- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 119,717
- Reaction score
- 75,668
- Location
- Outside Seattle
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Looks good to me! The more extreme the right, the better chance for Democrats.
Being against bans on gay marriage and abortion is extreme. Noted! You people can't seem to decide what's right for you.
Yup, equal rights is definitely more of a concern for Democrats.
Looks good to me! The more extreme the right, the better chance for Democrats.
Unless you're joking you should know that is untrue.
What do you consider 'extreme' these days and what indication has there been that there will be anything "extreme"?
Thanks, but it's often difficult to tell when liberals are joking or being serious.Well first of all it's a tongue in cheek comment
There may be something known as Christian Capitalism but it's of little consequence.There actually IS something known as "Christian capitalism", just as there's also Islamic Banking Laws, and the like.
Which is why its of little consequence. Nobody really cares about it.I question the notion however that Christianity is a source tool for the practice of an economic ideology beyond simple morals and ethics that
might be found in any established faith, but more importantly I question the notion that Christian capitalism gives license to the interpretation of
wealth generation because Christian scripture is open to so many interpretations and sub-sects that the first question is, WHICH Christian faith is considered
the standard?
These are questions no one is raising and there seems little interest in the subject.Should we adhere to the tenets of Southern Baptists? What about Episcopals? Catholics? Unitarian Universalists? Seventh Day Adventists? Mormons?
And what about the Jews? Are they hereby cut out because they don't see Christ as the Messiah?
Well, that's very interesting.Generally speaking, Christ commands his followers to be generous, compassionate and mindful of the needs of the poor and he admonishes those who would
interpret their own great wealth as a sign that they are good practitioners of faith. He makes clear in his teachings that wealth on Earth is not the same as wealth in the Kingdom of HeavenThat's in direct opposition to the currently popular "prosperity gospels" being hawked around the megachurch universe.Thus we're already in the middle of theological arguments before we even start. And I call into question any notion that Christianity pays homage to any form of socially darwinistic attitudes toward the less fortunate. So for me at the very least, the question of Christianity being the most important template for an economic blueprint is not settled because interpretations of any religion are always unsettled, due to their nature.I particularly take exception to fundamentalist interpretations of religion OR economics, or both.
Most laws already are heavily based on the Christian/Judeo religion.Even the suggestion of basing law on religion.
It's alread law that women get equal pay for equal work, though apparently this isn't the case in the Obama White House.Not supporting equal pay for women (even Romney dropped that ball).
No one is obstructing their 'reproductive' rights if they want to reproduce. What many are saying is that abortion is a very bad thing. If everyone wanted to end babies lives the world would not necessarily be a better place.Obstructing women's reproductive rights.
Thanks, but it's often difficult to tell when liberals are joking or being serious.
There may be something known as Christian Capitalism but it's of little consequence.
Which is why its of little consequence. Nobody really cares about it.
These are questions no one is raising and there seems little interest in the subject.
I'm just going to ignore the little "bon mot" about "the libruls" and plod firmly along with the subject instead."....difficult to tell when liberals are joking or being serious."
Capitalism is here to stay, and we need a church model that corresponds to that reality.
Read Nietzsche. Nietzsche’s diagnosis of the weak modern Christian democratic man was spot on.
Jesus was a great man. Jesus said he was the Son of God. Jesus made things happen. Jesus had faith. Jesus actually made people better.
Then came the Christians.
What happened? What went wrong? We appear to be a bit passive. Hitler came along, and he did not meet with unified resistance.
(WTF??????????)
I have the sinking feeling that it could all happen again, quite easily.
The church should rise up higher than Nietzsche could see and prove him wrong.
We should love our neighbor so much that we actually believe in right and wrong, and do something about it.
If we all did the right thing and had the guts to spread the word, we would not need the government to backstop every action we take.
I think the main point is that we need to synthesize Christianity and capitalism.
“God and the Advanced Mammon — Can Theological Types Handle Usury and Capitalism?” - Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology
Most laws already are heavily based on the Christian/Judeo religion.
It's alread law that women get equal pay for equal work, though apparently this isn't the case in the Obama White House.
No one is obstructing their 'reproductive' rights if they want to reproduce. What many are saying is that abortion is a very bad thing. If everyone wanted to end babies lives the world would not necessarily be a better place.
For starters.
Most laws already are heavily based on the Christian/Judeo religion.
It's alread law that women get equal pay for equal work, though apparently this isn't the case in the Obama White House.
No one is obstructing their 'reproductive' rights if they want to reproduce. What many are saying is that abortion is a very bad thing. If everyone wanted to end babies lives the world would not necessarily be a better place.
For starters.
It's spelled and pronounced 'liberal'.I'm just going to ignore the little "bon mot" about "the libruls" and plod firmly along with the subject instead.
He never mentioned anything about a 'group hug". If you are going to comment on what the man has to say then quote him correctly and don't try to interpret it on your own.Here's this supposedly highly educated professor, expecting us to believe that if we all just group hug and embrace his Christian pop-psy pablums,
no one will do anything wrong anymore and we won't need government.
Whether you buy it or not is beside the point. Do you know how the country arrived at the laws it has?Not so sure I buy that. And in any case it's not the same thing as churches writing the laws.
The federal law was passed in 1963.Equal Pay Act of 1963 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaNo, it's not law everywhere that women receive equal pay. Romney ignored it, refused to pass it in MA, and it still is not passed in that state, for example. (Maybe it has passed now, not sure)
You know what reproduction, or reproducing, means, right? No one is stopping you from reproducing, i.e. having a baby or babies.You are repeating words from slogans which have no real meaning without thinking it through.ANd the reproductive rights issue is not just about abortion but your opinion is noted and no one is infringing on anyone's rights with the current status of abortion.
No, they are not based exclusively on religion, at least not so much anymore, as there are new laws being introduced almost every day and religious influence has dropped. But there is no doubt that Christianity influenced laws and human rights throughout the western democracies and I'm somewhat surprised that this history has not been taught in the schools, given its importance.And none of our laws (that I can think of except for old stuff left on the books) are based exclusively on religion...they still need to be supported by or not infringe on the basic rights in the Constitution. Of course there's a great deal of overlap....which is why religious people have felt so 'comfortable' for so long.
It's spelled and pronounced 'liberal'.
He never mentioned anything about a 'group hug". If you are going to comment on what the man has to say then quote him correctly and don't try to interpret it on your own.
Yup, equal rights is definitely more of a concern for Democrats.
Whether you buy it or not is beside the point. Do you know how the country arrived at the laws it has?
Well, then you should try to come up with an example of that.
Seems to be? You're guessing again at what he has to say?Yes, but again, this gentleman, Mr. Brat, seems to be laboring under the impression that the church should be directly involved in writing the law and directly involved in controlling the economy, based on his writings.
It is impossible to discuss issues with leftists without talking down to them. They're juvenile.And since by the tone of your posts it is evident that you take enjoyment in wagging your finger and talking down to people, I'll indulge in a little of the same:
Another example. I'm not even Christian!I suggest that you abandon your Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and become an advocate of secular government, because we will never become a theocracy.
Again, repeating for all needing:
I see you've done your homework.This is not nor has it ever been a theocracy, nor shall it ever be one.
You're guessing at what was being said again.When a church becomes directly involved in the writing of the law, then the law of the church becomes the law of the land, which is the textbook definition of a theocracy.
Would you like for me to dredge up the actual PAGE in the dictionary where it is defined or will you accept my word on that?
Who are you quoting here?Either way, the United States of America is in no sense "founded upon the Christian religion". It is a secular government.
The federal law was passed in 1963.Equal Pay Act of 1963 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You know what reproduction, or reproducing, means, right? No one is stopping you from reproducing, i.e. having a baby or babies.You are repeating words from slogans which have no real meaning without thinking it through.
No, they are not based exclusively on religion, at least not so much anymore, as there are new laws being introduced almost every day and religious influence has dropped. But there is no doubt that Christianity influenced laws and human rights throughout the western democracies and I'm somewhat surprised that this history has not been taught in the schools, given its importance.
Do you feel that the laws were more influenced by atheists or agnostics?
Well, then you should try to come up with an example of that.
An unrealistic and unfair challenge. You're forcing them to face reality, which is their weakest area.
Unless, of course, he is still trying to appeal to those who tend to believe in the "War on Women", as well as to divert attention from the real issues of the day.The president just announced another attempt 2 months ago that he was passing yet another bill to gain equal pay for women. If he...and Romney in MA were/are still dealing with this, it appears it was not settled in 1963 :doh
Perhaps I was dismissive but words have meanings and we shouldn't distort them.Your dismissive attitude about women's reproductive rights and issues is exactly why we dont need more religion in our laws.Thanks for proving it.
That's nonsense. Not only am I not religious but I treat foolish men with the same regard.I am well-educated on the issues....your assumption that I'm not indicates a misogynistic bias also common (but not exclusive to) the fundamentalist Christians and some other religions.
So am I and said so.And I am fine with the influence of Christianity on our history and laws.
If you read my post again, the one directed to you, then you would be more understanding of my rather sympathetic response.It was not ignored in school and I acknowleged their influence in early law....did you miss that? Was reading comprehension left out of your education? Or are you just on remote control not even bothering to read but just preach?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?