|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Does God like conservatives or liberals better?
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ptarmigan:
A society in which the law of the jungle applies, in which the strong flourish and the weak are trodden on, is rightly thought of as primitive.
Damn.
I knew one day a liberal would get ahold of our secret handbook, "The Conservative's Guide to Screwing the Poor". We really should be more careful about leaving those things laying around.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
Given that some liberal voices are responsible for things such as removing the 10 commandments from public view,attempts to remove christ from christmas, christian clubs from schools, etc
I'm glad to see nonpropheteer found the heart of the matter. Liberalism should be a free market of ideas, as was expressed on another thread. By its very nature it should exemplify the notion of liberty. It does is not, at least in our country. Liberalism as it functions now is a comprehensive idealogy. Its implacable enemy is dogmatic religion, which it ironically seeks to curtail and relegate to the private domain because it undermines the liberal idea of freedom.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Its implacable enemy is dogmatic religion, which it ironically seeks to curtail and relegate to the private domain because it undermines the liberal idea of freedom.
Wally, your post implies that dogmatic religion belongs in the public sector, but that Liberalism wants to relegate it to the private domain.
Doesn't dogmatic religion belong in the private sector, not the public? No one has outlawed dogmatic religion nor freedom of speech; dogmatic religion has simply been taken out of the public sector, to prevent the public sector from biasing one dogmatic religion at the expense of others. But they all can do or say whatever they wish. So can secularists and everyone else.
You can lament the erosion of our purely Christian history as we move toward more of a pluralist and secular society, but it would be a greater erosion of our heritage if we were to allow dogmatic religion in the public sector. Allowed, yes. "Public" as opposed to secret and illegal, yes. But supported by tax dollars, which is the common meaning of the "public sector," no.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I do find it annoying that the school can have a chess club and a black student's club and an atheists' club but not a christian students' club.
Removing the 10 commandments from the courthouse, on the other hand, works okay for me.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
Oh, yes, I agree with that. I have never heard that concept of Paul as the "twelfth". I think his position as an apostle was unique.
In Orthodox iconography, Paul is virtually always shown as one of the Twelve Apostles. The icon of Pentecost, for example, shows the Twelve in the upper room, with Paul there, along side Peter and the rest. Likewise, the icon of the Ascension shows Paul looking up at our Lord with Peter and the others.
We know, of course, that Paul wasn't actually there for either event. He wasn't even a Christian yet! But icons are intended to show the spiritual reality, not the historical reality -- and the reality was that Paul was the Twelfth Apostle.
From our POV, of course. YMMV and all that.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zeke:
You can give money to whatever charitable cause you like, and deduct it from your taxes.
Also, though I don't care for Bush, he has been outspoken in favor of what he calls "faith-based organizations" receiving federal benefits for the good works they do. I should think you would wish to support that in view of your comments.
Yes, I could. But after paying 20% to the government, 10% to the church, and 5-9% state sales tax, I have little left. And you have to give a certain percentage of your income to charity in order for it to effect your taxes anyway.
I like Bush and think he gets bashed on things that are not his fault/beyond his control/not bash-worthy from a democrat president. However, just because I like a few of his policies and have some respect for him based on what I know about him doesn't mean I am willing to claim him as "daddy" (my name for the office of President).
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
I am not represented no matter who gets elected to any federal office. For example, ...
So, I take it, because those who get in don't support policies you would like to see enacted you don't vote at all. If someone ran on a platform you did agree with would you vote for them? Except that no one has every run on a platform that anyone has ever agreed with 100%, there is a need to assess the various candidates in relation to your preferences and vote accordingly for the candidate closest to your position. I would add, even if that candidate is not going to win, no vote is a wasted vote ... if enough people vote for the minority candidate that stands for some particular position then the major parties will notice. Those votes need to be cast on every opportunity, at local and national elections. It happened here with votes for Greens (in local elections) resulting in the main parties putting a greater emphasis on environmental policies.
quote:
Additionally, federal elections are kinda rigged: <snip> The sad truth is that it doesn't matter whom we would or wouldn't elect - if a politician makes a stand against his party line he loses political support, not necessarily the support of the people (i.e. John McClain). And political support is what gets you elected on the federal level, not 'votes'. If you don't have political support, your name won't even make it onto the ballot.
If someone feels so strongly about an issue "his party" doesn't support, then either he works from within the party to change the party attitude or he goes and stands as an independant or in another party which will allow his position within their platform. As I said, votes for minor parties and independants are fairly effective. If someone runs on a platform of, say, "legalise cannabis" but otherwise noncontraversial and picks up a few hundred votes the major parties will notice ... because there were probably a large number of other people who would have agreed with that position but are loyal to their party.
Have you ever considered standing yourself, if you so dislike the other options you have. I'm sure there are a number of others with similar views who would be willing to support you. Not to win (you wouldn't have a chance), but just to demonstrate whether or not your position has popular support that the guy who does win would be advised to take notice of ... politicians will do many things to get more votes.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
Oh, yes, I agree with that. I have never heard that concept of Paul as the "twelfth". I think his position as an apostle was unique.
In Orthodox iconography, Paul is virtually always shown as one of the Twelve Apostles. The icon of Pentecost, for example, shows the Twelve in the upper room, with Paul there, along side Peter and the rest. Likewise, the icon of the Ascension shows Paul looking up at our Lord with Peter and the others.
We know, of course, that Paul wasn't actually there for either event. He wasn't even a Christian yet! But icons are intended to show the spiritual reality, not the historical reality -- and the reality was that Paul was the Twelfth Apostle.
From our POV, of course. YMMV and all that.
So Paul was the next Judas? Sounds good to me. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
And what do you do about Matthias? Who actually was an apostle and I know of nothing that should deny him this- or do the icons show thirteen apostles. (Who even has a gospel- although there is a very good reason that that's apocryphal)
The reality, both historical and spiritual would seem to me to be that Paul was not one of the twelve but something else entirely (and in many ways a good argument against an insistance on apostolic succession being either necessary or desirable).
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Have you ever considered standing yourself, if you so dislike the other options you have.
Campaign slogans I've been considering:
"Vote for Nonpropheteer, I don't know you, you don't know me."
"NP: Better the devil you don't know than the one you do."
"More Pot in every kitchen"
"No more taxes, federal military, or social programs."
I agree that the other stuff you posted is how it should work, I just think it naive to believe that is how it does work. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I still believe that voting says "I believe the government has an inalienable right exercise authority over me" - and I simply do not believe that. I'm not part of this system except to the degree necessitated by survival - Joseph and Mary didn't go to Bethlehem for the census to show their support of the Roman government, they went because if they didn't everything they had would have been taken from them. Survival would have been impossible.
Paul says (TMK) that we should obey the government to whatever degree is necessary to avoid legal hassles provided the government isn't forcing us to do something that God considers sinful. I find the fact that he (and others) had the power of the vote, yet didn't consider it important enough to mention rather telling - given, what it tells is largely a matter of personal interpretation.
We could probably debate this from now till doomsday without reaching an agreement, Alan. I believe that all things will work out according to God's will, despite my personal exercise of civic 'duty' (or lack thereof). I'm not saying that you or anyone else shouldn't vote, I'm only saying I don't feel led to vote, and until I feel convinced that God wants me to support a candidate, I will refrain from voting.
Besides, no President has ever won an election based on the ballot of a single citizen. Nor will it ever happen as long as we have the electoral college.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
by liberal I mean lefties who want the State to become a gigantic, obese, Robin Hood with nanny tendencies ... taking more money from those who earn it and throwing it at the poor.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
And by "conservative" I mean tight-arsed Tories in pin-stripe suits who still haven't come to terms with married women being allowed to work outside the home and think that things were better when the Working Man (salt of the earth, dontcha know?) Knew his Place, and was happy to keep to it, and Bring Back National Service, it Made a Man of Me.
And by "socialists" I mean beer-dazed long-haired pseudo-intellectual tankies who never did a day's work in their lives and spend their evenings fantasising about bringing the capitalist system down in an ocean of blood and fire - as soon as this pub closes, the Revolution starts!
And by "anarchists" I mean thin sensitive young men with dodgy accents, all dressed in black who meet with left-over 1970s earth-mothers in paisley skirts, wooden jewelry, and worn donkey jackets to smoke cheap rollups and drink pastis and cheap red wine and discuss the ideational aspects of the construction of sexual practices as deviational within heirarchical consensus realities.
And by "libertarians" I mean coked-up redneck robber-baron gunwankers who live in booby-trapped survivalist enclaves out in the hills; never leaving their front doors but spending their time in their locked darkened basement rooms, drooling over their share portfolios on the Net, buying first editions of von Mies, Heinlein, and (Ayn) Rand on ebay; and who think the only desirable function of the State is to supply them with armed police that they can use to bloodily massacre any of their workers who dare to form a Union.
And by "Hermit" I mean a mildly sneaky kind of troll, with a childish love of exagerration, commonly found under damp rocks in supposedly Christian websites.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Host
By ken quote:
And by "Hermit" I mean a mildly sneaky kind of troll, with a childish love of exagerration, commonly found under damp rocks in supposedly Christian websites.
ken, Purgatory. Remember? Please apologize. Take Hermit to Hell if you are aggrieved. That is what it is for, among other things.
/Host
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
JimT
quote:
Doesn't dogmatic religion belong in the private sector, not the public? No one has outlawed dogmatic religion nor freedom of speech; dogmatic religion has simply been taken out of the public sector, to prevent the public sector from biasing one dogmatic religion at the expense of others. But they all can do or say whatever they wish. So can secularists and everyone else.
That's not true Jim, and you know it. Free speech is limited. Do you think I could walk into a public school now and talk about God in a high school assembly for instance? What about an after school prayer meeting on school grounds?
Freedom of choice is limited as well. You and I pay into a public school system whether we like it or not, yet we are not offered the choice of an alternative or a share of the money back to be redirected at our discretion.
Ask people around you if traditional religion is compatible with secular values and if protection of those secular values requires suppressing public expression of religious views. Think about Howard Dean saying that our own private religious morality has no place informating our actions on public policy.
There's a difference between advocacy and toleration, and this is not about bias towards one view or another.
[ 26. January 2004, 12:51: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Host
By ken quote:
And by "Hermit" I mean a mildly sneaky kind of troll, with a childish love of exagerration, commonly found under damp rocks in supposedly Christian websites.
ken, Purgatory. Remember? Please apologize. Take Hermit to Hell if you are aggrieved. That is what it is for, among other things.
/Host
But... but... sir... he started it!
Actually I was assuming that what he wrote was a joke and I was following up in the same style.
Had it not been a joke presumably this thread would have been moved to hell already?
If it wasn't a joke then Hermit doesn't need to apologise to me, because I'm not a liberal I'm a socialist. (& therefore was much nastier to myself and my fellow socialists than I was to Hermit - bing called a troll is mild, especially when the post obviously was at least a little trollish, but being called a pseudo-intellectual is very nasty & if I thought I meant it I woudl ahve to call myself to Hell and demand an apology of myself) But if Hermit meant what he said seriously - which I assume he didn't - then he surely would beed to apologise to any liberals on board?
But he doesn't, because he was making a joke, right? Or at least exagerating for effect?
This is purgatory, and meant for discussion, but is there a rule that says that attempts at humour are not allowed as part of discussion?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Dear ken;
You know I am quite fond of you. I respect your opinions and enjoy your sense of humor.
As I have said elsewhere, I have a prosaic mind which may, from time to time manifest itself as apparently lacking in a sense of humor. I am also a Host of a website with some 5,400 members. That means that personal remarks which can be taken as funny, as your could, and taken as personal slurs, as your could, need to be addressed by me.
The difference between what Hermit did and what you did was the personal nature of the remark. You are free, as you did, to post about conservatives, anarchists, socialists and libertarians in derogatory terms because they were not addressed to a particular shipmate, not because they were funny. (They were funny, BTW.)
There was nothing personal about what I did. Personal remarks that contain derogatory reference are simply not part of the vocabulary of Purgatory.
Any further discussion will have to be taken to the Styx.
Tortuf
Purgatory Host
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
There's a difference between advocacy and toleration, and this is not about bias towards one view or another.
Wally, you specified dogmatic religion. You implied that dogmatic religion belongs in the public sector and should not be limited to the private sector. Do you really meant that? All dogmatic religions, all supported by tax dollars, all should have equal access to high school assemblies to make a pitch for their dogmatic religion?
Dogmatic religions can invite people onto their private property for a free and open discussion of the correctness of their dogma over all others. I can't see that this is some kind of repression.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
Jim - The same schools that don't allow christian clubs have been known to allow Wiccan, Buddhist, and Muslim speakers to address the students. Not saying all of them or often...but its happened enough to be worrisome. Actually, just once is enough to get my pressure cooker going.
How is it that a government has the right to supress the (christian) religious expression (in 'public' buildings) of a society in which 50% or more of the people claim to be christian, but does not disallow the free expression of the various nth% religions in the same areas? Its not right, its not good. I really don't see how any christian can find this acceptable.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Jim
quote:
You implied that dogmatic religion belongs in the public sector and should not be limited to the private sector. Do you really meant that? All dogmatic religions, all supported by tax dollars, all should have equal access to high school assemblies to make a pitch for their dogmatic religion?
Just a note, I'm using dogmatic religion as shorthand for religious beliefs likely to collide with liberal secular mores.
Anyway, you're jumping straight from toleration of religious belief to advocation of religious belief. Essentially what you're saying is that if I talk about my belief in God in a public school, just as part of my own individual freedom of expression (or part of a prayer group on school grounds), that becomes tantamount to the state advocating religion.
This is what I think is at work in this country. That faith and the public sector must be completely compartmentalized. The comments Howard Dean made about stem cell research seem to go down to the level of anyone involved in public policy must do this within their own minds.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hermit
Shipmate
# 1803
|
Posted
Well, first of all it's not illegal in this country to have student-sponsored Christian clubs, although quite often school administrators mistakenly think it is, and need to be sued.
Ken, if you'll read past my opening post I agreed with Autobailer that the infamous Robin Hood line was too exaggerated, and gave a more sedate description of liberalism.
Concerning Paul, I showed that he considered himself an apostle but in a slightly different class than the "superapostles" or "chiefest" apostles, depending on translation. Also Barnabas apparently joined the lesser class of apostles in Acts. I suppose the term kept loosening up over time.
Augustine, if I took everything Jesus said literally I would be stripped naked and become impoverished by the time I walked down three city blocks in San Francisco .... he used hyperbole.
Ptarmigan wrote: quote:
I think that by and large liberal policies are more in accord with Godly values.
A society in which the law of the jungle applies, in which the strong flourish and the weak are trodden on, is rightly thought of as primitive. In fact it is hardly a society at all. It seems to me that many conservative values (and especially the way they deride the "nanny state" and dislike taxation) are a step back towards the law of the jungle.
Liberals believe that there is such a thing as society, that humanity works best when some resources are shared, and when there is some diversion of resources to those who would otherwise lose out, that some things are better done communally than in individually, that we should never stop learning, that people should have the opportunity to acheive their potential, that we should work towards a society of justice, harmony and love.
I don't disagree with these ideas so much in an abstract way, but disagree with forcibly taking money from people who usually work hard to earn it, in order to further these aims beyond NECESSITY. So beyond a minimum of taxes needed for national defense, police, fire, roads, water, electricity, a minimal safety net for people who need it rather than people who just don't want to work, and a fair amount for education .... I say let anything much beyond that be the choice of the people who actually earned the money.
And I don't believe that my stance is contrary to what Jesus summarized as "love your neighbor as yourself," since giving beyond the point of necessity harms most people IMO. They have no reason to develop or become self-reliant. And some taxpayer-funded institutions are positively evil.
For an example, if some want to fund the murder of unborn children for women who can't afford abortions, that should be up to them on an individual basis rather than stealing taxpayer money for it.
--------------------
"You called out loud and shattered my deafness. You were radiant and resplendent, you put to flight my blindness... You touched me, and I am set on fire to attain that peace which was yours." Confessions, St Augustine
Posts: 812 | From: Seattle | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Jim - The same schools that don't allow christian clubs have been known to allow Wiccan, Buddhist, and Muslim speakers to address the students. Not saying all of them or often...but its happened enough to be worrisome. Actually, just once is enough to get my pressure cooker going.
How is it that a government has the right to supress the (christian) religious expression (in 'public' buildings) of a society in which 50% or more of the people claim to be christian, but does not disallow the free expression of the various nth% religions in the same areas? Its not right, its not good. I really don't see how any christian can find this acceptable.
NP what you've described sounds very odd to; indeed more than that, unjust and crying out for correction. But how are you going to change the situation if you refuse to vote? ISn't that the main opening for you to bring about change in your own country?
Josephine - what you said about Orthodox iconography and Paul fascinated me. Could you say a bit more about why he is included in the 12, or at least point me in the direction of some information? And what do you think of Matthias? Does he count, and does he get his own feast day?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Wally, thanks. I can live with what you said in your last post a lot easier than with this:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
By its very nature it should exemplify the notion of liberty. It does is not, at least in our country. Liberalism as it functions now is a comprehensive idealogy. Its implacable enemy is dogmatic religion, which it ironically seeks to curtail and relegate to the private domain because it undermines the liberal idea of freedom.
I saw that as a little over the top and way too broad. You brought up schools as a specific example and while I think it's true that militant atheists can make political hay out of a traditionally "liberal" position that schools should be "neutral" on religion, I'd say there is a form of liberal thought that says, "specific religious instruction of children is most properly done by parents and associated private institutions."
As to Dean's political rhetoric, the whole Presidential campaign arena can make people puke on both sides. The minute one tries to court the religious vote with, "I'm proud to say privately that I'm deeply religious," someone is going to come along and say, "If my opponent is deeply religious, he's going to shove it down your throat." That way, the respondent can court the religious vote outside the opponent's specific religious group, and all secularists as well. I see politicians as inherently more evil than their political ideologies.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
Well, first of all it's not illegal in this country to have student-sponsored Christian clubs,
Nowhere? You've investigated the laws of all 50 states, the D of C, Puerto Rico, and Guam? All the municipalities, counties, parishes, cities, villages and towns?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Jim
quote:
I saw that as a little over the top and way too broad.
I know. Sometimes I just like the sound of the keys as I hit them.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
Well, first of all it's not illegal in this country to have student-sponsored Christian clubs,
Nowhere? You've investigated the laws of all 50 states, the D of C, Puerto Rico, and Guam? All the municipalities, counties, parishes, cities, villages and towns?
If anecdotal evidence helps, I can attest that as a young fundie in high school, I requested permission to hold a Bible study on school grounds after hours, fully expecting to be persecuted.
Instead they said, "Sure! No problem!"
I was crushed. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) It's just not easy to be a persecuted Christian in the USA these days.
(Nonetheless we held the study for a few weeks but I soon realized that I was in over my head.)
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Josephine - what you said about Orthodox iconography and Paul fascinated me. Could you say a bit more about why he is included in the 12, or at least point me in the direction of some information? And what do you think of Matthias? Does he count, and does he get his own feast day?
Yes, Matthias is an apostle, and a saint, and he has his own feastday, the 9th of August.
I'm not entirely sure why Paul is always included with the Twelve. Part of it, I think, is to emphasize the out-of-timeness, as it were, of the events in the icons, and of Divine Providence -- St. Paul wasn't there, he wasn't yet an apostle, wasn't yet even a Christian, but he would become so, and so, in a mystery, we see him there already. The Ascension and Pentecost are events in the life of the Church, and the Church transcends time and place. Perhaps Paul being there, in the icons, is in part to remind us that those are our events, too, as they were Paul's.
I'm sure there's more to it than that, but I'm not sure where you'd go to find more. Sorry I can't be more help.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
I'm not entirely sure why Paul is always included with the Twelve.
My own take on this is that Christ chose the original 12 apostles, and chose Paul; whereas the 11 disciples chose (in whatever manner)Matthias.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Another possibility (and I've no idea how much water it holds) is that Paul doesn't start his missionary journeys (ie: behave like he is an apostle) until after Herod has James executed. Could Paul be the apostle to replace James rather than Judas?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
I think I've heard that Australians have different meanings of what liberals and conservatives are, so by liberal I mean lefties who want the State to become a gigantic, obese, Robin Hood with nanny tendencies ... taking more money from those who earn it and throwing it at the poor.
How very non-inflamatory. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I think the people that please God most are the ones who are full of faith in and love for God.
That has nothing to do with their politics whatsoever.
Yes, God is probably closest to those who lives lives or faith and love, or at least try to. That won't be me then.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
I think the people that please God most are the ones who are full of faith in and love for God.
That has nothing to do with their politics whatsoever.
Survey say: dingdingdingding Good Answer!
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I still believe that voting says "I believe the government has an inalienable right exercise authority over me" - and I simply do not believe that...
I'm astonished that no one's picked up on this one.
And there was me with the sincere belief that voting in a representative democracy was the act of taking part in the exercise of the authority of the people over the government.
quote:
Besides, no President has ever won an election based on the ballot of a single citizen. Nor will it ever happen as long as we have the electoral college.
Yes, but it isn't just you, is it? There are, presumably, others who feel the same way. No one, no matter how dearly they would like to think otherwise, exists in a state of disagreement with everyone. The act of voting allows you to ally your own opinion with that of others. The one with the most people agreeing wins (although, obviously, some of the systems created to keep representative democracy alive in a large state inevitably create anomalies, like dear old Dubya, who, although it appears otherwise to many, legally elected, and who, apparently, was arguably elected in 2000 on a minority).
The authority of the citizenship in a democracy is immense; if you want to create a state where the laws you so deplore don't exist, you have to work to create a situation where you stand a chance. To say that your vote doesn't make a difference is to so fundamentally miss the point that you might as well be holding the blunt end of the pointy thing. On its own, one man's vote doesn't make a difference. But no vote is ever on its own.
I'm a believer in the old saw that we get the government we deserve. For example: while I would rather live under a democratically elected socialist government than a democratically elected capitalist government, I'd rather tolerate democratically elected capitalism (which is probably why I haven't started a revolution) than a socialist dictatorship any time.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hel
Shipmate
# 5248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
I think the people that please God most are the ones who are full of faith in and love for God.
That has nothing to do with their politics whatsoever.
Survey say: dingdingdingding Good Answer!
But Jesus said (I'm paraphrasing) when you clothe the naked you clothe me, when you leave them be, you leave me be.
So if your politics mean you effeictively say, I don't want my taxes going into wealth redistribution, you are saying you refuse to clothe the naked, and therby refuse to clothe Jesus.
What I have taken from all the posts in this thread so far, is that some people do not wish to pay (high) taxes, but wish to direct this money themselves through charity. This appears to be a satisfactory way of clothing the naked/Jesus, albeit perhaps a bit embarassing for the naked ones themslves, who then have to claim on charity.
Posts: 667 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hel:
But Jesus said (I'm paraphrasing) when you clothe the naked you clothe me, when you leave them be, you leave me be.
So if your politics mean you effeictively say, I don't want my taxes going into wealth redistribution, you are saying you refuse to clothe the naked, and therby refuse to clothe Jesus.
Belief in lower taxes and a strong dislike of wealth distribution means you refuse to give anything to charity? This is blatantly wrong, and you know it:
quote:
What I have taken from all the posts in this thread so far, is that some people do not wish to pay (high) taxes, but wish to direct this money themselves through charity.
That's more like it.
quote:
This appears to be a satisfactory way of clothing the naked/Jesus, albeit perhaps a bit embarassing for the naked ones themslves, who then have to claim on charity.
Why is claiming on charity any more embarassing than claiming on welfare?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hel:
So if your politics mean you effeictively say, I don't want my taxes going into wealth redistribution, you are saying you refuse to clothe the naked, and therby refuse to clothe Jesus.
Much as I agree with your philosophy (I do believe that as citizens we have a responsibility to our communities; as Christians, doubly so) I suspect that this doesn't follow anywhere near as neatly as you think it does.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why is claiming on charity any more embarassing than claiming on welfare?
Because welfare is a right, that in turn when the claimant is earning money they also contribute to for the benefit of others. Charity is dependant on the generosity of the giver.
Another difference is that charity will always be able to help the more socially acceptable cases (new hospital wings for childhood cancer, or whatever), but there will always be people as much in need as those people are willing to give charity too who are helped by a well run welfare system (though, in all welfare systems there will be people who fall through the cracks, no one and nothing being perfect)
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
What Alan said.
One of the big drives behind the refounding of the Welfare State in the 1940s in the UK was the feeling of a lot of poorer people that recieving private charity was shameful and demeaning and humiliating.
However benefits, paid for out of your own contributions, were a right. It wasn't called "welfare" or "charity" it was called "National Insurance" and it was supposed to be honourable and dignified. If, due to the accidents of life, some gave more than others, and others recieved more, that was part of the point. It was thought of of as insurance, a safety net, a common provision of a basic standard of life for all.
An attitude which many older lefties like my Dad still preserved into the 1980s - he was convinced that it was wrong to give money to things like medical charities, that the money and the effort would be better spent trying to achieve political reform that improved life for everyone.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Good point ken. But what happens when the government (be it in capitalist USA or New Labour neo-capitalist Britain) has so cut back national welfare provision that charities have to step in to fill the gap? While I believe we should continue campaigning for eg. decent housing for the homeless etc, that shouldn't mean it's wrong or a diversion from the main task to support charities such as Shelter.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
My biggest problem with National Insurance is that there isn't a "No Claims Bonus".
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
hermit
Shipmate
# 1803
|
Posted
OK ... let's assume we all agree on basic welfare including medical benefits for people who actually need it, due to disability or being the only parent. But what about healthy people with no dependants, who simply don't want to work? Does your country have a Christian obligation to support them?
And what about things like funding abortion, or other nonessential programs that don't contribute to education or national security and aren't essential to life?
Mousethief asked, quote:
Nowhere? You've investigated the laws of all 50 states, the D of C, Puerto Rico, and Guam? All the municipalities, counties, parishes, cities, villages and towns?
Not necessary, since the Supreme Court decided that no school may refuse use of the building for religious clubs (regardless of religion) if it opens doors to any outside organization AFTER classes end. LINK
Well, I'll try again on the subject of apostles: please recall that "apostle" and "the Twelve" aren't always the same thing.
Alan said, quote:
Another possibility (and I've no idea how much water it holds) is that Paul doesn't start his missionary journeys (ie: behave like he is an apostle) until after Herod has James executed. Could Paul be the apostle to replace James rather than Judas?
Sounds good to me, maybe Barnabas got in the same way, replacing some other martyred apostle (acts 14:14)
Papio, while I've been known to take a chance and skip reading posts as threads get longer, it's usually best to read them all before raising an objection, in case your concerns have been answered several times.
--------------------
"You called out loud and shattered my deafness. You were radiant and resplendent, you put to flight my blindness... You touched me, and I am set on fire to attain that peace which was yours." Confessions, St Augustine
Posts: 812 | From: Seattle | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
OK ... let's assume we all agree on basic welfare including medical benefits for people who actually need it, due to disability or being the only parent. But what about healthy people with no dependants, who simply don't want to work? Does your country have a Christian obligation to support them?
Well, I'm not sure the country has a Christian obligation to do anything ... we're a secular country to all intents and purposes. Unemployment benefit and income support are dependant on showing that you're actively seeking work, or doing some sort of vocational education to further your chances of employment.
quote:
And what about things like funding abortion, or other nonessential programs that don't contribute to education or national security and aren't essential to life?
Well, there is considerable debate on what constitutes essential. As I understand it, abortions and IVF treatment are currently available on the NHS ... though there are moves to tighten things up on those fronts.
quote:
Alan said, quote:
Another possibility (and I've no idea how much water it holds) is that Paul doesn't start his missionary journeys (ie: behave like he is an apostle) until after Herod has James executed. Could Paul be the apostle to replace James rather than Judas?
Sounds good to me, maybe Barnabas got in the same way, replacing some other martyred apostle (acts 14:14)
It is a possibility. But if the logical is followed there are currently 12 apostles, each appointed by God as an early apostle went to be with Him. I'm sure there are churches that teach that, but it seems odd to me. Maybe another thread is called for?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
I think we need to make a distinction here between different usages of the word "apostle". In the Pauline, and sub-Pauline, literature it is used to mean church founder/missionary/church leader, and is applied to quite a number of people. In Acts the word is only used of the 12, never applied to Paul, and the criteria used when a 12th apostle is chosen to replace Judas is someone who had seen Jesus in the flesh. This last criteria would not only rule Paul out, but restrict possible apostleship to pre-Crucifixion followers of Jesus (so there could be no apostles today). Paul's own use of the word is much wider, could apply to anyone who feels God has called them, and makes modern day apostles possible.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Nonpropheteer- you might be interested to learn that some Popes (of Alexandria, that is, if not of Rome) are elected by lot. If my memory serves me well, names of monks nominated by the Holy Synod are placed in a chalice, and one is selected by a child.
A quick review of the members of the House of Bishops raises questions on whether or not Anglicans might not usefully imitate this procedure.
Of course, it all boils down to who the Holy Synod puts into the chalice. Doesn't it?
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hel:
...So if your politics mean you effeictively say, I don't want my taxes going into wealth redistribution, you are saying you refuse to clothe the naked, and therby refuse to clothe Jesus.
Puts me in mind of a steaming pile of overcooked cauliflower.
Jesus did not command us to go steal money from other people and use it to feed and clothe the poor, which is exactly what re-distribution of wealth is.
Who are you to tell someone else how to spend their money? What gives you the right to determine how much I should give to charity? If God has seen fit to give me the ability and good fortune to become wealthy, then isn't it between he and I what I do with the wealth he gives me?
We are supposed to tackle these problems face to face as individuals and collectively as christians (jews and muslims are also implored to this end). Rome had taxation and food benefits to the poor, but Jesus did not say: "As long as you are paying your taxes, you've met your obligations to the poor." He did say "Pay your taxes AND feed and clothe the poor."
So if you want to give 50% of your income to the government and blindly hope they do a good job of feeding the poor, go ahead. But keep your hands out of my wallet.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
Well, first of all it's not illegal in this country to have student-sponsored Christian clubs,
Nowhere? You've investigated the laws of all 50 states, the D of C, Puerto Rico, and Guam? All the municipalities, counties, parishes, cities, villages and towns?
The US Supreme Court has ruled on this issue. A public school cannot place more restrictions on student-led relgious clubs than club for other purposes.
As a result of this, some school districts have decided to not permit any extra-curricular clubs of any sort. It is a whole lot les messier that way, and can be justified on educational grounds in some cases.
This discussion can devolve into a tangent totally unto itself. It will never be solved on the Ship because we cannot know the circustances that each school board and school administration is dealing. Besides, I really think that Jesus does not need the US public school system to spread the gospel.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
Interesting that the Orthodox church has St. Matthias in August. My Episcopal calendar has him on February 24.
Nonpropheteer, you indicated that your donating to charity is impossible for you, as you (among other things) give 10% to your church. Are you not aware that this is considered a deductible donation? I would be very surprised if 10% of your income wasn't enough to make any difference whether you claim it or not.
You seem to claim the right to decide exactly how much the government may spend on the services you expect it to provide. This is, again, something people vote about.
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zeke:
Interesting that the Orthodox church has St. Matthias in August. My Episcopal calendar has him on February 24.
Nonpropheteer, you indicated that your donating to charity is impossible for you, as you (among other things) give 10% to your church. Are you not aware that this is considered a deductible donation? I would be very surprised if 10% of your income wasn't enough to make any difference whether you claim it or not.
You seem to claim the right to decide exactly how much the government may spend on the services you expect it to provide. This is, again, something people vote about.
I do donate to charity, both through financial contributions and free labor. I don't claim the right to decide how much the government may spend, but you claim the right to determine how much of MY money the government may spend. I also don't keep track of how much I donate to charity, nor do I feel its any of the governments, or your, business.
I don't claim to be Mother Teresa, but I do what I can - and I could do more if I wasn't robbed of a significant amount of the fruits of MY labors by the government. I pay out a lot of money to the government for extremely little benefit.
I work for a non-profit, so one would think I would be all for robbing people of their cash and redistributing it. However, I know how little government money most nps recieve, how difficult it is to get it, and extremely tiresome and demanding it is to remain in compliance with (clear as mud) gov regulations once you start getting it. Having worked for a christian homeless shelter where 95% of the budget was provided by churches and private contributions shows me two things: The good hearted charity of people in general, and that it is possible to succeed and grow without the government dollar-sometimes even easier.
Note that the christian homeless shelter I worked for was located in a state well known for its poverty -yet those who could stepped up the plate and gave us money, while those who couldn't volunteered their time.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
There are a few passages that refer to Paul as an Apostle to the gentiles. There is also one where he refers to himself as an apostle "not chosen by men but by the Lord Jesus" (prob a very bad paraphrase). Makes me wonder if that was a jab at Matthias...
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
you claim the right to determine how much of MY money the government may spend.
How many people actually consider the taxes they pay as "my money"? I keep reading it, and somehow it always seems to look very odd to me. Maybe it's because I never see that money, having it deducted before my wages get into my bank account. Maybe it's because of the way contributions to the welfare system is called "National Insurance" (and that I've benefited from the system in the past). But, whatever I've never thought of it as the government spending my money ... I consider it much more that it's our money, spent on our behalf by the people we've chosen to spend it (and be accountable for spending it).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
you claim the right to determine how much of MY money the government may spend.
How many people actually consider the taxes they pay as "my money"? I keep reading it, and somehow it always seems to look very odd to me. Maybe it's because I never see that money, having it deducted before my wages get into my bank account. Maybe it's because of the way contributions to the welfare system is called "National Insurance" (and that I've benefited from the system in the past). But, whatever I've never thought of it as the government spending my money ... I consider it much more that it's our money, spent on our behalf by the people we've chosen to spend it (and be accountable for spending it).
I don't know about your job, but I'm the only one at work here right now. Nobody from the government is helping me do my job. They don't help me shave in the morning, they don't help me muddle my way through office politics, they aren't helping me compile all these freaking statistics at 4 in the morning. I am working for MY money, but I never recieve all that I earn from my labor. 20% of what I earn is gone before I recieve my check. The politicians don't help me pay my rent - indeed, this area is so thick with section 8 certificates (public housing certificates) that it makes it difficult to find a reasonably priced dwelling.
Landowners know exactly how much the government will pay, and know that payment is guaranteed. In a town of 20,000 people or so, with no major industries, shopping centers etc (Front page news when McDonald's opened its doors) a small studio apartment goes for $477. A (small) three bedroom apartment goes for $798. These numbers may seem like averages, but they are not. They are exact figures, and commonly seen, because that is what section 8 vouchers pay in this area for those apartments.
So you see, all of this social spending, besides taking money out of my pocket through taxes also costs me more in the long run to live. The house I live in now is not Section 8 approved because there is no railing on the stairs, the heater is not up to code, part of the porch is dangerously rotting, and the yard is full of deep 'chug' (one measures 2 1/2 feet deep) holes.
I pay $600 for a non-approved 4 bedroom house.
I am working 40+ hours per week and cannot afford to live as safely and comfortably as someone who does only 20 hours a week community service, if that. And I, along with the rest of the working stiffs, are paying for this disservice. I really don't see how you can say that is right.
And before you say I should report him to somebody, let me remind you: If he makes the repairs, replaces the heating unit and gets to where his house is section 8 approved, I'll see a sharp increase in the rent come my lease renewal - so I'll have no choice but to find another crap house and let some non-working section 8 recipient move into the one I live in now.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
thursday+
Shipmate
# 5264
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Jesus did not say: "As long as you are paying your taxes, you've met your obligations to the poor." He did say "Pay your taxes AND feed and clothe the poor."
Just wanted to ditto this. Thanks.
--------------------
Jesus did not rise from the dead and announce, "A Blessed Easter! I'm the Second Person of the Trinity!," then spend the remaining days until his Ascension instructing the apostles in rubrics.
Newman's Own.
Posts: 392 | From: home is in your head | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
There are a few passages that refer to Paul as an Apostle to the gentiles. There is also one where he refers to himself as an apostle "not chosen by men but by the Lord Jesus" (prob a very bad paraphrase). Makes me wonder if that was a jab at Matthias...
Now that is an interesting thought. I don't think I agree with you here, but I'm going have to go away and chew the idea over for a bit. Thank you for raising the idea.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hel
Shipmate
# 5248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by thursday:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
[qb] Jesus did not say: "As long as you are paying your taxes, you've met your obligations to the poor." He did say "Pay your taxes AND feed and clothe the poor."
That wasn't a point I was trying to make. But we can ensure people pay taxes, and we can't enusre people give to charity, so if we cut taxes (in the UK anyway, I know you Americans are a lot better at giving to charity in general) to their bare minimum and relied on everyone giving to charity, ther is no way the same amount of revenue would be raised.
Also, a lot of Brits tend to ignore people and give all their money to fluffy animal charities, so homeless dogs would be living in luxury, whereas people whith non-picturesque cancer would be dying in agony.
Posts: 667 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
