Do you have adblock enabled?
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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 522 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report