Thread: You are a self-righteous hypocrite, pisstakebare Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026882

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
As you say, how you help the poor is none of my business.

Correct.

So SHUT THE FUCK UP, and stop trying to make everyone else feel guilty, then.

Or perhaps "do to others as you would want them to do to you" hasn't quite made it to your little brain, yet?

Pathetic.
 
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :
 
We read the bible differently, EE.

Your views are as offensive to me as mine are (apparently) to you.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
Funny thing is that I have never seen the following verse in the Bible:

"Do to others as you don't want them to do to you."

Which version of the Bible are you using?
 
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :
 
In mine, there are two types of gospels: one for the rich and another for the poor.

It is up to the reader - under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - to decide which gospel is for them.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
[Confused]
 
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :
 
Well there you go, you don't believe it. That's fine. I do. Hence, y'know, bringing it up in conversation on the topic of blessing.

I don't care if you like it. I don't like your disgusting Evangelical nonsense. Live with it.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
I am not surprised you couldn't answer my question that exposed your flagrant hypocrisy. You rail against my 'evangelicalism' (whatever you mean by that), but you are the one who is self-righteously preaching at others, and yet get all offended when you are personally challenged. You can't take your own disgusting little medicine. Wimp.

The fact that you have evaded my challenge suggests to me that you almost certainly don't actually give a fuck about the poor, and you are just here to troll.
 
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :
 
Who's offended? It is a matter of conscience for me to not discuss how I give my time or money. You can ask, but I won't tell you.

If giving an opinion on a theological discussion board is 'preaching' then, yeah, I'm guilty.

But then so are you.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
In mine, there are two types of gospels: one for the rich and another for the poor.

I am very rich (by world standards) but I do try to follow Christ.

Impossible?
 
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :
 
Impossible without personal sacrifice, in my view, Boogie. Whilst one might be able to be rich and Christian, I don't think one can continue being rich and Christian.

Hence, the majority of us are not actually Christian. Scary, eh?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Impossible without personal sacrifice, in my view, Boogie. Whilst one might be able to be rich and Christian, I don't think one can continue being rich and Christian.

Hence, the majority of us are not actually Christian. Scary, eh?

Rude eh?

You have no idea how much personal sacrifice any one of us makes in our Christian walk.

Personal sacrifice can involve many things. Including building up wealth in order to give, and in giving of ourselves and our time.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare
If giving an opinion on a theological discussion board is 'preaching' then, yeah, I'm guilty.

This was your opinion:

quote:
I'm not sure the correct response to the fact that we are in a minority of the world population that has proper sanitation is gratitude. Shame is far more appropriate.
Yeah, of course, you have every right to express your (in this case ridiculous) opinion, but the implication is obvious: we in the 'rich' west should feel shame that we have decent sanitation.

For many years I worked for a charity and was personally involved in developing various projects in Africa, South Asia and Eastern Europe. The only person I ever met, who expressed the kind of sentiment you have expressed, was a vicar who went to Africa on what could only be described as an "ego trip" with very little to do with alleviating any kind of need. Oh yes, he claimed to be all weepy about the fact that he had electric lights in his house and the poor buggers in Africa didn't.

Yeah. A fake if ever I saw one.

You don't fool me, pydseybare. Crap on as much as you like...

[ 01. January 2014, 12:31: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
 
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :
 
Make of it whatever you like. I don't think one can continue to be rich and Christian. You don't have to agree, you don't have to believe you are rich, you don't have to agree as to what a Christian is.

It is impossible for me to say about anyone's personal condition given that I know nothing about you, even if I wanted to.
 
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :
 
Yeah, whatever you like EE. Can I get back to discussing theological issues now?

I'll just have to remember to avoid reading your contributions in future.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
Yep, let's get back to discussing theology* so we can avoid reality.

It's fun to see someone on the run...


*(I'm going for 263,657 angels on the pinhead. Any further bids....?)
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Impossible without personal sacrifice, in my view, Boogie. Whilst one might be able to be rich and Christian, I don't think one can continue being rich and Christian.

Hence, the majority of us are not actually Christian. Scary, eh?

Scary? Only in the sense that it's a perfect explanation of why Christianity declines the richer a society gets. If you tell people there's a straight choice between being rich or being Christian they will choose to be rich. And who can blame them?
 
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :
 
That's an interesting point, Marvin, but I doubt there is much British teaching that a choice needs to be made between being a Christian and being rich.

If there was, I can't see that EE would be getting so cross about it.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Make of it whatever you like. I don't think one can continue to be rich and Christian. You don't have to agree, you don't have to believe you are rich, you don't have to agree as to what a Christian is.

I'm willing to bet that you have a considerably better standard of living than someone in the Third World. For a start, you have access to a computer, which you probably own. You probably do this from your own home, which you have bought or rented without the aid of social security and welfare handouts. You might even have a job which enables you not only to meet that rent or mortgage, but also to have money over, and possibly to go on holiday or run a car. You probably own CDs, DVDs and devices to play them on and I bet you've had at least one mobile phone. And so on. This is affluence in the eyes of a fair proportion of the world.

On your own scale you would then rank considerably lower therefore than a Filipino Christian, who, having been deprived of almost everything in the recent typhoon, is therefore a truer Christian than you. The same might also be said of a Syrian Christian struggling to stay alive in a tent in winter in the snowy mountains of Lebanon, both of whom would trump you any day.

I take it that by your reckoning, any Christian philanthropist wouldn't count as a Christian either, no matter how much good they did, simply because they weren't living in extremely reduced circumstances on the edge of subsistence.
 
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :
 
That's a good question, Ariel.

It seems to me that we live in a world of extremes. Somewhere in the middle is a lifestyle that all people should be able to live at - which, I believe, is above the bare subsistence level, but far below the level most Western Christians live at.

The demands of Christ seem to both require a reduction of the wealthy towards that level together with increased sensitivity to those who live below it. In my view.

If we can't or won't do that, then we're probably better off not describing ourselves as Christian.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare
The demands of Christ seem to both require a reduction of the wealthy towards that level together with increased sensitivity to those who live below it. In my view.

The Samaritan was not required to injure, deprive or neglect himself as a precondition for helping the victim of violence. I mean this is pretty obvious, really.

quote:
If we can't or won't do that, then we're probably better off not describing ourselves as Christian.
You speak only for yourself, of course. I doubt any well-informed genuine Christian will pay any attention to your 'opinions', which clearly have no basis in reality (and are the result of a total misreading of the Bible - a book that you have admitted elsewhere you don't fully believe in anyway. So more deceit and hypocrisy).
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Ah, the absolute moral certainty of idealistic youth.

You are young, aren't you pydseybare?
 
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :
 
Not as young as my teenage daughter.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:

It seems to me that we live in a world of extremes. Somewhere in the middle is a lifestyle that all people should be able to live at - which, I believe, is above the bare subsistence level, but far below the level most Western Christians live at.

My son lives that lifestyle - by choice.

He's an atheist.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
How can one who implies they've sacrificed so much to help the poor and follow Jesus have all this time to post on message boards that require a computer and access to the internet that the "poor" don't have?

[Confused]

Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell everything he owned and give it to the poor. Those wanting to go on and on about following Jesus and serving the poor should sell all that they own and give it to the poor. That includes electronics. I have a hard time being told via the internet that Christianity is all about helping the poor. Only a hypocrite can do that.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Pardon this untutored oik, but I thought Christianity was about our relationship with Jesus, not what we do or what we do with what we've got. OK, stewardship and good works are not to be disregarded but come from the relationship, rather than our faith consisting of deeds and, it has to be said, pious pronunciamentos.

I'm sure pydseybare will be back to refute that, but it'll take a lot of backtracking on his previous posts.
 
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Pardon this untutored oik, but I thought Christianity was about our relationship with Jesus, not what we do or what we do with what we've got. OK, stewardship and good works are not to be disregarded but come from the relationship, rather than our faith consisting of deeds and, it has to be said, pious pronunciamentos.

I'm sure pydseybare will be back to refute that, but it'll take a lot of backtracking on his previous posts.

I'm not backtracking on anything I've said. I don't believe in relational Christianity as you've described it above.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Pardon this untutored oik, but I thought Christianity was about our relationship with Jesus, not what we do or what we do with what we've got. OK, stewardship and good works are not to be disregarded but come from the relationship, rather than our faith consisting of deeds and, it has to be said, pious pronunciamentos.

I'm sure pydseybare will be back to refute that, but it'll take a lot of backtracking on his previous posts.

I'm not backtracking on anything I've said. I don't believe in relational Christianity as you've described it above.
That seems very, very sad.

If you are a Christian (and I'm asking because I'm genuinely confused now) how did you become one? Did you pass an exam or join a club?
 
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
That seems very, very sad.

If you are a Christian (and I'm asking because I'm genuinely confused now) how did you become one? Did you pass an exam or join a club?

Inspiration from God the Holy Spirit. I thought all Christians believed that.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare
Inspiration from God the Holy Spirit.

Ah, so it's not about self-flagellation and asceticism after all!

You were getting me worried earlier.

Backpedalling is great exercise. I am happy to see you're keeping fit...
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Well there you go, you don't believe it. That's fine. I do. Hence, y'know, bringing it up in conversation on the topic of blessing.

I don't care if you like it. I don't like your disgusting Evangelical nonsense. Live with it.

EE isn't Evangelical.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
EE isn't Evangelical.

Actually he is, but only in the sane etymological sense.

The kind of dystopian "good news" that is advocated by the minions of the fake sadistic bastard 'god' - properly known as "kakangelicalism" (and incorrectly known as "evangelicalism") - is of course not advocated by EE, because he is a lover of truth, not lies.

Kakangelicalism covers a multitude of delusions, including hyper-Calvinism and lottery Arminianism. It's generally favoured by people who have a deep love of hating the human race, and relish the thought of the great barbecue at the end of days, when they can salivate over the screams of those whom their Christianised version of Molech (aka Satan) has decided to fry in hot oil (just for the hell of it, you understand).

I am therefore pleased to say that I am a *true* evangelical, not a fake one, like certain people, who shall remain nameless.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
How many people are part of your denomination, EE?
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
All those who believe in justice, love, reason and sanity.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
Would that be according to your personally sanctioned definitions, your Holiness?
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
Generally speaking, sane people do not just make up their own meaning of the ideas of justice and love etc. (as some Christian cults do, such as the delusions I mentioned in my last but one post), because society wouldn't really function on that basis.

I am sure you know that. If you don't, then I imagine you must find basic functioning in the real world quite a challenge. Fake 'evangelicals' tend to cope with basic functioning as members of the human race, by leaving their religious fantasy at the church door, as it clearly doesn't work in real life.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sorry, EE, but from where I'm sitting you and Pydseybare look like book-ends.

You're mirror images of one another.

You both make pietistic pronouncements and chunter on like self-righteous prigs.

Pydseybare is Pharisaical about everyone else who doesn't share his apparently altruistic concern for the poor.

You can be Pharisaical about Calvinists and others who disagree with you.

I can be Pharisaical about just about anything that takes my fancy too.

We can all be prats.

It's always easier, though, to see the prattishness in others than it is to see the prattish telegraph pole stuck in our own eye.

Just sayin'.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
I've tried my utmost not to fall out with you, Gammy, but you're sorely provoking me.

If pydseybare is self-righteous, then I don't where that leaves you. You are someone who just sits on the touchline criticising those who play the game, and yet never join in. At least pydsey has an opinion, even though it's pathetic.

Where does that leave someone who can't even be arsed to have a point of view at all?

You think your ambiguity trip protects you from any criticism. But all it makes you look is insufferably smug and condescending.

Who do you think you are, a fucking umpire? Piss off, go and get your kit on, and then come back and play the fucking game. Twit.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
[Big Grin]

Lighten up.

I have plenty of opinions. I express them here.

I'm not ambiguous on all points. I think that both you and Pydseybare talk sense at times and at other times you are both pains in the arse.

On this occasion you are both pains in the arse.

Happy now?
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
I notice that you haven't given any opinion on the content of the dispute between pydsey and myself. In other words, Gamaliel, you're just being a pompous prat.

What do you think about how Christians should deal with poverty? Do you have a view on this?

Nah, didn't think so.

Troll.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Bollocks.

I've got plenty of views on how Christians should deal with poverty.

That's not the issue here.

The issue here is that both you are Pydseybare are being pompous, self-righteous prats.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
Great non-answer.

Now why does this evasion not surprise me?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
It's not an evasion.

I don't see what I'm trying to evade.

I've said that I believe that there are lots of ways that Christians can tackle poverty. There are plenty of initiatives they can support in this regard. Some may even find themselves called to live an alternative lifestyle.

I know a bloke who does this. A kind of Christian urban eco-warrior. I admire his stance and his way of life.

He doesn't come on here boasting about it.

Meanwhile, Pydseybare comes on here and pisses everyone else off by acting like some kind of prissy know-it-all. So I can understand your calling him to Hell.

However, as I've found myself, when we call people to Hell we often risk a roasting ourselves.

I'm simply suggesting that you are just as prissy and self-righteous as he is, as I am, as anyone else is.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
IIRC, there is this beardy bloke has said it is difficult to be rich and Christian. He gets a fair bit of mention around here, he does. Some people here swear by his words.

The questions, then, are what constitutes wealth and what constitutes one's duty to the less fortunate.
That would make an interesting discussion.
But have fun pissing on each other, I suppose that is fun too? [Confused]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
This is Hell. Interesting discussions belong in Purgatory. I'm happy to have a discussion there about this issue if anyone cares to join me.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
The difference between Purg and Hell is civility, IMO, not content. Though, given the content of this thread, I can see the mistake.

I considered starting such a thread in Purg, but given the acrimony of the topic caused on a thread of a different topic, I think it would wind up down here regardless.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Fair points. However, I'm not sure that a Purgatory thread on this topic would necessarily end up here. The only reason this one has is because Pydseybare has hacked people off by coming over as a prissy and self-righteous hypocrite on other boards here on Ship.

The comments that others have made shows that EE isn't alone in being antagonised by this. Beeswax Altar and others have found Pydseybare to be a pain in the arse on this particular issue too.

I've found him to be so myself.

I'm sure he'd find me a pain in the arse on other issues.

We can all appear pains in the arse to one another at times. We are all pains in the arse. It's part of the human condition.

EE wouldn't have started this thread in the first place if Pydseybare had simply been stating his views. It's the WAY that Pydseybare has been stating his views that has caused the aggro.

I'll start a new Purgatory thread on the poverty topic before I go to bed.

Partly because it's an interesting topic and I'd be interested to hear what Shipmates have to say - including Pydseybare if he doesn't fart about and act in a holier than thou kind of way, and partly to piss EE off as he thinks I'm avoiding his question.

No, EE, I'm not avoiding your question. Loosen up.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Plenty of threads in Hell are offshoots of Purg threads, like this one.

Like its Purgatorial parent, this thread has developed and there's nothing wrong in that. Why bother with yet another thread?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Hosting

Gamaliel, you have created the new thread* in Purgatory but not put a link to it, so I'll do that here: Tackling Poverty (in Purgatory)

*nb: they are called threads for a reason.

Hosting

Sioni Sais
Hellhost
 
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
Remember the time Jesus pointed out a women who gave 2 mite (farthings) while others tossed in much more ? Then Jesus said they gave from their abundance but she gave all she had . Mk.12:41-44 and Lk.21:1-4 the point Jesus was making is that it is the attitude of how we give not the amount. Are we trusting that God will provide or so sure of ourselves that we just nod towards God ? It's not the amount that matters it is how it the attitude of ones heart.
blessings all and a Happy New Year
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Make of it whatever you like. I don't think one can continue to be rich and Christian.

Can one continue to be a judgmental prick and be a Christian?
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Impossible without personal sacrifice, in my view, Boogie. Whilst one might be able to be rich and Christian, I don't think one can continue being rich and Christian.

Hence, the majority of us are not actually Christian. Scary, eh?

Scary? Only in the sense that it's a perfect explanation of why Christianity declines the richer a society gets. If you tell people there's a straight choice between being rich or being Christian they will choose to be rich. And who can blame them?
Wrong. I am reading the quite excellent work God is Back by Mickletwait and Wooldridge, two columnists who work for The Economist (In fact I started a thread in Purg about the book that kind of died in the arse). It is clear that Christianity has proven itself at least as adaptable to economic conditions as capitalism. The US is of course a good example - a rich modern country that is very religious, and most of that religion is some form of Christianity.

Increasingly, it seems China is looking at American history and perceiving (rightly or wrongly, and for better or worse) a correlation between Christian piety and wealth. As I live in Australia, a nation that has been mostly secular from its colonisation, it is easy for me to dismiss American piety as a strange exception, and I suppose many Europeans do too. However, it is becoming clearer that it is Europe (and Australia) that is the exception.

Now, if you want to say there is an inverse correlation between the efficacy of a country's welfare state and attendance at churches, you might be on to something. It seems the better your welfare state is, the less likely you are to need assistance from churches, who provide shitloads of social assistance to the poor. The US, AFAIK, has a pretty crappy welfare state, and the churches pitch in pretty hard. In Scandinavia and Finland, the nations of which have one of the most efficacious welfare states imaginable, that particular social function of the churches is negligible, and church attendance is in decline.

pydseybare seems to be preaching the gospel according to Marx, more than anything else.

[ 02. January 2014, 07:55: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
In mine, there are two types of gospels: one for the rich and another for the poor.

It is up to the reader - under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - to decide which gospel is for them.

What a pile of crap. Where on earth do you drag this idea up from? In what way are you claiming that this is "Christianity?"

Just because you believe something, doesn't make is valid. Especially if you pull it out of your constipated arse.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
It seems to me that we live in a world of extremes. Somewhere in the middle is a lifestyle that all people should be able to live at - which, I believe, is above the bare subsistence level, but far below the level most Western Christians live at.

Would this "ideal level" bear a remarkable similarity to your personal lifestyle, by any chance?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Scary? Only in the sense that it's a perfect explanation of why Christianity declines the richer a society gets. If you tell people there's a straight choice between being rich or being Christian they will choose to be rich. And who can blame them?

Wrong. I am reading the quite excellent work God is Back by Mickletwait and Wooldridge, two columnists who work for The Economist (In fact I started a thread in Purg about the book that kind of died in the arse). It is clear that Christianity has proven itself at least as adaptable to economic conditions as capitalism.
Well sure, the parts of Christianity that have got rid of the straight choice between Christ and Wealth - the Prosperity Gospellers and their ilk - are still doing alright. And there are always plenty of people who are willing to offer explanations of how "the eye of a needle" was a gate in Jerusalem and so forth.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Well, well. I go away for a couple of days (using my own car, no less) and come back to discover that doing a job I love disqualifies me from being Christian, because it comes with a 6 figure salary.

Up until now I'd been told the reason I was disqualified from being a Christian was because I liked dick.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
So now you are doubly damned, Orfeo. The conservatives wouldn't at all mind your six-figure salary (think of the tithe ... [Big Grin] ) but would certainly reject your sexual orientation.

The more liberal or 'radical' types wouldn't be bothered in the least what you do with your dangly bits and orifices but are apparently outraged at the salary you earn.

So you've got the worst of both worlds, it seems.

But then, the rest of us would be dismissed from Pydseybias's schema for one reason or other. Some people like going to church services so he thinks they're wrong. Some people feel that they 'get something' from going to church or belonging to a religious group of some kind - and they're evidently all wrong too according to Prydefulbore.

In fact, the only real Christian in the whole dang world according to Prycelessboor is Prykefacebleargh himself ...
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, well. I go away for a couple of days (using my own car, no less) and come back to discover that doing a job I love disqualifies me from being Christian, because it comes with a 6 figure salary.

Up until now I'd been told the reason I was disqualified from being a Christian was because I liked dick.

What about Tom and Harry?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Oh Pyx_e, my aching sides.
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
It seems to me that we live in a world of extremes. Somewhere in the middle is a lifestyle that all people should be able to live at - which, I believe, is above the bare subsistence level, but far below the level most Western Christians live at.

Would this "ideal level" bear a remarkable similarity to your personal lifestyle, by any chance?
It doesn't happen very often, but two or three times a year I wish we had a "like" button. I didn't expect the first time quite so soon in 2014, though.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
Well there is theory and there is practice. In theory, if the wealth of the world were shared equally so that no-one had more than enough until all first had enough (and if the Kingdom had come in every other respect too) then the Man going from Jerusalem to Jericho would never have been attacked to start with, and the Good Samaritan wouldn't have had to be good.

But supposing the Samaritan has sold all he has and given it to the poor, but the bandits still don't think they have enough? They still rob and beat The Man, but The Samaritan, no matter how good, is unable to help: he doesn't have a donkey to bear the victim to safety and he doesn't have any surplus cash to pay for him to rest and recuperate.

Perhaps the Inn-keeper has also given everything to the poor (well, except the inn), and doesn't expect to be paid for the room? In that case though, if he isn't even charging to cover costs of maintaining the inn, providing food and water, then it probably isn't a very sanitary place to stay, and I don't fancy the Man's chances.

The Man only survives in one of two scenarios: a perfect world (the Kingdom, in which he is never attacked) and a world which is sufficiently imperfect for some to have spare resource to give to him in his need.

So how do we get from imperfect (but generous) world to the kingdom? Can we do it in this life? What would it be like to live in a world in which the Good Samaritan doesn't have to be "good" because we have achieved material equality, but we have not yet been transformed and perfected?

And would achieving material equality make everyone "good" (though no-one would *have* to be) - or would the bandits beat the Man anyway, because That's What They Do?

(Happy new year [Smile] )
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Make of it whatever you like. I don't think one can continue to be rich and Christian.

What I make of it is that you've never really read Luke's gospel.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
What would it be like to live in a world in which the Good Samaritan doesn't have to be "good" because we have achieved material equality, but we have not yet been transformed and perfected?

It would be either of two things - utterly horrible, or incredibly short-lived.

The first would be if material equality was enforced, because in such a world there's no economic incentive to do anything (such as, say, operating sewage plants or power stations). Society would go to hell in days, either through nothing getting done or through the powers that be forcing the rest of us to work for nothing (i.e. slavery).

The second would be if material equality was not enforced, because even if it started out that way certain individuals (those who can charge more for what they have to offer than they need to spend on what they want) would inevitably be able to accumulate more for themselves through trade than others, and thus the rich/poor divide would rapidly reassert itself.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Make of it whatever you like. I don't think one can continue to be rich and Christian.

What I make of it is that you've never really read Luke's gospel.
Oh he's read Luke, and the rest, but he doesn't comprehend them. The key to pydseybare is the phrase "I don't think", because the evidence is that he doesn't do that. Either he's been brainwashed (a pretty quick job IMO) or he simply reacts like a well-trained gundog. Either way, he doesn't apply any intellect to the material he reads.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
What would it be like to live in a world in which the Good Samaritan doesn't have to be "good" because we have achieved material equality, but we have not yet been transformed and perfected?

It would be either of two things - utterly horrible, or incredibly short-lived.

The first would be if material equality was enforced, because in such a world there's no economic incentive to do anything (such as, say, operating sewage plants or power stations). Society would go to hell in days, either through nothing getting done or through the powers that be forcing the rest of us to work for nothing (i.e. slavery).

The second would be if material equality was not enforced, because even if it started out that way certain individuals (those who can charge more for what they have to offer than they need to spend on what they want) would inevitably be able to accumulate more for themselves through trade than others, and thus the rich/poor divide would rapidly reassert itself.

Yep. I think I'm with you on that. If enforcing material equality did make for a happy society, then communism would "work" - and it's been proven not to.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Make of it whatever you like. I don't think one can continue to be rich and Christian.

Can one continue to be a judgmental prick and be a Christian?
I presume one hopes so.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Scary? Only in the sense that it's a perfect explanation of why Christianity declines the richer a society gets. If you tell people there's a straight choice between being rich or being Christian they will choose to be rich. And who can blame them?

Wrong. I am reading the quite excellent work God is Back by Mickletwait and Wooldridge, two columnists who work for The Economist (In fact I started a thread in Purg about the book that kind of died in the arse). It is clear that Christianity has proven itself at least as adaptable to economic conditions as capitalism.
Well sure, the parts of Christianity that have got rid of the straight choice between Christ and Wealth - the Prosperity Gospellers and their ilk - are still doing alright. And there are always plenty of people who are willing to offer explanations of how "the eye of a needle" was a gate in Jerusalem and so forth.
This really only holds if you swallow the caricature of Christianity the subject of the OP seems to. There is plenty in the NT to nuance the absurd dichotomy you are proposing between Christ and wealth.
Anyway, my point is that you were claiming that Christianity declines as wealth increases. And this is not true.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
What would it be like to live in a world in which the Good Samaritan doesn't have to be "good" because we have achieved material equality, but we have not yet been transformed and perfected?

It would be either of two things - utterly horrible, or incredibly short-lived.

The first would be if material equality was enforced, because in such a world there's no economic incentive to do anything (such as, say, operating sewage plants or power stations). Society would go to hell in days, either through nothing getting done or through the powers that be forcing the rest of us to work for nothing (i.e. slavery).

The second would be if material equality was not enforced, because even if it started out that way certain individuals (those who can charge more for what they have to offer than they need to spend on what they want) would inevitably be able to accumulate more for themselves through trade than others, and thus the rich/poor divide would rapidly reassert itself.

Yep. I think I'm with you on that. If enforcing material equality did make for a happy society, then communism would "work" - and it's been proven not to.
When? I didn't get that memo.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

Yep. I think I'm with you on that. If enforcing material equality did make for a happy society, then communism would "work" - and it's been proven not to.

Would you like your material equality with dachas or without?
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
When? I didn't get that memo.

Not so much a memo as a little map you can click on
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
Well, Jesus himself seemed happy enough to accept the financial support of women with a little bit to spare. After all, it's not the amount you give but the proportion you keep that matters.

quote:
Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means. Luke 8:3

 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
When? I didn't get that memo.

Not so much a memo as a little map you can click on
Thanks everso. I wonder if the BBC and yourself have heard of Cuba, North Korea and China? They aren't in Europe, and yet they exist.
I suppose one could retort that those three are hardly examples of communism as espoused by Marx and Engels. To which I would reply that the Soviet Union fell quite far short of that ideal, also. So to those who say Communism has been "proven" not to work, I world respond that it is yet to be attempted.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
I think the "yet" to be attempted line is defensible. But I guess I take the view that, because of human nature, it *will always fail* (or from your perspective, *will never be attempted*) and that has been proved to be the case - I would include Cuba, North Korea and China as proven examples of it not working.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
Some societies and methods of social-political-economic organization are fairer than others, but we shall never build anything resembling utopia on Earth. Capitalism and communism are both children of the same mother church. Both have killed their mother,smothering her in greed and dogmatic BS.

The real resurrection would be rather welcome.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
[Overused]
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Make of it whatever you like. I don't think one can continue to be rich and Christian.

Can one continue to be a judgmental prick and be a Christian?
[Big Grin] Nice thought! But we have such a merciful God, worse luck. Christianity is surely as full of judgemental pricks as any other religion!

As for pydseybare's comment. As I remember it, Jesus said it was (depending on Bible translation) impossible or very difficult for the rich/those who set their hearts on riches (so not necessarily rich people, just greedy ones) to enter the kingdom of heaven. He then went on to say, of course, that for or with God all things were possible.

As it happens I do think it's more difficult for the comfortably well-off to feel more acutely their need for God. But then that could as well describe a middle-income earner, in a nice little semi somewhere in a quiet part of the country, as much as some billionaire. And it is a potentially effective argument to say that possessing great riches and being a follower of Christ are incompatible. Though scripture fails to support this argument convincingly - there needs to be a lot of exegesis to get there.

But to come to pydseybare's conclusion I think one would have to disagree with Jesus about all things being possible with God.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I think the "yet" to be attempted line is defensible. But I guess I take the view that, because of human nature, it *will always fail* (or from your perspective, *will never be attempted*) and that has been proved to be the case - I would include Cuba, North Korea and China as proven examples of it not working.

One might possibly say the same of Christianity...
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
When? I didn't get that memo.

Not so much a memo as a little map you can click on
It's funny how they mention that renamed Communist parties won the vote in a couple of countries, but still decide that's the end of communism.

Also, there's zero mention of what Belarus has actually been like for the last two decades.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
When? I didn't get that memo.

Not so much a memo as a little map you can click on
It's funny how they mention that renamed Communist parties won the vote in a couple of countries, but still decide that's the end of communism.

Also, there's zero mention of what Belarus has actually been like for the last two decades.

And a few more constituents of the old USSR haven't improved, Mother Russia for one. Same old injustice and tyranny, in different hands.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
But supposing the Samaritan has sold all he has and given it to the poor, but the bandits still don't think they have enough? They still rob and beat The Man, but The Samaritan, no matter how good, is unable to help: he doesn't have a donkey to bear the victim to safety and he doesn't have any surplus cash to pay for him to rest and recuperate.

So some poor people somewhere have to go hungry so this Man can be rescued by this Samaritan?

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I think the "yet" to be attempted line is defensible. But I guess I take the view that, because of human nature, it *will always fail* (or from your perspective, *will never be attempted*) and that has been proved to be the case - I would include Cuba, North Korea and China as proven examples of it not working.

One might possibly say the same of Christianity...
Whereas Capitalism HAS been tried, and found wanting.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I think the "yet" to be attempted line is defensible. But I guess I take the view that, because of human nature, it *will always fail* (or from your perspective, *will never be attempted*) and that has been proved to be the case - I would include Cuba, North Korea and China as proven examples of it not working.

One might possibly say the same of Christianity...
But we have Jesus and we have grace to make possible the things we are unable to even countenance by our own efforts. Which I see as being the essential difference between Christianity and Communism.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
But supposing the Samaritan has sold all he has and given it to the poor, but the bandits still don't think they have enough? They still rob and beat The Man, but The Samaritan, no matter how good, is unable to help: he doesn't have a donkey to bear the victim to safety and he doesn't have any surplus cash to pay for him to rest and recuperate.

So some poor people somewhere have to go hungry so this Man can be rescued by this Samaritan?


I think I'm saying it's more complicated than that. If *no-one* is going hungry, then in theory, the Man doesn't get beaten at all, because everyone has what they need (and no surplus, but never mind, because nobody needs to be the recipient of generosity).

But is this what really happens in practice? Or, if we attempt to enforce material equality, are some people still greedy and/or cruel, while no-one is generous?

Can the coming of the Kingdom (in economic terms) be achieved through social engineering alone? I would say not. Though that need not prevent us doing our best to make this world as fair as it can be.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:


quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I think the "yet" to be attempted line is defensible. But I guess I take the view that, because of human nature, it *will always fail* (or from your perspective, *will never be attempted*) and that has been proved to be the case - I would include Cuba, North Korea and China as proven examples of it not working.

One might possibly say the same of Christianity...
Whereas Capitalism HAS been tried, and found wanting.
I reckon one could make exactly the same arguments for Capitalism not have been attempted in its pure form as for Communism.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Whereas Capitalism HAS been tried, and found wanting.

By whom, using what criteria?

I happen to think it's working quite well.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Whereas Capitalism HAS been tried, and found wanting.

By whom, using what criteria?
By those who have not profited from it I should imagine .
One criteria is to compare the billions who don't share in the spoils of Capitalism with the smaller number that does .
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Whereas Capitalism HAS been tried, and found wanting.

By whom, using what criteria?
By those who have not profited from it I should imagine .
Ok. But as nobody (well, except a few high-up members of The Party) profits from communism the fact that many do profit from capitalism still puts it ahead.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I would include Cuba, North Korea and China as proven examples of it not working.

If you want to say Chinese communism isn't real communism, then that I can agree with. I pretty much said as much. To say it isn't "working" is a statement based entirely on your ideology, rather than any kind of critical or empirical assessment. Unless you can show me otherwise.
I'm sure there are many Chinese who could echo Marvin's statements about how happy they are with how things are working within their own system.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Ok. But as nobody (well, except a few high-up members of The Party) profits from communism the fact that many do profit from capitalism still puts it ahead.

Well, there were a lot of people who found it harder to feed, clothe, house and get medical care or decent education for their families after the fall of the soviet union than they did before, and it was a long way from being only the senior party apparatchiks who were affected (they mostly did ok because they could "acquire" state assets).
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Capitalism works great for the 1%. God bless 'em.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Capitalism works great for the 1%. God bless 'em.

More than just them. I'm certainly not anywhere near being in the 1%. Hell, I'm probably not even in the top 40%. Pretty sure I'm better off under capitalism than I would be under communism (or any other serious form of socialism) though...
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Capitalism works great for the 1%. God bless 'em.

More than just them. I'm certainly not anywhere near being in the 1%. Hell, I'm probably not even in the top 40%. Pretty sure I'm better off under capitalism than I would be under communism (or any other serious form of socialism) though...
Not for long. The middle class is being eroded, and the US is fast becoming a third-world nation of haves and have-nots, with the sort of wealth disparity seen in hellholes like Pinochet's Chile. This is what Capitalism does. Heavily regulated and socialist-ified capitalism, on the other hand, provides the benefits you mention. Naked capitalism leads to people chained to sewing machines and not given potty breaks, or (say) factories with suicide nets so the workers who aren't chained down can't escape that way.
 
Posted by Cadfael (# 11066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Capitalism works great for the 1%. God bless 'em.

More than just them. I'm certainly not anywhere near being in the 1%. Hell, I'm probably not even in the top 40%. Pretty sure I'm better off under capitalism than I would be under communism (or any other serious form of socialism) though...
Here's how to find out how rich you are.

I'd bet it is in (or near) the top 1%, at least for income.
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
That site is weird! I entered my income in UKP and got one figure, translated it into local currency here and entered it and got a completely different figure. I don't know who created the site but they need to learn a little basic arithmetic!
 
Posted by Cadfael (# 11066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
That site is weird! I entered my income in UKP and got one figure, translated it into local currency here and entered it and got a completely different figure. I don't know who created the site but they need to learn a little basic arithmetic!

It's probably corrected for "purchasing power parity". For example, goods that would cost one dollar in the US will cost, on average, 40 cents in India.

More info on PPP here.

By placing yourself in India in the calculations you got more bang for your converted buck (or sterling, in this case). But I expect you've probably noticed money goes further there, anyway.
 
Posted by Cadfael (# 11066) on :
 
...or maybe the site is buggered. I can't get the calculations to check out...

Pity. The site sponsors, Care, are quite reputable...
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Heavily regulated and socialist-ified capitalism...

...is still capitalism.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
Indeed. It happened in the Soviet Union.

That site is weird, my income in Euros puts me at being in the top 16%, but the same amount in złoty puts me in the top 2%.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Heavily regulated and socialist-ified capitalism...

...is still capitalism.
.... which is what I would call compassionate capitalism .
Something most still enjoy here at present as opposed to the days of the 'Dark Satanic Mills'.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, children working in factories all day long is capitalism; so are garment factories in Asia, with long hours, poor conditions, rock bottom wages.

I suppose today the 3 main political parties in the UK seem to accept that deregulation is important, so that makes me wonder how far this can go? Zero hours contracts - what's next?
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I suppose today the 3 main political parties in the UK seem to accept that deregulation is important, so that makes me wonder how far this can go? Zero hours contracts - what's next?

Modern day slave labour is one by-product, if what we hear on the news is to be believed.

Luring vulnerable unemployed individuals into exploitative labour has seen an increase , and the penalties for those caught doing it has likewise been raised as a deterrent .
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I suppose today the 3 main political parties in the UK seem to accept that deregulation is important, so that makes me wonder how far this can go? Zero hours contracts - what's next?

Modern day slave labour is one by-product, if what we hear on the news is to be believed.

Luring vulnerable unemployed individuals into exploitative labour has seen an increase , and the penalties for those caught doing it has likewise been raised as a deterrent .

Surely, the employer today is top dog. Low wages, no strike deals, zero hour contracts, hire and fire capacity increased, tribunals more difficult - it's fab.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Naked capitalism leads to people chained to sewing machines and not given potty breaks, or (say) factories with suicide nets so the workers who aren't chained down can't escape that way.

Or is that failed capitalism? (Or untried capitalism?) If there was truly free global movement of labour, the workers would have as much power as any other supplier.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
If you want to earn more, learn more. Stop fucking about in school and get some decent qualifications. Then you will get a better job.

The statistics prove that over a working lifetime a graduate will earn more than a non-graduate, and even more than someone who has no qualifications.

That applies to the west of course. Not to the truly poor of Africa. I don't class any westener as poor, just lazy or thick. They have their uses however don't you EE?

But true poverty - Afican style - is a tragedy and more importantly an embarassment. It needs fixing.

All this bollocks about we need to get everyone to a middle level which is richer than the poorest and poorer than the richest is economic illiteracy. We need to get eveyone up to the richest - up to western levels.

And that is best done with free, honest trade, no corrupt governments and bureaucracies stealing from the people, and no wars.

The levelling up will take care of itself under those conditions.

Oh, and a Christian is everyone, regardless of your politics or personal wealth. Sorry, God has already taken care of that for you.
 
Posted by Hugal (# 2734) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
All those who believe in justice, love, reason and sanity.

I am an evangelical and a Charismatic. I believe in Justice, love, reason and sanity. I
 
Posted by Hugal (# 2734) on :
 
Sorry I messed up somewhere.
I do not hold any of those opinions that you spouted EE. I want to see hurting people helped. Don't tar us all with the same brush.

As to the poverty issue. The love of money is the root of all evil not money its self. You don't have to be poor to be Christian but you do have to have a right attitude towards your wealth. God amazingly uses those Christians who have money (and I include those who live in the West and are not living on the street or sheltered housing) to help those in countries that are in serious trouble or there governments are crap. In an unfair but free society God use the haves to help the have nots.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
Calm down, Hugal.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Naked capitalism leads to people chained to sewing machines and not given potty breaks, or (say) factories with suicide nets so the workers who aren't chained down can't escape that way.

Or is that failed capitalism? (Or untried capitalism?) If there was truly free global movement of labour, the workers would have as much power as any other supplier.
The workers are not a supplier. The workers are a billion independent suppliers, and the powerful can play divide-and-conquer at will, driving wages and conditions into the ground. What can stop them? In an unregulated capitalism, nothing. Save, maybe, armed revolution. Which looks better every day.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0