Have you ever been substantively wrong online?

[loinburger]

Goddamn you're dense.

[loinburger]

The point of my post that you seem incapable of interpreting correctly is that you are not going to change your opinion based on anything that gribbler posts. Stop being such a ****ing numbskull.

[Ben Kenobi]

What? That you actually *like* me?

Aww, that's the nicest thing you said in a long time.

you are not going to change your opinion based on anything that gribbler posts.

I laughed when I saw your post. I just wanted to correct two of your statements.

[giblets]

The question is: "is there any possibility that you will admit that right-wing ideology is compatible with Christianity," to which the answer is almost certainly "no."

I don't think they're irreconcilable, and I don't see why Christianity would make someone a right winger.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not really. Socialism sees the state as responsible, not the individual. There's also the issue that socialism is all about materialism.

Look at the root of the word: social - society is responsible. If you think socialism is all about materialism, then obviously capitalism and Christianity can't exist together either.

Actually, he did have a problem with them, that they were mandated as opposed to coming from the heart.

Where did Jesus rail against providing for the poor, widows, and orphans in the Mosaic law?

I think it's pretty clear that Christ is looking for us to give out of a willing spirit to give, and to give freely.

He's also looking for us to leave all the trappings of society behind merely work for God. Obviously neither of us is doing so (we can afford computers after all), so if we are looking to make compromises, I think Jesus would be far more for society voluntarily (that is what happens in a democracy) choosing to give to the less fortunate.

Besides, whether you are giving to the state to help the poor (economies of scale say its likely to be used better even with government inefficiencies) or personally to that individual, God knows your heart regardless.

I think it's shameful if the state has to take from people to ensure that the less fortunate are looked after.

The "Kingdom of God" is not a personal pietistic program (though neither is it a social program that has only a tangentially relationship to God). Ideally the more fortunate would give out of overflowing goodness of their hearts... that's not the case.

Explain to me what you mean by 'societal sins', Imran?

The most obvious historical one is slavery. But society needs also to be taken to task if it allows people to starve while others live in the lap of luxury. This would have driving Jesus angry beyond all means (what you do for the least of these you do for me).

[C0ckney]

That's rather a given. Unless you were attempting to make the point that Christianity is more compatible with socialism than right wing ideologies.

well played.

[loinburger]

What? That you actually *like* me?

Aww, that's the nicest thing you said in a long time.

I laughed when I saw your post. I just wanted to correct two of your statements.

Good God, not every thread needs to be about you, you narcissistic douchebag. You're not here to learn anything, you're not here to contribute anything (even if you had anything worth contributing you long ago alienated anybody who might have listened, and even you aren't dense enough to not realize this), all you are is a less-gay version of Giancarlo, and at least he was bipolar enough to be occasionally entertaining.

[Nikolai]

As my father's best friend once said to my father: I'm never wrong. Ever. Or, I once, in 1984, I said you were right. And that, of course, were wrong.

[Fake Boris]

Imran, you are facing a major issue found in most conservatives, i.e. that they believe individual participation in a democratic state does not relate to personal responsibility.

[Ben Kenobi]

Look at the root of the word: social - society is responsible. If you think socialism is all about materialism, then obviously capitalism and Christianity can't exist together either.

Hence my critique of Objectivism. Christianity believes in both a material and spiritual world. Arguing that Capitalism is an effective means to produce things is one thing. Arguing that your life should be devoted primarily to the pursuit of wealth, quite another.

Where did Jesus rail against providing for the poor, widows, and orphans in the Mosaic law?

He specifically argued that one should give because of a desire to give, not because the state will punish you for not giving.

He's also looking for us to leave all the trappings of society behind merely work for God. Obviously neither of us is doing so (we can afford computers after all), so if we are looking to make compromises, I think Jesus would be far more for society voluntarily (that is what happens in a democracy) choosing to give to the less fortunate.

This is not what happens in a democracy, at least not in the US since 1913. Taxation for wealth redistribution is a bad thing because it drains people of money that would otherwise go towards charity. Look at Scrooge, "are there no prisons, are their no workhouses?" He argues that his contribution to society is sufficient to pay for these things and that therefore, further charity is not required.

Charity is voluntary. That is why caritas and charity have the same roots, from the heart.

Besides, whether you are giving to the state to help the poor (economies of scale say its likely to be used better even with government inefficiencies)

Studies show just the opposite, that charity on a dollar by dollar basis is far more efficient when distributed by voluntary associations.

Ideally the more fortunate would give out of overflowing goodness of their hearts... that's not the case.

How do you know that's not the case, Imran? That's an assumption we are arguing. I am arguing that the wealthy can and do give voluntarily to the less fortunate and that taxation as a whole discourages charity because it takes money away from them that they could otherwise use, to fund the apparatus of the state.

The most obvious historical one is slavery. But society needs also to be taken to task if it allows people to starve while others live in the lap of luxury. This would have driving Jesus angry beyond all means (what you do for the least of these you do for me).

What would Jesus say about robbing others to fund your good intentions? If I were to take 40 from you and give 20 dollars to the homeless guy down the street is that ok? Is that better than taking 5 bucks from my own pocket and giving it to homeless guy?

[Al B. Sure!]

Taxation for wealth redistribution is a bad thing because it drains people of money that would otherwise go towards charity.

Look at Scrooge, "are there no prisons, are their no workhouses?" He argues that his contribution to society is sufficient to pay for these things and that therefore, further charity is not required.

Did you just cite a fictional character from Dickens?

[giblets]

Yep, Scrooge is proof that going above and beyond your tax obligation is impossible and people won't give to charity if they have to pay taxes.

[BeBMan]

Robin Hood!

[Ben Kenobi]

Did you just cite a fictional character from Dickens?

They have Dickens in the hood? I thought you weren't one of the privileged few, albert.

[Al B. Sure!]

That anyone could believe this is disturbing:

Taxation for wealth redistribution is a bad thing because it drains people of money that would otherwise go towards charity.

You honestly believe this, Ben? Do you think all rich people are really Jesus McBuddha but these oppressive taxes prevent them from giving to charity?