Poll: If Jesus ran for president, would you vote for him?
- Thread starter triggrhappy94
- Start date
Good to see that you like many have no real idea about the religion you are in a round about way bashing. Homosexuality comes up only in the old testament, as a part of the books about the laws. Not all the laws given where "holy." Many where social laws of the time, and many also only applied to the priests. Homosexuality is listed as an abomination in both the KJ and NIV translations of the bible, but better interpretation is unclean. Other things that make on unclean include not following the diet as detailed in the laws and a women on her period. Instructions are also given for one to become "clean" again. Not that it really matters anyway. The old covenant was replaced by the new covenant as detailed in the new testament as a part of the teachings of Jesus. The old laws no longer apply in Christianity.triggrhappy94 said:
Of course on actually has to study the bible and you know read it. turns out that is far to difficult for many peope, even those that claim it as their faith.
So when the rich man finds it harder to enter heaven than squeezing a camel through the eye of a needle, where does he go instead? New Jersey?Rex Fallout said:
No. I repeat: "it is not an intrinsic quality of communism that a small cadre of individuals must make all decisions regarding the population."
That is the definition of totalitarianism. It is not a *necessary* quality for communism, just, in practice, a very *likely* quality. When you say communism "is" totalitarianism, you are trivially wrong. And the only reason I'm even bothering to point it out, since we largely agree on communism, is that you've built communism up like it's the only bogeyman in the world, when there are a lot of other forms of government that are just as bad, and it's because they also tend to result in tyranny.
Not at all.
Which is why it won't work. I don't think I'm being terribly unclear here....
I repeat. The UK has already implemented national health care. It shows no signs of slipping down your slope. Whether or not it will slip down the slope at some time in the future is something we technically cannot know, but there is no indication whatsoever that it is going to, and there is no reason to believe that national health care leads to tyranny. This is in the realm of incoherent tin-foil-hat craziness.
Seriously? Am I being trolled? I'm referring to non-communist countries currently implementing socialized medicine and making a successful go of it, and that being an indication that it could work for us too. Wtf are you talking about?
Well yes. And can you blame them? They need to make money to survive. They need to have a competitive edge. Now, if their humanity drives them to do something contrary to their interests, they might, but then they might lose to another corporation that doesn't. I really don't fault them for this, either. No more than I fault a wolf for eating a deer. It is it's nature. It is how it survives.
But its interests are contrary to mine, so what kind of idiot would I have to be to take their side when it is to my benefit to take an opposing view? Is this some kind of bizarro corporate altruism? Even if supporting corporations is not in your best interests, you'll support them anyway? Why?
I don't think they're evil. I just think their interests are, in some ways, contrary to my own. I will always pick my own interests over theirs.
Everything is very black and white to you. Either the government stays exactly where it is in terms of power and responsiblility (which, incidentally, is not at 0) or we are going to spiral into communism. This is not a compelling argument.
I'm an American who has never owned a passport, so yes.
Well, "Obamacare" has been estimated by the non-partisan CBO to actually *reduce* the debt.
If we were to do something like the NHS, we'd probably need to raise taxes, sure. On the other hand, you'd no longer have to pay for health insurance, and you could get a guaranteed standard of care rather than having to worry about what your specific plan happens to cover or not. (which, incidentally, I feel is a huge pain in the ass; do I get to go to any doctor I want? No. Do I have draconian rules for how drugs are covered? Yes!)
I *am* 30.
No, it's a variety of things. The enormous economic downturn is actually a huge part of the reason we've been running a deficit. Not only was there all the stimulus money, but a recession causes a sharp drop in tax revenue. So part of the fault actually *does* rest with corporations (particularly the banks), for doing such a sucky job at what they're supposed to be so darn good at: making money.
Well this is a thread within a forum for computer game hobbyists, with a subject heading asking if a mythological being would be voted for if he ran for president.Nazz3 said:
Not exactly fertile ground for sensible conversation.
You seem to be missing the point, not giving isnt a direct ticket to hell, nowhere in the bible does it say that. I'm saying that you arent required to give, if you believe that Jesus Christ came to Earth, died for your sins, and rose 3 days later, and that he is the son of God, then you will go to heaven because you have already asked him for forgiveness. Is a true Christian more likely to give to the poor and weak? Yes. Is he forced to? No. It is a choice.Labcoat Samurai said:
You are wrong, communism must have that elite group that decides the actions for the many, at least for a time, and that time is when the dictatorship will take hold.
In practice Communism must become a dictatorship. In communism there are two classes, not the 1 equal class that the philosophy teaches, there are the elites, and the people. and the elites will always fall prey to human nature and force communism to become a dictatorship. Its not that hard to understand.
Now, I dont believe that communism is the only boogeyman in the world, but it is the thing that needs to be dealt with right now. Do you think the war on terror would be easier if a communist nation hadnt taken corperations from us and fed them with practically slave labor? Would it be easier to deal with the international gas crisis if we were working with another democratic, reasonable nation that instead of pouring funds into its growing military instead put that money to use helping to deal with this problem? There are many, many, MANY problems in our world today, but certain things should be dealt with first, the faster that communism is systematically wiped out, the sooner we can move on with solving these other problems.
Ok, glad that is out of the way.
Well jeeze no reason to call me a troll I was still thinking that you were referring to communism, or Marxism in general, not socialism.
Yes there are nations that are using socialism, that have international healthcare but how many of these nations are industialized giants, support research and developement on an international level, and have the capabilities to be self sufficient? The largest economies in the world are all carried by Capitalism, China, the United States, Japan, all of these countries are kept alive, and prosperous because of capitalism.
I'm not saying it will happen today, or tomorrow, or even next year, I just say that it is a possibility that these nations could fall into turmoil. The government doesnt have the capabilities to take care of every small economic problem that may or may not happen like it can in a capitalist society. Socialism, Communism, Marxism in general are all well and dandy for dealing with big problems, but they cant meet consumer wants and demands, and the smaller issues very well at all.
Think about it, our interrests and big business interrests could easily overlap. They want healthy workers, they implement a health care. They want intellegent workers, they can support schools, etc. it goes on and on, and even though this isnt happening it is quite possible that it CAN happen, the government is trying to deal with these ares, and so the private sector doesnt deal with it as heavily as it might if the government were to back off. I'm not saying that I want the government to leave education in the hands of the private sector, but I'm just saying that private sector cares about people too, they dont want bad publicity like their food poisoning people, people would not buy their food. They want workers, dumb workers wont help them accomplish their goals.
And i dont blame you, you have the mind of a seperate individual, you are supposed to be able to support whoever you want, including yourself over other groups. In a Marxist state the individual is forced to serve... whomever, in the name of the state.
I'm not saying that we will spiral into communism if this happens, I'm saying I prefer to decide and care for myself among other traders and other producers instead of the government deciding my life for me.
I dont think that everything is black and white, but on the other hand, people try to complicate things where there is no need to complicate them. Marxism hasnt ever brought about the talked about utopia, but for some reason instead of sticking to democracy and advancing civilization we decide that we want it to be easier and easier for us to just give more and more of the decisions to the few in power, ie. the government. Why cant we just keep working to support ourselves? Why cant we be happy with, A days work=A days pay? I'm quite content with my life.
And it may, but I *cough*doubt that that will ever happen*cough* but I suppose throwing more money at the problem has the potential to help reduce the debt. It's never worked the other 500 times we've done it but maybe this time is different.
Heh, sorry got a bit carried away, I was just pointing out that the U.S. government cant- and shouldnt be given the ability to do EVERYTHING.
I'd point the problem more at the billions of dollars that we spend annually to send out our military all over the world and the loss of corperations back home to China, but I guess its a bit of everything.
Agree to disagree thenRex Fallout said:
And I don't (see my avatar image), which is why the point is purely academic for me anyway.
Well, we have an elite group that decides actions for many in a representative democracy, but it isn't totalitarianism, because there are strict limits on their power. Communism does not require that those in charge have limitless power, and it doesn't even forbid holding elections to determine who they are. In fact, it doesn't even require that there be an elite group. The decisions could be made by the entire collective voting in democratic fashion. But in practice, it tends to work out that way. Give people enough power, and most will do whatever they can to hold onto it. I think we're saying almost the same thing, but I was nitpicking. We can give it a rest and move on.
Sorry, came on a bit strong there, but you have to admit that you are *really* fixated on communism
I don't know... most? Too lazy to go do some research to name off examples, but it's very common in Europe.
Japan has socialized medicine, actually. And China's government has far more control and power than Canada, the UK or any of the other major western countries with socialized medicine.
And capitalism and socialized medicine are not mutually exclusive.
Not exactly. It's generally in their best interests not to do so if they can get away with it, but most Americans have come to expect a good employee healthcare program, so they know they have to implement one in order to attract competent employees (or in the case of unskilled labor, unions may demand it). Look at hiring of illegal immigrants, use of sweatshops, etc. Little or no concern at all for safety and health of workers, because the incentive to be concerned has been removed.
Oh I don't think so. First of all, they don't always need educated employees. That depends on the employer. Second, if they voluntarily support schools (not just through taxes), there's usually some marketing or advertising benefit or they are funding a scholarship for a particular individual, and it often has requirements that they work in an internship or accept a job at the company after college.
Sure, some people in business have compassion, but compassion is not the way to get ahead in business, no matter what sappy Hollywood films tell you. They *do* however, want good publicity.
Intelligent workers? I suppose, but as I said earlier, whether or not they want *educated* workers depends on the business. And if you think that corporations, as a rule, are thinking more than a couple of years ahead, you are sorely mistaken. In fact, a major Fortune 500 company for which I am currently doing contract work (I won't name them) just started passing around the idea that they are no longer going to think in terms of years. All release schedules will be in months, because it's better to think about a continuous delivery of value than to speculate about what you may be able to produce a few years from now.
In my experience, giant corporations are weighed down with almost as much bureaucracy as government. They just expect to be paid more for it. Like those security contractors in Iraq doing the same work of US soldiers for more than 3 times the pay.
Maybe you'd like the german system. Competing not-for-profit insurers with regulation that defines the basic standard of coverage they all have to provide. Does seem a bit "best of both worlds"-ish to me.
Speaking of complexity, a friend of mine here has talked about how, when he was growing up in the UK, all he had to do was walk in to a clinic and say what his problem was. Then, perhaps after a longer wait than we have, he'd be seen, treated, and could walk out. Easy as pie. Here, I have a booklet that tells me what doctors are on my plan, I have tiers of coverage where if I see one kind of doctor, I pay more than if I see another kind of doctor, visits to my primary care physician are considered tier 1 and are cheaper than visits to specialists, some kinds of specialists aren't covered at all, drugs are covered to wildly varying degrees, and how my portion of payment is calculated depends on whether it's a hospital visit or a clinic visit. For example, I could owe thousands of dollars if I got an MRI at a hospital or if I could find a clinic with an MRI machine, I'd owe a 25 dollar copay.
People complain about how, under nationalized healthcare, you subsidize the habits of other citizens. Well you do that anyway under a workplace plan, just on a much smaller scale. Someone at my office has a baby? Next year *my* health insurance goes up.
It's a good place to start, definitely, but it's not as simple as that.
Well, actually, it's the whole point of federal subsidies. You invest federal money in an industry and you promote economic growth, which creates tax revenue. Some subsidies are not productive in this way, but it's intellectually irresponsible to blanketly proclaim that government investment has never paid off.
No problem
I agree it shouldn't be given the ability to do everything, but in the interests of preventing it from having too much power, we shouldn't be afraid to give it a sensible amount of power. Thanks to Teddy Roosevelt, we have the National Park Service, and thanks to Eisenhower, we have the Interstate Highway System. Both republicans, and neither apparently terrified that giving the government something sensible to do would take us down the road to communism.
Oh yes, military spending is a *huge* part of the reason we run a deficit. And Corporate tax dodging would be another. Also, as you mentioned, moving business overseas, because then you're not paying American workers, who would also provide tax revenue.
Ok then.Labcoat Samurai said:Agree to disagree then
Well I was going to point out that in a democracy, yes those in power should have their power limited, but that can't happen in a communist state because in the end the communists need to be able to tell people what to do, so they cant have their power limited by the "peasants". But ok we can just drop that.
I do hate Communism. Alot. I'll give you that.Sorry, came on a bit strong there, but you have to admit that you are *really* fixated on communism
Yes but these nations are industrial super powers. These nations don't have to cover the whole globe, these nations don't have to self sustain themselves because other nations help them.
Yes it does but First let me start with Japan-
We take care of Japan, (we being the United States) we are its military, we protect it, we do everything for it. It doesnt have to worry about the amount of things that a regular nation would need to.
Now China, that nation I hate soooo very much. China works very simply, the reason that they are doing so well is that they are combining communism- with Capitalism in a perverted terrible sort of way. Let me give you a smaller example of exactly what is going on in China. (And I'll go ahead and do you a favor by skipping the whole gunning down innocent protesters in the streets- Tianenmen Square~1989, and the forced abortion policies- Modern Day) Now, in the United States we have minimum wage. Its designed, naturally, to protect us from being abused by businesses, (which you brought up later and I'll get to that.) But in China no such minimum wage exists. So smart businessmen move to China where they can make more money working with practical slave labor. Tha tis how China makes money. And I dont know about you but I disaprove of treating people aa little more than cattle and using them as slave labor.
Yes this is true it is cheaper to ignore these needs, but I never actually ment for any of this to be taken as better than the status quo, I was merely throwing out ideas. With the unions already set up, (and hopefully protected by the government) I could see these unions staying in place and keeping an eye on big business to ensure that people get what they deserve.
Once again, yes I know, but I honestly would have no problem if McDonalds had advertised in my High School. In fact... you dont think that they could make the school lunches do you? Nah people would complain about obesity and crap.
Yeah I already covered most of this. People with a real moral code who believe that every life is invaluable would do what is right in big business, but sadly you are right, these people are not always there.
You misunderstand me then, I want *almost complete freedom of the individual, where people dont have to worry about permits, regulations on speech and taxes on what they do. Where individual minds are allowed to prosper because of their individual minds, where man can benefit from the strength of his own arms, the might of his own will, the vastness of his own intellect. This is the society I want. And I dont want to compromise for it.
I never said our healthcare system was the best model, I was merely saying that making it government controlled was not in my best interrest.
Why cant it be? Yes I understand, the old, the weak and the young cant work but I prefer it over the system where everyone is systematically enslaved by the government. *cough*China, North Korea, Cuba*cough* sorry about that.
Well thats all fine and dandy in theory but in my life I have not seen it work. I say we try something else.
True, but FDR nearly killed the nation with his New Deal programs, and he did it for the same reasons as those two did theirs. Good Intentions do not make for a good idea.
Oh yes most certainly, I say we pull back the military from nations who don't really need it anymore, ie. Germany. And what about Japan? We might as well annex them considering we already do so much for them and they are practically United States citizens as it is. Just make it official.
Quite wrong actually my good sir, homosexuality is brought up several times in the new testement and is still taught to be something that is immoral and wrong. Paul for one brings it up multiple times in letters to the churches. The reason some of the old things do not apply to christians is because of the new covenant with Christ and because he told people that all food was clean and good to eat now. The bible does tell us that homosexuality is immoral and wrong. Period.manaman said:
However I do agree with you that people just dont read the bible anymore, but that not only applies to that it applies to everything. People hate reading for some reason. Its actually quite sad.