Can you be liberal and Christian at the same time?

Nothing we do will cause rapid change - America is huge, academic education is a longer term investment, and even vocational education takes time, too.

​

​

By your IMF thing you are trying to take away from congress one of the most important federal powers that exists (the US budget) and hand it to some external entity. The exact amount of damage do the dollar is not the issue. The issue is that you're talking about war against America. If some entity tries that, you best believe it will be stopped.

I agree we try to do too much with our military, but the reality is that we do need a military - and a police force as well. We're not ready to allow people to get jacked on our highways OR on the high seas.

 

That's my point.

Thanks!

 

Like the art of trying to use literary as an instrument rendering super ego tautology while proving oneself an Islam Christianananity pedophile mentality as the perpetual supreme swastika up Uranus court Reichquest by Rehnquist with immaculate drug conceptions for more than 40 years......which could as well be about 60 years to make me 6 again.

 

5. So debating in "a logical, classical manner is an exercise in madness and folly".

That's kind of a neat way to avoid having to deal with ideas that don't fit one's own conception of reality.

However, I'll take it slowly, if you dare:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (which by the way does not imply equality of outcome).

How is that Marxist formulation "elitist"?

 

My "IMF thing" is simply a recognition of the need for a rules based international order.

[We almost got there in 1946 when, with much of the world in ruins, 40 million dead, and the first nuclear bomb over Japan, there was some vision (if not also some existential alarm) amongst the delegates present at the creation of the Charter of the UN, many of whom were ready to forgo some degree of national sovereignty by establishing decision by majority vote of the 5 permanent members in the proposed UNSC (ie they resisted adoption of the veto).
But great power politics and the contest between Soviet Communism and Western Capitalism had yet to be played out, so the veto was forced on to the SC, with a threat from the big players to the small: "no veto, no UN Charter".]

Hence we lost the chance to actually eliminate war as a legitimate means of settlement of international dispute].

At least the first sentence begins (barely) to address my proposition. You simply claim that inflation is not the issue, although with that assertion you are contradicting Ndividual who identifies inflation as the central issue, for rejecting my proposition.

Your following two points are of course little more than a unilateral proclamation of "America First", so you will indeed have little interest in an international rules based system, and hence little interest in equality of opportunity around the globe, though you seem to express some concern about the incompatibility of homelessness and poverty on the one hand, with equality of opportunity on the other hand, at least in your own nation.

 

In general, inflation is a central issue when you choose to print money.

But, YOU are proposing a revolution.

And, you're proposing that for what??? Because you want more money for education???

Time to get real!

 

Have you read Marx? Not the fluffed up version indoctrinated into teenagers?

The production of too many useful things results in too many useless people. Karl Marx

A few days in my old man’s factory have sufficed to bring me face to face with this beastliness, which I had rather overlooked. ..., it is impossible to carry on communist propaganda on a large scale and at the same time engage in huckstering and industry. ~Karl Marx

Here is where this fails, as a social experiment:

1. The communists are NOT the proletariat, but pretend to 'help' the poor, huddled masses. They want to organize them as pawns, to destroy the bourgeoisie, whom they hate with a greater passion than they do the monarchy or any military dictatorship. They pretend to speak for the worker, but they are not the worker.

2. They attack one of the most basic rights of man for all of history: The right of property. Locke said that govt has no other end, but the preservation of property.

"Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." ~Abraham Lincoln

The appeal to just 'take' the property of another, that they have not worked for is alluring. It is a shiny lure of free stuff, that attempts to deceive the simple into believing the great fiction, that govt can enable you to live off of everybody else. It is diametrically opposed to the American Experiment, that of securing the basic rights of man: life & property.

3. They make the 'bourgeoisie into a boogey man... a scapegoat to blame all of society's ills upon. That is a typical tactic of looters, who do nothing useful themselves, but only want to ride the gravy train of easy living without work. The 'party' becomes the new bourgeoisie, & the new boss is no better than the old one.. most of the time, the communist boss was MUCH WORSE than any monarch or industrialist that ever existed.

4. The russian revolution traded feudal property for party property.. just another bourgeois robber baron, but instead of merely exploiting the workers with cheap pay, made them slaves.

5. The chinese revolution traded imperial & feudal property for party property.. more slavery for the proletariat.

6. Any movement or group that constantly toots its horn about how sincere & altruistic they are should be viewed with skepticism. They are selling something, & they will not be the ones paying for it. You will.

7. They kill one of the biggest motivating factors for humanity: To get ahead. To improve one's station in life. They offer servitude, not prosperity, to the hard working man. There is no reward for hard work, or smart work, or bettering oneself through innovation & production. They reward party affiliation & political maneuvering. A society full of con men & salesmen cannot sustain itself. But productive work will not improve your lot, only rising in the party hierarchy. So the magnet is not productive work, but looting.

8. Their aim is to overthrow the bourgeois class, & replace it with a new ruling class: The Party. They USE the proletariat to accomplish this, & have continued to use & exploit the working man in EVERY venture that collectivists have done for all of human history. That is why collectivist experiments always fail. They are based on altruistic sacrifice for your fellow man, except for the leaders, who get to mooch off of everybody else & live the high life at your expense.

9. The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of human rights.Their promises are lies, & they offer servitude & slavery to the working man. Communism is a step backward in the quest for human freedom. They TAKE from the worker & exploit him for their political agenda, which is the same for all time:

There has never been but one question in all civilization-how to keep a few men from saying to many men: You work and earn bread and we will eat it. ~Abraham Lincoln

 

Some 40 years later & Christianity is still an Islam compulsive-obsessive behavior in pedophilia slavery with other "religions" children & their mother while in avoidance of recognition of sociopsychopathilogical farming to refute any acceptance.

 

I wasn't looking for a "position", I was looking for a ministry, and I found it, or it found me.

 

"Civilisation is a race between education and catastrophe" H G Wells.

Time is important, in a race.

 

Few ideologies are so diametrically opposed as Christianity and Marxism. I am talking about historical, biblical Christianity, not the double millennial detached revisionist worldviews that are often labelled 'Christianity.'

And, i am talking about Marxism, as it has been described by its founder, and its various implementations since.

"All the worth which the human being possesses, all spiritual reality, he possesses only through the State." ~Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion. ~Karl Marx

Marxism is a state centered ideology, where the state takes the role of God, as provider and guide.

Jn14:27Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid. -Jesus

Jesus taught an inner restoration with God.. a personal enlightenment and revealing of God's will for the individual, not a collectivist scheme of statist control.
Marx wants abolition of religion, which means Christianity, because it is contrary to the elitist, controlling goals of the marxist worldview.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. -Marx

This drips with elitism, as well as his presumption to know what makes all the people happy: anti-christian atheism. It has been my observation, that anti-christian atheists whether marxist or libertarian, are not really that happy... they tend to be eaten up with hostility, and are bitter about the hopeless, meaningless belief system they hold to. They are driven to rage at any Christian expression of peace or contentment, as their belief system has no provision for inner peace, just hostility toward those who do.

So how can there be compatibility between these two ideologies that are opposite in their foundational view of man, the state, and God? There is none. They are incompatible and in ideological enmity towards each other.

So a "liberal" christian, under the current definition and perception of the term, is an oxymoron. It is like saying an atheist Christian, or a living dead person.

 

Not all of it, but the quoted slogan - which he owned - seems Christ-like in its basic meaning, to me at least.

[QUOTEThe production of too many useful things results in too many useless people. Karl Marx[/QUOTE]

Did he write that? It implies population control by deprivation of useful things.

No doubt the conditions in that industrial-revolution era factory were beastly. That's why Marx forced himself to study "boring" economics for 10 years, in a London university library. At the time, children of poor parents lived their entire lives working underground in coal mines. Marx had the vision and empathy to work to change those conditions.

I saw the film "Trumbo" last night. The director of Spartacus, Roman Holiday, Exodus, etc fought to ensure workers in the Hollywood film industry received fair pay for their work - a true 'communist' , but that fascist bigot McCarthy had him imprisoned for "un-American activities". You ought not confuse Marxist values with the (then) realities of government in Soviet Russia.

Well Locke deserved to end up on the guillotine in France, during the revolution, if he stated that without identifying the basic provision of access to necessities, also the business of civilised government. See UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25.

Context? Addressing the issue of slavery, - and the desirability of every free man to gain paid work with a living wage?
In any case we can all agree with Lincoln; and no one is advocating abolition of private property - though housing is a basic right for everyone, regardless of income, so the private housing market needs to be balanced by public housing where minimum wages deny access to private housing and rents.

This is the great mythology of the Right: ie people in poverty don't want to work. Actually the 15% under-employment (in the first world) largely results from structural, systemic issues in the current neoliberal economy. (That's why Trump is desperately trying to get those steel and auto jobs back from Germany, et al.)

More RW propaganda (see above). I don't want any thing for free (except the best things which are free...), but I would like to live in a society that can guarantee above poverty-level -participation in the economy - yes even require that participation. Welfare is degrading, demoralising and always inadequate., ensuring ubiquitous criminality and lack of social cohesion.

I reckon you could get a job as a propagandist. I have already drawn the distinction between Marxist/communist values and Soviet-style Government.

China has moved on, and now we can observe the dynamics of a non-dictatorial one-party state (the president is generally widely admired in China. In fact the Chinese are probably horrified (or dying of laughter), by the dysfunction and hyper-partisanship in many western democracies.
'
A quick google search revealed: ...in 2014 Xi Jinping was the most popular leader in the world!

Meanwhile democratic India is now economically way behind China, despite similar GDP and population numbers 4 decades ago.

Sounds like a restatement of the Libertarian doctrine that 'taxation is theft'...even WillReadmore is willing to pay more tax to achieve tertiary level access for all, without burdening those students who don't have rich parents with crippling debt at the start of their careers.

More propaganda. A lot of that can be applied to Wall Street banksters. and Corporatist behavioue in our neoliberal economy. in general. See Wolf of Wall St., 'greed is good", 'the Big Short] etc etc.

See above; you only have to change the pronoun "they', to see what's happening in your own nation.,

ibid

….directed to the Southern Confederate owners of slaves!
-----
Now back to theology: was Marcion justified in rejecting the OT? He was mere decades removed from Christ's death, so he can't be accused of "revisionism" (ie before the NT canon was even finalised and closed), a charge that might be laid at the feet of a divisive figure like Bishop Jong, by present-day literalist readers of biblical scripture.

In any case, correct Interpretation of scripture is notoriously disputed; and I find myself liking the JWs (though they are the ultimate literalists) who are conscious objectors because of their understanding of Christ's message of peace.

The conservative Right generally take a patriotic, nationalistic, pro war view. (And notice how they despise and attack Pope Francis himself, , for his pro Marxist, anti-poverty views.

 

Once again, I agree education is important.

However, you are proposing a revolution leading to one world government, where the world government prints money.

And, that is just plain silly.

If you care about education, make an argument about education, not world government.

 

You misunderstand (I will assume not deliberately)

Management of international disputes by legal means, without resort to war, is not "world government"; and indeed many farsighted delegates (not revolutionaries) resisted adoption of a veto, in the proposed new UNSC (in 1946).

Your nation would be able to decide its own form of government, and deal with all matters EXCEPT matters of international dispute. Only an ideologue would insist that is "world government".

[BTW the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be regarded as the embodiment of Christ's message of peace].

Do I really have to make an argument for education, to you?

 

Having an authority outside of the US printing money can not be described more charitably than as one world government.

Yes - I'm in favor of far more focus on education. I'm suggesting you should be more focused on education, too. Mixing in some crazy notion of world government puts your ideas concerning education into the noise level.

 

Crazy notion? Like those delegates, high court judges among them, were merely crazy? I think not.

So you like Ndividual are so deluded by the intrinsic 'value of money', that you are prepared to waste massive amounts of real resources for purposes of ' defence' and the production of ever more sophisticated weapons of mass destruction.

So we are back to your contention that my proposition for funding universal education - and its implications for inflation - is "missing the point' .....proving Wells' contention that "Civilisation is a race between education and catastrophe" - since you obviously lack education.....hint: through education you will begin to "know thyself", and be able to see past mindless slogans like MAGA and America First.

 

No more than one can embrace the conservative doctrine while still acting as a Christian.

 

I would argue that what we think of as conservative doctrine is actually more inconsistent with living what we usually see as a Christian life in that at least the left wing sees helping those in need as something we need to take seriously.

 

Of course you would.

OTOH, I would argue that anyone who seeks to oppress others, impose one's will on others or seeks to limit their freedom of self-determination is not acting in a Christian manner.

 

Perhaps so if you have a mental impairment. There is mercy for that.

 

Well, we certainly see a ton of that going on!

 

Rejecting your hair brained funding idea does NOT mean I reject a more aggressive approach to education.

Surely you can see that your two ideas are totally separate.

 

Sadly agreed. Maybe we should get people together to oppose it. What do you think?

 

I understand that it is supposed to be separation of Church and State, but most social issues discussed by Republicans are influenced and informed and supported/defended by their religious beliefs. Abortion is a perfect example...

 

As it is with so many super ego Christians in avoidance of acceptance, resorting to immaculate drug conceptions in liberal Islam totalitarianism, especially when it came to their second coming 9/11 conspiracy resulting in the same patriot act as this Christian Nation propaganda business has always kept it's pyramid scheme funded.