Some reasons why you should be a liberal rather than a conservative

[nobodyknows]

I grew up in the LA ghetto, went to magnet schools all my life, and myself was a penniless immigrant, yet I never considered my family nor any of my peers as "poor." There is no such thing as "poor" in the US. If you want to see poor go to Africa.

There is a difference between "poor" and "starving" or "destitute".

 

[Zebo]

They're doing pretty well, but sucking money out of the North sea has to be helping just a bit.

Norway has been top 5 well before o&g was discovered in north sea. Not to mention Saudi, Iraq, Kuwait etc who produce a lot more oil are not on that list. It stems from everyone getting a piece of the GDP instead of top 1-5% like here or those countries. .

 

[Ausm]

Jesus also hung out with drunks, criminals and whores.... NVM you're right Christian organizations like ACORN are totally following in his footsteps.

I thought you were referring to Congress.

 

[ebaycj]

Jesus did not favor the taxman. Jesus would not have sent out tax men to force people to pay into a inefficient and corrupt government. Jesus would expect people to give of their own free will.

A fictional character would expect nothing of anyone, as he doesn't exist. So, you are obviously wrong.

 

[Moonbeam]

I can see why some folks can't be Christian. To be Christian means to attempt to follow the teaching of Jesus. One notion is to give all what you have to those who are in need. It is not for you to judge the degree of their need nor if they are needy at all... IF they, the needy, appear to need then it is to you to supply the remedy to the extent you can... even unto everything.

There are reasons folks choose to be athiest... it is far easier than to be a Christian... a real Christian.
To see a Church all garnished in gold and ivory is an assault on the very teaching that the Church seeks to propound.
To hear a 'preacher' ask for money is the voice of evil. The voice of goodness would say to look about you and feed the poor even if it means breaking a bit off your own piece of bread.
Conservatives and Liberals and all those in between are Earthly labels. Read the beatitudes in Mark's work. Ask what is meant by the term 'Righteousness' and 'Peacemakers'.

Well that IS sort of my point. The reason it is better to be liberal than conservative is because it is closer to being what Christ came to teach. It is conservatives that more than liberals claim to be Christians, but they are Christian externally and only in name. They live with the delusion that the external, the going to church, that belonging to a Christian group defines being Christian, while philosophically they worship worldly goods and power and covet Mammon as their real God. They are religious in name, but they are not internally spiritual. They are the modern day Pharisees.

 

[Moonbeam]

Norway has been top 5 well before o&g was discovered in north sea. Not to mention Saudi, Iraq, Kuwait etc who produce a lot more oil are not on that list. It stems from everyone getting a piece of the GDP instead of top 1-5% like here or those countries. .

They have a real Christian mindset, unlike here.

 

[Greenman]

Jesus said that rich people don't get into heaven. Liberals are a bit more skeptical as to whether or not hell exists, so we cut the middle man and send your ass to jail when you don't give your money away. On a more positive note, tax evaders who get stabbed in prison probably go to heaven because they died poor.



Fair enough, but many other countries have lots of social programs and are doing well. Australia is ranked as #2 best country by the UN, the country has universal health care, the citizens are some of the happiest people in the world (2006), university is incredibly cheap, and child care is heavily subsidized.

Seems like a nice socialist place to live. If you get sick, you'll be ok. If you have a kid, you won't stress too much over the cost of day care. If your kids are smart, they can go to university without asking how much it will cost. Seems like the government is really there to help you learn how to fish. This would be the complete opposite of the US where getting sick with no insurance means you die or go bankrupt, going to school means getting tens of thousands of dollars in debt (good luck getting anyone to lend you 30k when you're 18 years old), and having a child means you're completely fucked financially. How will you pay the $8,000 per year per child for daycare? Sorry but you should have thought of that before!

Well crap. Now I'm going to have to study Norway. Sounds as if they have cracked the code.

 

[Atreus21]

So let me get this straight.

Moonbeam equates government taxation to:

Jesus' command to help the poor.

The government is not God. The government is made up of humans, no less selfish than the greediest of the greedy. Paying higher taxes does not equal helping those less fortunate.

And let's assume that paying taxes does equal helping the poor. By this reasoning, if we are to follow Christ's command, what right have we to keep any of our income at all? Should we simply give 100% of our income in taxes so that the government may do as it pleases with it?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Well that IS sort of my point. The reason it is better to be liberal than conservative is because it is closer to being what Christ came to teach. It is conservatives that more than liberals claim to be Christians, but they are Christian externally and only in name. They live with the delusion that the external, the going to church, that belonging to a Christian group defines being Christian, while philosophically they worship worldly goods and power and covet Mammon as their real God. They are religious in name, but they are not internally spiritual. They are the modern day Pharisees.

Yes, of course, there are 'Pharisees' among Christians currently and throughout history...and will continue to be among them 2000 years from now.

Christians are real people and, as such, are very diverse....some are liberals, some are conservatives, some are apolitical, etc. Take a second and think about why you need to view large groups of people as strawman stereotypes and then feel justified in denigrating them all on this basis (be it Christians, conservatives, or whatever people that perceive their lives and purpose differently than you)?

Just what compels an intelligent person to do this?

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Yes, of course, there are 'Pharisees' among Christians currently and throughout history...and will continue to be among them 2000 years from now.

Christians are real people and, as such, are very diverse....some are liberals, some are conservatives, some are apolitical, etc. Take a second and think about why you need to view large groups of people as strawman stereotypes and feel justified in denigerating them all on this basis (be it Christians, conservatives, or whatever people that perceive their lives and purpose differently than you)?

Just what compels an intelligent person to do this?

Because progressive liberals are "enlightened" and "tolerant"...did you forget already?

Even when they are being extremely judgmental and bigoted, they are just right, because they are "better than everyone else", remember?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally Posted by Doc Savage Fan
Yes, of course, there are 'Pharisees' among Christians currently and throughout history...and will continue to be among them 2000 years from now.

Christians are real people and, as such, are very diverse....some are liberals, some are conservatives, some are apolitical, etc. Take a second and think about why you need to view large groups of people as strawman stereotypes and feel justified in denigerating them all on this basis (be it Christians, conservatives, or whatever people that perceive their lives and purpose differently than you)?

Just what compels an intelligent person to do this?

Because progressive liberals are "enlightened" and "tolerant"...did you forget already?

Even when they are being extremely judgmental and bigoted, they are just right, because they are "better than everyone else", remember?

I wonder if you're likely to notice the irony in the fact that you're responding to a post complaining about straw man stereotypes.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Liberals care for the poor?

Look at their donation rates!
They only care when they can reach into SOMEONE ELSEs wallets for their pet projects

Republicans mostly donate to religions and as a way to avoid taxes. While religious donations do some good they also use donations to building bigger chruches and paying priests to proselytize. It's hardly all about helping the poor (hardly all being a key word).

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Republicans mostly donate to religions and as a way to avoid taxes.

Judgmental stereotyping FTL.

You can read minds now?

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes, of course, there are 'Pharisees' among Christians currently and throughout history...and will continue to be among them 2000 years from now.

Christians are real people and, as such, are very diverse....some are liberals, some are conservatives, some are apolitical, etc. Take a second and think about why you need to view large groups of people as strawman stereotypes and then feel justified in denigrating them all on this basis (be it Christians, conservatives, or whatever people that perceive their lives and purpose differently than you)?

Just what compels an intelligent person to do this?

One line of reasoning could go like this:

There are all kinds of Christians? How can that be. Did Christ come with a message? Was His message that you can think anything you like and support any philosophy you want? I would have thought, myself, if I were a thinker, that there might be a particular philosophy that is Christian and a lot of wrong opinions as to what that particular philosophy is. That would mean that some people who claim to be Christians are Christians and some are practicing a delusional interpretation of what He came to deliver.

Given the fact then, that out here in the world, we have real Christians and tons of phonies who think they are Christians, we can set up some sort of dialectic, that one kind of Christianity, the real Christianity, is good, and the phony kinds are bad.

Now once we have these categories of better and worse from which we must distinguish, we will necessarily, if we are moral beings, love the real Christianity and eschew the rest as non Christian.

Naturally, since we want good to triumph and evil to be destroyed, we will have to promote the good and do what we can to fight the evil, no?

So liberals who are closer to Christ, as I have shown, are better than the deluded fools who are conservatives and pretend they are Christians.

Now why were you unable to figure that out for yourself?

There is either a truth or there isn't, no?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Republicans mostly donate to religions and as a way to avoid taxes. While religious donations do some good they also use donations to building bigger chruches and paying priests to proselytize. It's hardly all about helping the poor (hardly all being a key word).

Really? And they must be pretty stupid too since they'd be much better off paying their taxes and keeping the rest for hookers. And helping the poor? Yep...it's all a scam...you caught them in their lies! I must say that you're very perceptive person....good detective work!

 

[Genx87]

One thing I find funny about the bigger lefties on this msgboard. The ego they posess is quite remarkable. I lump Moonbeam and Craig in the same category. Craig quotes himself in his sig and has a list of people he will refuse to be owned by. Moonie needs self validation by posting a thread like this, then quoting himself and saying how right he is. It is quite amusing to see this in action.

 

[Moonbeam]

Republicans mostly donate to religions and as a way to avoid taxes. While religious donations do some good they also use donations to building bigger chruches and paying priests to proselytize. It's hardly all about helping the poor (hardly all being a key word).

I don't think you are right about this for the simple reason that you can only deduct a portion of what you donate, so while you pay less tax, you wind up with less money personally.

I think it is done, for show, for worldly recognition, as it were, out of a sense of shame and guilt, and because giving is feels good to the soul. In short, people give for any number of reasons, both worthless and good.

In the long run, however, somebody may benefit from the giving, so why second guess people's motives?

 

[Atreus21]

Well that IS sort of my point. The reason it is better to be liberal than conservative is because it is closer to being what Christ came to teach. It is conservatives that more than liberals claim to be Christians, but they are Christian externally and only in name. They live with the delusion that the external, the going to church, that belonging to a Christian group defines being Christian, while philosophically they worship worldly goods and power and covet Mammon as their real God. They are religious in name, but they are not internally spiritual. They are the modern day Pharisees.

This is vaguely infuriating.

Liberals are closer to Christ's teaching than Conservatives?

One word for you, Moonbeam: Abortion.

"Just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me."

If you want to categorize everyone, then I'll do the same. You are the guys who live according to moral relativism, where nothing is to be deemed better or worse than anything else by any objective measure (which is of course a hilarious contradiction in terms). What does Christ mean to a liberal? You are the guys who abort children.

If you're going to talk in religious terms, you should be very scared of the ground on which you stand. You think Christ would approve of an individual who gave to the poor while having no regard for the weakest voices? Do you think that Christ would excuse a man who did not defend a child's life, on grounds that he gave earthly comforts to those who were not killed by the operation he supports? Do you not see the horrific contradiction in what you are trying to prove?

If Satan has triumphed at anything in this world, it has been at cultivating an attitude that some human life is not really human. It happened with the Nazis, it happened with slavery, and it happens now with abortion.

 

[Moonbeam]

One thing I find funny about the bigger lefties on this msgboard. The ego they posess is quite remarkable. I lump Moonbeam and Craig in the same category. Craig quotes himself in his sig and has a list of people he will refuse to be owned by. Moonie needs self validation by posting a thread like this, then quoting himself and saying how right he is. It is quite amusing to see this in action.

You aren't nearly as amused as I am. I get to be amused by myself and your reactions. It's a fantastic scream.

 

[mav451]

Haha I was gonna bring that up too. No liberal is kidding themselves that they are "closer to god" when pro-choice is cornerstone of the party platform.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is vaguely infuriating.

Liberals are closer to Christ's teaching than Conservatives?

One word for you, Moonbeam: Abortion.

"Just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me."

If you want to categorize everyone, then I'll do the same. You are the guys who live according to moral relativism, where nothing is to be deemed better or worse than anything else by any objective measure (which is of course a hilarious contradiction in terms). What does Christ mean to a liberal? You are the guys who abort children.

If you're going to talk in religious terms, you should be very scared of the ground on which you stand. You think Christ would approve of an individual who gave to the poor while having no regard for the weakest voices? Do you think that Christ would excuse a man who did not defend a child's life, on grounds that he gave earthly comforts to those who were not killed by the operation he supports? Do you not see the horrific contradiction in what you are trying to prove?

If Satan has triumphed at anything in this world, it has been at cultivating an attitude that some human life is not really human. It happened with the Nazis, it happened with slavery, and it happens now with abortion.

Ancient Jewish law gave rights only to those who were born. The fetus was a non entity. Jesus was a Jew. This is my understanding.

 

[mav451]

...so now you want this to become a pro-choice/pro-life thread? Oh well.

 

[Moonbeam]

The Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 69b states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born.

"Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nefesh hu--it is not a person.' The Talmud contains the expression 'ubar yerech imo--the fetus is as the thigh of its mother,' i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body." 1 This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman's miscarriage, which kills the fetus If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman's husband. If the woman dies, then the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.

There are two additional passages in the Talmud which shed some light on the Jewish belief about abortion. They imply that the fetus is considered part of the mother, and not a separate entity:

One section states that if a man purchases a cow that is found to be pregnant, then he is the owner both of the cow and the fetus.

Another section states that if a pregnant woman converts to Judaism, that her conversion applies also to her fetus.

===============

Abortion is just another reason to be liberal rather than conservative. The religious right are psychologically deranged and religiously stupid.

You can have no rights as a woman if the fetus trumps your right of freedom and control over your own body.

But there is no answer to those who are mentally ill and believe in what is irrational. The Jews long ago figured this out. Sanctity of human life, yes......Absolute sanctity of an unborn life over an actual living person, no.

 

[Atreus21]

Ancient Jewish law gave rights only to those who were born. The fetus was a non entity. Jesus was a Jew. This is my understanding.

I'm sure they were accepting of homosexuality, all races, and who knows what else.

Modern Jewish policy is quite different, then:

As a general rule, abortion in Judaism is permitted only if there is a direct threat to the life of the mother by carrying the fetus to term or through the act of childbirth. In such a circumstance, the baby is considered tantamount to a rodef, a pursuer after the mother with the intent to kill her. Nevertheless, as explained in the Mishna, if it would be possible to save the mother by maiming the fetus, such as by amputating a limb, abortion would be forbidden. Despite the classification of the fetus as a pursuer, once the baby's head or most of its body has been delivered, the baby's life is considered equal to the mother's, and we may not choose one life over another, because it is considered as though they are both pursuing each other.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48954946.html

Times change.

And why are we arguing Jewish law? The Jews don't believe Christ was the son of God anyway. Isn't this about who is closer to Christ?

 

[Moonbeam]

...so now you want this to become a pro-choice/pro-life thread? Oh well.

There is nothing you can do about the fact that the mentally ill will always introduce their psychosis into any discussion. You can go with the flow, or tear your hair out, as you seem to want to.