Of course you know about the religious right...

[Bradskii]

Federal taxes go to lazy poor people who won't work and don't live like I think they should.

Why is it that I see less Christian compassion and generosity of the soul in a Christian forum than I do almost everywhere else?

 

[ozso]

Why is it that I see less Christian compassion and generosity of the soul in a Christian forum than I do almost everywhere else?

Not enough virtue signaling here.

 

[Bradskii]

Not enough virtue signaling here.

There wasn't room after the facts went in.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Because "cis" and "trans" are Latin prefixes that are opposite of each other. "Cis" means "on this side of" - i.e. "Cisalpine Gaul" (Gaul on this side of the alps"). "Trans" means "on the other side of" - i.e. "Transjordan" (the land on the other side of the Jordan River).

Yes but we are completely ignoring the fact of biology these days...

And the fact is no one person is just one thing...

Not all little girls want to dress in dresses or have their hair done. It doesn't stop them from being girls because girl is something immutable.

How a girl acts isn't. Same for boys.

Suddenly acting like biology itself is something we can or even should "cancel" is just ridiculous really. Reeks of ego.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Yes but we are completely ignoring the fact of biology these days...

And the fact is no one person is just one thing...

Not all little girls want to dress in dresses or have their hair done. It doesn't stop them from being girls because girl is something immutable.

How a girl acts isn't. Same for boys.

Suddenly acting like biology itself is something we can or even should "cancel" is just ridiculous really. Reeks of ego.

I'm sorry, what does any of this have to do with where "cis" and "trans" come from linguistically?

 

[public hermit]

Yeah, I'm aware of the Christian Left, they've been around for a while.

They're, for all intents and purposes, playing the same sort of game the Religious Right is playing.

Which is "Look at these half dozen specific verses we found, see how they line up with Party XYZ's platform? That means that voting for Party XYZ is the real Christian thing to do!" (The Christian Right will usually focus on the verses pertaining to verses supporting social conservatism, the Christian Left will usually focus on verses about condemning the rich and giving money to the poor)
--another "fun" symptom of when religion and politics get too intertwined, it starts to become a manipulation tool to get people to vote a certain way by threatening to metaphorically "take away their Christianity card" (in the eyes of their peers) if they vote "the other way"



The only minor distinction is that the proposals from the Christian Left can often be argued from a viewpoint that passes "The Lemon Test" (meaning that it can serve a compelling secular purpose), as to where many of the arguments of the Christian Right are purely religious in nature. In that sense, many of the proposals from the "Christian Left" viewpoint are often more politically durable (in that, they're more likely to pass muster if/when their proposals are challenged at a judicial level).

IE: Even if the reason for a person supporting universal healthcare is their biblical interpretation of helping the poor, a secular case can be made for providing universal healthcare. The same isn't true for things like arguments against same sex marriage, those are almost exclusively religion-based as there's really no argument against things like SSM that's both secular and compelling.

I say, if it's being argued in the public forum to convince a heterogeneous citizenry, then it should be argued in secular (dogma-free) terms. The fact that politically left Christians can argue for Christian principles on secular terms is, however, not a minor distinction. It is a fundamental difference in the way one understands the nature of Christian faith, i.e., is it exclusionary and individualistic or is it inclusive and oriented around the common good. So, yeah, some might lose their "Christianity card" because they're wrong and have missed the function of love, but they are still included because, imo, God and goodness are better than that.

I would rather Christians argue for policy from a dogma-free stance not only because the more people who agree the more likely it's fitting, but because I'm tired of seeing humans that aren't very good at being human sell their politics in the name of Christ.

 

[public hermit]

Why is it that I see less Christian compassion and generosity of the soul in a Christian forum than I do almost everywhere else?

I think it's often resentment and fear, masquerading as righteousness. Nietzche's critique has value. This is not the kind of Christianity that takes up a cross and dies to self. It's the kind that has something to lose, something for which to fight (self, greed, pleasure, whatever). This is a self-indulgent Christianity with enemies it need not love.

 

[ozso]

I've never known of a conservative right church that didn't assist the poor and needy. But there's a difference between helping and enabling. And the left doesn't seem to recognize or admit that line exists. Also contrary to a strong commandment from Christ (Matt 6:1-4), the left boasts a great deal about their acts of charity. They seem mostly interested in scoring secular points for themselves. Also the virtue signaling "we care more than the right" is a cover for their discouragement of repentance and seeking and promoting holiness. They look upon holiness with distain and rally against it. Because holiness is seen as unloving because it doesn't support carnality. It's bad because it doesn't praise those who choose to practice iniquity.

Yes, Jesus told us to help the poor, but he also told us to seek and promote holiness. The left wants to showcase the former and replace the later with a love of carnality.

 

[public hermit]

But there's a difference between helping and enabling.

What is grace but a divine enabling of humanity? It is amazing how Christians will accept grace for which they claim they are unworthy but will begrudge food to the hungry for whatever reason. Did they sin in creating their own poverty? So. Did we sin in needing grace? Will they change after being helped so that they need no more help? Maybe, but so. What Christian doesn't need more grace? Mercy is not reserved for the righteous or those who keep up their books. Holiness with a closed hand is simply self-righteous greed.

 

[ozso]

What is grace but a divine enabling of humanity? It is amazing how Christians will accept grace for which they claim they are unworthy but will begrudge food to the hungry for whatever reason. Did they sin in creating their own poverty? So. Did we sin in needing grace? Will they change after being helped so that they need no more help? Maybe, but so. What Christian doesn't need more grace? Mercy is not reserved for the righteous or those who keep up their books. Holiness with a closed hand is simply self-righteous greed.

What you're saying makes no sense, because conservative churches feed people on a daily basis. I live downtown in a city with a large homeless population and A: I see them being fed by conservative churches all over the place. And B: is see discarded remains of food strewn all over the place by those who are being given food. Meaning they obviously are being given more than enough to eat.

Also on top of that there are many Christian missions that house and clothe the needy and homeless that are run, helped and financed by the Christian right.

I think you're just going along with an obvious lie that conservative churches and aren't feeding and caring for people.

The real complaint against the conservative Christian right from the left is they don't condone and support carnality. I think that's the kind of so called "love" they see lacking. But for some reason they go on about an imaginary refusal to feed people.

 

[BCP1928]

I've never known of a conservative right church that didn't assist the poor and needy. But there's a difference between helping and enabling. And the left doesn't seem to recognize or admit that line exists. Also contrary to a strong commandment from Christ (Matt 6:1-4), the left boasts a great deal about their acts of charity. They seem mostly interested in scoring secular points for themselves. Also the virtue signaling "we care more than the right" is a cover for their discouragement of repentance and seeking and promoting holiness. They look upon holiness with distain and rally against it. Because holiness is seen as unloving because it doesn't support carnality. It's bad because it doesn't praise those who choose to practice iniquity.

Yes, Jesus told us to help the poor, but he also told us to seek and promote holiness. The left wants to showcase the former and replace the later with a love of carnality.

That would do well in a sermon, but as an argument against government assistance to the poor it is a failure, primarily because of the usual straw-manning of "the left." If you want your argument to be persuasive you have to argue against the actual position held by your opponent.

 

[ozso]

That would do well in a sermon, but as an argument against government assistance to the poor it is a failure, primarily because of the usual straw-manning of "the left." If you want your argument to be persuasive you have to argue against the actual position held by your opponent.

Like the junkies I see in convince stores all the time buying junk food with taxpayer money cards? They buy sugary junk food with tax payer money to curb their addiction pangs between fixes. And I see the population of them growing at an alarming rate. They're not being helped, they're being enabled to eventually kill themselves with an overdose.

 

[public hermit]

What you're saying makes no sense, because conservative churches feed people on a daily basis. I live downtown in a city with a large homeless population and A: I see them being fed by conservative churches all over the place. And B: is see discarded remains of food strewn all over the place by those who are being given food. Meaning they obviously are being given more than enough to eat.

Also on top of that there are many Christian missions that house and clothe the needy and homeless that are run, helped and financed by the Christian right.

I think you're just going along with an obvious lie that conservative churches and aren't feeding and caring for people.

The real complaint against the conservative Christian right from the left is they don't condone and support carnality. I think that's the kind of so called "love" they see lacking. But for some reason they go on about an imaginary refusal to feed people.

I would say what makes no sense is being willing to feed the poor through church programs but not through taxes. If they are not against us, they are for us. If the government can do it better than churches, and they can, what's the problem?

 

[public hermit]

Like the junkies I see in convince stores all the time buying junk food with taxpayer money cards? They buy sugary junk food with tax payer money to curb their addiction pangs between fixes. And I see the population of them growing at an alarming rate. They're not being helped, they're being enabled to eventually kill themselves with an overdose.

I agree that the pendulum can swing too far and become unhelpful to both individuals and communities. What is needed is adjustment not a wholesale rejection of helping via tax revenue. I think what we have seen in places like Portland are beginning to change because it was a mistake. We need a wiser approach, but no church org is going to be able to reach real need as well as government.

The only thing stopping Christians from doing better than government is our disunity. if we could ever get it together, forget it. Your complaint should be not about a helpful govt but about a fractured church that denies its own unity in Christ.

 

[ozso]

I would say what makes no sense is being willing to feed the poor through church programs but not through taxes. If they are not against us, they are for us. If the government can do it better than churches, and they can, what's the problem?

Why are they supposedly against feeding the poor through taxes? What's the nefarious agenda?

 

[public hermit]

Why are they supposedly against feeding the poor through taxes? What's the nefarious agenda?

My conservative friend, behold...

15 states mostly led by Republicans refuse federal funds to feed hungry children during the summer months

Several Republican-led states told BI they have existing programs to feed children during the summer. Others said they don't believe in it.

www.businessinsider.com

You don't believe in welfare, right? These are your people.

 

[ozso]

My conservative friend, behold...

15 states mostly led by Republicans refuse federal funds to feed hungry children during the summer months

Several Republican-led states told BI they have existing programs to feed children during the summer. Others said they don't believe in it.

www.businessinsider.com

There's a pop-up saying I have to subscribe to read the article.

You don't believe in welfare, right? These are your people.

I don't believe in welfare being exploited.

 

[ozso]

I agree that the pendulum can swing too far and become unhelpful to both individuals and communities. What is needed is adjustment not a wholesale rejection of helping via tax revenue. I think what we have seen in places like Portland are beginning to change because it was a mistake. We need a wiser approach, but no church org is going to be able to reach real need as well as government.

The only thing stopping Christians from doing better than government is our disunity. if we could ever get it together, forget it. Your complaint should be not about a helpful govt but about a fractured church that denies its own unity in Christ.

Sorry but I see too much community unity between churches to buy that. I think what's really meant is unity in supporting what the left supports. I think what's keeping Portland from becoming worse and the rest of the country from becoming like Portland, is the resistance the left is experiencing from the right.

 

[public hermit]

Sorry but I see too much community unity between churches to buy that. I think what's really meant is unity in supporting what the left supports. I think what's keeping Portland from becoming worse and the rest of the country from becoming like Portland, is the resistance the left is experiencing from the right.

There is so much Xn unity that what I'm saying is too hard to accept? You're incredulity is absurd. When the church takes care of the poor, the government won't have anything more to do with it. The poor are waiting. You've got the talking part done. Pfft.

 

[ozso]

There is so much Xn unity that what I'm saying is too hard to accept? You're incredulity is absurd. When the church takes care of the poor, the government won't have anything more to do with it. The poor are waiting. You've got the talking part done. Pfft.

What is the church not doing that it should be doing in assisting the poor?