Conservative Christians are Hypocrites, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times

reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 08:53 PM by factbeforefiction

Originally posted by The Transhumanist
reply to post by factbeforefiction

I personally don't think that Jesus was apolitical.

Aspiring to a greater purpose, whether or not you fall short, does not invalidate your desire to become a better you and does not make you a hypocrite - it makes you a human being with the desire to be more than what you feel you are.

I never said I think wanting to become a better person makes you a hypocrite if your a Christian. But are you attempting to equate affluence with being a better person? Isn't it possible to improve yourself as a human being without gaining wealth? I was mainly posing this question to the wealthy or conservative Christians who refuse to give a portion of their wealth away. I have nothing against success and neither does Christianity.

Affluence has nothing to do with whether or not you are a good person. There are likely more people without affluence who are bad people, just as there are likely more people without affluence who are good people, simply because there are more people without affluence.

There are certainly many people who would seek to cloak themselves with a veil of piety whether it be Christian or any other belief system which seeks to do good in order to deceive those around them, but in doing so with this purpose at hand definitively does not make them Christian. If this is your charge then false Christians should be who it is directed toward, not Christians.

Those who aspire to a lifestyle of any belief system in order to build themselves into a better person, whether Christian or some other belief, are not doing so in order to deceive, and those that do so in order to deceive are not the people you charge with hypocrisy.

reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 09:09 PM by The Transhumanist

reply to post by factbeforefiction

How does one define a Christian? Do you consider it some one who strictly follows all Christian principles? Then yes, what I meant to say is that false Christians are hypocrites. The problem is that there are so many people who consider themselves Christians just because they accept the divinity of Christ and accept Christ as their lord and savior despite not following many of his (liberal?) principles.

reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 10:22 PM by enigma.prufrock

I define a Christian as one who is wise to the inherent disease of humanity and is willing to accept and be humble in the light of this information.

A sincere Christian is not unlike the character of Simon in the Lord of the Flies: one who perceives a higher truth, yet is powerless to efficiently and eloquently convey the beauty of the higher knowledge to his fellow creature.

One who is not there to judge his fellow man, but to share the beauty of well-needed and unrelenting forgiveness in his fallen state on Earth?

One who denies the hubris of humanism and is OK with the humanity they have been dealt. ...Yet at the same time, intensely uncomfortable and grieved with the stain of it all.

A true Christian is one of the yet greatest misunderstood creatures threatened by the extinction of obsolescence in a brutal insensitive world.

A true Christian expects the scorn of his/her peers, as the messenger of Truth rarely has an easy go of this leg of the journey called life.

A true Christian expects sneers, not exultation, a true Christian expects the message to be trampled, to be spat upon and scorned: a true Christian has forgiven for these wrongs even before they have been committed.

A true Christian is the expectation of being misunderstood and maltreated, bringing a message of Hope and Love to a dying world. Against the Odds.

A true Christian has a messianic complex, without the Hollywood glitter. Only accepts the blood, nails, contempt, spit, that comes with the role.

A true Christian prays privately for you as you denigrate them publically.

This is my definition of a true Christian.

Edit for spelling even God could not forgive....

[edit on 27-10-2009 by enigma.prufrock]

reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 10:39 PM by nixie_nox

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II

Except states are neither really red or blue, but various shades of purple. I appreciate you trying to look at actual information to support your statement. But it not like red states ONLY contain conervatives. Who is to say that the liberals in those states are not higher contributers, bringing the average of the state up?

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 04:22 PM by Barkster

Anyone that wears the clothing we call the human body is a hypocrite.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 04:42 PM by The Transhumanist

reply to post by enigma.prufrock

I define a Christian as one who is wise to the inherent disease of humanity and is willing to accept and be humble in the light of this information.

This can't apply to a secular humanist?

One who denies the hubris of humanism and is OK with the humanity they have been dealt. ...Yet at the same time, intensely uncomfortable and grieved with the stain of it all.

So a true Christian does not want to improve the human condition or care about social justice?

By your definition, it doesn't matter whether or not they are altruistic? Isn't altruism an absolutely essential principle of Christianity?

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 04:44 PM by The Transhumanist

Anyone that wears the clothing we call the human body is a hypocrite.

I've already made my case against that statement.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 07:52 PM by DINSTAAR

reply to post by The Transhumanist

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the definition? Altruism is devotion to the welfare of others. W ether or not the decision is made by the individual or the state is irrelevant. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the definition? Altruism is devotion to the welfare of others. W ether or not the decision is made by the individual or the state is irrelevant. Forced devotion to the welfare of others is still the devotion to the welfare of others.

Notice I bolded the word 'forced'.

Don't insult my intelligence. If the decision for me to be altruistic should not be defined by a hedonistic, malevolent government. They take taxes, which, by definition, is an act of aggression (not altruism) and give scraps to the needy. And this is all after everyone in government gets their own piece and the majority of which is spent on the mechanisms that wage wars and untold destruction on fellow humanity (not altruism, again).

There is nothing altruistic about state funded 'welfare' (misnomer) because the state derives its funds from exploitation of its subjects and the pillaging of other peoples. Just because they throw some scraps at the poor to make you sleep better at night, does not mean that the state is devoted or in the least bit concerned in the least bit with welfare.

A food stamp recipient could care less about the moral significance. He probably just cares that he is able to afford food.

As a generalization I would say that this is correct about most of America, but it is just an example of how we are apathetic to most things to begin with.

Altruism on an individual level is one thing but did you ever consider that an entire society can be altruistic?

It's theoretically possible, but this is near impossible with limited resources. It only works on small scales with outside factors contributing (communes etc.).

This is however only possible if everyone sacrifices, including those that do so grudgingly.

Lets say we are neighbors in this society. We are all asked to sacrifice our own goods to the state which supports the needy. I do not want to and you and all the other neighbors force me to sacrifice as much as you did. Is an act of coercion acting in my best interest? You are willing to 'sacrifice' my own welfare so we all act altruistic.

The whole reasoning behind state funded welfare just became a paradox.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 08:01 PM by DINSTAAR

reply to post by The Transhumanist

So a true Christian does not want to improve the human condition or care about social justice?

Loaded Question....

You assume 'improving the human condition' and 'social justice' as roles only a state can solve.

Person A: You disagree with state funded welfare programs?

Person B: Correct. I think the private sector, like community fundraisers and faith based organizations can more efficiently, and more effectively face these issues.

Person A: So you hate the poor?

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 08:19 PM by AshleyD

reply to post by The Transhumanist

It's not that 'conservative Christians are hypocrites.' Instead, I believe it's that you are somewhat confused by what all the New Testament states and the text's relation to our modern definitions of conservative and liberal.

Although the New Testament certainly states we should take care of the poor and unfortunate, it also is the source of the famous saying 'If you don't work, you don't eat.' So we see two things that Christ commanded:

1). Take care of the poor, disabled, widowed, elderly, the orphans, etc.
2). It is not anyone's burden to take care of those who can take care of themselves but refuse.

So in that sense, the New Testament is both 'liberal' and 'conservative' (by our modern definitions) and at the same time neither liberal or conservative.

We are not commanded to walk around giving to anyone with their hand out. Instead, we are strictly instructed to give, with discretion, to those who need it. Even the 'widows list' of the early church had requirements of those who could obtain benefits.

So, the stereotypical liberal ideologies like taking care of your fellow man is in the Bible as well as the stereotypical conservative ideologies of personal responsibility and strong work ethic. Remember, The New Testament is also very stern with men and admonishes them to provide for their families. This would be impossible if they were to do what you are interpreting the Bible as telling them to do.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 08:35 PM by The Transhumanist

reply to post by DINSTAAR

Don't insult my intelligence. If the decision for me to be altruistic should not be defined by a hedonistic, malevolent government. They take taxes, which, by definition, is an act of aggression (not altruism) and give scraps to the needy. And this is all after everyone in government gets their own piece and the majority of which is spent on the mechanisms that wage wars and untold destruction on fellow humanity (not altruism, again).

Isn't it possible that if half the money devoted to the military industrial complex and unjust wars could be used for more humane purposes like helping the poor? Tax dollars aren't necessarily going to bad causes. We don't need to get rid of taxes, we just need to reform the budgets. With what money would the government defend us? Or let me guess, your Anarcho-capitalist private military corporations would do that for us. Would you also have us privatize the FDA, the CDC, the police, fire departments and the highways?

How does the government get their own piece? It is a not for profit oganization. Even the president only makes 300k a year.

In what specific ways is the government hedonistic and melevolent in regards to helping the poor? I don't see Obama buying cocaine and lsd with your tax dollars.

So a true Christian does not want to improve the human condition or care about social justice? Loaded Question.... You assume 'improving the human condition' and 'social justice' as roles only a state can solve. Person A: You disagree with state funded welfare programs? Person B: Correct. I think the private sector, like community fundraisers and faith based organizations can more efficiently, and more effectively face these issues. Person A: So you hate the poor?

You are wrong here. I was not referring to the state in any way shape or form in that post. I was responding to the poster's definition of Christianity, specifically the aversion to the "hubris of humanism". Do you agree that to be a true Christian, you can not fall prey to Humanism? I always thought of it as a rather important element of Christianity.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 08:50 PM by The Transhumanist

reply to post by AshleyD

Are you implying that all who are poor do not work or refuse to take care of themselves? There are airline pilots living below the poverty line who are on foodstamps. They probably have more responsibility than any of us will ever have and work just as hard as the next guy and yet they barely make a living.

What about migrant farm workers who work 15 hour shifts with no breaks for pennies on the dollar? I guarantee you they work much harder than you do, and yet again they can barely provide for themselves much less their families.

I have stated time and time again on these forums that to be on welfare you must apply for at least 15 jobs a week. Most of the poor in this country aren't being provided for by their employers. It isn't a conscious decision to be lazy and take your precious tax dollars away from you. Granted there is always a small percentage of any given population who finds a way to cheat system, stereotyping the poor as people who refuse to provide for themselves is an excuse for apathy.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 08:53 PM by AshleyD

reply to post by The Transhumanist

Are you implying that all who are poor do not work or refuse to take care of themselves?

What about migrant farm workers who work 15 hour shifts with no breaks for pennies on the dollar?

No. You will need to go back and reread what I wrote and research the Bible itself to see what it states on the subject if that is what you took away from my post.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 09:01 PM by DINSTAAR

reply to post by The Transhumanist

Isn't it possible that if half the money devoted to the military industrial complex and unjust wars could be used for more humane purposes like helping the poor?

It's possible but not in the least bit probable. It's like saying we can all win thousands of dollars in the lottery tomorrow.

Tax dollars aren't necessarily going to bad causes.

So do the good causes excuse the bad causes and wasteful causes?

With what money would the government defend us?

Minarchists point out many good ways. Corporate taxes (taxes on limited liability organizations), or even an excise taxes on unnecessary luxurious items are less intrusive and are not based on theft.

Or let me guess, your Anarcho-capitalist private military corporations would do that for us. Would you also have us privatize the FDA, the CDC, the police, fire departments and the highways?

I quote myself from another thread. link

Taking power from the free market and giving it to the biggest, most dangerous monopoly is no way to fight monopolies.

That monopoly I was speaking of is the state.

In what specific ways is the government hedonistic and melevolent in regards to helping the poor?

Because the government is hedonistic and malevolent anyway.
Government only helps the poor to make us feel better about what else they are doing. They can strip rights and property away from otherwise law abiding citizens for the sake of 'social justice' 'war on drugs/terror' 'your own best interest'.

I apologize for getting off the original topic.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 09:09 PM by The Transhumanist

reply to post by AshleyD

1). Take care of the poor, disabled, widowed, elderly, the orphans, etc.
2). It is not anyone's burden to take care of those who can take care of themselves but refuse.

So in that sense, the New Testament is both 'liberal' and 'conservative' (by our modern definitions) and at the same time neither liberal or conservative.

That is what I took away from your post. The way you phrase it implies that taking responsibility for yourself is a conservative ideal. I'm not advocating giving more money to the so called "parasites" I am advocating giving to the poor who work hard or who cannot find work, who truly need and deserve help. I believe this is what Jesus was advocating as well.

No liberal wants to see people receiving money for doing nothing any more than a conservative wants to see it. The difference is the liberal is concerned with the government providing help to those who truly need it as well as balancing out the social classes, while the conservatives believe that class struggle is not an issue and that churches and community organizations alone can take care of those in need. I think Jesus would be horrified by the class system in America.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 09:15 PM by AshleyD

reply to post by The Transhumanist

You may have missed my use of the word 'refuse.' Not those who try but their best but still can't put food on the table.

The way you phrase it implies that taking responsibility for yourself is a conservative ideal.

And the way you phrase your OP implies conservatives are hypocrites who don't care about the less fortunate.

[edit on 10/28/2009 by AshleyD]

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 09:25 PM by The Transhumanist

reply to post by DINSTAAR

It's possible but not in the least bit probable. It's like saying we can all win thousands of dollars in the lottery tomorrow.

No..legislation isn't random chance. If the right people get behind the right issues, we can realistically alter the budgets and allocate wasted tax money to those who deserve it.

So do the good causes excuse the bad causes and wasteful causes?

No. I'm not advocating wasting money on wars and failed institutions like the federal reserve. In fact, I'm pretty conservative when it comes to these two issues. The budgets can be changed you know. They aren't doomed to waste tax dollars for ever.

Minarchists point out many good ways. Corporate taxes (taxes on limited liability organizations), or even an excise taxes on unnecessary luxurious items are less intrusive and are not based on theft.

I'm all for it. It's disgusting that most trasnational corporations pay no taxes under the current tax code. And as for luxury goods, if you can afford a yacht, you can probably afford to hand over a few extra thousand for defense spending. I'm not sure if this alone could account for our massive defense budget, although possibly if we weren't in two extremely expensive wars.

I quote myself from another thread. link

I am assuming you are referring to the part regarding not paying for a service you aren't interested in? I wouldn't have a problem with that if everyone could independently afford all these services without submitting to a mountain of debt. There are some services that undeniably everyone benefits from like sewage systems. Except for some backwoods pioneer I suppose.

That monopoly I was speaking of is the state.

How would a minarchist or anarcho-capitalist deal with the resulting rise in corporate monopolies and cartels. Wouldn't we just be slaves to the corporations and opposed to slaves of the state/

Don't apologize. I enjoy a formidable opponent. I apologize for previously insulting your intelligence.

They can strip rights and property away from otherwise law abiding citizens for the sake of 'social justice' 'war on drugs/terror' 'your own best interest'.

Can't banks take away your property as well? And if a state doesn't exist, who is able to enforce your rights to begin with? Certainly not a firm who's interest conflict with your rights.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 09:27 PM by The Transhumanist

And the way you phrase your OP implies conservatives are hypocrites who don't care about the less fortunate.

Fair enough. I don't mean to say Conservative Christians don't care, what I mean to imply is that by being conservative, they don't care enough.

reply posted on 29-10-2009 @ 04:58 PM by DINSTAAR

reply to post by The Transhumanist

No..legislation isn't random chance. If the right people get behind the right issues, we can realistically alter the budgets and allocate wasted tax money to those who deserve it.

I added the bold on 'If'. It's a big if. It's exactly the if I am talking about when I say its not in the least bit probable.

I'm all for it. It's disgusting that most trasnational corporations pay no taxes under the current tax code. And as for luxury goods, if you can afford a yacht, you can probably afford to hand over a few extra thousand for defense spending. I'm not sure if this alone could account for our massive defense budget, although possibly if we weren't in two extremely expensive wars.

No is ever forced to buy a yacht. So if you want one, you can pay a tax. You get the idea perfectly.

How would a minarchist or anarcho-capitalist deal with the resulting rise in corporate monopolies and cartels. Wouldn't we just be slaves to the corporations and opposed to slaves of the state/

If the market is not inhibited by a state that feeds corporate interest (military industrial complex, corrupt and inefficient trade unions, big oil, etc.) monopolies would be checked by the free market itself. Individual organizations with the best and cheapest product will prevail. Trade unions of today could be replaced by better, more efficient, trade unions. Oligopolies, like we have now, will be under constant threat of outside innovation or competition.

Corporations would have no power to control public policy and be reduced to deal with other competitors instead of maintaining control through public policy.

Can't banks take away your property as well? And if a state doesn't exist, who is able to enforce your rights to begin with? Certainly not a firm who's interest conflict with your rights.

Banks owe one money and actually own the property itself. This is because we are a nation built on debt, and that starts at the top.

As for protection of rights? That will be all of our duties. We must affirm ourselves as the master of our own destiny and not rely on those wishing to take advantage of ones self-imposed impotence.

reply posted on 29-10-2009 @ 07:11 PM by The Transhumanist

reply to post by DINSTAAR

I added the bold on 'If'. It's a big if. It's exactly the if I am talking about when I say its not in the least bit probable.

Seems this is an issue of separation of corporation and state. If you can find a way to guarantee that firms don't interfere with the state, I would readily agree with stopping most of the states interference with the firms. I say most, because we would still need to limit the ability for oligopolies to come to power. Relying on the free market for this is wishful thinking at best.

If the market is not inhibited by a state that feeds corporate interest (military industrial complex, corrupt and inefficient trade unions, big oil, etc.) monopolies would be checked by the free market itself. Individual organizations with the best and cheapest product will prevail.

Sounds like Walmart to me. How can small business compete with the cheapest provider of well..just about anything. This isn't a regulation issue, the problem here is allowing a corporation to reach robber baron status.

Corporations would have no power to control public policy and be reduced to deal with other competitors instead of maintaining control through public policy.

What about cartels? Don't we need regulation that makes price fixing illegal?

Banks owe one money and actually own the property itself. This is because we are a nation built on debt, and that starts at the top.

No arguments there. Maybe that's because the country was founded by landowners and plutocrats.

As for protection of rights? That will be all of our duties. We must affirm ourselves as the master of our own destiny and not rely on those wishing to take advantage of ones self-imposed impotence.

That's a little too vague for me. Let's talk specifics.

Btw I really meant for this thread to be about Christianity. If you want to talk fiscal policy, check out this thread. I would like to hear your input.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 29-10-2009 by The Transhumanist]

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^