(no subject)

[tj_rowe]

It occurs to me - what that preacher said about Christians waiting for the 2nd coming, that there wouldn’t be any disasters, or hunger, or starvation. They’re just sitting around waiting, or as I understand from folks rants here on LJ, trying to shove the balance in the other direction. Folk that actually try to make that vision true aren’t helped by the theocratic blah, they’re discouraged and sued, like that example a few months (years?) ago with America refusing to write off the debt incurred by third-world countries. How is anything supposed to get better if folk don’t help out, huh? I mean, I personally haven’t done anything, sure. But I’m not the one preaching.

Comments

[vasaris.livejournal.com]

While I'm not going to debate the rightness or wrongness of the US not writing off the debt of third world countries, I would point out that both as a nation and individuals we give out an obnoxious amount of money for little to no return, all in goodwill. It's somewhat unfair to point at "They wouldn't forgive the debt" and say the US is being somehow unfair or cruel or something. I mean, we give more money to struggling nations than we spend on fighting poverty in our own country, which seems fairly illogical if you think about it (not counting the whole issue of stability being a good thing, and sometimes only money will accomplish that.)

Sorry, it just seems unfair to say "The US isn't doing anything to try and help and what selfish bastards for inisiting that promises be kept." The US does a lot and is often reviled just as much for what it does as what it doesn't do, despite the fact that it isn't an unending source of funds, technology, and/or manpower and has issues of it's own poverty/crime/stability to look after too.

[tamerterra.livejournal.com]

I wasn't pointing so much at specific countries as the people who say things and then don't put any energy behind it. I'm sure I'd have more examples if I watched the news more often.

[lizzypaul.livejournal.com]

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but my mother explained the two groups of Christian thought this way (she's a pastor, and went to school to study this stuff, so I tend to trust her):

You have the dispensationalists, the theological newbie to Christianity, who believe that the end of the world will be proceeded by suffering...so all the bad stuff should be thought of as wonderful because it means Christ is coming. On the extreme side, you get people who refuse to help the environment, poverty, disease, etc., because all of that is a sign of the second coming. Dispensationalists are very focused on figuring out when the second coming will occur...all your prophecy books, the Left Behind novels, are dispensationalist.

Then you have the "old school" group (who are now seen as radical and different...go figure) who believe that you have to build the kingdom of God here on earth -- by taking care of the poor, bringing peace, etc. This group is far less concerned with when Christ will come...they're more focused on doing "God's work" here on earth.

Different philopshephies, same religion. Which is why the idea of a Christian theocracy is so laughable...Christianity ecompasses so many different thoughts.

And I don't want to start a debate with a poster above, but it enfuriates me that the United States spends more money on military than every single one of our "enemies" combined, but can't take care of poverty--inside the States or outside. It's a serious case of fucked up priorities. And the third world debt problem is just the 21st century version of colonization. Add that to the long list of why I don't feel President Bush comes close to practicing what he professes to believe.