Theology III

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

I thought all good Catholics were supposed to be Democrats! Seriously; take the great John F Kennedy, for example. Best President Ever, and devoutly Catholic, and decidedly not a Republican. Simplistically put, I've always seen Republicans being mostly Presbyterian- or Calvinist-type church based christians (when they're Christians, that is, obviously) and Democrats being mostly Catholic, some Episcopalians in both camps though. Maybe Episcopalians more Republican. And Baptists, Baptists are predominantly Democrats, no? and Fundamentalists, Republican?

The Episcopalians I personally know tend to mostly be left-leaning. Which was actually pretty amusing for me in my church, at one point. The pastor, before the presidential elections, gave a little speech in which he urged everyone to vote, whatever their political views were, for political participation was a great deal of what made America great.

I agreed with the content of that message, but I wonder whether he would have given it or not if he hadn't known that almost the whole congregation was left-leaning like him .

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

The Catholic Church has always felt it has a responsibility to give to the poor. As a Catholic, that's one of the major reasons I have become so disillusioned with the Republican party.

You may have a point there. I don't have an opinion on that, yet. But I do believe firmly that on moral issues, the Republican Party is a heck of a lot better than the Democratic, for even if they're wrong on treatment of the poor, they take a strong stand against homosexual marriage, stem cell research and abortion. The Republican Party needs the votes of conservative Christians and so has to match their interests with their policies, to a certain extent.

Abortion is the most crucial moral issue facing our country, from my perspective, and is far more important than poverty.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Plenty of evil people are content to enjoy life with certain human beings will slaughtering others. So that clearly isn't enough to keep people in line.
But by the way, on a sidenote, your definition doesn't take into account the broad variety of forms love can take. Aside from loving people, people can also love money, God, fame, ideas, and many material things such as a captain his ship or a farmer his land. They can also love any (or just many, whatever, but I think any) of these things more than they love people.
You won't find, looking at history, that most exceedingly violent and wicked people liked to live in total separation from society. Some did, though so did some exceedingly loving human beings who dwelt in monasteries, but many evil folk love and loved company. They are happy to enjoy life with certain human beings (Hitler had a mistress) while killing others. Would you say Hitler was loving?

How would you be able to tell? Evil hermits would tend to have less impact, wouldn't they? You're judging the evil here solely on societal standards, thereby proving BJ's point. God's standards are different. Your elementary school teacher may be more evil than Hitler by His standards, how would you know?

[/QUOTE]I just think it's far murkier and more complex than your definition allows. [/QUOTE]
or yours.

I really couldn't say. Though I guess it partly depends what one means by "poor," since that's a relative term, and many people who were "rich" in the past would be considered "poor" by modern standards. If someone is going hungry, though, it seems safe to say that by any standard, that person is poor.

And what's the Christian objection to that? "The poor shall always be with us" heh? Or "Put down your nets and follow me" Or "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

We don't have all that many direct quotes from Jesus, but I'm not familier with any that run, " Those poor people aren't going to heaven." and I thought that was the point.

In the Christian view, life on earth sux. It's Satan's dominion. Man is punished for Adam's Sin. Your hope lies in the Law, and in the Promise of Salvation through Jesus Christ. And although Christians are encouraged to treat EVERYONE well, including heathens and moneylenders ("not poor") the emphasis on "good works to the poor" is specifically contested by Jesus. That's far more standard in Judaic thought. He wants your mind on HIM.

We could feed the world right now, easily.

Who's we? And, I doubt it. America tried to export its approach to agriculture to the developing world. It was called "The Green Revolution." and, it was a horrible failure. We replaced indigenous crops and methods of farming with the American hybrid crop and big machine model. And we placed areas at risk for more famine, and international debt.

Have you heard of 'The Potato Famines'? Ireland had become dependent on a single crop, and when the crop failed, they starved. But that's what we still encourage. There's more damage being done to the planet due to our methods of agriculture than the nearest chemical plant, these days. And more hunger created due to what we eat.

However, it doesn't pay, so we don't. That is unchanged, selfish human nature.
If fewer people are poor now than in the past, that is the result of technological advance and not the result of an increase in human goodwill. That is quite clear from the fact that civilized nations don't feed the Third World, though they easily could.

Jejune imagining. First of all, I object to the term 'civilized nations' in this context. We may be rich, but we have to prove "civilized". Second, what do you think is involved in "feeding the Third World?" Do you suppose other sovereign nations are just sitting on their piers, waiting for our ship to come in? When we do that, the distribution network has to be there. We have to understand the country enough so that all the supplies don't go straight to the military, and the tribe of the most powerful leader. But sending a tanker full of corn is an emergency measure at best. You can't build a country by putting everyone on Welfare, kwim? We do a great deal to "teach a man to fish"...it's kind of difficult when people are shooting.

[QUOTE]And a good deal of exploitation. The increase in help tends to largely be the result of globalization and the increase of technology, though. If historical wealthy nations could have reached all the poor nations, they might well have given to them. The Church in the Medieval Ages felt it had a responsibility to give to the poor, and in a lot of cases it did. Monasteries certainly did, though perhaps that changed around the 13th or 14th centuries some (I'm not sure if any change occurred there; just guessing because the monasteries became more opulent around then).

There has always been both exploitation and giving. Humans haven't really changed. It's just technology that has changed.

That is a fair point. Technology, IMO, is the cause of this. But technology also is producing major disasters right now, like Global Warming, and the great risk of WMDs, the destruction of our fresh water through pesticides and other pollutants, and the destruction of our oceans. Humans are at least as selfish as they ever were.

I just can't see this IMO idealized view of human nature at all, when I look at history or modern times. [/Quote ]Covered that.

WW2 was just sixty years ago. Other, potentially even more cataclysmic crises for the world are already developing, as I already pointed out in my post. And also, many cultures have historically given to their poor and been kindhearted where their influence could be felt, as well as at other times or simultaneously being corrupt and exploitive. That is not unique to our modern time. Humans have always been that way- only now globalization and technology enables both exploitation and goodwill to exist on a larger scale.

From an economic POV, WWII was mostly a good thing. That's harsh, but it was. Hitler rose to power in a Germany that had been decimated by the Allied punishments after WWI, in a world that was undergoing the Great Depression. He made his mark by appealing to people who were afraid immigrants were taking their jobs (sound familier?) and gay people poisoning their culture (hum, have you heard that, recently?) He rounded them up to improve society. It could, and does, happen right here in the "Home of the Brave", make no mistake. Go look up "The Stonewall Riots."

But the whole world enjoyed the 'benefit" of building a lot of plants to make airplanes and weapons to shoot at each other. War is good for business. Ask Halliburton.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

I thought all good Catholics were supposed to be Democrats! Seriously; take the great John F Kennedy, for example. Best President Ever, and devoutly Catholic, and decidedly not a Republican.

Also decidedly NOT devoutly Catholic; cultural Catholic, more like. But anyway, you are right that traditionally, the Catholics in America were very strongly behind the Democratic party, and rightly so. Unfortunately, in recent decades the Democratic party as a whole has drifted rather starkly away from Catholicism, so that more and more 'good Catholics' are drifting away from the Democratic party; unfortunately, a major result of this is that in drifting away from the Democrats, they drift towards the Republicans, who are becoming stronger in the Catholic Church. Myself, though, I have for the past year or two identified with the Democratic party more than with the Republican, and will shortly be joining. Despite the falling away of the Democratic party in general from the Catholic Church on a a number of issues, I do still agree with you, Lotty, that it is overall more in line with the Catholic Church.

My great political dream is to somehow find the right third-party for me, but in the meantime, I shall be a Democrat.

And yeah, I do have to concur with you Gwai re: the tradition of the Catholic Church to give to the needy, they definitely got that going for them which is nice, and they bloody well should give a little, my god the Vatican is the single wealthiest institution on planet Earth, they can afford to give back a little. Actually they can afford to give a hell of a lot more than they do, way way more. For real. well anyway.

Well...thanks for the compliment bit, at least.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The Episcopalians I personally know tend to mostly be left-leaning. Which was actually pretty amusing for me in my church, at one point. The pastor, before the presidential elections, gave a little speech in which he urged everyone to vote, whatever their political views were, for political participation was a great deal of what made America great.

I agreed with the content of that message, but I wonder whether he would have given it or not if he hadn't known that almost the whole congregation was left-leaning like him .

You may have a point there. I don't have an opinion on that, yet. But I do believe firmly that on moral issues, the Republican Party is a heck of a lot better than the Democratic, for even if they're wrong on treatment of the poor, they take a strong stand against homosexual marriage, stem cell research and abortion.

They pretend to, at least, but I just don't really see them actually being that concerned about these issues; from my point of view, it looks like the Republican party tends to just use them to try to get support from conservative Christians.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

They pretend to, at least, but I just don't really see them actually being that concerned about these issues; from my point of view, it looks like the Republican party tends to just use them to try to get support from conservative Christians.

Yeah, but that's just your cynicism.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

And although Christians are encouraged to treat EVERYONE well, including heathens and moneylenders ("not poor") the emphasis on "good works to the poor" is specifically contested by Jesus.

Sorry, Jesus is contesting good works to the poor? By that, you mean he is opposed to them, or am I misunderstanding?

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Yeah, but that's just your realism and lack of naïveté.

Granted.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Granted.

Did I also mention your supposed un-political-ness?

Come now Gwai, the Reps are sliding morally...but the Democrats are completely off the board. You want to talk about morally bankrupt, those guys couldn't get a loan from Satan himself.


You want to help the poor? Give them your clothes, your car, and your books. It isn't a "right" to be helped the Gov't.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

But it's a wrong to not help. And I do. It's not a question of "rights", but of what is right and what is wrong. It is right to help those in need.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But it's a wrong to not help. And I do.

People DO help, individually, unofficially, and without the Gov't wrenching the money from their fingers.

It's easy for the Gov't to "help" people, because it isn't their money that they use.

But money isn't what ultimately helps a person become un-poor, it's a job that they hold. I AM in favor of welfare for these types of people, because it helps transition them into a more stable financial situation.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

I thought all good Catholics were supposed to be Democrats! Seriously; take the great John F Kennedy, for example. Best President Ever, and devoutly Catholic, and decidedly not a Republican. Simplistically put, I've always seen Republicans being mostly Presbyterian- or Calvinist-type church based christians (when they're Christians, that is, obviously) and Democrats being mostly Catholic, some Episcopalians in both camps though. Maybe Episcopalians more Republican. And Baptists, Baptists are predominantly Democrats, no? and Fundamentalists, Republican?

Horrible stereotypes Lotesse, truly terrible...not without some basis however. You are right that a good number of Democrats are Catholic.
BUT there is quite a divide among catholics as to coservatives/liberals.

And yeah, I do have to concur with you Gwai re: the tradition of the Catholic Church to give to the needy, they definitely got that going for them which is nice, and they bloody well should give a little, my god the Vatican is the single wealthiest institution on planet Earth, they can afford to give back a little. Actually they can afford to give a hell of a lot more than they do, way way more. For real. well anyway.

Well, it's not like they don't have billions of Catholics who give to them...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

People DO help, individually, unofficially, and without the Gov't wrenching the money from their fingers.

It's easy for the Gov't to "help" people, because it isn't their money that they use.

And I'll make you a deal.
If the government stops sending MY money to support US wars of aggression, you can keep whatever of your change they're spending on a social safety net.
Okay?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But it's a wrong to not help. And I do. It's not a question of "rights", but of what is right and what is wrong. It is right to help those in need.

From my perspective, it's a question of the degree of aid. Too much wellfare can lead to laziness and people taking advantage of the system. We saw what that did to Rome. Not actually participating in society, because they had no needs because they had so much wellfare, disconnected the people from their nation.

I would approve of wellfare being given based on need. For example, there should be the questions of whether or not the person is a single parent, whether or not the person is disabled, things like that. Those should be considered. In some cases, a constant stream of wellfare is good. In cases where the person is able-bodied and capable, though, a more limited wellfare should exist where the person is given aid on a temporary basis. That provides motivation for the person to find a job and actually give back to society.

I think that that's what we have right now, and I approve of that system.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

They pretend to, at least, but I just don't really see them actually being that concerned about these issues; from my point of view, it looks like the Republican party tends to just use them to try to get support from conservative Christians.

As for abortion and homosexual marriage, I disagree with you. President Bush did initiate a ban on partial birth abortion while in office, and he also prevented stem cell research from proceeding except with already dead cells, if I recall correctly.

Republicans haven't yet had sufficient power in the Supreme Court to overthrow Roe vs. Wade. States where Republicans dominate are far less likely to create laws allowing abortion or homosexual marriage.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

And I'll make you a deal.
If the government stops sending MY money to support US wars of aggression, you can keep whatever of your change they're spending on a social safety net.
Okay?

No Deal.

How about this, we give gay marriage in exchange for banning abortion.

Going on about what government programs do: look at the prime example in recent times, Walter Reed Hospital.

Private ownership begets care, because they want business, and they want to stay in business.

Government ownership begets sloppiness, because they are business, they set the business standards, and if you don't like it (and if it doesn't work), chances are they don't care.

People think the Government is more capable just because it is more "official", and they can somehow "reach farther" to help more.
In reality there isn't anything as far as taking care of the poor, setting up good hospitals that the private sector can't do better.

Oh yeah, thats Democrats for you, and an increasing number of Republicans. Bi-partisanship, eh?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Sorry, Jesus is contesting good works to the poor? By that, you mean he is opposed to them, or am I misunderstanding?

to emphasis.

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2

So, while Jesus believed, as any observant Jew would, that good works were good and necessary, Paul challenged that as the central issue for Christians.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

No Deal.

How about this, we give gay marriage in exchange for banning abortion.

although I'll throw in "No gay man may have an abortion except to save the life of the child" just as a freebee.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

although I'll throw in "No gay man may have an abortion except to save the life of the child" just as a freebee.

Well, we might make it a tad tougher too: no gays adopting.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Well, we might make it a tad tougher too: no gays adopting.

If you want to ban abortion, you should expect an increase in children whose parents can't, for whatever reason, raise them. At the same time, you want to make it more difficult for people who want to adopt to do so. Doesn't that seem like a problem to you?

[Tessar]

I would oppose that idea rather strongly, since I hope to adopt some day .

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

If you want to ban abortion, you should expect an increase in children whose parents can't, for whatever reason, raise them. At the same time, you want to make it more difficult for people who want to adopt to do so. Doesn't that seem like a problem to you?

No, it does not...firstly because gay people adopting kids only makes it to the news because it is a controversy, not becuase other people don't adopt kids.

*submits hand to Tessar* I admire you

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

But money isn't what ultimately helps a person become un-poor, it's a job that they hold. I AM in favor of welfare for these types of people, because it helps transition them into a more stable financial situation.

I absolutely agree.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Come now Gwai, the Reps are sliding morally...but the Democrats are completely off the board.

I have to agree with you there too. There are exceptions, of course, and the party does have some good points, such as its caring for the environment and a lot of compassion on the part of many of its members. Also, they tend to like to look at issues more in depth, often, than certain conservatives do. However, I do agree with you on this. Considering the party's policies on crucial moral issues, it is "off the board."

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

BUT there is quite a divide among catholics as to coservatives/liberals.

Good point.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

No, it does not...firstly because gay people adopting kids only makes it to the news because it is a controversy, not becuase other people don't adopt kids.

that there aren't enough kids adopted right now. Too many languish in the system.

I don't care whether adoptive parents make the news...I care that kids get good families. And Gay families ARE good families.