It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
Anyone that wears the clothing we call the human body is a hypocrite.
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.
A food stamp recipient could care less about the moral significance. He probably just cares that he is able to afford food.
Altruism on an individual level is one thing but did you ever consider that an entire society can be altruistic?
This is however only possible if everyone sacrifices, including those that do so grudgingly.
So a true Christian does not want to improve the human condition or care about social justice?
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).
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?
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?
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.
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?
Taking power from the free market and giving it to the biggest, most dangerous monopoly is no way to fight monopolies.
In what specific ways is the government hedonistic and melevolent in regards to helping the poor?
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.
The way you phrase it implies that taking responsibility for yourself is a conservative ideal.
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.
So do the good causes excuse the bad causes and wasteful causes?
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 quote myself from another thread. link
That monopoly I was speaking of is the state.
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'.
And the way you phrase your OP implies conservatives are hypocrites who don't care about the less fortunate.
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'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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
Corporations would have no power to control public policy and be reduced to deal with other competitors instead of maintaining control through public policy.
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.