|
Post by maya55555 on Apr 21, 2017 23:32:59 GMT
saoradh
Study Catholicism before you shoot off yer' pie hole. IJS.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 23, 2017 16:42:18 GMT
captainbryce Not sure about that. The question was: Sounds pretty absolute which is why my answer was what it was. I'm aware of what the question is, but you are interpreting the OPs question wrong (as confirmed by the OP). Whether it sounds absolute or not is irrelevant. You are assuming more to the question than what was provided.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 23, 2017 21:23:26 GMT
captainbryceI didn't see where he clarified that nor how he would be able to considering my post was the first one. This is irrelevant since at the end of the day I don;t think one has anything to do with the other which is what I made clear without the need to correctly imply anything on anyone. So let's erase everything and pretend that the OP didn;t mean universal when his question was universal in nature. The answer remains "No".
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 23, 2017 21:33:59 GMT
PanLeoI didn;t say that. I said that one philosophy does not mandate the other. So I'm OK with people thinking they are both philosophies. I just disagree with the notion that they are linked since they aren't. In fact, neither of them are even remotely concerned with each other. I'm not sure why my religious beliefs would promote an inferior concept like a manmade construct in contrast to a divine one which would obviously transcend it.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 23, 2017 23:33:06 GMT
captainbryce I didn't see where he clarified that nor how he would be able to considering my post was the first one. This is irrelevant since at the end of the day I don;t think one has anything to do with the other which is what I made clear without the need to correctly imply anything on anyone. So let's erase everything and pretend that the OP didn;t mean universal when his question was universal in nature. The answer remains "No". A) I suggest you go back and read my second response (and consider who "liked" it). B) Despite his use of the word "socialist" (which has obviously thrown you off), the basis of the question has to do with "religious ideology" not "political ideology".
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 24, 2017 0:43:10 GMT
own religion? I dont subscribe to Catholicism btw. "The use of all things that is found in this world ought to be common to all men . Only the most manifest inquiry makes one say to the other, "this belongs to me, that to you" Hence the origin of contention among men" - St Clement "The earth of which they are born is common to all, and therefore te fruit that the earth bring forth belongs without distriction to all" - St Gregory the great "Nature furnishes its wealth to all men in common. God beneficially has created all thing that heir enjoyment be e common to all living things ad that the earth become te common possession of all" - St Ambrose "What thing do you call 'yours'? What thing are you able to say is yours? From whom have you recieved it? You speak and act like one who upon an occasion of going early to the threatre and possessing himself without an obstacle of the seats destined for the remainders of te public, pretends to oppose ther entrance in due time, and to prohibit them seating themselves, arrogating to his own sole use property that is really destined to common use. And it is precisely in this manner ac the rich" - St Basil the great I dunno if they "have to be", but at least a few teachings of Jesus could be interpreted as socialism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 3:30:09 GMT
They don't 'have' to follow all of the teachings of their religion. They can just cherry-pick and 're-interpret' to make it seem as though Jesus would have not had any issue with their callous refusal to help others.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 24, 2017 11:15:20 GMT
They don't 'have' to follow all of the teachings of their religion. They can just cherry-pick and 're-interpret' to make it seem as though Jesus would have not had any issue with their callous refusal to help others. It's not either...or so there's no reason to re-interpret something Jesus didn't say in the first place. One can easily help people without being into socialism. [Most] people do it all the time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 11:59:25 GMT
They don't 'have' to follow all of the teachings of their religion. They can just cherry-pick and 're-interpret' to make it seem as though Jesus would have not had any issue with their callous refusal to help others. It's not either...or so there's no reason to re-interpret something Jesus didn't say in the first place. One can easily help people without being into socialism. [Most] people do it all the time. It's suspect, to say the least if anyone says that they are interested in helping the poor, but at the same time wants the most predatory form of capitalism known to man which leaves people without even so much as the right to healthcare and unemployment benefits. I think that what usually happens is that conservative Christians will pay lip service to the need to help the poor, but then they'll find reasons for why all economic misfortune is the fault of the person suffering it (until it happens to them, of course) and use that to justify their frothing-at-the-mouth insistence that those people be denied any form of economic relief or treatment for their medical conditions. So you see, they will exploit the "he who does not work (or works at a job that I deem to be unworthy of supporting even a subsistence lifestyle) neither shall he eat" loophole.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 24, 2017 13:18:04 GMT
It's not either...or so there's no reason to re-interpret something Jesus didn't say in the first place. One can easily help people without being into socialism. [Most] people do it all the time. It's suspect, to say the least if anyone says that they are interested in helping the poor, but at the same time wants the most predatory form of capitalism known to man which leaves people without even so much as the right to healthcare and unemployment benefits. I think that what usually happens is that conservative Christians will pay lip service to the need to help the poor, but then they'll find reasons for why all economic misfortune is the fault of the person suffering it (until it happens to them, of course) and use that to justify their frothing-at-the-mouth insistence that those people be denied any form of economic relief or treatment for their medical conditions. So you see, they will exploit the "he who does not work (or works at a job that I deem to be unworthy of supporting even a subsistence lifestyle) neither shall he eat" loophole. It has nothing to do with wants.
People want to support themselves by making money and Christian are obligated to help their fellow Christians and their neighbors. They can do this under any system created by man without all the auxiliary hang-ups created by them.
We do it all the time and includes conservative Christians.
Your lack of knowledge on what they do is irrelevant to what they actually do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2017 9:02:46 GMT
CoolJGS☺So it must have been mainly liberal atheists who were screaming about 'communism' when Obamacare was being introduced in the USA (and bleating which continues to this day)...and explicitly objecting to making healthcare accessible to people on low wages? It didn't seem that way based on what I was watching, but perhaps that was a media bias.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 25, 2017 10:40:23 GMT
CoolJGS☺ So it must have been mainly liberal atheists who were screaming about 'communism' when Obamacare was being introduced in the USA (and bleating which continues to this day)...and explicitly objecting to making healthcare accessible to people on low wages? It didn't seem that way based on what I was watching, but perhaps that was a media bias. Again, the point is missed. There is no connection between a political movement and Christian Doctrine and so there is no reason for any Christian to champion communism or anything else unless they want that as a political ideal. Because you are not religious and are not familiar with Christian teachings, you can only see things clumped together. I get that. Your ideals are based only on your opinion and on what government establishes. I'm saying that one can be against or indifferent toward any particular government and still be a Good Samaritan or follow the Golden Rule or love your neighbor, etc... No government is needed to implement these notions which is a good thing since human governments routinely and predictably suck.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2017 13:03:42 GMT
CoolJGS☺ So it must have been mainly liberal atheists who were screaming about 'communism' when Obamacare was being introduced in the USA (and bleating which continues to this day)...and explicitly objecting to making healthcare accessible to people on low wages? It didn't seem that way based on what I was watching, but perhaps that was a media bias. Again, the point is missed. There is no connection between a political movement and Christian Doctrine and so there is no reason for any Christian to champion communism or anything else unless they want that as a political ideal. Because you are not religious and are not familiar with Christian teachings, you can only see things clumped together. I get that. Your ideals are based only on your opinion and on what government establishes. I'm saying that one can be against or indifferent toward any particular government and still be a Good Samaritan or follow the Golden Rule or love your neighbor, etc... No government is needed to implement these notions which is a good thing since human governments routinely and predictably suck. I'm not missing the point. The ethos of the current system of capitalism that is supported by Republicans (the vast majority of whom are Christians) is that greed is good. That is the opposite of what Christ had to say on the subject. The protests against Obamacare (or any system that would have made healthcare accessible to the poor) is not compatible with the philosophy that the Bible teaches with regards to looking after one another, and the people who were intractably opposed to Obamacare would also have to have been aware that there was no charitable system which ensured that everyone could access the healthcare they needed without facing complete financial ruin. Government absolutely is needed to implement the philosophy that people should tangibly support those in need, because human beings routinely and predictably suck and need to be forced to do the things that they would not do of their own volition. The people who say that they are in favour of kindness, but rabidly oppose any healthcare reform, or any form of social safety net, are those who pay lip service to the positive messages that are in the Bible and believe that to be sufficient. Saying "it's good to be kind and generous" isn't as good as actually being kind and generous, but this is an idea that isn't grasped by those who call themselves Christians but also vote in favour of fiscal policies which are punitive to the most vulnerable.
|
|