24 Sep 20
@philokalia saidI just did.
You cannot possibly ask those donations to be discounted.
Call it a miracle.
25 Sep 20
@philokalia saidOld arguments you don't want to be seen propagating here because of their exposure of the mistreatment of individuals, in the name of some "higher purpose" that just so happens to make investors rich to the detriment of those individuals.
OK, insert typical argument about how the US gives far more to charity than our socialist counterparts, etc.
Insert explanation of how the free market would be acting better without market inhibitors.
etc.
These are old arguments. We don't have to painstakingly go through them.
28 Sep 20
@suzianne saidNah, I just do not want to have a prolonged discussion about them in the spirituality forum.
Old arguments you don't want to be seen propagating here because of their exposure of the mistreatment of individuals, in the name of some "higher purpose" that just so happens to make investors rich to the detriment of those individuals.
@philokalia saidSure, because "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" clearly has no place in a Spirituality forum.
Nah, I just do not want to have a prolonged discussion about them in the spirituality forum.
@suzianne saidDo you love your Republican neighbour as yourself?
Sure, because "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" clearly has no place in a Spirituality forum.
Or are you just lazily picking up on your mentor Ghost of a Duke’s use of it, and trying to get some traction without actually thinking about how it reflects on your behaviours in these forums?
04 Oct 20
@rajk999 saidSince no one actually knows what Jesus looked like . he might have had breasts , beard and wore a dress .
Really !! What makes it worse is the the picture of Christ which people have become accustomed to seeing is really Cesare Borgia,, the son of one of the early popes. He was allegedly guilty of murder and other criminal offences. Imagine that is the man that the Catholic church have put in peoples minds as Jesus Christ. This is the problem with images of God and Christ .. y ...[text shortened]... G. A statue of Jesus is concrete or stone .. Its NOTHING... Get a grip of yourself ... you idolater.
04 Oct 20
@divegeester saidWho will reply first I wonder...Will it be the girl or the boyfriend
Do you love your Republican neighbour as yourself?
Or are you just lazily picking up on your mentor Ghost of a Duke’s use of it, and trying to get some traction without actually thinking about how it reflects on your behaviours in these forums?
@philokalia said"Love your neighbor as you love yourself", to Suzianne and the liberal left, means tolerating the abominable. Sorry to say.
You say that like there is no distinction between charity and a welfare state.
Loving ones neighbor means giving a helping hand, not a handout.
But the "liberal" isn't content with merely toleration. So they play the "love your neighbor" card to gain acceptance and recognition of their abominable and immoral behaviors, and browbeat those that draw the distinction between what's right and wrong into submission.
It's a blasphemy to quote scripture to gain support for immoral and destructive lifestyle choices. And I think the worse case example is accusing others of not "loving their neighbor" while advocating for the death of pre-born children, and in some cases children born.
It's nothing short of brazen hypocrisy.
04 Oct 20
@philokalia saidThe "welfare state" long had been considered a desirable outcome of government, it is only within the last fifty years that the narrative has been embezzled by the rich, with a movement to frame the idea of welfare as undesirable, resulting in more unemployment and a weaker economy, with the aim, of course, to reduce their tax burden.
You say that like there is no distinction between charity and a welfare state.
From Wikipedia:
"During the Second World War, Anglican Archbishop William Temple, author of the book Christianity and the Social Order (1942), popularized the concept [of the German term sozialstaat ("social state" )] using the phrase "welfare state". Bishop Temple's use of "welfare state" has been connected to Benjamin Disraeli's 1845 novel Sybil: or the Two Nations (in other words, the rich and the poor), where he writes "power has only one duty – to secure the social welfare of the PEOPLE". At the time he wrote Sybil, Disraeli (later a prime minister) belonged to Young England, a conservative group of youthful Tories who disagreed with how the Whigs dealt with the conditions of the industrial poor. Members of Young England attempted to garner support among the privileged classes to assist the less fortunate and to recognize the dignity of labor that they imagined had characterized England during the Feudal Middle Ages." (All bolding is mine. - Suzianne)
Charity is all well and good, provided that it actually happens. Like Reaganomics' "trickle down" theory, it is becoming more and more well-known as yet another Republican fairy tale. Charity is only given as far as the giver can see tangible benefit in reducing their own tax obligation. It increasingly has little to do with altruism, and, perhaps more importantly, "charity" is seen as eminently cheaper than "forced" giving through taxation.
Furthermore, the current representation of the "welfare state" as being simply a way for the poor to shirk their responsibility of working, holds no water, as the "welfare" granted in most states is not only limited over time, but incredibly meager, unable to sustain anyone, and this characterization of "welfare" is yet another way for conservatives to blame the victim of their own failure to support those who have the least among us.
Truly, in a perfect world, there would be no difference between actual charity (meaning "love", as in "Love thy neighbor as thyself", and would be comprised of not only money, but time spent in making unfortunate citizens' lives meaningfully better) and an actual welfare state, not the one we are forced to deal with today, watered down as it has become by conservative factions who simply do not want to "give".
So please don't presume to preach to me about this supposed difference between charity and the welfare state, as I have been dealing with Republican reticence in this regard for the last 15 years.
@divegeester saidPlease, I'd ask you to keep your partisan nose out of an argument that you have no interest in, besides your partisan points you perceive that you can score, against your personal targets that you don't like.
Do you love your Republican neighbour as yourself?
Or are you just lazily picking up on your mentor Ghost of a Duke’s use of it, and trying to get some traction without actually thinking about how it reflects on your behaviours in these forums?
I have used the phrase in this very forum for far longer than the Ghost's recent use of it.
And you should be one of the last to be commenting on the behaviors of others. Seriously.
To your point, my postings here are my opinion, based on the principles that have guided me through my entire adult life. My differences with Republicans in these forums is based on my opinion that they are selfish, mainly, caring mainly about their financial concerns, far over and above their spiritual concerns. In my own "personal ministry" (as Robbie used to put it (and yes, I am well aware that you have none, and so comfort yourself with mere mockery of such)), I help people on the streets in my hometown without regard to political party, to religion, to race, to gender, to orientation. If your mention of this is only to mock, go ahead. I really cannot be forced to care what you naysayers have to "contribute" at this point.
04 Oct 20
1 edit
@secondson saidI am glad for you that you can sanctimoniously state that your philosophy of "right and wrong" is so "black and white". It reduces the hard choices one is sometimes forced to make. It doesn't help anyone but yourself, but okay... you do you.
"Love your neighbor as you love yourself", to Suzianne and the liberal left, means tolerating the abominable. Sorry to say.
Loving ones neighbor means giving a helping hand, not a handout.
But the "liberal" isn't content with merely toleration. So they play the "love your neighbor" card to gain acceptance and recognition of their abominable and immoral behaviors, and ...[text shortened]... th of pre-born children, and in some cases children born.
It's nothing short of brazen hypocrisy.
Love, in this context, is not "political". That you make it so, says volumes more about you than me. And yes, that is brazen hypocrisy.
05 Oct 20
@suzianne saidYou did not actually address the idea that there is a difference between charity and welfare, but just posted something about how the welfare state is good, and then turned your nose up at my comment.
The "welfare state" long had been considered a desirable outcome of government, it is only within the last fifty years that the narrative has been embezzled by the rich, with a movement to frame the idea of welfare as undesirable, resulting in more unemployment and a weaker economy, with the aim, of course, to reduce their tax burden.
From Wikipedia:
"During the Second W ...[text shortened]... elfare state, as I have been dealing with Republican reticence in this regard for the last 15 years.
05 Oct 20
Clearly you didn't absorb anything from my post.
My point was that welfare and charity are functionally the same, given the original concepts, and not now, after the term "welfare state" has been stolen and misused by the right to further their political agenda. I'm not going to lay out my argument again, especially since you obviously didn't grasp it the first time.
05 Oct 20
@suzianne saidSo is that a “no” you don’t love your Republican neighbour as yourself?
Please, I'd ask you to keep your partisan nose out of an argument that you have no interest in, besides your partisan points you perceive that you can score, against your personal targets that you don't like.
I have used the phrase in this very forum for far longer than the Ghost's recent use of it.
And you should be one of the last to be commenting on the behav ...[text shortened]... go ahead. I really cannot be forced to care what you naysayers have to "contribute" at this point.
Sorry I got lost in the obfuscation.