Pastor alarmed after Trump-loving congregants deride Jesus' teachings as 'weak'

[osgart]

Christian conservatism is a contradictory term. The guise of Christianity has served conservatives well for many, many years.

Perhaps conservatives are now starting to come out of the closet more and expose themselves as a self serving ideology that couldn't care less about helping up other people.

To me there are some core teachings that Jesus had that are very charitable and honorable. That's the appeal of the false religion of Christianity. Conservatism uses the religion to sucker people into voting for them.

Government has been a hollow puppet under Conservative rule ignoring the costs of running a free society and making the rich richer, and the poor poorer.

A free society needs an effective government. Conservatives don't like that. A lot of voters are looking for humane leadership and are gullible Christians.

Lies and false balances coming from conservatives. As usual. Liberals are not necessarily the good ones because of this.

I'm liberal but in no extreme sense. There need be a balance of capitalism and social programs but never communism.

Liberals and conservatives aside someone has to step up and deal truthfully in politics in general.

Biden and Trump thrown at the American people and the USA can't do any better then that. That's the pits!

 

[Father Heathen]

Sorry, I don't think that is true.

Using the term "think" loosely.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I oppose mandatory taxation, because I think it makes everyone a slave. But, why would I not use the services, if I pay them anyway?

I think I would pay anyway for the services that are useful.

That is extremely wrong. Slavery? That's a gross misrepresentation of slavery if I've ever seen one.

 

[F1fan]

That happens anyway. With socialism, it is easier in certain point to get everything without paying.

Are you talking about the rich who are given massive tax breaks by republicans, and use loopholes in tax law with hired lawyers to hide profits? Or are you talking those living in overty who already don't have enough to survive, and pay plenty of use and commercial taxes?

The problem with all mandatory tax based systems is, they become inefficient, because the money is guaranteed and the one who get the money don't care how it is used.

Then how could a city, county, state, or nation create a budget? They wouldn't know how much they would get.

If it would be voluntarily, people could stop paying when they see the money is not used properly. This is why I think there should not be any mandatory taxation.

Really, the honor system? Would you trust the wealthy with the honor system when they already cheat paying taxes they owe? Notice your accusations here are baseless, so why bother making them?

But, if we have mandatory taxation, I think the money should be used only to matters that can be argued to be beneficial for all people. These would be:
1. Healthcare (I think this is also problematic, because it leads to higher cost of medicines and healthcare, as happens in all monopolies).
2. Education
3. Basic infra
4. Justice system, including police
5. Fire brigade
6. Simple government to take care that these are provided in a way that is good and efficient for the people. Governments should not be rulers of people, but servants of them.

You ignore a lot of important things, like food and safety. Transportation. Environment protection. Licensing of cars, business, professionals like lawyers and doctors, etc. Do you think the honor system will work? You could have simple in the 1700's, but modern times is vastly more complex.

No, that is why I am against socialism.

Everything you listed above is socialism. Do you prefer anarchy?

I think there is really no left and right in politics, there is only upper and lower class. Both main parties in U.S. have those who are for the upper class and it may be that there are few of those who are for the lower class, for the common people. Most of the decisions politicians make, are for the benefit of the upper class. The lower class is only remembered in pretty speeches that are done to get the votes. They don't really care about poor people, they care only of their own power and money. And socialism is a very good word for them to use, because with it poor people can be tricked to vote them to make life even more miserable for all.

Most of this is false, with some true elelments. Notice you point out a problem, insist socialism won't solve it, and avoid offering any solution that would work. Have you given up? No ideas? Or do you want anarchy, every man for himself, and good luck not being killed in the next few days?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That happens anyway. With socialism

For someone in a religion forum, you are awfully obsessed with economics.

 

[fantome profane]

For someone in a religion forum, you are awfully obsessed with economics.

Everybody here brings their own particular and peculiar obsessions. This board covers a variety of topics, religion, science, politics, economics, art, music, cooking etc. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[1213]

For someone in a religion forum, you are awfully obsessed with economics.

Why do you think I am obsessed?

 

[1213]

Then how could a city, county, state, or nation create a budget? They wouldn't know how much they would get.

I would arrange it so that government tells what is needed and then people donate that sum required for that, if they see the purpose and price right. If it is a good thing, it would get the required money, if not then they would not get the money and it would be good so.

You ignore a lot of important things, like food and safety. Transportation. Environment protection. Licensing of cars, business, professionals like lawyers and doctors, etc. Do you think the honor system will work? You could have simple in the 1700's, but modern times is vastly more complex.

Modern times is vastly more complex because politicians have made it to look like that, because then it is easier to collect money from others.

Many modern systems are not necessary, they only exist because it is a way from some to get rich.

Everything you listed above is socialism. Do you prefer anarchy?

No, I prefer simple non corrupt system where people are as free as possible to live long and prosper.

Most of this is false, with some true elelments. Notice you point out a problem, insist socialism won't solve it, and avoid offering any solution that would work. Have you given up? No ideas? Or do you want anarchy, every man for himself, and good luck not being killed in the next few days?

Would you kill me, if there would be no government to tax people dead?

 

[1213]

That is extremely wrong. Slavery? That's a gross misrepresentation of slavery if I've ever seen one.

Slave was forced to work for his owner and the owner gave the slave palace to live and food. No meaningful difference to a government that makes people work for it and allows person to have something for to buy place to live and food.

 

[1213]

And it does not matter what you think. Who cares? You need to support your claims. The early Pilgrims in America tried your system. It did not work. ...

That is interesting claim. Some say they failed in socialism.

Socialism Failed Miserably For The Pilgrims, Just Like It Does Everywhere

Today's democratic socialists like to claim real socialism has never been tried in America, but they're wrong. The Pilgrims did try it — and it failed.

thefederalist.com

But, I think socialism in some way could work. I think Limited company is the best form of socialism, because in that people basically collectively own the company and have also good chance to influence in decision making.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is interesting claim. Some say they failed in socialism.

Socialism Failed Miserably For The Pilgrims, Just Like It Does Everywhere

Today's democratic socialists like to claim real socialism has never been tried in America, but they're wrong. The Pilgrims did try it — and it failed.

thefederalist.com

But, I think socialism in some way could work. I think Limited company is the best form of socialism, because in that people basically collectively own the company and have also good chance to influence in decision making.

A voluntary "socialism", which is what you want tends to fail abysmally.

 

[F1fan]

I would arrange it so that government tells what is needed and then people donate that sum required for that, if they see the purpose and price right. If it is a good thing, it would get the required money, if not then they would not get the money and it would be good so.

This assumes the citizens understand the needs being asked for. The government wants to clean up industrial sites that leak chemicals into a river where you don't live, will you donate? Your local government needs money to improve street lights in a poor neighborhood where you don't live, will you donate for them, or only for what benefits your neighborhood?

Look how many citizens believe disinformation about climate change, yet you expect only the well informed to pay to reduce carbon emissions? And what happens if the revenue is less than what is collected now, borrow more? The republicans couldn't find much to cut when they faced off with the Biden administration over the debt ceiling, what does that tell you? Our government is already quite lean in what it pays for. So what your plan will do is many not paying any state or federal taxes, and a huge defecit will result, and those who do volunteer to pay will feel like suckers because so many are freeloaders. If you think there is an obligation for citizens to pay their fair share to support the basics of civilization why not make it mandatory? The honor system just gives cheaters a legal excuse to avoid contributing.

Modern times is vastly more complex because politicians have made it to look like that, because then it is easier to collect money from others.

Really? It's not technology? It's not more advances in medicine so more can survive serious illness instead of just dying off? It's not more pollution that needs to be cleaned up? It's not more population that puts more demand on infrastructure? It's not the commercial demand for more products that causes waste and byproducts? Just blame politicans?

Many modern systems are not necessary, they only exist because it is a way from some to get rich.

Give examples. Use facts, not your contempt for modernity.

No, I prefer simple non corrupt system where people are as free as possible to live long and prosper.

Explain how this illusion is possible in current times. Use facts.

Would you kill me, if there would be no government to tax people dead?

I have no idea what this question means.

 

[F1fan]

That is interesting claim. Some say they failed in socialism.

Socialism Failed Miserably For The Pilgrims, Just Like It Does Everywhere

Today's democratic socialists like to claim real socialism has never been tried in America, but they're wrong. The Pilgrims did try it — and it failed.

thefederalist.com

But, I think socialism in some way could work. I think Limited company is the best form of socialism, because in that people basically collectively own the company and have also good chance to influence in decision making.

Well, there's your simple government that failed in simple times.

 

[F1fan]

For someone in a religion forum, you are awfully obsessed with economics.

It illustrates how right wing politics has intermingled with right wing Christianity. How else could a corrupt guy like Trump get evangelicals to vote for him? Their politics are considered on par with their religion.

 

[metis]

By what I see, socialism, which by Marx is the same as communism, is cancer of a nation.

The above tells me that you didn't spend any time reading the link that I posted back to you, which shows that there are different forms of socialism with Marxism being only one, and that one is basically null and void at this time. Why should I waste time with you if you wouldn't even check out one link?

And one funny thing is, in Finland that has extremely high taxation rate, it is said that it must be so because of "free healthcare", yet one must still pay, if one uses it.

Because we live in a society whereas mutual concern should be the #1 priority, and even the chimpanzees are aware of that. Seems to me your position is very self-centered and uncaring about the needs of others.

Pure socialism doesn't work,

There is no such thing as PURE SOCIALISM in today's world!

 

[metis]

Sorry, I don't think that is true.

"Those who do not learn from history...".

S-T-U-D-Y

 

[Viker]

Slave was forced to work for his owner and the owner gave the slave palace to live and food. No meaningful difference to a government that makes people work for it and allows person to have something for to buy place to live and food.

Slaves never get to drive SUVs. They don't get to vote. They have no say so in their affairs or for their future. A slave is owned and thereby does not own anything, not even the clothes on their back

Taxation is a necessity. Taxation without representation is tyranny. You are free to complain to your elected officials.

You
are
not
a
slave.

 

[Viker]

Slave was forced to work for his owner and the owner gave the slave palace to live and food. No meaningful difference to a government that makes people work for it and allows person to have something for to buy place to live and food.

Further more, you are more beholden to your employer (unless self employed), your bank, your bills than any government. Nobody is forcing you to work. You don't have to if you don't want to.

 

[Viker]

Why do you think I am obsessed?

You've bought into right-wing secularized ideology, very much so that it's obvious.

I'm not a communist. It should be obvious to you but you would refuse to see it. Because I pick up a banner or two mainstream conservative Christianity dropped a long time ago. Love, compassion, humility, equality, charity.... yanno, "woke".

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

For someone in a religion forum, you are awfully obsessed with economics.

I'm sure you understand where these "anti-socialism" tropes come from - conservative indoctrination media. The conservatives don't mind taxation and public spending, but it has to be the middle class paying those taxes and the spending needs to be in ways that profit the wealthy, not on the things that the government exists to provide or the people it exists to serve according to the Preamble. So, "socialism" is derided, but what they mean is money spent on the needs of ordinary people, like Social Security and Medicare. Spend it on defense contracts and corporate bailouts, not FEMA, student loan forgiveness, or pre-school funding. He's an unwitting vector for a meme directed against him and most of the rest of us as well.

I would arrange it so that government tells what is needed and then people donate that sum required for that, if they see the purpose and price right. If it is a good thing, it would get the required money, if not then they would not get the money and it would be good so.

Then almost nothing would get done. We know this from experience. You should, too, but you get information from people who want that nothing get done that doesn't benefit THEM. These propagandists aren't advocating for the police, prisons, and military to be funded by volunteers. They depend on those things, and want them fully funded. But not the things YOU need.

Where that kind of thinking applies is in areas like our bridge club, which was thriving until the pandemic, which not only led to an abrupt cessation of revenue (but not bills), but also the rise of free online bridge that keeps people home in the face of inflation and unfavorable changes in currency exchange rates (we're mostly expats at that club), and now the club bleeds red every month. Reserves are dwindling, and it appears that if we want to maintain this amenity in our community, we're going to need contributions. I'm proposing that a dozen of us volunteer to pay the rent one month a year. I will if eleven others step up. If there isn't that much interest, then the bridge club has to go extinct, but that's the way it should be, as with all of the restaurants that failed during that period. That's economic "natural selection."

But some things are too important to trust to that. For those, we need government and mandatory taxation.

Modern times is vastly more complex because politicians have made it to look like that

Are you suggesting that most beliefs are only the result of what others tell us to believe? We only need to use our eyes to make these judgments. Much of life is much simpler, and some more complex, and we can know this without others telling us what to think.

I get the impression that passive (uncritical) thinkers assume that everybody else is also just a tabula rasa being downloaded into by media, that if they're exposed to an idea, it imprints on them and modifies their belief set.

Would you kill me, if there would be no government to tax people dead?

Not me, but any of the guys who wants the bucks you saved on taxes might kill you for them if just a local posse of unpaid volunteers exists to help you, assuming they felt like volunteering and weren't in on the crime.

Slave was forced to work for his owner and the owner gave the slave palace to live and food. No meaningful difference to a government that makes people work for it and allows person to have something for to buy place to live and food.

Really? That's what you think slavery is, a coerced exchange of room and board for labor? Not if it doesn't include having your freedom and dignity stripped from you, your labor stolen from you, beatings, being considered owned property (chattel), and the separation from and sale of your family members.

You forgot to mention the free education slave labor can provide as is being taught in Florida now.