I don't believe in evolution... (2)

[Snow Phoenix]

If it is so terrible, mister americonservative, why has it worked with such great success in the Scandinavian countries?

And Canada! Don't forget us!

Yeah, I know we're right next door to, but seriously, don't mind them.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And Canada! Don't forget us!

Yeah, I know we're right next door to, but seriously, don't mind them.

And Australia... Where last year our conservative party announced a paid maternity leave policy (if it were to be elected).

 

[TheReasoner]

And Australia... Where last year our conservative party announced a paid maternity leave policy (if it were to be elected).

And Canada! Don't forget us!

Yeah, I know we're right next door to, but seriously, don't mind them.

True. And Germany, France, Spain, Britain, Japan, BeNeLux etcetera etcetera.
This americonservative fear appears completely baseless. If my memory serves me I am yet to see any good argument for it after years of discussing it.

I'm not talking about 'socialism', I'm talking about social democracy... the slightly more moderate system that all of the highest ranked countries in the world adhere to.

Somehow they don't have any of these problems you're describing.

I doubt he really knows the difference. I've heard many who say what he did also claim Obama is a Marxist. Which is asinine, but still. There it is. Not saying that he doesn't know nor that this applies to him, but to most americonservatives I know socialism is just a dirty word, very few know what it is. And that is something I have very little respect for. If you criticize something you had better know what you're criticizing. Otherwise it quickly becomes bearing false witness. And that's serious stuff.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Atheists like Hitler would control Europe if the good Christians of America had not shed there blood to eliminate the evil of the Nazis.

What about all the various non-Christians (including Atheists) of America and other nations who fought against the evils of Nazism? Why do you fail to mention their labours?

 

[TheReasoner]

faith guardian quote

Note that I wonder why and how you both can so readily advocate the deaths of others - and as Lazaar says, justify this by religion and in opposition to the life and teachings of Christ. We all do sin, but why do you try to mascarade your desire to kill those whom Jesus died to save as righteousness?

Response

If there was no evil there would be no need for war or the death penalty, but the Bible says there will always be both good and evil.

CLEANSING YOURSELF DOES NOT REMOVE EVIL FROM THE WORLD. That is the naive thinking. To ignore the evil around us is the "soft on sin" approach to life.

It is good to have an attitude of peace, but evil to ignore the fact that evil exists and to refrain from taking action to prevent evil from overcoming good.

Atheists like Hitler would control Europe if the good Christians of America had not shed there blood to eliminate the evil of the Nazis. The Catholic Church took a "soft on sin" attitude against the Nazis. One wonders what would have occurred if the Catholic Church would had opposed the Nazis rise to power.

If it were possible to convert all that are evil to good, then there would be no need for hell.

Hitler was no atheist. Quite the opposite. And, the us did not win that war singlehandedly C.
I note that hardly a small number of Soviet citizens died in that war. Among millions of others.


I note that you yet again consider yourself better than Jesus by ignoring His teachings and substituting your own.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

What about the two million people that die per year due to the AIDS associated with homosexual activity? Is that normal and acceptable?

Though I know you will reject what I am about to say, let the record be straight for the observers. The vast majority of AIDS deaths yearly (at least >90%) are heterosexuals. In Africa, HIV is spread almost exclusively through heterosexual sex or from mother to child.

Some people could smoke and it apparently did not kill them, but most got lung cancer, so we now rebuke smoking.

First of all, if you smoke, your risk of getting lung cancer is ~15%. That's not "most". The flipside is that most people that have lung cancer were smokers. But those are two different things. But this is WAYYYY different than your homosexual/HIV connection. That's because the act of homosexual sex does not confer a risk of getting HIV unless your partner is infected. Safe sex and routine screening help people be sure of there HIV status. Two homosexuals in a committed relationship where neither of them has HIV are going to be fine. The act of smoking cigarettes in and of itself confers a risk of lung cancer.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

One could think that Christianity is a survival of the weakest concept, but I believe Christians are the fittest and Atheists the weakest, thus God has ordained that Christians survive and Atheists not survive [except for Socialism (health care/welfare/entitlements) that sustains Atheists].

Dunno about that. Most of the atheists I know are in medical school. I doubt they will need entitlements. But the Christians I know from high school who got knocked up might...

 

[TheReasoner]

Dunno about that. Most of the atheists I know are in medical school. I doubt they will need entitlements. But the Christians I know from high school who got knocked up might...

Aye. Most atheists I know are also very intelligent highly educated good people. Same goes for Christians though

There are many economic system and each has it's good points and it's bad points, but overall I believe Capitalism is better for society than Socialism.

Capitalism is basically survival of the fittest and Socialism is survival of the weakest.

One could think that Christianity is a survival of the weakest concept, but I believe Christians are the fittest and Atheists the weakest, thus God has ordained that Christians survive and Atheists not survive [except for Socialism (health care/welfare/entitlements) that sustains Atheists].

Capitalism creates a low population of high intelligence and Socialism creates a high population of low intelligence

Capitalism creates unequal prosperity and Socialism creates equal poverty.

The key problem of Capitalism is too much power of businesses, but that can be resolved by legislation to limit monopolies, and price controls for utilities that are required by everyone.

The key problem of Socialism is too much power of people, and that is hard to resolve because the people elect the government, so the people can vote themselves money, especially if they vote for democrats. Unions are a major problem under Socialism because they can have more power than businesses. Unions need to have their power limited that same as businesses.

Again, I believe society is better served by the Christianity and Capitalism advocated by Republican than the Atheism and Socialism advocated by Democrats.

Some ask why Socialism works in many countries and I believe the reason is 1) low expectations 2) price controls by government and 3) very strict immigration policies. In America, the care is excellent if you can afford it, and bad if you cannot afford it. In other countries, the care is poor, for all involved.

I believe the American dream died when Socialism started. The America dream use to be big reward for hard work and high intelligence. The American dream was also, no work, no eat.

Okay. Clirus:
The bold part (and what follows) shows you're knowingly a supporter of social Darwinism. Stop trying to deny that. You've said you want survival of the fittest, you go so far as to advocate the killing of those you deem weak - the atheists, socialists, pacifists, homosexuals and poor parents. So own up to your beliefs and call them by their proper name.

Interestingly evolution was first opposed by Christians who thought it could lead to a moral degradation of society because they thought it would lead to social Darwinism, or "survival of the fittest" being implemented as a social policy.
They were wrong and I wonder what they would think of you. A person who dismisses evolution as a scientific theory and adopts their reason for opposing it - all in Christianity's name, too.

I think you'd be up front yelling "Barrabas" as loud as you could due to Jesus' "soft approach" on sin. Lazaar has a point you know. You're ignoring Jesus and focusing on your own version of the religion. Do you really worship Jesus? I wonder. You dismiss His teachings as naive, soft in sin, and as positions "promoting evil". So... What ARE you Clirus?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What about the two million people that die per year due to the AIDS associated with homosexual activity? Is that normal and acceptable?

HIV/AIDS is associated with sexual activity, and not just homosexual activity.

Homosexuality needs to return to the closet, from which it came.

Or what? What are going to do about it?

One could think that Christianity is a survival of the weakest concept, but I believe Christians are the fittest and Atheists the weakest, thus God has ordained that Christians survive and Atheists not survive [except for Socialism (health care/welfare/entitlements) that sustains Atheists].

Then how is it that Atheists have survived for so long even prior to the existence of the modern welfare state?

 

[Snow Phoenix]

Aye. Most atheists I know are also very intelligent highly educated good people. Same goes for Christians though

Go visit the Bible Belt sometime... you opinion on the latter statement might change a bit

 

[TheReasoner]

Go visit the Bible Belt sometime... you opinion on the latter statement might change a bit

My in-laws are conservative republican baptists from Texas.
I've spent a lot of time there. However, almost everyone I know over there have a (university) degree or two.

Not all of them are too informed though. I once visited a church near Houston and the minister was speaking about the need to forgive sinners and love them. Even the terrible sinners like prostitutes and socialists. (the latter he mentioned twice actually). Then he finished by asking the congregation to please give a warm welcome to the visiting socialist from Norway


And they are somewhat open-minded due to a lot of exposure to the world through my wife. She has travelled more and lived in more countries than I have. (She's also in the left & liberal quadrant btw)

I do think they are good people. They are just too often people who have not been exposed to more than one way of thinking in addition to being told for decades that other systems are terrible and even anti-Christian. As a case in point, despite being more open than most my in laws wondered if they needed to smuggle me out of Norway when they heard we're a social democracy. They thought our leaders were despots. Bless them for their intentions, but... Well, it's a sad thing when they don't know better.

 

[Charlie V]

What about the two million people that die per year due to the AIDS associated with homosexual activity?

Aids is not caused by homosexual activity. Aids is caused with a virus, a virus which may be spread by sexual activity (heterosexual or homosexual), injection, or sometimes, to babies during childbirth.

The category with lowest rate of transmission? Homosexual women.

Clearly, then, if God or behavior has anything to do with it, God wants women to be lesbians, since lesbianism leads to the lowest rate of transmission.

In Africa, the mode widespread mode of transmission is heterosexual, but I don't see you speaking out against heterosexuality.

If you are really very concerned about homosexual transmission of HIV, you might want to back the legalization of gay marriage, since it encourages fidelity within homosexual relationships. Two faithful partners without disease, if they remain faithful and don't use intravenous drugs and share needles, have a 100% certainty of not contracting the disease.

To associate a loving relationship between two consenting adults to disease and compare it to smoking is a form of cruelty. I discourage cruelty.

Do you object to two HIV-negative people having a loving relationship? I suspect that you do, and unfortunately, there are people who are cruel to those loving people. People like my sister-in-law.

Charlie

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Aye. Most atheists I know are also very intelligent highly educated good people. Same goes for Christians though

Haha yeah I agree with you ; I know a lot of well-educated and thoughtful Christians. Most of the people I've ever known are Christians (statistically, if you grew up Christian in the US that's the case). I only know a handful of atheists, and they're all successful, whereas I know many Christians that aren't. That's skewed of course, but the point still stands that clirus is full of crap when saying that atheists need hand-outs and Christians don't.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The key problem of Socialism is too much power of people[...]

I think most of you missed this neat little gem inbetween all the Social Darwinism nonsense.

 

[sdmsanjose]

Clirus
You have for years condemned all kinds of groups and people on this forum for years. I cannot even remember them all but the few that I can name are Environmentalist, Atheist Agnostics, Blacks, War protestors, pacifists, death penalty opponents, socialist, Democrats, liberal Christians, the poor, the Catholic Church, and Christian leaders of America.


Do you really think that God appointed you to pronounce condemnation to people that do not agree with you?

 

[Nathan Poe]

The Catholic Church took a "soft on sin" attitude against the Nazis. One wonders what would have occurred if the Catholic Church would had opposed the Nazis rise to power.

You overestimate the Church -- What probably would've happened is that the Pope and most of the Cardinals in Europe would've found themselves shipped off to camps.

It's not so much about beng "soft on sin," but more about "don't try to stop a tsunami with a mop."

 

[Nathan Poe]

These are the standard verses to justify Socialism, but I believe socialism failed even among Christians because the Bible later states that a man that does not take care of his own is worse than an infidel.

I Timothy 5:8 states, "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

Socialism allows people to ignore taking care of themselves.

And your solution involves executions -- so who takes care of the family after you execute the infidel?

 

[Zongerfield]

I have read several of your posts where you focus on cutting the services to the poor, the sick, elderly, widows and their children. Why do you concentrate on cutting those people?

Caring for these people shouldn't be compulsory, government mandated. We have charities for a reason. No one should rob Peter to pay Paul.

I believe in a Constitutionally limited government. We've already gone beyond the "limits" our forefathers originally established. Now we're indebted up to our ears and on the verge of a double-dip recession. Tough decisions have to be made. And you don't weaken the strong to heal the sick.

 

[Charlie V]

I believe in a Constitutionally limited government. We've already gone beyond the "limits" our forefathers originally established.

If you read the writings of our forefathers, you'll find that the thought behind limited government was to limit government oppression of the people and vesting power to the rich, not to limit government building up of society or working toward the common good of the people.

When the country was founded, the founding fathers came up with things that were very radical concepts at the time, like public schools, and a government run postal service, and government run fire departments, things which didn't exist prior to them. You'd really have to take their writings out of context to suggest that they opposed a government helping the common man.

And, yes, they believed in progressive taxation.

One more point though: There is an overemphasis on "what the founding fathers wanted," because one thing that the founding fathers absolutely wanted, and you can find writings of Jefferson, Madison, Washington et.al that make this point, is that future generations should decide for themselves what role they want government to take... that every generation owns their own generation, and that they (the founding fathers) really have no say in what future generations may want... that even the Constitution itself should not bind future generations, that future generations should have freedom to determine what they want. They believed in progress and in the freedom of our generation to determine what we do and don't want from our government.

If you really wanted to go with what the founding fathers wanted, how about military? Most of the founding fathers favored no standing armies. Washington favored, instead, a small army (I believe he suggested about 50 men?) to be trained and prepared in case our borders are attacked. Would you favor eliminating the military completely as many Founding Fathers (especially the anti-Federalists, including Jefferson and Madison in the early years of our nation) wanted, or, as Washington, limiting it to about 50 men?

Charlie

 

[Snow Phoenix]

Caring for these people shouldn't be compulsory, government mandated. We have charities for a reason. No one should rob Peter to pay Paul.

I believe in a Constitutionally limited government. We've already gone beyond the "limits" our forefathers originally established. Now we're indebted up to our ears and on the verge of a double-dip recession. Tough decisions have to be made. And you don't weaken the strong to heal the sick.

And do you know why this is? Because the US has for too long lived beyond its means. It decided to try free-market capitalism, which ruined the country, and will ultimately be its downfall.

Free-market capitalism doesn't work in the real world, pure and simple.

If the US stopped trying to be the world police, and spending more than half the worlds total defense budget, perhaps it wouldn't be in such dire straights.