An Advocation of Government

[JudgeRightly]

The ideal of a Christian variation on Sharia law doesn't appeal much to me.

Just thought I'd add...

You seem to think that Sharia law came before Biblical laws. You are incorrect. The Mosaic laws were written a few millennia prior to the conception of Islam.

By you saying "Christian variation on Sharia Law," you misrepresent my entire position, and create a straw-man argument. I oppose Sharia Law. It is unjust. If anything, it is a perversion of the Mosaic Law, not the other way around.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Arthur Brain]

Not indoctrinated, no.

I'm 23, an adult, so perhaps to you, youthful.

You are indeed.

I have enough experience to know that being so open minded that my brains drip out of my skull onto the ground is a bad thing.

I doubt that but you do know a rather weak platitude so that's something I guess.

Cold? No. Just aware that there are consequences to actions, and that doing things that look good on the surface, even popular, doesn't guarantee that it's the right thing to do. Liberals such as yourself make it seem like laws and actions that are destructive are not, whereas Christians try to bring forth actions that are good and just, but liberals try to bring them down, making them out to be bad for people.

According to you people shouldn't be entitled to the very things essential for survival so do you consider that warm, loving? Supporting laws that increase poverty tenfold is not 'good and just' outside of a very blinkered and callous mentality. Oh, and as TH pointed out people can identify as both liberal and Christian so that's pretty silly on your part.

 

[JudgeRightly]

According to you people shouldn't be entitled to the very things essential for survival so do you consider that warm, loving?

The problem with that sort of entitlement is that it causes people to become lazy and unproductive. They stop contributing to society.

I believe this article explains this topic very well.
https://bible.org/illustration/what-was-curse-god-put-creation

Supporting laws that increase poverty tenfold is not 'good and just' outside of a very blinkered and callous mentality.

Again, having people work is not a bad thing. Earning a living is not a bad thing. When you make it so that the poor do not have to work to support themselves, you enable them to remain poor on the installment program. When a man works, his standard of living can improve.

Oh, and as TH pointed out people can identify as both liberal and Christian so that's pretty silly on your part.

Never said they couldn't be. My point was that liberal ideas tend to harm, whereas conservative Christian ideas tend to help.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[quip]

Just thought I'd add...

You seem to think that Sharia law came before Biblical laws. You are incorrect. The Mosaic laws were written a few millennia prior to the conception of Islam.

By you saying "Christian variation on Sharia Law," you misrepresent my entire position, and create a straw-man argument. I oppose Sharia Law. It is unjust. If anything, it is a perversion of the Mosaic Law, not the other way around.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

The thing about straw-man accusations is that not every critique falls under such a claim. You have to otherwise demonstrate the assertion. Though, they do serve well as quick, out-of-hand dismissals to opposing view-points. Nonetheless....

I simply compared a country's governance set upon Bible law to Sharia law to illustrate the "unjust" propensities of countries which function under the dogma of a sole, exclusive religious authority and I set out why.


America hereby dedicates herself to God the Father, Jesus Christ His son and the Holy Spirit.
This Constitution arises from the Holy Bible's principles of governance...and will be superseded by Christ at His return.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The problem with that sort of entitlement is that it causes people to become lazy and unproductive. They stop contributing to society.

I believe this article explains this topic very well.
https://bible.org/illustration/what-was-curse-god-put-creation

Some may but that's hardly a rule of thumb. The welfare system doesn't lend itself towards a comfortable lifestyle and nor should it. It's designed as an aid for people out of work until they find it, not as a means of living itself. (Obviously that's different for people who are unable to work but that's also reflected in the higher rates of allowance). I'm presuming you've never been in a position where you've been unemployed or without any means to cover the essentials without aid?

Again, having people work is not a bad thing. Earning a living is not a bad thing. When you make it so that the poor do not have to work to support themselves, you enable them to remain poor on the installment program. When a man works, his standard of living can improve.

Nobody's arguing that work is a bad thing, rather that it's bad to deprive those unemployed of no aid whatsoever. Speaking as someone who's both claimed benefits and worked I can say the latter provides a far higher standard of living. Being on benefits didn't stop me from looking for work either.

Never said they couldn't be. My point was that liberal ideas tend to harm, whereas conservative Christian ideas tend to help.

Except your particular 'conservative' idea here wouldn't help people. It would result in an escalation of poverty that would result in more homeless people, not to mention the harm that would come to children because of it in turn.

 

[Nihilo]

Brenter.

 

[glassjester]

So if there is a negative correlation between what is right and what is popular, then democracy is inherently inferior.

But there isn't.

If there was, that could be restated as there being a positive correlation between what is right and what is unpopular. That correlation simply does not exist.

 

[Crucible]

Democracy was originally defined as parties being present in a council to discuss and make decisions. People today think that it means '51/49 majority', but that is not intrinsic to democracy, it is simply something a democratic council may find reasonable in certain matters.

Democracy has become an overly grand platitude, despite that it requires a partnering mechanism to even suffice for a country. In a council, people's favor is scrutinized, but in a democratic nation, a vote based on ridiculous bias counts as much as a reasoned one.

This recent election really opened up a lot of people's eyes in these regards, even through the Left currently rallying up against the Electoral College or bringing up the popular vote in every breath they speak. It's high time to speak on the pitfall of what so many people have evolved into venerating, because the Founding Fathers certainly didn't hold their views and neither has any founder of any country

 

[aCultureWarrior]

...Our current form of government, which is at it's roots is democratic, is a Constitutional Republic. I say democratic because Americans vote on everything, laws, judges, representatives, senators, and even the leader of the country.

Yet God makes it very clear that majority rule is wicked, because the majority is wicked. Matthew 7:13-14 says,...

Yet American citizens "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
http://www.gemworld.com/USA-Unalienable.htm

Who should we blame for not holding our politicians up to those founding principles and not protecting our God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

 

[Crucible]

There's nothing in the Constitution that states we cannot have biblical laws.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Some may but that's hardly a rule of thumb. The welfare system doesn't lend itself towards a comfortable lifestyle and nor should it. It's designed as an aid for people out of work until they find it, not as a means of living itself. (Obviously that's different for people who are unable to work but that's also reflected in the higher rates of allowance). I'm presuming you've never been in a position where you've been unemployed or without any means to cover the essentials without aid?

I know of people who live on the welfare system, and yet they are very capable persons.

Nobody's arguing that work is a bad thing, rather that it's bad to deprive those unemployed of no aid whatsoever. Speaking as someone who's both claimed benefits and worked I can say the latter provides a far higher standard of living. Being on benefits didn't stop me from looking for work either.

And yet your one anecdotal example does not represent the entire population of the US.

Except your particular 'conservative' idea here wouldn't help people. It would result in an escalation of poverty that would result in more homeless people, not to mention the harm that would come to children because of it in turn.

Says who? You're forgetting that if the government wasn't taxing everyone so much in order to fund such welfare programs that everyone would be able to make more money when they have a job. A 5% personal increase (income) tax is more than enough to fund the entire government when it performs only it's just functions.

Jesus Himself said that the poor will always be with us. We're not going to be able to change that. But did you know that the poor in America, because our standard of living is better than most of the rest of the world, live better than the middle class in Europe.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Town Heretic]

I know of people who live on the welfare system, and yet they are very capable persons.

Assuming you know them well enough that would be the anecdotal exception not proving any particular rule. If you know someone defrauding the government you should report the theft.

And yet your one anecdotal example does not represent the entire population of the US.

As an illustration it actually does. Welfare is subsistence living. Unless you work in fast food/unskilled positions, you can do appreciably better with any full time employment.

Says who? You're forgetting that if the government wasn't taxing everyone so much in order to fund such welfare programs that everyone would be able to make more money when they have a job. A 5% personal increase (income) tax is more than enough to fund the entire government when it performs only it's just functions.

The disabled, children, and many who are elderly are incapable of working to sustain themselves and the "just functions" bit is your bias controlling nothing on point.

Jesus Himself said that the poor will always be with us.

He wasn't suggesting an indifference in thought or action. Murder will always be present in our imperfect world, but we don't alter our opposition to it over that fact.

I know that the Lord will maintain the cause of the afflicted, and justice for the poor. Psalm 140:12

Did not your father eat and drink, and do justice and righteousness? Then it was well with him. He pled the cause of the afflicted and needy; then it was well. Is that not what it means to know Me?" declares the Lord. Jeremiah 22:16

He who is gracious to a poor man lends to the Lord, and He will repay him for his good deed. Proverbs 19:17

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it." Ezekiel 16:49-50

The righteous is concerned for the rights of the poor; the wicked does not understand such concern. Proverbs 29:7

We're not going to be able to change that

You can change it for many. The inability to do all good should never preclude the effort to do the good we can do.

But did you know that the poor in America, because our standard of living is better than most of the rest of the world, live better than the middle class in Europe.

Our poor are better off than in a large part of the world, which you'd expect from the the richest nation on earth. The "better than the middle class in Europe" is complete nonsense. You may be thinking of a Pew bit that noted our poor live better than the middle class of much of the world. But much of the world lives in abject poverty. By way of example, 56% of Americans were in the world's high income group in 2011. How did they manage it? By living on more than 50 dollars a day. lain: Global income comparatives can lead to a family of four being classified as middle class by virtue of a 15k a year income. And while that might buy you a surprising amount in some third world countries it won't allow you to live here without assistance.

 

[ok doser]

... the poor in America, because our standard of living is better than most of the rest of the world, live better than the middle class in Europe.

"Europe" covers a lot of territory - the middle class in Germany, for example, lives a heckuva lot better than the middle class in most/any/all of the former soviet bloc countries

your statement may well be true when applied to bulgaria


prolly not so much for france or austria

and certainly not Germany or Norway

 

[Crucible]

There's no such thing as poverty in America, unless they are the homeless. I refuse to go by what the 1st World calls 'poverty'- how many ways can a society make itself look spoiled

 

[Town Heretic]

There's no such thing as poverty in America, unless they are the homeless. I refuse to go by what the 1st World calls 'poverty'- how many ways can a society make itself look spoiled

Your dictionary quote is making more and more sense. When you reserve the right to tailor meaning to suit your bias, you make everything you say suspect and conversation pointless.

Otherwise it's crackerjack. lain:

 

[Crucible]

Your dictionary quote is making more and more sense. When you reserve the right to tailor meaning to suit your bias, you make everything you say suspect and conversation pointless.

Otherwise it's crackerjack. lain:

I noticed you failed to actually speak on the the rest of that post. You're just beating a straw man, is all.

Poverty is a difficult word to define, and your Websters probably has the worst definition there is to it.

Poverty is much better defined as 'a condition in which the basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter are not met'. But, it can also include illness, no income, no education, and so on.

What word describes the above if you define poverty as those above those conditions? Super-poverty :freak:
Popular bias is usually short sighted, and it's definitions indicate it.
Like 'feminism'
Can you actually look at that word and say that it really matches up to it's popular definition?

It's an ism.
Of women.


:chuckle: You're all fools

 

[quip]

There's no such thing as poverty in America, unless they are the homeless. I refuse to go by what the 1st World calls 'poverty'- how many ways can a society make itself look spoiled

Well, there's more than one form of 1st world poverty...seems you've demonstrated one by way of the second

 

[Town Heretic]

I noticed you failed to actually speak on the the rest of that post. You're just beating a straw man, is all.

So you don't understand what a straw man means or how it is used either...or is it that you've altered the meaning?

And therein lies the problem that makes whatever came after your opening salvo moot.

There's no such thing as poverty in America, unless they are the homeless. I refuse to go by what the 1st World calls 'poverty'- how many ways can a society make itself look spoiled

Once you reserve the right to declare reality and refuse its recognition, whatever follows is unintelligible. I cannot rely on what I read to inform me of your meaning.

Poverty is a difficult word to define, and your Websters probably has the worst definition there is to it.

My Webster's? Charming, but I don't even own stock, though I put a good bit of stock in it, as should anyone who speaks the language.

Poverty is much better defined as 'a condition in which the basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter are not met'. But, it can also include illness, no income, no education, and so on.

Rather, poverty can cover a poetic range, including spirit, but the inability to provide subsistence is the ground floor for assistance in terms of the subject at hand that I spoke to, public charity.

I reject and omit your attempt to transform a conversation about a thing of moment into another irrational public tantrum rooted in your contempt for women. Go do that elsewhere, I'm done with you on the subject.

:chuckle: You're all fools

But who can know what you mean or if you even do?

 

[Crucible]

So you don't understand what a straw man means or how it is used either...or is it that you've altered the meaning?

An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

I reject and omit your attempt to transform a conversation about a thing of moment into another irrational public tantrum rooted in your contempt for women. Go do that elsewhere, I'm done with you on the subject.

Cool story.
Feminism literally means 'philosophy of women'. That's what it meant from it's start, and you all merely defined it by it's supposed goal. It is why they spend so much time trying to emasculate men, or try to get men to think like them.

Just so you know

 

[Town Heretic]

An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

I didn't say you couldn't work the copy function. I wondered if you understood it. You don't appear to, because I didn't misrepresent you. You reserved a right that made anything that followed pointless to grapple with absent a Cruc brand dictionary. I omit what followed for the reason given prior.