I’ve pointed this out before: The Non-religious tend to be more leftward learning than the religious. The religious will give to charities in droves while openly voting against government services helping the poor. Left leaning people give less to charity but support higher taxation and helping the poor through bigger government.
I am all for charity from private individuals, churches and industry — but totally against the Government playing the colossal philanthropist when its broke and in debt up to its eyeballs. That’s just stupid and irresponsible and could take down the whole Country at the rate its going. When is Jesus going to help the Government get out of its suffocating debt?
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
I am all for charity from private individuals, churches and industry — but totally against the Government playing the colossal philanthropist when its broke and in debt up to its eyeballs. That’s just stupid and irresponsible and could take down the whole Country at the rate its going. When is Jesus going to help the Government get out of its suffocating debt?[/quote]Why would He wanna do that?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’ve pointed this out before: The Non-religious tend to be more leftward learning than the religious. The religious will give to charities in droves while openly voting against government services helping the poor. Left leaning people give less to charity but support higher taxation and helping the poor through bigger government.
[/quote]
A distinction should be made between which charities are being donated to by conservatives. As I mentioned before, conservatives make more donations by any relevant measure, but the discrepancy is not very large and is trending in favor of liberals. But that’s just one study and I can’t remember all of the specifics of it, only the generalities. I don’t think that either group as identified was donating in large amounts either way.
I think it should also bear mention that liberals pay taxes as well as conservatives. In fact, from what I remember from this one study, liberals actually account for the same amount of wealth in this country that conservatives do, so it may be a misnomer to say that liberals pay taxes, but generally pay less.
Anyways, liberals also pay taxes, and perhaps in their mind, they consider taxes taken from them for “entitlement” programs to be another form of donations. It’s entirely conceivable that many liberals simply support higher taxes for these purposes because they are concerned about the future of the poor in this country and realize that more needs to be done to help them. I don’t necessarily think that higher taxes are the way to achieve that goal, but I don’t think it is very in keeping with Christ’s teachings to complain about the direction or use of tax money to ostensibly help the poor
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:Not again? ANOTHER alleged ex Christian (as if there could be such a thing) that knows literally zero of the gospel, zero of who and what Jesus of Nazareth was and is and mangles his words beyond recognition? Again? If I get especially motivated I may dig up some of my many posts correcting this kinda modernist butchery… again. Probably not though.
EDIT: BTW, even Orion gets this by now. He’s on the right track. As far as he goes. Which isn’t very far, but still.[/quote]Well, at least I have read the book and I highly dislike it if someone tries to bullshit me because he thinks I have not. [/quote]I’ll give ya some credit. You are pretty much right in that post. Like I say. As far as it goes. I’ll just say this. EVERY single syllable of both testaments of the Holy Bible, excepting only those commanding repentance and surrender, are addressing THE CHURCH. Christians. NOT the world or the world’s governments. If somebody decides they want a socialist welfare program or a marxist healthcare bill? Go ahead. But it ain’t got nuthin to do with the living God of whom Jesus Christ is the second person and eternally begotten Son. THE CHURCH is commanded to care first for HER OWN and then yes, the poor.
Any alleged Christian who thinks that stealing unbelievers money and giving it to other unbelievers by force is part of the saving gospel of grace is utterly devoid of knowledge of what that gospel is. The risen Christ abominates everything this nation has degenerated into. Both parties are abhorrent in his site, but of eternally more importance is the populous they reflect.
And for the record… again. There is NO system of civil government explicitly taught in the New Testament. Other indirect principles must be brought to bear if a society would honor God in their public policy. If not? It doesn’t really make much lasting difference. We are dying proof.
[/quote]
Saint Sir Thomas More exemplified as much throughout his life.
I agree that religious doctrine or belief or morality or however one wants to term it does not have any place in political discourse, and vice versa. Jesus believed the same thing, hence “render unto Caesar, etc, etc…” and the whole thing about His kingdom being in Heaven and not of Earth.
Furthermore, I agree that the New Testament and/or Jesus does not prescribe a certain system of government. However, I do not think that Jesus advocates a complete separation of how one is to live their own life in accordance with God’s Law from their system of governance. He only advocates that a concern with the way a governmental system works is immaterial in the long run because said system and how it works for everyone is irrelevant when it comes to getting into Heaven. I suppose you could say that Jesus was an early advocate of a separation of church and state.
So I think it is hypocritical on the part of some politicians, regardless of their political leanings, when they try to inject their understanding of God’s Law into politics. This is especially relevant given that much of what this country was founded upon is based in the belief that our system of govt, namely democracy in general, is the embodiment of a system that promotes the basics of Judeo-Christian doctrine.
So, regardless of whether or not biblical teachings are to be applied to a system of govt, or whether they purport to lay out the most beneficial system or not, the fact is that our current system is inextricably tied to the religious temperament of the country. I think it’s only appropriate to examine whether or not the way we expect our govt to run is in line with the religious beliefs that many claim to guide their political decisions. In the case of some conservatives who are also devoutly Christian, whether or not they fit the grossly stereotypical “religious right” mold, I think their political beliefs are in conflict with their religious beliefs.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’ve pointed this out before: The Non-religious tend to be more leftward learning than the religious. The religious will give to charities in droves while openly voting against government services helping the poor. Left leaning people give less to charity but support higher taxation and helping the poor through bigger government.
[/quote]
So you’re saying both pay taxes, but the left-leaning folks are still less charitable. And they have to have a gun pointed at themselves (and their neighbor) to do it. I see.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:<<< A long post >>>[/quote]I just can’t do it now man, but you have successfully tugged me into deeming a responses worthwhile. No offense and I don’t mean to sound so arrogant, but it’s that I have been over everything you say so many times already. It’s ll be a couple days. You have all of this mostly wrong from a biblical standpoint. No offense again man. Honestly.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’ve pointed this out before: The Non-religious tend to be more leftward learning than the religious. The religious will give to charities in droves while openly voting against government services helping the poor. Left leaning people give less to charity but support higher taxation and helping the poor through bigger government.
[/quote]
So you’re saying both pay taxes, but the left-leaning folks are still less charitable. And they have to have a gun pointed at themselves (and their neighbor) to do it. I see. [/quote]
Gun pointed or not, at least their positions are not immoral.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’ve pointed this out before: The Non-religious tend to be more leftward learning than the religious. The religious will give to charities in droves while openly voting against government services helping the poor. Left leaning people give less to charity but support higher taxation and helping the poor through bigger government.
[/quote]
So you’re saying both pay taxes, but the left-leaning folks are still less charitable. And they have to have a gun pointed at themselves (and their neighbor) to do it. I see. [/quote]
Gun pointed or not, at least their positions are not immoral.[/quote]
Nor the opposite, dramatically cutting (or, even eliminating) entitlements?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:<<< A long post >>>[/quote]I just can’t do it now man, but you have successfully tugged me into deeming a responses worthwhile. No offense and I don’t mean to sound so arrogant, but it’s that I have been over everything you say so many times already. It’s ll be a couple days. You have all of this mostly wrong from a biblical standpoint. No offense again man. Honestly.
[/quote]
That sounds like a copout to me. Forgive me, but I don’t spend very much time in PWI at all and so I am not familiar with your particular stance nor your posting history regarding this subject. But I am under no obligation to vet myself or my argument by making sure that it hasn’t been covered in other threads. At best, it was addressed by you in a peripheral sense. I could tell you in what ways you miss my point, but I’ll instead borrow a page from your book and wait for your response first.
At any rate, if the issues I raised have been beaten to death to the point where it presents an affront to your sensibilities in regards to the way these threads should unfold, why even waste your time by coming in here to tell me as much? Why come on here to tell me that I should search through the site for the answers when you are apparently capable of presenting them to me yourself, since you have allegedly already explained them multiple times as it is?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
So, in other words, you have nothing meaningful to contribute in a way that will advance and not degenerate the conversation.[/quote]
With all due respect you posted the same 3-4 talking points that are utter nonsense like any other wannabe theologian.
I would start with the assumption that people have actually read their respective holy books and that they are not completely brain dead morons.
Go to the “eye of the needle” passage and read just one or two more fucking sentences and you will know why it is beyond ridiculous to use it in this context.
Ya know Orion, there’s something to be said for these here remarks of yours. The bible is a collection of 66 ancient books penned by about 40 different people, on three continents, in three ancient languages not English, over a 1600 year period. It requires… hang on… STUDY… to be properly understood. Even from a purely literary standpoint.
These hack n slash copy n paste websites are an embarrassment to the people who use them. Especially when used to attempt to disparage conservative politics. They are off by one trillion light years every time. DBCooper seems like he’s willing to listen so I’ll try to give him something. Chris had some decent, but short answers to some the other guys points. Some not so good too Chris.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
I am all for charity from private individuals, churches and industry — but totally against the Government playing the colossal philanthropist when its broke and in debt up to its eyeballs. That’s just stupid and irresponsible and could take down the whole Country at the rate its going. When is Jesus going to help the Government get out of its suffocating debt?[/quote]Why would He wanna do that?
[/quote]
To the extent that Jesus is willing to help us solve problems when called upon, I suppose He would be a good guide to the right people. This country’s crushing debt is just as serious a problem as cancer, mental illness, corruption, etc. If Jesus is interested in healing in general, then financial healing would be right up His alley. Too bad our leaders in government don’t hold the vision of Divine Providence like they used to — not PC, ya know.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’ve pointed this out before: The Non-religious tend to be more leftward learning than the religious. The religious will give to charities in droves while openly voting against government services helping the poor. Left leaning people give less to charity but support higher taxation and helping the poor through bigger government.
[/quote]
So you’re saying both pay taxes, but the left-leaning folks are still less charitable. And they have to have a gun pointed at themselves (and their neighbor) to do it. I see. [/quote]
The phrasing of your reply is quite telling, “a gun pointed at themselves.”
I’ve heard conservatives say services provided through taxation isn’t really “giving” and if the choices are between having the service provided through taxation or not having the service at all, they would choose the latter.
I do not consider taxation to help the disenfranchised akin to having a gun pointed at someone or oneself.
Secondly, what the religious do have is great organization and mobilization of groups. There are really aren’t atheist communities out there (that’s changing) so it would make sense the religious are likely to give more.
Given that religion hasn’t shown to have any effect on improving one’s moral character, I highly doubt it actually makes people more charitable. Instead it just puts people in a good position to give.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
So, in other words, you have nothing meaningful to contribute in a way that will advance and not degenerate the conversation.[/quote]
With all due respect you posted the same 3-4 talking points that are utter nonsense like any other wannabe theologian.
I would start with the assumption that people have actually read their respective holy books and that they are not completely brain dead morons.
Go to the “eye of the needle” passage and read just one or two more fucking sentences and you will know why it is beyond ridiculous to use it in this context.
[/quote]
Enlighten me.
The only prayer God will ever hear from ANYONE not currently raised from death to life in the blood and resurrection of His Son is “Lord Jesus I surrender everything I am and everything I have to you as master of my life. Save me from my sin and make me like you”. Jesus did not come to this earth to be a general help to people or nations with their problems. He came to save His people from the eternal judgement of an offended just and righteous God.
The United States has degenerated into an affront and a reproach to His holy name. Because the church in this country has degenerated into an affront and a reproach to His holy name. Despite His most abundant gracious blessing. Only His patient and merciful lovingkindness allows us to see one more sunrise. Once again. You have the wrong jesus and the wrong god sir. He is not a bleeding heart cosmic vending machine.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’ve pointed this out before: The Non-religious tend to be more leftward learning than the religious. The religious will give to charities in droves while openly voting against government services helping the poor. Left leaning people give less to charity but support higher taxation and helping the poor through bigger government.
[/quote]
So you’re saying both pay taxes, but the left-leaning folks are still less charitable. And they have to have a gun pointed at themselves (and their neighbor) to do it. I see. [/quote]
The phrasing of your reply is quite telling, “a gun pointed at themselves.”
I’ve heard conservatives say services provided through taxation isn’t really “giving” and if the choices are between having the service provided through taxation or not having the service at all, they would choose the latter.
I do not consider taxation to help the disenfranchised akin to having a gun pointed at someone or oneself.
Secondly, what the religious do have is great organization and mobilization of groups. There are really aren’t atheist communities out there (that’s changing) so it would make sense the religious are likely to give more.
Given that religion hasn’t shown to have any effect on improving one’s moral character, I highly doubt it actually makes people more charitable. Instead it just puts people in a good position to give.
[/quote]
It’s not about pointing guns, its about control. With services through taxation you lose control on who gets your money. Mainly its used as a means of recruitment which is true for both religious and non-religious organizations, and it works.
Illinois. Following the legalization of same-sex civil unions effective June 1, 2011, Illinois required Catholic Charities, because it accepted public funds, to provide adoption and foster-care services to same-sex couples in the same manner that they serviced different-sex couples. Rather than comply, Catholic Charities closed most of its Illinois affiliates. They had provided such services for forty years.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
So, in other words, you have nothing meaningful to contribute in a way that will advance and not degenerate the conversation.[/quote]
With all due respect you posted the same 3-4 talking points that are utter nonsense like any other wannabe theologian.
I would start with the assumption that people have actually read their respective holy books and that they are not completely brain dead morons.
Go to the “eye of the needle” passage and read just one or two more fucking sentences and you will know why it is beyond ridiculous to use it in this context.
[/quote]
Enlighten me.
[/quote]
Could you not possibly read the whole thing?
All two paragraphs or so of it?
The Rich Young Man
16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, â??Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?â??
17â??Why do you ask me about what is good?â?? Jesus replied. â??There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.â??
18â??Which ones?â?? the man inquired.
Jesus replied, â??â??Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,â??d and â??love your neighbor as yourself.â??eâ??
20â??All these I have kept,â?? the young man said. â??What do I still lack?â??
21Jesus answered, â??If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.â??
22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23Then Jesus said to his disciples, â??I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.â??
25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, â??Who then can be saved?â??
26Jesus looked at them and said, â??With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.â??
27Peter answered him, â??We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?â??
28Jesus said to them, â??I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or motherf or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.
Does it look like his disciples thought in any way, shape or form that a rich man had less of a chance to get to heaven?
No, they despair, because if not even a rich man can do it, how could they?
This makes sense in the light of a Jewish tradition were sacrifices were semi mandatory, which costs money, were you could not work on sabbath, which means you make no money, and so further and so on.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I do not consider taxation to help the disenfranchised akin to having a gun pointed at someone or oneself.
[/quote]
What “you consider” is all well and good but if you do not pay your taxes you WILL have a gun pointed at you sooner or later.