Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:We're not the ones that should be caring what the Lord has to say about foreigners. It's you.
...
So, you're saying our religious beliefs should form and direct our government, laws, and policies?...lest we be judged by your ability to cite scripture?
Legislation that directs help and compassion for the disadvantaged, sick and disabled need not and should not be based on religious or theistic considerations alone--or at all. I admire what Doc Cam and Chap have had to say about this: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=52179&start=21#p1195015.
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:One thing I love about Confucius was the practical solution to solving the world’s problem. World > Nation > Family > Individual. I’d add a step between nation and family, which is municipality. Whatever. I digress.
Everyone has a responsibility first to themselves. None of us has the energy, time, or resources to help another without getting our own ____ together. Then to their family, to the people around them. Then to their municipality, country, and their world. As we scale up we can actually contribute less, because we can fund specialists to be decent on our behalf. And if you can’t scale up, at least don’t advocate or react with hostility to those that do. Just agree, wish them well, and carry on with your work and what's important to you.
Chap wrote:I'm glad to see that you like Confucius. On a board like this, it is worth pointing out that he puts forward a morality effectively independent of theistic underpinnings. In the instance cited (from the Great Learning), the motive power comes from this, basically
"Look, in your family you respect your parents and older relations, right? Extend that upwards and outwards to the levels of society above and beyond your family. You care for your kids and your younger relations, right? Extend that downwards and outwards to the levels of society below and beyond your family. And in the long run you'll find things will be better for everybody, including your own family and yourself."
Legislation that facilitates and even requires implementation of principles of respect and compassion for others universally espoused by every religious tradition with any merit at all does not violate the U.S. Constitution's freedom of religion or establishment clauses.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Sep 03, 2019 2:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
ajax18 wrote:I'd invade Mexico and seize the assets of their wealthy to pay for all the poverty they've dumped in our country.
Not Christlike, too bad.
Should we seize the assets of the wealthy in this country and use it to pay for the poverty of our own citizens?
Given your posted thoughts on just the relatively mild current US progressive taxation system, you seem to have conflicted views on ‘wealth redistribution’, depending upon the country in question.
Good point! And said more succinctly than I said it!
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
So, your argument is that because we can't stop 100% of the suffering in the world, we should never attempt to alleviate any of it at all? What a wonderful Christ-like attitude!
If it is impossible to prevent all loss of life and property from wildfires, we should not attempt to fight them at all, and let them all burn themselves out naturally. Right?
Why should we be helping people who ilegally entered our country before helping people who played by the rules and stayed in their own country?
The thing is, ajax, you really don't care to help anybody at all, whether or not they "played by the rules and stayed in their own country." That is glaringly obvious from your posting history. You have repeatedly complained even about help given to your fellow American citizens.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
I don’t recall Jesus making those kinds of distinctions. You want to kill children by deporting them. What did Jesus say about how to treat children?
Since when do any of you care what Jesus did?
There are children all over the world dying who could use our help. Why should those that cut in line become our first priority?
Yeah, you’re just another CINO.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has long expressed its position that immigration reform should strengthen families and keep them together. The forced separation of children from their parents now occurring at the U.S.-Mexico border is harmful to families, especially to young children. We are deeply troubled by the aggressive and insensitive treatment of these families. While we recognize the right of all nations to enforce their laws and secure their borders, we encourage our national leaders to take swift action to correct this situation and seek for rational, compassionate solutions.
I somehow doubt the Church would find it Christlike to deport men, women, and children suffering from horrific illnesses that will most likely lead to death once they're expulsed.
God commands to love your neighbor. At other times He commands to kill and destroy. I think a person can be in favor of enforcing the border and even going to war, while still giving aid and helping impoverished people with private funds. The part we disagree on is whether I can decide for you how much of your money should be given away or whether that right is reserved to you. I don't see Jesus as a communist and I don't believe those who don't give to every beggar they meet are necessarily going to come under condemnation in the next world for it. It's a personal relationship between you and God and no other human being should be able to interfere with that. Anyway, that's how you get a result where someone on a personal level has given a lot to Latin American people but believes in enforcing the border.
Worrying about “my money” is pretty much the antithesis of everything Jesus teaches in the Bible. Whatever labels apply to your religious beliefs, “Christian” ain’t one of them.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Res Ipsa wrote:Worrying about “my money” is pretty much the antithesis of everything Jesus teaches in the Bible. Whatever labels apply to your religious beliefs, “Christian” ain’t one of them.
The dude doesn't understand that the Sheep and Goats, Right Hand and Left Hand thing in Matt 25 isn't about adding and subtracting acts of kindness.
It's about having a soul full of compassion.
As soon as you concern yourself with the 'good' and 'bad' of your fellows, you create an opening in your heart for maliciousness to enter. Testing, competing with, and criticizing others weaken and defeat you. - O'Sensei
Should we seize the assets of the wealthy in this country and use it to pay for the poverty of our own citizens?
Well that's what your side says they want to do. Yet we know in reality that "corporate welfare," is not something that's going to fix itself with a law since companies are free to just take their money out of the country. It seems to me that we're taxing the middle class to pay not only for people who will not or cannot work in this country but now the rest of the world is onto the scam and they're pouring in to collect upon it.
Since we're so focused on making the upper middle class in this country pay, why not put some focus on making the obscenely rich in the native countries of these people pay as well? If Stonewall Jackson would have lived, he would have conquered much of Latin America and the situation would be far different.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Worrying about “my money” is pretty much the antithesis of everything Jesus teaches in the Bible. Whatever labels apply to your religious beliefs, “Christian” ain’t one of them.
I believe Jesus commands us to be good stewards of our property as well. The LDS church is certainly very careful with its money. I think you would find Jesus was careful with His money as well if we were to know more about His life.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Should we seize the assets of the wealthy in this country and use it to pay for the poverty of our own citizens?
Well that's what your side says they want to do.
The only person, let alone side, that I’ve seen advocate for this is you. At least for other countries, anyway. What about here? Does that cure the poverty situation in this country?
ajax18 wrote:Since we're so focused on making the upper middle class in this country pay, why not put some focus on making the obscenely rich in the native countries of these people pay as well?
Again, why aren’t you advocating for the ‘obscenely rich’ in this country to have their assets seized and redistributed to the poor?
ajax18 wrote:If Stonewall Jackson would have lived, he would have conquered much of Latin America and the situation would be far different.
Remind me again why Jackson would have cared enough to ‘conquer’ Latin America? Was the idea to add to the supply of slave labor?
ajax18 wrote:The LDS church is certainly very careful with its money. I think you would find Jesus was careful with His money as well if we were to know more about His life.
QFT.
Notice the direction of the argument here:
1. The CoJCoLDS is 'very careful with its money'.
2. Thus, although we have no evidence that Jesus behaved similarly, he must have done so.
The unexpressed linking clause is, of course:
3. We may deduce the behaviour of Jesus by observing the behaviour of the CoJCoLDS.
In fact - leave Jesus out of it. Just follow the Prophet and the Brethren. That's true Christianity.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.