|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
idk to me the face-value position most consistent with the new testament would be economically liberal and (possibly) socially conservative.
That doesn't mean someone couldn't genuinely reconcile economic conservatism with the bible, but it takes quite a lot of work to connect those dots.
It's always mystified me that the centre of American christianity is a bunch of stuff that is at best briefly mentioned in the bible (eg. gay marriage, alcohol, drugs etc.), and at worst is in apparently direct opposition. eg. capitalism versus "give all you have", the whole guns thing versus "offer the other cheek also".
Like I'm ambivalent on the conservative position itself - some aspects I agree with, some I don't - but either way I have no idea how it became the religious default.
|
Given that Jesus was almost certainly a bisexual, free love dude who consistently preached that judgement must come after love, if at all, I'd say his words are definitely socially liberal. The problem arises when douchebag Paul comes in and starts layering on all these made up rules like the born-again schmuck he was 
|
On April 13 2017 20:06 farvacola wrote:Given that Jesus was almost certainly a bisexual, free love dude who consistently preached that judgement must come after love, if at all, I'd say his words are definitely socially liberal. The problem arises when douchebag Paul comes in and starts layering on all these made up rules like the born-again schmuck he was
Jesus bisexual? Where did you get that from? LOL And socially liberal? Like in the Sermon on the Mount, where he says that if your right eye leads you to temptation, you should gouge it out? Also, if it weren't for Paul and his interpretation, Christians would still be obliged to follow the Mosaic Law, and we know how socially liberal it was.
The truth is you can cherry-pick the Bible to support any agenda, because it's full of contradictions.
|
Jesus almost certainly did not exist (as a historical person, of course). So we are really debating his sexual orientation? It is almost pointless to that for historical persons that lived in the 20th century. In fact, discussing someone's sexual orientation seems pointless to me, in general, with few exceptions.
|
On April 13 2017 21:08 Eridanus wrote:
Jesus almost certainly did not exist (as a historical person, of course).
Huh?
|
On April 13 2017 11:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2017 08:37 Danglars wrote:On April 13 2017 06:22 Madkipz wrote:On April 13 2017 05:19 Shield wrote:On April 13 2017 00:08 bardtown wrote:On April 12 2017 22:32 Shield wrote:
Could increase of homelessness be explained with seemingly less Christians nowadays? I don't go to church, but I know people there are eager to help like in bardtown's story. I'm not saying non-Christians don't help, I'm just saying church is more organised than random people in the streets. On the other hand, charity as an organisation might be more popular in the UK. Charity is huge in the UK, but I don't think throwing money at things is enough. A weaker church probably results in less social support. I have clergy in my family and most of what they do is visiting the bereaved and people in hospital. Also a lot of organising community events. I think people underestimated the role of the church and it has not been adequately replaced. Might as well point out that I'm not religious while on the topic before some moron accuses me of being a right wing religious fundamentalist as well as a retarded bigot. Offtopic, but is there even a right wing religious fundamentalist? I thought genuine Christians were leaning towards left wing or socialism. Even the bible itself tells you that if you have a pair of something, then you should give one away. Socialism is a Marxist ideology. The religious christian default leans heavily on Classical liberalism in which chase it is mostly a matter of the individual taking responsibility within the community, and a reliance on the free market solving the human condition rather than a nanny state taking care of everyone. The belief is that Socialized benefits like free abortion and socialized hiring practices, socialized education and socialized charity removes and takes away the responsibility of the individual in favor of a collective irresponsibility that tears away the moral fiber that acted as a glue upon civilization for thousands of years. They are not wrong. A bunch of our taxes is spent so that others can afford to make the sort of mistakes that would have been stern reminders of the harsh realities of life a mere 50-100 years ago. What he said. It's focused on the individual helping, donating his own time and money, and the church community helping those in need. Outsourcing those duties to the state, reaching into the pocket of your neighbor to help out, isn't really mentioned. Acts of the Apostles was completely wasted on you wasn't it.
Did I miss the apocryphal chapters on the remarkable programs they set up with Emperor Tiberius or Pontius Pilate?
|
On April 13 2017 20:57 maybenexttime wrote:
The truth is you can cherry-pick the Bible to support any agenda, because it's full of contradictions.
The Bible, just like any contentious document, can indeed be easily cherry picked. This is true. But I've yet to hear of a single alleged contradiction that cannot be resolved with a bit of logic or research.
On April 13 2017 20:06 farvacola wrote:Given that Jesus was almost certainly a bisexual, free love dude who consistently preached that judgement must come after love, if at all, I'd say his words are definitely socially liberal. The problem arises when douchebag Paul comes in and starts layering on all these made up rules like the born-again schmuck he was
Jesus was celibate, and he frequently criticized adultery, prostitution, fornication, remarriage after divorce, etc. So bisexual and free love he was not. But yeah, it's true that Christianity is largely about "Hate the sin, love the sinner," which does not equal a lot of the things that modern social liberals call for (like gender-assignment surgery and whatnot).
On April 13 2017 08:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2017 06:22 Madkipz wrote:On April 13 2017 05:19 Shield wrote:On April 13 2017 00:08 bardtown wrote:On April 12 2017 22:32 Shield wrote:
Could increase of homelessness be explained with seemingly less Christians nowadays? I don't go to church, but I know people there are eager to help like in bardtown's story. I'm not saying non-Christians don't help, I'm just saying church is more organised than random people in the streets. On the other hand, charity as an organisation might be more popular in the UK. Charity is huge in the UK, but I don't think throwing money at things is enough. A weaker church probably results in less social support. I have clergy in my family and most of what they do is visiting the bereaved and people in hospital. Also a lot of organising community events. I think people underestimated the role of the church and it has not been adequately replaced. Might as well point out that I'm not religious while on the topic before some moron accuses me of being a right wing religious fundamentalist as well as a retarded bigot. Offtopic, but is there even a right wing religious fundamentalist? I thought genuine Christians were leaning towards left wing or socialism. Even the bible itself tells you that if you have a pair of something, then you should give one away. Socialism is a Marxist ideology. The religious christian default leans heavily on Classical liberalism in which chase it is mostly a matter of the individual taking responsibility within the community, and a reliance on the free market solving the human condition rather than a nanny state taking care of everyone. The belief is that Socialized benefits like free abortion and socialized hiring practices, socialized education and socialized charity removes and takes away the responsibility of the individual in favor of a collective irresponsibility that tears away the moral fiber that acted as a glue upon civilization for thousands of years. They are not wrong. A bunch of our taxes is spent so that others can afford to make the sort of mistakes that would have been stern reminders of the harsh realities of life a mere 50-100 years ago. What he said. It's focused on the individual helping, donating his own time and money, and the church community helping those in need. Outsourcing those duties to the state, reaching into the pocket of your neighbor to help out, isn't really mentioned.
That's sensible if you want to go back to living in the times when the life expectancy was about 60 because illnesses were largely treated with local herbs. Social-democracy does not mean the individual cannot or should not help the poor.
Also, "reaching into the pocket of your neighbor" lol. People wouldn't be crying to tax the rich if the rich hadn't spent centuries in class warfare to keep the poor poorer.
On April 13 2017 22:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2017 11:25 KwarK wrote:On April 13 2017 08:37 Danglars wrote:On April 13 2017 06:22 Madkipz wrote:On April 13 2017 05:19 Shield wrote:On April 13 2017 00:08 bardtown wrote:On April 12 2017 22:32 Shield wrote:
Could increase of homelessness be explained with seemingly less Christians nowadays? I don't go to church, but I know people there are eager to help like in bardtown's story. I'm not saying non-Christians don't help, I'm just saying church is more organised than random people in the streets. On the other hand, charity as an organisation might be more popular in the UK. Charity is huge in the UK, but I don't think throwing money at things is enough. A weaker church probably results in less social support. I have clergy in my family and most of what they do is visiting the bereaved and people in hospital. Also a lot of organising community events. I think people underestimated the role of the church and it has not been adequately replaced. Might as well point out that I'm not religious while on the topic before some moron accuses me of being a right wing religious fundamentalist as well as a retarded bigot. Offtopic, but is there even a right wing religious fundamentalist? I thought genuine Christians were leaning towards left wing or socialism. Even the bible itself tells you that if you have a pair of something, then you should give one away. Socialism is a Marxist ideology. The religious christian default leans heavily on Classical liberalism in which chase it is mostly a matter of the individual taking responsibility within the community, and a reliance on the free market solving the human condition rather than a nanny state taking care of everyone. The belief is that Socialized benefits like free abortion and socialized hiring practices, socialized education and socialized charity removes and takes away the responsibility of the individual in favor of a collective irresponsibility that tears away the moral fiber that acted as a glue upon civilization for thousands of years. They are not wrong. A bunch of our taxes is spent so that others can afford to make the sort of mistakes that would have been stern reminders of the harsh realities of life a mere 50-100 years ago. What he said. It's focused on the individual helping, donating his own time and money, and the church community helping those in need. Outsourcing those duties to the state, reaching into the pocket of your neighbor to help out, isn't really mentioned. Acts of the Apostles was completely wasted on you wasn't it. Did I miss the apocryphal chapters on the remarkable programs they set up with Emperor Tiberius or Pontius Pilate?
Did you miss the chapter about "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"?
On April 13 2017 21:08 Eridanus wrote:
Jesus almost certainly did not exist (as a historical person, of course). So we are really debating his sexual orientation? It is almost pointless to that for historical persons that lived in the 20th century. In fact, discussing someone's sexual orientation seems pointless to me, in general, with few exceptions.
The idea that Jesus of Nazareth was not a real person is a fringe minority position in academia, but it's super popular among atheists that cherry pick historical facts to fit their beliefs.
|
On April 13 2017 22:53 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2017 08:37 Danglars wrote:On April 13 2017 06:22 Madkipz wrote:On April 13 2017 05:19 Shield wrote:On April 13 2017 00:08 bardtown wrote:On April 12 2017 22:32 Shield wrote:
Could increase of homelessness be explained with seemingly less Christians nowadays? I don't go to church, but I know people there are eager to help like in bardtown's story. I'm not saying non-Christians don't help, I'm just saying church is more organised than random people in the streets. On the other hand, charity as an organisation might be more popular in the UK. Charity is huge in the UK, but I don't think throwing money at things is enough. A weaker church probably results in less social support. I have clergy in my family and most of what they do is visiting the bereaved and people in hospital. Also a lot of organising community events. I think people underestimated the role of the church and it has not been adequately replaced. Might as well point out that I'm not religious while on the topic before some moron accuses me of being a right wing religious fundamentalist as well as a retarded bigot. Offtopic, but is there even a right wing religious fundamentalist? I thought genuine Christians were leaning towards left wing or socialism. Even the bible itself tells you that if you have a pair of something, then you should give one away. Socialism is a Marxist ideology. The religious christian default leans heavily on Classical liberalism in which chase it is mostly a matter of the individual taking responsibility within the community, and a reliance on the free market solving the human condition rather than a nanny state taking care of everyone. The belief is that Socialized benefits like free abortion and socialized hiring practices, socialized education and socialized charity removes and takes away the responsibility of the individual in favor of a collective irresponsibility that tears away the moral fiber that acted as a glue upon civilization for thousands of years. They are not wrong. A bunch of our taxes is spent so that others can afford to make the sort of mistakes that would have been stern reminders of the harsh realities of life a mere 50-100 years ago. What he said. It's focused on the individual helping, donating his own time and money, and the church community helping those in need. Outsourcing those duties to the state, reaching into the pocket of your neighbor to help out, isn't really mentioned. That's sensible if you want to go back to living in the times when the life expectancy was about 60 because illnesses were largely treated with local herbs. Social-democracy does not mean the individual cannot or should not help the poor. Also, "reaching into the pocket of your neighbor" lol. People wouldn't be crying to tax the rich if the rich hadn't spent centuries in class warfare to keep the poor poorer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Variation_over_time
So 1980? That is the only time I can find with world life expectancy of 60.
|
I was thinking more 1780.
|
United States42694 Posts
On April 13 2017 22:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2017 11:25 KwarK wrote:On April 13 2017 08:37 Danglars wrote:On April 13 2017 06:22 Madkipz wrote:On April 13 2017 05:19 Shield wrote:On April 13 2017 00:08 bardtown wrote:On April 12 2017 22:32 Shield wrote:
Could increase of homelessness be explained with seemingly less Christians nowadays? I don't go to church, but I know people there are eager to help like in bardtown's story. I'm not saying non-Christians don't help, I'm just saying church is more organised than random people in the streets. On the other hand, charity as an organisation might be more popular in the UK. Charity is huge in the UK, but I don't think throwing money at things is enough. A weaker church probably results in less social support. I have clergy in my family and most of what they do is visiting the bereaved and people in hospital. Also a lot of organising community events. I think people underestimated the role of the church and it has not been adequately replaced. Might as well point out that I'm not religious while on the topic before some moron accuses me of being a right wing religious fundamentalist as well as a retarded bigot. Offtopic, but is there even a right wing religious fundamentalist? I thought genuine Christians were leaning towards left wing or socialism. Even the bible itself tells you that if you have a pair of something, then you should give one away. Socialism is a Marxist ideology. The religious christian default leans heavily on Classical liberalism in which chase it is mostly a matter of the individual taking responsibility within the community, and a reliance on the free market solving the human condition rather than a nanny state taking care of everyone. The belief is that Socialized benefits like free abortion and socialized hiring practices, socialized education and socialized charity removes and takes away the responsibility of the individual in favor of a collective irresponsibility that tears away the moral fiber that acted as a glue upon civilization for thousands of years. They are not wrong. A bunch of our taxes is spent so that others can afford to make the sort of mistakes that would have been stern reminders of the harsh realities of life a mere 50-100 years ago. What he said. It's focused on the individual helping, donating his own time and money, and the church community helping those in need. Outsourcing those duties to the state, reaching into the pocket of your neighbor to help out, isn't really mentioned. Acts of the Apostles was completely wasted on you wasn't it. Did I miss the apocryphal chapters on the remarkable programs they set up with Emperor Tiberius or Pontius Pilate?
The guys who walked and lived with Jesus decided to set up their own community and await the second coming. And when they decided how they would structure their community they decided to use the rule "from each according to his means to each according to their needs". And when Ananias and Sapphira decided they weren't into the whole communism thing (because the follows of Jesus literally founded a communist commune after he went back to heaven) the Holy Spirit showed up and disemboweled them (honestly I suspect the other Christians did but whatever).
Acts literally describes the people who knew Jesus best going "hey, let's make a communist commune" and then the ones who go "fuck you, I got mine" end up being killed by God. I'm not religious so it doesn't trouble me but Jesus had a lot of words for rich people who ignore those in need and absolutely none of them were good.
|
On April 13 2017 11:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2017 08:37 Danglars wrote:On April 13 2017 06:22 Madkipz wrote:On April 13 2017 05:19 Shield wrote:On April 13 2017 00:08 bardtown wrote:On April 12 2017 22:32 Shield wrote:
Could increase of homelessness be explained with seemingly less Christians nowadays? I don't go to church, but I know people there are eager to help like in bardtown's story. I'm not saying non-Christians don't help, I'm just saying church is more organised than random people in the streets. On the other hand, charity as an organisation might be more popular in the UK. Charity is huge in the UK, but I don't think throwing money at things is enough. A weaker church probably results in less social support. I have clergy in my family and most of what they do is visiting the bereaved and people in hospital. Also a lot of organising community events. I think people underestimated the role of the church and it has not been adequately replaced. Might as well point out that I'm not religious while on the topic before some moron accuses me of being a right wing religious fundamentalist as well as a retarded bigot. Offtopic, but is there even a right wing religious fundamentalist? I thought genuine Christians were leaning towards left wing or socialism. Even the bible itself tells you that if you have a pair of something, then you should give one away. Socialism is a Marxist ideology. The religious christian default leans heavily on Classical liberalism in which chase it is mostly a matter of the individual taking responsibility within the community, and a reliance on the free market solving the human condition rather than a nanny state taking care of everyone. The belief is that Socialized benefits like free abortion and socialized hiring practices, socialized education and socialized charity removes and takes away the responsibility of the individual in favor of a collective irresponsibility that tears away the moral fiber that acted as a glue upon civilization for thousands of years. They are not wrong. A bunch of our taxes is spent so that others can afford to make the sort of mistakes that would have been stern reminders of the harsh realities of life a mere 50-100 years ago. What he said. It's focused on the individual helping, donating his own time and money, and the church community helping those in need. Outsourcing those duties to the state, reaching into the pocket of your neighbor to help out, isn't really mentioned. Acts of the Apostles was completely wasted on you wasn't it.
Given that most of the time in Acts the Church is a semicriminal organization, then obviously outsourcing stuff to the government is a bad idea. (Ananaias and Sapphira were killed for lying about holding money back from the church, not for holding money back from the government*)
*in case we are talking about government="use of force"
If one wants Biblical support for State Redistribution, you want the Old Testament (where the land is divided equally among all the people and you can't sell it off from your family(only rent it out) and you have to leave a portion of it for the poor to work, and all debts are cancelled after X years, etc.)
Basically you can find support for any manner of social organization (because the Old Testament literally sets up a government for the Jews, but the New Testament allows you to take almost any government part of that and claim it was only for pre-Christian Jews.)
And even in private levels, there is the bit about how private giving to someone who won't work v. can't is bad because people should be working if they can.
So you can support/object to everything from Theocratic Communistic Monarchy, a Secular Laizzez Faire Plutocracy, or an Imperial Fascist Pure Democracy.
|
United States42694 Posts
On April 14 2017 00:06 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2017 11:25 KwarK wrote:On April 13 2017 08:37 Danglars wrote:On April 13 2017 06:22 Madkipz wrote:On April 13 2017 05:19 Shield wrote:On April 13 2017 00:08 bardtown wrote:On April 12 2017 22:32 Shield wrote:
Could increase of homelessness be explained with seemingly less Christians nowadays? I don't go to church, but I know people there are eager to help like in bardtown's story. I'm not saying non-Christians don't help, I'm just saying church is more organised than random people in the streets. On the other hand, charity as an organisation might be more popular in the UK. Charity is huge in the UK, but I don't think throwing money at things is enough. A weaker church probably results in less social support. I have clergy in my family and most of what they do is visiting the bereaved and people in hospital. Also a lot of organising community events. I think people underestimated the role of the church and it has not been adequately replaced. Might as well point out that I'm not religious while on the topic before some moron accuses me of being a right wing religious fundamentalist as well as a retarded bigot. Offtopic, but is there even a right wing religious fundamentalist? I thought genuine Christians were leaning towards left wing or socialism. Even the bible itself tells you that if you have a pair of something, then you should give one away. Socialism is a Marxist ideology. The religious christian default leans heavily on Classical liberalism in which chase it is mostly a matter of the individual taking responsibility within the community, and a reliance on the free market solving the human condition rather than a nanny state taking care of everyone. The belief is that Socialized benefits like free abortion and socialized hiring practices, socialized education and socialized charity removes and takes away the responsibility of the individual in favor of a collective irresponsibility that tears away the moral fiber that acted as a glue upon civilization for thousands of years. They are not wrong. A bunch of our taxes is spent so that others can afford to make the sort of mistakes that would have been stern reminders of the harsh realities of life a mere 50-100 years ago. What he said. It's focused on the individual helping, donating his own time and money, and the church community helping those in need. Outsourcing those duties to the state, reaching into the pocket of your neighbor to help out, isn't really mentioned. Acts of the Apostles was completely wasted on you wasn't it. Given that most of the time in Acts the Church is a semicriminal organization, then obviously outsourcing stuff to the government is a bad idea. (Ananaias and Sapphira were killed for lying about holding money back from the church, not for holding money back from the government*) *in case we are talking about government="use of force"
And why did they lie about holding money back? Clearly they wanted to keep some money for themselves but felt that it wasn't possible because within the early Christian Church hoarding personal wealth wasn't cool. So they lied about doing it and somehow they ended up dead.
Also you're the only one thinking that government automatically means Romans. The early Christian church was the organization that is comparable to government in the modern example. It had the ability to requisition resources and labour from the people and distribute them according to its wishes. It's a communist commune. It's not a 20th Century state but nobody expects it to be. Arguing that it can't be government because it doesn't look like our government ignores that literally no government looks like our government back then.
The reality is unchanged. Acts describes the people who knew what Jesus wanted making a communist commune in which the governing body of the communist commune took care of the members.
|
On April 14 2017 00:06 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2017 11:25 KwarK wrote:On April 13 2017 08:37 Danglars wrote:On April 13 2017 06:22 Madkipz wrote:On April 13 2017 05:19 Shield wrote:On April 13 2017 00:08 bardtown wrote:On April 12 2017 22:32 Shield wrote:
Could increase of homelessness be explained with seemingly less Christians nowadays? I don't go to church, but I know people there are eager to help like in bardtown's story. I'm not saying non-Christians don't help, I'm just saying church is more organised than random people in the streets. On the other hand, charity as an organisation might be more popular in the UK. Charity is huge in the UK, but I don't think throwing money at things is enough. A weaker church probably results in less social support. I have clergy in my family and most of what they do is visiting the bereaved and people in hospital. Also a lot of organising community events. I think people underestimated the role of the church and it has not been adequately replaced. Might as well point out that I'm not religious while on the topic before some moron accuses me of being a right wing religious fundamentalist as well as a retarded bigot. Offtopic, but is there even a right wing religious fundamentalist? I thought genuine Christians were leaning towards left wing or socialism. Even the bible itself tells you that if you have a pair of something, then you should give one away. Socialism is a Marxist ideology. The religious christian default leans heavily on Classical liberalism in which chase it is mostly a matter of the individual taking responsibility within the community, and a reliance on the free market solving the human condition rather than a nanny state taking care of everyone. The belief is that Socialized benefits like free abortion and socialized hiring practices, socialized education and socialized charity removes and takes away the responsibility of the individual in favor of a collective irresponsibility that tears away the moral fiber that acted as a glue upon civilization for thousands of years. They are not wrong. A bunch of our taxes is spent so that others can afford to make the sort of mistakes that would have been stern reminders of the harsh realities of life a mere 50-100 years ago. What he said. It's focused on the individual helping, donating his own time and money, and the church community helping those in need. Outsourcing those duties to the state, reaching into the pocket of your neighbor to help out, isn't really mentioned. Acts of the Apostles was completely wasted on you wasn't it. Given that most of the time in Acts the Church is a semicriminal organization, then obviously outsourcing stuff to the government is a bad idea. (Ananaias and Sapphira were killed for lying about holding money back from the church, not for holding money back from the government*) *in case we are talking about government="use of force"
The Bible never lays out a blueprint to make a paradise-on-earth state, nor do I think that's a question that anybody in the Bible or who wrote the various books of the Bible would care about. Christianity, after all, is primarily concerned about the path for each individual's eternal salvation of the immortal soul, not prosperity on earth. So, it makes sense that a lot of the commandments therein are to individuals to show charity to the poor (which is something I strongly agree with and support).
That being said, individual charity cannot be the end-all of assistance to the poor and needy. If you want to end up like the Russian and French aristocracies right after their respective revolutions, then by all means, continue to think that unfettered capitalism is a great idea. As for me, I don't want to see homeless people neglected on the streets, and then my local church get burned down by revolutionaries desperate for food because trillionaires get to relax in their country palaces while people are dying of easily preventable diseases or starvation. I think it's natural that the state requisition funds from the ultra-wealthy in order to vaccinate children against measles, if not because it's morally right then at least because it creates social stability--but then again, I'm not a social Darwinist.
|
United States42694 Posts
On April 14 2017 00:15 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2017 00:06 Krikkitone wrote:On April 13 2017 11:25 KwarK wrote:On April 13 2017 08:37 Danglars wrote:On April 13 2017 06:22 Madkipz wrote:On April 13 2017 05:19 Shield wrote:On April 13 2017 00:08 bardtown wrote:On April 12 2017 22:32 Shield wrote:
Could increase of homelessness be explained with seemingly less Christians nowadays? I don't go to church, but I know people there are eager to help like in bardtown's story. I'm not saying non-Christians don't help, I'm just saying church is more organised than random people in the streets. On the other hand, charity as an organisation might be more popular in the UK. Charity is huge in the UK, but I don't think throwing money at things is enough. A weaker church probably results in less social support. I have clergy in my family and most of what they do is visiting the bereaved and people in hospital. Also a lot of organising community events. I think people underestimated the role of the church and it has not been adequately replaced. Might as well point out that I'm not religious while on the topic before some moron accuses me of being a right wing religious fundamentalist as well as a retarded bigot. Offtopic, but is there even a right wing religious fundamentalist? I thought genuine Christians were leaning towards left wing or socialism. Even the bible itself tells you that if you have a pair of something, then you should give one away. Socialism is a Marxist ideology. The religious christian default leans heavily on Classical liberalism in which chase it is mostly a matter of the individual taking responsibility within the community, and a reliance on the free market solving the human condition rather than a nanny state taking care of everyone. The belief is that Socialized benefits like free abortion and socialized hiring practices, socialized education and socialized charity removes and takes away the responsibility of the individual in favor of a collective irresponsibility that tears away the moral fiber that acted as a glue upon civilization for thousands of years. They are not wrong. A bunch of our taxes is spent so that others can afford to make the sort of mistakes that would have been stern reminders of the harsh realities of life a mere 50-100 years ago. What he said. It's focused on the individual helping, donating his own time and money, and the church community helping those in need. Outsourcing those duties to the state, reaching into the pocket of your neighbor to help out, isn't really mentioned. Acts of the Apostles was completely wasted on you wasn't it. Given that most of the time in Acts the Church is a semicriminal organization, then obviously outsourcing stuff to the government is a bad idea. (Ananaias and Sapphira were killed for lying about holding money back from the church, not for holding money back from the government*) *in case we are talking about government="use of force" The Bible never lays out a blueprint to make a paradise-on-earth state, nor do I think that's a question that anybody in the Bible or who wrote the various books of the Bible would care about. Christianity, after all, is primarily concerned about the path for each individual's eternal salvation of the immortal soul, not prosperity on earth. So, it makes sense that a lot of the commandments therein are to individuals to show charity to the poor (which is something I strongly agree with and support). That being said, individual charity cannot be the end-all of assistance to the poor and needy. If you want to end up like the Russian and French aristocracies right after their respective revolutions, then by all means, continue to think that unfettered capitalism is a great idea. As for me, I don't want to see homeless people neglected on the streets, and then my local church get burned down by revolutionary Marxists desperate for food while trillionaires relax in their country palaces.
The Bible does describe what the kind of society that the people who actually knew Jesus, walked with Jesus, talked late into the night around a fire with Jesus etc, thought would most conform with his expectations. That's Acts of the Apostles. That's what the book is about. It describes the kind of community that the followers of Jesus made while waiting for him to come back. And it describes a communist commune. Which makes a whole lot of sense given what we know about Jesus's sermons and teachings. The man was not a fan of greed, of hoarding riches, of judging the less fortunate and so forth. The man was all about tolerance, inclusivity, forgiveness, sharing, not judging others and so forth. But even if you ignore the things Jesus said, Acts gives you the blueprint. The problem is that people, in general, fucking hate that blueprint because people, in general, really don't like being good Christians. Turning the other cheek is hard, giving away wealth you worked for fucking sucks, judging people feels good. The entire message of Jesus is really, really revolutionary and it goes against all of the most common shitty instincts of man. So given the choice between following a difficult message and redefining it a large number of Christians have become Sunday only Christians. Perfectly content to listen to a sermon on Sunday but perfectly content to judge and ignore a homeless guy with a sign on Monday because taking them into their home would be hard and anyway he's probably a drug addict.
But none of that changes the actual message as written down. Christians don't like it and they like to pretend it doesn't mean what it means but it's all written there and it's clear for anyone to see. Jesus wants you to give your shit to people who have less shit than you.
|
On April 14 2017 00:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2017 00:06 Krikkitone wrote:On April 13 2017 11:25 KwarK wrote:On April 13 2017 08:37 Danglars wrote:On April 13 2017 06:22 Madkipz wrote:On April 13 2017 05:19 Shield wrote:On April 13 2017 00:08 bardtown wrote:On April 12 2017 22:32 Shield wrote:
Could increase of homelessness be explained with seemingly less Christians nowadays? I don't go to church, but I know people there are eager to help like in bardtown's story. I'm not saying non-Christians don't help, I'm just saying church is more organised than random people in the streets. On the other hand, charity as an organisation might be more popular in the UK. Charity is huge in the UK, but I don't think throwing money at things is enough. A weaker church probably results in less social support. I have clergy in my family and most of what they do is visiting the bereaved and people in hospital. Also a lot of organising community events. I think people underestimated the role of the church and it has not been adequately replaced. Might as well point out that I'm not religious while on the topic before some moron accuses me of being a right wing religious fundamentalist as well as a retarded bigot. Offtopic, but is there even a right wing religious fundamentalist? I thought genuine Christians were leaning towards left wing or socialism. Even the bible itself tells you that if you have a pair of something, then you should give one away. Socialism is a Marxist ideology. The religious christian default leans heavily on Classical liberalism in which chase it is mostly a matter of the individual taking responsibility within the community, and a reliance on the free market solving the human condition rather than a nanny state taking care of everyone. The belief is that Socialized benefits like free abortion and socialized hiring practices, socialized education and socialized charity removes and takes away the responsibility of the individual in favor of a collective irresponsibility that tears away the moral fiber that acted as a glue upon civilization for thousands of years. They are not wrong. A bunch of our taxes is spent so that others can afford to make the sort of mistakes that would have been stern reminders of the harsh realities of life a mere 50-100 years ago. What he said. It's focused on the individual helping, donating his own time and money, and the church community helping those in need. Outsourcing those duties to the state, reaching into the pocket of your neighbor to help out, isn't really mentioned. Acts of the Apostles was completely wasted on you wasn't it. Given that most of the time in Acts the Church is a semicriminal organization, then obviously outsourcing stuff to the government is a bad idea. (Ananaias and Sapphira were killed for lying about holding money back from the church, not for holding money back from the government*) *in case we are talking about government="use of force" And why did they lie about holding money back? Clearly they wanted to keep some money for themselves but felt that it wasn't possible because within the early Christian Church hoarding personal wealth wasn't cool. So they lied about doing it and somehow they ended up dead. Also you're the only one thinking that government automatically means Romans. The early Christian church was the organization that is comparable to government in the modern example. It had the ability to requisition resources and labour from the people and distribute them according to its wishes. It's a communist commune. It's not a 20th Century state but nobody expects it to be. Arguing that it can't be government because it doesn't look like our government ignores that literally no government looks like our government back then. The reality is unchanged. Acts describes the people who knew what Jesus wanted making a communist commune in which the governing body of the communist commune took care of the members.
There is a difference there between social organization ("it wasn't cool") and government (people dying).
and while the position (Christianity=>building up to communist government) is arguable, its also easy to argue against (church structure in Acts was only for that time/culture, government v. church, later problems with the community that resulted in denying aid to those that didn't contribute, the story of the woman who bought expensive perfume to wash Jesus feet instead of donating money to the poor, the fact that person who wanted her to donate to the poor was skimming off the top, etc.)
(also given the initial question "is there right wing fundamentalism?" is also confused by what "right wing" means..
libertarian or paternalistic
secular or theocratic
popular or aristocratic
local or centralized
legal or despotic
etc.
On almost any question, particularly if you vary your time scale you can make arguments that both answers are "right wing"
Which means
saying X social organization is right wing AND supported by Christianity really can only apply to one region, time, and branch of Christianity. (and may still be arguable)
|
On April 14 2017 00:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2017 00:15 LightSpectra wrote:On April 14 2017 00:06 Krikkitone wrote:On April 13 2017 11:25 KwarK wrote:On April 13 2017 08:37 Danglars wrote:On April 13 2017 06:22 Madkipz wrote:On April 13 2017 05:19 Shield wrote:On April 13 2017 00:08 bardtown wrote:On April 12 2017 22:32 Shield wrote:
Could increase of homelessness be explained with seemingly less Christians nowadays? I don't go to church, but I know people there are eager to help like in bardtown's story. I'm not saying non-Christians don't help, I'm just saying church is more organised than random people in the streets. On the other hand, charity as an organisation might be more popular in the UK. Charity is huge in the UK, but I don't think throwing money at things is enough. A weaker church probably results in less social support. I have clergy in my family and most of what they do is visiting the bereaved and people in hospital. Also a lot of organising community events. I think people underestimated the role of the church and it has not been adequately replaced. Might as well point out that I'm not religious while on the topic before some moron accuses me of being a right wing religious fundamentalist as well as a retarded bigot. Offtopic, but is there even a right wing religious fundamentalist? I thought genuine Christians were leaning towards left wing or socialism. Even the bible itself tells you that if you have a pair of something, then you should give one away. Socialism is a Marxist ideology. The religious christian default leans heavily on Classical liberalism in which chase it is mostly a matter of the individual taking responsibility within the community, and a reliance on the free market solving the human condition rather than a nanny state taking care of everyone. The belief is that Socialized benefits like free abortion and socialized hiring practices, socialized education and socialized charity removes and takes away the responsibility of the individual in favor of a collective irresponsibility that tears away the moral fiber that acted as a glue upon civilization for thousands of years. They are not wrong. A bunch of our taxes is spent so that others can afford to make the sort of mistakes that would have been stern reminders of the harsh realities of life a mere 50-100 years ago. What he said. It's focused on the individual helping, donating his own time and money, and the church community helping those in need. Outsourcing those duties to the state, reaching into the pocket of your neighbor to help out, isn't really mentioned. Acts of the Apostles was completely wasted on you wasn't it. Given that most of the time in Acts the Church is a semicriminal organization, then obviously outsourcing stuff to the government is a bad idea. (Ananaias and Sapphira were killed for lying about holding money back from the church, not for holding money back from the government*) *in case we are talking about government="use of force" The Bible never lays out a blueprint to make a paradise-on-earth state, nor do I think that's a question that anybody in the Bible or who wrote the various books of the Bible would care about. Christianity, after all, is primarily concerned about the path for each individual's eternal salvation of the immortal soul, not prosperity on earth. So, it makes sense that a lot of the commandments therein are to individuals to show charity to the poor (which is something I strongly agree with and support). That being said, individual charity cannot be the end-all of assistance to the poor and needy. If you want to end up like the Russian and French aristocracies right after their respective revolutions, then by all means, continue to think that unfettered capitalism is a great idea. As for me, I don't want to see homeless people neglected on the streets, and then my local church get burned down by revolutionary Marxists desperate for food while trillionaires relax in their country palaces. The Bible does describe what the kind of society that the people who actually knew Jesus, walked with Jesus, talked late into the night around a fire with Jesus etc, thought would most conform with his expectations. That's Acts of the Apostles. That's what the book is about. It describes the kind of community that the followers of Jesus made while waiting for him to come back. And it describes a communist commune. Which makes a whole lot of sense given what we know about Jesus's sermons and teachings. The man was not a fan of greed, of hoarding riches, of judging the less fortunate and so forth. The man was all about tolerance, inclusivity, forgiveness, sharing, not judging others and so forth. But even if you ignore the things Jesus said, Acts gives you the blueprint. The problem is that people, in general, fucking hate that blueprint because people, in general, really don't like being good Christians. Turning the other cheek is hard, giving away wealth you worked for fucking sucks, judging people feels good. The entire message of Jesus is really, really revolutionary and it goes against all of the most common shitty instincts of man. So given the choice between following a difficult message and redefining it a large number of Christians have become Sunday only Christians. Perfectly content to listen to a sermon on Sunday but perfectly content to judge and ignore a homeless guy with a sign on Monday because taking them into their home would be hard and anyway he's probably a drug addict. But none of that changes the actual message as written down. Christians don't like it and they like to pretend it doesn't mean what it means but it's all written there and it's clear for anyone to see. Jesus wants you to give your shit to people who have less shit than you.
It doesn't sound like anything you wrote disagrees with anything I wrote, so I don't know why you quoted my post. Maybe in response to "the Bible doesn't give a blueprint for making a paradise on earth," but I stand by that. Sharing property in common, from each according to his ability to each according to his need -- those are principles that describe a very wide range of ideologies, from anarchism to social-democracy, and it's not really specific enough to tell you where in between.
|
United States42694 Posts
On April 14 2017 00:30 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2017 00:14 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2017 00:06 Krikkitone wrote:On April 13 2017 11:25 KwarK wrote:On April 13 2017 08:37 Danglars wrote:On April 13 2017 06:22 Madkipz wrote:On April 13 2017 05:19 Shield wrote:On April 13 2017 00:08 bardtown wrote:On April 12 2017 22:32 Shield wrote:
Could increase of homelessness be explained with seemingly less Christians nowadays? I don't go to church, but I know people there are eager to help like in bardtown's story. I'm not saying non-Christians don't help, I'm just saying church is more organised than random people in the streets. On the other hand, charity as an organisation might be more popular in the UK. Charity is huge in the UK, but I don't think throwing money at things is enough. A weaker church probably results in less social support. I have clergy in my family and most of what they do is visiting the bereaved and people in hospital. Also a lot of organising community events. I think people underestimated the role of the church and it has not been adequately replaced. Might as well point out that I'm not religious while on the topic before some moron accuses me of being a right wing religious fundamentalist as well as a retarded bigot. Offtopic, but is there even a right wing religious fundamentalist? I thought genuine Christians were leaning towards left wing or socialism. Even the bible itself tells you that if you have a pair of something, then you should give one away. Socialism is a Marxist ideology. The religious christian default leans heavily on Classical liberalism in which chase it is mostly a matter of the individual taking responsibility within the community, and a reliance on the free market solving the human condition rather than a nanny state taking care of everyone. The belief is that Socialized benefits like free abortion and socialized hiring practices, socialized education and socialized charity removes and takes away the responsibility of the individual in favor of a collective irresponsibility that tears away the moral fiber that acted as a glue upon civilization for thousands of years. They are not wrong. A bunch of our taxes is spent so that others can afford to make the sort of mistakes that would have been stern reminders of the harsh realities of life a mere 50-100 years ago. What he said. It's focused on the individual helping, donating his own time and money, and the church community helping those in need. Outsourcing those duties to the state, reaching into the pocket of your neighbor to help out, isn't really mentioned. Acts of the Apostles was completely wasted on you wasn't it. Given that most of the time in Acts the Church is a semicriminal organization, then obviously outsourcing stuff to the government is a bad idea. (Ananaias and Sapphira were killed for lying about holding money back from the church, not for holding money back from the government*) *in case we are talking about government="use of force" And why did they lie about holding money back? Clearly they wanted to keep some money for themselves but felt that it wasn't possible because within the early Christian Church hoarding personal wealth wasn't cool. So they lied about doing it and somehow they ended up dead. Also you're the only one thinking that government automatically means Romans. The early Christian church was the organization that is comparable to government in the modern example. It had the ability to requisition resources and labour from the people and distribute them according to its wishes. It's a communist commune. It's not a 20th Century state but nobody expects it to be. Arguing that it can't be government because it doesn't look like our government ignores that literally no government looks like our government back then. The reality is unchanged. Acts describes the people who knew what Jesus wanted making a communist commune in which the governing body of the communist commune took care of the members. There is a difference there between social organization ("it wasn't cool") and government (people dying). and while the position (Christianity=>building up to communist government) is arguable, its also easy to argue against. (given the initial question "is there right wing fundamentalism?" is also confused by what "right wing" means.. libertarian or paternalistic secular or theocratic popular or aristocratic local or centralized legal or despotic etc. On almost any question, particularly if you vary your time scale you can make arguments that both answers are "right wing" Which means saying X social organization is right wing AND supported by Christianity really can only apply to one region, time, and branch of Christianity. (and may still be arguable)
Christianity certainly didn't advocate Stalinism, I'll give you that. But in terms of social and economic policies, the guy was a revolutionary and would still be a revolutionary today. When we see a prostitute/drug addict/homeless guy we instinctively want to judge that person whereas Jesus says to invite them into your home, give them the benefit of the doubt, help them, trust them, and if they betray that trust, forgive them. Christianity is the dominant world religion but that doesn't make the actual message any less revolutionary. There will always be an internal struggle within Christians to work harder to be better Christians because being a good Christian is hard and being a bad Christian is easy. Doing charity sucks and it always will. Whenever you give away anything you worked for there will always be a feeling of "why should I have to do this, I worked for it, why can't they work for it like I did, how come they just get to have it" (and if there's not you're not giving enough).
The majority of American Christians, particularly Protestants (due to a philosophical divide in the Reformation), have decided that the whole fight to follow Jesus, even if it means sacrifice, is too hard so they just invented a new Jesus that wants you to have a nice car.
|
On April 14 2017 00:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2017 00:30 Krikkitone wrote:On April 14 2017 00:14 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2017 00:06 Krikkitone wrote:On April 13 2017 11:25 KwarK wrote:On April 13 2017 08:37 Danglars wrote:On April 13 2017 06:22 Madkipz wrote:On April 13 2017 05:19 Shield wrote:On April 13 2017 00:08 bardtown wrote:On April 12 2017 22:32 Shield wrote:
Could increase of homelessness be explained with seemingly less Christians nowadays? I don't go to church, but I know people there are eager to help like in bardtown's story. I'm not saying non-Christians don't help, I'm just saying church is more organised than random people in the streets. On the other hand, charity as an organisation might be more popular in the UK. Charity is huge in the UK, but I don't think throwing money at things is enough. A weaker church probably results in less social support. I have clergy in my family and most of what they do is visiting the bereaved and people in hospital. Also a lot of organising community events. I think people underestimated the role of the church and it has not been adequately replaced. Might as well point out that I'm not religious while on the topic before some moron accuses me of being a right wing religious fundamentalist as well as a retarded bigot. Offtopic, but is there even a right wing religious fundamentalist? I thought genuine Christians were leaning towards left wing or socialism. Even the bible itself tells you that if you have a pair of something, then you should give one away. Socialism is a Marxist ideology. The religious christian default leans heavily on Classical liberalism in which chase it is mostly a matter of the individual taking responsibility within the community, and a reliance on the free market solving the human condition rather than a nanny state taking care of everyone. The belief is that Socialized benefits like free abortion and socialized hiring practices, socialized education and socialized charity removes and takes away the responsibility of the individual in favor of a collective irresponsibility that tears away the moral fiber that acted as a glue upon civilization for thousands of years. They are not wrong. A bunch of our taxes is spent so that others can afford to make the sort of mistakes that would have been stern reminders of the harsh realities of life a mere 50-100 years ago. What he said. It's focused on the individual helping, donating his own time and money, and the church community helping those in need. Outsourcing those duties to the state, reaching into the pocket of your neighbor to help out, isn't really mentioned. Acts of the Apostles was completely wasted on you wasn't it. Given that most of the time in Acts the Church is a semicriminal organization, then obviously outsourcing stuff to the government is a bad idea. (Ananaias and Sapphira were killed for lying about holding money back from the church, not for holding money back from the government*) *in case we are talking about government="use of force" And why did they lie about holding money back? Clearly they wanted to keep some money for themselves but felt that it wasn't possible because within the early Christian Church hoarding personal wealth wasn't cool. So they lied about doing it and somehow they ended up dead. Also you're the only one thinking that government automatically means Romans. The early Christian church was the organization that is comparable to government in the modern example. It had the ability to requisition resources and labour from the people and distribute them according to its wishes. It's a communist commune. It's not a 20th Century state but nobody expects it to be. Arguing that it can't be government because it doesn't look like our government ignores that literally no government looks like our government back then. The reality is unchanged. Acts describes the people who knew what Jesus wanted making a communist commune in which the governing body of the communist commune took care of the members. There is a difference there between social organization ("it wasn't cool") and government (people dying). and while the position (Christianity=>building up to communist government) is arguable, its also easy to argue against. (given the initial question "is there right wing fundamentalism?" is also confused by what "right wing" means.. libertarian or paternalistic secular or theocratic popular or aristocratic local or centralized legal or despotic etc. On almost any question, particularly if you vary your time scale you can make arguments that both answers are "right wing" Which means saying X social organization is right wing AND supported by Christianity really can only apply to one region, time, and branch of Christianity. (and may still be arguable) Christianity certainly didn't advocate Stalinism, I'll give you that. But in terms of social and economic policies, the guy was a revolutionary and would still be a revolutionary today. When we see a prostitute/drug addict/homeless guy we instinctively want to judge that person whereas Jesus says to invite them into your home, give them the benefit of the doubt, help them, trust them, and if they betray that trust, forgive them. Christianity is the dominant world religion but that doesn't make the actual message any less revolutionary. There will always be an internal struggle within Christians to work harder to be better Christians because being a good Christian is hard and being a bad Christian is easy. Doing charity sucks and it always will. Whenever you give away anything you worked for there will always be a feeling of "why should I have to do this, I worked for it, why can't they work for it like I did, how come they just get to have it" (and if there's not you're not giving enough). The majority of American Christians, particularly Protestants (due to a philosophical divide in the Reformation), have decided that the whole fight to follow Jesus, even if it means sacrifice, is too hard so they just invented a new Jesus that wants you to have a nice car.
I agree Jesus' message is definitely revolutionary, and people do not follow it well (not vast majority, but all). As such it became a problem when Christianity was official, or even "cool" as with Ananias and Sapphira.
The problem becomes how to actually interact with a world where even in the Church, people cannot be counted on to follow the teaching, not to mention the government.
As such when I see a particular social organization/practice being argued as "Christian"...
If you mean Christianity= this organization/practice, then that is a serious problem
If you mean Christians can support/participate in this organization/practice (under certain circumstances) then it is much more agreeable. (because you are claiming less)
|
Let's all be good Christians from now on, and improve this world!
|
On April 14 2017 00:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2017 22:15 Danglars wrote:On April 13 2017 11:25 KwarK wrote:On April 13 2017 08:37 Danglars wrote:On April 13 2017 06:22 Madkipz wrote:On April 13 2017 05:19 Shield wrote:On April 13 2017 00:08 bardtown wrote:On April 12 2017 22:32 Shield wrote:
Could increase of homelessness be explained with seemingly less Christians nowadays? I don't go to church, but I know people there are eager to help like in bardtown's story. I'm not saying non-Christians don't help, I'm just saying church is more organised than random people in the streets. On the other hand, charity as an organisation might be more popular in the UK. Charity is huge in the UK, but I don't think throwing money at things is enough. A weaker church probably results in less social support. I have clergy in my family and most of what they do is visiting the bereaved and people in hospital. Also a lot of organising community events. I think people underestimated the role of the church and it has not been adequately replaced. Might as well point out that I'm not religious while on the topic before some moron accuses me of being a right wing religious fundamentalist as well as a retarded bigot. Offtopic, but is there even a right wing religious fundamentalist? I thought genuine Christians were leaning towards left wing or socialism. Even the bible itself tells you that if you have a pair of something, then you should give one away. Socialism is a Marxist ideology. The religious christian default leans heavily on Classical liberalism in which chase it is mostly a matter of the individual taking responsibility within the community, and a reliance on the free market solving the human condition rather than a nanny state taking care of everyone. The belief is that Socialized benefits like free abortion and socialized hiring practices, socialized education and socialized charity removes and takes away the responsibility of the individual in favor of a collective irresponsibility that tears away the moral fiber that acted as a glue upon civilization for thousands of years. They are not wrong. A bunch of our taxes is spent so that others can afford to make the sort of mistakes that would have been stern reminders of the harsh realities of life a mere 50-100 years ago. What he said. It's focused on the individual helping, donating his own time and money, and the church community helping those in need. Outsourcing those duties to the state, reaching into the pocket of your neighbor to help out, isn't really mentioned. Acts of the Apostles was completely wasted on you wasn't it. Did I miss the apocryphal chapters on the remarkable programs they set up with Emperor Tiberius or Pontius Pilate? The guys who walked and lived with Jesus decided to set up their own community and await the second coming. And when they decided how they would structure their community they decided to use the rule "from each according to his means to each according to their needs". And when Ananias and Sapphira decided they weren't into the whole communism thing (because the follows of Jesus literally founded a communist commune after he went back to heaven) the Holy Spirit showed up and disemboweled them (honestly I suspect the other Christians did but whatever). Acts literally describes the people who knew Jesus best going "hey, let's make a communist commune" and then the ones who go "fuck you, I got mine" end up being killed by God. I'm not religious so it doesn't trouble me but Jesus had a lot of words for rich people who ignore those in need and absolutely none of them were good.
What individuals did in an open membership community is miles away from political rule with mandatory taxation. The Church already does aspects of this in soup kitchens and the like ... an actual application of the teaching. The fake socialism tie-ins aren't focused on the individual, it's about forcing everyone In top-down manner to accept bureau-run charity run by taxation.
Reread Acts if you think "fuck you, I got mine" is even close to a textual reading. You can think Christians ought to support a lot of things if you're unfamiliar with the religion.
Krikkitone already addressed everything, I should have read further haha. Probably best to let the topic return to the purpose of the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
