Ask a red

[ThePrussian]

yes it is. After all you are thrown out of the catholic church, you cannot recieve sacraments and thus you will be eternally damned.

and this s your argument for that Jesus supported slavery. This is an passage on having faith, even if it's blind.

No, excommunication is not eternal damnation. It is merely removal from communion and the church. It can be rescinded at any point by the church, even after supposed eternal damnation has taken place thus restoring the soul to God.

And you missed the point. If Christ viewed slavery as evil, why no condemnation, I haven't found a single point where Christ condemns it. He didn't hesitate to speak his mind when it came to the matter of the Adulteress, and in fact any condemnation of Slavery would be no where near as explosive as what he said concerning the Adulteress. This is the man who resorted to violence in the House of God for Chrissake, yet no oratory on the evils of Slavery? The Sermon on the Mount would've been a nice place to deliver some Abolitionist fire and brimstone about Slavery, but nope.

In truth, I think he was more Stoic or Buddhist.

 

[philippe]

No, excommunication is not eternal damnation. It is merely removal from communion and the church. It can be rescinded at any point by the church, even after supposed eternal damnation has taken place thus restoring the soul to God.

But if not rescinded, what happens after death? Yep, eternal damnation. just as one sentenced for death penalty will get his death unless he is granted an amnesty.

And you missed the point. If Christ viewed slavery as evil, why no condemnation, I haven't found a single point where Christ condemns it. He didn't hesitate to speak his mind when it came to the matter of the Adulteress, and in fact any condemnation of Slavery would be no where near as explosive as what he said concerning the Adulteress. This is the man who resorted to violence in the House of God for Chrissake, yet no oratory on the evils of Slavery? The Sermon on the Mount would've been a nice place to deliver some Abolitionist fire and brimstone about Slavery, but nope.

I believe it is Plotinus time, I shall PM him about this. He is a bona fide theologian, certainly all more knowing on the subject then te both o us.

In truth, I think he was more Stoic or Buddhist.

 

[Bill3000]

Unless youse guys are talking about the redness of Christ's blood, I don't think this is a good place to talk about this.

 

[philippe]

Unless youse guys are talking about the redness of Christ's blood, I don't think this is a good place to talk about this.

I was just thinking the same. THat's why I already made a psot in ask a theologian on the subject.

 

[ThePrussian]

Oh, and I am not even a Christian. Why am I defending Christianity?

 

[LightSpectra]

Yeah. I hate the way such bastions of socialism like the US, Japan, UK, Columbia, Russia, Indonesia and Poland all make it illegal for you to keep a certain % of what you own... hey, maybe we did win the cold war after all

I do think charity is superior to welfare (see my signature). That doesn't mean I think these countries are bastions of the anti-Christ.

In socialism, one can have material possessions. It is just that everyone has enought to eat and drink, a place to live, and health care to survive. In otherwords, "For I was hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me." Matthew, 25:36-37

Yes, and notice how they did that by their own choice. They did it because they wanted to, because they thought it was the right thing to do. Not because their government or community forced them to.

If you've ever been to the U.S., you might notice that all of the soup kitchens and bread lines are run by charities. So if you're claiming that socialism is the only system where everybody is fed and clothed, that would be incorrect.

He didn't care one bit about material goods or inequality (he supported slavery).

He did care about inequality. That's why he asked his disciples to give away everything they owned to the poor, and why he asked the rich man to sell everything he owned.

For the claim that he supported slavery: yes, that's marginally true, but you're taking this grossly out of context. Slavery, in the ancient world, was nothing like slavery of the Confederacy. It was much closer to feudalism than slavery as we think of it. It was a social class, and you could be free by Mosaic-Pauline code after a certain number of years.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

If you've ever been to the U.S., you might notice that all of the soup kitchens and bread lines are run by charities. So if you're claiming that socialism is the only system where everybody is fed and clothed, that would be incorrect.

History has proved that if, left to their own devices, governments, corporations, and countries are not going to feed and clothe their populace. By the way, by no means is everyone fed and clothed in the US. In my area (MA) alone, hundreds of thousands of people are homeless and in need of food. Soup kitchens do not feed everybody. And I'm pretty sure, despite all that charity going to Africa, that millions of African children die everyday from hunger and disease. Part of this is caused by runaway extreme dictators and some by drought and some by climate change and some by unequal medical care. With socialism, environmental measures would be enforced to stop climate change and help prevent drought. After all, using simple forestation methods have reclaimed much soil in the Sahel (see National Geographic, issue October? 2008). Unequal medical care would also be brought by socialism. Continually, Sweden, with the most elementary socialist practices, is one of the freest societies on earth. So I am not convinced that socialism and dictators are incontrovertibly linked. In fact, Pinochet overthrew the democratic government of Chile to establish Friedmanite policies. I believe creates a greater ability for democracy, not less.

Also, which country has a lower infant mortality rate, the charitable US or the welfare state of Sweden?

 

[LightSpectra]

History has proved that if, left to their own devices, governments, corporations, and countries are not going to feed and clothe their populace.

I don't believe this is true. It may have been true 100 years ago, but the world was four times poorer 100 years ago and the resources simply weren't available to do so.

Note FEMA, for instance. Their disaster relief has become so incompetent that now charities have been taking over that industry, and they're doing a decent job of it too.

By the way, by no means is everyone fed and clothed in the US.

Nobody has starved to death because they couldn't acquire food, however. Even if you can't find a soup kitchen to go to, if you haven't eaten for a day, a hospital will feed you for medical reasons.

Part of this is caused by runaway extreme dictators and some by drought and some by climate change and some by unequal medical care. With socialism, environmental measures would be enforced to stop climate change and help prevent drought.

This could be done under capitalism as well. Hell, any socio-political system would be superior to tyranny.

In fact, Pinochet overthrew the democratic government of Chile to establish Friedmanite policies. I believe creates a greater ability for democracy, not less.

Yes, and since then, Chile has become (a) democratic again, and (b) the jewel of South America.

Also, which country has a lower infant mortality rate, the charitable US or the welfare state of Sweden?

It's bad to make such one-to-one comparisons like this. Counting the overall quality-of-life, the Republic of Ireland, which has one of the lowest welfare expenditures in the developed world, is counted higher than Sweden. But I'm not saying that Ireland is superior to Sweden, I'm just pointing out that there are so many factors involved here that it's unfair to make any sort of comparison like this.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

This is not an arugment thread. If you want to discuss an individual topic, start a new thread; otherwise, you are thread jacking and will be reported for it. Some already have.

Please stop.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I don't believe this is true. It may have been true 100 years ago, but the world was four times poorer 100 years ago and the resources simply weren't available to do so.

Look around! The gas and oil companies are actively trying to deceive the public about climate change with ethanol, with their "we need to use them all" campaign, with offshore drilling! And the Republicans in Congress lined up to vote against health insurance for children. That goes against everything that is right.

Note FEMA, for instance. Their disaster relief has become so incompetent that now charities have been taking over that industry, and they're doing a decent job of it too.

But after the short-term relief is over they head home. And nothing's being done for Africa because they haven't had a disaster yet

Nobody has starved to death because they couldn't acquire food, however. Even if you can't find a soup kitchen to go to, if you haven't eaten for a day, a hospital will feed you for medical reasons.

So you have to be starving to get food, then? Great!

This could be done under capitalism as well. Hell, any socio-political system would be superior to tyranny.

Except capitalism. Which is, and leads to, tyranny. Russia was much freer during perestroika than now, when the oligarchs control everything.

Yes, and since then, Chile has become (a) democratic again, and (b) the jewel of South America.

Because of the overthrow of Pinochet.

It's bad to make such one-to-one comparisons like this. Counting the overall quality-of-life, the Republic of Ireland, which has one of the lowest welfare expenditures in the developed world, is counted higher than Sweden. But I'm not saying that Ireland is superior to Sweden, I'm just pointing out that there are so many factors involved here that it's unfair to make any sort of comparison like this.

And yet Ireland has universal healthcare, a purely socialist idea, proving my point.

 

[ThePrussian]

He did care about inequality. That's why he asked his disciples to give away everything they owned to the poor, and why he asked the rich man to sell everything he owned.

Are you sure it was because of inequality that he hasked his disciples to give away everything they owned and asked the richman to sell everything he owned? Because he was a socialist?



Or perhaps because this world is not all that important and the only world worth having is the one beyond this. And that material possessions such as food and wealth is utterly meaningless? Shed yourself from worldly concerns, desires and needs. That is the Christ I know and it strikes me more akin to Buddha or a Stoic philosopher than Karl Marx.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Are you sure it was because of inequality that he hasked his disciples to give away everything they owned and asked the richman to sell everything he owned? Because he was a socialist?



Or perhaps because this world is not all that important and the only world worth having is the one beyond this. And that material possessions such as food and wealth is utterly meaningless? Shed yourself from worldly concerns, desires and needs. That is the Christ I know and it strikes me more akin to Buddha or a Stoic philosopher than Karl Marx.

LightSpectra is somehow trying to twist Jesus to mean than charity is better than directly helping people.

 

[LightSpectra]

LightSpectra is somehow trying to twist Jesus to mean than charity is better than directly helping people.

Charity is directly helping people. Now, perhaps taxing every single person a great deal to create a large welfare state is more effective than charity, but I'm arguing that charity is morally superior to any other method. (Also, I would argue that low taxes in general is better for the poor than a welfare state.)

The fact is that we don't know what economic system Jesus adhered to; but it certainly was not socialism, as he never advocated that everybody be forced to share what they own and make.

 

[Yui108]

No, excommunication is not eternal damnation.

?? If you cannot confess, in catholicsm it's straight to you-know-where

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Socialism believes in a progressive system of taxation. Meaning, the poor would have low or negative taxes

Also, you keep saying that socialism is forcing people to share. Sure it is. With capitalism, you have the freedom to spit in the poor's eyes (and are encouraged to do so. After all, it's their fault for not working hard enough.)

Socialism is meant so that everyone has the necessities needed to survive. Capitalism doesn't guarantee anybody anything. Thus the fact that while my friends are being driven out of their only house, Bush can buy another one without feeling anything.

EDIT: crosspost

 

[LightSpectra]

?? If you cannot confess, in catholicsm it's straight to you-know-where

You can be un-excommunicated if you speak with a bishop.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Jesus didn't say you can decide who is expelled from the Church...

 

[LightSpectra]

Socialism believes in a progressive system of taxation. Meaning, the poor would have low or negative taxes

I believe low taxes on the rich will inevitably be better for the poor. More investments from the rich means more employment opportunities for the poor, as well as more donations to charity.

With capitalism, you have the freedom to spit in the poor's eyes

If you mean that literally, no you don't. If you mean that metaphorically, then yes, as this is called free speech. Are you saying socialism would disbar freedom of speech?

(and are encouraged to do so. After all, it's their fault for not working hard enough.)

I don't believe this one bit. I guess that shows how much socialists actually care about poor people, though.

Socialism is meant so that everyone has the necessities needed to survive. Capitalism doesn't guarantee anybody anything.

The reason for that is because there isn't enough for anybody. If there aren't enough homes for anybody, then at some point, somebody isn't going to have one. However, food has become prolific enough in developed countries that everybody can be fed just from charity.

 

[LightSpectra]

Jesus didn't say you can decide who is expelled from the Church...

"Never give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs. Otherwise, they will trample them with their feet and then turn around and attack you." (Matthew 7:6)

I emphasize that this is only for people who are abusing the sacraments and have shown no remorse or contrition.

 

[Mirc]

What country do you think is in the best state today for implementing a progressive socialist -> communist system?

I don't believe this one bit. I guess that shows how much socialists actually care about poor people, though.

I think he meant that's the line of thinking of capitalists, not that he shares that thinking.