|
|
Post by phaedron on Mar 14, 2012 12:32:02 GMT -8
This thread begins where a discussion of male and female roles in Catholicism derailed. I will note that it wasn't ALL my fault this time that something derailed. Kippa did it!
Kippa, it's just my guess, but most socially conservative Americans probably wouldn't want to spend any time in that "socialist hellhole" that is Europe.
I for one, just wish I had a job lined up and the language of the host country, and I'd be living in something like Belgium or Sweden already.
Funny thing is, they think that the U.S. is going down the tubes, and so do I, but for nearly completely opposite reasons. I think evolution will prove if nothing else, that the U.S. is no different from how Rome was. Too bad I'll have to watch from this side of the pond :/
PS: I know this might be crossing lines, but does anyone here think Jesus Christ would have advocated for Capitalism, where the poor and meek get trampled; rather than Socialism, where they are supported?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kippa Tarxien on Mar 14, 2012 12:57:32 GMT -8
Max, the first part of my post is still in context with the family/church part.
Where you say that "Republicans advocate ""help the poor"" through personal charity and the churches.", isn't that saying the same as this Republican government model fails, since it needs to fall back on individual people's charity?
I don't want to derail this thread and will not answer any further comments in this thread, please feel free to start another one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Mar 14, 2012 13:04:13 GMT -8
Phaedron, good question on the economics. Jesus Christ did advocate the collective, how we should help the poor.
However, there are two ways to look at it. Democrats typically will advocate this through government programs and welfare. Republicans advocate this through personal charity and the churches. Both ways will satisfy the message. The platforms themselves, however, belong in another thread.
[Phae sez: Please note the section above was from an earlier post.]
Fair enough on the derailment. We can start another if we want.
It's not a matter of "obey, obey, obey." It's a partnership. A partnership of different responsibilities.
|
|
|
|
Post by phaedron on Mar 14, 2012 13:59:11 GMT -8
So here's the thing from my perspective:
As much as people want to try and paint this as a Democrat / Republican issue, it isn't. In large part it has very little to do with those political parties these days. Remember, government actually got bigger under all 3 of the last Republican presidents. None of them shrank government, and in fact, Pres. GW Bush grew the Executive Office of the President *alone* by over 300%. Google "Executive Order 13422", and you'll see how much Mr. Bush valued small government.
For the record, I'm registered Independent, always have been... I *normally* vote for Dems, but in the last election I helped elect a former Republican-turned-Independent to the position of governor. He was more solid on just about every issue than his Democratic and Republican-Tea Party challengers.
So let's pretend for a moment that you all agree, and that there's another force behind this other than Dems vs. Repubs. There are some people out there who legitimately have a belief, backed up in large part by quantifiable evidence, in the power of science. There are other people who believe that faith should trump science, or at least have a seat alongside it.
It's easy to say: "I have faith that people are generally good, and will donate to charity of their own free will."
Those of us who may have faith, but are also scientists, look at this country and say: "People don't donate to charity nearly enough to meet the need. It's been proven that when we lower taxes and people have more disposable income, that doesn't make the majority donate to charity significantly more. So we need to have a system that looks out for the *Welfare* of our society."
A Christian concept if I've ever seen one -- even if I will admit that there are flaws within the system. But just because a system doesn't work perfectly doesn't mean you should completely dismantle it and "have faith" that good folks will make up the difference. As much as I value faith, it doesn't put food in bellies. God allows death, he allows starvation. These are facts, if you believe in God, no?
Lastly, not coincidentally, Jesus Christ advocated for charity much in the same way the Buddha did. This has always been an interesting historical point, as there are a number of Indian and Tibetan traditions that came to believe in Jesus Christ as the Maitreya (or "future Buddha") after the introduction of Christianity to those areas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Mar 14, 2012 17:15:59 GMT -8
So here's the thing from my perspective: As much as people want to try and paint this as a Democrat / Republican issue, it isn't. In large part it has very little to do with those political parties these days. Remember, government actually got bigger under all 3 of the last Republican presidents. None of them shrank government, and in fact, Pres. GW Bush grew the Executive Office of the President *alone* by over 300%. Google "Executive Order 13422", and you'll see how much Mr. Bush valued small government. This is where I get bleh. I'm not sure how I feel on government expansion. I know the Republican thing is small government, but then again, I love guys like Teddy Roosevelt and Reagan, who grew government. (Although, I think Reagan's core philosophy was the necessary evil, and thought that there were only very certain parts that government should grow. But I digress.) So let's pretend for a moment that you all agree, and that there's another force behind this other than Dems vs. Repubs. There are some people out there who legitimately have a belief, backed up in large part by quantifiable evidence, in the power of science. There are other people who believe that faith should trump science, or at least have a seat alongside it. And I'll say that science and religion compliment each other well. Perfectly compatible, I think. Even in evolution and creation, even if evolution is still not 100% fact. It's easy to say: "I have faith that people are generally good, and will donate to charity of their own free will." Those of us who may have faith, but are also scientists, look at this country and say: "People don't donate to charity nearly enough to meet the need. It's been proven that when we lower taxes and people have more disposable income, that doesn't make the majority donate to charity significantly more. So we need to have a system that looks out for the *Welfare* of our society." I think you look a bit too pessimistically on the state of the union. Yes, it's engulfed in a rather shitty shadow, but I have full confidence in both human emotion and American resiliency. A Christian concept if I've ever seen one -- even if I will admit that there are flaws within the system. But just because a system doesn't work perfectly doesn't mean you should completely dismantle it and "have faith" that good folks will make up the difference. As much as I value faith, it doesn't put food in bellies. God allows death, he allows starvation. These are facts, if you believe in God, no? Agreed. I advocate neither complete welfare or complete lack of welfare. But, I'd like to see MORE charity right now. Personally, I think we have too much. As to God allowing bad things: I think we can put that in the another thread. If you don't care, I don't care. Lastly, not coincidentally, Jesus Christ advocated for charity much in the same way the Buddha did. This has always been an interesting historical point, as there are a number of Indian and Tibetan traditions that came to believe in Jesus Christ as the Maitreya (or "future Buddha") after the introduction of Christianity to those areas. Very interesting. I did not know this. I know that the missionaries did a fine job of introducing Christ, but never really quite succeeded in full Christianity. |
|
|
|
Post by doornail on Mar 16, 2012 7:46:41 GMT -8
I agree, but I also know that there are "unknowns" in each...an example for each would be the explosion of intelligence in mankind(hence the search for the missing link) and things deliberatly witheld from mankind in the Bible. edit..I should say that, I'm not a scientist and have not read the entire Bible, I was instructed to read Revelations first, have done that a couple times and have been jumping around here and there..so I'm no expert in either  |
|
|
|
Post by phaedron on Mar 16, 2012 15:35:16 GMT -8
This is where I get bleh. I'm not sure how I feel on government expansion. I know the Republican thing is small government, but then again, I love guys like Teddy Roosevelt and Reagan, who grew government. (Although, I think Reagan's core philosophy was the necessary evil, and thought that there were only very certain parts that government should grow. But I digress.) I am just saying, you can't cut taxes (something I know you do like) without cutting government services. GW Bush cut taxes, but he expanded the bureaucracy of government as well as significantly increasing military spending. It doesn't take anyone smarter than someone who can balance their checkbook to figure out that idea isn't so hot. Teddy Roosevelt increased government spending mostly in services, believed strongly in conservation, and also supported collective bargaining rights. His position on foreign wars was, as has been stated a number of times, a variation on the Monroe Doctrine, specifically allowing for the U.S. Military to be used to help prop up less prosperous nations. So in that way, I don't seem him as being very much like Reagan at all. Evolution and carbon dating say this planet is hundreds of millions if not billions of years old. Creationism says the world is just a few thousand years old. How are those two compatible? Doesn't creationism generally go along the lines of thinking dinosaurs are a myth, or that they coexisted with humans? Both seem scientifically difficult to swallow. Educate me though -- maybe some creationists do accept scientific evidence about the age of the world, contradictory to the Bible as it may be? I would say I'm just measuring quantifiable evidence of the state of this union. I too believe that deep down all human beings have the capacity to be good. But when you force them to compete for scarce resources instead of working together for the common good, you end up with "the most powerful nation in the world" with a ton of homeless and otherwise suffering people living there. More charity wouldn't hurt... but I don't think you encourage charity by lowering taxes on the richest 20% of the nation. If they started donating more first, I might consider advocating for taxing them less. But they have been taxed less before, and they haven't donated more then -- why would they now? They didn't get all but a small number of Chinese and Indian peoples to convert (slightly more successful in Korea and Japan), but again, it's amazing how some will weave different religious concepts together. Personally, I don't have any problems with the idea of Christ as a completely enlightened being who was also completely misinterpreted later by certain apostles. |
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Mar 16, 2012 16:41:43 GMT -8
I do not agree with the Bush taxes. I would (and if my county leaders ever heard me say this, I'd be hung for treason) encourage a return to pre-Bush taxes. But beyond that, I would NOT advocate anything higher.
If you think Teddy Roosevelt expanded American land for the purpose of propping up nations you might want to rethink. That ideal situation is nice, but realistically, his aim was to expand American power. Power, not prosperity, even though they might have come together.
You would be right in saying many Creationists are more strict than others. The Catholic Church has advocated a partnership with science in recent decades. You must remember that, unlike numerous Protestant churches, the Church bases her teachings on the Word of God in both Written Word (Scripture) and Spoken Word (Sacred Tradition). With that said, when it comes to many Old Testament books and the Book of Revelations, we don't have strict views.
The seven days God created the universe were not necessarily seven, 24 hour days. They could have been million, billion years days. Does that make sense? Evolution, too, does not have to be an atheistic theory. It is completely logical (for a faithful person, of course) that evolution is a tool God uses in his design.
But then you get into the whole thing that evolution might have some serious flaws, etc.
"I would say I'm just measuring quantifiable evidence of the state of this union." Precisely. You measure only what is quantifiable. Human beings are far from that. Which is what makes us so unique from the rest of nature. It's because the human soul cannot be measured, and that is why I have hope in our nation's future.
Perhaps it's time the government endorsed charities of all kinds? But then, of course, so many people are so afraid of endorsing a religious organization that the ACLU would have their asses. (Mind you, I don't say financially supporting, but legitimately endorsing.)
What's interesting is the Catholic faith is growing fastest in the southern hemisphere (Africa) and much of Asia, even China.
|
|
