2 children needs to spend $21,200 just to survive. So after taxes, tithes and essential spending, your example "poor" family is left with a discretionary income $4,300 (14% of gross income), the middle class family with $19,000 (32%), and the rich $38,800 (39%). The lot of the middle classes doesn't look so bad now does it? Also the 10% charitable giving standard that we've both set for all three social classes starts to look a lot less generous on the part of the rich family.
But all that is besides the point. Unlike your example "poor" family, there are families that are below the poverty line, where the parents have to decide whether to feed themselves or clothe their children. The fact that these families fall outside the range of typical families that you have considered is quite telling. It is difficult for churches to adequately care for all such families without there being cases that we miss (e.g. the people that everyone assumes will be looked after by someone else's church). Given the opportunity and the right motivation governments can actually be quite good at systematically raising minimum statistical standards of living. Of course charitable Christians will still have plenty of opportunity to exercise compassion in seeking out the exceptions where government programs fail to adequately meet needs.
I'd like to address your specific points too, as you've taken the time to make them:
1) There are a number of models of government described in the bible. These range from theocracy to the separate church and Roman state that you describe. Jesus does not endorse the separation of church and state, He endorses the rights of both God and the state to exert their authority over us.
2) Correct, charity is voluntary, but taxes and government programs do not generally relieve us of either the opportunity or responsibility for charitable giving.
3) Correct, the government is responsible for protecting human rights. We (quite rightly) hold it accountable for protecting the rights of unborn humans to develop successfully and be given the opportunity to have a normal childhood, and the most obvious way to achieve this is to make and enforce laws. We should also hold the government accountable for protecting the rights of children born into poor families to develop successfully and have the opportunity to live a normal adult life. Can you think of a better way of achieving this (in the short term at least) than by redistributing a little wealth to support poor families?
However, the government exists not just to uphold rights, but to serve God and do good as well. Paul tells us this in Romans 13:4.
4) When you imply that the government taking a portion of our money and using it is theft, you are questioning the authority over us that God has given to the government (see Romans 13). Doesn't this also go against Jesus' instruction to pay the taxes that the government demands of us?
On your last point, charity is not about making us feel good, it is about honoring God. And yes, sometimes governments do sinful things with our money, but so do we, and so might anyone else we legitimately owe money to.
18. Ellie said the following at 7:18 PM on Aug 24:
This isn't exactly a *flirting* thing, but the 'sidewinder hug' concept reminded me of it. I'm so fed up with just meeting people (ie, men, although I definitely wouldn't hug a lot of the girls who want to, either) and then finding that upon parting they want a full on hug. There's this one guy in particular (who I barely know, we serve as officers for the same student organization, and from what I understand he has a long term girlfriend), who always hugs all the girls at the end of our meetings, and kisses each one behind the ear. I'm totally creeped out by this, but nobody else seems to object. I would ask him (and a lot of other men) not to hug me, but how do I do that without coming off as this mean party-pooper? Once somebody has their arms out for a hug, it seems like ignoring them is as bad as (or even worse than) refusing to shake someone's hand on meeting them. Although isn't it really worse to force somebody into hugging you? And isn't the rule with handshakes technically that between mixed shakers they have to be initiated by the woman? Shouldn't this be even more true of hugs?
19. obewan said the following at 7:28 AM on Aug 25:
I suppose flirting is not off limits for Christians, but I would caution that it really depends on the person(s).
I have not met a woman yet in Christian singles groups who does not get a kick out of flirting WHEN it is the RIGHT person. When it is the wrong person they often get turned off and complain about being hit on.
I error on the side of caution and refrain from flirting unless the woman starts it first. I may have some give away clues when I see a woman I like though like a smile that comes naturally.
20. John said the following at 9:10 AM on Aug 25:
"It is difficult for churches to adequately care for all such families without there being cases that we miss (e.g. the people that everyone assumes will be looked after by someone else's church)."
Says who. This same argument could be used against government overstepping its bounds to redistribute wealth. It's not about 100% success, its about whose responsibility it is and what actual help is. Sorry, bad logic on your part man.
"Given the opportunity and the right motivation governments can actually be quite good at systematically raising minimum statistical standards of living."
Where? When? This is illogical on its face. Long term, government assistance creates a dependent class of citizens unable and/or unwilling to do anything for themselves. Go into any government school and see just how much students appreciate the "free" "education" they receive.
"Of course charitable Christians will still have plenty of opportunity to exercise compassion in seeking out the exceptions where government programs fail to adequately meet needs."
No we won't! What is wrong with you people. This is exactly the point. As government increases and takes more of our income and more of our responsibility, the church becomes marginalized and has less resources to practice true charity!
"1) There are a number of models of government described in the bible. These range from theocracy to the separate church and Roman state that you describe."
Many described, but only ours is the best, a republic.
"Jesus does not endorse the separation of church and state, He endorses the rights of both God and the state to exert their authority over us."
Amen
"2) Correct, charity is voluntary, but taxes and government programs do not generally relieve us of either the opportunity or responsibility for charitable giving."
Yes they do! That's the point. Such actions by the government pervert incentives, marginalize the church and lesson the churches opportunites and effectiveness, especially when the church is relying more on government programs to "help" broken and lost souls when those programs can never offer them the real help that they need...names the gospel!
"3) Correct, the government is responsible for protecting human rights. We (quite rightly) hold it accountable for protecting the rights of unborn humans to develop successfully and be given the opportunity to have a normal childhood,"
Given the opportunity to live. There's nothing about a so called "normal childhood".
"We should also hold the government accountable for protecting the rights of children born into poor families to develop successfully and have the opportunity to live a normal adult life."
Born into ALL families to not be harmed. Nothing about "normal adult life". This is the function of the family. The government should do everything to build up and support the family, NOT undermine it by perverting the incentive to be a father or take responsibility for actions.
"Can you think of a better way of achieving this (in the short term at least) than by redistributing a little wealth to support poor families?"
Yeah, about 50 better ways. Starting with the family and the church being responsible for that, NOT the government.
"However, the government exists not just to uphold rights, but to serve God and do good as well. Paul tells us this in Romans 13:4."
Yes. And doing well would be leaving charity to the church and family. Staying out of stealing from those who have to give to those who will vote for politicians to continue having more than everyone else. Do you really not get the scheme here? Do you not recognize the obvious fallacy of communism?
"4) When you imply that the government taking a portion of our money and using it is theft, you are questioning the authority over us that God has given to the government (see Romans 13)."
We ARE the authority. "We the people". Ring a bell? Identifying behavior that is wrong is not questioning authority, it is doing right. When government harms people, we don't sit back and allow it. We do something! Please, study more scripture so you might understand.
"Doesn't this also go against Jesus' instruction to pay the taxes that the government demands of us?"
No it doesn't. Again, do a little studying. Read some commentaries. Research on the web. We are not to give the government carte blanche permission to do anything they wish, especially since WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. Romans didn't elect their officials. We do. It is our duty and right to decide the laws and to bring them in alignment with His word.
"On your last point, charity is not about making us feel good, it is about honoring God. And yes, sometimes governments do sinful things with our money, but so do we, and so might anyone else we legitimately owe money to."
That's one of the problems. Who's held responsible if the government mispends money? No one knows. It's impossible to ever catch anyone, at least the big fish. But if you or I do something wrong, it can be more easily traced back to us.
Charity is personal and private. Not something to be advertised like the NBA does. It is our responsibility and if someone wants to sherk those duties, than they will have to answer to God on judgment day. We can't force others to be charitable any more than we can force someone to be loving. On top of that, government "charity" is just a way to get votes. And in the long run ends up doing far more damage than any slight good it may achieve in the perceived short term.
21. mindlab said the following at 10:17 AM on Aug 25:
17. Paul
"4) When you imply that the government taking a portion of our money and using it is theft, you are questioning the authority over us that God has given to the government (see Romans 13)."
Given the excellent (and unusually thoughtful) discussion that you (Paul), hxcjf, and Mike are conducting, I won't comment on the economics at hand. I will point out that you are missing the point of Romans 13.
Roman's 13 defines a Christ-like response to taxation, it does not pardon the sin of armed robbery. Similar passages in the NT define the Christ-like response to persecution; they do not pardon the sin of the persecutors.
The fact is that taxation is morally and ethically indistinguishable from armed robbery. The majority of US voters have no more right to my property than a lone mugger in a alley has; they are simply better equipped to take my property from me. Again, the fact that we are given specific instruction about how (and when) we are to submit to this sin does nothing to pardon the sin or the sinner.
22. dennygirl said the following at 11:25 AM on Aug 25:
flirting is wrong...and it can lead to just more that it is,so it is best to avoid it in any form shone the very apperance of it/evil.
23. Michelle F. said the following at 11:27 AM on Aug 25:
Speaking of flirting, I was at a wedding this weekend, and I saw a good-looking guy there, so I tried to make eye contact with him a couple times throughout the reception. When I was alone, checking out the party favors, he came over and made a funny comment to me. Is that flirting? I don't know. Turns out though, he was a friend of the bride's 17-year-old brother, which meant he was probably way younger than me. So much for that, haha.
I always wonder if my flirting is either too subtle or too overt. Where is the line?
24. Julie said the following at 11:55 AM on Aug 25:
I definitely have a thing about hugging guys. I totally love real hugs from girl friends or men I'm dating, but man, those side hugs, with a few exceptions with solid brothers in Christ where there is no romantic awareness whatsoever, just make me feel like they are getting access to a girl under the guise of friendliness. Or worse, the frontal upper shoulder/back pat "air hugs" are awful. If I'm not actively creeped out, I feel further away from the person (male or female) after such a fake hug. Shake my hand or touch my arm goodbye instead, don't try to hug me like that please!
25. Marc said the following at 1:22 PM on Aug 25:
Steve Watters:
I just wanted to thank you for allowing Boundless to play some of your father's music. It was awesome!
26. BDB said the following at 3:19 PM on Aug 25:
So...we have to choose whether to comment on flirting or on tax policy?
27. Charles H. said the following at 4:26 PM on Aug 25:
BDB #26: We're flirting with a debate on taxes. Either that, or a taxing debate on flirting.
28. Paul said the following at 4:29 PM on Aug 25:
Mindlab,
"Given the excellent (and unusually thoughtful) discussion that you (Paul), hxcjf, and Mike are conducting, I won't comment on the economics at hand. I will point out that you are missing the point of Romans 13."
Thanks, but I think you've actually picked up on the crux of the economic issue that needs discussing.
"Roman's 13 defines a Christ-like response to taxation, it does not pardon the sin of armed robbery."
I guess I can only disagree with this. You could make that argument about the passage in Matthew 22 (and the similar ones in the other gospels), but I don't see how it applies to Romans 13, which clearly says we pay taxes because the authorities are God's servants. That doesn't sound like armed robbery to me (unless of course the apostle Paul considers armed robbery to be a valid means of serving God).
"The fact is that taxation is morally and ethically indistinguishable from armed robbery."
That's simply wrong. Between elections, governments have a legal authority over us that robbers do not have, and taxation is explicitly permitted by the 16th ammendment to the constitution. That (like all authority) is an authority that derives from God, and that we must take seriously. Politicians are held responsible for the way that they spend money by voters at election time, and ultimately by God, but they are free to choose how much tax to take and what to spend it on (within reason) while they are in power. If some of that money can be spent on programs that effectively relieve poverty, then we should support politicians in doing things that are properly representing God's, and therefore our interests, while discouraging the things that do not represent us well.
Of course as churches we still need to play to our strengths in sharing the gospel and tackling spiritual, moral and material poverty at a more intimate personal level.
29. Rachael said the following at 4:40 PM on Aug 25:
Julie,
Even though you may feel creeped out by guys (and girls) side hugs, remember it is highly likely they most definitely don't mean anything by it.
Different stroke for different folk...some people are just more huggy than others...
30. Bertha said the following at 4:50 PM on Aug 25:
Mike,
You assume that people are tithing on their income before taxes. Maybe some people do this. I don't. I try not to look at what I make more taxes, it's too depressing. I simply tithe on my take-home pay.
31. Paulman said the following at 2:21 AM on Aug 26:
Here's my thought: I think flirting is a way of building a feeling of closeness or intimacy in a relationship. You flirt because you want to feel like you're more connected with that other person than before. So, really, I think a person should be evaluating their flirting the same way they'd contemplate whether they'd want to kiss a person on the mouth. Now, simple flirting vs. actual kissing is quite different, but only in degree. In principle I think the purpose of the two are similar - you're trying to build deeper emotional/physical closeness to the other person.
So I think flirting should only be done in a relationship to the appropriate degree that matches the amount of commitment in the relationship. Lest you "defraud" one another. So don't flirt with someone so that it looks to others as though you're "lovers" (interpret that however you'd like) unless you're engaged or married. If you're only dating, maybe appropriate flirting would be such that it'd look to outsiders like you two are romantically interested in each other (which... you are), but still with some visible level of propriety.
Does that sound like a reasonable place to draw the line? I mean, I think the question that should always be asked is "will I regret how far I went in this area if the relationship ends up not working out and I'm never with this person again?"
32. Tami said the following at 10:05 AM on Aug 26:
Hats off to Charles H (27) :)
33. mindlab said the following at 10:51 AM on Aug 26:
28. Paul
"Romans 13. . .clearly says we pay taxes because the authorities are God's servants. That doesn't sound like armed robbery to me (unless of course the apostle Paul considers armed robbery to be a valid means of serving God)."
I understand how you get that from the passage, but it's not consistent. In the OT, several wicked rulers (Nebuchadnezzar/Babylon, Assyria I believe, but I can't find the reference) are refered to as servants of God used to punish Israel, and later punished for the sin of attaching Israel. The fact that sinful men are God's 'servants' used by Him to accomplish His will does not absolve those men of their sin.
"Between elections, governments have a legal authority over us that robbers do not have, and taxation is explicitly permitted by the 16th ammendment to the constitution."
Yes, legal authority, but that's not worth the paper it's printed on; the actions of the Gestapo were legal in Germany in the 1940s. . . so what? Ethical authority is much more important. Unless you accept some variant of Rousseau's social contract then, as I said before, "The majority of US voters have no more right to my property than a lone mugger in a alley has; they are simply better equipped to take my property from me."
34. BDB said the following at 2:14 PM on Aug 26:
Charles H. (#27) wrote:
>>We're flirting with a debate on taxes. Either that, or a taxing debate on flirting.<<
Hmmm...that makes me wonder...is it inappropriate to flirt with your tax accountant if she compliments the size of your charitable tax deduction?
35. riselita del fuerte-nisperos said the following at 8:48 PM on Aug 26:
am an avid fan of elvis... specially his song WELCOME TO MY WORLD... would somebody send me a lyrics on this... am now 55 years with 4 children and 2 grandchildren. more power
36. Emily said the following at 4:21 AM on Aug 27:
How bout like hugs from the back?
How bout walking you out or to class or something, is that chivalry and just being good old fashioned gentlemenly? or flirting?
hmm.. and how to tell a guy your not interested romantically but want to just be good friends...
37. Ken said the following at 9:21 AM on Aug 28:
@Emily - I hope a guy walking a gal out to class or something is considered chivalry not flirting. Granted what happens DURING that walk is up for debate but the simple act of offering and following through I hope would be considered an act of Christ like love for a sister.
Lord knows I've heard enough complaints from my women friends about where are all the gentlemen out there.