jesus the liberal socialist.

Originally posted by whodey
My guess is just the part about Christ that seems appealing to you and then pitch the rest, right? After all, everyone wants a peice of him, but not everyone wants all of him.

we select politicians to represent us not the other way around. with the whole "package of christ," he isn't representing us, he's representing someone he calls his "father" who nobody has seen and somehow sends him telepathic messages.

Originally posted by Suzianne
If there's one thing I've learned, it's that political parties in the UK don't share the same philosophies as their similarly named parties in the US. Not usually, anyways. British political parties is not my strong point, though, so I might be slightly mistaken.

Nope, you are actually bang on the money here.

UK political parties do not have anything resembling a 1 to 1 correspondence with American parties.

And one major difference is that there is no such thing as 'the Christian conservative right' in the UK,
at least not as any kind of significant voting block.

So religion is much much much less of a part of our national discourse and politics.
There are obviously parallels between our politics and yours and our parties and yours...
But I would say in general, looking at your politics from afar, about 90% of the UK population would
vote democrat in all your elections if given the opportunity.

And the love in with Tony Blair and GW was between a supposedly left wing socialist UK leader and a
right wing conservative republican.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
mat:25
[quote]
35for I did hunger, and ye gave me to eat; I did thirst, and ye gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and ye received me;

36naked, and ye put around me; I was infirm, and ye looked after me; in prison I was, and ye came unto me.

37`Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when did we see thee hungering, and we nourished? o ...[text shortened]... s

these are core liberal values. all go against the grain of modern christian conservatism.

Kudos. Wish more Christians were like their Christ.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
we select politicians to represent us not the other way around. with the whole "package of christ," he isn't representing us, he's representing someone he calls his "father" who nobody has seen and somehow sends him telepathic messages.

You are placing your trust in someone to do what is best for you when you send them to represent you. Ideally, most of what they believe you believe as well.

So if Christ is who the Bible depicts him as being, then he would be the perfect representative.

Originally posted by amolv06
Kudos. Wish more Christians were like their Christ.

I created a thread a while back showing those who practiced their faith were on average much more likely to help those in need than those who were did not pracitice a particlar faith. So I say give credit to whom it is due, this means the body of Christ no matter how dysfunctional parts of it may be.

Originally posted by whodey
I created a thread a while back showing those who practiced their faith were on average much more likely to help those in need than those who were did not pracitice a particlar faith. So I say give credit to whom it is due, this means the body of Christ no matter how dysfunctional parts of it may be.

This seems blatantly false to me, but I'd like to see your reasoning/evidence. Link?

Originally posted by Suzianne
America needs a little more socialism in my opinion.

Or maybe just people who care beyond their own selfish needs.

Depends on what you mean by socialism, personally if it isn't done by freewill
it is done by force. So what America really needs are people who don't need
the government telling them what they should be doing. Instead they should be
listening to their hearts and doing the right thing by their those around them
without the force of law telling them they have to!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So what America really needs are people who don't need
the government telling them what they should be doing. Instead they should be
listening to their hearts and doing the right thing by their those around them
without the force of law telling them they have to!

May i ask you a question? Let's say the government takes some of its tax revenue and spends it on systematically promoting community based rehabilitation for disabled people by way of occupational/physical therapy facilities, training, small business grants etc., would you say, by using taxes [that you have paid] to do this, the government is using the force of law to tell you what you have to do and not allowing you to listen to your heart or to do the right thing by those around you?

Originally posted by FMF
May i ask you a question? Let's say the government takes some of its tax revenue and spends it on systematically promoting community based rehabilitation for disabled people by way of occupational/physical therapy facilities, training, small business grants etc., would you say, by using taxes [that you have paid] to do this, the government is using the force of ...[text shortened]... o do and not allowing you to listen to your heart or to do the right thing by those around you?

you've just identified the root of the problem, in that capitalism is coercive. if you "own" resources and the government can forcefully take a cut of your resources and use it to provide goods or services that you don't approve of, it is coercion.

you cannot escape this fact, you can only tolerate it to the point where it becomes intolerable. then the blood flows.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
you've just identified the root of the problem, in that capitalism is coercive. if you "own" resources and the government can forcefully take a cut of your resources and use it to provide goods or services that you don't approve of, it is coercion.

you cannot escape this fact, you can only tolerate it to the point where it becomes intolerable. then the blood flows.

Think of taxes as payment for living in a safe and secure society.

Even those who (stupidly) claim they get nothing from their government are benefiting from
living in a secure western modern society that has roads, bridges, railways, airports,
hospitals, police, fire brigades, schools, and all defended by an armed forces.

It's like claiming the Hutterites are independent of the society they live in when they were
almost wiped out in their original German home when they were not protected by the society
they were trying to live in.
If they didn't have the US government making sure that people didn't turn up with guns and
throw them off their land they couldn't exist.

Everyone who lives in the USA (and any other western country) is protected by, benefits from,
and supported by the government to some degree or another, and this costs money, which they
have to pay as taxes.

There should be no coercion involved.

Originally posted by FMF
May i ask you a question? Let's say the government takes some of its tax revenue and spends it on systematically promoting community based rehabilitation for disabled people by way of occupational/physical therapy facilities, training, small business grants etc., would you say, by using taxes [that you have paid] to do this, the government is using the force of ...[text shortened]... o do and not allowing you to listen to your heart or to do the right thing by those around you?

The government takes and spends it the way it wants not the way I want, I do
not get credit for what it does or does not do. The government also picks those
people it wants to help and don't help too, it picks businesses it wants to help
and don't help, it picks and chooses to do a great deal of things, none of which
I will get a say in one way or another if those people in power are only looking
out for their own best interest. Can good come of the government spending,
yes sure, but so can evil.

If I have or can keep more of what I earn than I can choose what to do with
it, if I'm forced by robbers or the rule of law to give up what I earn I can only
do what I want to with whatever wasn't taken away from me without being
able to say no to.

I want to add that those that push socialism are not more righteous than
anyone else, they are lazy, they are asking for things to be done by others
in their name as if that means they are more righteous. What they should
be doing is askiing themselves and others to do for themselves those things
that are needed, NOT the govenment.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The government takes and spends it the way it wants not the way I want, I do
not get credit for what it does or does not do. The government also picks those
people it wants to help and don't help too, it picks businesses it wants to help
and don't help, it picks and chooses to do a great deal of things, none of which
I will get a say in one way or anoth es and others to do for themselves those things
that are needed, NOT the govenment.
Kelly

You seem to have swept my specific example away with broad ideological rhetoric - which is unnecessary, because I am not a supporter of government interference in 'everything', so I do not intend to extrapolate wildly from my example. So bear with me for a moment: let's stick with that example. What if your approach results in a piecemeal and erratic service for the disabled and therefore a system of community based rehabilitation that is ineffective and even non-existent in many places - and many disabled people are struggling in isolation and poverty as a result? Is there a role for government action in terms of investment or provision?

Originally posted by whodey
As for myself, if I have money to help, I help. However, if I DON'T have money to help, I don't take out a loan I know I can't pay back to give away. That's called theft.

Nobody ever does not have money to help unless and until they have given away all their material possessions. Jesus was clever enough to realise this, and asked people to do just that.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I want to add that those that push socialism are not more righteous than
anyone else, they are lazy, they are asking for things to be done by others
in their name as if that means they are more righteous. What they should
be doing is askiing themselves and others to do for themselves those things
that are needed, NOT the govenment.
Kelly

So if there were no taxes, you would organize the road works, the city planning, the social programs yourself?
There are several problems I see with what you are saying:
1. Many essential services would still have to happen and private enterprises would spring up to do them and you would still essentially be forced to pay for them.
2. Many things would cost significantly more (similar to the way medicine costs more in the US than anywhere else).
3. Social programs would have extreme bias and take on a more democratic nature (which is not good nor just when it comes to social programs). I actually believe that democracy when deciding what to do with members of a group other than those voting is inherently wrong.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Think of taxes as payment for living in a safe and secure society.

Even those who (stupidly) claim they get nothing from their government are benefiting from
living in a secure western modern society that has roads, bridges, railways, airports,
hospitals, police, fire brigades, schools, and all defended by an armed forces.

It's like claiming th ...[text shortened]... his costs money, which they
have to pay as taxes.

There should be no coercion involved.

agreed that there should be no coercions involved, but in a capitalist society, it exists for good or for bad. paying taxes is paying protection money. the mafia does the same thing. you are essentially paying someone to protect your property and if you don't pay them, they'll take it from you.

the only solution to eliminate coercion is to eliminate private property and money, and switch to resource based economy.

but people aren't ready for that. so we stick with limiting coercion by socialist means.