If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RedState)   If the levers of State are to be wielded to enforce the commands of Scripture, such as not allowing gay marriage, then why the hell are we opposing Obamacare - which is the most Christ-like thing the government has ever done?   (redstate.com) divider line 522
    More: Interesting, obamacare, No Regrets, no compromise, protest vote, eternal life, same-sex marriages, Bob Dole, Biden  
•       •       •

4072 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Mar 2013 at 6:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



522 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-31 02:21:18 PM  
we're having a nice schimp dinner.
 
2013-03-31 02:30:51 PM  
The coloreds will be allowed to use it.
 
2013-03-31 02:31:10 PM  
Didn't JC advocate free will?  I don't think the Government forcing you to buy health insurance follows that principle.
 
2013-03-31 02:43:01 PM  

queezyweezel: Didn't JC advocate free will?  I don't think the Government forcing you to buy health insurance follows that principle.


Yes, let's examine all of Christ's teachings on buying health care:

...

...

...

Fascinating.
 
2013-03-31 03:11:30 PM  
There is a very good blah explanation for that subs.

A very blah one indeed.
 
2013-03-31 03:28:53 PM  
I don't think most christians here in the US worship Jesus Christ.
 
2013-03-31 03:39:30 PM  
The you go again, trying to use logic to understand the Christian right's thinking.
 
2013-03-31 04:01:46 PM  

GAT_00: queezyweezel: Didn't JC advocate free will?  I don't think the Government forcing you to buy health insurance follows that principle.

Yes, let's examine all of Christ's teachings on buying health care:

...

...

...

Fascinating.


Awesome.
 
2013-03-31 04:58:29 PM  

GAT_00: queezyweezel: Didn't JC advocate free will?  I don't think the Government forcing you to buy health insurance follows that principle.

Yes, let's examine all of Christ's teachings on buying health care:

...

...

...

Fascinating.


There is actually some things, but they won't be particularly reassuring for the 'I got mine' crowd.


How about this:

Leviticus 19:14 Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling-block before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD.

And this:

Matthew 10:8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying; give without pay.

And more broadly speaking:

Deuteronomy 15:7-11 If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. Take care lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, 'The seventh year, the year of release is near,' and your eye look grudgingly on your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the Lord against you, and you be guilty of sin. You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, 'You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.'

Also, it seems to me that Jesus ran a series of free walk-in clinics:

Matthew 4:23-24 And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people. So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them.
 
2013-03-31 05:04:06 PM  
25.media.tumblr.com

Christianity is all about Single Payer
 
2013-03-31 05:09:44 PM  
Meanwhile back at the ranch...

www.politicalnewsnow.com

"Render unto Caesar..."
 
2013-03-31 05:47:57 PM  
I keep trying to explain to the GOP rank and file that if they wanna be christians they have to follow ALL of christ's commands - that includes healing the sick and helping the poor.  you can't be rich dickheads to people either - you gotta be really really nice to the people who are down on their luck.

none of them listen tho.  they just scream 'socalisms' and run away.
 
2013-03-31 05:49:06 PM  
If, as the anti-SSM crowd would have it, the levers of State are to be wielded to enforce the commands of Scripture, then pardon me, but what the H-E-double-hockey-sticks are we doing spending so much time, energy and effort fighting to overturn Obamacare? If the role of government is to enforce Biblical morality, isn't Obamacare - providing the security of medical insurance coverage to a multitude of poor, sick people who couldn't get it before, the most Christ-like thing the government has ever done??

Am I the only one who kept scrolling back up to the top of the page to make sure this was actually on Red State?

I kid but good on Erik the RedStater for promoting this "alternative" POV.
 
2013-03-31 05:52:22 PM  
Didn't Jesus also have a problem with money lenders getting too close with religious leaders?
 
2013-03-31 05:53:52 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Didn't Jesus also have a problem with money lenders getting too close with religious leaders?


very much so.  in fact, Christ also had big issues with mixing wealth and religion in any manner.  he beat the snot outta bankers who set up shop outside the temple.  the megachurches in this country would have appalled him.
 
2013-03-31 05:54:44 PM  

KWess: Deuteronomy 15:7-11 If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be.


Deuteronomy 15:11a(3)(m)(7): And yea and verily shalt thou give Caesar a piece of the action, and fillest out ye the multitudes of forms in triplicate, taking care that thou usest the blue pen and not the black which is forbidden, and if thou liketh not the ordeal ye shall be cast into Somalia to wail and grind your teeth, for maybe ye like it better there. Thus endeth the argument, for the almighty State shall grow forever and ever, amen*.

* - 'amen' is not intended as an endorsement of any religion, creed, or spiritual worldview
 
2013-03-31 06:05:04 PM  

Weaver95: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Didn't Jesus also have a problem with money lenders getting too close with religious leaders?

very much so.  in fact, Christ also had big issues with mixing wealth and religion in any manner.  he beat the snot outta bankers who set up shop outside the temple.  the megachurches in this country would have appalled him.


Yeah, but this case is different because gay people are icky. Jesus certainly didn't mention anything about being nice to people different from yourself.
 
2013-03-31 06:09:36 PM  

queezyweezel: Didn't JC advocate free will?  I don't think the Government forcing you to buy health insurance follows that principle.


Are you seriously advocating that Christ was an anarchist who was against all laws period, or are you just a troll or mentally deficient little monkey?
 
2013-03-31 06:11:33 PM  

Amos Quito: Meanwhile back at the ranch...

[www.politicalnewsnow.com image 585x378]

"Render unto Caesar..."


What's with the nose?  Is there something about his nose I've never noticed?
 
2013-03-31 06:13:37 PM  
I''m amazed at how many theologians don't believe in the resurrection. And many of them don't spend a lot of time convincing the believers that they shouldn't believe in the resurrection.

The most interesting explanation I heard is Jesus was drugged and after 6 hours he was taken down alive. (Six hours isn't a lot of time to die by being crucified.) The materials taken to the tomb were medicines, he was healed up and beat cheeks out of the Middle East with his wife Mary.

But as I said, there seems to be a lot of Christian leaders who have beat cheeks from the resurrection. The fact that their underlings have abandoned many of the tenets of the Sermon on the Mount shouldn't be surprising either.
 
2013-03-31 06:14:17 PM  
Great article.
 
2013-03-31 06:14:34 PM  

Amos Quito: [25.media.tumblr.com image 300x410]

Christianity is all about Single Payer


I think you mean "single prayer"
 
2013-03-31 06:15:56 PM  
Answer to subby's question:  because zOMG SOOOOOOOOOOOCIALISM!
 
2013-03-31 06:16:17 PM  
Is this headline written in some language other than English, perhaps Ebonics or Spanglish?
 
2013-03-31 06:16:53 PM  

Amos Quito: Meanwhile back at the ranch...

[www.politicalnewsnow.com image 585x378]

"Render unto Caesar..."


You get your quotes from comics? Explains a bit.
 
2013-03-31 06:17:06 PM  

The_Forensicator: Great article.


I didn't expect to find anything I agree with in a Redstate article. I tripped over my own bias.
 
2013-03-31 06:19:31 PM  
i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-31 06:19:45 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: I''m amazed at how many theologians don't believe in the resurrection. And many of them don't spend a lot of time convincing the believers that they shouldn't believe in the resurrection.

The most interesting explanation I heard is Jesus was drugged and after 6 hours he was taken down alive. (Six hours isn't a lot of time to die by being crucified.) The materials taken to the tomb were medicines, he was healed up and beat cheeks out of the Middle East with his wife Mary.

But as I said, there seems to be a lot of Christian leaders who have beat cheeks from the resurrection. The fact that their underlings have abandoned many of the tenets of the Sermon on the Mount shouldn't be surprising either.


Read "The Passover Plot"  It describes Jesus being drugged with concoction that would mask death (like in Romeo and Juliet) Then he was taken down and healed. Wala.

/Honestly I don't know what happened. I wasn't there
 
2013-03-31 06:20:42 PM  
Finally a farked up headline that didn't author.
 
2013-03-31 06:20:50 PM  
What's Christian about putting vast sums of money in the insurance industry's pocket?
 
2013-03-31 06:20:58 PM  

unamused: The coloreds will be allowed to use it.


Done in two
 
2013-03-31 06:24:16 PM  

Weaver95: I don't think most christians here in the US worship Jesus Christ.


If Jesus came back tomorrow, the troglodytes that inhabit RedState will be heading straight to Lowe's (Home Depot is too friendly towards teh ghey) to buy hammers, nails and 2x6es.
 
2013-03-31 06:25:17 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-31 06:25:25 PM  
Need proof that God hates gays?  Jesus was married and had TONS of heterosexual sex with his wife.  Oh, hang on.  It turns out he was unmarried and hung out with 12 dudes most of the time.  The straightest guy ever.
 
2013-03-31 06:25:39 PM  

Phil Moskowitz: What's Christian about putting vast sums of money in the insurance industry's pocket?


You're absolutely right.  Obamacare is a watered down half measure.  Single payer works for other countries and the wingnuts have given no reason it can't work here.
 
2013-03-31 06:26:07 PM  
BECAUSE HE'S BLACK!

/And Muslin.
//and atheist
///and soshulist and a commie to boot ...
 
2013-03-31 06:27:21 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: You're absolutely right.  Obamacare is a watered down half measure.  Single payer works for other countries and the wingnuts have given no reason it can't work here.


To be fair, they have.

They just haven't given any <i>good</i> reasons.
 
2013-03-31 06:27:22 PM  

Amos Quito: Meanwhile back at the ranch...

[derp]


Hey everybody!!  Talk about what I want to talk about, not TFA!!1!
 
Good for TFA's author.  Lot's of good stuff...I particularly liked this:

Given the pattern of Jesus' own life on earth, can you really make the argument that he cares more about homosexuality than about the poor?

There is nothing "Christian" about being anti-marriage equality.  It's just raw, crass bigotry.
 
2013-03-31 06:30:49 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Phil Moskowitz: What's Christian about putting vast sums of money in the insurance industry's pocket?

You're absolutely right.  Obamacare is a watered down half measure.  Single payer works for other countries and the wingnuts have given no reason it can't work here.


It puts everyone on an even keel while still allowing those who wish to spend more to opt for private more fancy insurance.

In other words, a perfectly equitable system that would have saved lives and money. But Obamers a muslin and GWB was the BESTEST PREZ EVAR EXCEPT RAGAN SO THE MUD PPL musT DIE of AIDS in teh ghetto streets.
 
2013-03-31 06:31:13 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: I''m amazed at how many theologians don't believe in the resurrection.


The oldest versions of the oldest gospel Mark end at the empty tomb verse 16:8.
 
2013-03-31 06:33:46 PM  

queezyweezel: Didn't JC advocate free will?  I don't think the Government forcing you to buy health insurance follows that principle.


You're not being forced to buy it. As a society, we've decided we find it morally unacceptable to let indigent people die. Until today, the responsible consumers of healthcare - people like myself who have insurance - have paid the subsidy for that, and have allowed employers and individuals use the benefit of our good will, without expecting them to pay for it.

We're getting tired of it.

We're still not willing to let you, or your kids, just bleed out in the ER. But if you insist on calling yourself a member of our society, and you reap the benefits of it - our schools, our roads, our legal and market systems, we're going to ask you to pick up a portion of your tab.

If that's too socialist for you, can I suggest, perhaps, Somalia?
 
2013-03-31 06:34:48 PM  
Bunch of socialist hippies at that website. After a pinko-lefty article like that I better make sure I never go there again
 
2013-03-31 06:35:56 PM  

neongoats: But Obamers a muslin and GWB was the BESTEST PREZ EVAR EXCEPT RAGAN SO THE MUD PPL musT DIE of AIDS in teh ghetto streets.


Huh?

Obama is against single payer, despite your odd little meltdown there.  Well, he was for it once.  Then he was kinda so-so on the idea, then it was no.  A bit like SSM really.
 
2013-03-31 06:37:54 PM  

CokeBear: Bunch of socialist hippies at that website. After a pinko-lefty article like that I better make sure I never go there again


First FOX news, now Red State.  Thanks a lot, Obama.
 
2013-03-31 06:38:38 PM  
[sarcasm]Damn cripples messing up the line to salvation!!![/sarcasm]


i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-31 06:38:49 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Phil Moskowitz: What's Christian about putting vast sums of money in the insurance industry's pocket?

You're absolutely right.  Obamacare is a watered down half measure.  Single payer works for other countries and the wingnuts have given no reason it can't work here.


Single payer only gets you so far.  You have to fundamentally redo the incentives in our health care system in this country.  And that's never going to happen in the current environment.

/health care is complex and while other countries debate real solutions we just have talking points
 
2013-03-31 06:39:31 PM  

GAT_00: queezyweezel: Didn't JC advocate free will?  I don't think the Government forcing you to buy health insurance follows that principle.

Yes, let's examine all of Christ's teachings on buying health care:

...

...

...

Fascinating.


Give to God what is God's. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's.
 
2013-03-31 06:41:15 PM  

queezyweezel: Didn't JC advocate free will?  I don't think the Government forcing you to buy health insurance follows that principle.


To be fair - no one made it to age 34 in JC's time.
 
2013-03-31 06:45:30 PM  

The_Forensicator: neongoats: But Obamers a muslin and GWB was the BESTEST PREZ EVAR EXCEPT RAGAN SO THE MUD PPL musT DIE of AIDS in teh ghetto streets.

Huh?

Obama is against single payer, despite your odd little meltdown there.  Well, he was for it once.  Then he was kinda so-so on the idea, then it was no.  A bit like SSM really.


I don't care what Obama's position on health care is. I care that GOP obstructionism is primarily what tanked any real health care reform and gave us this castrated half measure that is really just a a good long handjob for big insurance.
 
2013-03-31 06:45:54 PM  

Weaver95: I don't think most christians here in the US worship Jesus Christ.


I think I saw that guy on King of Kings before I left for the airport. I thought it was a revisionist's view or something based on what I know of Christians
 
2013-03-31 06:47:07 PM  
It's amusing that someone thinks Christians give a damn about what the Bible says.
 
2013-03-31 06:47:30 PM  

gingerjet: queezyweezel: Didn't JC advocate free will?  I don't think the Government forcing you to buy health insurance follows that principle.

To be fair - no one made it to age 34 in JC's time.


Actually, average life expectancy was very low in ancient times because of extraordinarily high infant mortality. If you were sturdy enough to make it into adulthood you had a pretty decent chance of living into old age. Not as high a chance as today, nor as old as you'd be today, but older than 34 to be sure.
 
2013-03-31 06:48:12 PM  

Amos Quito: [www.politicalnewsnow.com image 585x378]


Love that while they made it crystal-clear that's meant to be Obama (ears, wide black-guy nose), they also want to make it clear that they're totally not being racist by making him practically caucasian.
 
2013-03-31 06:50:03 PM  
All of Jesus' examples of caring for the sick involved conjuring them magically to health at no cost with sorcerous powers inherited from your father.

I'm... not really sure that translates to, y'know, reality, where caring for sickness involves effort and expenditure of resources well in excess of negligible inconvenience.
 
2013-03-31 06:52:49 PM  

queezyweezel: Didn't JC advocate free will?


No, he didn't.
 
2013-03-31 06:53:02 PM  
Matthew 25:31-46
New International Version (NIV)

The Sheep and the Goats


31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne.  32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.  33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.


34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdomprepared for you since the creation of the world.  35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,  36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?  38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?  39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.  42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,  43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.
 
2013-03-31 06:55:01 PM  

Jim_Callahan: All of Jesus' examples of caring for the sick involved conjuring them magically to health at no cost with sorcerous powers inherited from your father.

I'm... not really sure that translates to, y'know, reality, where caring for sickness involves effort and expenditure of resources well in excess of negligible inconvenience.


He most definitely promoted caring for others at the expense of yourself. A common biblical metaphor for describing conversion to Christianity is to "die" to yourself, in the sense that you deny your own desires, wants, and even needs, for the sake of loving others.
 
2013-03-31 06:55:34 PM  

Amos Quito: Meanwhile back at the ranch...


The Supreme Court ruled it constitutional. What are you whining about?
 
2013-03-31 06:55:41 PM  
Hi!  Christian over here!

I really want to talk politics with you guys, but I don't feel like I can particularly   It's not that I am a person who goes around trying to convince people to join my church, or I spend a lot of time talking about my personal relationship with God... but I get the feeling that among the liberal crowd in fark I'm not welcome.

Never mind that I think there should be some sort of baseline healthcare (although I don't agree forcing us to pay insurance companies is the way to do it), nevermind that I actually think gays should be allowed to marry (and have picked a church that supports my views) but the mere fact that I believe in God, and Christ, has made me feel like - in these threads at least - even if I get into the nitty gritty and explain to you why the people really hate this kind of stuff, you would disregard and attack me because of my faith.

So if you really want to know, I can tell you how it contradicts with the Christian values - but if you're just trolling and getting on the Christian hate train, I won't waste my breath.
 
2013-03-31 06:56:47 PM  

Gulper Eel: Deuteronomy 15:11a(3)(m)(7): And yea and verily shalt thou give Caesar a piece of the action, and fillest out ye the multitudes of forms in triplicate, taking care that thou usest the blue pen and not the black which is forbidden, and if thou liketh not the ordeal ye shall be cast into Somalia to wail and grind your teeth, for maybe ye like it better there. Thus endeth the argument, for the almighty State shall grow forever and ever, amen*.

* - 'amen' is not intended as an endorsement of any religion, creed, or spiritual worldview


In the old testament, you can learn what God does to a nation of whiny biatches.  Well, a nation he likes.
 
2013-03-31 06:58:05 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: There is nothing "Christian" about being anti-marriage equality. It's just raw, crass bigotry.


And here it is, the end game... It's not Bigotry, and there *is* marriage equality. Nobody is telling any man that they can't marry a woman, or a woman that she can't marry a man. Everyone has the same right to get married. It's marriage re-definition, not equality that you're after, and once you have it, then you can scream "bigotry" at any religious institution that doesn't want to go along with your re-definition due to moral or theological reasons. The Islamic faith is the harshest against homosexuals and most of the biblical teachings espoused today against it are from the Jewish teachings, yet for some reason most people who speak out for it, categorize Christians as the big meanies in this whole debate. Right now there's a majority of Americans who are against it, the number is shrinking, sure, but it's still a majority, and the last I looked, there's people of all faiths in this country, so who's to say that it's only Christians voting against it?

As for Obamacare being a philosophy that Jesus would have supported, I highly doubt it. Pretty sure his teachings were about focusing on your own soul and not about having the Government force you to care for the poor through taxation.

As for pulling the voting levers to enforce morality, well, that's just something you're going to have to swallow if you want to live in a democratic republic, where we, the people, attempt to govern ourselves. The reasons behind the choices we make can't be gotten rid of - Those who support Gay Marriage vote the way they do out of a personal set of ethics, just as those who are against it do. They are both entitled to vote based upon their personal ethics regardless of how they came about them.
 
2013-03-31 06:58:15 PM  
www.buzzflash.com www.buzzflash.com
 
2013-03-31 06:58:19 PM  

KWess: GAT_00: queezyweezel: Didn't JC advocate free will?  I don't think the Government forcing you to buy health insurance follows that principle.

Yes, let's examine all of Christ's teachings on buying health care:

...

...

...

Fascinating.

There is actually some things, but they won't be particularly reassuring for the 'I got mine' crowd.


How about this:

Leviticus 19:14 Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling-block before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD.

And this:

Matthew 10:8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying; give without pay.

And more broadly speaking:

Deuteronomy 15:7-11 If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. Take care lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, 'The seventh year, the year of release is near,' and your eye look grudgingly on your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the Lord against you, and you be guilty of sin. You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, 'You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.'

Also, it seems to me that Jesus ran a series of free walk-in clinics:

Matthew 4:23-24 And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people. So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by dem ...


The key point here is that Christ was speaking about voluntary INDIVIDUAL actions - NOT collective actions forced at the end of a government gun. Morality pertains to individuals, not collectives.
 
2013-03-31 06:59:09 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Morality pertains to individuals, not collectives.


Interesting concept.
 
2013-03-31 07:00:20 PM  

skilbride: Hi!  Christian over here!

I really want to talk politics with you guys, but I don't feel like I can particularly   It's not that I am a person who goes around trying to convince people to join my church, or I spend a lot of time talking about my personal relationship with God... but I get the feeling that among the liberal crowd in fark I'm not welcome.

Never mind that I think there should be some sort of baseline healthcare (although I don't agree forcing us to pay insurance companies is the way to do it), nevermind that I actually think gays should be allowed to marry (and have picked a church that supports my views) but the mere fact that I believe in God, and Christ, has made me feel like - in these threads at least - even if I get into the nitty gritty and explain to you why the people really hate this kind of stuff, you would disregard and attack me because of my faith.

So if you really want to know, I can tell you how it contradicts with the Christian values - but if you're just trolling and getting on the Christian hate train, I won't waste my breath.


Woo, mission accomplished...now watch this drive!
 
2013-03-31 07:00:31 PM  

pounddawg: TheShavingofOccam123: I''m amazed at how many theologians don't believe in the resurrection. And many of them don't spend a lot of time convincing the believers that they shouldn't believe in the resurrection.

The most interesting explanation I heard is Jesus was drugged and after 6 hours he was taken down alive. (Six hours isn't a lot of time to die by being crucified.) The materials taken to the tomb were medicines, he was healed up and beat cheeks out of the Middle East with his wife Mary.

But as I said, there seems to be a lot of Christian leaders who have beat cheeks from the resurrection. The fact that their underlings have abandoned many of the tenets of the Sermon on the Mount shouldn't be surprising either.

Read "The Passover Plot"  It describes Jesus being drugged with concoction that would mask death (like in Romeo and Juliet) Then he was taken down and healed. Wala.

/Honestly I don't know what happened. I wasn't there


Personally, I liked Christopher Moore's version: Lamb. But I'll check that one out, too.
 
2013-03-31 07:01:13 PM  

balloot: It's amusing that someone thinks Christians give a damn about what the Bible says.


The Bible is for justifying the the things Christians want to do, like own slaves and ostracize people that look different or like different things.

The Bible is not for describing a path to salvation that demands compassion, self control, and an honest attempt to improve.
 
2013-03-31 07:01:58 PM  
IF it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle then for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god then republicans should be thanking Obama for all that wealth they claim is being communist'd out of their bank accounts and dumping them into poverty
 
2013-03-31 07:02:43 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: But as I said, there seems to be a lot of Christian leaders who have beat cheeks from the resurrection. The fact that their underlings have abandoned many of the tenets of the Sermon on the Mount shouldn't be surprising either.


I've been a Christian my entire life and I've never heard anyone who self-identified as a Christian take that point of view. I don't believe that there are "a lot" of Christian leaders who reject it.

There have been a lot of Christian heresies, but very few of them reject the divinity of Jesus. At that point you're not really Christian anymore.
 
2013-03-31 07:02:55 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The key point here is that Christ was speaking about voluntary INDIVIDUAL actions - NOT collective actions forced at the end of a government gun. Morality pertains to individuals, not collectives.


Except when it applies to what you do in your bedroom.
 
2013-03-31 07:03:16 PM  

CanisNoir: It's not Bigotry, and there *is* marriage equality. Nobody is telling any man that they can't marry a woman, or a woman that she can't marry a man. Everyone has the same right to get married.


Go fark yourself.
 
2013-03-31 07:04:16 PM  

sugardave: Woo, mission accomplished...now watch this drive!


I mean seriously, look at a couple posts after yours..

"
The Bible is for justifying the the things Christians want to do, like own slaves and ostracize people that look different or like different things.

The Bible is not for describing a path to salvation that demands compassion, self control, and an honest attempt to improve."Seriously?  The bible is our holy book.  Just because some fringe assholes who we don't respect bastardize it doesn't mean you should, and to do so while calling Christian's as a whole intolerant, racist, assholes is the height ofhypocrisy.
 
2013-03-31 07:04:19 PM  
Is this all you guys have? I am disappoint.
 
2013-03-31 07:04:19 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The key point here is that Christ was speaking about voluntary INDIVIDUAL actions - NOT collective actions forced at the end of a government gun. Morality pertains to individuals, not collectives.


So you're saying Christ didn't give a fark whether the poor were actually fed or had a roof over their head, what was important was the exercise of free will in giving to the poor. That's an interesting take on Christianity; farked up, but interesting.
 
2013-03-31 07:05:46 PM  
I actually thought the article was quite good all in all. Can't believe it was on RedState.
 
2013-03-31 07:06:30 PM  
Seriously, subby? Are you really trying to make sense of what people think they want? Here's all the sense there is about it: People who oppose gay marriage oppose it because religion, or their parents, told them gays are evil. People who oppose Obamacare oppose it because the Tea Party and other political organs of the ultra-rich have told them anything Obama does is evil. People are gullible and don't think much, but they have exceedingly tenacious opinions.
 
2013-03-31 07:07:15 PM  

12349876: TheShavingofOccam123: I''m amazed at how many theologians don't believe in the resurrection.

The oldest versions of the oldest gospel Mark end at the empty tomb verse 16:8.


And there are two different added on endings. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church uses a different one than the Roman Catholic Church.
 
2013-03-31 07:07:18 PM  

GAT_00: queezyweezel: Didn't JC advocate free will?  I don't think the Government forcing you to buy health insurance follows that principle.

Yes, let's examine all of Christ's teachings on buying health care:

...

...

...

Fascinating.


You may have overlooked one there.


Matthew 25:41-46
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
 
2013-03-31 07:08:25 PM  

skilbride: sugardave: Woo, mission accomplished...now watch this drive!

I mean seriously, look at a couple posts after yours..

"
The Bible is for justifying the the things Christians want to do, like own slaves and ostracize people that look different or like different things.

The Bible is not for describing a path to salvation that demands compassion, self control, and an honest attempt to improve."Seriously?  The bible is our holy book.  Just because some fringe assholes who we don't respect bastardize it doesn't mean you should, and to do so while calling Christian's as a whole intolerant, racist, assholes is the height ofhypocrisy.


I take it that you disagree? I think it's pretty spot-on, myself. I live in Texas, the godliest nation that ever existed, so I'm pretty comfortable labeling every last Christian as a drag on society (at best) and outright agents of evil in most cases.
 
2013-03-31 07:08:33 PM  
Because they love the Almighty Dollar more than the Almighty God?

They beat their chests that they are Christian as long as being Christian doesn't mean that they actually have to make sacrifices. Because being an actual Jesus like Christian is hard work. It's easier to just slap one of those fish plates on your bumper and than to volunteer at the local soup kitchen or homeless shelter.

And I find the Christians that do without so that there fellow man can have as well as volunteer to help those less fortunate are less likely to brag about how Christian they are. I think it's because they don't have time to brag. They are busy being Christians.
 
2013-03-31 07:08:38 PM  

Fubini: TheShavingofOccam123: But as I said, there seems to be a lot of Christian leaders who have beat cheeks from the resurrection. The fact that their underlings have abandoned many of the tenets of the Sermon on the Mount shouldn't be surprising either.

I've been a Christian my entire life and I've never heard anyone who self-identified as a Christian take that point of view. I don't believe that there are "a lot" of Christian leaders who reject it.

There have been a lot of Christian heresies, but very few of them reject the divinity of Jesus. At that point you're not really Christian anymore.


The very idea of heresy is oppression incarnate. When Jesus comes back and tells you what to believe, then you can call it heresy. Until then, its just man killing man for saying the wrong things.
 
2013-03-31 07:09:57 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: So you're saying Christ didn't give a fark whether the poor were actually fed or had a roof over their head, what was important was the exercise of free will in giving to the poor. That's an interesting take on Christianity; farked up, but interesting.


Okay, I'll put it a different way.  There's an idea in the Christian Church that giving (or doing something) isn't really important unless it's at a true sacrifice to yourself.  So, there's a couple ways this plays out - first of all, you can't give and then gloat and be like, "Look how awesome I am because I gave to the poor!"  You can't give and expect something in return.  And it's not really giving if it doesn't, in somehow, take away from you.   Those are the deeds which Christian's should aim to achieve.

So, at a fundamental level, there's a very deep fear that is not well vocalized in the Christian faith that if government forces you to do all these things that Christ says you should do - you won't get into heaven - because not only was it not a sacrifice that you made willingly, for no personal benefit - but it's something that everyone else does as well.
 
2013-03-31 07:10:42 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: So you're saying Christ didn't give a fark whether the poor were actually fed or had a roof over their head, what was important was the exercise of free will in giving to the poor. That's an interesting take on Christianity; farked up, but interesting.


Of course he cared, his ministry was primarily to the poor and downtrodden, however, he didn't expect Rome or The Temple to provide the food and roof, he wanted people to do it out of their own love of their fellow man, on an individual basis. His message wasn't "Do what Cesar says and you shall go to Heaven" - it was "Do as The Lord God commands and you shall go to heaven."

He wasn't too fond of the Jewish priest class at the time as he felt they were part of the problem, and instead focused on people individually connecting with God.
 
2013-03-31 07:11:00 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The key point here is that Christ was speaking about voluntary INDIVIDUAL actions - NOT collective actions forced at the end of a government gun. Morality pertains to individuals, not collectives.


Jesus never forbade his followers from engaging in politics or enacting laws that promote Christian values. He DOES command Christians to not pass judgement on others or to impose morality on others.

Scripturally, I can support the ACA because I'm a Christian and I think we should provide for the needy, but I can't support DOMA legislation because I think it's wrong that the gays are getting married. However, I shouldn't support the ACA because I think that all the heathens aren't doing enough to support the needy.

It's a fine line.
 
2013-03-31 07:12:01 PM  

GAT_00: Yes, let's examine all of Christ's teachings on buying health care:

...

...

...

Fascinating.



While we're at it, can we look at Christ's teachings on homosexuality and gay marriage?

That should take about the same amount of time.
 
2013-03-31 07:12:36 PM  

skilbride: Never mind that I think there should be some sort of baseline healthcare (although I don't agree forcing us to pay insurance companies is the way to do it), nevermind that I actually think gays should be allowed to marry (and have picked a church that supports my views) but the mere fact that I believe in God, and Christ, has made me feel like - in these threads at least - even if I get into the nitty gritty and explain to you why the people really hate this kind of stuff, you would disregard and attack me because of my faith.


The loudest voices who proclaim their Christianity on the national level seem to follow espouse Prosperity Gospel and come nowhere close to following Jesus's example and teachings. If a you're a Christian who isn't here to tear down that abomination of faith, you're part of the problem, and deserve all the scorn you receive.

We already know how they contradict Christian values. What we can't stand is that so many other religious types defend people who call themselves Christian rather than people who actually practice Christian teachings. Their ideology is so toxic that there really is no defending it. If you support it at all, for any reason, even one as nebulous as the label "Christianity", you are too corrupt for anything but ridicule.
 
2013-03-31 07:12:56 PM  

skilbride: Monkeyhouse Zendo: So you're saying Christ didn't give a fark whether the poor were actually fed or had a roof over their head, what was important was the exercise of free will in giving to the poor. That's an interesting take on Christianity; farked up, but interesting.

Okay, I'll put it a different way.  There's an idea in the Christian Church that giving (or doing something) isn't really important unless it's at a true sacrifice to yourself.  So, there's a couple ways this plays out - first of all, you can't give and then gloat and be like, "Look how awesome I am because I gave to the poor!"  You can't give and expect something in return.  And it's not really giving if it doesn't, in somehow, take away from you.   Those are the deeds which Christian's should aim to achieve.

So, at a fundamental level, there's a very deep fear that is not well vocalized in the Christian faith that if government forces you to do all these things that Christ says you should do - you won't get into heaven - because not only was it not a sacrifice that you made willingly, for no personal benefit - but it's something that everyone else does as well.


OH NOES THEY MIGHT HAVE TO FIND ANOTHER WAY TO BE CHRISTIAN!!

Seriously? Does coveting a particular charitable action help or hinder your ascension to paradise?
 
2013-03-31 07:13:23 PM  

balloot: It's amusing that someone thinks Christians give a damn about what the Bible says.


Of course they do, especially when they can find a piece of scripture to reinforce their already strongly held belief, even if it means ignoring other pieces of scripture that go against other strongly held beliefs, or even the same one!
 
2013-03-31 07:13:55 PM  

sugardave: skilbride: sugardave: Woo, mission accomplished...now watch this drive!

I mean seriously, look at a couple posts after yours..

"
The Bible is for justifying the the things Christians want to do, like own slaves and ostracize people that look different or like different things.

The Bible is not for describing a path to salvation that demands compassion, self control, and an honest attempt to improve."Seriously?  The bible is our holy book.  Just because some fringe assholes who we don't respect bastardize it doesn't mean you should, and to do so while calling Christian's as a whole intolerant, racist, assholes is the height ofhypocrisy.

I take it that you disagree? I think it's pretty spot-on, myself. I live in Texas, the godliest nation that ever existed, so I'm pretty comfortable labeling every last Christian as a drag on society (at best) and outright agents of evil in most cases.


Yeah, I do disagree.  I think that kind of attitude is the worst attitude to have.  It happens on both sides, but I don't see how you can justify your attitude towards all Christian's and then lame blame on those of us who are rational for not walking to talk to you.
 
2013-03-31 07:15:51 PM  
Paul says something about homosexuality, but unfortunately he uses the word "arsenokoitai", which is unknown in any other writings, so it's anyone's guess what it really means. So maybe it isn't homosexuality at all.
 
2013-03-31 07:16:10 PM  

Fubini: 31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.


I always liked Terry Pratchett's take on that one:

"The merest accident of microgeography had meant that the first man to hear the voice of Om, and who gave Om his view of humans, was a shepherd and not a goatherd. They have quite different ways of looking at the world, and the whole of history might have been different. For sheep are stupid, and have to be driven. But goats are intelligent, and need to be led."
 
2013-03-31 07:17:01 PM  

CanisNoir: Lionel Mandrake: There is nothing "Christian" about being anti-marriage equality. It's just raw, crass bigotry.

And here it is, the end game... It's not Bigotry, and there *is* marriage equality. Nobody is telling any man that they can't marry a woman, or a woman that she can't marry a man. Everyone has the same right to get married. It's marriage re-definition, not equality that you're after, and once you have it, then you can scream "bigotry" at any religious institution that doesn't want to go along with your re-definition due to moral or theological reasons. The Islamic faith is the harshest against homosexuals and most of the biblical teachings espoused today against it are from the Jewish teachings, yet for some reason most people who speak out for it, categorize Christians as the big meanies in this whole debate. Right now there's a majority of Americans who are against it, the number is shrinking, sure, but it's still a majority, and the last I looked, there's people of all faiths in this country, so who's to say that it's only Christians voting against it?

As for Obamacare being a philosophy that Jesus would have supported, I highly doubt it. Pretty sure his teachings were about focusing on your own soul and not about having the Government force you to care for the poor through taxation.

As for pulling the voting levers to enforce morality, well, that's just something you're going to have to swallow if you want to live in a democratic republic, where we, the people, attempt to govern ourselves. The reasons behind the choices we make can't be gotten rid of - Those who support Gay Marriage vote the way they do out of a personal set of ethics, just as those who are against it do. They are both entitled to vote based upon their personal ethics regardless of how they came about them.


Yep - and that applies when they elect the executives who appoint the judges who often end up ruling on these matters, too.
Democracy - it's a biatch when your worn out value system is losing.
 
2013-03-31 07:17:23 PM  

Weaver95: I don't think most christians here in the US worship Jesus Christ.


There's a fine line between saying something provocative and saying something stupid. You crossed it.
 
2013-03-31 07:17:41 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: The very idea of heresy is oppression incarnate. When Jesus comes back and tells you what to believe, then you can call it heresy. Until then, its just man killing man for saying the wrong things.


Two problems with that: the first is that Jesus was already here, and he told us some things then. The second is that the Church is allowed to create orthodoxy and then label as heretic anything that runs contrary to those beliefs. One of the fundamental roles of the Church is to act as a moral compass for itself and society, and in order to do that it must be able to label some things as morally right and some things as morally wrong.

I'm using heresy here in the context of belief systems, not of violent reprisals. Religious purity through murder is clearly an unbiblical thing to do.
 
2013-03-31 07:17:49 PM  

skilbride: So, at a fundamental level, there's a very deep fear that is not well vocalized in the Christian faith that if government forces you to do all these things that Christ says you should do - you won't get into heaven - because not only was it not a sacrifice that you made willingly, for no personal benefit - but it's something that everyone else does as well.


Yeah, I'm going to have to call bullshiat on that. About 70% if the US population self identifies as Christian and if 70% of the population were even marginally motivated to feed and put a roof over the head of the poor, we wouldn't have the poverty and homeless rates we have in this nation. Christians are all about "faith not works" and building churches the size of sports arenas. Sure, some of them may run a soup kitchen now and again but most of that "charity" is funneled back into the congregation or into the wallet of the clergy.
 
2013-03-31 07:17:53 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: The loudest voices who proclaim their Christianity on the national level seem to follow espouse Prosperity Gospel and come nowhere close to following Jesus's example and teachings. If a you're a Christian who isn't here to tear down that abomination of faith, you're part of the problem, and deserve all the scorn you receive.

We already know how they contradict Christian values. What we can't stand is that so many other religious types defend people who call themselves Christian rather than people who actually practice Christian teachings. Their ideology is so toxic that there really is no defending it. If you support it at all, for any reason, even one as nebulous as the label "Christianity", you are too corrupt for anything but ridicule.


I'm not defending anyone - I'm Episcopalian - we are pretty much the most liberal church to exist within the three major faiths.  But what I am saying that is I don't appreciate you saying that because I believe in the bible, and Christ as my savior, that I'm too corrupt for anything but ridicule.
 
2013-03-31 07:18:09 PM  

sugardave: Seriously? Does coveting a particular charitable action help or hinder your ascension to paradise?


You are completely missing his point, or purposefully trying to be obtuse. A "good" work cannot be "good" if it's forced. Christ and Christian teachings are about doing "good" works. Having the government force you to do it, takes it out of the realm of "good" works, so it's wrong to say that Jesus and Christians should support the Government forcing people to do it.
 
2013-03-31 07:18:28 PM  
Hey this is the first time the politics tab is less nauseating than the sports tab.
 
2013-03-31 07:18:52 PM  

skilbride: sugardave: skilbride: sugardave: Woo, mission accomplished...now watch this drive!

I mean seriously, look at a couple posts after yours..

"
The Bible is for justifying the the things Christians want to do, like own slaves and ostracize people that look different or like different things.

The Bible is not for describing a path to salvation that demands compassion, self control, and an honest attempt to improve."Seriously?  The bible is our holy book.  Just because some fringe assholes who we don't respect bastardize it doesn't mean you should, and to do so while calling Christian's as a whole intolerant, racist, assholes is the height ofhypocrisy.

I take it that you disagree? I think it's pretty spot-on, myself. I live in Texas, the godliest nation that ever existed, so I'm pretty comfortable labeling every last Christian as a drag on society (at best) and outright agents of evil in most cases.

Yeah, I do disagree.  I think that kind of attitude is the worst attitude to have.  It happens on both sides, but I don't see how you can justify your attitude towards all Christian's and then lame blame on those of us who are rational for not walking to talk to you.


You are laboring under the (INCREDIBLY incorrect) assumption that I want to talk to Christians. On the contrary, I want to deride them and point out their idiocy at every opportunity. Go to church, worship your drity, but STFU about it and let rational people run things. You can still feel smug that we'll all be burning in Hell, but I feel it is an unfair burden on me that I can't beat the everlasting snot out of you for threatening me.
 
2013-03-31 07:20:15 PM  

Weaver95: I don't think most christians here in the US worship Jesus Christ.


Bingo!
 
2013-03-31 07:20:52 PM  

sugardave: You are laboring under the (INCREDIBLY incorrect) assumption that I want to talk to Christians. On the contrary, I want to deride them and point out their idiocy at every opportunity. Go to church, worship your drity, but STFU about it and let rational people run things. You can still feel smug that we'll all be burning in Hell, but I feel it is an unfair burden on me that I can't beat the everlasting snot out of you for threatening me.


Where exactly did I threaten you?
 
2013-03-31 07:21:01 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The key point here is that Christ was speaking about voluntary INDIVIDUAL actions - NOT collective actions forced at the end of a government gun. Morality pertains to individuals, not collectives.

So you're saying Christ didn't give a fark whether the poor were actually fed or had a roof over their head, what was important was the exercise of free will in giving to the poor. That's an interesting take on Christianity; farked up, but interesting.


What's more, if you look at the Mosaical Law from the Old Testament, you will see that such things as leaving part of the crop at harvest for the poor to glean was not just religious tradition, it was the secular law as well, and one could be punished by society for failing to perform this act of charity.
 
2013-03-31 07:22:21 PM  

CanisNoir: sugardave: Seriously? Does coveting a particular charitable action help or hinder your ascension to paradise?

You are completely missing his point, or purposefully trying to be obtuse. A "good" work cannot be "good" if it's forced. Christ and Christian teachings are about doing "good" works. Having the government force you to do it, takes it out of the realm of "good" works, so it's wrong to say that Jesus and Christians should support the Government forcing people to do it.


His point distilled to "they're takin' our jerbz" vis a vis charitable giving, which I see you left out.
 
2013-03-31 07:23:05 PM  

CanisNoir: sugardave: Seriously? Does coveting a particular charitable action help or hinder your ascension to paradise?

You are completely missing his point, or purposefully trying to be obtuse. A "good" work cannot be "good" if it's forced. Christ and Christian teachings are about doing "good" works. Having the government force you to do it, takes it out of the realm of "good" works, so it's wrong to say that Jesus and Christians should support the Government forcing people to do it.


But the legislators who voted for the Bill and the President himself did "good work" thus pleasing Jesus.
 
2013-03-31 07:23:10 PM  

jso2897: Yep - and that applies when they elect the executives who appoint the judges who often end up ruling on these matters, too.
Democracy - it's a biatch when your worn out value system is losing.



Personally I think the Court is going to strike down DOMA and let Prop 8 stand, and I'm perfectly fine with that. I'm more libertarian than conservative and feel that it should be left up to the states. As for a "worn out value system losing ground" I don't think that it is, it might be losing ground on some areas but it's gaining ground on others. There are far worse things, in my mind, than two people of the same sex loving each other and all of them have contributed to the moral wasteland that we currently find ourselves in more than homosexuality.
 
2013-03-31 07:23:20 PM  

sugardave: On the contrary, I want to deride them and point out their idiocy at every opportunity. Go to church, worship your drity, but STFU about it and let rational people run things.


the President runs things.  He is Christian.  Do not pass go or collect $200.
 
2013-03-31 07:23:27 PM  
Methinks the headline is confusing many of the ObamAtheists.
 
2013-03-31 07:24:00 PM  

skilbride: sugardave: You are laboring under the (INCREDIBLY incorrect) assumption that I want to talk to Christians. On the contrary, I want to deride them and point out their idiocy at every opportunity. Go to church, worship your drity, but STFU about it and let rational people run things. You can still feel smug that we'll all be burning in Hell, but I feel it is an unfair burden on me that I can't beat the everlasting snot out of you for threatening me.

Where exactly did I threaten you?


Christians threaten every non-believer with eternal damnation EVERY DAY. Are you trying to tell me otherwise?
 
2013-03-31 07:24:32 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Yeah, I'm going to have to call bullshiat on that. About 70% if the US population self identifies as Christian and if 70% of the population were even marginally motivated to feed and put a roof over the head of the poor, we wouldn't have the poverty and homeless rates we have in this nation. Christians are all about "faith not works" and building churches the size of sports arenas. Sure, some of them may run a soup kitchen now and again but most of that "charity" is funneled back into the congregation or into the wallet of the clergy.


The problem there lies in the fact that 70% of the population identifies as Christian - but when you break it down, how many of them have actually picked up the bible, or gone to church?

For instance, in my family - I have a mother, brother and father.  Out of everyone, all four of identify as "Christian" but I'm the only one who has gone to a church for a reason other than a wedding or a funeral in the past 20 years.

On the flip side, you have the people that everyone else is talking about - the power hungry, the people who use Christ's teachings as a bastardization to segregate and create hate, but they are an even smaller population.  They just happen to be the loudest sometimes because it's cool to hate, and they say the most sensationalized things.

No one wants to listen to a reasoned argument and discussion of faith - everyone just wants a 2 second soundbite that sounds good on a headline.
 
2013-03-31 07:24:59 PM  

The_Forensicator: sugardave: On the contrary, I want to deride them and point out their idiocy at every opportunity. Go to church, worship your drity, but STFU about it and let rational people run things.

the President runs things.  He is Christian.  Do not pass go or collect $200.


And your point?
 
2013-03-31 07:25:47 PM  

CanisNoir: You are completely missing his point, or purposefully trying to be obtuse. A "good" work cannot be "good" if it's forced. Christ and Christian teachings are about doing "good" works. Having the government force you to do it, takes it out of the realm of "good" works, so it's wrong to say that Jesus and Christians should support the Government forcing people to do it.


So forget it about being "good" or "evil" in a sense of what God thinks about it, and look at it as being what's best for society. People going into bankruptcy over medical bills, while others live like kings because they are able to force people to pay outrageous amounts for medical care or face death, is NOT good for any society.
 
2013-03-31 07:26:05 PM  

CanisNoir: jso2897: Yep - and that applies when they elect the executives who appoint the judges who often end up ruling on these matters, too.
Democracy - it's a biatch when your worn out value system is losing.


Personally I think the Court is going to strike down DOMA and let Prop 8 stand, and I'm perfectly fine with that. I'm more libertarian than conservative and feel that it should be left up to the states. As for a "worn out value system losing ground" I don't think that it is, it might be losing ground on some areas but it's gaining ground on others. There are far worse things, in my mind, than two people of the same sex loving each other and all of them have contributed to the moral wasteland that we currently find ourselves in more than homosexuality.


Ironically, the main goals of the gay rights movement  thus far are themselves conservative: the right to serve in the military, the right to adopt and raise children, the right to marriage. Kind of funny.
 
2013-03-31 07:27:00 PM  

sugardave: The_Forensicator: sugardave: On the contrary, I want to deride them and point out their idiocy at every opportunity. Go to church, worship your drity, but STFU about it and let rational people run things.

the President runs things.  He is Christian.  Do not pass go or collect $200.

And your point?


Just pointing out the incredible fallacy within your rant.
 
2013-03-31 07:27:35 PM  

thismomentinblackhistory: But the legislators who voted for the Bill and the President himself did "good work" thus pleasing Jesus.


They did? They actually gave money out of their pocket to individual sick people and handed out food to the hungry? Maybe a few of them took people in off the streets and offered them shelter and I completely missed that news cycle. Passing the bill is not a "good work" - if anything it's contrary to that because it forces people against their will.
 
2013-03-31 07:27:45 PM  

sugardave: skilbride: sugardave: You are laboring under the (INCREDIBLY incorrect) assumption that I want to talk to Christians. On the contrary, I want to deride them and point out their idiocy at every opportunity. Go to church, worship your drity, but STFU about it and let rational people run things. You can still feel smug that we'll all be burning in Hell, but I feel it is an unfair burden on me that I can't beat the everlasting snot out of you for threatening me.

Where exactly did I threaten you?

Christians threaten every non-believer with eternal damnation EVERY DAY. Are you trying to tell me otherwise?


There you go again with the "Christian's".  SOME Christian's do that.  I am not going to threaten you with eternal damnation.  Your soul is of no concern to me.

As a matter of fact, I was sitting on the toilet taking a shiat this morning and I thought it would really funny when all the people who bastardize Christianity to spread hate end up with all the people they hate in the afterlife for forever.
 
2013-03-31 07:27:49 PM  

MisterTweak: If that's too socialist for you, can I suggest, perhaps, Somalia?


Nice! You have the liturgy totally down.
 
2013-03-31 07:28:30 PM  

skilbride: Monkeyhouse Zendo: So you're saying Christ didn't give a fark whether the poor were actually fed or had a roof over their head, what was important was the exercise of free will in giving to the poor. That's an interesting take on Christianity; farked up, but interesting.

Okay, I'll put it a different way.  There's an idea in the Christian Church that giving (or doing something) isn't really important unless it's at a true sacrifice to yourself.  So, there's a couple ways this plays out - first of all, you can't give and then gloat and be like, "Look how awesome I am because I gave to the poor!"  You can't give and expect something in return.  And it's not really giving if it doesn't, in somehow, take away from you.   Those are the deeds which Christian's should aim to achieve.

So, at a fundamental level, there's a very deep fear that is not well vocalized in the Christian faith that if government forces you to do all these things that Christ says you should do - you won't get into heaven - because not only was it not a sacrifice that you made willingly, for no personal benefit - but it's something that everyone else does as well.


Yeah but that's only if you say "Government is helping the poor so I'll just sit on my ass and take the easy train to heaven." You're still free to be Christ like even if the government isn't purposely punishing poor people for being poor.
 
2013-03-31 07:28:56 PM  

Fubini: . Religious purity through murder is clearly an unbiblical thing to do.


uHH.. are we reading the same bible here? Because I'm pretty sure a sh*tload of middle easterners were sliced, diced, stabbed, burned, swallowed by the earth, and some pretty other farked up things for having the utter cheek to worship another god.
 
2013-03-31 07:29:02 PM  

ArgusRun: Hey this is the first time the politics tab is less nauseating than the sports tab.


Really? What's going on over there?

/peeks

/reads article on athlete's charities

///Yeesh. You're right.
 
2013-03-31 07:29:05 PM  

Amos Quito: [25.media.tumblr.com image 300x410]

Christianity is all about Single Payer


What could your parents have possibly done to you?
 
2013-03-31 07:29:16 PM  

skilbride: Yeah, I do disagree.  I think that kind of attitude is the worst attitude to have.  It happens on both sides, but I don't see how you can justify your attitude towards all Christian's and then lame blame on those of us who are rational for not walking to talk to you.


You have to understand my position on American Christianity which is that it's a two thousand year old, Jewish mystery cult that somehow managed to propagate its ideas at the expense of the other mystery cults of the time. You don't have original texts for your holy book (which you claim is divinely inspired) and the closer you get to the origin of the religion, the more contradictory the written accounts become. You worship an invisible entity for which there is no documented evidence that does not also exist for any number of other deities, demigods and saints. In the exercise of your faith you eschew compassion in favor of judgement and are more concerned with the possibility of accumulating merit for a promised afterlife than ensuring that suffering is relieved in the only life you actually have evidence of.

Explain to me why I should want to talk to you.
 
2013-03-31 07:29:21 PM  

The_Forensicator: sugardave: The_Forensicator: sugardave: On the contrary, I want to deride them and point out their idiocy at every opportunity. Go to church, worship your drity, but STFU about it and let rational people run things.

the President runs things.  He is Christian.  Do not pass go or collect $200.

And your point?

Just pointing out the incredible fallacy within your rant.


Which is....what, exactly? I regularly biatch about every politician who couches legislation with some religious bullshiat
 
2013-03-31 07:29:49 PM  

CanisNoir: thismomentinblackhistory: But the legislators who voted for the Bill and the President himself did "good work" thus pleasing Jesus.

They did? They actually gave money out of their pocket to individual sick people and handed out food to the hungry? Maybe a few of them took people in off the streets and offered them shelter and I completely missed that news cycle. Passing the bill is not a "good work" - if anything it's contrary to that because it forces people against their will.


I just don't see how a legislator passing bills in the best interest of the electorate could be the opposite of "good work." They may do the direct action you mention in their daily lives, but shouldn't everyone try to do "good work" in their professional capacity as well?
 
2013-03-31 07:30:04 PM  

ox45tallboy: CanisNoir: You are completely missing his point, or purposefully trying to be obtuse. A "good" work cannot be "good" if it's forced. Christ and Christian teachings are about doing "good" works. Having the government force you to do it, takes it out of the realm of "good" works, so it's wrong to say that Jesus and Christians should support the Government forcing people to do it.

So forget it about being "good" or "evil" in a sense of what God thinks about it, and look at it as being what's best for society. People going into bankruptcy over medical bills, while others live like kings because they are able to force people to pay outrageous amounts for medical care or face death, is NOT good for any society.


Okay, so let's talk about that.  If the job of government is to help people in that sense, wouldn't it make sense to regulate health costs then?  Instead of doing that, ObamaCare just forces us to buy insurance.  They should be regulating the costs associated with healthcare.

The major reason why single payer works out of the United States is not because people pay into it - but because countries say to the people who provide the healthcare and healthcare supplies, "We will not pay a penny over this amount, or you can go fark yourself."  If the government regulated that similar to how European countries did - wouldn't that be a better step in the right direction?
 
2013-03-31 07:30:48 PM  

skilbride: The problem there lies in the fact that 70% of the population identifies as Christian - but when you break it down, how many of them have actually picked up the bible, or gone to church?


So you're saying they're not from Scotland?
 
2013-03-31 07:30:49 PM  

skilbride: sugardave: skilbride: sugardave: You are laboring under the (INCREDIBLY incorrect) assumption that I want to talk to Christians. On the contrary, I want to deride them and point out their idiocy at every opportunity. Go to church, worship your drity, but STFU about it and let rational people run things. You can still feel smug that we'll all be burning in Hell, but I feel it is an unfair burden on me that I can't beat the everlasting snot out of you for threatening me.

Where exactly did I threaten you?

Christians threaten every non-believer with eternal damnation EVERY DAY. Are you trying to tell me otherwise?

There you go again with the "Christian's".  SOME Christian's do that.  I am not going to threaten you with eternal damnation.  Your soul is of no concern to me.

As a matter of fact, I was sitting on the toilet taking a shiat this morning and I thought it would really funny when all the people who bastardize Christianity to spread hate end up with all the people they hate in the afterlife for forever.


Yes, Christians....ALL of them. Prove me wrong.
 
2013-03-31 07:30:51 PM  

ilambiquated: Paul says something about homosexuality, but unfortunately he uses the word "arsenokoitai", which is unknown in any other writings, so it's anyone's guess what it really means. So maybe it isn't homosexuality at all.


It sounds very close to "arse coitus" tbh. I wonder if that's why the fundie jagoffs decided to run with it.
 
2013-03-31 07:31:04 PM  

CanisNoir: I'm more libertarian than conservative and feel that it should be left up to the states.


That's not what libertarian means. Or do you mean to say the slave holding Confederacy was a libertarian paradise?
 
2013-03-31 07:31:15 PM  

Weaver95: I don't think most christians here in the US worship Jesus Christ.


Of course not. They worship mainly Paul's teachings, with a smidgen of Old Testament thrown in where it feels good.
 
2013-03-31 07:31:34 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: I''m amazed at how many theologians don't believe in the resurrection. And many of them don't spend a lot of time convincing the believers that they shouldn't believe in the resurrection.

The most interesting explanation I heard is Jesus was drugged and after 6 hours he was taken down alive. (Six hours isn't a lot of time to die by being crucified.) The materials taken to the tomb were medicines, he was healed up and beat cheeks out of the Middle East with his wife Mary.

But as I said, there seems to be a lot of Christian leaders who have beat cheeks from the resurrection. The fact that their underlings have abandoned many of the tenets of the Sermon on the Mount shouldn't be surprising either.


Oooh, that's interesting.

/Also, holy fark this author sounds like a decent human being. I'd forgotten they existed.
 
2013-03-31 07:32:11 PM  

skilbride: sugardave: You are laboring under the (INCREDIBLY incorrect) assumption that I want to talk to Christians. On the contrary, I want to deride them and point out their idiocy at every opportunity. Go to church, worship your drity, but STFU about it and let rational people run things. You can still feel smug that we'll all be burning in Hell, but I feel it is an unfair burden on me that I can't beat the everlasting snot out of you for threatening me.

Where exactly did I threaten you?


farm6.staticflickr.com
 
2013-03-31 07:34:13 PM  

ox45tallboy: So forget it about being "good" or "evil" in a sense of what God thinks about it, and look at it as being what's best for society.


The problem is, the article was speaking strictly from a Theological perspective, and I disagree with the authors assertions.

People going into bankruptcy over medical bills, while others live like kings because they are able to force people to pay outrageous amounts for medical care or face death, is NOT good for any society.

There will always be inequality in a society that is free, the goal is to walk the line close enough so that there is as little inequality as possible while still allowing for the most freedom. Life isn't fair, and we don't all have equal amounts of talents in equal things, that's just the way it is. That is the whole "theological" side of the debate on Health Care. Allow for more freedom and convince those with plenty to give some of it, of their own free will, to those with less, and they shall be doing "good works" and be blessed. It's a less cynical view of mankind in the sense that it's foundation is based upon the thought that people can and will be kind to their fellow man without having a loaded gun to their head or be threatened by jail time.
 
2013-03-31 07:35:59 PM  

dookdookdook: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Morality pertains to individuals, not collectives.

Interesting concept.


Sarcasm? Your profile indicates you are not a "deep" thinker. You may be out of your depth here.
 
2013-03-31 07:36:11 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: skilbride: Yeah, I do disagree.  I think that kind of attitude is the worst attitude to have.  It happens on both sides, but I don't see how you can justify your attitude towards all Christian's and then lame blame on those of us who are rational for not walking to talk to you.

You have to understand my position on American Christianity which is that it's a two thousand year old, Jewish mystery cult that somehow managed to propagate its ideas at the expense of the other mystery cults of the time. You don't have original texts for your holy book (which you claim is divinely inspired) and the closer you get to the origin of the religion, the more contradictory the written accounts become. You worship an invisible entity for which there is no documented evidence that does not also exist for any number of other deities, demigods and saints. In the exercise of your faith you eschew compassion in favor of judgement and are more concerned with the possibility of accumulating merit for a promised afterlife than ensuring that suffering is relieved in the only life you actually have evidence of.

Explain to me why I should want to talk to you.


Well, on a very base level, you should at least understand the different sects of Christianity.  For instance, at my Church, we do not believe that the bible is the divine word of God in a literal sense.  It is instead the inspired word of God - but subject to the flaws of men.  You take the good from it, and you exclude the contradictory.  It's a set of guidelines to live by, compassion, charity and faith in God.

And while it is possible that you could be right, and there could be no God, and that since there is no physical proof of that, I could be totally screwed, because I choose to live my life using those basic principals and teachings I have learned, I know that I am living a better life.  People use all sorts of crutches to make it through life, like alcohol, drugs, posting vitriol online on message boards because you are too intimated to do it in real life - but just like I would not judge you based on your crutch of poison, I would ask you not to judge me on mine.
 
2013-03-31 07:36:11 PM  

quatchi: If, as the anti-SSM crowd would have it, the levers of State are to be wielded to enforce the commands of Scripture, then pardon me, but what the H-E-double-hockey-sticks are we doing spending so much time, energy and effort fighting to overturn Obamacare? If the role of government is to enforce Biblical morality, isn't Obamacare - providing the security of medical insurance coverage to a multitude of poor, sick people who couldn't get it before, the most Christ-like thing the government has ever done??

Am I the only one who kept scrolling back up to the top of the page to make sure this was actually on Red State?

I kid but good on Erik the RedStater for promoting this "alternative" POV.


Early April Fools Joke + Poe's Law?
 
2013-03-31 07:36:15 PM  

Fubini: Wolf_Blitzer: The very idea of heresy is oppression incarnate. When Jesus comes back and tells you what to believe, then you can call it heresy. Until then, its just man killing man for saying the wrong things.

Two problems with that: the first is that Jesus was already here, and he told us some things then. The second is that the Church is allowed to create orthodoxy and then label as heretic anything that runs contrary to those beliefs. One of the fundamental roles of the Church is to act as a moral compass for itself and society, and in order to do that it must be able to label some things as morally right and some things as morally wrong.

I'm using heresy here in the context of belief systems, not of violent reprisals. Religious purity through murder is clearly an unbiblical thing to do.


Then considering that every major Christian sect has engaged in murder to enforce its orthodoxy, all Christians are heretics by your definition.
 
2013-03-31 07:36:54 PM  
FTFA: Hopefully, the above is enough to establish my Christian, conservative bona fides (and yes, the order of those adjectives is deliberate)

When you think about how much time and energy the authot had to spend to verify said credentials, it tells you what the problem is: the fact that an idea cannot stand alone on it own merits. The source communicator must also be ideologically pristine. Interestingly enough, other than the author's own self-id as such, there is nothing about those statements he made that a conservative Jew or Muslim could not have also said.
 
2013-03-31 07:37:35 PM  

CanisNoir: thismomentinblackhistory: But the legislators who voted for the Bill and the President himself did "good work" thus pleasing Jesus.

They did? They actually gave money out of their pocket to individual sick people and handed out food to the hungry? Maybe a few of them took people in off the streets and offered them shelter and I completely missed that news cycle. Passing the bill is not a "good work" - if anything it's contrary to that because it forces people against their will.


That's a load of crap.

It's a cop out. A way of avoiding your moral duties to your fellow man without having to recognize what a dick you're being.

I've seen that argument or some variation of it argued in online discussion threads for well over a decade.

Here's the deal.

Good acts are good acts whether they are initiated and carried out through people as individuals or collectively by a government that works to represent the people's interests.

Nobody is forcing you to live in a modern society replete with safety nets including SS, welfare, HC access etc.

You're perfectly free to move to live in a hermitage in the middle of woods or emigrate.
 
2013-03-31 07:37:37 PM  

sugardave: skilbride: sugardave: skilbride: sugardave: You are laboring under the (INCREDIBLY incorrect) assumption that I want to talk to Christians. On the contrary, I want to deride them and point out their idiocy at every opportunity. Go to church, worship your drity, but STFU about it and let rational people run things. You can still feel smug that we'll all be burning in Hell, but I feel it is an unfair burden on me that I can't beat the everlasting snot out of you for threatening me.

Where exactly did I threaten you?

Christians threaten every non-believer with eternal damnation EVERY DAY. Are you trying to tell me otherwise?

There you go again with the "Christian's".  SOME Christian's do that.  I am not going to threaten you with eternal damnation.  Your soul is of no concern to me.

As a matter of fact, I was sitting on the toilet taking a shiat this morning and I thought it would really funny when all the people who bastardize Christianity to spread hate end up with all the people they hate in the afterlife for forever.

Yes, Christians....ALL of them. Prove me wrong.


Well, I'm a Christian, and I'm saying that I don't give a shiat about where you go or what happens after this life.  But if you needed something, and it was within my power to help you, I would.  So, keep my name, my email is stephanie*d­o­rman[nospam-﹫-backwards]liamg*co­m and if you ever hit a hard spot, reach out to me and I'll show you how Christian's are supposed to be.
 
2013-03-31 07:39:11 PM  

GAT_00: queezyweezel: Didn't JC advocate free will?  I don't think the Government forcing you to buy health insurance follows that principle.

Yes, let's examine all of Christ's teachings on buying health care:

...

...

...

Fascinating.


Absolutely right.  Jesus never said nothing about buying health care.
In fact, he made repeated and personal examples of how it should be handed out to whomever needed it, completely free of charge.
 
2013-03-31 07:40:03 PM  

CanisNoir: sugardave: Seriously? Does coveting a particular charitable action help or hinder your ascension to paradise?

You are completely missing his point, or purposefully trying to be obtuse. A "good" work cannot be "good" if it's forced. Christ and Christian teachings are about doing "good" works. Having the government force you to do it, takes it out of the realm of "good" works, so it's wrong to say that Jesus and Christians should support the Government forcing people to do it.


So are you basically saying that Christianity doesn't actually care if poor people are given food and shelter, but that it only cares if about the act of giving freely? Christian morality is not about actual, tangible suffering of people with need?
 
2013-03-31 07:40:36 PM  

skilbride: Okay, so let's talk about that. If the job of government is to help people in that sense, wouldn't it make sense to regulate health costs then? Instead of doing that, ObamaCare just forces us to buy insurance. They should be regulating the costs associated with healthcare.

The major reason why single payer works out of the United States is not because people pay into it - but because countries say to the people who provide the healthcare and healthcare supplies, "We will not pay a penny over this amount, or you can go fark yourself." If the government regulated that similar to how European countries did - wouldn't that be a better step in the right direction?


Absolutely. I agree with you 100%. However, there is no way in this world that Congress in 2009 was going to agree with that, period. The Republicans would have shut down government before letting anyone mention the word "single payer".

Obamacare is not in any sense some magical solution to health care in the United States. It will come with its own set of problems that no one is even imagining right now. BUT it is a step in the right direction. It is better than what we had.

I agree that price controls by large purchasers are the way to go. One way that might be accomplished is exactly how it is done now, with larger insurers agreeing to pay only a certain amount for particular treatments, or else force all of their insured to seek treatment at an alternate facility or from a different doctor. The main foreseeable problem is that with health insurance profits set to a percentage of income, it is actually financially beneficial for the health insurance companies to pay MORE rather than LESS for most treatments, in the same way a "cost plus" contract with the government will skyrocket over budget immediately.

But yes, single payer is a much better system than Obamacare. But Obamacare is better than the status quo in the US.
 
2013-03-31 07:40:50 PM  

skilbride: sugardave: skilbride: sugardave: skilbride: sugardave: You are laboring under the (INCREDIBLY incorrect) assumption that I want to talk to Christians. On the contrary, I want to deride them and point out their idiocy at every opportunity. Go to church, worship your drity, but STFU about it and let rational people run things. You can still feel smug that we'll all be burning in Hell, but I feel it is an unfair burden on me that I can't beat the everlasting snot out of you for threatening me.

Where exactly did I threaten you?

Christians threaten every non-believer with eternal damnation EVERY DAY. Are you trying to tell me otherwise?

There you go again with the "Christian's".  SOME Christian's do that.  I am not going to threaten you with eternal damnation.  Your soul is of no concern to me.

As a matter of fact, I was sitting on the toilet taking a shiat this morning and I thought it would really funny when all the people who bastardize Christianity to spread hate end up with all the people they hate in the afterlife for forever.

Yes, Christians....ALL of them. Prove me wrong.

Well, I'm a Christian, and I'm saying that I don't give a shiat about where you go or what happens after this life.  But if you needed something, and it was within my power to help you, I would.  So, keep my name, my email is s­t­e­phanie*dor­man­[nospam-﹫-backwards]liam­g*co­m and if you ever hit a hard spot, reach out to me and I'll show you how Christian's are supposed to be.


Sounds great, but you could be lying, as it is a well-known trait of Christians that telling lies is okay as long as it promotes their message. So, to me, it's still all Christians
 
2013-03-31 07:41:57 PM  

CanisNoir: I'm more libertarian than conservative and feel that it should be left up to the states


An actual libertarian would be concerned with actual *individual" rights rather than some imagined arbitrary collectivism, don't you think?
 
2013-03-31 07:42:04 PM  

redmond24: Weaver95: I don't think most christians here in the US worship Jesus Christ.

There's a fine line between saying something provocative and saying something stupid. You crossed it.


most chrisitan organizations here in the US don't follow the teachings of Christ.  oh some do, and those are pretty awesome...but healing the sick?  helping the poor?  that's not something US christian organizations do much of anymore.  nope, they preach about gays, sin, hellfire and the evils of any faith but their own.
 
2013-03-31 07:42:10 PM  

CanisNoir: Lionel Mandrake: There is nothing "Christian" about being anti-marriage equality. It's just raw, crass bigotry.

And here it is, the end game... It's not Bigotry, and there *is* marriage equality. Nobody is telling any man that they can't marry a woman, or a woman that she can't marry a man. Everyone has the same right to get married. It's marriage re-definition, not equality that you're after, and once you have it, then you can scream "bigotry" at any religious institution that doesn't want to go along with your re-definition due to moral or theological reasons. The Islamic faith is the harshest against homosexuals and most of the biblical teachings espoused today against it are from the Jewish teachings, yet for some reason most people who speak out for it, categorize Christians as the big meanies in this whole debate. Right now there's a majority of Americans who are against it, the number is shrinking, sure, but it's still a majority, and the last I looked, there's people of all faiths in this country, so who's to say that it's only Christians voting against it?

As for Obamacare being a philosophy that Jesus would have supported, I highly doubt it. Pretty sure his teachings were about focusing on your own soul and not about having the Government force you to care for the poor through taxation.

As for pulling the voting levers to enforce morality, well, that's just something you're going to have to swallow if you want to live in a democratic republic, where we, the people, attempt to govern ourselves. The reasons behind the choices we make can't be gotten rid of - Those who support Gay Marriage vote the way they do out of a personal set of ethics, just as those who are against it do. They are both entitled to vote based upon their personal ethics regardless of how they came about them.


Congrats potatohead your are the first person on my ignore list, a feature I might add I have made fun of others for using. Reading the mental vomit that you seem to think are pithy words however, is five seconds I can use to do something constructive like pick my nose.
 
2013-03-31 07:44:36 PM  

skilbride: The bible is our holy book. Just because some fringe assholes who we don't respect bastardize it doesn't mean you should, and to do so while calling Christian's as a whole intolerant, racist, assholes is the height of hypocrisy


How about if we just roll our eyes and "call you out" for being an allegedly sentient being in the 21st century who believes in a holy book? There are people in the world who are discovering amazing new real things every day, and a lot of us are tired of having to "respect" the magical thinking practiced by fearful idiots clutching a book of stories made up by illiterate shepherds as they crouched around a dung fire 2,000 years ago, making up stories to explain where the sun goes at night.
 
2013-03-31 07:45:01 PM  

ox45tallboy: Obamacare is not in any sense some magical solution to health care in the United States. It will come with its own set of problems that no one is even imagining right now. BUT it is a step in the right direction. It is better than what we had.


See, I have a much deeper fear about ObamaCare - in that it will just end there.  We will be forced to buy healthcare, but the insurance companies won't be forced to reduce costs.

All that does is deepen their pockets, and shorten ours.  And honestly, it kinda already seems like that has happened.
 
2013-03-31 07:46:29 PM  
Half of the people there in the comments disagreeing because of what the OT says are probably wearing mixed fabric clothing and enjoy pork, crab, and lobster.

The quicker that all Christians can all look at the OT and see an outdated blueprint for establishing a standing society out of a nomadic tribe, the better off we all will be.
 
2013-03-31 07:46:55 PM  

CanisNoir: There will always be inequality in a society that is free, the goal is to walk the line close enough so that there is as little inequality as possible while still allowing for the most freedom. Life isn't fair, and we don't all have equal amounts of talents in equal things, that's just the way it is. That is the whole "theological" side of the debate on Health Care. Allow for more freedom and convince those with plenty to give some of it, of their own free will, to those with less, and they shall be doing "good works" and be blessed. It's a less cynical view of mankind in the sense that it's foundation is based upon the thought that people can and will be kind to their fellow man without having a loaded gun to their head or be threatened by jail time.


But the problem is that there are tons of people that either don't believe in the afterlife or just don't give a sh*t. Pure, unadulterated capitalism provides no incentive for charitable giving, thus the need to invent the idea of an "afterlife" where all of the good that one does in this life results in a comfortable and blessed situation after death.

I call it stupid, but it's worked for nearly all of recorded history. The problem now is that many people are rejecting the notion of suffering now for Good Things after death. Some religious leaders are altering their message to maintain congregational numbers through things such as "Prosperity Gospel".

So what do you do when you can't convince people to give in this lifetime? You show them how much it does benefit them through lower crime rates and a better educated employees, with more art and culture due to the fact that people are creating it instead of begging for survival.

Most of humanity is beginning to be past the need for religion.
 
2013-03-31 07:47:22 PM  

Weaver95: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Didn't Jesus also have a problem with money lenders getting too close with religious leaders?

very much so.  in fact, Christ also had big issues with mixing wealth and religion in any manner.  he beat the snot outta bankers who set up shop outside the temple.  the megachurches in this country would have appalled him.


He didn't even get pissed at *SATAN*. But the money lenders? He was pissed.
 
2013-03-31 07:48:20 PM  

Barricaded Gunman: How about if we just roll our eyes and "call you out" for being an allegedly sentient being in the 21st century who believes in a holy book? There are people in the world who are discovering amazing new real things every day, and a lot of us are tired of having to "respect" the magical thinking practiced by fearful idiots clutching a book of stories made up by illiterate shepherds as they crouched around a dung fire 2,000 years ago, making up stories to explain where the sun goes at night.


How presumptuous of you to assume that just because I'm Christian I'm not one of the people out there discovering amazing new things every day.  Or that I don't appreciate science, etc etc.

There is room for both.  Really, it comes down to this:  How can you hate Christian's as a whole and judge them as a group because they believe in the bible, and then espouse hatred towards them for judging people on their actions.

You know the irony of all of this is that I tend to exclusively date middle eastern, Muslim men.  Something about their dark features get me every time - but I have faced less hate, and more understanding from THEM, no matter how devout they are, then I do from people who have no faith.
 
2013-03-31 07:49:07 PM  
FYI thread, I'm posting from my phone or I would be trimming quotes better.
 
2013-03-31 07:49:13 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: You have to understand my position on American Christianity which is that it's a two thousand year old, Jewish mystery cult that somehow managed to propagate its ideas at the expense of the other mystery cults of the time. You don't have original texts for your holy book (which you claim is divinely inspired) and the closer you get to the origin of the religion, the more contradictory the written accounts become.


First of all, Christianity is *not* a two thousand year old Jewish Mystery Cult, Judaism could be derided as such. So you should qualify your statement with the fact that you're problem is with Jews, Christians and Muslims, since they are all based upon the God of Abraham and use the Hebrew religious texts as a basis.
The Old Testament, (The Jewish section of the Christian Bible) is the only thing in the Bible said to be "Divinely inspired" as the New Testament is made up of the Gospels which are the story of Christs life and his teachings - not directives from God. So you're mixing The Christian Bible up with The Torah and the Koran.
This "Jewish Mystery Cult" didn't mysteriously manage to propagate it's ideas at the expense of other religions, that was mainly a Roman achievement following Constantines conversion and it's not surprising or mystical, it makes perfect sense.

You worship an invisible entity for which there is no documented evidence that does not also exist for any number of other deities, demigods and saints.

There is documented evidence supporting the existence of Jesus, he's mentioned by a couple of Roman historians of the time; granted he's called a "Magician" and a Jewish rabble rouser by them but they certainly mention him.

It just seems to me that you have a very incomplete idea of American Christianity, it's history, it's works and it's beliefs and therefore are not basing your opinion on much that is factual.

thismomentinblackhistory: I just don't see how a legislator passing bills in the best interest of the electorate could be the opposite of "good work."


Whether or not Obamacare is actually in the best interest of the Electorate is still up for debate, and I stated it shouldn't be considered a "good work" because it's removing a persons free will.
 
2013-03-31 07:50:01 PM  

Somacandra: FTFA: Hopefully, the above is enough to establish my Christian, conservative bona fides (and yes, the order of those adjectives is deliberate)

When you think about how much time and energy the authot had to spend to verify said credentials, it tells you what the problem is: the fact that an idea cannot stand alone on it own merits. The source communicator must also be ideologically pristine. Interestingly enough, other than the author's own self-id as such, there is nothing about those statements he made that a conservative Jew or Muslim could not have also said.


That's a good observation. He got plenty hammered in the comments, especially by a few that felt simply having such an idea completely disproved all of the bona fides he recanted.
 
2013-03-31 07:51:03 PM  

skilbride: Well, on a very base level, you should at least understand the different sects of Christianity.  For instance, at my Church, we do not believe that the bible is the divine word of God in a literal sense.  It is instead the inspired word of God - but subject to the flaws of men.  You take the good from it, and you exclude the contradictory.  It's a set of guidelines to live by, compassion, charity and faith in God.


Here's the problem with your position: your inspired word of God threatens eternal torture for anyone who does not demonstrate absolute submission. I'm not saying there aren't a few bits with good advice about compassion but those the Bible hardly has a copyright on that advice. What really comes through is the "submit to yahweh/jesus/holy_spirit or else" part.

And while it is possible that you could be right, and there could be no God, and that since there is no physical proof of that, I could be totally screwed, because I choose to live my life using those basic principals and teachings I have learned, I know that I am living a better life.  People use all sorts of crutches to make it through life, like alcohol, drugs, posting vitriol online on message boards because you are too intimated to do it in real life - but just like I would not judge you based on your crutch of poison, I would ask you not to judge me on mine.

I would hold that by putting your faith in a non-existent afterlife you are shortchanging the one life you will ever have.
 
2013-03-31 07:51:46 PM  
Now this thread has it all with the addition of Christian claims of hypocrisy of judgment of them. Did they not write that rulebook?
 
2013-03-31 07:54:02 PM  

skilbride: See, I have a much deeper fear about ObamaCare - in that it will just end there. We will be forced to buy healthcare, but the insurance companies won't be forced to reduce costs.

All that does is deepen their pockets, and shorten ours. And honestly, it kinda already seems like that has happened.


I don't think that's an irrational fear; it could happen, especially if people do not focus on the realities of the benefits of single payer. The political will to move to single payer will not be too long in the making, I think it will be 20 years or so.
 
2013-03-31 07:54:38 PM  

pounddawg: TheShavingofOccam123: I''m amazed at how many theologians don't believe in the resurrection. And many of them don't spend a lot of time convincing the believers that they shouldn't believe in the resurrection.

The most interesting explanation I heard is Jesus was drugged and after 6 hours he was taken down alive. (Six hours isn't a lot of time to die by being crucified.) The materials taken to the tomb were medicines, he was healed up and beat cheeks out of the Middle East with his wife Mary.

But as I said, there seems to be a lot of Christian leaders who have beat cheeks from the resurrection. The fact that their underlings have abandoned many of the tenets of the Sermon on the Mount shouldn't be surprising either.

Read "The Passover Plot"  It describes Jesus being drugged with concoction that would mask death (like in Romeo and Juliet) Then he was taken down and healed. Wala.


Wala?  Wala?
 
2013-03-31 07:55:22 PM  

Somacandra: An actual libertarian would be concerned with actual *individual" rights rather than some imagined arbitrary collectivism, don't you think?


And currently everyone has the right to get married, what I am saying is that I support states to decide whether or not to redefine it because each individuals vote matters more on the state and local level than it does on the national level.

ox45tallboy: I call it stupid, but it's worked for nearly all of recorded history. The problem now is that many people are rejecting the notion of suffering now for Good Things after death. Some religious leaders are altering their message to maintain congregational numbers through things such as "Prosperity Gospel".


I'm not sure what "Prosperity Gospel" is, but it sounds pretty shaitty just on it's face, so I for one will say screw Prosperity Gospel.

So what do you do when you can't convince people to give in this lifetime?

Lead by example and keep trying to convince them. Forcing them to your way of thinking does nothing but foster anger and resentment towards what you wish to achieve.
 
2013-03-31 07:56:24 PM  

CanisNoir: I stated it shouldn't be considered a "good work" because it's removing a persons free will.


You don't get "free will" on whether you pay the rest of your taxes or not, either. There are costs to living in a society, after all. In this case, I'd argue the greater good is served.
 
2013-03-31 07:56:43 PM  
Also, somebody tell the commenters that no, the Bible is not explicitly the Word of God. We're not dealing with the Qu'ran here.

Most of those Red State commenters are trying to kill Christianity secretly, I'm sure of it.
 
2013-03-31 07:57:37 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: I would hold that by putting your faith in a non-existent afterlife you are shortchanging the one life you will ever have.


Or, I'm enriching it but living in a way that benefits those around me?

Listen, if you want to seriously sit down and talk and learn to how I got here from where I was (which wasn't all that different from you) in 28 years, I can.  For years I doubted faith (all faiths) but over the course of my late 20's, I've come to a place where I am through letting my faith guide me.  Since then my life has changed for the better, and I believe. (I spent a significant amount of time in my early 20's attending al-anon meetings at a local episcopal church, and that's how I got involved.)

Like I said, I picked a church that doesn't contradict my views.  The episcopal church will be having gay marriages in the National Cathedral this year!  We welcome anyone, gay, straight, black, white, drunk, sober, who cares!  We welcome you, and will help you if you need it, and if you want to talk about the true teachings and hear what we believe, we are more than willing. :)

But I don't think I am wasting my life now by believing in God.
 
2013-03-31 07:59:35 PM  

queezyweezel: Didn't JC advocate free will?  I don't think the Government forcing you to buy health insurance follows that principle.


JC said consistently, "It's my way or the highway," and he didn't mean the highway to Heaven.

You're free to not buy insurance and not pay taxes.
 
2013-03-31 08:00:28 PM  

CanisNoir: It just seems to me that you have a very incomplete idea of American Christianity, it's history, it's works and it's beliefs and therefore are not basing your opinion on much that is factual.


CanisNoir: I'm not sure what "Prosperity Gospel" is, but it sounds pretty shaitty just on it's face, so I for one will say screw Prosperity Gospel.


We're supposed to believe you're an expert on American Christianity, but you've never heard of prosperity gospel?  Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.
 
2013-03-31 08:00:43 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: I would hold that by putting your faith in a non-existent afterlife you are shortchanging the one life you will ever have.


How does having faith in an afterlife short change the life we're living? That's like saying an Atheist can have no ethics because they don't believe in God. The two are not mutually exclusive you know. (And yes I know some people make that claim about Atheists, I'm not one of them.)
 
2013-03-31 08:01:30 PM  
And just to let you guys know, I'm pretty sure the majority of my real life friends except my ex-boyfriend know nothing about my faith - it's just been in the past week that I kinda felt the need to jump in because the only people who are talking are the wrong people.  (So, you're my first test group!)
 
2013-03-31 08:02:32 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Your profile indicates you are not a "deep" thinker.


Says the guy who actually believes that Jesus cared more about free market individualism than helping the poor.
 
2013-03-31 08:03:01 PM  

CanisNoir: Monkeyhouse Zendo: I would hold that by putting your faith in a non-existent afterlife you are shortchanging the one life you will ever have.

How does having faith in an afterlife short change the life we're living? That's like saying an Atheist can have no ethics because they don't believe in God. The two are not mutually exclusive you know. (And yes I know some people make that claim about Atheists, I'm not one of them.)


Because it's the internet where people are belligerent?

Trying to explain one's faith, or lack thereof, on the internet has a success rate slightly less than trying to make a quantum portal opener out of a remote control to find the one universe where Kate Upton will blow me.
 
2013-03-31 08:03:21 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: I would hold that by putting your faith in a non-existent afterlife you are shortchanging the one life you will ever have.


I know you're not talking to me, but I had to respond to this.

That sentence contains three very positive assertions of which you cannot prove.

1. There is no afterlife.
2. You will never live again.
3. Believing in an afterlife causes some negative effect to the life you're living now.

We'll skip the first two,  but kindly explain what you mean by 3, please? Who are you to know how any particular piece of knowledge is to affect any particular person?
 
2013-03-31 08:04:28 PM  

Karac: We're supposed to believe you're an expert on American Christianity, but you've never heard of prosperity gospel? Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.


I never claimed to be an expert on anything and you're free to believe what ever it is you want to believe. I've heard of it before, thought it was a bastardization of Christs teachings and didn't pay it too much more mind. It's not mentioned in my church or by the people of faith I know and talk to, so yea, that's one aspect of American Christianity that I'm not well versed on. Doesn't mean I can't correct misunderstandings on things I do know about, when I think I see them.
 
2013-03-31 08:04:40 PM  

Fubini: A common biblical metaphor for describing conversion to Christianity is to "die" to yourself, in the sense that you deny your own desires, wants, and even needs, for the sake of loving others.


Eh?  Don't recall such metaphors in the Bible.  Maybe they are somewhere else.

Sounds like Mahayana Buddhism, though.
 
2013-03-31 08:04:40 PM  

Smelly McUgly: CanisNoir: Monkeyhouse Zendo: I would hold that by putting your faith in a non-existent afterlife you are shortchanging the one life you will ever have.

How does having faith in an afterlife short change the life we're living? That's like saying an Atheist can have no ethics because they don't believe in God. The two are not mutually exclusive you know. (And yes I know some people make that claim about Atheists, I'm not one of them.)

Because it's the internet where people are belligerent?

Trying to explain one's faith, or lack thereof, on the internet has a success rate slightly less than trying to make a quantum portal opener out of a remote control to find the one universe where Kate Upton will blow me.


There's only one?!
 
2013-03-31 08:04:46 PM  
This is really a silly argument.

If you think religions are going to bend to your politics, you're gonna have a bad time.

If you think politics are going to bend to your religion, you're gonna have a bad time.

Happy Easter!
 
2013-03-31 08:04:48 PM  

skilbride: How can you hate Christian's as a whole and judge them as a group because they believe in the bible, and then espouse hatred towards them for judging people on their actions.


I don't want to speak for others in this thread, but I think much of the foundation of hatred for the Bible comes from the fact that between the Old Testament and Paul's epistles, Jesus's message of love tends to get thrown on the back burner. It's actually not a very big part of the Bible as a whole, comprising only four books and a fraction of a fifth.

If I were gay, I wouldn't like the Old Testament writers or Paul very much at all.

The other problem that nonChristian people tend to have with Christians is that many who call themselves Christians and say they believe in the Bible do so in such a way that their blind (and I mean to the exclusion of physical evidence) faith in their belief that the Bible is completely inerrant makes it so that it is difficult to convince them of anything to the contrary. My sister just filled out a science paper for her daughter explaining that the book of Genesis says the Earth was created first, and the "lesser lights of the night" weren't created until Day 4, therefore the science textbook that states Mercury formed before the Earth was incorrect. I have no patience with people that refuse to look at scientific evidence because it conflicts with their own previously held beliefs. I think if my sister were a few thousand years older she would be there holding the cup of hemlock for Socrates.
 
2013-03-31 08:05:17 PM  

Karac: We're supposed to believe you're an expert on American Christianity, but you've never heard of prosperity gospel?  Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.


The prosperity gospel is not actually something that is typically taught, or acknowledged by the bigger Christian sects.  It's something that is typically used by smaller non-denominational churches that eventually use it to become mega-churches.  I'm not surprised he doesn't know it - because most of the time, people of faith refuse to accept it.  It's actually pretty much in direct opposition of the bible because one of the 10 commandments is "no false idols". :-P
 
2013-03-31 08:06:28 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Eh?  Don't recall such metaphors in the Bible.  Maybe they are somewhere else.


Sounds a bit like "born again" Christianity. IIRC, that's what the entire symbolism surrounding water baptism was about.
 
2013-03-31 08:07:02 PM  

sugardave: Smelly McUgly:

Trying to explain one's faith, or lack thereof, on the internet has a success rate slightly less than trying to make a quantum portal opener out of a remote control to find the one universe where Kate Upton will blow me.

There's only one?!


I just looked at myself in the mirror and I think I'm being generous here.
 
2013-03-31 08:07:09 PM  

queezyweezel: Didn't JC advocate free will?


insofar as you had a choice to follow his teachings or not yes. but let's consider what his true message was in a meta fashion. that for society to ever achieve nirvana that one must care for others more than themselves and be willing to sacrifice all for a stranger.
that was his example. that was his lesson.
 
2013-03-31 08:07:45 PM  

skilbride: Karac: We're supposed to believe you're an expert on American Christianity, but you've never heard of prosperity gospel?  Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

The prosperity gospel is not actually something that is typically taught, or acknowledged by the bigger Christian sects.  It's something that is typically used by smaller non-denominational churches that eventually use it to become mega-churches.  I'm not surprised he doesn't know it - because most of the time, people of faith refuse to accept it.  It's actually pretty much in direct opposition of the bible because one of the 10 commandments is "no false idols". :-P


Citation for "most Christians" or just lying?
 
2013-03-31 08:08:02 PM  

cchris_39: If you think politics are going to bend to your religion, you're gonna have a bad time.


Unless you're talking about outlawing gay marriage or forcing abstinence/creationism be taught in schools or forcing unlucky saps who work for fundie corporations to pay for their own birth control, in which cases the results are at least mixed.
 
2013-03-31 08:08:18 PM  

skilbride: Or, I'm enriching it but living in a way that benefits those around me?


I've known Christians my entire life. You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical of that claim.

I'm not saying you don't believe it, I'm just saying that your definition of "benefit" may be wildly different than mine. The god botherers who occasionally show up on my doorstep to sell me an afterlife for the low, low cost of my soul, ten percent of my income, and my Sunday mornings firmly believe they benefit those around them.

skilbride: Listen, if you want to seriously sit down and talk and learn to how I got here from where I was (which wasn't all that different from you) in 28 years, I can


Considering that I've come from a Christian upbringing and through study of the Bible and the religion have determined that it's fantasy, I say good luck.

skilbride: Like I said, I picked a church that doesn't contradict my views


If anything, that should make you question whether your belief system is congruent with reality.
 
2013-03-31 08:08:52 PM  

CanisNoir: 'm not sure what "Prosperity Gospel" is, but it sounds pretty shaitty just on it's face, so I for one will say screw Prosperity Gospel.


It's basically the belief that God loves you and wants you to be prosperous in this lifetime. It also means that living comfortably and ownership of material things is a sign of Jesus's love.

Basically, take the "rich man / eye of a needle" passage and turn it on it's head.

So what do you do when you can't convince people to give in this lifetime?

Lead by example and keep trying to convince them. Forcing them to your way of thinking does nothing but foster anger and resentment towards what you wish to achieve.


I could counter that society shouldn't give a sh*t what people think or believe, as long as they act in a way that is beneficial rather than harmful to the society. If a person can come up with a way that society benefits through him or her controlling 90% of the wealth, then he or she should work towards that goal.
 
2013-03-31 08:09:32 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Eh? Don't recall such metaphors in the Bible. Maybe they are somewhere else.


oh really?
then you need to go back and re-read the book. particularly the words in red.
 
2013-03-31 08:10:15 PM  

ox45tallboy: I don't want to speak for others in this thread, but I think much of the foundation of hatred for the Bible comes from the fact that between the Old Testament and Paul's epistles, Jesus's message of love tends to get thrown on the back burner. It's actually not a very big part of the Bible as a whole, comprising only four books and a fraction of a fifth.

If I were gay, I wouldn't like the Old Testament writers or Paul very much at all.

The other problem that nonChristian people tend to have with Christians is that many who call themselves Christians and say they believe in the Bible do so in such a way that their blind (and I mean to the exclusion of physical evidence) faith in their belief that the Bible is completely inerrant makes it so that it is difficult to convince them of anything to the contrary. My sister just filled out a science paper for her daughter explaining that the book of Genesis says the Earth was created first, and the "lesser lights of the night" weren't created until Day 4, therefore the science textbook that states Mercury formed before the Earth was incorrect. I have no patience with people that refuse to look at scientific evidence because it conflicts with their own previously held beliefs. I think if my sister were a few thousand years older she would be there holding the cup of hemlock for Socrates.


Early on in my faith, that was something I had a hard time dealing with.  The Old Testament is real wrath of God type stuff, God pretty much hates us.  Then Jesus comes along and says, "No, God loves us."  While I was defining my faith, I had to reconcile the two because it definitely reads like an abusive relationship to me.  (Here, let me hit you, but then tomorrow I'm gonna hug you and say everything is all right.)

I understand the problem with the people who refuse to look at science as well.  I get frustrated with that too - but the only way to reach them is through understanding and talking with them.  One of the girls in my bible study actually used to be like that - and a year later we've totally changed her mind through rational discussion.  :)
 
2013-03-31 08:11:02 PM  

Karac: Pull the other one one of the others, it's got bells on it.


Sorry, I'm in the mood for Terry Pratchett humor. Plus his name is CanisNoir.
 
2013-03-31 08:12:18 PM  

ox45tallboy: CanisNoir: 'm not sure what "Prosperity Gospel" is, but it sounds pretty shaitty just on it's face, so I for one will say screw Prosperity Gospel.

It's basically the belief that God loves you and wants you to be prosperous in this lifetime. It also means that living comfortably and ownership of material things is a sign of Jesus's love.

Basically, take the "rich man / eye of a needle" passage and turn it on it's head.

So what do you do when you can't convince people to give in this lifetime?

Lead by example and keep trying to convince them. Forcing them to your way of thinking does nothing but foster anger and resentment towards what you wish to achieve.

I could counter that society shouldn't give a sh*t what people think or believe, as long as they act in a way that is beneficial rather than harmful to the society. If a person can come up with a way that society benefits through him or her controlling 90% of the wealth, then he or she should work towards that goal.


the prosperity gospel is basically a license to be a greedy selfish, fark and still maintain that holier-than-thou self-righteousness.
 
2013-03-31 08:13:09 PM  

TsukasaK: 3. Believing in an afterlife causes some negative effect to the life you're living now.

We'll skip the first two, but kindly explain what you mean by 3, please? Who are you to know how any particular piece of knowledge is to affect any particular person?


I guess it's all about how far you go with this belief.

www.blackhandside.net
 
2013-03-31 08:13:31 PM  

sugardave: Citation for "most Christians" or just lying?


That is rich coming from the guy who pretty much judged all Christians based on how some backassward rednecks in Texas are.

But:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology

"Prosperity theology has been criticized by leaders in the and Charismatic movements, as well as other Christian denominations. These leaders maintain that it is irresponsible, promotes, and is contrary to scripture. Some critics have proposed that prosperity theology cultivates authoritarian organizations, with the leaders controlling the lives of the adherents."
 
2013-03-31 08:15:51 PM  

The Fourth Karamazov: Wala? Wala?


Heh, isn't that where my Calvinist republican representative is from?
 
2013-03-31 08:15:52 PM  
Dude, there are math errors in the Bible.

What I like about Christianity is that it should not have the same issues as Islam. In Islam, one HAS to take the Qu'ran at its word because Muhammad was divinely-inspired when he wrote it.

In Christianity, there is no such tenet! Hell, any Christian that knows anything about history has a good knowledge of the wrangling that the church went through in terms of which books to add to the New Testament. On top of that, Jesus spends most of his time in the NT calling out church leaders for being too much into Leviticus and not enough into, you know, being kind to the people and giving as God would have them give.

How we still have a bunch of people that insist that what Genesis says trumps science is amazing to me because we DON'T HAVE TO BELIEVE EVERYTHING WE READ in the Bible. It's infuriating.

This is how you get commenters at Red State going on about the original diary writer not knowing his scriptures, and yet these people probably eat pork and shellfish, wear blended cottons, and let the women of the house stay living there instead of pitching them into a tent in the backyard during their periods. Well that, and I would never tell a woman on her period where to go or what to do for self-preservation's sake.
 
2013-03-31 08:16:43 PM  

Hobodeluxe: the prosperity gospel is basically a license to be a greedy selfish, fark and still maintain that holier-than-thou self-righteousness.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-31 08:18:51 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: I'm not saying you don't believe it, I'm just saying that your definition of "benefit" may be wildly different than mine. The god botherers who occasionally show up on my doorstep to sell me an afterlife for the low, low cost of my soul, ten percent of my income, and my Sunday mornings firmly believe they benefit those around them.


Where do you live?  For instance, I'm just outside Washington, DC - I never have people come to my door, and like I said earlier in the thread, this thread is actually the first time I've talked about my faith outside of my church or when I was trying to figure out how I could merge it with my muslim boyfriend.  I wonder if maybe, the area in which people live and the faiths that are found there have a way of shaping views.
 
2013-03-31 08:19:21 PM  

sugardave: There's only one?!


ox45tallboy: It's basically the belief that God loves you and wants you to be prosperous in this lifetime. It also means that living comfortably and ownership of material things is a sign of Jesus's love.


Umm, yea....no. That's just complete horseshait. Not what you said, but what they're preaching. I don't see how that kind of bastardization could gain any lasting momentum within the various sects of Christianity. If God wanted his people to be prosperous and comfortable in this life time, he would have placed the Holy Land in a far better region of the world than smack dab in the middle of an arid region where it's difficult to grow shait. Jesus was poor, he preached to the poor and his preaching was about the Kingdom of Heaven appearing on Earth. Lots of people of the time misunderstood him and thought he was going to toss off the Roman yoke, be a political leader or a general leading a rebellion when, it seems to me, he was talking more about the personal struggle we each go through every day and despite being uncomfortable and not having nice things, know that God still loved us and being cool to our fellow peeps. The Kingdom of Heaven is within us, and I personally don't think Jesus meant that we'd be spotting Angels on every corner directing traffic.

So yea, I understand your derision of Prosperity Gospel and personally hope it gets trounced onto the fringes where it belongs.
 
2013-03-31 08:20:37 PM  

TsukasaK: That sentence contains three very positive assertions of which you cannot prove.

1. There is no afterlife.
2. You will never live again.
3. Believing in an afterlife causes some negative effect to the life you're living now.


1. I have no evidence that there is any consciousness after the death of the body. All evidence supports the position that consciousness is a function of an operating brain and no consciousness has been observed in the absence of a functioning brain. Based on this I'm reasonably comfortable making the assertion that when my brain stops functioning, what I perceive as "me" will cease.

2. The component parts of my body will be incorporated into other living things but there is no evidence that my consciousness will exist after the death of my brain nor has any mechanism been detected which would support the persistence of my consciousness after death.

3. That, I'll grant you. While the belief in an afterlife does not prevent one from living the one life they have evidence of to the fullest, when that belief comes attached to a system of other beliefs that demand that enjoyment of this life be eschewed in favor of the one to come then it is likely that belief in that afterlife will result in a life less lived.
 
2013-03-31 08:20:37 PM  
Hobodeluxe:
the prosperity gospel is basically a license to be a greedy selfish, fark and still maintain that holier-than-thou self-righteousness.

it's also flat out heretical.  makes me really wish we could burn the megachurch pastors at the stake.

*sigh*

ah well.  best we can do is point out how corrupt and debased modern Christianity has become in this country.
 
2013-03-31 08:23:13 PM  

Smelly McUgly: What I like about Christianity is that it should not have the same issues as Islam. In Islam, one HAS to take the Qu'ran at its word because Muhammad was divinely-inspired when he wrote it.

In Christianity, there is no such tenet! Hell, any Christian that knows anything about history has a good knowledge of the wrangling that the church went through in terms of which books to add to the New Testament. On top of that, Jesus spends most of his time in the NT calling out church leaders for being too much into Leviticus and not enough into, you know, being kind to the people and giving as God would have them give.


RIGHT?!  Like okay, the bible says the first church was in a womans house.  Are you REALLY going to tell me that Jesus was ALLL about preaching in womens houses and not one them wrote it down?  Nope, some old men decided their writings weren't important.
 
2013-03-31 08:23:53 PM  

skilbride: Early on in my faith, that was something I had a hard time dealing with. The Old Testament is real wrath of God type stuff, God pretty much hates us. Then Jesus comes along and says, "No, God loves us." While I was defining my faith, I had to reconcile the two because it definitely reads like an abusive relationship to me. (Here, let me hit you, but then tomorrow I'm gonna hug you and say everything is all right.)

I understand the problem with the people who refuse to look at science as well. I get frustrated with that too - but the only way to reach them is through understanding and talking with them. One of the girls in my bible study actually used to be like that - and a year later we've totally changed her mind through rational discussion. :)


The thing that broke it for me was the story of Abraham being told to sacrifice his son Isaac. I'm not following a god that expects me to kill an innocent human being because he said so. I can't get into the whole "love God more than anything" thing, because that implies that I should be selfless, but God has the right to be selfish. I just can't follow a god like that. Jesus had nothing but praise for the Old Testamnet god, so I'm not about to act like he was anyone special.

Thing is, Jesus had some really good advice. He shared some great ideas, and I think he made a difference in the world. Then Paul came along with his weird sexual fixations and turned what Jesus said (and what Jesus didn't say) on its ear. It's all been retranslated so many times that it is silly to examine the minutae. I like the message of loving one another, but every single church I've ever known always tries to bury itself into the smallest things and suggest that those who reject the divinity of Jesus, even if they agree with his message, are not ones who share their ideas.

I grew up in the Church of Christ, one of those ultra-conservative religions that doesn't even do instrumental music. I started rejecting it in my late teens, and finally decided to start calling myself an atheist about 10 years later.
 
2013-03-31 08:24:50 PM  

skilbride: Early on in my faith, that was something I had a hard time dealing with. The Old Testament is real wrath of God type stuff, God pretty much hates us. Then Jesus comes along and says, "No, God loves us." While I was defining my faith, I had to reconcile the two because it definitely reads like an abusive relationship to me. (Here, let me hit you, but then tomorrow I'm gonna hug you and say everything is all right.)


I've always looked at that difference as one of the reasons Christians needed to split from the Jewish Faith; you know, that and the acceptance of Non-Jews into Gods Kingdom. Jesus was reinterpreting the Old Testament in a way, which is why the Jewish priests were threatened by him. It's not that God changed from the Old Testament to the New, but our understanding of Him did. You also have to take into account that each Gospel was written with a certain political bias depending upon the time it was written, which is why there are differences in them. They are each attempting to convey their own thoughts on what God wanted, to the Jews of the time.

Just my personal opinion mind you.
 
2013-03-31 08:25:05 PM  

ox45tallboy: Hobodeluxe: the prosperity gospel is basically a license to be a greedy selfish, fark and still maintain that holier-than-thou self-righteousness.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 281x411]


www.jesus-is-savior.com
si0.twimg.com

kencopeland.com
twimg0-a.akamaihd.net
www.ernestangley.org
etc etc etc
 
2013-03-31 08:25:52 PM  

skilbride: Where do you live?  For instance, I'm just outside Washington, DC - I never have people come to my door, and like I said earlier in the thread, this thread is actually the first time I've talked about my faith outside of my church or when I was trying to figure out how I could merge it with my muslim boyfriend.  I wonder if maybe, the area in which people live and the faiths that are found there have a way of shaping views.


I've lived in Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, San Francisco, Chicago and most recently Fayetteville, AR. The only place I can't recall getting door to door afterlife salesmen was Santa Barbara.
 
2013-03-31 08:28:49 PM  

Smelly McUgly: In Christianity, there is no such tenet! Hell, any Christian that knows anything about history has a good knowledge of the wrangling that the church went through in terms of which books to add to the New Testament


The ones that really know that history are aware that those early scripture wranglers knew that the gospels we currently consider canon were forgeries.
 
2013-03-31 08:28:50 PM  

CanisNoir: Allow for more freedom and convince those with plenty to give some of it, of their own free will, to those with less, and they shall be doing "good works" and be blessed. It's a less cynical view of mankind in the sense that it's foundation is based upon the thought that people can and will be kind to their fellow man without having a loaded gun to their head or be threatened by jail time.


I know my outlook is impressively cynical but....

I believe your options are coercion or bribery when it comes to getting "those with plenty to give some of it, of their own free will, to those with less,".  Almost every single time I observe how things are decided by my leaders (and other leaders around the world) it boils down to either "lobbying" (our favorite euphemism for bribery) or "taxes, penalties, regulations, laws, and fees" (which are all methods of coercion).

And when I look back in history (even all the way back to ancient Sumeria) I find more and more examples of the same thing. Believe me I try (really I do) to avoid confirmation bias but I swear the examples of  exemplary  societies run on high amounts of freedom/individualism are few and far between. Most of the time those societies turn out to be some form of mafia ruling over a populace.

//I Just can't see the validity of anti-social solutions (going it alone, rugged individualism, bootstrapiness, etc..) in resolving societal problems.
//Maybe someday I will.
//Until then there is always the comfort of bourbon.
//Cheers!
 
2013-03-31 08:28:56 PM  
you guys care way too much about magic
 
2013-03-31 08:28:56 PM  
The inability of people who follow scripture to understand scripture never ceases to amaze me.

Charity and compassion is not now nor will it ever be using the police power of government to forcefully take assets from one person so that they may be spent as the government sees fit. Even if the government program is benevolent.

And ObamaCare is not benevolent.
 
2013-03-31 08:29:01 PM  

Hobodeluxe: ox45tallboy: Hobodeluxe: the prosperity gospel is basically a license to be a greedy selfish, fark and still maintain that holier-than-thou self-righteousness.


twimg0-a.akamaihd.net

Our culture has accepted two huge lies.  The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them.  The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do.  Both are nonsense.
You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.


/broken clock, etc.
 
2013-03-31 08:29:03 PM  

Smelly McUgly: How we still have a bunch of people that insist that what Genesis says trumps science is amazing to me because we DON'T HAVE TO BELIEVE EVERYTHING WE READ in the Bible. It's infuriating.


You do understand that believing the Bible to be the divinely inspired word of God is definitely a tenet of a large portion of Christian denominations? And that a significant subset of these believe the Bible to be the LITERAL Word of God?

I understand that you're saying that this is not necessary in many denominations, and that you can follow the general ideas that Jesus gave and still call yourself a Christian, but in many places you pretty much are relegated to belief in the idea that the Bible is inerrant, or else Gog would not have allowed it to be here in its current form.

/circular logic
 
2013-03-31 08:30:22 PM  

CanisNoir: I've always looked at that difference as one of the reasons Christians needed to split from the Jewish Faith; you know, that and the acceptance of Non-Jews into Gods Kingdom. Jesus was reinterpreting the Old Testament in a way, which is why the Jewish priests were threatened by him. It's not that God changed from the Old Testament to the New, but our understanding of Him did. You also have to take into account that each Gospel was written with a certain political bias depending upon the time it was written, which is why there are differences in them. They are each attempting to convey their own thoughts on what God wanted, to the Jews of the time.

Just my personal opinion mind you.


Yes, that is exactly the opinion I came to as well.  :)  Also, it has been interesting how my learning of the Muslim faith and tenants have shaped my view on Christianity. My relationship with Him is ever evolving.

ox45tallboy: Thing is, Jesus had some really good advice. He shared some great ideas, and I think he made a difference in the world. Then Paul came along with his weird sexual fixations and turned what Jesus said (and what Jesus didn't say) on its ear. It's all been retranslated so many times that it is silly to examine the minutae. I like the message of loving one another, but every single church I've ever known always tries to bury itself into the smallest things and suggest that those who reject the divinity of Jesus, even if they agree with his message, are not ones who share their ideas.

I grew up in the Church of Christ, one of those ultra-conservative religions that doesn't even do instrumental music. I started rejecting it in my late teens, and finally decided to start calling myself an atheist about 10 years later.


I can understand that.  I came to the churches teachings much later in life - neither of my parents or my grandparents attended church, so it was something that I discovered through other means.  I met some really amazing people at the church I went to, and they are pretty liberal.  (Even about the whole accepting Christ as your personal savior thing.)   I'm not sure that I would hold up as well if I was involved in the Church of Christ.
 
2013-03-31 08:30:27 PM  
Because rabid Tenthersgarbl.
 
2013-03-31 08:31:36 PM  

randomjsa: The inability of people who follow scripture to understand scripture never ceases to amaze me.

Charity and compassion is not now nor will it ever be using the police power of government to forcefully take assets from one person so that they may be spent as the government sees fit. Even if the government program is benevolent.

And ObamaCare is not benevolent.


Libertarianism is a religion.
 
2013-03-31 08:31:49 PM  

CanisNoir: Monkeyhouse Zendo: So you're saying Christ didn't give a fark whether the poor were actually fed or had a roof over their head, what was important was the exercise of free will in giving to the poor. That's an interesting take on Christianity; farked up, but interesting.

Of course he cared, his ministry was primarily to the poor and downtrodden, however, he didn't expect Rome or The Temple to provide the food and roof, he wanted people to do it out of their own love of their fellow man, on an individual basis. His message wasn't "Do what Cesar says and you shall go to Heaven" - it was "Do as The Lord God commands and you shall go to heaven."

He wasn't too fond of the Jewish priest class at the time as he felt they were part of the problem, and instead focused on people individually connecting with God.


Well, you can't have a "Christian" nation without having the government follow Christ's teaching, now can you?
 
2013-03-31 08:32:04 PM  

GoodyearPimp: Need proof that God hates gays?  Jesus was married and had TONS of heterosexual sex with his wife.  Oh, hang on.  It turns out he was unmarried and hung out with 12 dudes most of the time.  The straightest guy ever.


You know... That's something that has always pissed me off about Christianity.  Take the Sermon on the Mount, for instance... It's not like Jesus stood up there and said, "Gather everyone... Except you queers, we're having none of that shiat."  You know?

I thought the whole idea of Christianity was supposed to be as inclusive as possible?  Even to the people you don't like... Especially to the people you don't like or agree with.

I mean, I like an Old Testament vengeful God as much as the next guy and all, but I just have a hard time coming to grips in my personal faith that God will stand before someone to judge them and say, "You know... You lived your life pretty well and did well unto your fellow man, but that whole gay-sex between consenting adults means I have to send you straight to the hot place.  Sorry, bud."
 
2013-03-31 08:32:49 PM  

ox45tallboy: Smelly McUgly: How we still have a bunch of people that insist that what Genesis says trumps science is amazing to me because we DON'T HAVE TO BELIEVE EVERYTHING WE READ in the Bible. It's infuriating.

You do understand that believing the Bible to be the divinely inspired word of God is definitely a tenet of a large portion of Christian denominations? And that a significant subset of these believe the Bible to be the LITERAL Word of God?

I understand that you're saying that this is not necessary in many denominations, and that you can follow the general ideas that Jesus gave and still call yourself a Christian, but in many places you pretty much are relegated to belief in the idea that the Bible is inerrant, or else Gog would not have allowed it to be here in its current form.

/circular logic


Oh, I do understand this. I am just saying that we don't HAVE to treat the Bible like this.

Does it matter in the end? Some folks, I feel, just want to be led, and some particularly odious people are going to part those folks with their mammon under the guise of following the Word of God.

I'm a Kierkegaardian at heart, so I have what I would gather most practicing Christians in America would find to be a way-out-there view on Christianity.
 
2013-03-31 08:34:40 PM  

Hobodeluxe: etc etc etc


That last picture made me spit soda out of my mouth. That anyone thought that would be a good marketing idea... holy wow. That's just comical.
 
2013-03-31 08:35:20 PM  

TsukasaK: 3. Believing in an afterlife causes some negative effect to the life you're living now.


Realize you are not speaking to me here but thought I'd take a crack at that one.

My fear is that people who are utterly convinced in there being justice in the afterlife content themselves with that belief and spend less time striving for real social justice on earth in the only life we know we get.

That carefully noted, I also find a lot of the reflexive Christian bashing on threads like these to be almost as annoying as the bible thumping it's supposedly countering.

For all it's faults the essential message of Christianity (ie The Golden Rule) has value.

One doesn't need God to believe that people should treat each other well but people who do believe in God *and* the Golden Rule don't need to be mocked or mischaracterized.

It would appear from her posts that Skilbride is one of the good Christians who's gone to great lengths to find a church that doesn't work to disenfranchise others and for that I am thankful. I believe modern religion is capable of reforming itself and that it is in the process of doing so. I also think that encouraging that process is a better use of people's time than blanket condemnation.

/Atheist/Recovering Catholic.
 
2013-03-31 08:36:06 PM  

Ontos: You know... That's something that has always pissed me off about Christianity.  Take the Sermon on the Mount, for instance... It's not like Jesus stood up there and said, "Gather everyone... Except you queers, we're having none of that shiat."  You know?

I thought the whole idea of Christianity was supposed to be as inclusive as possible?  Even to the people you don't like... Especially to the people you don't like or agree with.

I mean, I like an Old Testament vengeful God as much as the next guy and all, but I just have a hard time coming to grips in my personal faith that God will stand before someone to judge them and say, "You know... You lived your life pretty well and did well unto your fellow man, but that whole gay-sex between consenting adults means I have to send you straight to the hot place.  Sorry, bud."


This is my problem with the Catholic Church, and most of the other churches actually who say that the bible is THE WORD OF GOD.

If you're really interested about learning about the bible, and I mean learning, most Episcopal churches that I've been to do a bible study that is actually a bible study.  You spend a lot of time talking about what was going on historically at the time.  Actually, at my church we recently watched a history channel thing on the crucifiction of Jesus from a historical perspective in preparation for Easter.
 
2013-03-31 08:36:44 PM  

skilbride: sugardave: Citation for "most Christians" or just lying?

That is rich coming from the guy who pretty much judged all Christians based on how some backassward rednecks in Texas are.

But:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology

"Prosperity theology has been criticized by leaders in the and Charismatic movements, as well as other Christian denominations. These leaders maintain that it is irresponsible, promotes, and is contrary to scripture. Some critics have proposed that prosperity theology cultivates authoritarian organizations, with the leaders controlling the lives of the adherents."


Wikipedia vs. empirical evidence. You've got the right stuff! I also enjoy you taking the high road just like a good little Christian.
 
2013-03-31 08:37:10 PM  

CanisNoir: Umm, yea....no. That's just complete horseshait. Not what you said, but what they're preaching. I don't see how that kind of bastardization could gain any lasting momentum within the various sects of Christianity. If God wanted his people to be prosperous and comfortable in this life time, he would have placed the Holy Land in a far better region of the world than smack dab in the middle of an arid region where it's difficult to grow shait. Jesus was poor, he preached to the poor and his preaching was about the Kingdom of Heaven appearing on Earth. Lots of people of the time misunderstood him and thought he was going to toss off the Roman yoke, be a political leader or a general leading a rebellion when, it seems to me, he was talking more about the personal struggle we each go through every day and despite being uncomfortable and not having nice things, know that God still loved us and being cool to our fellow peeps. The Kingdom of Heaven is within us, and I personally don't think Jesus meant that we'd be spotting Angels on every corner directing traffic.

So yea, I understand your derision of Prosperity Gospel and personally hope it gets trounced onto the fringes where it belongs.


Welcome to Atlanta. This is the main branch of World Changers Church International in Lithonia, GA, the "home" of the Reverend Creflo Dollar.

atlantablackstar.com

www.irwinseating.com

Here's a link: Atlanta (CNN) -- The arrest of Georgia megachurch pastor Creflo Dollar brought renewed attention to his message of the Prosperity Gospel, controversial to some and faith-fulfilling to its followers.

Dollar, who was arrested last week after allegedly assaulting his teenage daughter, is the founder and pastor of World Changers Church International in suburban Atlanta.

It claims about 30,000 members and has a multimillion-dollar sanctuary that resembles a golden-domed spaceship atop a hill.


Metro Atlanta has 3,000,000 people. That means that one man's ministry (not including the other people with Prosperity Gospel Ministries) has 1% of the population by itself. That's not "fringe".
 
2013-03-31 08:37:38 PM  

Smelly McUgly: Trying to explain one's faith, or lack thereof, on the internet has a success rate slightly less than trying to make a quantum portal opener out of a remote control to find the one universe where Kate Upton will blow me.


Well, duh. You have to rewire the remote for the garage door to open the quantum portal, not the one for the cable box.
 
2013-03-31 08:38:43 PM  

Hobodeluxe: ox45tallboy: Hobodeluxe: the prosperity gospel is basically a license to be a greedy selfish, fark and still maintain that holier-than-thou self-righteousness.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 281x411]

[www.jesus-is-savior.com image 600x426]
[si0.twimg.com image 400x500]

[kencopeland.com image 850x628]
[twimg0-a.akamaihd.net image 454x500]
[www.ernestangley.org image 586x365]
etc etc etc


Why do they all look so much like closet homosexuals? I don't mean it's a bad thing, but my gaydar is going nuts here.
 
2013-03-31 08:40:24 PM  

Smelly McUgly: How we still have a bunch of people that insist that what Genesis says trumps science is amazing to me because we DON'T HAVE TO BELIEVE EVERYTHING WE READ in the Bible. It's infuriating.


Here's the thing, if you accept the doctrine of a resurrection and afterlife in paradise then you must also accept the doctrine eternal damnation of the non-believers. Same part of the book. Practically the same sentence. The problem with this is that if eternal torment is hanging in the balance, there can be no gray area in the rules on how to achieve one and avoid the other otherwise you have a supreme being consigning people to eternal torture for doubting a collection of writings that have undergone thousands of revisions, transcriptions, and translations. Some of those writings are known to be forgeries. A compassionate deity could not consign non-believers to eternal torment unless the scriptures and their provenance were absolutely clear. If God/Jesus/Ghost exists, and I don't believe they do, they are monsters and Christians, as their worshipers, are the servants of monsters.
 
2013-03-31 08:41:02 PM  
Very good troll headline, subby.
 
2013-03-31 08:41:07 PM  

quatchi: It would appear from her posts that Skilbride is one of the good Christians who's gone to great lengths to find a church that doesn't work to disenfranchise others and for that I am thankful. I believe modern religion is capable of reforming itself and that it is in the process of doing so. I also think that encouraging that process is a better use of people's time than blanket condemnation.


Thank you. :)

To be honest, I fell into it.  My local church does al-anon meetings.  Both my parents are alcoholics and my brother is a heroine addict so I called a crisis hotline one night after my brother attacked me and my parents said it was my problem to deal with.  They suggested therapy there because I couldn't afford a therapist.  I started getting more and more involved, and learning more about the church from there.

There's actually a really good book I think you would enjoy reading that my pastor gave me when I was thinking about becoming more involved in the church.

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Christianity-Must-Change-Die/dp/0060675365

It pretty much explains what my churches views are, and was a great introduction to a modern faith.
 
2013-03-31 08:43:47 PM  

ox45tallboy: Welcome to Atlanta. This is the main branch of World Changers Church International in Lithonia, GA, the "home" of the Reverend Creflo Dollar.


He had to have changed his name to that... I mean... It might be shallow of me, but I'd have a hard time hearing a sermon preached by someone with the last name of "Dollar" --- and I said I hoped it gets trounced to the fringe where it belongs because it belongs on the fringe. The fact that so many in Atlanta are buying into it, is kinda scary.
 
2013-03-31 08:43:53 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Smelly McUgly: How we still have a bunch of people that insist that what Genesis says trumps science is amazing to me because we DON'T HAVE TO BELIEVE EVERYTHING WE READ in the Bible. It's infuriating.

Here's the thing, if you accept the doctrine of a resurrection and afterlife in paradise then you must also accept the doctrine eternal damnation of the non-believers. Same part of the book. Practically the same sentence. The problem with this is that if eternal torment is hanging in the balance, there can be no gray area in the rules on how to achieve one and avoid the other otherwise you have a supreme being consigning people to eternal torture for doubting a collection of writings that have undergone thousands of revisions, transcriptions, and translations. Some of those writings are known to be forgeries. A compassionate deity could not consign non-believers to eternal torment unless the scriptures and their provenance were absolutely clear. If God/Jesus/Ghost exists, and I don't believe they do, they are monsters and Christians, as their worshipers, are the servants of monsters.


I suppose you can look at it like that. I think that there have been some good arguments against the concept of election theologically, but I get where you are coming from.

I do have to say that I would take what you said one step further. A compassionate deity could not consign non-believers to eternal torment full stop.
 
2013-03-31 08:44:37 PM  

ox45tallboy: CanisNoir: Umm, yea....no. That's just complete horseshait. Not what you said, but what they're preaching. I don't see how that kind of bastardization could gain any lasting momentum within the various sects of Christianity. If God wanted his people to be prosperous and comfortable in this life time, he would have placed the Holy Land in a far better region of the world than smack dab in the middle of an arid region where it's difficult to grow shait. Jesus was poor, he preached to the poor and his preaching was about the Kingdom of Heaven appearing on Earth. Lots of people of the time misunderstood him and thought he was going to toss off the Roman yoke, be a political leader or a general leading a rebellion when, it seems to me, he was talking more about the personal struggle we each go through every day and despite being uncomfortable and not having nice things, know that God still loved us and being cool to our fellow peeps. The Kingdom of Heaven is within us, and I personally don't think Jesus meant that we'd be spotting Angels on every corner directing traffic.

So yea, I understand your derision of Prosperity Gospel and personally hope it gets trounced onto the fringes where it belongs.

Welcome to Atlanta. This is the main branch of World Changers Church International in Lithonia, GA, the "home" of the Reverend Creflo Dollar.




Here's a link: Atlanta (CNN) -- The arrest of Georgia megachurch pastor Creflo Dollar brought renewed attention to his message of the Prosperity Gospel, controversial to some and faith-fulfilling to its followers.

Dollar, who was arrested last week after allegedly assaulting his teenage daughter, is the founder and pastor of World Changers Church International in suburban Atlanta.

It claims about 30,000 members and has a multimillion-dollar sanctuary that resembles a golden-domed spaceship atop a hill.

Metro Atlanta has 3,000,000 people. That means that one man's ministry (not including the other people with Prosperity Gospel Ministries) has 1% of the population by itself. That's not "fringe".


I have been assured in this very thread by a real Christian that none of them believe in it. Hmm.
 
2013-03-31 08:46:14 PM  

CanisNoir: ox45tallboy: Welcome to Atlanta. This is the main branch of World Changers Church International in Lithonia, GA, the "home" of the Reverend Creflo Dollar.

He had to have changed his name to that... I mean... It might be shallow of me, but I'd have a hard time hearing a sermon preached by someone with the last name of "Dollar" --- and I said I hoped it gets trounced to the fringe where it belongs because it belongs on the fringe. The fact that so many in Atlanta are buying into it, is kinda scary.


I'm not shocked. Black folks are starting to become more prosperous, and in some ways, it's easier to be Christian when you're poor. It's a lot harder to give your wealth away when, historically, your family has never had it. Considering this, I see how this dude sold prosperity gospel to a bunch of newly-prosperous people.

/Going on the assumption that black preacher = majority black congregation, of course
 
2013-03-31 08:46:37 PM  

skilbride: There's actually a really good book I think you would enjoy reading that my pastor gave me when I was thinking about becoming more involved in the church.

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Christianity-Must-Change-Die/dp/0060675365

It pretty much explains what my churches views are, and was a great introduction to a modern faith.


For various reasons I just envisioned one called "Why Christianity much change and dye" and envisioned a primped and preened Jesus with immaculate clothes and a dye job.
 
2013-03-31 08:47:42 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Here's the thing, if you accept the doctrine of a resurrection and afterlife in paradise then you must also accept the doctrine eternal damnation of the non-believers. Same part of the book. Practically the same sentence. The problem with this is that if eternal torment is hanging in the balance, there can be no gray area in the rules on how to achieve one and avoid the other otherwise you have a supreme being consigning people to eternal torture for doubting a collection of writings that have undergone thousands of revisions, transcriptions, and translations. Some of those writings are known to be forgeries. A compassionate deity could not consign non-believers to eternal torment unless the scriptures and their provenance were absolutely clear. If God/Jesus/Ghost exists, and I don't believe they do, they are monsters and Christians, as their worshipers, are the servants of monsters.


Well, here's the other thing - Jesus never really mentions hell.  There's one passage that people like to quote which says in Matthew 5:22:
"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' is in danger of the fire of hell."

The problems we run into there is the fact that you get into how the words were translated over the course of time.  I tend to look at it like this...

Jesus was a Jew.  No one doubts that.  Jewish faith does not believe in, nor have a concept of hell, so if you're going to say that one thing, which could have been mis-interpreted so many ways, is a sign that Jesus told us we were going to be in eternal damnation?  I don't buy it.

But I think that's what the OP was talking about.  You should use your brain, and knowledge of history, to decide what is real or not - because men make mistakes.  And God did not come down from the heavens and pen the bible himself.
 
2013-03-31 08:48:08 PM  

sugardave: skilbride: sugardave: You are laboring under the (INCREDIBLY incorrect) assumption that I want to talk to Christians. On the contrary, I want to deride them and point out their idiocy at every opportunity. Go to church, worship your drity, but STFU about it and let rational people run things. You can still feel smug that we'll all be burning in Hell, but I feel it is an unfair burden on me that I can't beat the everlasting snot out of you for threatening me.

Where exactly did I threaten you?

Christians threaten every non-believer with eternal damnation EVERY DAY. Are you trying to tell me otherwise?


Overgeneralization.  I'm a Christian, and I don't do that.  Neither do the 100+ members of my congregation.  Try again.
 
2013-03-31 08:49:14 PM  

wildcardjack: For various reasons I just envisioned one called "Why Christianity much change and dye" and envisioned a primped and preened Jesus with immaculate clothes and a dye job.


You're giving me ideas for a new book.... :-P
 
2013-03-31 08:49:17 PM  

skilbride: I can understand that. I came to the churches teachings much later in life - neither of my parents or my grandparents attended church, so it was something that I discovered through other means. I met some really amazing people at the church I went to, and they are pretty liberal. (Even about the whole accepting Christ as your personal savior thing.) I'm not sure that I would hold up as well if I was involved in the Church of Christ.


The problem I have with the religious beliefs of my parents and their children is that they believe the church has a monopoly on ethics and morality, and they cannot see the need for these things outside of some reward for them in the afterlife. Thing is, I don't want to do good for my neighbor because I want a reward in heaven, or abstain from being bad to my neighbor because I fear eternal punishment in hell. To me, the whole punishment and reward thing takes away the whole altruistic nature of doing good in the first place.

After my parents tried the "well, if you don't know, don't you want to believe just in case" thing, I responded with, "I already answer for my deeds, to myself and those around me. If I have to answer for them again, then I don't want to go to a heaven where people are turned away because of their beliefs, when their actions are good."

I guess that's my own biggest problem with religion - I fear that if I get caught up in it again, I'll lose the whole idea of why I rejected it in the first place - the hypocrisy of a reward for altruism.
 
2013-03-31 08:51:03 PM  

Galileo's Daughter: sugardave: skilbride: sugardave: You are laboring under the (INCREDIBLY incorrect) assumption that I want to talk to Christians. On the contrary, I want to deride them and point out their idiocy at every opportunity. Go to church, worship your drity, but STFU about it and let rational people run things. You can still feel smug that we'll all be burning in Hell, but I feel it is an unfair burden on me that I can't beat the everlasting snot out of you for threatening me.

Where exactly did I threaten you?

Christians threaten every non-believer with eternal damnation EVERY DAY. Are you trying to tell me otherwise?

Overgeneralization.  I'm a Christian, and I don't do that.  Neither do the 100+ members of my congregation.  Try again.


That's what you say, but, as I already pointed out, Christians have no problems lying if it promotes the faith. Your protestations mean nothing.
 
2013-03-31 08:51:45 PM  

Smelly McUgly: I do have to say that I would take what you said one step further. A compassionate deity could not consign non-believers to eternal torment full stop.


Which would make said deity a monster for inflicting infinite punishment for a finite offense. At the very best, compassionate deity would simply leave the nonbeliever dead and in the earth.

But consider how simple it would be for a divine being to ensure that it's message would never be lost or corrupted. Why would a divine being leave something as monumentally important as the rules for eternal life / damnation up the generations of transcription by largely illiterate monks?
 
2013-03-31 08:52:29 PM  

skilbride: Jesus was a Jew. No one doubts that. Jewish faith does not believe in, nor have a concept of hell, so if you're going to say that one thing, which could have been mis-interpreted so many ways, is a sign that Jesus told us we were going to be in eternal damnation? I don't buy it.

But I think that's what the OP was talking about. You should use your brain, and knowledge of history, to decide what is real or not - because men make mistakes. And God did not come down from the heavens and pen the bible himself.



I'm with you on this one; I think the concept of Hell as eternal punishment is more of a medieval invention than an actual Jesus Quote. I believe The Apostles Creed mentions him descending into Hell prior to being resurrected, but given the context of the time, I think it would have been more akin to "Hades" as a place where all dead went, than the eternal fires of Modern Catholicism.
 
2013-03-31 08:53:15 PM  
This thread needs hallowed boobies.

www.ourspacer.com
 
2013-03-31 08:53:42 PM  

Smelly McUgly: Oh, I do understand this. I am just saying that we don't HAVE to treat the Bible like this.

Does it matter in the end? Some folks, I feel, just want to be led, and some particularly odious people are going to part those folks with their mammon under the guise of following the Word of God.


Honestly, I'd be happy with treating the Bible like a historical reference of the beliefs of some people from thousands of years ago, and cherry-picking the good ideas out of it.

But yes, throughout history, some people do just want to be led, and the right leader can lead people to do things that are simply abhorrent to even think about. Rather than Godwinning here, I'll point out the way Americans are every bit as vulnerable as others, especially where religion is concerned, as can be seen in the Jonestown incident.
 
2013-03-31 08:53:58 PM  

skilbride: And God did not come down from the heavens and pen the bible himself.


And that, my dear, is the best argument that there is no such being.
 
2013-03-31 08:54:25 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Smelly McUgly: I do have to say that I would take what you said one step further. A compassionate deity could not consign non-believers to eternal torment full stop.

Which would make said deity a monster for inflicting infinite punishment for a finite offense. At the very best, compassionate deity would simply leave the nonbeliever dead and in the earth.

But consider how simple it would be for a divine being to ensure that it's message would never be lost or corrupted. Why would a divine being leave something as monumentally important as the rules for eternal life / damnation up the generations of transcription by largely illiterate monks?


Yes, I'm still with you. I am not sure where we disagree.

Let's take this one step further. If there is a divine being, how could any of us possibly know enough about the divine being to transcribe every minute rule that being might have in a book? Even if the divine being comes down here to tell us the rules, we probably aren't going to listen very well for the most part. We are all skeptics at our core. I think humans are often more rational than you might believe.
 
2013-03-31 08:54:50 PM  

skilbride: Thank you. :)


You are ever so welcome.

TY for the book suggestion. Looks like a good read.

Sorry about the crap growing up years, I can't even imagine. Glad you're finding a better place to be.
 
2013-03-31 08:54:53 PM  
I don't think Canis Noir is aware that the Old Jewish religious law ORDERED people to give some sort of tithe for whatever religious purpose.

It wasn't left up to "well, maybe I will contribute if I feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel like it."
 
2013-03-31 08:55:52 PM  

Smelly McUgly: Yes, I'm still with you. I am not sure where we disagree.


We don't. I'm not arguing with you, just expanding on your points.
 
2013-03-31 08:56:08 PM  

skilbride: wildcardjack: For various reasons I just envisioned one called "Why Christianity much change and dye" and envisioned a primped and preened Jesus with immaculate clothes and a dye job.

You're giving me ideas for a new book.... :-P


There's a Metrosexual Jesus on FB already.

sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-03-31 08:56:26 PM  

ox45tallboy: I guess that's my own biggest problem with religion - I fear that if I get caught up in it again, I'll lose the whole idea of why I rejected it in the first place - the hypocrisy of a reward for altruism.


Well, here's the thing - you have to separate a belief in God from organized religion.  Do you believe in God?  I struggled with that for a long time - and once I came to the conclusion that yes, I did, I was lucky enough to find a church that agreed with my other moral views in life.

Organized religion is subject to the whims and flaws of man.  At it's base though, any organized religion is like minded people getting together to share views, values, and create a community.  So, if you believe in God, and want to be involved with people who share your beliefs, you have to find a church that believes what you do.  :)

Or hell - create your own.  I'm pretty sure if I moved to middle america I wouldn't find a church that I could attend.  But that wouldn't stop my belief and relationship with Him.
 
2013-03-31 08:57:53 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: skilbride: And God did not come down from the heavens and pen the bible himself.

And that, my dear, is the best argument that there is no such being.


I think the best argument that there is no God is that God has not revealed him/her/itself to all of us in an unequivocally obvious manner.

Now, as a believer in God, this doesn't really matter, but I use my rational, observational side to vote and learn more about the world and my irrational (and that isn't a negative) inner self to pontificate on the nature of God.

As long as you're a good dude, Monkeyhouse, I think that's all that matters.
 
2013-03-31 08:58:10 PM  

CanisNoir: He had to have changed his name to that... I mean... It might be shallow of me, but I'd have a hard time hearing a sermon preached by someone with the last name of "Dollar" --- and I said I hoped it gets trounced to the fringe where it belongs because it belongs on the fringe. The fact that so many in Atlanta are buying into it, is kinda scary.


According to his official bio, he was named after his father, Creflo A. Dollar Sr.

As far as Prosperity Gospel megachurches, don't even get me started on Ken Copeland and Bishop Eddie Long.
 
2013-03-31 08:58:42 PM  

Kittypie070: I don't think Canis Noir is aware that the Old Jewish religious law ORDERED people to give some sort of tithe for whatever religious purpose.

It wasn't left up to "well, maybe I will contribute if I feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel like it."


No, I'm aware of that, it was expected that people would give a portion of their bounty to those with less. Those who didn't, however, were not tossed in prison by the secular authorities. They were shamed and called Godless for not obeying Gods law.

Two different things we're talking about here, and I'm trying to keep them separate. In Jesus' time, the secular authority was Rome, and he never once told people they should give their money to Rome so that Rome could feed the poor.

/Ear Scritches for Kittypie cuz she's a smoke-buddy even if we disagree on some things :)
 
2013-03-31 08:59:14 PM  

queezyweezel: Didn't JC advocate free will?  I don't think the Government forcing you to buy health insurance follows that principle.


I don't remember JC mentioned the government forcing us to buy military protection or a civil defense, so let's call that particular argument a done deal, shall we?
 
2013-03-31 08:59:59 PM  

CanisNoir: I'm with you on this one; I think the concept of Hell as eternal punishment is more of a medieval invention than an actual Jesus Quote. I believe The Apostles Creed mentions him descending into Hell prior to being resurrected, but given the context of the time, I think it would have been more akin to "Hades" as a place where all dead went, than the eternal fires of Modern Catholicism.


Agreed.  And you have to take into account all the things that were co-opted from other religions to make Christianity more inclusive during it's growth years.  Christianity is so complex - which I think is why it all these internet fights typically never lead to rational discussion - because you have to have the time to go through thousands of years of history.  :)

quatchi: Sorry about the crap growing up years, I can't even imagine. Glad you're finding a better place to be.


I'm not!  They made me stronger.  Plus, there's no better example of what NOT to be than my family. <3  I love them anyway. haha
 
2013-03-31 09:00:14 PM  

sugardave: I have been assured in this very thread by a real Christian that none of them believe in it. Hmm.


They believe in it enough to support it.

The Rev. Creflo Dollar's World Changers Church International in College Park alone took in $69 million in 2006, according to a brief report his church showed The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
 
2013-03-31 09:01:04 PM  

skilbride: I'm pretty sure if I moved to middle america I wouldn't find a church that I could attend.


If you consider Iowa Middle America, I think you'd do fine in my church, even though we're Presbyterian and not Episcopalian; ya heathen :P
 
2013-03-31 09:01:13 PM  

sugardave: Galileo's Daughter: sugardave: skilbride: sugardave: You are laboring under the (INCREDIBLY incorrect) assumption that I want to talk to Christians. On the contrary, I want to deride them and point out their idiocy at every opportunity. Go to church, worship your drity, but STFU about it and let rational people run things. You can still feel smug that we'll all be burning in Hell, but I feel it is an unfair burden on me that I can't beat the everlasting snot out of you for threatening me.

Where exactly did I threaten you?

Christians threaten every non-believer with eternal damnation EVERY DAY. Are you trying to tell me otherwise?

Overgeneralization.  I'm a Christian, and I don't do that.  Neither do the 100+ members of my congregation.  Try again.

That's what you say, but, as I already pointed out, Christians have no problems lying if it promotes the faith. Your protestations mean nothing.


and you have knowledge of all christians?  oh wait, you don't.  your argument, if it can be called that, fails.  you are relying only on logical fallacies to make your point, and it doesn't work.
 
2013-03-31 09:01:21 PM  
Anyways, I will be away from the keyboard for an hour while I watch Walking Dead.

Here's hoping they put zombie Jesus in there somewhere... you can't have the Walking Dead finale on Easter without that little Easter egg :)
 
2013-03-31 09:01:50 PM  

Smelly McUgly: Monkeyhouse Zendo: skilbride: And God did not come down from the heavens and pen the bible himself.

And that, my dear, is the best argument that there is no such being.

I think the best argument that there is no God is that God has not revealed him/her/itself to all of us in an unequivocally obvious manner.

Now, as a believer in God, this doesn't really matter, but I use my rational, observational side to vote and learn more about the world and my irrational (and that isn't a negative) inner self to pontificate on the nature of God.

As long as you're a good dude, Monkeyhouse, I think that's all that matters.


I cannot agree.

You see, there is no proof of the nonexistence of a thing.  To attempt to prove that a thing does not exist IS irrational.

"If the Higgs Boson does exist, why haven't we seen it before!?"  You see how dumb that is now, but it seemed to make sense 10 years ago.  Thank God scientists are more rational than that.
 
2013-03-31 09:03:51 PM  

skilbride: And just to let you guys know, I'm pretty sure the majority of my real life friends except my ex-boyfriend know nothing about my faith - it's just been in the past week that I kinda felt the need to jump in because the only people who are talking are the wrong people.  (So, you're my first test group!)


FYI I'm not in the "all Christians bad camp" and I just wanted to say that if what you are saying is true then you're one of the good Christians.
 
2013-03-31 09:05:00 PM  
CanisNoir 2013-03-31 08:58:42 PM

Kittypie070: I don't think Canis Noir is aware that the Old Jewish religious law ORDERED people to give some sort of tithe for whatever religious purpose.

It wasn't left up to "well, maybe I will contribute if I feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel like it."


No, I'm aware of that, it was expected that people would give a portion of their bounty to those with less.

If it was EXPECTED, it still does not pass the Kittypie Sniff Test of Free Will.
 
2013-03-31 09:05:04 PM  

Smelly McUgly: I'm not shocked. Black folks are starting to become more prosperous, and in some ways, it's easier to be Christian when you're poor. It's a lot harder to give your wealth away when, historically, your family has never had it. Considering this, I see how this dude sold prosperity gospel to a bunch of newly-prosperous people.

/Going on the assumption that black preacher = majority black congregation, of course


I worked for a while in Lithonia, and I started a TFD thread a few years back about my interview at a 4-star restaurant where my white ass was hired, in the exact words of the manager, to "promote some ethnic diversity in the front of the house".

After quitting there, I went to the biggest nightclub in Lithonia (fire capacity was 800+) where I was the lead server, a part-time bartender, and the token white guy. On the plus side, my equal opportunity ass got laid A LOT.

So to answer your question, Lithonia is where the rich black people live in Atlanta. And a lot of not-so-rich ones, too.
 
2013-03-31 09:06:05 PM  
Damn it, I still fail at Italicize. Sh*t.
 
2013-03-31 09:06:33 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: But consider how simple it would be for a divine being to ensure that it's message would never be lost or corrupted. Why would a divine being leave something as monumentally important as the rules for eternal life / damnation up the generations of transcription by largely illiterate monks?


Don't question God. He has His reasons.
 
2013-03-31 09:09:34 PM  
ox45tallboy:

So to answer your question, Lithonia is where the rich black people live in Atlanta. And a lot of not-so-rich ones, too.

So, quite a few newly-rich black people and a bunch of others who will be rich someday. I'm glad to see my assumption worked out.

/And congratulations on gettin' DAT ASS, too. :)
 
2013-03-31 09:10:38 PM  

skilbride: Well, here's the thing - you have to separate a belief in God from organized religion. Do you believe in God? I struggled with that for a long time - and once I came to the conclusion that yes, I did, I was lucky enough to find a church that agreed with my other moral views in life.


I have trouble with this. It seems like your saying that I should reject the parts of Christianity I don't like, but still place some kind of divine faith in the parts that I do. Which basically kind of puts me on the level of making my own moral judgements separate from what most people believe God has already said (via the Bible) and plants me squarely right where I am now.

I don't think this would be fair to myself, or to the whole idea of Bible-based Christianity.
 
2013-03-31 09:10:55 PM  

rohar: Smelly McUgly: Monkeyhouse Zendo: skilbride: And God did not come down from the heavens and pen the bible himself.

And that, my dear, is the best argument that there is no such being.

I think the best argument that there is no God is that God has not revealed him/her/itself to all of us in an unequivocally obvious manner.

Now, as a believer in God, this doesn't really matter, but I use my rational, observational side to vote and learn more about the world and my irrational (and that isn't a negative) inner self to pontificate on the nature of God.

As long as you're a good dude, Monkeyhouse, I think that's all that matters.

I cannot agree.

You see, there is no proof of the nonexistence of a thing.  To attempt to prove that a thing does not exist IS irrational.

"If the Higgs Boson does exist, why haven't we seen it before!?"  You see how dumb that is now, but it seemed to make sense 10 years ago.  Thank God scientists are more rational than that.


And yet, the Christian deity has less evidence for his existence than the luminiferous aether and more against it. So I suppose we can say that he is as likely to exist as the luminiferous aether, or the flat earth or the Hippocratic humors.
 
2013-03-31 09:13:59 PM  
I sometimes think that The Bible may be the greatest cold reader in history. One person can say that you should help others any way you can, be tolerant and forgiving because it is in The Bible. Another person can condemn gay marriage, equality, and the care of those less fortunate because it is in The Bible.

I'll admit I'm not the most religious person, but if I were to take something from The Good Book, it would be the former.
 
2013-03-31 09:15:49 PM  

CanisNoir: In Jesus' time, the secular authority was Rome, and he never once told people they should give their money to Rome so that Rome could feed the poor.


Ummm... actually, Rome at this time had a history of providing food for the poor from tax money.

A decade later, when Julius Caesar came to power, he found 320,000 persons on grain relief. He succeeded in having the relief rolls cut to 150,000 by applying a means test. After his death the rolls climbed once again to 320,000. Augustus once more introduced a means test and reduced the number to 200,000.

Remember that Augustus ruled during the time of Jesus' childhood, until 14 AD.
 
2013-03-31 09:18:23 PM  
I really don't want to model my government on a bronze age guy who probably didn't really exist, anyway.
 
2013-03-31 09:19:23 PM  

ox45tallboy: I have trouble with this. It seems like your saying that I should reject the parts of Christianity I don't like, but still place some kind of divine faith in the parts that I do. Which basically kind of puts me on the level of making my own moral judgements separate from what most people believe God has already said (via the Bible) and plants me squarely right where I am now.

I don't think this would be fair to myself, or to the whole idea of Bible-based Christianity.


No - I don't think it's like that at all.  It's more like this:  we have brains, and we're expected to use them.  The teachings of Christ have some very strong emphasis that can't be denied... do not judge others, love your neighbor, love God... the rest, the things that there are one or two mentions to, or the Old Testament God?  You have to use history to supplement the bible.

Kind of like the constitution. :)   (Sorry this is less thought out... I'm watching Walking Dead...)
 
2013-03-31 09:19:39 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: rohar: Smelly McUgly: Monkeyhouse Zendo: skilbride: And God did not come down from the heavens and pen the bible himself.

And that, my dear, is the best argument that there is no such being.

I think the best argument that there is no God is that God has not revealed him/her/itself to all of us in an unequivocally obvious manner.

Now, as a believer in God, this doesn't really matter, but I use my rational, observational side to vote and learn more about the world and my irrational (and that isn't a negative) inner self to pontificate on the nature of God.

As long as you're a good dude, Monkeyhouse, I think that's all that matters.

I cannot agree.

You see, there is no proof of the nonexistence of a thing.  To attempt to prove that a thing does not exist IS irrational.

"If the Higgs Boson does exist, why haven't we seen it before!?"  You see how dumb that is now, but it seemed to make sense 10 years ago.  Thank God scientists are more rational than that.

And yet, the Christian deity has less evidence for his existence than the luminiferous aether and more against it. So I suppose we can say that he is as likely to exist as the luminiferous aether, or the flat earth or the Hippocratic humors.


And you have a similar grasp of logic that a fence post exhibits.

Anyone.  Anyone who would suggest that the nonexistence of a thing can be proven has absolutely no history in algebra.  Logic obviously defies you.  I'm not suggesting you're wrong, only that you should negotiate this issue from another angle.  Maybe one you have some mastery of.
 
2013-03-31 09:20:57 PM  

quatchi: My fear is that people who are utterly convinced in there being justice in the afterlife content themselves with that belief and spend less time striving for real social justice on earth in the only life we know we get.


That's just it though, by any mainstream version of Christianity, those people are doing it wrong. You don't get to be less of a good person just because hell might exist.

ox45tallboy: Welcome to Atlanta. This is the main branch of World Changers Church International in Lithonia, GA, the "home" of the Reverend Creflo Dollar.


The irony in a prosperity doctrine pastor being named "Dollar'. Lawl.
 
2013-03-31 09:20:57 PM  

Kittypie070: No, I'm aware of that, it was expected that people would give a portion of their bounty to those with less.

If it was EXPECTED, it still does not pass the Kittypie Sniff Test of Free Will.


So, does a religious law that, as a worst possible form of punishment, can result in excommunication from the church and theoretical eternal damnation carry more weight than a secular law, the breach of which can result in property forfeiture and possible imprisonment?

In other words, is obedience of the religious law in its past or current context still "free will"? What about when you consider the implications of excommunication on one's position in society, and the possible condemnation of you by the church which would result in its other members denying patronage of your establishment, or refusing to hire you because of your unclean status? Still "free will"?
 
2013-03-31 09:21:33 PM  
Was at the clinic last week for one of me own woes...ran into a N.A. who was worse off than meself.
Bad genetics + alcohol = Not Happy combination.
Gave the guy a fiver, told him to "GET SOMETHING TO EAT, OK?"

All I can do is Band-AidsTM, not surgery or chemo or anything fancy...but sometimes a Band-aidTM helps...


Sometimes I wish I was filthy, obscenely wealthy...I could do so much more...

I deal with chronic pain, so am sensitive to people who are hurtin' in one way or another...
 
2013-03-31 09:23:48 PM  

Smelly McUgly: So, quite a few newly-rich black people and a bunch of others who will be rich someday. I'm glad to see my assumption worked out.


Yes, indeed it did.

Smelly McUgly: /And congratulations on gettin' DAT ASS, too. :)


Honestly, the best memories came from a chick in her early 20's that was 5'1" and weighed 90 lbs soaking wet. You could NOT under any circumstances make any sort of honest reference to "Dat Ass". But she was a lot of fun outside of bed, too, which has a lot to do with it.
 
2013-03-31 09:24:21 PM  

rohar: A Dark Evil Omen: rohar: Smelly McUgly: Monkeyhouse Zendo: skilbride: And God did not come down from the heavens and pen the bible himself.

And that, my dear, is the best argument that there is no such being.

I think the best argument that there is no God is that God has not revealed him/her/itself to all of us in an unequivocally obvious manner.

Now, as a believer in God, this doesn't really matter, but I use my rational, observational side to vote and learn more about the world and my irrational (and that isn't a negative) inner self to pontificate on the nature of God.

As long as you're a good dude, Monkeyhouse, I think that's all that matters.

I cannot agree.

You see, there is no proof of the nonexistence of a thing.  To attempt to prove that a thing does not exist IS irrational.

"If the Higgs Boson does exist, why haven't we seen it before!?"  You see how dumb that is now, but it seemed to make sense 10 years ago.  Thank God scientists are more rational than that.

And yet, the Christian deity has less evidence for his existence than the luminiferous aether and more against it. So I suppose we can say that he is as likely to exist as the luminiferous aether, or the flat earth or the Hippocratic humors.

And you have a similar grasp of logic that a fence post exhibits.

Anyone.  Anyone who would suggest that the nonexistence of a thing can be proven has absolutely no history in algebra.  Logic obviously defies you.  I'm not suggesting you're wrong, only that you should negotiate this issue from another angle.  Maybe one you have some mastery of.


Why would anyone want to "prove" the nonexistence of "god" when it's irrelevance and impotence is so manifestly obvious?
 
2013-03-31 09:24:59 PM  

TsukasaK: The irony in a prosperity doctrine pastor being named "Dollar'. Lawl.


He's laughing all the way to the bank.
 
2013-03-31 09:25:36 PM  

ox45tallboy: or refusing to hire you because of your unclean status?


I must point out that this would be illegal.
 
2013-03-31 09:28:13 PM  

jso2897: rohar: A Dark Evil Omen: rohar: Smelly McUgly: Monkeyhouse Zendo: skilbride: And God did not come down from the heavens and pen the bible himself.

And that, my dear, is the best argument that there is no such being.

I think the best argument that there is no God is that God has not revealed him/her/itself to all of us in an unequivocally obvious manner.

Now, as a believer in God, this doesn't really matter, but I use my rational, observational side to vote and learn more about the world and my irrational (and that isn't a negative) inner self to pontificate on the nature of God.

As long as you're a good dude, Monkeyhouse, I think that's all that matters.

I cannot agree.

You see, there is no proof of the nonexistence of a thing.  To attempt to prove that a thing does not exist IS irrational.

"If the Higgs Boson does exist, why haven't we seen it before!?"  You see how dumb that is now, but it seemed to make sense 10 years ago.  Thank God scientists are more rational than that.

And yet, the Christian deity has less evidence for his existence than the luminiferous aether and more against it. So I suppose we can say that he is as likely to exist as the luminiferous aether, or the flat earth or the Hippocratic humors.

And you have a similar grasp of logic that a fence post exhibits.

Anyone.  Anyone who would suggest that the nonexistence of a thing can be proven has absolutely no history in algebra.  Logic obviously defies you.  I'm not suggesting you're wrong, only that you should negotiate this issue from another angle.  Maybe one you have some mastery of.

Why would anyone want to "prove" the nonexistence of "god" when it's irrelevance and impotence is so manifestly obvious?


For the life of me I don't know.  The entire premise is logically flawed.  Beyond that, if it's that irrelevant and impotent, why are we having this discussion at all?
 
2013-03-31 09:28:31 PM  

skilbride: No - I don't think it's like that at all. It's more like this: we have brains, and we're expected to use them. The teachings of Christ have some very strong emphasis that can't be denied... do not judge others, love your neighbor, love God... the rest, the things that there are one or two mentions to, or the Old Testament God? You have to use history to supplement the bible.

Kind of like the constitution. :) (Sorry this is less thought out... I'm watching Walking Dead...)


But to me, that deflects the whole point of a Bible-based "Christian" religion to begin with. If you don't accept the whole thing, then why even use it all as a representation of your faith?

I agree wholeheartedly that there are universal truths such as inherent and indirect but definitely measurable benefits to doing good for others, but I don't think that Christianity has a monopoly on this.

I guess what I'm saying is, why Christianity if you reject parts of the Bible?
 
2013-03-31 09:29:28 PM  

CanisNoir: Lionel Mandrake: There is nothing "Christian" about being anti-marriage equality. It's just raw, crass bigotry.

And here it is, the end game... It's not Bigotry, and there *is* marriage equality. Nobody is telling any man that they can't marry a woman, or a woman that she can't marry a man. Everyone has the same right to get married. It's marriage re-definition, not equality that you're after, and once you have it, then you can scream "bigotry" at any religious institution that doesn't want to go along with your re-definition due to moral or theological reasons. The Islamic faith is the harshest against homosexuals and most of the biblical teachings espoused today against it are from the Jewish teachings, yet for some reason most people who speak out for it, categorize Christians as the big meanies in this whole debate. Right now there's a majority of Americans who are against it, the number is shrinking, sure, but it's still a majority, and the last I looked, there's people of all faiths in this country, so who's to say that it's only Christians voting against it?

As for Obamacare being a philosophy that Jesus would have supported, I highly doubt it. Pretty sure his teachings were about focusing on your own soul and not about having the Government force you to care for the poor through taxation.

As for pulling the voting levers to enforce morality, well, that's just something you're going to have to swallow if you want to live in a democratic republic, where we, the people, attempt to govern ourselves. The reasons behind the choices we make can't be gotten rid of - Those who support Gay Marriage vote the way they do out of a personal set of ethics, just as those who are against it do. They are both entitled to vote based upon their personal ethics regardless of how they came about them.


bless your heart
 
2013-03-31 09:30:02 PM  

TsukasaK: I must point out that this would be illegal.


And utterly unenforceable. You're not being hired because we don't need someone right now. Or because we found a candidate that we feel is a better fit. What do you mean, religious discrimination? The person we hired doesn't even go to our church!
 
2013-03-31 09:30:56 PM  

sugardave: That's what you say, but, as I already pointed out, Christians have no problems lying if it promotes the faith. Your protestations mean nothing.


You must be great fun at parties.
 
2013-03-31 09:32:38 PM  

Galileo's Daughter: sugardave: Galileo's Daughter: sugardave: skilbride: sugardave: You are laboring under the (INCREDIBLY incorrect) assumption that I want to talk to Christians. On the contrary, I want to deride them and point out their idiocy at every opportunity. Go to church, worship your drity, but STFU about it and let rational people run things. You can still feel smug that we'll all be burning in Hell, but I feel it is an unfair burden on me that I can't beat the everlasting snot out of you for threatening me.

Where exactly did I threaten you?

Christians threaten every non-believer with eternal damnation EVERY DAY. Are you trying to tell me otherwise?

Overgeneralization.  I'm a Christian, and I don't do that.  Neither do the 100+ members of my congregation.  Try again.

That's what you say, but, as I already pointed out, Christians have no problems lying if it promotes the faith. Your protestations mean nothing.

and you have knowledge of all christians?  oh wait, you don't.  your argument, if it can be called that, fails.  you are relying only on logical fallacies to make your point, and it doesn't work.


Ah, but I know their hearts.  This game is too easy, perhaps I should start a church!
 
2013-03-31 09:36:01 PM  
Canis Noir: As for pulling the voting levers to enforce morality, well, that's just something you're going to have to swallow if you want to live in a democratic republic, where we, the people, attempt to govern ourselves.

And there you have it, another contradiction of Canis' libertarian style "Free Will" argument issued by Canis himself.

Damn :(

Please, dude, pay more attention to what you're saying.

/breaks out the red glass hookah for a sympathy smoke
 
2013-03-31 09:37:58 PM  

gingerjet: sugardave: That's what you say, but, as I already pointed out, Christians have no problems lying if it promotes the faith. Your protestations mean nothing.

You must be great fun at parties.


You know it!
 
2013-03-31 09:43:48 PM  

quatchi: Am I the only one who kept scrolling back up to the top of the page to make sure this was actually on Red State?


Don't worry. Just scroll down to the comments.
 
2013-03-31 09:43:49 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Morality pertains to individuals, not collectives.


And thus the corporation was born.
 
2013-03-31 09:52:11 PM  

GoodyearPimp: Need proof that God hates gays?  Jesus was married and had TONS of heterosexual sex with his wife.  Oh, hang on.  It turns out he was unmarried and hung out with 12 dudes most of the time.  The straightest guy ever.


Plus, he had long hair, a beard, wore flowing robes and drank wine. Do it right or go home.
 
2013-03-31 09:53:54 PM  

CanisNoir: thismomentinblackhistory: But the legislators who voted for the Bill and the President himself did "good work" thus pleasing Jesus.

They did? They actually gave money out of their pocket to individual sick people and handed out food to the hungry? Maybe a few of them took people in off the streets and offered them shelter and I completely missed that news cycle. Passing the bill is not a "good work" - if anything it's contrary to that because it forces people against their will.


I have done this.  Taken homeless lesbians off the street, given them a place to live, eat, wash themselves and their clothes....and time to and find jobs and a place for themselves to live.
BFD.
A gay man gave me a place to live when I was one inch from living in my car (even though employed at the time).
People help each other when they need it.
That's the point of having society.
 
2013-03-31 09:56:58 PM  

ox45tallboy: But to me, that deflects the whole point of a Bible-based "Christian" religion to begin with. If you don't accept the whole thing, then why even use it all as a representation of your faith?

I agree wholeheartedly that there are universal truths such as inherent and indirect but definitely measurable benefits to doing good for others, but I don't think that Christianity has a monopoly on this.

I guess what I'm saying is, why Christianity if you reject parts of the Bible?


Because anything that is touchable by man, is corruptible by man, but Christianity, at least with my church, gets it 90% of the way.  The two closest to my belief system are Judism and Islam, and I have definite complaints with both of those - mainly the following of certain dogma... it's actually similar to the complaint I have with catholic churchs - that they place dogma above the basic teachings.  That being said, since I tend to date only middle eastern guys, I actually tend to end up following Islamic dogma as well.  I can't remember the last time I ate pork, and I always somehow end up fasting.
 
2013-03-31 09:58:17 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The key point here is that Christ was speaking about voluntary INDIVIDUAL actions - NOT collective actions forced at the end of a government gun. Morality pertains to individuals, not collectives.


sure but if these asshats want to talk about legislating based on the Bible's teachings (and they do), they pretty much have to support these sorts of things. Well, I suppose they don't because those who want to force the Bible's teachings on the rest of us almost never support these sorts of things. Cept in Europe.
 
2013-03-31 10:01:35 PM  

syzygy whizz: CanisNoir: thismomentinblackhistory:*stuff*


Forgot to say I do not identify as a Christian, so maybe this doesn't count for squat...
aside from those I am able to assist.
 
2013-03-31 10:01:45 PM  

ox45tallboy: GAT_00: Yes, let's examine all of Christ's teachings on buying health care:

...

...

...

Fascinating.


While we're at it, can we look at Christ's teachings on homosexuality and gay marriage?

That should take about the same amount of time.


There would be no teaching because being gay is prohibited by Leviticus.That's the go to for Christians Fundies: It's in the Bible. Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament. Along with selling daughters into slavery. Remind them about shell fish.
 
2013-03-31 10:07:06 PM  

Rapmaster2000: Amos Quito: Meanwhile back at the ranch...

[www.politicalnewsnow.com image 585x378]

"Render unto Caesar..."

What's with the nose?  Is there something about his nose I've never noticed?


HIS FACE IS HUGE!!! It's yet another in the 9,023,235 flaws that the Right Wing Commentators have cataloged!!
 
2013-03-31 10:08:04 PM  

skilbride: sugardave: skilbride: sugardave: You are laboring under the (INCREDIBLY incorrect) assumption that I want to talk to Christians. On the contrary, I want to deride them and point out their idiocy at every opportunity. Go to church, worship your drity, but STFU about it and let rational people run things. You can still feel smug that we'll all be burning in Hell, but I feel it is an unfair burden on me that I can't beat the everlasting snot out of you for threatening me.

Where exactly did I threaten you?

Christians threaten every non-believer with eternal damnation EVERY DAY. Are you trying to tell me otherwise?

There you go again with the "Christian's".  SOME Christian's do that.  I am not going to threaten you with eternal damnation.  Your soul is of no concern to me.

As a matter of fact, I was sitting on the toilet taking a shiat this morning and I thought it would really funny when all the people who bastardize Christianity to spread hate end up with all the people they hate in the afterlife for forever.


Can we make that applicable to Muslims and not have a war for a few years?
 
2013-03-31 10:09:41 PM  

skilbride: How presumptuous of you to assume that just because I'm Christian I'm not one of the people out there discovering amazing new things every day. Or that I don't appreciate science, etc etc.


I don't know you from Adam (heh) but use of phrases like "the bible is our holy book" is indicative of magical, wishful thinking. And all of the anti-science, teach the controversy, Noah's-ark-was-real cartoonery seems to be coming from people who self-identify as Christians. I'm sure there are plenty of people in the south who fly the confederate flag in celebration of history, but they get lumped in with the racist douchebags all the same. You might be working on the Hadron Collider, but if you identify with a religion known for its anti-science ideology, people are going to treat you differently.

skilbride:I tend to exclusively date middle eastern, Muslim men...I have faced less hate, and more understanding from THEM, no matter how devout they are, then I do from people who have no faith.

It's not very surprising that men predisposed to mystic thinking and rigid religious authority would be understanding of a woman with similar beliefs. Think about it... if you met a guy who seemed great, then found out he was a Scientologist, wouldn't it change your perception of him? Just knowing that he really believed all their nutty things that someone made up? Well that's how Christians tend to come across to those of us who don't have that set of beliefs.
 
2013-03-31 10:09:50 PM  
Because it's not about being "Christ-like". It's about being a total arsehole and cherry picking the values you want to push on others based on your own misconceptions, ignorance and stupidity. Logic, facts and reasoning only get jn the way!!
 
2013-03-31 10:12:38 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The key point here is that Christ was speaking about voluntary INDIVIDUAL actions - NOT collective actions forced at the end of a government gun. Morality pertains to individuals, not collectives.


And if you don't you'll be forced to suffer Eternal Damnation.
In Hell. The Inferno. Lake of Fire and Brimstone.

Churches are  collectives. They collect your money for 'good works' and threaten you with eternal suffering if you fail to comply.

You want to claim the virtue of Christianity without actually being Christian.
 
2013-03-31 10:13:16 PM  

Kittypie070: And there you have it, another contradiction of Canis' libertarian style "Free Will" argument issued by Canis himself.


I don't see the contradiction. They're two different arguments and not contradictory at all because of it. I'll take the sympathy smoke tho :)
 
2013-03-31 10:13:53 PM  

gingerjet: sugardave: That's what you say, but, as I already pointed out, Christians have no problems lying if it promotes the faith. Your protestations mean nothing.

You must be great fun at parties.


he might be if he is ever invited to one
 
2013-03-31 10:14:08 PM  

Barricaded Gunman: It's not very surprising that men predisposed to mystic thinking and rigid religious authority would be understanding of a woman with similar beliefs. Think about it... if you met a guy who seemed great, then found out he was a Scientologist, wouldn't it change your perception of him? Just knowing that he really believed all their nutty things that someone made up? Well that's how Christians tend to come across to those of us who don't have that set of beliefs.


Uh, my wife's devoutly Christian.  I'm honestly agnostic.  Thanks for speaking for the rest of us, as if you have any idea how to be socially acceptable or how a society works.

/asshole
 
2013-03-31 10:15:43 PM  
All of the scriptures quoted here advocate individuals helping the poor. This is one of the ways Christians build up treasures in Heaven.

Jesus never suggested that the government should take from some, and give to others. All He ever said on the subject was to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. Rather He said God helps those who help themselves.
 
2013-03-31 10:16:08 PM  

skilbride: Monkeyhouse Zendo: I would hold that by putting your faith in a non-existent afterlife you are shortchanging the one life you will ever have.

Or, I'm enriching it but living in a way that benefits those around me?

Listen, if you want to seriously sit down and talk and learn to how I got here from where I was (which wasn't all that different from you) in 28 years, I can.  For years I doubted faith (all faiths) but over the course of my late 20's, I've come to a place where I am through letting my faith guide me.   Since then my life has changed for the better, and I believe. (I spent a significant amount of time in my early 20's attending al-anon meetings at a local episcopal church, and that's how I got involved.)

Like I said, I picked a church that doesn't contradict my views.  The episcopal church will be having gay marriages in the National Cathedral this year!  We welcome anyone, gay, straight, black, white, drunk, sober, who cares!  We welcome you, and will help you if you need it, and if you want to talk about the true teachings and hear what we believe, we are more than willing. :)

But I don't think I am wasting my life now by believing in God.


Yes, religion can make people's lives better. But in my opinion, it was you who improved your environment on your own. If it was God that inspired you, hey, good for you. People seem to like the idea of surrendering to a deity and giving the responsibility to him.  But God doesn't get people sober or fix their finances. People might assign the credit to him, but all along it was the individual who simply got his sh*t in order without realizing it.

As for your church, it sounds like a nice place. While I'm not a Christian, I'm always glad to see a church that seems genuinely concerned for community outreach and, well, love and compassion. I know they exist! My parents went to one of those "dress up one day per week and pretend we're pious" Baptist deals. A rumor started that one young member was gay, and you could actually see the congregation in the parking lot pointing and whispering at him. The church seemed to instantly turn on him. Thing is, HE WASN'T GAY. It was just a malicious rumor, and as you know, the more salacious the rumor the quicker it spreads. But the judgment passed on him is something that has stuck with me all my life. I mean, people actually sneered.
 
2013-03-31 10:16:45 PM  

GreatGlavinsGhost: BECAUSE HE'S BLACK!

/And Muslin.
//and atheist
///and soshulist and a commie to boot ...


I'm going with this theory.

shiat, my sister goes to church often and is the first one to biatch about people on welfare. But that's ok, just keep giving 10% of your money to the Catholic Church so they can pay off the sexual abuse.

How do you know your religion has a pedo problem? When they have their own secret rehab clinics for pedos.

shiat, just let everyone who wants buy into Medicare already. They didn't explain single payer well enough. I realized this when I had an argument with a republican buddy's wife and she was arguing that we should just have a big pool that people can buy into.

I told her, "Yeah, single payer, but you republicans wouldn't hear if it!"

These are also the two that biatch that government employees are paid too much and they are both government employees!
 
2013-03-31 10:17:32 PM  

Barricaded Gunman: It's not very surprising that men predisposed to mystic thinking and rigid religious authority would be understanding of a woman with similar beliefs. Think about it... if you met a guy who seemed great, then found out he was a Scientologist, wouldn't it change your perception of him? Just knowing that he really believed all their nutty things that someone made up? Well that's how Christians tend to come across to those of us who don't have that set of beliefs.


No - I get it, I just wish people would have more of an honest discussion about it.

There are some people where their faith defines them and runs their life, some people who use faith to run others, and some people who make their faith part of their life.  I think it's a very important distinction and one worth acknowledging.
 
2013-03-31 10:17:41 PM  
sugardave:

Ah, but I know their hearts.  This game is too easy, perhaps I should start a church!

No, actually you don't.  but thanks for playing.
 
2013-03-31 10:19:23 PM  

rohar: Barricaded Gunman: It's not very surprising that men predisposed to mystic thinking and rigid religious authority would be understanding of a woman with similar beliefs. Think about it... if you met a guy who seemed great, then found out he was a Scientologist, wouldn't it change your perception of him? Just knowing that he really believed all their nutty things that someone made up? Well that's how Christians tend to come across to those of us who don't have that set of beliefs.

Uh, my wife's devoutly Christian.  I'm honestly agnostic.  Thanks for speaking for the rest of us, as if you have any idea how to be socially acceptable or how a society works.

/asshole


My wife is faithful, I am a lapsed Catholic/agnostic and we get along just fine. My wife's family are Presbyterians, my side is pretty much exclusively RCs and we don't know any anti-science, anti-woman nutjobs on either sides of our respective families. It's almost as if he is making a rash generalization based on fear and ignorance in trying to speak about a group of people who allegedly live their lives in fear and ignorance.

No one is that awesomely ironic though so I must assume I've misinterpreted something
 
2013-03-31 10:23:55 PM  

dickfreckle: Yes, religion can make people's lives better. But in my opinion, it was you who improved your environment on your own. If it was God that inspired you, hey, good for you. People seem to like the idea of surrendering to a deity and giving the responsibility to him.  But God doesn't get people sober or fix their finances. People might assign the credit to him, but all along it was the individual who simply got his sh*t in order without realizing it.


I agree with you - I think that a lot of the time people also expect God to do those things.  The thing about God though, in my opinion, is that he gives us free will.  He gives us the tools to do what we need to do to get ourselves to a better place - but ultimately, we are the controllers of our destiny in live, and if we live by His guidelines and do good, good will eventually return to us.  I will be forever thankful for the church for instance, for giving me a support group to be able to begin to healing from the damage some areas of my life were causing me.
 
2013-03-31 10:24:29 PM  
There are almost no actual Christians in the United States. Nearly everyone who claims to be Christian is actually a Paulist. It's like the New Testament never even happened.
 
2013-03-31 10:25:18 PM  

TsukasaK: ox45tallboy: or refusing to hire you because of your unclean status?

I must point out that this would be illegal.


Illegal perhaps, but try and prove it
 
2013-03-31 10:26:10 PM  

CanisNoir: And currently everyone has the right to get married, what I am saying is that I support states to decide whether or not to redefine it because each individuals vote matters more on the state and local level than it does on the national level.


So you're against DOMA then?
 
2013-03-31 10:26:14 PM  
Anyways, I must go to bed!  Thank you Fark, for the surprising honesty and discussion about faith.  It's weird for me because I don't talk about it outside of my church but this was a great night for the first time talking about it somewhat openly.  :) :) :)

(Who would've thought it would happen on fark!!!)

Goodnight all! :)
 
2013-03-31 10:30:53 PM  

skullkrusher: rohar: Barricaded Gunman: It's not very surprising that men predisposed to mystic thinking and rigid religious authority would be understanding of a woman with similar beliefs. Think about it... if you met a guy who seemed great, then found out he was a Scientologist, wouldn't it change your perception of him? Just knowing that he really believed all their nutty things that someone made up? Well that's how Christians tend to come across to those of us who don't have that set of beliefs.

Uh, my wife's devoutly Christian.  I'm honestly agnostic.  Thanks for speaking for the rest of us, as if you have any idea how to be socially acceptable or how a society works.

/asshole

My wife is faithful, I am a lapsed Catholic/agnostic and we get along just fine. My wife's family are Presbyterians, my side is pretty much exclusively RCs and we don't know any anti-science, anti-woman nutjobs on either sides of our respective families. It's almost as if he is making a rash generalization based on fear and ignorance in trying to speak about a group of people who allegedly live their lives in fear and ignorance.

No one is that awesomely ironic though so I must assume I've misinterpreted something


I'm not gonna touch it.  Too easy. :)
 
2013-03-31 10:31:20 PM  

rohar: "If the Higgs Boson does exist, why haven't we seen it before!?"  You see how dumb that is now, but it seemed to make sense 10 years ago.  Thank God scientists are more rational than that.


I'm not a scientist, but I'm pretty sure that argument wouldn't have made sense 10 years ago, or at any time in the history of science.

Here is the thing: when mankind first thought up gods as an explanation for the world around them, they had a concept they didn't understand and were proposing a theory of how it worked.

So how does the sun rise? A god with a chariot puts it up there.  Fair enough.  Here is where religion deviates from science.

A scientist might propose something that turns out to be laughably wrong later on, but until he has proved it, he certainly isn't laying other civilizations to waste over their alternate theory that it is Sol flying around.

Furthermore, no one proposed the Higgs-Boson, to my knowledge, prior to having a gap in science that such a particle would flesh out.  Certainly no one had "seen it" at its first point of conception, but evidence that something like it might exist was the very grounds for it to be conceived. The religious, on the other hand, have all sorts of extraneous stories and beliefs about their mumbo jumbo that, instead of existing as an answer to a question people were asking, exist just for the hell of it.

People weren't running around wondering if multiple types of threads should be woven into a single tunic.  But then one day it found its way into the bible.   


Scientists, should they have found a way to fill the gap in knowledge that the higgs-boson was thought up to complete, would stop assuming the higgs-boson was there.  I hold nothing against an ancient greek person wondering if his black and yellow bile levels were properly in balance.  I would hold a great deal against someone today who read about the four humors and decided it was true zero evidence supporting it and a plethora of evidence supporting alternate theories.  Religious people do exactly that, however.  We have plenty of evidence to assume the earth isn't 6,000 years old, and yet you can find plenty of bible-thumpers who will stand by that.

Lastly, it is absolutely rational to dismiss extraordinary claims that lack any evidence whatsoever, let alone lack the extraordinary evidence that such claims should be able to come up with.
 
2013-03-31 10:31:34 PM  

skilbride: Because anything that is touchable by man, is corruptible by man, but Christianity, at least with my church, gets it 90% of the way. The two closest to my belief system are Judism and Islam, and I have definite complaints with both of those - mainly the following of certain dogma... it's actually similar to the complaint I have with catholic churchs - that they place dogma above the basic teachings. That being said, since I tend to date only middle eastern guys, I actually tend to end up following Islamic dogma as well. I can't remember the last time I ate pork, and I always somehow end up fasting.


If I were around there I show you some bacon love to let you know what you've been missing.
 
2013-03-31 10:31:53 PM  

Galileo's Daughter: sugardave:

Ah, but I know their hearts.  This game is too easy, perhaps I should start a church!

No, actually you don't.  but thanks for playing.


Sure I do!  We all know how to read each and every others' hearts.  I learned that straight from many religious leaders (both kinds; church-y and GOP) during this last election.  Maybe you need to go to a doctor or something and have your ability tested.
 
2013-03-31 10:34:58 PM  

Smackledorfer: rohar: "If the Higgs Boson does exist, why haven't we seen it before!?"  You see how dumb that is now, but it seemed to make sense 10 years ago.  Thank God scientists are more rational than that.

I'm not a scientist, but I'm pretty sure that argument wouldn't have made sense 10 years ago, or at any time in the history of science.

Here is the thing: when mankind first thought up gods as an explanation for the world around them, they had a concept they didn't understand and were proposing a theory of how it worked.

So how does the sun rise? A god with a chariot puts it up there.  Fair enough.  Here is where religion deviates from science.

A scientist might propose something that turns out to be laughably wrong later on, but until he has proved it, he certainly isn't laying other civilizations to waste over their alternate theory that it is Sol flying around.

Furthermore, no one proposed the Higgs-Boson, to my knowledge, prior to having a gap in science that such a particle would flesh out.  Certainly no one had "seen it" at its first point of conception, but evidence that something like it might exist was the very grounds for it to be conceived. The religious, on the other hand, have all sorts of extraneous stories and beliefs about their mumbo jumbo that, instead of existing as an answer to a question people were asking, exist just for the hell of it.

People weren't running around wondering if multiple types of threads should be woven into a single tunic.  But then one day it found its way into the bible.   


Scientists, should they have found a way to fill the gap in knowledge that the higgs-boson was thought up to complete, would stop assuming the higgs-boson was there.  I hold nothing against an ancient greek person wondering if his black and yellow bile levels were properly in balance.  I would hold a great deal against someone today who read about the four humors and decided it was true zero evidence supporting it and a plethora of evidence supporting alt ...


Ah, but there's the defining difference.  "I don't have any evidence of such a thing" is perfectly scientific.  "I don't believe it exists because I've never seen it" is bullshiat.

Logic requires much of the practitioner, it constrains the mind.  "It seemed to make sense" isn't the same as "It was logical".

Now seems a perfectly good time to resurrect one of FARK's infamous questions:

Would you believe (P or Q) = (Q or P)?
 
2013-03-31 10:35:01 PM  

rohar: I'm honestly agnostic.


Are you a theist or an atheist (you can't be neither)?
 
2013-03-31 10:35:23 PM  

rohar: skullkrusher: rohar: Barricaded Gunman: It's not very surprising that men predisposed to mystic thinking and rigid religious authority would be understanding of a woman with similar beliefs. Think about it... if you met a guy who seemed great, then found out he was a Scientologist, wouldn't it change your perception of him? Just knowing that he really believed all their nutty things that someone made up? Well that's how Christians tend to come across to those of us who don't have that set of beliefs.

Uh, my wife's devoutly Christian.  I'm honestly agnostic.  Thanks for speaking for the rest of us, as if you have any idea how to be socially acceptable or how a society works.

/asshole

My wife is faithful, I am a lapsed Catholic/agnostic and we get along just fine. My wife's family are Presbyterians, my side is pretty much exclusively RCs and we don't know any anti-science, anti-woman nutjobs on either sides of our respective families. It's almost as if he is making a rash generalization based on fear and ignorance in trying to speak about a group of people who allegedly live their lives in fear and ignorance.

No one is that awesomely ironic though so I must assume I've misinterpreted something

I'm not gonna touch it.  Too easy. :)


touch it. Caress it. Make sweet, sweet low hanging fruit love to it
 
2013-03-31 10:36:51 PM  

Smackledorfer: rohar: I'm honestly agnostic.

Are you a theist or an atheist (you can't be neither)?


I'm completely fascinated with religion.  I attend any number of religious events/sermons.  I don't believe in any of them.  I'm not sure what that makes me.
 
2013-03-31 10:37:02 PM  

Green Scorpio: Jesus never suggested that the government should take from some, and give to others. All He ever said on the subject was to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. Rather He said God helps those who help themselves.


So.... you don't believe that Rome at the EXACT time Jesus said this was using tax money from the rich to provide food for the poor? And had been doing so for many years? And that this was definitely a very significant part (i.e., known to everyone, and a significant percentage of the budget) of the Roman government at that time?

Are you sure about that one?
 
2013-03-31 10:37:39 PM  

rohar: Smackledorfer: rohar: I'm honestly agnostic.

Are you a theist or an atheist (you can't be neither)?

I'm completely fascinated with religion.  I attend any number of religious events/sermons.  I don't believe in any of them.  I'm not sure what that makes me.


Northeastern Catholic, I think.
 
2013-03-31 10:38:39 PM  
And if any of you in the DC area are interested in my church, here's their facebook page so you can learn more about them:

https://www.facebook.com/stannesreston
 
2013-03-31 10:39:31 PM  

skullkrusher: rohar: Smackledorfer: rohar: I'm honestly agnostic.

Are you a theist or an atheist (you can't be neither)?

I'm completely fascinated with religion.  I attend any number of religious events/sermons.  I don't believe in any of them.  I'm not sure what that makes me.

Northeastern Catholic, I think.


No wonder I'm having such problems!  I live in the Northwest.

We've got great salmon though, so there's that.
 
2013-03-31 10:41:54 PM  

rohar: skullkrusher: rohar: Smackledorfer: rohar: I'm honestly agnostic.

Are you a theist or an atheist (you can't be neither)?

I'm completely fascinated with religion.  I attend any number of religious events/sermons.  I don't believe in any of them.  I'm not sure what that makes me.

Northeastern Catholic, I think.

No wonder I'm having such problems!  I live in the Northwest.

We've got great salmon though, so there's that.


Catholics prolly roll the same way out that way too. It's mostly the South where they get weird but they have to compete with the other weirdness to fit in there
 
2013-03-31 10:44:39 PM  

skullkrusher: rohar: skullkrusher: rohar: Smackledorfer: rohar: I'm honestly agnostic.

Are you a theist or an atheist (you can't be neither)?

I'm completely fascinated with religion.  I attend any number of religious events/sermons.  I don't believe in any of them.  I'm not sure what that makes me.

Northeastern Catholic, I think.

No wonder I'm having such problems!  I live in the Northwest.

We've got great salmon though, so there's that.

Catholics prolly roll the same way out that way too. It's mostly the South where they get weird but they have to compete with the other weirdness to fit in there


This is where things come off the rails for me.  Look around the west.  Governers, federal representatives and senators.  Notice how many went to Calvinist "universities" in the south.

Mind numbing.
 
2013-03-31 10:45:46 PM  

KWess: There is actually some things, but they won't be particularly reassuring for the 'I got mine' crowd.


How about this:

Leviticus 19:14 Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling-block before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD.

And this:

Matthew 10:8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying; give without pay.

And more broadly speaking:

Deuteronomy 15:7-11 If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. Take care lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, 'The seventh year, the year of release is near,' and your eye look grudgingly on your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the Lord against you, and you be guilty of sin. You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, 'You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.'

Also, it seems to me that Jesus ran a series of free walk-in clinics:

Matthew 4:23-24 And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people. So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them.


None of which has any relevance to Obamacare.  Jesus said help the poor - he never said man should be compelled to help someone else at the point of a sword.  There's a difference between taxation and charity but you wouldn't know...you're one of those "Fark you! I've got mine!" people.

Somacandra: CanisNoir: I'm more libertarian than conservative and feel that it should be left up to the states

An actual libertarian would be concerned with actual *individual" rights rather than some imagined arbitrary collectivism, don't you think?


No, an actual libertarian would believe that if a state or locality wanted to run a healthcare program, they should be free to do so...so you're wrong.
 
2013-03-31 10:46:45 PM  
I don't recall reading anywhere that Jesus forced people to do things they didn't want to do...messes up that whole free will concept.

Obamacare was forced on the majority of the country that didn't want it. That's not the way of the Jesus.
 
2013-03-31 10:47:04 PM  

rohar: skullkrusher: rohar: skullkrusher: rohar: Smackledorfer: rohar: I'm honestly agnostic.

Are you a theist or an atheist (you can't be neither)?

I'm completely fascinated with religion.  I attend any number of religious events/sermons.  I don't believe in any of them.  I'm not sure what that makes me.

Northeastern Catholic, I think.

No wonder I'm having such problems!  I live in the Northwest.

We've got great salmon though, so there's that.

Catholics prolly roll the same way out that way too. It's mostly the South where they get weird but they have to compete with the other weirdness to fit in there

This is where things come off the rails for me.  Look around the west.  Governers, federal representatives and senators.  Notice how many went to Calvinist "universities" in the south.

Mind numbing.


well my wife's family is Calvinist (Presbyterian) but they're about as secular as you can get aside from saying Grace before holiday meals. Pretty sure the only predestination they believe in is the type that gets you into country clubs
 
2013-03-31 10:48:25 PM  

o5iiawah: There's a difference between taxation and charity but you wouldn't know


Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God's?
 
2013-03-31 10:48:50 PM  
jewmanist.com
 
2013-03-31 10:49:22 PM  

rohar: "I don't have any evidence of such a thing" is perfectly scientific.


Ok.

rohar: "I don't believe it exists because I've never seen it" is bullshiat.


I don't know how to respond to this exact phrase, and I would like to think you wouldn't play a word game with 'seen' after I respond.  So instead I will say the following:

I think it is perfectly logical to say "I do not believe X exists if there is insufficient* evidence that X exists".  There are only two states here:

1. I believe X exists.
2. I don't believe X exists.

Unless you have a very strange definition of the word "believe".

*I say insufficient because, frankly, a person I trust giving me an eye-witness account that the mail arrived is sufficient for me to believe there is mail in my mailbox (though I might be incorrect).  A person I trust giving me an eye-witness account that my dog set itself on fire and rose like a phoenix from the ashes would not be enough for me to believe it happened.

rohar: Would you believe (P or Q) = (Q or P)?


I never saw that on fark that I can remember, but given my understanding of how "or" works, yes the two are logically identical.

P or Q can be three things:
Only P
Only Q
Both P&Q
It makes no difference how you order them.  Is there a trick-question aspect I should be wasting my time trying to figure out before you gotcha! me and call me a moran?
 
2013-03-31 10:50:41 PM  

o5iiawah: None of which has any relevance to Obamacare.  Jesus said help the poor - he never said man should be compelled to help someone else at the point of a sword.


Wait.  Are the FEMA-trained ObamaYouth brownshirts sporting guns or swords?  I have some Kevlar, but I don't think it does well against edged low-velocity weapons.
 
2013-03-31 10:51:21 PM  

skilbride: How can you hate Christian's as a whole and judge them as a group


Get off the cross. When gays introduce legislation banning Christians from marrying, you'll have something to biatch about. Hear that clickity click? It's probably you typing that you don't have a problem with gays personally. Well, the institution you support sure as hell does.

You didn't ask for my advice but I'll offer it anyway. Instead of you whining to me about how we judge all Christians as hateful bigots, why don't you address your criticism to the Christians who are hateful bigots?

I'm fully aware that it's unfair for you to be held responsible for the entirety of Christianity. But it strikes me as kind of insensitive for you whine about people being nasty to you on Fark because you're a Christian when your fellow Christians are doing much MUCH worse to people in real life.

I am denied rights that other law abiding, tax paying American citizens enjoy as a matter of course. But ooh, someone was mean to you on Fark!
 
2013-03-31 10:51:42 PM  

rohar: Smackledorfer: rohar: I'm honestly agnostic.

Are you a theist or an atheist (you can't be neither)?

I'm completely fascinated with religion.  I attend any number of religious events/sermons.  I don't believe in any of them.  I'm not sure what that makes me.


While I realize there are some people who insist on making up stupid ways of defining atheist so they can stick it to the 'militant' atheists, or whatever, I have never encountered someone who confused the "theism vs. atheism" question with "do I believe in a religion".   You can have a religion without believing there is a god.  Atheism and Theism speak to one's belief in a god, not their adherence or faith in a religion.
 
2013-03-31 10:51:57 PM  
rohar:


For the life of me I don't know.  The entire premise is logically flawed.  Beyond that, if it's that irrelevant and impotent, why are we having this discussion at all?

Maybe because people insist that a)the biblical god does exist, and b) on that basis they should get to run my life according to what they decide their imaginary friend wants, often based on a millenia-old book of fairy tales.
 
2013-03-31 10:52:39 PM  

o5iiawah: None of which has any relevance to Obamacare. Jesus said help the poor - he never said man should be compelled to help someone else at the point of a sword. There's a difference between taxation and charity but you wouldn't know...you're one of those "Fark you! I've got mine!" people.


"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". I don't know any way of translating that other than, "pay your taxes", and in Jesus's day, Caesar used a good portion of these taxes to get the poor something to eat.

And Caesar did demand his taxes at the point of a sword.

o5iiawah: No, an actual libertarian would believe that if a state or locality wanted to run a healthcare program, they should be free to do so...so you're wrong.


No. A RON PAUL Libertarian would insist the State could do it, but not the Federal Government. A REAL Libertarian would insist that no governmental entity could do so.

...so you're wrong.
 
2013-03-31 10:53:28 PM  

ox45tallboy: Green Scorpio: Jesus never suggested that the government should take from some, and give to others. All He ever said on the subject was to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. Rather He said God helps those who help themselves.

So.... you don't believe that Rome at the EXACT time Jesus said this was using tax money from the rich to provide food for the poor? And had been doing so for many years? And that this was definitely a very significant part (i.e., known to everyone, and a significant percentage of the budget) of the Roman government at that time?

Are you sure about that one?


I bet he'd get really upset if he learned about Roman taxation for infrastructure that even the poors were allowed to use.
 
2013-03-31 10:54:20 PM  

shotglasss: I don't recall reading anywhere that Jesus forced people to do things they didn't want to do...messes up that whole free will concept.

Obamacare was forced on the majority of the country that didn't want it. That's not the way of the Jesus.


I seem to remember something about rendering unto Caesar.
 
2013-03-31 10:56:35 PM  

shotglasss: I don't recall reading anywhere that Jesus forced people to do things they didn't want to do...messes up that whole free will concept.

Obamacare was forced on the majority of the country that didn't want it. That's not the way of the Jesus.


Who are you to know Jesus' will?  Is it not conceivable that, via direct intervention by the King of Kings, Obama conceived of and implemented Obamacare BECAUSE it helps poor people?
 
2013-03-31 10:56:42 PM  

ox45tallboy: No. A RON PAUL Libertarian would insist the State could do it, but not the Federal Government. A REAL Libertarian would insist that no governmental entity could do so.

...so you're wrong.


well, strictly speaking a "REAL" libertarian has no problem with locally run health care as long as "membership" in the entity running the healthcare is completely optional.
Post-apocalypse, a few clans get together and think that they can provide healthcare for their members better if they join forces so they set up socialized healthcare. As long as you're a member of the clan collective, you must participate but you are free to leave the collective and the benefits that it provides. This is fully compatible with "real" libertarianism, right or left. Ironically, collectivism is cool under anarcho-capitalism.
 
2013-03-31 10:56:57 PM  

UndeadPoetsSociety: Maybe because people insist that a)the biblical god does exist, and b) on that basis they should get to run my life according to what they decide their imaginary friend wants, often based on a millenia-old book of fairy tales.


This cannot be repeated enough.  I'm sure there are atheists out there who go busting into churches biatching at them for believing something on their own time and affecting nobody else, but I am not one of those.  I have an issue with religion when they try to change public policies that directly affect my life on the basis of the beliefs they hold which have insufficient evidence supporting them. That holds true whether it is a religious belief, a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, or an Iraq war based on lies.

Asking for evidence before believing something and acting on it is a GOOD thing.
 
2013-03-31 10:57:19 PM  

The Why Not Guy: skilbride: How can you hate Christian's as a whole and judge them as a group

Get off the cross. When gays introduce legislation banning Christians from marrying, you'll have something to biatch about. Hear that clickity click? It's probably you typing that you don't have a problem with gays personally. Well, the institution you support sure as hell does.

You didn't ask for my advice but I'll offer it anyway. Instead of you whining to me about how we judge all Christians as hateful bigots, why don't you address your criticism to the Christians who are hateful bigots?

I'm fully aware that it's unfair for you to be held responsible for the entirety of Christianity. But it strikes me as kind of insensitive for you whine about people being nasty to you on Fark because you're a Christian when your fellow Christians are doing much MUCH worse to people in real life.

I am denied rights that other law abiding, tax paying American citizens enjoy as a matter of course. But ooh, someone was mean to you on Fark!


I think she's went to bed, but she has been rather gracious so I'll point out a few things I believe you missed:

She has stated that the church she attends has gay members and performs gay marriage ceremonies. She has been quite firm about not just her own acceptances of homosexuals, but her church's as well. She's also stated that was one of the criteria that led her to choose that church to attend. Finally, she has been critical of other churches that are not accepting of gays.

I understand your outrage, but if you read everything she's said in this thread, you shouldn't direct this particular outrage at her.
 
2013-03-31 10:58:59 PM  

Smackledorfer: I think it is perfectly logical to say "I do not believe X exists if there is insufficient* evidence that X exists". There are only two states here:

1. I believe X exists.
2. I don't believe X exists.


Your belief has no bearing to the existence of a thing.  Welcome to logic 101.

Smackledorfer: I never saw that on fark


Oh great shiat.  Google is your friend.  You'll find, with your search, that I cannot prove that your brain is made of cauliflower.
 
2013-03-31 11:01:29 PM  

skilbride: Anyways, I must go to bed!  Thank you Fark, for the surprising honesty and discussion about faith.  It's weird for me because I don't talk about it outside of my church but this was a great night for the first time talking about it somewhat openly.  :) :) :)

(Who would've thought it would happen on fark!!!)

Goodnight all! :)


Most (not all) Farkers don't dislike people of faith just because they have the faith. That would be every bit as judgmental as we accuse so many Christians of being. It's when religious people start codifying their personal beliefs into law that encompasses all of us that we get pissed. Or when that faith is used to justify a bigotry. And definitely when that faith is used to scam people. While you'll find the occasional asshole at Fark who outright mocks you for believing in a "sky wizard," on the whole we're a live-and-let-live group...until your God gets forcibly inserted into our lives. Having read most of this thread you don't appear to be one of those people. 
 
I won't lie and tell you that I like religion. I honestly believe it is holding us back in areas like science, sex-ed, basic civil rights based on bedroom behavior, et al. But that doesn't mean I have to dislike Christians who aren't bothering me. All I ask is not to have laws, curriculum, etc shoved in my face, and in return, I offer the same courtesy.
 
2013-03-31 11:01:43 PM  

Smackledorfer: I bet he'd get really upset if he learned about Roman taxation for infrastructure that even the poors were allowed to use.


You mean like that road to Jericho that the Good Samaritan was on? He and the others in the story) didn't have to pay no toll or nothin'? Or that prostitute at the well? She wasn't turnin' tricks just to get water?

What kind of a f*cked up system of government was Rome running? A system like that couldn't have lasted very long.
 
2013-03-31 11:02:29 PM  

Smackledorfer: rohar: Smackledorfer: rohar: I'm honestly agnostic.

Are you a theist or an atheist (you can't be neither)?

I'm completely fascinated with religion.  I attend any number of religious events/sermons.  I don't believe in any of them.  I'm not sure what that makes me.

While I realize there are some people who insist on making up stupid ways of defining atheist so they can stick it to the 'militant' atheists, or whatever, I have never encountered someone who confused the "theism vs. atheism" question with "do I believe in a religion".   You can have a religion without believing there is a god.  Atheism and Theism speak to one's belief in a god, not their adherence or faith in a religion.


That's interesting.  I don't profess or adhere to any religion.  I attend any number of different religious congregations of peoples to try and understand those peoples.
 
Religiously practicing atheist?
 
Why must I define myself to enter the conversation?
 
2013-03-31 11:05:39 PM  

shotglasss: I don't recall reading anywhere that Jesus forced people to do things they didn't want to do...messes up that whole free will concept.

 
Obamacare was forced on the majority of the country that didn't want it. That's not the way of the Jesus.
 
Because Obama didn't make HC reform a center plank of his campaign for president in 2008 and get elected by a majority of the citizenry based at least in part because of it?
 
Interesting theory.
 
2013-03-31 11:06:59 PM  

shotglasss: I don't recall reading anywhere that Jesus forced people to do things they didn't want to do...messes up that whole free will concept.

Obamacare was forced on the majority of the country that didn't want it. That's not the way of the Jesus.


Except the alternative is to continue with bankruptcies or outright refusal of care. No one - not even the biggest Fark Liberal - is particularly thrilled with ACA. But the end result it will provide is a damn sight better than the status quo.
 
Obviously I don't pretend to speak for Jesus. But I think he would at least shrug it off as an improvement so the least of his people have a better shot at living. Then he'd probably lobby for pure single-payer. You ever see that man pissed off? I read that book. He's wasn't all smiles and puppy dogs.
 
2013-03-31 11:06:59 PM  

shotglasss: I don't recall reading anywhere that Jesus forced people to do things they didn't want to do...messes up that whole free will concept.

Obamacare was forced on the majority of the country that didn't want it. That's not the way of the Jesus.

 
Except for the believe in me or go to hell part. Free will indeed.
 
Aside, healthcare reform was major plank of Obama's platform. It wasn't forced on anyone and didn't come out of the blue. America voted for it. Twice.
 
2013-03-31 11:08:55 PM  

quatchi: shotglasss: I don't recall reading anywhere that Jesus forced people to do things they didn't want to do...messes up that whole free will concept.
 
Obamacare was forced on the majority of the country that didn't want it. That's not the way of the Jesus.
 
Because Obama didn't make HC reform a center plank of his campaign for president in 2008 and get elected by a majority of the citizenry based at least in part because of it?
 
Interesting theory.


For the record, I do believe that a majority of those that voted for him on the basis of his statements regarding health care wanted single payer, not Obamacare. It's a victory in that almost no one is totally happy with it.
 
2013-03-31 11:11:29 PM  

rohar: Your belief has no bearing to the existence of a thing.  Welcome to logic 101.


 
Good point.  Can you show me where I said it did?
 
Also, guess where I can show you that I have, in this very thread and in the post to which you responded, show you where I know it does not.  
 

Smackledorfer: I think it is perfectly logical to say "I do not believe X exists if there is insufficient* evidence that X exists".  There are only two states here:

1. I believe X exists.
2. I don't believe X exists.

Unless you have a very strange definition of the word "believe".

*I say insufficient because, frankly, a person I trust giving me an eye-witness account that the mail arrived is sufficient for me to believe there is mail in my mailbox (though I might be incorrect).  A person I trust giving me an eye-witness account that my dog set itself on fire and rose like a phoenix from the ashes would not be enough for me to believe it happened.


 
Welcome to reading entire posts comprehensively.  Was it too long for you?
 

rohar: Oh great shiat.  Google is your friend.  You'll find, with your search, that I cannot prove that your brain is made of cauliflower.


Ahh, You don't have to read fewer than 100 characters in a post, barely longer than a freaking twitter, but I have to break out google to find the obscure rubbish that a poster not involved in the discussion rambled about in some other thread?  
 
Is it too much to ask that you hold yourself to a standard in the same ballpark as the one you require of others?
 

rohar: Why must I define myself to enter the conversation?


You don't have to, and I never said you did.  I asked a simple yes or no question.  
 
Does it bother you that I asked the question?
^also a simple yes or no question. 
/no you don't have to answer it in order to continue posting in this thread. It is a relatively free website and you don't need my permission, in case you were wondering.
 
2013-03-31 11:12:50 PM  
 

Smackledorfer: UndeadPoetsSociety: Maybe because people insist that a)the biblical god does exist, and b) on that basis they should get to run my life according to what they decide their imaginary friend wants, often based on a millenia-old book of fairy tales.

This cannot be repeated enough.  I'm sure there are atheists out there who go busting into churches biatching at them for believing something on their own time and affecting nobody else, but I am not one of those.  I have an issue with religion when they try to change public policies that directly affect my life on the basis of the beliefs they hold which have insufficient evidence supporting them. That holds true whether it is a religious belief, a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, or an Iraq war based on lies.

Asking for evidence before believing something and acting on it is a GOOD thing.

I agree almost completely; my only point of difference here is that if someone believes something stupid and contrary to the available evidence, and expresses that belief in my presence, I see no reason to refrain from pointing out that it's stupid and contrary to the evidence.
 
2013-03-31 11:17:09 PM  

ox45tallboy: Smelly McUgly: How we still have a bunch of people that insist that what Genesis says trumps science is amazing to me because we DON'T HAVE TO BELIEVE EVERYTHING WE READ in the Bible. It's infuriating.

You do understand that believing the Bible to be the divinely inspired word of God is definitely a tenet of a large portion of Christian denominations? And that a significant subset of these believe the Bible to be the LITERAL Word of God?

I understand that you're saying that this is not necessary in many denominations, and that you can follow the general ideas that Jesus gave and still call yourself a Christian, but in many places you pretty much are relegated to belief in the idea that the Bible is inerrant, or else Gog would not have allowed it to be here in its current form.

/circular logic


That the majority of denominations believe that is meaningless. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands of denominations, in the US. But the overwhelming majority of American Christians belong to less than 10 denominations, of which most are not literalists. Thousands of sub-100 member groups does not compare to even a few multi-million member denominations.
 
2013-03-31 11:19:52 PM  

ox45tallboy: So.... you don't believe that Rome at the EXACT time Jesus said this was using tax money from the rich to provide food for the poor? And had been doing so for many years? And that this was definitely a very significant part (i.e., known to everyone, and a significant percentage of the budget) of the Roman government at that time?


But he never said "Render unto Cesar so that he may give to the poor." The context of the statement was he was being trapped into speaking out against Rome. Jewish faith at that time, as pointed out by Kittypie, was to give to the poor, shelter the homeless and help those in need as commanded by God, that would make it the realm of "Giving to God that which is His" no Cesar.
 
2013-03-31 11:20:22 PM  

UndeadPoetsSociety: I agree almost completely; my only point of difference here is that if someone believes something stupid and contrary to the available evidence, and expresses that belief in my presence, I see no reason to refrain from pointing out that it's stupid and contrary to the evidence.


I think that is fair.  At Easter today I had the joy of having conversation with a person who claimed, in regards to gay marriage, that state laws always, in all cases, trumps federal law.  He supported this argument by saying in states, like ours, where marijuana is semi-legalized that federal agents have no standing to prosecute, that the federal government never forced states to allow interracial marriage (and that they all just chose to change their laws on their own) and that secession is a legal act for states. 
 
No religion involved, but I definitely gave him a piece of my mind.  Then he started supporting his pot argument with anecdotes claiming "Most people who have been charged by the federal government for pot crimes in states where it is legalized have one millions of dollars for false arrest" and "no federal actions have ever been successful in drug cases in states with legalized drugs".  
 
Then I admit I called him a retard and walked away. I expect by next year he will be in the papers for declaring himself sovereign and trying to run an admiralty court.
 
2013-03-31 11:22:34 PM  

Smackledorfer: Good point. Can you show me where I said it did?


That was kinda the pint of the conversation you hijacked.  Weird that way huh?  If you didn't want to take this position, why did you defend someone taking this position?
 

Smackledorfer: Ahh, You don't have to read fewer than 100 characters in a post, barely longer than a freaking twitter, but I have to break out google to find the obscure rubbish that a poster not involved in the discussion rambled about in some other thread?


If you'd like, I could replay the conversation with you.  You appear to be just educated enough to fall for it.  Or you could look it up and learn more than I can teach you here.  Your choice.  Efficiency or education, what to do?
 

Smackledorfer: You don't have to, and I never said you did


I define things for a living, I'm a DBA, it's what I do.  I cannot define you or me.  You asked me to make a Boolean choice.  Why?
 
2013-03-31 11:23:10 PM  

phalamir: ox45tallboy: Smelly McUgly: How we still have a bunch of people that insist that what Genesis says trumps science is amazing to me because we DON'T HAVE TO BELIEVE EVERYTHING WE READ in the Bible. It's infuriating.

You do understand that believing the Bible to be the divinely inspired word of God is definitely a tenet of a large portion of Christian denominations? And that a significant subset of these believe the Bible to be the LITERAL Word of God?

I understand that you're saying that this is not necessary in many denominations, and that you can follow the general ideas that Jesus gave and still call yourself a Christian, but in many places you pretty much are relegated to belief in the idea that the Bible is inerrant, or else Gog would not have allowed it to be here in its current form.

/circular logic

That the majority of denominations believe that is meaningless. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands of denominations, in the US. But the overwhelming majority of American Christians belong to less than 10 denominations, of which most are not literalists. Thousands of sub-100 member groups does not compare to even a few multi-million member denominations.


What about elected officials who either believe such rubbish or pretend they do for votes.  Is that meaningful?
What if they head intelligence committees?
 
2013-03-31 11:24:30 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: skilbride: Yeah, I do disagree.  I think that kind of attitude is the worst attitude to have.  It happens on both sides, but I don't see how you can justify your attitude towards all Christian's and then lame blame on those of us who are rational for not walking to talk to you.

 
You have to understand my position on American Christianity which is that it's a two thousand year old, Jewish mystery cult that somehow managed to propagate its ideas at the expense of the other mystery cults of the time. You don't have original texts for your holy book (which you claim is divinely inspired) and the closer you get to the origin of the religion, the more contradictory the written accounts become. You worship an invisible entity for which there is no documented evidence that does not also exist for any number of other deities, demigods and saints. In the exercise of your faith you eschew compassion in favor of judgement and are more concerned with the possibility of accumulating merit for a promised afterlife than ensuring that suffering is relieved in the only life you actually have evidence of.
 
Explain to me why I should want to talk to you.
 
THIS.
 
2013-03-31 11:29:07 PM  

quatchi: shotglasss: I don't recall reading anywhere that Jesus forced people to do things they didn't want to do...messes up that whole free will concept.
 
Obamacare was forced on the majority of the country that didn't want it. That's not the way of the Jesus.
 
Because Obama didn't make HC reform a center plank of his campaign for president in 2008 and get elected by a majority of the citizenry based at least in part because of it?
 
Interesting theory.


Not a theory. People overwhelmingly elected Obama a 2nd time well after he signed the legislation.

Trolls are funny, aren't they?
 
2013-03-31 11:30:19 PM  

CanisNoir: But he never said "Render unto Cesar so that he may give to the poor."


You're right. He never said "Don't render unto Caesar if he gives it to the poor," either. He simply said "Render unto Caesar."
 
2013-03-31 11:31:00 PM  

rohar: If you'd like, I could replay the conversation with you.  You appear to be just educated enough to fall for it.  Or you could look it up and learn more than I can teach you here.  Your choice.  Efficiency or education, what to do?

 
Efficiency is me skipping it entirely, I think. 
 
 

rohar: I define things for a living, I'm a DBA, it's what I do.


What you do for a living is irrelevant. What you do on fark is misrepresent what people say and then run around bringing up side points, demanding people google obscure shenanigans, and talking in circles, evidently.
 
I'll pass.  
 

rohar: You asked me to make a Boolean choice.  Why?


Just curious. I won't make the mistake of asking you a simple question again, don't worry.
 
2013-03-31 11:32:11 PM  

phalamir: That the majority of denominations believe that is meaningless. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands of denominations, in the US. But the overwhelming majority of American Christians belong to less than 10 denominations, of which most are not literalists. Thousands of sub-100 member groups does not compare to even a few multi-million member denominations.


Do I need to bring back out the photos from Creflo Dollar's church? And maybe a few more Prosperity Gospel Ministries?

At what point does a belief go from "unorthodox" to "mainstream"? I don't think you can call Prosperity Gospel doctrine "unorthodox" anymore, especially considering the number of adherents. By that same token, believing that the Bible was the inerrant and literal Word of God may not be universal nowadays, but you had better believe it was for most all of the history of Protestantism in the United States, especially during the Great Awakening periods, specifically the Third Great Awakening in the latter half of the 1800's. While many denominations have softened this approach, many congregations within those denominations, and many members of congregations who on the surface do not adhere to the doctrine of biblical literalism, do so themselves.

You cannot deny that a very significant percentage of practicing Christians (i.e., those who claim affiliation with a particular congregation of a particular Christian denomination) believe in biblical literalism. I don't think that it is fair to say that this belief is not part of mainstream Christian thinking, although I readily agree that it is not held by the majority of those who refer to themselves as "Christian".
 
2013-03-31 11:32:53 PM  

Smackledorfer: rohar: If you'd like, I could replay the conversation with you.  You appear to be just educated enough to fall for it.  Or you could look it up and learn more than I can teach you here.  Your choice.  Efficiency or education, what to do?
 
Efficiency is me skipping it entirely, I think. 
 
 
rohar: I define things for a living, I'm a DBA, it's what I do.

What you do for a living is irrelevant. What you do on fark is misrepresent what people say and then run around bringing up side points, demanding people google obscure shenanigans, and talking in circles, evidently.
 
I'll pass.  
 
rohar: You asked me to make a Boolean choice.  Why?

Just curious. I won't make the mistake of asking you a simple question again, don't worry.


Ladies and gentlemen, I give you intentional ignorance.  It doesn't' happen often, this cleanly, but here it is and it should be noticed.
 
If this is the voting public, we're farked
 
2013-03-31 11:32:56 PM  

rohar: jso2897: rohar: A Dark Evil Omen: rohar: Smelly McUgly: Monkeyhouse Zendo: skilbride: And God did not come down from the heavens and pen the bible himself.

And that, my dear, is the best argument that there is no such being.

I think the best argument that there is no God is that God has not revealed him/her/itself to all of us in an unequivocally obvious manner.

Now, as a believer in God, this doesn't really matter, but I use my rational, observational side to vote and learn more about the world and my irrational (and that isn't a negative) inner self to pontificate on the nature of God.

As long as you're a good dude, Monkeyhouse, I think that's all that matters.

I cannot agree.

You see, there is no proof of the nonexistence of a thing.  To attempt to prove that a thing does not exist IS irrational.

"If the Higgs Boson does exist, why haven't we seen it before!?"  You see how dumb that is now, but it seemed to make sense 10 years ago.  Thank God scientists are more rational than that.

And yet, the Christian deity has less evidence for his existence than the luminiferous aether and more against it. So I suppose we can say that he is as likely to exist as the luminiferous aether, or the flat earth or the Hippocratic humors.

And you have a similar grasp of logic that a fence post exhibits.

Anyone.  Anyone who would suggest that the nonexistence of a thing can be proven has absolutely no history in algebra.  Logic obviously defies you.  I'm not suggesting you're wrong, only that you should negotiate this issue from another angle.  Maybe one you have some mastery of.

Why would anyone want to "prove" the nonexistence of "god" when it's irrelevance and impotence is so manifestly obvious?

For the life of me I don't know.  The entire premise is logically flawed.  Beyond that, if it's that irrelevant and impotent, why are we having this discussion at all?


Beats the shiat outta me.
Alex, what is a "Dominatrix"?
 
2013-03-31 11:33:05 PM  

ox45tallboy: For the record, I do believe that a majority of those that voted for him on the basis of his statements regarding health care wanted single payer, not Obamacare. It's a victory in that almost no one is totally happy with it.

 
Point taken.
 
Hell, I was hoping for something closer to single payer myself (and still hold out hope that that's where HC is headed eventually) but after seeing the absolute shiat-fit the GOP threw when Obama tried to get them to vote for a plan that originally came from one of their own RW think tanks I realized that baby steps in the right direction like ACA were about all that was currently politically feasible.
 
2013-03-31 11:33:08 PM  

Amos Quito: Meanwhile back at the ranch...

[www.politicalnewsnow.com image 585x378]

"Render unto Caesar..."

 

We got the lame compromise because of all the douchebags that oppose universal single-payer.
 
2013-03-31 11:34:27 PM  

whidbey: Trolls are funny, aren't they?

 
Indeed.
 
/Not the good kind of funny, either.
 
2013-03-31 11:35:45 PM  

rohar: Ladies and gentlemen, I give you intentional ignorance.  It doesn't' happen often, this cleanly, but here it is and it should be noticed.
 
If this is the voting public, we're farked


Is this the pseudo-intellectual farker version of "study it out" in lieu of actually making your own points and speaking for yourself?
 
It looks like it.
 
2013-03-31 11:38:16 PM  

CanisNoir: But he never said "Render unto Cesar so that he may give to the poor." The context of the statement was he was being trapped into speaking out against Rome. Jewish faith at that time, as pointed out by Kittypie, was to give to the poor, shelter the homeless and help those in need as commanded by God, that would make it the realm of "Giving to God that which is His" no Cesar.


No, but I think it is fair to say he meant, "Give unto Caesar so that Caesar can use it as Caesar sees fit". And helping the poor was a long-established practice of the Roman government, and was well-known to be such.

Also, keep in mind that before Rome took over that neck of the woods, Jewish law wasn't just religious law, it was THE law. Part of your civic duty, not just your religious duty, was to pay your taxes, part of which went to helping the poor.

For those who speak of "tradition", most all societies throughout recorded history have helped the poor through taxing the rich and redistributing the wealth. Jesus wasn't proposing anything remotely revolutionary when he said to pay your taxes.
 
2013-03-31 11:39:32 PM  

Fubini: Matthew 25:31-46
New International Version (NIV)

The Sheep and the Goats

31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne.  32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.  33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.


34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdomprepared for you since the creation of the world.  35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,  36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?  38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?  39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.  42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,  43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.


B-b-b-b-uttt Socialisms~~
 
2013-03-31 11:40:08 PM  

Smackledorfer: At Easter today


Smackledorfer: Then I admit I called him a retard and walked away.


I'm hoping you left out a word other than "services" in that first phrase I quoted.
 
2013-03-31 11:43:40 PM  

Smackledorfer: rohar: Ladies and gentlemen, I give you intentional ignorance.  It doesn't' happen often, this cleanly, but here it is and it should be noticed.
 
If this is the voting public, we're farked

Is this the pseudo-intellectual farker version of "study it out" in lieu of actually making your own points and speaking for yourself?
 
It looks like it.


Hey, chill out for a sec...
 
You seem to agree that (P or Q) = (Q or P)
 
if that's the case you must agree that the following also resolve to true right?
 
'P OR (Q OR R)' = '(P OR Q) OR R'
'NOT P' = 'P NOR P'
'P NOR Q' = 'NOT (P OR Q)'
 
2013-03-31 11:45:41 PM  

Smackledorfer: What if they head intelligence committees?


In this case, gay marriage isn't related to this sort of intelligence, unless Al Qaeda is putting MFM "strictly platonic or more" ads on craigslist. I could give a f*ck what Steve King thinks as far as this is concerned, because it's going to come down to SCOTUS. If neither Roberts or Kennedy has the balls to do something here, then I believe the issue will be revisited as soon as we get a liberal majority.
 
2013-03-31 11:50:20 PM  

ox45tallboy: phalamir: That the majority of denominations believe that is meaningless. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands of denominations, in the US. But the overwhelming majority of American Christians belong to less than 10 denominations, of which most are not literalists. Thousands of sub-100 member groups does not compare to even a few multi-million member denominations.

Do I need to bring back out the photos from Creflo Dollar's church? And maybe a few more Prosperity Gospel Ministries?

At what point does a belief go from "unorthodox" to "mainstream"? I don't think you can call Prosperity Gospel doctrine "unorthodox" anymore, especially considering the number of adherents. By that same token, believing that the Bible was the inerrant and literal Word of God may not be universal nowadays, but you had better believe it was for most all of the history of Protestantism in the United States, especially during the Great Awakening periods, specifically the Third Great Awakening in the latter half of the 1800's. While many denominations have softened this approach, many congregations within those denominations, and many members of congregations who on the surface do not adhere to the doctrine of biblical literalism, do so themselves.

You cannot deny that a very significant percentage of practicing Christians (i.e., those who claim affiliation with a particular congregation of a particular Christian denomination) believe in biblical literalism. I don't think that it is fair to say that this belief is not part of mainstream Christian thinking, although I readily agree that it is not held by the majority of those who refer to themselves as "Christian".


Actually, until about 1900, literalism was considered the flakey fringe. Biblical interpretation was considered a multi-layered process. The literal reading was acknowledged, but considered the domain of children and those who weren't serious about their faith. Luther and Calvin thougjt you were borderline atheist to only consider the literal reading of Scripture. It was only with the rise of the fundamentalists in the fin de siecle that you have anyone trying to say a literal reading of Scripture was the alpha and omega of Biblical study, rather than a first step. And that makes sense, since even a cursory reading of the text shows enough contradictions to suggest God is either a schitzonphrenic sociopath, or hammered the Edit button like He was playing OCD whack-a-mole.
 
2013-03-31 11:51:45 PM  

quatchi: Hell, I was hoping for something closer to single payer myself (and still hold out hope that that's where HC is headed eventually) but after seeing the absolute shiat-fit the GOP threw when Obama tried to get them to vote for a plan that originally came from one of their own RW think tanks I realized that baby steps in the right direction like ACA were about all that was currently politically feasible.


"Baby steps" was the words Obama himself used when Jon Stewart interviewed him following the passage of ACA, and wanted to know what happened to single payer. I had visions of this:

www.magicloaf.net
"Baby step accept pre-existing conditions, baby step reign in profits, baby step get coverage to the poor..."
 
2013-03-31 11:53:46 PM  

give me doughnuts: We got the lame compromise because of all the douchebags that oppose universal single-payer.


www.theglobaledition.com
"Soooooooocialismm!"
 
2013-03-31 11:54:03 PM  

ox45tallboy: Smackledorfer: At Easter today

Smackledorfer: Then I admit I called him a retard and walked away.

I'm hoping you left out a word other than "services" in that first phrase I quoted.


I should have clarified "my family's easter get-together" I suppose.
 
2013-03-31 11:54:08 PM  

TalenLee: queezyweezel: Didn't JC advocate free will?

No, he didn't.


Seriously.
 
2013-03-31 11:59:24 PM  
giving people healthcare would be christlike.
 
forcing people into the arms of the "healthcare" industry is clear bullwhipping territory.
 
2013-04-01 12:02:42 AM  

Ned Stark: giving people healthcare would be christlike.
 
forcing people into the arms of the "healthcare" industry is clear bullwhipping territory.


OH GOD FORCING PEOPLE TO NOT GO BANKRUPT IS BULLWHIPPING!
 
2013-04-01 12:11:11 AM  

Ned Stark: giving people healthcare would be christlike.
 
forcing people into the arms of the "healthcare" industry is clear bullwhipping territory.


Odd that a libertarian would make such a compelling argument for a single-payer or universal healthcare option.  How European of you.
 
2013-04-01 12:12:57 AM  

ox45tallboy: I had visions of this:

 
[whataboutbob]
 
"Baby step accept pre-existing conditions, baby step reign in profits, baby step get coverage to the poor..."
 
Nice!
 
2013-04-01 12:14:47 AM  

phalamir: Actually, until about 1900, literalism was considered the flakey fringe. Biblical interpretation was considered a multi-layered process. The literal reading was acknowledged, but considered the domain of children and those who weren't serious about their faith. Luther and Calvin thougjt you were borderline atheist to only consider the literal reading of Scripture. It was only with the rise of the fundamentalists in the fin de siecle that you have anyone trying to say a literal reading of Scripture was the alpha and omega of Biblical study, rather than a first step. And that makes sense, since even a cursory reading of the text shows enough contradictions to suggest God is either a schitzonphrenic sociopath, or hammered the Edit button like He was playing OCD whack-a-mole.


First off, here's today:

sas-origin.onstreammedia.com

My point was that you can't say that a belief held by 30% of the population as a whole, or nearly 40% of those who consider themselves "Christian" (which still includes those who do not regularly attend services or claim affiliation with a particular denomination), is outside of the mainstream of Christianity. Not that the words "outside the mainstream" were used in the post I was replying to, but that was the general gist of the post.

Also, I have to disagree with you about biblical literalism in the Third Great Awakening. I do agree that due to increased education, many denominations began shying away from literal translations of the book of Genesis towards the end of the 1800's, but biblical literalism was definitely front and center from most all of the popular leaders of the movement, especially during its beginning and middle parts. Here's a good reference

A big part of this was the move away from the specifics of Calvinism, who had stated that perhaps the first part of the Bible should not be taken completely literally.
 
2013-04-01 12:17:50 AM  

Smackledorfer: I should have clarified "my family's easter get-together" I suppose.


So... insulting "in-law" is better than insulting "stranger at church services", I guess.

I don't disagree.
 
2013-04-01 12:18:03 AM  

whidbey: quatchi: shotglasss: I don't recall reading anywhere that Jesus forced people to do things they didn't want to do...messes up that whole free will concept.
 
Obamacare was forced on the majority of the country that didn't want it. That's not the way of the Jesus.
 
Because Obama didn't make HC reform a center plank of his campaign for president in 2008 and get elected by a majority of the citizenry based at least in part because of it?
 
Interesting theory.

Not a theory. People overwhelmingly elected Obama a 2nd time well after he signed the legislation.

Trolls are funny, aren't they?


You define "overwhelmingly" in a strange way.
 
2013-04-01 12:18:52 AM  

skilbride: the mere fact that I believe in God, and Christ, has made me feel like - in these threads at least - even if I get into the nitty gritty and explain to you why the people really hate this kind of stuff, you would disregard and attack me because of my faith.


Playing victim is fun, ain't it? Man, nothing satisfies quite like a persecution complex.
 
Very, very few people disregard and attack us because of our faith. We've been told this our entire lives, but unless you're unfortunate enough to live in the tribal areas of Pakistan or somewhere similar, this is simply not true. Most people that disregard and attack us do so because we act like utter douchenozzle know-it-alls trying to tell everyone how to run their lives.
 
But you're busy hanging up there on that cross of yours, so I won't take any more of your time.

/The least-preachy Christian you'll probably ever meet.
 
2013-04-01 12:22:03 AM  

ox45tallboy: Smackledorfer: I should have clarified "my family's easter get-together" I suppose.

So... insulting "in-law" is better than insulting "stranger at church services", I guess.

I don't disagree.


If it helps, I kind of felt bad for my cousin as I called her boyfriend (of years) a retard.  But she is working on her masters, and I am pretty sure she was mortified at the things he was saying :D
 
It would be funny if he were a farker reading this.
 
2013-04-01 12:27:48 AM  

skullkrusher: You define "overwhelmingly" in a strange way.

 
The final electoral map for the 2012 election looked pretty damned decisive.
 
Dems would have taken Congress back too if it wasn't for the GOP's 2010 gerrymandering not to mention constant attempts to screw with people's ability to cast a ballot through voter ID laws, caging, misinformation campaigns and the like.
 
2013-04-01 12:28:03 AM  

dookdookdook: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Your profile indicates you are not a "deep" thinker.

Says the guy who actually believes that Jesus cared more about free market individualism than helping the poor.


Derp. The world didn't know squat about free market individualism at that time. Jesus was preaching to individuals about individual morality, not corporations (which didn't exist then) or governments. As I said, morality is/must be individual action.
 
That is really a pretty basic concept in both philosophy and religion.
 
2013-04-01 12:28:50 AM  

Smackledorfer: If it helps, I kind of felt bad for my cousin as I called her boyfriend (of years) a retard.  But she is working on her masters, and I am pretty sure she was mortified at the things he was saying :D

It would be funny if he were a farker reading this.


Ha ha, Farkers don't have intelligent girlfriends in graduate programs. I think you're safe.

/I'll go ahead and pre-fix that one before posting it.
 
2013-04-01 12:30:30 AM  

blahpers: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Morality pertains to individuals, not collectives.

And thus the corporation was born.


Correct. Collective "morality" is a myth; the collective is used as a smokescreen to avoid individual responsibility. When a committee makes a decision, no one can be individually blamed for the results.
 
2013-04-01 12:32:44 AM  

quatchi: skullkrusher: You define "overwhelmingly" in a strange way.
 
The final electoral map for the 2012 election looked pretty damned decisive.
 
Dems would have taken Congress back too if it wasn't for the GOP's 2010 gerrymandering not to mention constant attempts to screw with people's ability to cast a ballot through voter ID laws, caging, misinformation campaigns and the like.


"People overwhelmingly elected Obama a 2nd time well after he signed the legislation. "
 
People. He is talking about the will of the people. Not the electoral map. People. Obama won by a 3.85% popular vote margin. The median since they've been recording the popular for in 1824 is right about 7.35%.
BO's victory is the 14th thinnest margin in the 47 elections since 1824 and that's including 4 Presidents who actually lost the popular vote but won the EC.
That is not an overwhelming popular vote win no matter how you cut it.
 
2013-04-01 12:33:13 AM  
Tithe = 10%
 
Sorry, what's the income + fica + sales + medicare + obama tax rate again?
Then include property tax, esatate tax, etc etc etc.
 
But okay THE BIBLE says its okay.... But then it also says other stuff you can't agree with, so which is it libs?
 
2013-04-01 12:33:59 AM  

Smackledorfer: Ned Stark: giving people healthcare would be christlike.
 
forcing people into the arms of the "healthcare" industry is clear bullwhipping territory.

Odd that a libertarian would make such a compelling argument for a single-payer or universal healthcare option.  How European of you.


Well the state taken as a whole clearly is something to be opposed too. But so is people dieing. I'd take a bunch of self organized health communes seeing to their own communities for the sake of the common good if it was an option, but lets be reasonable here.
 
2013-04-01 12:34:34 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Derp. The world didn't know squat about free market individualism at that time. Jesus was preaching to individuals about individual morality, not corporations (which didn't exist then) or governments. As I said, morality is/must be individual action.

That is really a pretty basic concept in both philosophy and religion.


I have a slight problem with that statement.

From Matthew 25, New International Version, emphasis mine

14 "Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. 15 To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag,[a] each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16 The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. 17 So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. 18 But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.

19 "After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20 The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.'

21 "His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

22 "The man with two bags of gold also came. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.'

23 "His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

24 "Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. 'Master,' he said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.'

The purpose of Jesus' parables was to express a moral in a way that the people of the time could understand.

Soooo..... you were saying?
 
2013-04-01 12:36:35 AM  

tjfly: Tithe = 10%
 
Sorry, what's the income + fica + sales + medicare + obama tax rate again?
Then include property tax, esatate tax, etc etc etc.
 
But okay THE BIBLE says its okay.... But then it also says other stuff you can't agree with, so which is it libs?


Why do you believe that Roman tax rates were set at 10%?
 
2013-04-01 12:40:06 AM  

skullkrusher: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The key point here is that Christ was speaking about voluntary INDIVIDUAL actions - NOT collective actions forced at the end of a government gun. Morality pertains to individuals, not collectives.

sure but if these asshats want to talk about legislating based on the Bible's teachings (and they do), they pretty much have to support these sorts of things. Well, I suppose they don't because those who want to force the Bible's teachings on the rest of us almost never support these sorts of things. Cept in Europe.


Yep. There's a whole bunch of cognitive dissonance there (regarding those who want to legislate based on Biblical teachings). But the point remains that you can't legislate moral action. If I give a worse off homeless guy some of my food (and I have) of my own free will, that's a moral action. If I am forced to do so at the end of a gun, it is not - whether or not I agree with the action/result. Furthermore, if I support creating a law that forces you to help someone else, my action is demonstrably not moral, because I, personally, have done nothing tangible (other than maybe flick a voting lever) to help the person in need.  If Joe points a gun at Bob and forces Bob to give money to Peter, Joe is acting immorally, for several reasons.... not the least of which is that by forcing Bob to give the money, he is denying Bob the chance to gain ethical merit by doing so voluntarily.
 
Ethics 101.
 
2013-04-01 12:42:08 AM  

Ned Stark: I'd take a bunch of self organized health communes seeing to their own communities for the sake of the common good if it was an option, but lets be reasonable here.


Good news, in countries where there isn't a rabidly irrational anti-government attitude the governments have managed to be quite effective and providing the needs of the population.  
 
Funny how well toys work when you don't have a party trying to break them to prove they don't work. 
 
No offense to you personally intended here.
 
2013-04-01 12:43:44 AM  

CanisNoir: sugardave: Seriously? Does coveting a particular charitable action help or hinder your ascension to paradise?

You are completely missing his point, or purposefully trying to be obtuse. A "good" work cannot be "good" if it's forced. Christ and Christian teachings are about doing "good" works. Having the government force you to do it, takes it out of the realm of "good" works, so it's wrong to say that Jesus and Christians should support the Government forcing people to do it.


You are missing the point.  A good work is an opportunity for you to feel good, whether it's coerced or not.  Adjust your attitude towards taxes to take advantage of the opportunities.  Doesn't require any religion, just interest in feeling good.
 
2013-04-01 12:46:02 AM  

Without Fail: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The key point here is that Christ was speaking about voluntary INDIVIDUAL actions - NOT collective actions forced at the end of a government gun. Morality pertains to individuals, not collectives.

And if you don't you'll be forced to suffer Eternal Damnation.
In Hell. The Inferno. Lake of Fire and Brimstone.

Churches are  collectives. They collect your money for 'good works' and threaten you with eternal suffering if you fail to comply.

You want to claim the virtue of Christianity without actually being Christian.


Churches are simply another method of mind-farking the masses and building power hierarchies. Real religion can/should be practiced by oneself. I've seen the evolution myself: a few people get together over coffee to discuss Bible passages; after a while there are more people doing so; pretty soon someone starts "organizing" the group, and soon there is a hierarchy, with a leader. Give that process a few decades and centuries and you have the Catholic Church (or any other religious institution).
 
Same farking thing happens in secular organizations. Collect stamps? Go to informal stamp collecting meetups? There are always one or two people who want to run it.
 
2013-04-01 12:49:30 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: But the point remains that you can't legislate moral action.


See, this is what so many people don't understand: the whole point of government feeding the less fortunate within their society isn't to give you a warm snuggy wuggy feeling in your heart, it's because if you don't feed them, they will steal in order to eat and steal more in order to feed their children. Period. It will occur. Starving people will find a way to eat. Furthermore, having a bunch of well-fed individuals is good in times of a national emergency, when you need troops to fight a war, or at least people who can do simple jobs that don't require training like bring ammunition and supplies to the soldiers.

Not having hungry people all around you means you can sleep better at night. Did you learn nothing from the French Revolution? The whole "let them eat cake" thing? That's what happens to a society when its full of hungry people and there are others that have food but won't share.

It isn't about morality, it's about it being the best thing to do for the security of the population as a whole, and the security of the governmental leaders. Hungry people will f*cking kill you to get your food.
 
2013-04-01 12:49:52 AM  

ox45tallboy: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Derp. The world didn't know squat about free market individualism at that time. Jesus was preaching to individuals about individual morality, not corporations (which didn't exist then) or governments. As I said, morality is/must be individual action.

That is really a pretty basic concept in both philosophy and religion.

I have a slight problem with that statement.

From Matthew 25, New International Version, emphasis mine

14 "Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. 15 To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag,[a] each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16 The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. 17 So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. 18 But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.

19 "After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20 The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.'

21 "His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

22 "The man with two bags of gold also came. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.'

23 "His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

24 "Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. 'Master,' he said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold i ...


Excellent point, but the fact remains that morality cannot reside in a collective entity/action.
 
2013-04-01 12:50:27 AM  

rohar: Would you believe (P or Q) = (Q or P)?


...you rang?

Smackledorfer: I never saw that on fark that I can remember,


Passing mention back at thread 6545815 is about as close as you've grazed by.

Smackledorfer: Is there a trick-question aspect I should be wasting my time trying to figure out before you gotcha! me and call me a moran?


Not until about a baker's dozen more premises get introduced. (Though about four more allow getting to basic propositional logic.)
 
2013-04-01 12:52:25 AM  

Smackledorfer: Ned Stark: I'd take a bunch of self organized health communes seeing to their own communities for the sake of the common good if it was an option, but lets be reasonable here.

Good news, in countries where there isn't a rabidly irrational anti-government attitude the governments have managed to be quite effective and providing the needs of the population.  
 
Funny how well toys work when you don't have a party trying to break them to prove they don't work. 
 
No offense to you personally intended here.

 
Unless you're talking about the Greens i dunno what it has to do with me at all.
 
2013-04-01 12:53:00 AM  

abb3w: Not until about a baker's dozen more premises get introduced. (Though about four more allow getting to basic propositional logic.)


I'm glad I went with my efficiency decision then :)
 
2013-04-01 12:53:46 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: You are missing the point. A good work is an opportunity for you to feel good, whether it's coerced or not. Adjust your attitude towards taxes to take advantage of the opportunities. Doesn't require any religion, just interest in feeling good.


And I say it's not that. I pay taxes to live in civilization, not to feel good. Even if feeding the hungry wasn't seen as a moral obligation, it would still be done by any government who wanted to stay in power. People do not politely die of starvation while others around them have plenty of food.
 
2013-04-01 12:55:04 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Excellent point, but the fact remains that morality cannot reside in a collective entity/action.


Read my next post. Government feeding the hungry is not a moral action, it's a survival action.
 
2013-04-01 12:55:51 AM  

Ned Stark: Unless you're talking about the Greens i dunno what it has to do with me at all.


Haven't heard of republicans and self-described libertarians?
 
2013-04-01 12:56:03 AM  

PsiChick: Also, holy fark this author sounds like a decent human being. I'd forgotten they existed.


Yes, he is.  I bow to him (and wow, too, 'cause I'm the BarkingUnicorn :-).
 
He cherry picks his Gospel, though.  While Luke says the two main commandments are all you need to get into Heaven, Mark says they are the foundation of the other laws and commandments and does not say the foundation alone is sufficient for salvation.
 
2013-04-01 01:05:13 AM  

Smackledorfer: I'm glad I went with my efficiency decision then :)


That's not even counting the inference stepss; tl,dr: parsimony results as a math theorem.
 
2013-04-01 01:07:22 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: PsiChick: Also, holy fark this author sounds like a decent human being. I'd forgotten they existed.

Yes, he is.  I bow to him (and wow, too, 'cause I'm the BarkingUnicorn :-).
 
He cherry picks his Gospel, though.  While Luke says the two main commandments are all you need to get into Heaven, Mark says they are the foundation of the other laws and commandments and does not say the foundation alone is sufficient for salvation.


Eh, but they do sum up the basic idea no matter which gospel you use. It's just a question of detail as far as I know theology*.
 
/*which may not be farther than I can throw a pink squirrel, it's been a while since my CCD classes.
 
2013-04-01 01:10:14 AM  
lmao -- forcing businesses to do something against their will is the opposite of Christ-like.
 
I guess people have never heard of free will.
 
2013-04-01 01:14:12 AM  

ox45tallboy: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: But the point remains that you can't legislate moral action.

See, this is what so many people don't understand: the whole point of government feeding the less fortunate within their society isn't to give you a warm snuggy wuggy feeling in your heart, it's because if you don't feed them, they will steal in order to eat and steal more in order to feed their children. Period. It will occur. Starving people will find a way to eat. Furthermore, having a bunch of well-fed individuals is good in times of a national emergency, when you need troops to fight a war, or at least people who can do simple jobs that don't require training like bring ammunition and supplies to the soldiers.

Not having hungry people all around you means you can sleep better at night. Did you learn nothing from the French Revolution? The whole "let them eat cake" thing? That's what happens to a society when its full of hungry people and there are others that have food but won't share.

It isn't about morality, it's about it being the best thing to do for the security of the population as a whole, and the security of the governmental leaders. Hungry people will f*cking kill you to get your food.


Valid point. A national safety net makes sense for those reasons. A though this may sound like I am contradicting myself (I'm not) there are also at least two other valid arguments for having a collective safety net.
 
What I'm objecting to is trying to justify any kind of safety net on a religious basis.
 
2013-04-01 01:18:17 AM  

Smackledorfer: Ned Stark: Unless you're talking about the Greens i dunno what it has to do with me at all.

Haven't heard of republicans and self-described libertarians?


whelp.
 
2013-04-01 01:19:01 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Excellent point, but the fact remains that morality cannot reside in a collective entity/action.

 
Of course it can and it does ever single day.
 
Collective actions by society are just the will of the individual writ large for everyone's ultimate benefit.
 
Wanting to live in a moral and just society and taking actions towards achieving those ends through political representation is the ultimate expression of morality in a modern world with this many people.
 
It's a reflection of the society's mores and a good indicator of how far along the moral evolution curve any given society has come.
 
Yes, individual actions are important but they are not the be all and end all you seem to think they are.
 
Somewhere along the way you obviously fell into the "all taxes are theft and coercion" sinkhole and you've never gotten out it appears.
 
2013-04-01 01:20:18 AM  

Smelly McUgly: A compassionate deity could not consign non-believers to eternal torment full stop.


So, amnesty on Judgment Day?
 
Thanks, Obama!
 
2013-04-01 01:23:37 AM  

ox45tallboy: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Excellent point, but the fact remains that morality cannot reside in a collective entity/action.

Read my next post. Government feeding the hungry is not a moral action, it's a survival action.


It is also an "equity" action.
 
There is also the whole looming issue of: seriously, guys, what the fark do we do when there IS NO WORK FOR 80% OF THE POPULATION? It will happen, probably withing 50-150 years. Automation and actual robots will be doing most of the labor. On the plus side, the actual ongoing (direct) cost (as opposed to amortized set-up cost) of most goods manufacturing will start approaching zero. (When robots repair/build robots and make shiat, there is no direct labor cost.)
 
At that time there will have to be some type of global safety net. Perhaps Social Credit?
 
2013-04-01 01:25:08 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Valid point. A national safety net makes sense for those reasons. A though this may sound like I am contradicting myself (I'm not) there are also at least two other valid arguments for having a collective safety net.

What I'm objecting to is trying to justify any kind of safety net on a religious basis.


Okay, I see what you're saying. I can't stop anyone else from attempting to justify social welfare programs using religion any more than I can stop them from justifying child rape using religion. But I can say that if you don't get a warm fuzzy wuzzy feeling for helping feed those less fortunate than yourself by paying your taxes, you should at least sleep better at night knowing that burglary, armed robbery, and violent revolution are less likely because the majority of those less fortunate are at least being fed enough to keep them from resorting to those sort of behaviors.
 
2013-04-01 01:25:14 AM  

Ned Stark: Smackledorfer: Ned Stark: Unless you're talking about the Greens i dunno what it has to do with me at all.

Haven't heard of republicans and self-described libertarians?

whelp.


Cub.
 
2013-04-01 01:27:52 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Excellent point, but the fact remains that morality cannot reside in a collective entity/action


quatchi: Of course it can and it does ever single day.


I could also add, then what is the purpose of a jury if not to take a moral action as a collective of persons?
 
2013-04-01 01:32:31 AM  

giftedmadness: I guess people have never heard of free will.


Where is the free will in the First Commandment?
Not to mention the rest of the books.
 
2013-04-01 01:34:09 AM  

queezyweezel: Didn't JC advocate free will?  I don't think the Government forcing you to buy health insurance follows that principle.


So then why is forcing them not to get gay married ok?
 
It's good not to force people to help poor people but forcing people not to be gay or have abortion o other moral issues are fine?
 
2013-04-01 01:34:37 AM  
I find it hilarious so many of you are against health care reform because you would rather have people redistributing the wealth instead of government. THE GOVERNMENT IS FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE!!! It is not a dictatorship, you can get involved and help shape it if it is not working to your liking.
 
2013-04-01 01:35:47 AM  

quatchi: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Excellent point, but the fact remains that morality cannot reside in a collective entity/action.
 
Of course it can and it does ever single day.
 
Collective actions by society are just the will of the individual writ large for everyone's ultimate benefit.
 
Wanting to live in a moral and just society and taking actions towards achieving those ends through political representation is the ultimate expression of morality in a modern world with this many people.
 
It's a reflection of the society's mores and a good indicator of how far along the moral evolution curve any given society has come.
 
Yes, individual actions are important but they are not the be all and end all you seem to think they are.
 
Somewhere along the way you obviously fell into the "all taxes are theft and coercion" sinkhole and you've never gotten out it appears.


Lordy, Lordy.....
 
Of course it can and it does ever single day.
 
Ummmm.... no.

Collective actions by society are just the will of the individual writ large for everyone's ultimate benefit.
 
The individual? Which individual is that? Please point him out. Oh, wait, you mean ALL individuals. so.... they all agree on a course of action? Every single one? Oh, wait, you're gonna count noses, and the majority noses win? What if the majority of noses decide that quatchi is an idiot and that, to improve the species (for everyone's ultimate benefit - except  quatchi, of course) he needs to be rendered down into a tub of lard and gold fillings? Your sentence above is a meaningless platitude with zero information content.
 
Wanting to live in a moral and just society and taking actions towards achieving those ends through political representation is the ultimate expression of morality in a modern world with this many people.
 
Circular argument. Moral actions come from individuals doing individual actions. They cannot be collectivized.
 
It's a reflection of the society's mores and a good indicator of how far along the moral evolution curve any given society has come.
 
More meaningless platitude.
 
Yes, individual actions are important but they are not the be all and end all you seem to think they are.
 
Yes, they are.
 
Somewhere along the way you obviously fell into the "all taxes are theft and coercion" sinkhole and you've never gotten out it appears.
 
 
Mind read much? I have no problem with fair taxes. Government is a necessity, and it's gotta be paid for in some manner. Seriously, Alice, you should know something about a person before you go off hysterically saying shiat. Take a pill, go to bed, and cool off. You're raving.
 
2013-04-01 01:37:56 AM  
There is nothing 'Christlike' about robbing Peter to pay Paul.  Christ called on people to use their wealth and power to aid the poor and helpless themselves. Not to vote for someone that would force others to do it for them.
 
2013-04-01 01:39:45 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: It is also an "equity" action.

There is also the whole looming issue of: seriously, guys, what the fark do we do when there IS NO WORK FOR 80% OF THE POPULATION? It will happen, probably withing 50-150 years. Automation and actual robots will be doing most of the labor. On the plus side, the actual ongoing (direct) cost (as opposed to amortized set-up cost) of most goods manufacturing will start approaching zero. (When robots repair/build robots and make shiat, there is no direct labor cost.)

At that time there will have to be some type of global safety net. Perhaps Social Credit?


There is already the problem of the idle rich, which has occurred ever since the first prince decided not to kill of his brothers on the day dad died. Some people just inherit lots and lots of money from the work of their forefathers. Can anyone explain Paris Hilton? I mean, seriously, explain her.

There is a school of thought in that society also benefits from the work of those who come before them; look at the Great Wall of China and the number of generations it protected China from the Mongolian hordes. There is another school of thought that overlaps on a Venn diagram that says that perhaps everyone should benefit equally from the work of all the humans before us, since we're all related somehow anyways. There are enough people that want to do work that could be paid to do so, and enough machines and robots to make it so that those who don't want to work, or at least not work hard, don't have to, as long as we put a limit on the ridiculous accumulation of wealth by the richest of our society. Is there not some point at which a person says, "You know, this is enough. I could spend a million dollars a day just in interest payments and never even touch the money in the bank. Why am I still trying to accumulate more?"

www.theblaze.com
"The f*ck are you talking about, tallboy?"


Once we reach the point that you have described, capitalism as we know it will cease to be feasible as market theory, and we'll need to think of something else. Social credit has its good points, but we also need to offer incentive for those who want to make the machines even more efficient. We'll also need people to design things, mostly methods of exploration to move our species to other parts of the solar system and eventually galaxy to ensure its survival.
 
2013-04-01 01:40:24 AM  

Talondel: There is nothing 'Christlike' about robbing Peter to pay Paul.  Christ called on people to use their wealth and power to aid the poor and helpless themselves. Not to vote for someone that would force others to do it for them.


Too little too late.
 
2013-04-01 01:43:28 AM  

ox45tallboy: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Excellent point, but the fact remains that morality cannot reside in a collective entity/action

quatchi: Of course it can and it does ever single day.

I could also add, then what is the purpose of a jury if not to take a moral action as a collective of persons?


Courts of law are NOT upholders of moral law. They are upholders of LEGAL law. Juries are asked to make decisions about violations of The State's LAW. There IS, of course, a difference between morality and legality. We can all think of many different examples (based on our politics, I suspect) of laws which we deem to be IMmoral.
 
The fact that much of legal law is justified to the masses by appealing to what the power structure defines as moral law is irrelevant to the actions of the jury. Note, also, that THAT is the rationale behind the desire to quash the Jury Nullification concept, which IS based (or at least includes) a morality component.
 
2013-04-01 01:45:50 AM  

Talondel: There is nothing 'Christlike' about robbing Peter to pay Paul.  Christ called on people to use their wealth and power to aid the poor and helpless themselves. Not to vote for someone that would force others to do it for them.


Render unto Cesar.
 
2013-04-01 01:47:30 AM  

GAT_00: queezyweezel: Didn't JC advocate free will?  I don't think the Government forcing you to buy health insurance follows that principle.

Yes, let's examine all of Christ's teachings on buying health care:

...

...

...

Fascinating.


Subby has his head so far up his ass he's seeing daylight.
Obama is satan-like.
 
2013-04-01 01:52:58 AM  
I know you weren't replying to me, but I gotta respond here.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Of course it can and it does ever single day.

Ummmm.... no.


Ummmm yes. Have you ever seen a church distribute money from its coffers to a good cause? What individual gets the credit there?

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Collective actions by society are just the will of the individual writ large for everyone's ultimate benefit.

The individual? Which individual is that? Please point him out. Oh, wait, you mean ALL individuals. so.... they all agree on a course of action? Every single one? Oh, wait, you're gonna count noses, and the majority noses win? What if the majority of noses decide that quatchi is an idiot and that, to improve the species (for everyone's ultimate benefit - except quatchi, of course) he needs to be rendered down into a tub of lard and gold fillings? Your sentence above is a meaningless platitude with zero information content.


The simple fact that a society does not vote to render quatchi into a tub of lard is a moral action on the part of society as a whole, and not the individual who would be tasked with doing the rendering. Nor does society permit any freelance quatchi rendering by any individual. In fact society as a whole pays individuals to watch out for quatchi renderers, and prevent them from rendering quatchis if they can and apprehend them if they are too late to prevent the rendering. Society as a whole also pays individuals to not only prosecute suspected quatchi renderers, but also to defend those accused of rendering quatchi, just to be sure that no one is punished for rendering quatchi unless society is prett darn sure that they got the one who actually rendered quatchi.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Wanting to live in a moral and just society and taking actions towards achieving those ends through political representation is the ultimate expression of morality in a modern world with this many people.

Circular argument. Moral actions come from individuals doing individual actions. They cannot be collectivized.


So your saying that individuals lose the morality of their actions by being assisted in those actions by others, who have also made the same decision to take a moral action? The leather manufacturer who donates leather, the shoe manufacturer who donates shoes, together with the person who transports and presents the shoes to the guy who needs them, none of them have committed the moral action of shoeing the shoeless because they did not take the action by themselves.

Really?

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Yes, individual actions are important but they are not the be all and end all you seem to think they are.

Yes, they are.


Man, are you ever individualistic. If you really are homeless, who do you thank when you receive a meal? The people who donated food, or money to purchase the food? The people who cooked it? The people who served it? The company who provided the plate and cutlery? The people who donated money for the place you eat it? The government for providing the grant money for the purchase of the shelter and subsidies for the food? The taxpayers who provided that money to the government?
 
2013-04-01 02:01:13 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Courts of law are NOT upholders of moral law. They are upholders of LEGAL law. Juries are asked to make decisions about violations of The State's LAW. There IS, of course, a difference between morality and legality. We can all think of many different examples (based on our politics, I suspect) of laws which we deem to be IMmoral.

The fact that much of legal law is justified to the masses by appealing to what the power structure defines as moral law is irrelevant to the actions of the jury. Note, also, that THAT is the rationale behind the desire to quash the Jury Nullification concept, which IS based (or at least includes) a morality component.


The jury nullification concept is only a part of it, and that is only relevant to criminal cases. In civil cases, juries are required to make decisions not just on the law itself, but how it applies to the actions of the individuals. These are moral arguments, not legal arguments. There is no legal definition for "reasonable and prudent" that is any more clear than the words themselves. Therefore, when faced with those words, in, say, a wrongful death lawsuit, a jury must decide if someone acted within the moral bounds of their responsibility, not just their legal. In this way, moral does become legal. If it is not clear that the law was violated, or if the law itself is not clear (which is what commonly happens when a case makes it to a jury - otherwise there would be an out-of-court settlement instead of a trial), then the jury must make moral judgements of right and wrong.

And they must do so as a collective.
 
2013-04-01 02:01:52 AM  

 Just Another OC Homeless Guy: It is also an "equity" action.

There is also the whole looming issue of: seriously, guys, what the fark do we do when there IS NO WORK FOR 80% OF THE POPULATION? It will happen, probably withing 50-150 years. Automation and actual robots will be doing most of the labor. On the plus side, the actual ongoing (direct) cost (as opposed to amortized set-up cost) of most goods manufacturing will start approaching zero. (When robots repair/build robots and make shiat, there is no direct labor cost.)

At that time there will have to be some type of global safety net. Perhaps Social Credit?


There is already the problem of the idle rich, which has occurred ever since the first prince decided not to kill of his brothers on the day dad died. Some people just inherit lots and lots of money from the work of their forefathers. Can anyone explain Paris Hilton? I mean, seriously, explain her.

There is a school of thought in that society also benefits from the work of those who come before them; look at the Great Wall of China and the number of generations it protected China from the Mongolian hordes. There is another school of thought that overlaps on a Venn diagram that says that perhaps everyone should benefit equally from the work of all the humans before us, since we're all related somehow anyways. There are enough people that want to do work that could be paid to do so, and enough machines and robots to make it so that those who don't want to work, or at least not work hard, don't have to, as long as we put a limit on the ridiculous accumulation of wealth by the richest of our society. Is there not some point at which a person says, "You know, this is enough. I could spend a million dollars a day just in interest payments and never even touch the money in the bank. Why am I still trying to accumulate more?"

"The f*ck are you talking about, tallboy?"


Once we reach the point that you have described, capitalism as we know it will cease to be feasible as market theory, and we'll need to think of something else. Social credit has its good points, but we also need to offer incentive for those who want to make the machines even more efficient. We'll also need people to design things, mostly methods of exploration to move our species to other parts of the solar system and eventually galaxy to ensure its survival.
Not just the "capitalism" we practice (which is actually a form of Corporate Socialism) but also full-fledged Socialism (i.e.: NON-market-based economics. All of economics, all theories and schemes, are all based on the concept of scarcity. We are quickly approaching the point where scarcity will not exist, for at least certain consumer goods.
 
Food? This country has more food than we know what to do with. (The starving masses in Africa, Asia, etc. are a function of gangster dictators using the "Food Weapon" and hung-up logistics rather than lack of food).
 
I got food at St Polycarp Catholic Church in Garden Grove last Friday. They have handouts 3 times a week. It is NOT a big church. While I was there, a pickup belonging to the food volunteers drove up, loaded to groaning point with pallets of canned food. The driver shouted that there were more trucks on the way with another 7,000 pounds of canned food. The volunteers were freaking out about where they could store it.
 
Stanton Parks and Recreation hosts 5 to 7 food handouts per month: Government Food, Brown Bag, And Nutrition Box. Last Friday they had a farking SEMI deliver 27 pallets of meat, cheese, canned goods, fresh vegetables, etc.
 
These are NOT isolated examples. I've done the research. When we were homeless we could go to any of literally over 250 locations in Orange County to get food.
 
Anyone who doubts this should Google "Second Harvest" and take a gander at just how farking HUGE they are.
 
2013-04-01 02:03:35 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Moral actions come from individuals doing individual actions. They cannot be collectivized.


All collective actions are done by groups of individuals your argument makes less than zero sense.
 
Am I arguing with a philosophy major or something here? Cos that would explain a few things.
 
2013-04-01 02:03:36 AM  
Just going to assume this is a typical farklib thread without even reading it.
 
Jesus would be a Democrat.
Socialized Healthcare is the most Christian thing ever.
Every conservative is a close minded bigot.
 
Do I win, or did you liberals actually read the article?
 
Sincerely,
 
Slutter McGee
 
2013-04-01 02:04:23 AM  

Talondel: Christ called on people to use their wealth and power to aid the poor and helpless themselves.

 
And yet the poor and helpless still exist in multitudes. Sounds like the wealthy and powerful haven't gotten the job done.
 
2013-04-01 02:04:51 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Seriously, Alice, you should know something about a person before you go off hysterically saying shiat. Take a pill, go to bed, and cool off. You're raving.

 
*rolls eyes*
 
2013-04-01 02:06:46 AM  

redmond24: There's a fine line between saying something provocative and saying something stupid. You crossed it.


Except for the part where he's... Y'know... Completely correct. Really, the number of Christians I've ever met who followed the teachings of Christ could probably be counted on my fingers. The rest either follow Paul (the hateful, bigoted types) or Mammon (the Prosperity Gospel types). Or have you never actually read the Bible?
 
2013-04-01 02:10:33 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: I got food at St Polycarp Catholic Church in Garden Grove last Friday. They have handouts 3 times a week. It is NOT a big church. While I was there, a pickup belonging to the food volunteers drove up, loaded to groaning point with pallets of canned food. The driver shouted that there were more trucks on the way with another 7,000 pounds of canned food. The volunteers were freaking out about where they could store it.


So.... which individual gets the moral credit for providing your dinner?
 
2013-04-01 02:31:17 AM  

skilbride: Hi!  Christian over here!

I really want to talk politics with you guys, but I don't feel like I can particularly   It's not that I am a person who goes around trying to convince people to join my church, or I spend a lot of time talking about my personal relationship with God... but I get the feeling that among the liberal crowd in fark I'm not welcome.

Never mind that I think there should be some sort of baseline healthcare (although I don't agree forcing us to pay insurance companies is the way to do it), nevermind that I actually think gays should be allowed to marry (and have picked a church that supports my views) but the mere fact that I believe in God, and Christ, has made me feel like - in these threads at least - even if I get into the nitty gritty and explain to you why the people really hate this kind of stuff, you would disregard and attack me because of my faith.

So if you really want to know, I can tell you how it contradicts with the Christian values - but if you're just trolling and getting on the Christian hate train, I won't waste my breath.


I followed your posts and discussions through much of the thread. There seem to be a few things that you aren't considering. One would be the label "christian". Being a christian wasn't a thing throughout most of the last millennium or two. There have been a great many different sects that have fallen under the umbrella of Christianity, but they have considered themselves as different and separate until very recently.
Wiki Reference here.
 
It seems that a great many Americans these days don't understand that the differences exist and also lump them all into a large group they call Christians. For instance, I've seen people surprised that evolution was taught in Catholic schools, even though the Catholic church officially accepted evolution in 1950. Others seem to think that snake handling is an accepted practice among Christians without understanding that the practice exists mostly among Pentecostal churches.

My mother and my father were Methodist and Baptist, respectively. They weren't really church goers, but they let my sister and I attend whatever church services we wanted to at whatever church we wanted to. As a boy (10 or so) I went to many different churches. I continued this practice until I was a young man (24 or so) and noticed a lot of differences. Not only between different sects, but also between different churches of the same sect.

My point is, throwing all followers of Christ's teachings into the same group is ridiculous. Throwing yourself into the same group as all other followers of Christ's teachings is ludicrous.
 
2013-04-01 02:37:03 AM  

ox45tallboy: I know you weren't replying to me, but I gotta respond here.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Of course it can and it does ever single day.

Ummmm.... no.

Ummmm yes. Have you ever seen a church distribute money from its coffers to a good cause? What individual gets the credit there?

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Collective actions by society are just the will of the individual writ large for everyone's ultimate benefit.

The individual? Which individual is that? Please point him out. Oh, wait, you mean ALL individuals. so.... they all agree on a course of action? Every single one? Oh, wait, you're gonna count noses, and the majority noses win? What if the majority of noses decide that quatchi is an idiot and that, to improve the species (for everyone's ultimate benefit - except quatchi, of course) he needs to be rendered down into a tub of lard and gold fillings? Your sentence above is a meaningless platitude with zero information content.

The simple fact that a society does not vote to render quatchi into a tub of lard is a moral action on the part of society as a whole, and not the individual who would be tasked with doing the rendering. Nor does society permit any freelance quatchi rendering by any individual. In fact society as a whole pays individuals to watch out for quatchi renderers, and prevent them from rendering quatchis if they can and apprehend them if they are too late to prevent the rendering. Society as a whole also pays individuals to not only prosecute suspected quatchi renderers, but also to defend those accused of rendering quatchi, just to be sure that no one is punished for rendering quatchi unless society is prett darn sure that they got the one who actually rendered quatchi.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Wanting to live in a moral and just society and taking actions towards achieving those ends through political representation is the ultimate expression of morality in a modern world with this many people.

Circular argument. Moral actions come from individuals doing individual actions. They cannot be collectivized.


So your saying that individuals lose the morality of their actions by being assisted in those actions by others, who have also made the same decision to take a moral action? The leather manufacturer who donates leather, the shoe manufacturer who donates shoes, together with the person who transports and presents the shoes to the guy who needs them, none of them have committed the moral action of shoeing the shoeless because they did not take the action by themselves.

Really?

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Yes, individual actions are important but they are not the be all and end all you seem to think they are.

Yes, they are.

Man, are you ever individualistic. If you really are homeless, who do you thank when you receive a meal? The people who donated food, or money to purchase the food? The people who cooked it? The people who served it? The company who provided the plate and cutlery? The people who donated money for the place you eat it? The government for providing the grant money for the purchase of the shelter and subsidies for the food? The taxpayers who provided that money to the government?


Ummmm yes. Have you ever seen a church distribute money from its coffers to a good cause? What individual gets the credit there?
 
Yes, I have. I've, in fact, benefited from it.  The wife and I are not homeless now because individuals at a local church voluntarily chipped a few dollars each to cover part of our deposit. The church acted as the unpaid distributor of those voluntary contributions. The credit goes to the people that chipped in. Note that this is entirely different from the action of a government, which is coerced.
 
The simple fact that a society does not vote to render quatchi into a tub of lard is a moral action on the part of society as a whole, and not the individual who would be tasked with doing the rendering. Nor does society permit any freelance quatchi rendering by any individual. In fact society as a whole pays individuals to watch out for quatchi renderers, and prevent them from rendering quatchis if they can and apprehend them if they are too late to prevent the rendering. Society as a whole also pays individuals to not only prosecute suspected quatchi renderers, but also to defend those accused of rendering quatchi, just to be sure that no one is punished for rendering quatchi unless society is prett darn sure that they got the one who actually rendered quatchi.
 
It is a LEGAL action of society as a whole, NOT a MORAL action. Example (not to Godwin the thread): there has been at least one society where it was LEGAL (by that society's laws) to render "undesirables" into lard. If you contend that societies inculcate morality, then what morality was this?
 
Morality is (sometimes) used as justification for law. Law and morality are two different things.
 So your saying that individuals lose the morality of their actions by being assisted in those actions by others, who have also made the same decision to take a moral action? The leather manufacturer who donates leather, the shoe manufacturer who donates shoes, together with the person who transports and presents the shoes to the guy who needs them, none of them have committed the moral action of shoeing the shoeless because they did not take the action by themselves.

 
But they are individual actions. They have collectively (and voluntarily) contributed to that action of shoeing the shoeless. None of them could do it by themselves, so they combined their various specialties to accomplish the action.
 
Voluntary individual actions in pursuit of moral results do not have to by themselves cause the result; they can bed part of a voluntary collective effort.
 
The key concept is voluntary - which starts with individual, non-coerced action.
 
Man, are you ever individualistic. If you really are homeless, who do you thank when you receive a meal? The people who donated food, or money to purchase the food? The people who cooked it? The people who served it? The company who provided the plate and cutlery? The people who donated money for the place you eat it? The government for providing the grant money for the purchase of the shelter and subsidies for the food? The taxpayers who provided that money to the government?
 
I was homeless; not now (but I can't change the name). Who do I thank? All of the above. Individualism is not about "self-reliance" in all things. It's about thinking for yourself, among other things. (Hell, even the citizens of Galt's Gulch relied on each other for various things.)
 
Being homeless for almost a year opened my eyes and changed some of my opinions and politics. It is true that you cannot know another man until you walk in his shoes. Been there, done that. Gone from $100k/yr jobs to living in a camper shell and stretching $20 to last a week. I've even done a few illegal (but not imho immoral) things to make money I needed to survive.
 
This being Fark, I suspect there are a lot of people - many being confirmed uber-liberals - here whose lives have not gone though a lot of changes.  Perhaps, when you do, you will have the intellectual honesty to reassess your own opinions and politics.
 
2013-04-01 02:51:15 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: But they are individual actions. They have collectively (and voluntarily) contributed to that action of shoeing the shoeless. None of them could do it by themselves, so they combined their various specialties to accomplish the action.


I understand what you're saying. But the fact is that none of us are forced to live in this society. There are other countries to immigrate to, especially if you are trained in a technical field. One of the rules of our society is to help out those less fortunate, and since most of us don't know where to begin, we instead pay in tax money and pay some of that money to people who identify those who need help, and others who provide it. It's something we do because it makes our whole society better, and whether you receive food stamps or a meal from a soup kitchen, you are still being fed. If you feel that the soup kitchen was a more morally satisfying meal because it was provided through donations, and the meal from the food stamps was provided through involuntary taxation, you are free to feel that way, but you're still fed.

I'm not going to argue that assistance to the needy provided through taxation is a moral action; my only argument was against your statement that moral actions must be from individuals and not from a collective. You yourself provided examples of times in which you were helped by a collective, as no individual possessed the skills or resources to provide you with assistance on their own. The end result was still that you got fed, and it was the direct result of individuals acting in a collective manner, all of whom did so voluntarily.

I still feel the government's actions of providing for those less fortunate don't necessarily stem from a moral imperative of society, merely a survivalistic one - either you feed them or they will kill you and put someone in power who will, just like the French did. But you can't discount the motivations when the end result is the same - the hungry still get fed.
 
2013-04-01 03:05:45 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: It is a LEGAL action of society as a whole, NOT a MORAL action. Example (not to Godwin the thread): there has been at least one society where it was LEGAL (by that society's laws) to render "undesirables" into lard. If you contend that societies inculcate morality, then what morality was this?


But on what basis are these laws made? Why is rendering quatchi illegal? Why doesn't our society function like a Libertarian paradise where might makes right? Why are there so many objections to wars like Vietnam and Iraq?

We have a collective morality. We want to watch out for one another, and we subscribe to that provenance that "All men are created equal". The Founders gave a moral justification for all of their actions by ascribing their rights as "endowed by their Creator" - as in, God-given, or moral. This is why we have laws protecting our lives, our liberty, and our ability to pursue our own happiness - the legal part came from a moral basis. (You can also throw in property, which was in the first draft until it was changed out for "pursuit of happiness", but the sentiment lived on in the laws that came about afterwards).

The point is that you can't say "legal" and "moral" are different in any truly "free" society - society decides for itself what actions are moral and just, and makes laws accordingly. As our society progresses, we have come to redefine "moral" in many ways - slave owning is no longer either "moral" or "legal". Miscegeny is now "legal" everywhere and most people nowadays consider it "moral". Alcohol consumption has been all over the board in the history of our country, but most people recognize it as both "legal" and "moral", although certain places recognize it as neither.

Where do we get our laws, if not from our collective sense of morality? What sort of things are legal in places where most of the citizenry considers it to be immoral? (I'll go ahead and answer this one for you - most of the Bible belt states had anti-sodomy laws that weren't stricken down until Lawrence v. Texas less than 10 years ago, and in many of these states homosexuality is considered to be immoral by at least a plurality of the population - but that is changing as our society progresses - no one can show real harm from letting two consenting adults go at it in the privacy of their homes).
 
2013-04-01 04:05:48 AM  
Easy. No oil in Obamacare.
 
2013-04-01 04:33:18 AM  

TsukasaK: ilambiquated: Paul says something about homosexuality, but unfortunately he uses the word "arsenokoitai", which is unknown in any other writings, so it's anyone's guess what it really means. So maybe it isn't homosexuality at all.

 
It sounds very close to "arse coitus" tbh. I wonder if that's why the fundie jagoffs decided to run with it.
 
This is a quick visual summary of Holy Scripture:
 
www.ericstownsend.com
Works for all religions!
 
2013-04-01 04:55:45 AM  

KWess: Matthew 4:23-24 And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people. So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them.

 
Jesus wasn't a primary care physician. Did those people consult the people inside their network before going to see a specialist? Jesus hated HMOs.
 
2013-04-01 05:20:53 AM  
Pardon me, but ending Prohibition was the most Christ-like thing the government has ever done.
 
2013-04-01 06:01:30 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: KWess: GAT_00: queezyweezel: Didn't JC advocate free will?  I don't think the Government forcing you to buy health insurance follows that principle.

Yes, let's examine all of Christ's teachings on buying health care:

...

...

...

Fascinating.

There is actually some things, but they won't be particularly reassuring for the 'I got mine' crowd.


How about this:

Leviticus 19:14 Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling-block before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD.

And this:

Matthew 10:8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying; give without pay.

And more broadly speaking:

Deuteronomy 15:7-11 If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. Take care lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, 'The seventh year, the year of release is near,' and your eye look grudgingly on your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the Lord against you, and you be guilty of sin. You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, 'You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.'

Also, it seems to me that Jesus ran a series of free walk-in clinics:

Matthew 4:23-24 And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people. So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by dem ...

The key point here is that Christ was speaking about voluntary INDIVIDUAL actions - NOT collective actions forced at the end of a government gun. Morality pertains to individuals, not collectives.


So an individual action like voting for what would actually give the poor access to quality health care?

But that aside are you seriously arguing that Jesus advocated helping the poor and sick not out of concern for the poor and sick but as a chance for individuals to prove how 'righteous' they are?
 
2013-04-01 06:20:28 AM  
Late to the show, but maybe there is another facet to the GOP's problems regarding the electorate than just their appeal to minorities.  The GOP claims to be the party of "Christian values", yet many facets of their message is anything but Christ-like.  Maybe this bastardization of Christianity in order to control and manipulate the masses are alienating a segment of "Christians" who are more interested in the teachings of Christ than the dogma of "right-wing Christianity."
 
They preface their "un-Christ-like" like behavior with terms like they do not mind helping the poor, they just do not believe in supporting the lazy.  Besides the obvious that Christ never put conditions on his love, I also believe he left instructions for treating those lazy people who "trespass against you" too.  I think you are supposed to "forgive" them, not condemn.  They vilify Obamacare with all sorts of lies about "death panels" and other stuff.  They never present a better counter proposal; much less speak of the plight of the uninsured.
 
The main thing that can sum it up is they put "money" above everything else.  They create other "reasons" to hide it like "fiscal responsibility", "socialism", and other negative connotations to project upon those they have ideological differences with.  But the bottom line is the Republican message is placing the "haves" above the "have not's" in some  Can't heal the sick because it costs too much.  Can't feed the poor, it costs too much.  Can't provide public education because it costs too much.  Can't protect the environment, it costs too much.  Can't help the elderly, it costs too much.
 
The core reason for them being against every social program breaks down to greed.
 
What actions do they "promote" in the name of "Christ" and the "Christian Nation" they claim the U.S. is?  Pasting God's name all over their money and posting "graven images" in public parks and buildings.  Basically blasphemy.
 
Heck in reality if God is "punishing" the U.S. like the religious right likes to claim, because the U.S. is a "Christian Nation"; it sure as heck isn't due to the actions of the "liberals" or "gays".  It's the un-Christ-like actions done in his name by those who claim to speak for him.
 
Why would a person who follows the teachings of Christ have anything to do with the Republican Party is beyond me.  Even with the abortion issue considering once the fetus develops into a baby and is born, the Republican party has no problem denying them the healthcare and education needed to prosper as an adult.
 
2013-04-01 06:55:20 AM  

ilambiquated: Paul says something about homosexuality, but unfortunately he uses the word "arsenokoitai", which is unknown in any other writings, so it's anyone's guess what it really means. So maybe it isn't homosexuality at all.


Actually, it's also used in AP 9.686, as well as lots of later Christian writers. Even discounting the later group (since they could just basing themselves on Paul), it's clear from the poem that it has to mean something like "sodomite." the Arren- (or arsen-, the difference is dialectal) means "male" and koit- means "bed" or "to sleep with" so the word means "someone who sleeps with men." In the poem, the phrases is "arrenas arrenokoitas," which clearly must mean something like "men who sleep with men," but it's used disparagingly in context.
 
/this is what a PhD in Classics will get you.
 
2013-04-01 07:35:45 AM  
Monkeyhouse Zendo: " In the exercise of your faith you eschew compassion in favor of judgement and are more concerned with the possibility of accumulating merit for a promised afterlife than ensuring that suffering is relieved in the only life you actually have evidence of."
 
wow.  it's impressive how you know me so well.  
 
//watch your sweeping generalizations; they make you sound foolish
 
2013-04-01 07:54:04 AM  

sheep snorter: [sarcasm]Damn cripples messing up the line to salvation!!![/sarcasm]


[i.imgur.com image 850x565]

 
 
wow.    too funny and ironic.   well done.  says it all.
 
2013-04-01 07:57:23 AM  
CanisNoir: I stated it shouldn't be considered a "good work" because it's removing a persons free will.

So if ever I was to receive medical coverage due to obamacare or any other gov't mandated program I should refuse it for lack of your free will? Hell, It is my free will for all Americans to have coverage and I've never even been to church or read the bible. Does it concern you that I'm more christ-like than you?
 
2013-04-01 08:10:00 AM  
I want Drake to murder my vagina
 
2013-04-01 08:11:53 AM  

Philbb: skilbride: Hi!  Christian over here!

I really want to talk politics with you guys, but I don't feel like I can particularly   It's not that I am a person who goes around trying to convince people to join my church, or I spend a lot of time talking about my personal relationship with God... but I get the feeling that among the liberal crowd in fark I'm not welcome.

Never mind that I think there should be some sort of baseline healthcare (although I don't agree forcing us to pay insurance companies is the way to do it), nevermind that I actually think gays should be allowed to marry (and have picked a church that supports my views) but the mere fact that I believe in God, and Christ, has made me feel like - in these threads at least -