How Should We Then Live?

we so closely associate the Christianity with country; an attack on or a legitimate change in country is seen as an attack on Christianity.

In the meantime, unbelievers perceive that they are being dominated in society.

There is no attempt here to associate Christianity and country. The obvious association which we make is Christianity and the rule of law.

In the judgment, Jesus will tell false professors, "Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness (Matt. 7:23)." "Sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4)."

In contemporary United States society, there is little concern for God's law, and federal law has been largely set aside. The Bill of Rights is under attack. Men are subject to jail sentences for what should be the free exercise of their religion. The executive branch of government has gone far, far beyond the limitations of power of the Tenth Ammendment. By what authority does the President of the United States remove CEO's form their positions? By what authority does the executive branch determine salaries?

This past week, a Radio Czar was appointed whose task it will be to shut down conservative talk radio. In addition, local radio stations will be required to contribute funds to support NPR, propping it up like the dead body it is.

If you think these actions are persissible, then you have little regard for the rule of law. You may consider that in this country you have every right to set aside the rule of law. However, those who uphold the rule of law, believe that law exists for our protection.

There may not be attempts now, but there have certainly been attempts to associate Christianity and the America from the past.

But can you document some stuff for me?

1. Who is being sentenced to jail for exercising their religion?

2. Was the radio Czar appointed to shut down conservative talk radio? Have any been shut down?

3. What was the agreement between the gov't and the companies that accepted the bailout money?

caday5, good to hear from you.

There has only been one nation in covenant with God, and that was the nation of Israel. That civil element of the Mosaic Covenant has been set aside, along with the ceremonial aspect of that covenant. While God has done great things in the past through the United States, England and Scotland, there was never a national covenant with any nation but Old Tetament Israel. This fact is part and parcel to the distinction between the Old and New Covenants.

Regarding the teachers and prayer, while this is not the link which I remember, the story of the teachers facing jail terms for prayer can be found at

http://barbadosfreepress.wordpress.com/2009/08/16/florida-p rincipal-teacher-face-jail-for-praying-in-school-student-ba nned-from-speaking-at-graduation-because-shes-a-christian-a nd-might-say-something-religious/

With regard to the Radio Czar, there are several news links on the internet. His name is Mark Lloyd. Put "Mark Lloyd Radio Czar" in your browser browser and several will pop up. This story is absent from some internet sources where I would have expected it to be posted. That leads me to believe that this new position has already had a chilling effect. One of the news sources which did post the story repeated the account of how radio stations will be forced to program locally, thus eliminating nationwide call-in shows.

I have a general disdain for rightwing conspiracy theories. However, an interesting study could be made of how many ten year old conspiracy theories have come to past. I am sixty years old and have never seen anything like what is happening. I realized that things like this could happen, but I never would have expected it to happen so fast. I cannot help but wonder whether I am witnessing the last days of American history.

caday5, I forgot to answer your last question: I did not keep up with agreements concerning the bailout funds. I thought that the whole bailout scheme was proposterous. The bailout money is made available by the fact that the government has a printing press. And therein lies the difference between state and federal government: backrupt states cannot print their one money. The United States will not last under these circumstances. Until now, the only difference between Republican and Democrat administrations has been the order of magnitude. But we are now talking a monetary order of magnitude which no one can comprehend.

It is imperative to realize that the present administration is accomplishing precisely what it intended. It was never their intent to improve the economic situation. Governmental policies have purposely cost Americans’ jobs and homes. Every crisis is being hyped in order to increase the government’s control. The current hype of Swine Flu has as its goal the government takeover of healthcare.

Consider the information to be found at

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6 967.

I will quote the first two paragraphs:

“First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which erupted after police had used batons to subdue a black man suspected of drunk driving), Cloward and Piven published an article titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty" in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation. Following its publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints. Activists were abuzz over the so-called "crisis strategy" or "Cloward-Piven Strategy," as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect.”

But let us not pass this off as a political problem; we are dealing with satanic forces which have raised themselves up against the knowledge of Christ. God save us from viewing political conservatism as the answer to our problems. "Put no confidence in princes, nor for help on man depend. He shall die to dust returning and his purposes shall end." Our confidence must be in Christ alone. In Christ we find the liberty which Antichrist would have us surrender.

Agree with your first point about only one as God's nation. However, there are many conservative Christians who say there are two nations with the second being America at its beginning.

Regarding being subject to jail sentences for praying, it is not for praying per say but for public prayers at school. Public prayer has been struck by the Supreme Court since the '60's because, and rightfully so, because of freedom of religion. Not all share the same religion so why make all publicly share prayer as either participants or as listeners.

In fact, I know of former faculty at Westminster Theological Seminary, a very conservative and fundamentalist school, who oppose school prayer because of the message such prayer gives. That is that God listens to the believer and unbeliever a like.

If people were arrested for praying privately, then that would cause for concern.

As for the Radio Czar, the proof will be in the pudding. If the fairness doctrine is passed and not enough conservatives listen to support a given show simply because alternative views are given, the blame goes to the conservatives. However, if conservative shows that obey the law are shut down, then you have a point.

I agree with you on conspiracy theories. I am a political leftist and I heard plenty of conspiracies and future horrors when Bush was president. One of them was that all protesters would be arrested and sent to newly constructed jail complexes. That didn't happen. Neither did a predicted attack on Iran. Sometimes you have to wait.

I would recommend the following article as an unexpected counterpoint:

http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/22319

BTW, I will have to access the discover link later because it was not responding.

In addition, I would also add a point that Chomsky made early on in the Bush administration. That is that, like in the Reagan administration, the Bush Administration would attack social programs by first driving up the deficit and then pressing the need to cut social programs as a way to run the country "responsibly."

caday5,

The fairness doctrine has been abandoned by the left. they have found that "localism" is more effective. The idea is to remove national call-in shows and those particular speakers form teh airways. Furthermore, local radio stations will have to support NPR, because otherwise there is simply not enough support to keep NPR on the air.

Regarding an earlier post, my father attended Columbia University Teachers' College and in the early 50's was denied his PhD simply because of his outspoken politically conservative views. He was told that he was too “controversial.” The reason that academia is so radically leftist is that it runs a closed shop. The leftist mind cannot tolerate dissent. Pete Singer can get a PhD even though he recommends being able to terminate children up to two years of age. Evidently, the Left does not consider that to be too controversial.

I have seen bullying by both sides and I have also seen fairness on both sides.

We will have to wait and see regarding conservative shows.

caday5,

The Discover the Network link did not paste correctly. Try:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6 967

There is some reason that the link will not copy correctly. As you paste the link, take out the space between the 6 and the 9. The last four numbers should be 6967 with no spaces.

Thank you for the link. Certainly it expresses one part of the left but not every. The indictment on the living wage based on association takes a hit when one considers that Ralph Nader and Martin Luther King also advocated the same. In fact, I don't know about Nader but King advocated a guaranteed income and that democratic socialism should replace capitalism.

Guilt by association proves nothing. When one considers that both the Soviet Union and Nicaragua were communistic, one realizes that a single name does not a whole a portrait paint. Whereas in the Soviet Union, it was a strict totalitarianism from a WWI and before mindset. Nicaragua of the 80's, though not without fault, provided many freedoms for its people that its US backed neighbors did not offer.

I remember a panel discussion where I advocated either a well-regulated capitalism or democratic socialism. My opponent responded with Nazi Germany was socialistic implying that that is the destination of socialism. Of course both history and today's world shows the folly of such reasoning.

There is no perfect form of gov't neither is there a utopia. But the question we face is in our current situation, can we do better?

Christians seem to be against helping people in need and against equal rights. In this they are enemies of progress and enemies of society. Why do you feel it is their right to pray in public when other people might be offended?

caday5,

The Nazi anagram translates to the "National Socialist Party." I'm trying to remember whether I've ever heard anyone else say that the Nazis were not socialists. I can't remember hearing that.

In addition, some of the liberal argument for nationalized healthcare is rooted in Nazi-like eugenics.

Consider also Ruth Ginsburg's recent statement about abortion being for the control of undesirables.

How about Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, describing blacks as "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Her attitude is continued by the fact that a greatly disproportionate percentage of abaortion clinics are in African-American naighborhoods?

To Worldly Wiseman I would respond that it is a well documented fact that Conservative Christians give more to charity than liberals do. My wife made less than $50,000 last year, and I made far less, and yet we gave more to charity than Al Gore did. And that is not an isolated anomaly. Leftists are generous with other people's money. But conservative Christians are aware of their obligation to personally help the needy. I visited a Bible church in Southlake Texas, and heard them mention that they had given $80,000 last year to help the needy.

Like I said, there is more to people than just the name. If the Nazis were such big socialists then why did they target communists, socialists and everyone on the left for arrest once they got into power. The people they arrested were sent to camps like Dachau before the camps were used for extermination.

Why is it that we have plenty of examples of varying degrees of socialism that do not involve totalitarianism. We even have examples of communism that do no involve totalitarianism. Going by name alone oversimplifies things and does not account for details.

If you want to go by name alone then realize that the Nazis were considered a rightest group. In addition, they campaigned on country first and traditional values. If we want to just go by slogans and names, who would we compare the Nazis with using their campaign platforms?

regarding charity, I know leftists who go to depressed areas of conflict to help people as activists. Some have even died in the line of duty.

If it is well-documented that conservatives give more than those on the left, please provide the documentation.

caday5,

this is all I had time for, but I can tell form a brief serach that the list of referneces goes on and on:

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month= 12&year=2008&base_name=do_liberals_hate_charity

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/12/06/who_g ives_to_charity

http://blog.beliefnet.com/castingstones/2008/04/conservativ es-give-more-to-cha.html?bt=polmashup

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?em

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730

http://www.mixx.com/stories/3176302/the_new_york_times_cons ervatives_donate_more_to_charity_than_liberals

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/03/28/charity-conservative s-vs-liberals/

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18218

WWM, so you are saying that the state is helping people in need, and it is for equal rights. By that do you mean universal health care, welfare and sodomite marriage?

Regarding prayer, the secularist has no problem promoting his religion of the impersonal material-energy god of neo-science. Why does he object to Christians praying to their personal, infinite and self-revealed God? Do you agree that the first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion and that the state is not to give preference to any religion?

The radical naturalists do not believe in tolerance; they are the dominating force in the culture today, trying to suppress the truth and to exchange our Reformation base with a totally secular base.

Thanks for the links and I will check them later. But let me ask you, how many of those donors actually gave up their lives to help others? Consider before the 60's when people on the left helped with worker education programs to help people in the lower economic class get more education. Consider the 60's and how many people on the left went into the South to risk their lives for the rights of Blacks or, like Martin Luther King who advocated that a democratic socialism replace capitalism, who died while working for economic justice. We could also point out people on the left today who try to bring humanitarian relief to Gaza. Some are arrested. One was run down by an Israeli bulldozer whose driver was working with a spotter.

See, the reason why people change the subject from issues to characteristics is to either make a case for one group having privileges over others or to have people listen to one group rather than the other. And the problem with that approach is that we no longer logically evaluate the ideas, we compare the resumes.

Personally, I am happy when anyone helps those in need whether they be on the left or the right. It is what we should be doing and it carries no implications when discussing the different viewpoints people have.

To advance civil rights for blacks, Republicans started the NAACP on February 12, 1909, the 100th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln. The first black head of the NAACP was black Republican James Weldon Johnson who became general secretary in 1920 and wrote the lyrics to the song “Lift Every Voice and Sing”. Republicans also founded the HBCU’s (Historically Black Colleges and Universities) because Democrats were trying to prevent blacks from getting a good education.

During the civil rights era of the 1960's, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. fought to stop Democrats from denying civil rights to blacks. It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as a Republican as has been affirmed by his niece, Dr. Alveda C. King.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would not have joined the Democratic Party, the party of the Ku Klux Klan and segregation.

Dr. King fought against Democrat Public Safety Commissioner Eugene "Bull" Connor in Birmingham who let loose vicious dogs and turned skin-burning fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators.

Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox famously brandished ax handles to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant. Democrat Alabama Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963 and thundered, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." All of these racist Democrats remained Democrats until the day they died.

The so-called “Dixiecrats” remained Democrats and did not migrate to the Republican Party. The Dixiecrats were a group of Southern Democrats who, in the 1948 national election, ran a third party ticket that supported segregation and Jim Crow laws passed by Democrats. Even so, they continued to be Democrats for all local and state elections, as well as for all future national elections.

Unknown today is the fact that the Democratic Party supported the Topeka, Kansas school board in the 1954 “Brown v. Topeka Board of Education” Supreme Court decision by Chief Justice Earl Warren who was appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. This landmark decision declared that the "separate but equal" doctrine violated the 14th Amendment and ended school segregation.

After the Brown decision, Democrat Arkansas Governor Orville Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of a Little Rock public school. President Eisenhower sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate the schools and pushed through the 1957 Civil Rights Act. In 1958, Eisenhower established a permanent US Civil Rights Commission that had been rejected by prior Democrat presidents, including President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Ignored today is the fact that it was Roosevelt who started blacks on the path to dependency on government handouts during the Great Depression with his “New Deal” that turned out to be a bad deal for blacks. Even though Roosevelt received the vote of many blacks, Roosevelt banned black American newspapers from the military because he was convinced the newspapers were communists.

Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Little known is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, Dirksen was instrumental in the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. The chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd, a former official in the Ku Klux Klan who is still in Congress. None of these racist Democrats became Republicans.

Democrats ignore the pivotal role played by Senator Dirksen in obtaining passage of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act, while heralding President Johnson as a civil rights advocate for signing the bill.

Don’t be too hard on him. He knows nothing of the renewed heart and the infinite difference of motive in giving from a heart of gratitude changed by grace vs guilt or a salving of the conscience or as steps toward working our way to heaven.

I think of the widow who gave more than all the rest because she gave out of her want, not out of her abundance. But according to what is written, she is rich for her inheritance is in the heavens, having been given the Spirit as a guarantee.

You started well on the difference in the Old and New Covenants. Another is this: those who sat in darkness have seen a great light; on them the light has dawned.

Before Christ came the world was given to darkness; a glimmer of light shown in Israel; now the light of the gospel has been given to all nations for the Scriptures have gone out in many tongues along with the Spirit; these are the two great witnesses. The light has come and the world is no longer covered in darkness. To see what the world owes the New Covenant churches, take a look at the Old Covenant world.

Republicans starting the NAACP in 1909 is great. But Regarding what about this the weakness is in overgeneralization because such a start does not give us a full picture of the Republican Party. It was Republicans who filled the ranks of Indiana's KKK in the early part of the 20th century. Both the North and the South are responsible for a substantial amount of racism. The same goes for Republicans and Democrats.

At the same time, both Republicans and Democrats helped fight against Racism. One can cite the Dixiecrats rebelling in order to preserve racism. But they were rebelling against their own party as a Democratic President was fighting against racism.

So the support for and the fighting against racism was done people of all groups. But what I was talking about in my last post is that it was mostly liberals and leftists, there are differences, who did more than just vote against racism, they worked as activists which meant that many of them put their lives on the line. This points to the fact that money given to charities is not the only way of helping the needy.

Now we could argue which group gives more or does more and we end up overlooking having contempt for the good done by the groups we don't associate with. List several individual instances carries no implication regarding any group.

My point from the last note was that there are two reasons why people become fixated with a scoreboard mentality. THe first is to assume a privileged position in society for one's chosen groups. The second reason is to discuss issues by debating the characteristics of each side rather than the logic and facts used. Neither position provides a win for anyone so why? There is only one good reason to mention the helping the needy by some who are liberals or leftists and the support for civil rights by Republicans; that reason is to break stereotypes.

Also, think about the choice people had when Roosevelt started programs. It was death or dependency. That is what we have today as wealth is being consolidated by today's robber barons and the economic system does not provide enough jobs for people to support themselves.

Finally, discover the difference between a liberal and a leftist.

Many Reagan democrats from the south do fight against the continued struggle for civil rights. Many Whites do not recognize the need for the continued struggle but many Blacks do.

On Martin Luther King, he warned Blacks not to let the Democratic party take Black votes for granted but he had far more misgivings of Republicans.

Please consider

http://www.breitbart.tv/beck-what-the-media-refuses-to-tell -you-about-rahm-emanuel/

This is a presentation by a Democrat pollster. In it, he makes the point that the current president of General Motors holds his position as the result of a financial deal that he entered into with Rham Emmanuel. I have no doubt that there are cases of corruption in the Republican Party. I want them all exposed, whether they be Republicans or Democrats.

All of these corruptions will fianlly be brought to light. In the meantime, it is best that we remember that in 1887 British Lord Acton, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, wrote, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” Acton was preceded by William Pitt the Elder, who voiced a similar thought in a House of Lords speech in 1770: “Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it; and this I know, my lords, that where laws end, tyranny begins.”

We are living in lawless times, and tyranny reigns. There is hope only in a spiritual awakening.

caday5,

You mention the choice that Americans had during the Great Depression of either death or dependency. In stark contrast, we find that the cry during our Revolutionary War was "Give me liberty or give me death." I choose liberty over dependency. But how many will stand with me?

There are many who will stand with you. I am reminded of Elijah the prophet when the Lord told him that there were 7000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal.

Even so now, the Lord has His people who have not bowed the knee to the lawless state and its subtle invitations to dependency; they understand that the gospel is the origin of all liberty and that the promises of lawless men are the seeds of tyranny.

Why should your decision be the mandate for everyone? I believe that infringes on the conservative value of liberty.

In addition, the all or nothing approach where one is completely independent or must then, in your paradigm, choose death is a little unreal. First, no one is completely independent. Second, you speak from a have position, not a have-not with family position.

Unless one grows all of their own food, finds and refines all of their own fuel, builds from materials one collect their own house by themselves, treats oneself for all of one's illnesses, and never sells or buys anything, then one is dependent on others. But because we also do things for ourselves, we cannot be described as being completely dependent either. This is called interdependency.

And as I said to George, if he wants to make that decision for himself, that is fine--especially since he is talking as a have. But to force his morality on the rest, especially the families of the have-nots, is a strike against liberty.

And your analogy of recognizing our dependence on others with bowing one's knee to Baal has no justification from the Scriptures. Rather, it seems that you are defending Conservative values taken to an extreme. Those depending on the Church for help were not bowing the knee to Baal. So why is depending on the gov't for help the same if one recognizes that all good gifts, no matter agent through whom the gifts are given, are from God bowing the knee to Baal. As I wrote to chosen, the worship of the creature for what one receives and witnesses is because of the unbelief of the person, not the intermediate source of the gift.

I make no manadates. I leave that to a sovereign God, the Judge of all the earth. We can have our little spats, but when all is said and done, He will settle all accounts.

"For His dominion is an everlasting
dominion, And His kingdom endures from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, But He does according to His will in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, 'What have You done?'" Daniel 4:34b-35

Relying upon the government is antithetical to relying upon God. True believers put no trust in princes. In Psalm 146 we read,

3 Do not trust in princes, In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation. 4 His spirit departs, he returns to the earth; In that very day his thoughts perish. 5 How blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, Whose hope is in the LORD his God,6 Who made heaven and earth, The sea and all that is in them; Who keeps faith forever;7 Who executes justice for the oppressed; Who gives food to the hungry. The LORD sets the prisoners free. 8 The LORD opens the eyes of the blind; The LORD raises up those who are bowed down; The LORD loves the righteous;9 The LORD protects the strangers; He supports the fatherless and the widow, But He thwarts the way of the wicked.
10 The LORD will reign forever, Your God, O Zion, to all generations. Praise the LORD!

Our liberty is found in relying upon Christ. those who rely upon the government have settled for bondage.

The lawless state and its godless religion are given another label in Revelation. The ‘beast’ is altogether associated with idolatry. The people of God are commanded, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins…” [Revelation 18:4]

As you said:

"I choose liberty over dependency. "

The question is, will you allow others to have the freedom to choose otherwise. And one more thing, we are already dependent on each other. It is actually called interdependency.

So while you go on your choice, how about those who currently live on gov't assistance. That assistance includes financial help for food, shelter and even medical care. Should the parents of families who get assistance turn that assistance down, risking possible death to family members, in order to experience your kind of "liberty?"

"Our liberty is found in relying upon Christ. those who rely upon the government have settled for bondage."-George

I agree; and all others who preach liberty from any other source preach a false gospel.

Let us trust in the Saviour of the world (1 John 4:14), and not in man.

It seems you are experiencing the tangled gospel of Caday. Did you "stumble on" to this site, or have you been observing our conversations?

I would know more about you, if you'll permit.

Some of my more favorite quotes of yours:

"...we are dealing with satanic forces which have raised themselves up against the knowledge of Christ. God save us from viewing political conservatism as the answer to our problems."

"We are living in lawless times, and tyranny reigns. There is hope only in a spiritual awakening."

If the "Spirit giveth life" (2 Corinthians 3:6) and the "carnal" minded are at enmity with God(Rom 8:7,8), then most assuredly we need a spiritual awakening in this country.
To trust in man is the height of carnality, and to preach carnality as necessity and light is the height of deception.
Those who preach this false gospel might be able to quote the teachings of Jesus, but evidently do not know Him for the Saviour that He is.

Contrast this:

ac·tiv·ism
n. The use of direct, often confrontational action, such as a demonstration or strike, in opposition to or support of a cause.

with this:

Romans 14
17For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
18For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
19Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

The edification spoken of here is not for the benefit of the flesh but of the spirit (vs 17).

Should the poor recieve help? No one that I've read here says otherwise. But to rely on man and not God for our help, and to teach it so, is not scriptural.

Chiefest & George, check out Marvin Olasky’s article posted this AM and let me know what you think.

Chief, don't flatter me too much, you'll give me a big head. But I will note that you are selective in terms of how you see depending on gov't competes with depending on Christ. For example, depending on the military to protect you is not a contradiction to depending on Christ for salvation, even when the military members are non-Christians--this is despite the fact that we have scriptures that explicitly tell us not to depend on the might of princes. The same goes with depending on the police or fire department. But depending on gov't to help with food, housing, or medical care implies that you are compromising your faith in Christ.

But if your only issue is that depending on the gov't compromises your faith in Christ, then refuse all such programs but let others who are in need participate in such programs. We have a society based on religious freedom, why should a person who does not desire to follow Christ or a person who sees no contradiction in participating in gov't programs and their faith in Christ refrain from getting help for them and their families because you see getting help from the gov't violates your faith in Christ.

George--again, would you refuse gov't help if your children's health or lives were on the line? Should your convictions be the law for all others?

I agree that we are dealing with lawless times. We are also dealing with times when people's hearts are cold. The question is why?

Many of my fellow Christians would say that the reason why we have lawlessness and cold hearts is because of the values that society is abandoning, and there could be some truth to that. But I think that another reason why our society is full of lawlessness and coldheartedness is because of values we are embracing as well. In particular, the values associated with our Free Market is contributing mightily to the lawlessness of today.

The Free Market can be charitably described as an economic system that relies solely on one's self-interest to control one's greed. The operative word is solely. Self-interest, particularly self-interests that regards long term consequences, can be a help in decision making. The key word is the word SOLELY. When the only restraint on our behavior is self-interest, we turn inward and have no regard for the rights or dignity of others if their welfare does not affect us and we only care for those whose welfare impacts our lives. I wrote more about that on my other blog at:

http://www.flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/

My description of the Free Market mentality matches the behavior of what we see in society both by those who directly participate in the free market and those who are more affected by the free market.