Father Heathen
Veteran Member
If you're familiar with Christ's teachings and examples, why do you forsake them by embracing conservative ideology instead?I believe you have now met one.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If you're familiar with Christ's teachings and examples, why do you forsake them by embracing conservative ideology instead?I believe you have now met one.
Precisely.No, you didn't see that. What you saw if you looked open-mindedly was that virtually all progress and aid came from governments, many of which funded the development and free distribution of the vaccines and disseminated personal protective equipment and viral testing kits at no charge while supporting individuals and businesses through a significant economic downturn.
What "wicked agenda"? I can show how the Republicans are guilty of that, I doubt if you can do the same for the Democrats.I believe that is what Democrats ae tryiing to do. Change the constitutional interpretations to fit their wicked agenda.
This looks like another in a seemingly endless succession of leftist hate-threads directed against political opponents.
By what I see, America is a socialist country, for example because the taxation level. However, perhaps better word for western countries is collectivist oligarchy. World leaders seem to follow the instructions in the book 1984.That's funny, because America is far from a socialist country,...
Sorry, I don't see how. Please give one example of that.Again, conservative ideology is antithetical to the teachings and examples of Christ,...
The reason why it is not done is, then the leaders would not get as rich and powerful. But I believe it is possible that in charity world there could be people that don’t have everything. Especially politicians could be poor and miserable. I think it would still be better than what we now have, because also now we have poor people, but people just would not have to pay as much for nothing.You simply don't get it, as charity alone has never worked in a state. To say we should do that makes about as much sense as me wanting to go to the moon by jumping up and down. History repeatedly proves you wrong, which is why not a single country in the world tries to do as you wish.
Ok, sorry, I should have been more accurate, people should not pay of things they don’t want and don’t use.Why? Why is that a problem for you? You seem to think that shoplifting is valid.
And socialism can’t fix anything. It makes only more poor people. Same is with politicians, they can make things only worse. It would be better for everyone, if all people would have right to decide what is done with their own money. It would also be more democratic, if people would have right to decide with their own money.That's just ridiculous. Socialism is a newcomer in economics and people have been poor and downtrodden ever since we invented citeies.
I live in Scandinavia. And i think especially Finland could be called tax hell. And I think it is wrong to think socialism leads to equality, it does not. It makes some people slaves of others.Tell the Scandinavians that as I'm positive they'll get a big bang out of this. Matter of fact, their income distribution is far more equal than here in the States.
The difference between a socialist and a Christian is, a socialists shares someone else's money, Christian shares his own money and doesn't demand others to pay. I think it is good, if people give freely what they have to others. But it is wrong to demand others to give what they have, for example because Jesus said, every worker deserves to have what he earned.Actually, you do and have as Jesus basically taught sharing is a must...
Cooperative groups out compete non-cooperative groups every time.And socialism can’t fix anything. It makes only more poor people. Same is with politicians, they can make things only worse. It would be better for everyone, if all people would have right to decide what is done with their own money. It would also be more democratic, if people would have right to decide with their own money.
Why not?Ok, sorry, I should have been more accurate, people should not pay of things they don’t want and don’t use.
That is so false. But of course by your standards, you are a socialist. You want to use other people's money for yourself.The difference between a socialist and a Christian is, a socialists shares someone else's money, Christian shares his own money and doesn't demand others to pay. I think it is good, if people give freely what they have to others. But it is wrong to demand others to give what they have, for example because Jesus said, every worker deserves to have what he earned.
the laborer is worthy of his hire
Luke 10:7
Giving to caesar what is caesar's is not exactly the same as mandatory taxation. I think no one should have anything that is ceasar's at all, then they would not have to give it back.
lolwhatBy what I see, America is a socialist country, for example because the taxation level. However, perhaps better word for western countries is collectivist oligarchy. World leaders seem to follow the instructions in the book 1984.
Post #15Sorry, I don't see how. Please give one example of that.
lolwhat
Again and again and again-- it has NEVER WORKED! It's just pie-in-the-sky nonsense.The reason why it is not done is, then the leaders would not get as rich and powerful. But I believe it is possible that in charity world there could be people that don’t have everything. Especially politicians could be poor and miserable. I think it would still be better than what we now have, because also now we have poor people, but people just would not have to pay as much for nothing.
Why do you keep repeated falsehoods like with the above. You know next to nothing about socialism even though I posted you a non-partisan link to show its diversity and why every country in the world uses some forms of socialism mixed in with capitalism-- "mixed economies". Why did all of them do this? Because it's what works best as each country tailor makes it for their own conditions. Instead, you propose a "one size fits all approach" that is so illogical and unethical.And socialism can’t fix anything.
Even the most conservative republican understands that taxes have to be collected to pay for the nation to function. All civilized settlements for the last 4000 years required the population to pony up something to pay for the infrastructure that the civilization needs to function. If you are opposed to collective cooperation and funding is socialist and evil, then you are a free loader who wants roads, police, fire depts, schools, etc. for free. It used to be that such selfish and greedy people were shunned and thrown out for not pulling their weight.By what I see, America is a socialist country, for example because the taxation level.
That looks to be closer to your fellow conservatives than the stable functioning that liberals prefer. Conservatives have been cutting taxes for the wealthy for decades with the belief that wealth will trickle down. No, it's made the rich wealthier and the middle class shrinking. There is your oligarchy. If you want to reduce this trend, you had better vote blue.However, perhaps better word for western countries is collectivist oligarchy. World leaders seem to follow the instructions in the book 1984.
Well, tell that to your fellow Finlanders as they chose this system out of being a democracy.I live in Scandinavia. And i think especially Finland could be called tax hell. And I think it is wrong to think socialism leads to equality, it does not. It makes some people slaves of others.