US Politics Mega-thread - Page 961

On March 30 2014 11:34 Nyxisto wrote:
so you can scam people all week long and political redistribution is unnecessary because the nice republicans spend some money on their Sunday church trip? This is probably the most anecdotal argument I have ever heard. It's like saying that we don't need to pay waiters/waitresses anymore because your uncle gives a lot of tips.

On March 30 2014 11:54 Introvert wrote:


It's more accurate than what you "feel" they think, so I think his evidence counts.

The point was that the idiotic video is nowhere close to how Christian conservatives view Jesus. On a personal level, they are extremely generous to those in need, but oppose government intervention that can promote laziness. When you look at those cities run on the left's social gospel, it shows just how ineffective it is.

On March 30 2014 11:54 Introvert wrote:


It's more accurate than what you "feel" they think, so I think his evidence counts.

The point was that the idiotic video is nowhere close to how Christian conservatives view Jesus. On a personal level, they are extremely generous to those in need, but oppose government intervention that can promote laziness. When you look at those cities run on the left's social gospel, it shows just how ineffective it is.

On March 30 2014 12:08 IgnE wrote:
What most conservatives think of Jesus is nothing like what Jesus actually was. For centuries making money through financial schemes such as buying and reselling goods at a higher price was viewed as disgusting and against both Aristotle's and Jesus's teaching.

On March 30 2014 12:12 Nyxisto wrote:

Yes. I've heard the statement. "I'm in favor of free market capitalism but I'm also a christian" quite a lot from conservative Americans. If these people had ever read the new testament themselves they'd quickly figure out that that's an impossible combination.

On March 30 2014 12:03 Roe wrote:


What counts as 'extremely generous'? Giving to people that don't deserve it? I'd like to see some of these megachurches give their millions they rake in to people that need it instead of buying another car for themselves.

by the way, do you know what 'evidence' is? it's not someone saying their opinion, which is all he did. didn't see any source or citation saying conservatives volunteer more than liberals do. did not see that once.

The point of the video is to show the difference between christian beliefs and today's capitalism. You can't really oppose government intervention, be okay that a ton of people are poor and call yourself a christian. That conservative people spent more money is completely irrelevant in a discussion concerning social policy, it's nice that they care for their neighbors, but they're not going to change the flaws of the system. You can be the nicest guy ever, if you vote for a party that screws millions of people over, how is that relevant? Or are you suggesting we just abolish government altogether and hope that the rich just become very generous?

What most conservatives think of Jesus is nothing like what Jesus actually was. For centuries making money through financial schemes such as buying and reselling goods at a higher price was viewed as disgusting and against both Aristotle's and Jesus's teaching.

Don't wanna hurt some churchgoers here or something, i bet there's people out there who don't fit that "description". But i also bet there's alot of people, where it does.

On March 30 2014 12:04 Nyxisto wrote:

? Or are you suggesting we just abolish government altogether and hope that the rich just become very generous?

On March 30 2014 13:50 Sub40APM wrote:

I believe thats roughly what Introvert would want based on his general philosophy. Then the people who deserve success will achieve it through the hard work and the people who dont deserve will be punished by being poor. And the government will brutalize the illegal immigrants and fight terrorism and whatever else its allowed to do under his reading of the constitution -- which is not a lot I gather. Although I guess he would be okay with individual states doing various different policies in a free market of ideas and the best state would win by having more people move to it or something like that.

On March 30 2014 13:49 Introvert wrote:


What counts is giving to those in need. There are a plethora of charities devoted to helping people for free, they make no statements about "deserving." Apparently unlike the average liberal, they can separate personal action and charity from government coercion. That's because Christianity has always had the view that people are responsible for their own actions but that one is to be generous to those in need. it doesn't say a word about government redistribution, or capitalism. That was my criticism.

There is evidence, if you want to find it. it's complicated though, because while churches do pay their pastors and staff, they also use a large sum of tithes to either improve the community or give to good causes. Never mind the man hours that church people put into helping charities.




Actually, you could. When you realize that government does a really bad job of redistribution, it makes perfect sense to have a religious and moral society that gives of it's own free will, instead of through the inefficient mechanisms of government. I also like the underlying assumption: that everyone who votes Republican "knows" they are screwing the poor over. Like I said, Christianity emphasizes personal giving and charity as well as "give to Caesar what is Caesar's"



It's not as simple as "Jesus hated wealth and rich people." He advocated that people GIVE their money. But yes, the Church had many laws dating from some of the Bible's teachings related to charging interest on other Christians. Though I'm not sure how that's relevant.




As they say, church is for sinners, not for saints


The point is that if you want to argue that Jesus was anti-wealth, you also need to propose a workable alternative, not the massive government failure we have now. Just saying "they are hypocrites!" doesn't help anyone. Nevermind how many people actually do make something of themselves under this system.

On March 30 2014 14:20 GreenHorizons wrote:



Actually if you want to argue Jesus was anti wealth one does not need to provide an alternative.

If you are going to claim you are a Christian (which still doesn't even make sense to me**) You do, but otherwise it's totally sensible to tell people they are either "Capitalists" or "Christians" but not both. The point is that they are constantly fighting in the supreme court over their beliefs but ignore the shit out of other parts of their "beliefs" when they conflict with what THEY want.

When I say "Capitalists" I mean a particular set of views "makers and takers", that people on food stamps are "lazy" or "refuse to work" the rhetoric identifies them pretty quick.

So if that's how you think and you're not Christian fine, but not both. You are not even trying to follow Christ if you think and act like that, let alone when one espouses it as a philosophy that should be emulated.

*So according to "the Bible" (one of literally hundreds of translations, but they are all pretty similar here) Jesus said: "17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 "

**So how do you end up with an entirely different religion? How could Jesus of been a Jew who came to fulfill Jewish Law yet Jews aren't Christians. I mean Jesus didn't say I have a new religion for everyone he literally said "I'm here to fulfill the old" one. So to me this means Jews aren't Jews and Christians are actually supposed to be Jewish. Or Christianity is full of shit But after reading more of the sermon on the mount it's laughable that some people call themselves Christians then say and do what they do.

You're coming close to violating the no religious arguments rule. Continue it in PMs.

On March 30 2014 13:56 Introvert wrote:


I've already said that government is a necessary evil.

Otherwise I would have the government back off. Some people will be poor, some not. That will always be true. And the more you allow a good and moral society to keep of their own money, the more they will give, as a general rule.

I simply do not believe the instruments of government can succeed, even if it became oppressive and took liberties from people, which it would have to do.

I would not sacrifice what we DO have (our rights and choices) for the unattainable.

On March 30 2014 14:48 GreenHorizons wrote:


Oh well having a "good and moral" Society is soooo much more realistic than a decent government. I thought liberals were supposed to be the head in the clouds types...

The Government is a reflection of society a few obstinate clueless assholes make the decisions for everybody. Then leave us with an illusion of choice. If we had a decent and moral society a decent democratic system would follow. As it is the country is full of not decent and moral people.


I like to use this analogy to describe essentially the two main sides of political thought.

You have 2 campfires in separate places. Around each fire is 10 people. In a smaller ring around the fire are 9 plates of food.

Group 1:

The people closest to a plate each grab one, leaving one person left out. After some discussion the group comes to the conclusion that with 10 people and 9 plates they should take a little off of each plate and make one more worth of food with each of their contributions.

Group 2:

The smartest one of the group noticed that there were less plates than people so he rapidly found the biggest person and fastest person and convinced them that in order to keep things civil they should gather all the plates. Once all the plates were gathered the smartest one informed the group if they wanted to earn their food like he had they would need to perform certain tasks. Either you would perform them or you would starve but if you starved it was obviously your fault. Of course he would keep 7 plates for himself (because he works so much harder and has earned it) with his 2 cohorts sharing a plate and the rest of the group sharing one plate.

Essentially Conservatives tend to emulate Group 2 more and liberals Group 1. You can see how a government just gets in the way of group 2. I mean a government is going to say, but people are starving while you throw away more than they get?!? To which the smart one must explain to the simpletons that the 6 plates he's throwing away don't take away from the 1 plate the other 7 share.

Their are fair criticisms of both groups but the idea that the second would call themselves Christians is laughable. I could see an argument that the latter is better in the long run but it certainly isn't Christian.

The liberal idea is the one that involves rationing and "please would you be so kind as to justify your existence." That's not a conservative idea. At least not a Christian-conservative one.

And yes, I think having a good society is much more achievable than having a large, active government that DOESN'T stomp on your rights. History shows this. Society gets more free, governments still do what they have always done: try and accumulate power.

On March 30 2014 14:56 Introvert wrote:


Your analogy is hilariously wrong. Do you know anything about Conservatives that you didn't get from Jon Stewart?

The actual conservative view is that A) SOMEONE had to prepare the plates, they didn't just appear. B) that the number of plates is not static (ask igne, Capitalism is based on the idea of long term growth). Those two things are so fundamental they destroy your analogy entirely.

The liberal idea is the one that involves rationing and "please would you be so kind as to justify your existence." That's not a conservative idea. At least not a Christian-conservative one.

And yes, I think having a good society is much more achievable than having a large, active government that DOESN'T stomp on your rights. History shows this. Society gets more free, governments still do what they have always done: try and accumulate power.

On March 30 2014 13:49 Introvert wrote:


What counts is giving to those in need. There are a plethora of charities devoted to helping people for free, they make no statements about "deserving." Apparently unlike the average liberal, they can separate personal action and charity from government coercion. That's because Christianity has always had the view that people are responsible for their own actions but that one is to be generous to those in need. it doesn't say a word about government redistribution, or capitalism. That was my criticism.

There is evidence, if you want to find it. it's complicated though, because while churches do pay their pastors and staff, they also use a large sum of tithes to either improve the community or give to good causes. Never mind the man hours that church people put into helping charities.