martha said:
I can't wait till you turn in your first paper in college.
I just realized his age.
What is it with the recent influx of teenagers who post bombastic threads here constantly?
martha said:
I can't wait till you turn in your first paper in college.
martha said:
I can't wait till you turn in your first paper in college.
2861U2 said:
Yes, and I'm more than happy to donate to some charities, but I dont want the government forcing people or companies to give to the "common good". Charity, as nice and generous as it is, is a voluntary act. It shouldnt be forced to happen. I dont want people taking my money (or anyone else's) and spending it elsewhere for me, as much as I can help it (i.e. dont raise taxes like she would)
hawkman said:
oh, stop bringing logic and reading comprehension into this.......
2861U2 said:
Generalizations
anitram said:I just realized his age.
What is it with the recent influx of teenagers who post bombastic threads here constantly?
2861U2 said:
Thanks for the nice words, but I already have.
melon said:Now that's a step in the right direction. This is something that I can respond to.
First off, I have a finger to wag myself:
Generalizations
I say that, because you've made quite a logical progression here that's not supported by the evidence or my past writing history here in FYM.
The first generalization that you've made? That because I called out the fact that certain Christians abuse religion for political purposes that I "hate" religion. As for whether you do any of this yourself? It's insignificant. However, the larger pseudo-Christian political machine--Focus on the Family, Catholic League, most megachurches--fit this bill. The Bible is abused to push a Republican agenda, and those same people who think that one cannot possibly be a "liberal" and "Christian" are often the same people who flat-out ignore the liberal parts of the Bible. As far as I'm concerned, those fundamentalist Christians who condemn abortion on one hand and cheer the death penalty on the other are hypocrites. Jesus did not value one form of life over the other, and His association/parables with the unsavory characters of His day--lepers, Samaritans, and, yes, tax collectors--lend credence to that idea.
But I digress.
Secondly, you don't want "Hillary or government taking your money forcefully." Name a realistic situation where this has happened with any president. And, okay, you don't want government money going to charities. So what do you think about Bush's money to "faith-based charities"? Do you disagree with this, or are you willing to overlook the obvious hypocrisy, because you believe in their causes?
Third, again, what you believe yourself is insignificant in comparison to the larger religious-political complex. I have nothing to back up "my hate"? We have, for instance, examples of direct threats from Catholic bishops and the Vatican to excommunicate any politicians that casts votes in favor of laws that go against Catholic teachings.
Additionally, name a self described "family organization" that isn't a mouthpiece for Republican Party ideology. The Christian Coalition, I believe, had its tax-exempt status removed, because it was determined to be nothing but politics. More than one of these organizations have brushed off the fact that there's a clear Biblical disconnect between being "pro-life" and being "pro-death penalty." Or when it comes to issues of "charity," they'll state that government has no business in that.
Frankly, you can't have it both ways. If conservative Christians see government as a tool to spread morality, then you can't ignore the calls for social justice that are also inherent in the gospels. As I see it, "religion" in government is only used to oppress and pass judgment. After all, the underlying reason to say that the U.S. is a "Christian country" is to keep "the undesirables" out. Gays? You're not welcome. Non-Christians? You're not welcome. Liberals, since they've become synonymous with "communism," which is, in itself, synonymous with "disloyalty," "treason," and, hence, all around being "un-American"? You're not welcome. This is the unsavory reality of "political Christianity," which, as far as I'm concerned, has nothing to do at all with true Christianity.
What I wish to clarify is the fact that not all churches and religious organizations fit this description, but far too many churches with conservative beliefs have let their politics corrupt their ministries. I find that to be utterly disgusting.
Thank you for taking the time to elaborate.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Didn't Jesus say, "sale all your jewelery and give it to the poor"?
2861U2 said:
Having possessions and acquiring wealth is not a sin. It's your attitude about it which can be dangerous. Things like money can be a god to many people. I dont know of many Bible verses that condemn people for having money- it's all about the attitude towards it.
unico said:2861U2 - i'm curious, which of the democratic candidates do you consider to be moderate if you say clinton is left?
2861U2 said:
Yes. You've brought up this verse before. However, I think you have to look deeper into what he said. Jesus was responding to a rich man who asked how he could come to know God. Jesus' response hinted that worldly possessions get in the way of spiritual growth and a relationship with God. I dont think this verse is a command for everyone to go sell everything they have.
Having possessions and acquiring wealth is not a sin. It's your attitude about it which can be dangerous. Things like money can be a god to many people. I dont know of many Bible verses that condemn people for having money- it's all about the attitude towards it. Does our heart and loyalty lie with God or with the world? The goal is to not let your money influence your life.
The rich man walked away angry and unwilling, leading Jesus to say "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." I dont think it is the worldly possessions themselves that we need to get rid of, but our attachment to them.
Keep in mind that just because someone is rich doesnt mean they serve money.
ETA: so you using this Bible verse in the debate was odd, as it really didnt apply to the topic at all.
yolland said:To be fair, any religion that was taken by its adherents to require that they live in poverty wouldn't last long.
But I think BVS was referring to a religious imperative to care for the poor by making justice for them a priority, not simply by donating to charity when the whim hits.
Vincent Vega said:I'm just curious, as I study Economics, how should a state that collects less and less taxes work?
unico said:
omg what bible are you reading?
unico said:2861U2 - i'm curious, which of the democratic candidates do you consider to be moderate if you say clinton is left?
2861U2 said:
The only one I'm halfway fond of is Senator Biden. He seems to be the only one who doesnt think we should pull our troops out immediately, plus he's the only one who didnt attend the YearlyKos hatefest. I dont see how any of the other 7 can expect to be called a moderate if they associate themselves with such a hateful place. They all, especially Edwards, pander to the far-left, because the far-left will choose the candidate. They, and places like MoveOn, instruct the candidates what to do, and if they dont do it, they will attack them on the internet. Most of the Democratic candidates are scared of the far-left, so they pander to them so as not to get hurt.
So to answer your question- anyone who doesnt associate themselves with the Kos.
2861U2 said:
So to answer your question- anyone who doesnt associate themselves with the Kos.
unico said:
YearlyKos is sponsored by the ONE campaign which is co-founded by Bono. Yeah...REAL hateful place there. Keyword: non-partisan. I don't know how you equate that with far-left.
BonoVoxSupastar said:Second, define the "far-left" and give one example of how these canidates are pandering to them.
2861U2 said:Just because they are associated with the ONE Campaign doesnt make it ok.