Lefties Pretend To Be Religious

[5stringJeff]

As for our UCC church, it believes that the Hebrew in Leviticus means "little boy" rather than "adult male," and that Leviticus also condemns many actions you have probably performed. Some examples include getting haircuts, eating shellfish, wearing clothing made from two fabrics, and planting two crops in a single field. In addition, even if the passages do ban same sex intercourse, that isn't the same as homosexuality. There are liberal views on a number of passages, such as Soddam and Gomorrah and Jesus's comments on that, etc, and I can go into those if you wish to present them.

The Leviticus comparisons to sanitary/dietary laws is pretty stale. It's clear from reading the New Testament that even though the sanitary/dietary/animal sacrifice regulations were part of the Old Covenant, and therefore not binding in the New Covenant (i.e. Jesus' death and resurrection), the moral laws are still binding. Not to mention, homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament in no uncertain terms.

But most of all I've seen Christians that don't wish to impose their view of morality onto other people. They don't think we can or should outlaw things just because they are sins, but that people should have freedom and free will to commit those sins if they choose, and that is should be Christian rather than legal doctrine that "saves."

I agree that homosexual behavior should not be outlawed. But I disagree that homosexual behavior must be accepted - and taught to children - as normal.

 

[IControlThePast]

I'm kind of confused at why you brought up the "general welfare" clause. Seems that you were trying to make it broad, then narrow it. Can you clarify, please...

I'm not trying to narrow it. Government has the general legal responsibility to provide for the welfare of its citizens. That doesn't mean they have to give everyone who is unemployed $20k a year in cash handouts, or anything like that, but that's why Leftists push for some welfare programs.

Sometimes the welfare is served best by keeping the tentacles of government out.

Right. The point is that government run charity would not allow this, because the separation of church/state radical extremists and the aclu. When your paying someone else's way, they SHOULD be exposed to your 2 cents.


No. I don't miss things. You're all over the map with your rantings. I would wager that private charities are more effective than government schlock programs. I also contend that major tax restructuring, flat tax, consumption tax or otherwise, would free up funds that would eventually find their way into private charities.

And sometimes, it isn't, which is where the government can step in.

You know I am against government tax by charity. Nobody is preventing you from giving to charities in addition to paying taxes though.

Maybe you can't put two and three together :shrug:. I've been wagering all along that mandatory taxes are more effective than private charities alone. If private charit was more effective, we could pay all the costs of government through private charity instead of mandatory taxes, but that won't work. You have to recognize that if the government is using tax dollars for a cause, and they decide to release those dollars back to the citizens, that the citizens won't use all of those dollars on what the government was using them for. The overall amount of aid to the poor isn't going to increase by eliminating some of these Welfare programs. The people aren't going to spend all of their money they would have used for Welfare and some extra on charities. Even if they did the charities couldn't possibly have the coordination to see the money well distributed as the government could.

The Leviticus comparisons to sanitary/dietary laws is pretty stale. It's clear from reading the New Testament that even though the sanitary/dietary/animal sacrifice regulations were part of the Old Covenant, and therefore not binding in the New Covenant (i.e. Jesus' death and resurrection), the moral laws are still binding. Not to mention, homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament in no uncertain terms.



I agree that homosexual behavior should not be outlawed. But I disagree that homosexual behavior must be accepted - and taught to children - as normal.

Bring up the passages and I can tell you what my church thinks of them. I don't want to have to use straw men arguments.

I don't think it should be taught to children as normal either. It is scientifically obvious that people just feel naturally attracted to members of the same sex, but not the opposite sex. I don't know how it happens, but I don't think it's that natural. Homosexuals would have made themselves extinct by now if it was something in genes. It's probably a combination of some pollutant chemicals and lack of male role models in life, but that's just the way things have come to be for those people. I don't think anyone could make the argument that it's normal though. If it was the human race would be extinct.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

And sometimes, it isn't, which is where the government can step in.

In this issue they should stay out. Libs mistakenly feel generous when they pass laws to steal other people's money. That's not charity. It's a jackboot in the face.

You know I am against government tax by charity. Nobody is preventing you from giving to charities in addition to paying taxes though.

Tax by charity. WTF? That doesn't even make sense. And I KNOW nobody is preventing me from giving to private charities. that's actually my argument, waffle-boy.

Maybe you can't put two and three together :shrug:.

I don't know where you get this condescension, considering that lately I've been whipping your ass all over this board. Do you feel better after your couples days away? Did you switch meds?

I've been wagering all along that mandatory taxes are more effective than private charities alone. If private charit was more effective, we could pay all the costs of government through private charity instead of mandatory taxes, but that won't work. You have to recognize that if the government is using tax dollars for a cause, and they decide to release those dollars back to the citizens, that the citizens won't use all of those dollars on what the government was using them for. The overall amount of aid to the poor isn't going to increase by eliminating some of these Welfare programs. The people aren't going to spend all of their money they would have used for Welfare and some extra on charities. Even if they did the charities couldn't possibly have the coordination to see the money well distributed as the government could.

Im not saying there should be no taxes. That's a strawman argument. Your faith in government efficacy is woefully misplaced.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

This is the proof everybody. Lib christian charity is only acceptable as a government program. It's a new deodorant on the same foul armpit of socialism.

Christ was not attempting to reform government. He was reforming the hearts of individuals.

These are lefty christian theocrats.

 

[Said1]

Here's a great Christian charity, in Tanzania no less.

http://www.udata.com/users/stusmith/tractors.html

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Here's a great Christian charity, in Tanzania no less.

http://www.udata.com/users/stusmith/tractors.html

THis brings up a good question. Do any of these progressive christian groups operate their own charities? Or do they only lobby people to believe socialism is the Christian thing to do?

 

[Said1]

THis brings up a good question. Do any of these progressive christian groups operate their own charities? Or do they only lobby people to believe socialism is the Christian thing to do?

I think it depends on the group, although they probably take what they can get from whomever they can get it from (some exceptions of course).

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I think it depends on the group, although they probably take what they can get from whomever they can get it from (some exceptions of course).

Just as I suspected. This group only seeks to implement "christ's objectives" through government. No notion of private charity seems to exist for them. This will always be the giveaway on lefty, lying christain groups.


From chritianalliance.org. The site from the initial post.
http://www.christianalliance.org/site/c.bnKIIQNtEoG/b.641331/k.8D9D/Pursuing_Economic_Justice.htm

Pursuing Economic Justice

The Jesus of the Gospels Calls Us to Good Stewardship, Justice, and Care for "the Least of These." We Call on Our Nation's Leaders to Seek Economic Justice in the Management of Our Nation's Wealth.



....snip....

Honoring Jesus' compassion for the poor and the powerless, we call for a tax system and spending priorities that are grounded in fairness and justice and we call for fiscal stewardship that fosters prosperity and opportunity for all Americans.

 

[Said1]

Just as I suspected. This group only seeks to implement "christ's objectives" through government. No notion of private charity seems to exist for them. This will always be the giveaway on lefty, lying christain groups.


From chritianalliance.org. The site from the initial post.
http://www.christianalliance.org/site/c.bnKIIQNtEoG/b.641331/k.8D9D/Pursuing_Economic_Justice.htm

This isn't really your "typical" Christian group.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

This isn't really your "typical" Christian group.

Right. They're FAKE christians, socialist in disguise. You can tell because they ONLY lobby to change government. Private charity doesn't exist, in their world. GOVERNMENT IS THE ONLY WAY.

 

[5stringJeff]

Right. They're FAKE christians, socialist in disguise.

I don't think that you, or anyone else, is in a position to know whether they are fake Christians or real Christians. They may very well be misguided, yet sincere.

 

[no1tovote4]

I don't think that you, or anyone else, is in a position to know whether they are fake Christians or real Christians. They may very well be misguided, yet sincere.

Right, I would say the religion is being misapplied not that they are not sincere. I am sure that most of them really think that this is the most Christian solution but to me it is simply taking a personal responsibility and passing it on to others. Much of it is also self-congratulation on how much "better" Christians they must be to "care" so much more....

 

[Bonnie]

Right, I would say the religion is being misapplied not that they are not sincere. I am sure that most of them really think that this is the most Christian solution but to me it is simply taking a personal responsibility and passing it on to others. Much of it is also self-congratulation on how much "better" Christians they must be to "care" so much more....

I would really have to agree with that. but I do think there is a difference between the founders of these groups and I highly question their agenda, however those that join and do their bidding are probably very sincere in their desire to do good and make a difference.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I don't think that you, or anyone else, is in a position to know whether they are fake Christians or real Christians. They may very well be misguided, yet sincere.

I do know that I am in a position to know this information. They are fake christians. Anyone should be able to see that groups which narrowly confine charity to the realm of the tax code are fishy. Sorry if my confidence irritates you!

 

[5stringJeff]

I do know that I am in a position to know this information. They are fake christians. Anyone should be able to see that groups which narrowly confine charity to the realm of the tax code are fishy. Sorry if my confidence irritates you!

Unless your name is Yahweh, you cannot know with 100% whether they are Christians or not. While you may not agree with their political schemes, or that they are properly defining Christian charity, you are not able to know their hearts from a web page.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Unless your name is Yahweh, you cannot know with 100% whether they are Christians or not. While you may not agree with their political schemes, or that they are properly defining Christian charity, you are not able to know their hearts from a web page.

Yes I am.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I can also fly and turn saltines into graham crackers with my specially formulated urine.

 

[Said1]

I can also fly and turn saltines into graham crackers with my specially formulated urine.

Yes, but can you turn weed into hash? That would impress more than that cheesie pee trick.

 

[IControlThePast]

In this issue they should stay out. Libs mistakenly feel generous when they pass laws to steal other people's money. That's not charity. It's a jackboot in the face.

Nobody said you had to live here. If you don't like the fact that sometimes government intervention is appropriate, and sometimes it's not. You are free to go to any other country which will not "steal" your money and commit what you feel are crimes against you.

Tax by charity. WTF? That doesn't even make sense. And I KNOW nobody is preventing me from giving to private charities. that's actually my argument, waffle-boy.

Exactly, and it is analogous to your proposal, which doesn't make sense either. Private charities alone couldn't possibly have the coordination or necessary funding required to deal with the needs of the poor, just as tax by charity couldn't meet the needs of the government. That's the whole reason many of these programs to help the poor were created in the first place, because charity alone isn't enough.

Exactly who are you arguing against who is saying people are preventing you from giving to private charities, yourself?

I don't know where you get this condescension, considering that lately I've been whipping your ass all over this board. Do you feel better after your couples days away? Did you switch meds?

Maybe in your own mind judge Elohim. If all your straw man arguments lately are your idea whipping ass by all means continue that strategy. Your strategy is to denounce any DNC talking points for what they are, and then for any argument that's not a DNC/GOP talking point claim to not understand it.

And yes I feel fine. Some people have something called work, but that's out in the real world.

Im not saying there should be no taxes. That's a strawman argument. Your faith in government efficacy is woefully misplaced.

You sure know some impressive big words (yet nobody here is impressed you can say a word that means power, or efficiency, or capability instead of just saying one of those words), but how many literary devices do you know? I bruit the antiphon is cipher. One example is technique called an analogy, which is different than a straw man. You might know it as the reason you studied all those big SAT words.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Nobody said you had to live here. If you don't like the fact that sometimes government intervention is appropriate, and sometimes it's not. You are free to go to any other country which will not "steal" your money and commit what you feel are crimes against you.

I prefer to stay here and keep lefty pigs like you out of our government, while simultaneously revealing your ideas as the trash they are.

Exactly, and it is analogous to your proposal, which doesn't make sense either. Private charities alone couldn't possibly have the coordination or necessary funding required to deal with the needs of the poor, just as tax by charity couldn't meet the needs of the government. That's the whole reason many of these programs to help the poor were created in the first place, because charity alone isn't enough.

I believe if taxes were radically cut, people would have more money, and that they would give more to charity. Of course they wouldn't give ALL of it to charity. But then at least giving would be real charity, and not government coercion.

Exactly who are you arguing against who is saying people are preventing you from giving to private charities, yourself?

I never said anyone is preventing me from giving to a charity. Your hallucinating again, Ophelia.

Maybe in your own mind judge Elohim. If all your straw man arguments lately are your idea whipping ass by all means continue that strategy. Your strategy is to denounce any DNC talking points for what they are, and then for any argument that's not a DNC/GOP talking point claim to not understand it.

You've really gotten confused. You've been tarred and feather. Your like an injured puppy that doesn't understand it's own pain.

And yes I feel fine. Some people have something called work, but that's out in the real world.

Tell me more about the real world, commie boy.

You sure know some impressive big words (yet nobody here is impressed you can say a word that means power, or efficiency, or capability instead of just saying one of those words), but how many literary devices do you know? I bruit the antiphon is cipher. One example is technique called an analogy, which is different than a straw man. You might know it as the reason you studied all those big SAT words.

Ok, you trash-talking human pestilence, we've all grown weary of your jimcrackery.