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
 
2013-04-01 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.
 
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 »






Report