Poll: If Jesus ran for president, would you vote for him?
- Thread starter triggrhappy94
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ah, well the mentioning of the not obligated to but asked to comes from translating the bible. Take Mark 12:41-44 for instance:Labcoat Samurai said:Sorry, I think I may have been unclear. I'm familiar with the quote regarding Caesar. I meant to ask if you could quote chapter and verse where he said that you should not help the poor out of a sense of obligation. Particularly, that if you feel obligated to help them, don't.Rex Fallout said:
So you're saying that it's only difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven if he obstinately refuses to give up stuff that he has no use or need for? Your example suggests that the only case in which a rich man would have difficulty getting into heaven is if he didn't need his money and *still* refused to give it up. I don't read that at all from the text. Why do you interpret it that way?
Well it *can* go down that way, but I don't think that is a necessary component of socialism. Pure socialism is essentially a massively scaled up version of a commune. Communes respect individuals, their ideas, and their history. Communes can even work quite well. The problem is that that structure scales very poorly. You may feel motivated to help someone who is your friend and who helps you on a daily basis, but how motivated would you be to help faceless masses you've never met?
Well, "great" is kind of an ill-defined term anyway. Their economy is huge, and they're on the right side of a trade deficit. Not that a trade deficit is great for either party, but if you're going to be on one side or the other, it's better to be on the producer side. And yeah, we have a lot of clout, largely because we owe them an enormous amount of money, and they really need us to stick around to pay them
But yes, I agree. For the moment, we are still the last remaining superpower. How long that will last is a subject of great debate which, I must admit, is a field in which I'm little better than a layman.
Not what I said. I didn't say there was a working pure socialist state. I said there were working states that implement a degree of socialism that would make a Republican's head spin, so setting the success standard at "pure socialism" seems pointless if we're going to talk about realistic policy decisions.
Perhaps it would. People certainly say that a lot. And, of course, you always hear horror stories about the NHS and whatnot... but I don't know that they're worse than our horror stories, and I really dislike the idea that there's a group (your health insurance company) with a significant profit motive for trying to pay out as little as possible while trying to get as much as possible out of you. If my health is at stake, I don't want to fight with a wealthy corporate entity.
Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.
Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything?all she had to live on."
If you read this verse, (or at least when I do) we can see that Jesus doesnt care how much you give, there were people who were 'throwing in large amounts' as if it was nothing, just to get the recognition of others. These men and women were giving because they, 'were supposed to' it was believed that they needed to tithe, (and im not saying tithing is bad btw) but the woman gave all that she had to take care of them and 'put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny' this woman didnt give because she was required to, she didnt give because she wanted recognition, she gave because she CHOSE. And she gave all that she had. And the bible tells us that when we give like this, God will give to us in return.
Now on to the rich man, lets see how do I put this... you see, first off, I wasnt quite saying that, what I was trying to say is that many people in this world build up a vast wealth simply because that is all that they see. When the bible says "The love of money is the root of all evil" it isn't saying that loving the fact that you get money for your hard work is bad, it was saying that the obsession with it, to the point where it doesnt matter where you get it, THAT, that obsession is in fact the root of all evil. And this translates to this verse as well, people build up fortunes in this world, believing that this is all that there is, and refuse to give it up. They toiled so hard that the idea of just willingly giving it up is ludicrous to them. If you become wealthy you need to stick to the fact that money is nothing more than a commerce, traded Value for value, used among men to buy and sell. It is a piece of paper, a small metalic coin, it is nothing more than that, and just like all of the toys of the world, they aint gonna follow you beyond this world, no matter how much you want them too.
Believe what you want, you can believe the lies of other Marxists who will undoubtedly point out where their great messiaic leaders stepped away from the path of the righteous, but if history has taught me anything, is that communism, no matter how many different names are stapled on it, will never work, because history has shown us again, and again and again, and... Read 1984, Animal Farm, and others. These will show you what happens in communism/socialism/marxism. IT DOESNT WORK. You can believe whatever you want, but when you support the overthow of democracy world wide, and the new world order of communists suddenly starts starving millions, and I myself was forced to kill my self/attempt to escape the horrors, you'll sit, or rather, stand in your fields and think, I remember there was this old thing that people called the internet and on it some guy with a really awesome username... and he had a really hot alien chick as his avatar... yeah I remember him saying something about this.
I totally agree with you! People shouldnt have to fight corperations to insure that their health is taken care of, but giving complete control of the industry of the the government is NOT the way to deal with it. Let me tell you why:
The American government takes over the health care industry, and in doing so realizes that different medicenes that are made by private organizations would be much cheaper and easier if they were the ones completely controlling that area, so private enterprise in the medical field is all but destroyed as the new president, lets call him President Dick Richardson, tells the people, its for their own good. But as time moves on, the government suddenly realizes that the food corperations need to be more closely regulated, and from there it goes on and on, spreading over electronics, media... until Free enterprise no longer exists.
Now, this is naturally just a scenario, but what I'm trying to get across is if you give human beings power, (which contrary to popular belief, there are indeed human beings in the United States government) then they will want more. I see a funny spin off of the book if you give a mouse a cookie somewhere in here... Anyways if you give people power they are going to want more- and more, until they have it all. In a democracy, the point is to leave the majority of that power with the people, so that that one or two individuals dont go getting any funny ideas.
I don't really know either... All I know is that it's "Something" (and possibly the most Earth-shatteringly awesome A Capella choir in existence).Nosense said:I haven't a earthly cluelacktheknack said:
(EDIT- Never mind I saw Uszi's post/video.....I still don't know what to think other than a constant chorus of wtf!?!)
No, just anti-trolling rules.NardBasket said:
Stating "LOL NO HE'S FICTION" is not constructive, it's flame bait.
So my interpretation of that is that self-sacrifice is what is deserving of respect. If what you give is of trivial value to you, then he's saying it means little that you give it. I'm sure if they gave every last penny they had to the point that they were in the same situation as the old woman at the end, he would respect them as much as her.Rex Fallout said:
So I don't think the point is choice vs obligation. The point is sacrifice. For all we know, she also gave out of a sense of obligation, but what she gave meant more because it involved a far greater personal sacrifice. And for all we know, the rich men weren't giving out of a sense of obligation, but they were giving at very little personal sacrifice. And finally, Jesus never suggested these men shouldn't give, but rather that what they were giving meant less, because its value was trivial to them. You can speculate that choice vs obligation is important to Jesus as well, but it is not made explicit in this quote.
Ultimately, it's yet another sentiment that borders on what the republicans would call class warfare. The poor who give what little they have are more worthy then the wealthy who give great amounts that ultimately do not impact their ability to buy boats and whatnot.
Ok, so far be it from me to defend Communism, which I do believe does not work as a system of government, but what you're talking about is not Communism, but rather the specter, in a more general sense, of totalitarianism. As the saying goes, Democracy is the worst form of government.... except for all the others. Democracy has its flaws (its slow to act/react, it's only as insightful as the simple majority of its citizens, and so on), but it is still the best system of government we have to prevent tyranny, which is what you're meaning when you say "Communism". Communism is not good at preventing tyranny, we agree on that point, but Communism is not *synonymous* with tyranny. A very fine distinction, perhaps, but an important one, I think.
So essentially, slippery slope. The government is already in charge of the police, the military, and transportation infrastructure, and it is intimately involved with zoning/planning in cities. Every time someone suggests giving the government a bit of responsibility, someone comes up with a slippery slope doomsday scenario. The first thing you have to prove with a slippery slope argument is that the slope is, indeed, slippery, and I just don't see it here. If the government provided a non-profit health insurance alternative, that would give it no particular power or inclination that it doesn't already possess for regulating drugs or food, or doing any of the other things you describe. In fact, I don't think that would be the case if it went to a full single payer system. There may be a number of horror stories about the British NHS, but the death of free enterprise is not one of them.
Is it so hard for people to accept that atheists just don't think about it that way? Seriously, until other people called this one out, my eyes passed over it with nary a thought about trolling or flamebait. It seemed like a funny and perfectly reasonable bit of witty banter. And if it sparks a discussion about whether or not jesus is fictional.... so what? If that was the poster's original goal, to spark a big argument so he could enjoy the fallout, sure he's trolling/flamebaiting. But if that wasn't his intention.... what's the big deal? Are we all afraid of having a fairly on-topic discussion about jesus in a thread about jesus?lacktheknack said:
Ultimately, this does indicate a religious bias. The original poster presupposes that jesus *was* real. If presupposing that he was real is not trolling and presupposing that he wasn't real is trolling, then we have a double standard.
To be fair, the zombie virus is only in the sci-fi zombie ethos not the magic zombie ethos. Considering his other 'powers' he definitely belongs in the magic category.Nazz3 said:
That said, I think you are right, he isn't a zombie. I'd say he's a more powerful form of undead, a lich perhaps. Some form of belief vampire maybe.
Given undead is defined (as per wikipedia) as:Nazz3 said:
"Undead is a collective name for fictional, mythological, or legendary beings that are deceased and yet behave as if alive"
I think you may be splitting hairs. But oh well.
Jesus was alive after he got resurrected, while undead means that you are still dead, but act as if you were alive, just like you said. If someone gets resurrected back to life doesnt mean that hes undead, he just happened to be dead for a while, its like a patient dying for a moment when having a surgery and then being revived by the doctors, it doesnt make him undead.Luke Cartner said:
I feel like somehow we've gone waaaay ot from what the original question of, "if Jesus ran for president would you vote for him" but eh.
Anyways, what I was pointing to from that verse was that we dont have a set required amount we are supposed to give, ie. 15%, 10% whatever, and Jesus doesnt get angry at those who dont give, he merely points out that that woman gave more than anyone else and that she will be blessed for it. The Bible says that those who give will be given to in return, and why would God give us an incentive for giving if we MUST give? That doesnt make any sense.
Communism was merely a philosophy laid with a foundation of good intentions- that went horribly wrong. Karl Marx didnt want the individual to exist, in his mind the individual just created uneeded problems. In his mind, everyone could only be equal in one way, and that is by placing a giant government boot over everyones head. He taught that the only way his true utopia could come into power was if everyone, every individual, every organization, every bit of written history, was destroyed. Because the ashes of a destroyed civilization, then he could rebuild the world in the 'just and true' way. Socialism reaches the same ends, if only by more subtle means.
Ok first off I'm gonna say that I'm not sure what political affiliation I fall into, (although I'm sure some are immediately yelling, REPUBLICAN!) Because there are just so many hypocritical things that every party does that it disgusts me. I feel like language is supposed to be taken as this 'code of honor' and over the years humanity has repeatedly and repeatedly just crapped and pissed on it till language is more a disgrace to humanity than anything else. People say one thing and do the other all the time, and this is just highlighted when it comes to politicians which is why I dislike politicians so much, but I'm getting off topic so...Labcoat Samurai said:
Anyways, what I was pointing to from that verse was that we dont have a set required amount we are supposed to give, ie. 15%, 10% whatever, and Jesus doesnt get angry at those who dont give, he merely points out that that woman gave more than anyone else and that she will be blessed for it. The Bible says that those who give will be given to in return, and why would God give us an incentive for giving if we MUST give? That doesnt make any sense.
Oh it actually makes me sad to read this. You dont seem to understand what I have been telling you all along- Communism IS totalitarianism. In philosophy it isnt, but in practice it is. It goes against human nature, we always want more and more, some call it greed while others managed to focus this desire into ambition, it is human nature to refuse to accept your current accomodations and want more. And that is why every communist nation you see will always have that great dictator, (or as Deng Xiaopeng and Hu Jintao like to call themselves 'presidents' but that term in of itself lends to leading people astray, president usually refers to one who came into office by a vote, and these men were not voted for by the people, if anything the CCP *might* have voted them in.) They are the same thing, the party steps into power with the famous- "ALL ANIMALS ARE CREATED EQUAL" and by the end of the day, those that remember the old slogan are hung and the new slogan reads, "ALL ANIMALS ARE CREATED EQUAL, EXCEPT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS."
Communism was merely a philosophy laid with a foundation of good intentions- that went horribly wrong. Karl Marx didnt want the individual to exist, in his mind the individual just created uneeded problems. In his mind, everyone could only be equal in one way, and that is by placing a giant government boot over everyones head. He taught that the only way his true utopia could come into power was if everyone, every individual, every organization, every bit of written history, was destroyed. Because the ashes of a destroyed civilization, then he could rebuild the world in the 'just and true' way. Socialism reaches the same ends, if only by more subtle means.
But its not just another doomsday scenario! We've seen history! Hitler took over control from his capitalist and democratic brothers to take control of the nation! Mussolini did the same in Italy! Lenin in Russia, Zedong in China- Why is it that we continue to sit around our little tables, looking at each other and asking ourselves- "Now, how can we make it work this time?" People argue that government run healthcare is great, but it is not the government who comes up with the ways that diseases can be cured. The knowledge they use on others is not gained for themselves, and they advance very little on their own. Government run health care two centuries ago would have killed the United States, (and for that matter many other nations) because cures for diseases were not already known.
I think Jesus was very disappointed with those who don't give. Just because he doesn't repeat it in every conversation doesn't mean he isn't. It wasn't the point he was trying to make at that time. And the distinction between "must" and an incentive like "this is how you get into heaven" seems pointless to me. Sure, you're not going to be *made* to give, but if you end up in hell for being stingy, that's a distinction I don't find particularly interesting. It probably means that, as a politician, Jesus would not make a law requiring you to give, and if that's all you're getting at, sure. But, on the other hand, that's just because Jesus felt that men should be free to make whatever decisions they wanted and that they would be judged at the end of their lives.Rex Fallout said:
Then I think you may misunderstand me.
Communism as implemented in places like the USSR and China is an *example* of totalitarianism, but it is not the only example. Monarchy would be another one. In a general sense, it was totalitarianism and corruption of those in power that led to tyranny in the works you referenced.
In practice it *has* been, and it is likely that other implementations of it *will* be as well, but it is not an intrinsic quality of communism that a small cadre of individuals must make all decisions regarding the population. But without the notion of individual rights and the requirement that the power of government rests with the people, also nothing strictly prevents it, and people will tend to want to cement their power. In essence, I was nitpicking, because I thought your analysis was a bit "communism as bogeyman"-ish rather than recognizing the real problem, which is that you almost always get tyranny when you put all the power in the hands of a few people.
Yes, this is another massive problem with Communism. Separate from totalitarianism, it has a big problem with incentive, particularly at a large scale. Sure, maybe you'd love to help your neighbor or the guy down the street, but humans aren't wired to care as much about people they don't know and will never meet.
Non sequiturs, all of them. How does any of that prove that the slope is slippery? A non-profit public option is less socialist by far than the systems in place in the UK and other places (hence why I mentioned the NHS), and not a single one of those places has given the slightest indication that it is going to turn into Nazi Germany.
Because others are making it work right now?
Well yes. They mean government *funded* health care. We'd still have doctors and scientists. And furthermore, drug research could be *improved* potentially. Currently, there's no incentive to research a drug if you can't make money off of it. That's not the ideal incentive.
Let's say you have two promising avenues of research, one which might lead to a one-time cure of an illness and another that might lead to sufferers being forced to take the drug for the rest of their lives. If your biggest incentive is profit and pleasing shareholders, which drug are you going to greenlight for research? I'm not saying for sure that this happens, but I do think we have an incentive that encourages that thinking, and it might be better if we didn't.
The key difference here is your heart stopping momentarily due to surgery and dying for 3 days (time enough for decom to set in) is pretty vast. Once the brain is deprived of oxygen it starts to break down pretty quickly, resulting in the true death of id, ego and super ego (the only real death that counts I guess).Nazz3 said:
I would argue that there is probably more evidence that he was undead than he wasn't.
My preferred theory is some form of vampire.
I mean it makes sense, on atleast one occasion he heals someone with his bodily fluids http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn%209:1-12;&version=ESV;
Also he raised multiple people from the dead, on one occasion commanding the person to raise. Almost like a turned vampire.
And ofcourse there is the case of the holy grail, which Jesus claimed was his blood (I know it is believed to be a metaphor but hey). Which legend has it will grant everlasting life.
When he sent his disciples out they where only to enter where they were welcomed, much like the prohibition on vampires from entering if they are not invited in.
There is the sunlight thing (that is he was seen inpuplic in sunlight), so its admitably not a perfect fit. Which is what makes me consider some form of arch-zombie or Lich.
Regardless you have to admit if Jesus was rolled in some form of RPG you would need to use a class with lots of Necromancy and mind control powers..
yes i would if he would be like the bible describes him because i know what Jesus stands for (according to the bible) and he is a lot opener then the stereotypical Christian (some of them are arseholes some of them are not).
also i'm not a christian. go figure.
also i'm not a christian. go figure.
But God doesnt *damn* those that dont give, nowhere in the bible does it say, "THOU WHO DOESNT GIVETH WILL FACE HELL" Which was the main point I was trying to drive home. I'm not saying giving to the poor is bad- its great to help others, (personally I prefer to help people I know not random strangers but I can understand that people all over the world need help)Labcoat Samurai said:
No, its not an *example* it IS. You seem to be trying to hang onto that thread that *eventually* under the right circumstances, communism can work BUT it wont. It goes against human nature, it kills millions of innocent people, it starves thousands, it censors the media, it slows production all that communism has to offer is heartache and pain.
Yes, but Marxists want to push it on Humanity anyways. Have you ever read the communist manifesto? Karl Marx's idea of creating utopia involved destroying every bit of civilization in order to create his utopia on top of the ashes of said civilization.
*sigh* look at those nations in history, and what do you see? Men who happened to be at the right place at the right time to push their ideals on the people. These nations were in depression, the throws of war, and these men stood up and said to the masses, "We can make your dreams come true, no more hard work, no more pain! Everyone will be equal!" But in each case it was the same just with a different tune. These non sequiturs (which I love that word) are hardly irrelevant, because in each case the government took over more and more in order to 'help the people' and in every case the exact same thing happened. You think that the United States, Britain, Canada etc. are immune to these horrors? Your kidding yourself. All of these nations fell down that slippery slope, and you kid yourself with the idea that that slippery slope doesnt exist? Have fun with that.
Give me one example of a pure communist nation upholding all of Marx's ideals, that is self sufficient, (as a true communist state is supposed to be) that allows for this perfect state you believe can happen where somehow the individual still exists, and I'll concede. You win my good sir. You win.
Oh yes those greedy terrible corperations, only think about money. The government regulates enough on these industries as it is, they insure that food is safe or the industry feels the backlash.
People always point out how 'evil' corperations are and in the same breath mention how everything would be perfect if the government took over from them. Then the government wouldnt be 'greedy' and fire people when it was losing sales and didnt have the money to pay them. government wouldn't punish them for doing a poor job, thats what 'greedy' businessmen do. And then they'd sit around wondering, 'why is our nation 13 trillion dollars in debt?' How many of those evil corperations have enslaved, tortured, and killed free men and women? Because I can point out a whole hell of alot of places where 'good' governments have. ALOT.
Have you been to the U.S. Recently? We are 13 TRILLION dollars in debt. Not million dollars, not billion dollars, TRILLION. And do you know who is going to have to pay for this? Not the people who caused the problem, oh no, I will have to pay for it. Me and every future American because there is no way in Hell our leaders are going to be getting rid of this debt anytime soon. So think, do we really need to be piling on another burden for our nation to carry? Uncle Sam isn't Atlas kiddo. He's full of humans, just like you and me, and he can only do so much. And though I am disgusted that he's picking and chosing when to uphold democracy, I must concede that he's got enough stuff on his plate for the moment.
P.S.-BTW I'm not saying our 13 trillion dollar debt in the U.S. right now is because of government take overs of the private industry, I typed that up and then realized it kind of sounded like that. But no that not where the debt is from.