What is your religion?

[davidlhsl]

On the other hand, it's silly to say it's "our" money. Money is an invention of society, and has no function whatsoever except in the context of society. The fact that we have uniform currency of systematic value results from our cooperation in the larger society, and we should keep that in mind whenever we complain that the larger society might have an interest in what happens with the money that it has created.

:shock:

Well, I doubt that a society can collectively make better choices on what to do with money than the individual. Let's take the extreme form of your argument: Since money is an invention of society and is the creator of it through the collective efforts of its members within the context of societal interaction, then society has the right to collect all of it and distribute it accordingly.

Let me simply propose this: Since I believe there is a position that believes the debate over taxation isn't purely for selfish motives, I don't believe it's an effective example of how society is getting more selfish. Materialism and consumerism, on the other hand, might be more productive avenues that would better make your case.

I would not begin to defend sexual selfishness any more than monetary selfishness. I certainly agree that your point is an argument against premarital sex within the context of a relationship. However, it is not an argument against casual one-night stands between people who have no intention of forming a relationship, or between friends who are open and honest with one another that they have no intention of moving beyond friendship. One must find other arguments against those situations.

Focusing on the argument against casual one-night stands, first focusing on your question about casual sex vs. casual conversation: Sex contains risks (S.T.D.'s and unwanted pregnancy) and responsibilities (birth control and making sure the partner's spouse is really supposed to get off work at 10:00 pm) that are completely different from the risks (getting punched in the nose) and responsibilities (not calling the other person something that would provoke a punch in the nose) of conversation.

Now focusing on the argument against casual one-night stands on its own merit: I think that sexual contact is the most intimate interaction people can have. Even though a one-night stand might not seem to have consequences within the context of just that contact, it can present emotional consequences down the road. For example, you finally meet the person of your dreams. "Hey, guess what? I've screwed the cheerleader squad! But you're the one I care about!" "Oh, Beevis! Take me in your arms!" Oh, and there are still the issues of risks and consequences.

-David

[Onion Knight]

Good luck to you, Jaques.

[Taeblewalker]

To counter the idea of sexual contact being the most intimate, there are times when sex is so meaningless, and there are times when simple conversation and sharing ideas can really make people bond in a much deeper way. Overall, though, sex usually makes the greater connection.

Oh, and Kudos to Beavis on the cheerleaders! :wink:

[Metaknight]

How did this thread get from religion to sex?

[Taeblewalker]

How did this thread get from religion to sex?

I'm just the last link in a chain!

[jaques]

Well, I doubt that a society can collectively make better choices on what to do with money than the individual. Let's take the extreme form of your argument: Since money is an invention of society and is the creator of it through the collective efforts of its members within the context of societal interaction, then society has the right to collect all of it and distribute it accordingly.

Let me simply propose this: Since I believe there is a position that believes the debate over taxation isn't purely for selfish motives, I don't believe it's an effective example of how society is getting more selfish. Materialism and consumerism, on the other hand, might be more productive avenues that would better make your case.

So. If a proposition can be extended to an insane end, it must automatically be discarded?

And if even one proponent of a position has nonselfish motives, we must discard any suggestion that the overall movement toward that position derives from selfishness?

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. For me, living in the richest country in the world, with a standard of living greater than 95% of the people who've ever lived, it seems very selfish to say, "No! You can't have my 28% to help contribute toward the maintenance of this society!"

But maybe that's just me.

Focusing on the argument against casual one-night stands, first focusing on your question about casual sex vs. casual conversation: Sex contains risks (S.T.D.'s and unwanted pregnancy) and responsibilities (birth control and making sure the partner's spouse is really supposed to get off work at 10:00 pm) that are completely different from the risks (getting punched in the nose) and responsibilities (not calling the other person something that would provoke a punch in the nose) of conversation.

David, if you revisit my posts, you'll find that I addressed all that. I am not arguing in favor of casual sex, but against a claim that casual sex inherently constitutes "using" another person selfishly.

Now focusing on the argument against casual one-night stands on its own merit: I think that sexual contact is the most intimate interaction people can have. Even though a one-night stand might not seem to have consequences within the context of just that contact, it can present emotional consequences down the road. For example, you finally meet the person of your dreams. "Hey, guess what? I've screwed the cheerleader squad! But you're the one I care about!" "Oh, Beevis! Take me in your arms!" Oh, and there are still the issues of risks and consequences.

-David

If Person A finds casual one-night stands to be morally acceptable and Person B finds them to be morally unacceptable, then Person B is probably not the person of Person A's dreams.

Let me repeat: I am not making any claims about whether casual sex is moral or immoral, or whether it should be accepted or shunned. I am only saying that it is illogical to say that the reason it should be shunned is because it constitutes "using" another person.

[davidlhsl]

Let me repeat: I am not making any claims about whether casual sex is moral or immoral, or whether it should be accepted or shunned. I am only saying that it is illogical to say that the reason it should be shunned is because it constitutes "using" another person.

That's fair.

I won't engage the tax and money issue any further due to the fact that it takes the discussion too far off-topic. I'll simply extend to you a friendly handshake and state that I respect your contributions, even in matters where we disagree. :toast:

-David

[jaques]

I'll simply extend to you a friendly handshake and state that I respect your contributions, even in matters where we disagree. :toast:

-David

Thanks, David. I have generally found your posts to be thoughtful also.
:toast:

[soberman]

Let me repeat: I am not making any claims about whether casual sex is moral or immoral, or whether it should be accepted or shunned. I am only saying that it is illogical to say that the reason it should be shunned is because it constitutes "using" another person.

Sigh. You do realize that I, being the person who brought this topic up, never said that either. Not the reason, anyway, just a reason. Please remember that the original context of my comments regarding sex was a discussion about how selfish, or not, our society is becomming. Of cousre, I do acknowledge that, on some level, every interaction we have with other human beings benefits us in some way. Unless they are an IRS agent calling for an audit.

If you want better examples of how casual sex can be selfish...here's one: the risk many people take, getting caught up in the "heat of the moment" of bringing an unwanted child into this world. How many kids grow up with all manner of insecurities because their parents are only married out of necessity? Read: unplanned pregnancy. A lifetime of misery for 3 people in exchange for 30 minutes of physical bliss. (I'm a child of such a union, or so I believe, for what that is worth.)

Here's something I'm also surprised you aren't aware of, Jacques. Sociopaths and those with Narcissistic personality disorder both are attracted to power. Many times this takes on the form of amassing money, or collecting weapons, or abusing animals/children/partners, or becoming famous. Often times, however, part of this powerlust involves sex. Sex becomes another tool in their arsenal that they use readily, and without regards to the consequences, to control, exploit, and manipulate people. In other words, it is either as a source of power over others, or a means to the ends of even greater power, or both.

All this is far beyond what can be accomplished with a simple chat, eh? In fact, if things remained at the level of casual conversation for a significant interval when two people meet, many, many people would not get into trouble by attaching themselves to these people. If you take time to get to know a partner, and are aware of the signs that they are so disordered, you will NOT get into bed with them. And they will actually resort to increasingly more and more controlling tactics to get you to do so. (Histrionics even, or, at the extreme, murder and/or rape.) This will affirm what you've already suspected. Then you can get out before it is too late!

Oh course, the 'trouble" alluded to above paragraph takes many forms, such as the aforementiones rape/murder. Or the things I've discussed in my first example/second paragraph- unwanted pregnancy by a souless human being and a life of maritial hell. The cycle repeats. Then, these people reproduce, do a poor job at raising their children, and society decays gradually. And we sit here and debate why society is becomming more selfish. These people are evolutionary throwbacks and should not be allowed to reproduce. (read: the capacity to love is proof of evolution.)

And everyone who reads this really should be aware that these disorders are on the raise, and the behavior I've discussed is a typical feature.

Bottomline: If you can't see how casual sex differs from casual concversation, you must be an android, albeit a "fully functional" one. :wink:

[soberman]

Jacques said:
"Moral relativism" is just a bogeyman code word meant to scare people away from rationally analyzing societal mores.

The problem with arguing this with a believer is that we hold God as the source of absolute truth, and that he does not change, regardless of how society may change. Schindler upheld the truth over his society's relative truth. I do not see how this undermines the concept of moral relativism at all.

No, the problem with arguing this with certain believers is that they believe themselves to be in full possession of absolute truth, and feel that their personal set of beliefs constitute absolute truth, while all other people's beliefs constitute moral relativism.

I do hope you realize that I am not in that camp. Not sure, as you appear to be directing that at me.

Let me tell you this- Moral relativism is actually a codeword for "absolute truth". Absolute truth is sometihing that comes only from God. A believer, in my context, is someone who believes in God. Therefore, belief in God entails a belief in absolute truth that is not relative, mutable, convenient, inconvenient, in a state of quantum flux or unknowable.

I do conceede that truth does differ for each of us as a direct byproduct of being filtered througfh our own presonal schemas and perceptions. However, none of this matters to me as I still know that there is truth that is what it is regardless of me and my own notions of it. Truth is bigger than me. I need, as in "am obligated to", to look beyond myself to try and see what it really be. (Note: "be" does not depend on what your definition of "is" is.)

Still, St. Paul wrote "now we see as through a glass/mirror, darkly, but then face to face." In other words, while some things are not meant to be understod by us mere mortals, all will be revealed at the appropriate time. Rather than wait for that time, however, I have a responsibility as a believer to both myself and my Lord to dedicate my life to the search of the truth. His truth. This does not make me a "know-it-all" or "stubborn" or "smug, self-righteous, and condescending or judgmental". In fact, it makes me humble. The more you know, the more you realize that you don't know. My knowledge is truly but a grain of sand on the beach. Much of the truth is above my present capacity to preceive it. I know this.

As you'll recall, I'm the believer who came into this thread and mentioned how my personal research revealed: 1) that there is no hell and 2) that homosexuality is probably not the evil mainstream christians widely regard it to be. Heck, not that I've mentioned it before, but I've even found rather convincing Biblical proofs for the merits of social nudity that I find rather appealing. Don't bail on me now because I've [gasp!] actually had the temerity to take a moral stance! (Again, not sure if that was your intent...)

Once more with the bottomline: it is cliche', but true- if you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything. I can't see how anyone can call themself a believer and then not believe in something. Methinks you've listened to too many John Kerry campaign speeches. :wink:

As an aside- our webmaster is ScreamingTruth. His webpage makes it clear that he is a Christian. Hummmmm....does this make anyone suspect that he is of that certain type of believer. You know, the ones that believe in something? :roll:
____________________________
now playing: The Fiery Furnaces Gallowsbird's bark

[Taeblewalker]

Here is my feeling on belief. It does not refer to morals, but rather to the "myths" in religion, such as (I would include) Genesis and other creation stories, the various parables of Jesus and fables of Aesop, etc.

It doesn't really matter what you believe, as long as you don't really believe it.

I believe (!) that the stories of "how the world was made, why Coyote howls at night", etc., are just allegories for morals, in many of which we should believe. I can do without the myths (except as fantasy entertainment).

What really scares me is that people can take the parables literally and so therefore mistreat people based on things that were only meant to illustrate, not educate literally.

[Jotun]

A lifetime of misery for 3 people in exchange for 30 minutes of physical bliss.

30 minutes?! I'm definitely doing something wrong.

[soberman]

Here is my feeling on belief.

It doesn't really matter what you believe, as long as you don't really believe it.

Okay, but where does this leave truth. Something has to be the truth or else nothing is.

I guess I should point out here that some truths are situational and dependent on the circumstances- or so it seems to us. Perhaps this is why Jacques has difficulty with the concept of "absolute (as in "across the board") truth"? Again, I think this will be resolved for us in the next world.

I remember an embarrassment for christianity one time on Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect program. He asked the well-meaning female founder or representative of PSALT, a christian organization, if she would tell the Nazi's knocking at her door the truth were she to be hiding Jews and they inquired about it. Of course, since telling the truth is the highest ideal, and "the truth will set you free", she said she would. Wow.

This is probably the problem we are having with this discourse: Christians that fail to apply logic in the judicious application of their "truth" and render the absolute as a symonym for "rigid" or "unyielding". Would the truth set me free if I admitted to Nazi's I was harboring Jews just becasue they asked me and it is wrong to lie? Yes, I'd be free...of a good night's sleep for the rest of my life.

The point is- is truth able to be both absolute and situational at the same time? (Again, I believe the answer is "yes", but it is something I can't quite fathom in this limited mortal coil.) Could it be that the Nazi's simply no longer deserved the truth, as violators of The Law, and that the truth of "Thou Shalt Not Murder" trumps the truth the "The truth will set you free", even if only under this type of circumstance? If one truth can supplant another, how can we say truth is not situational?

In short, I think truth IS WHAT IT IS, which is absolute, but that this absolute, while immutable, is dependent on other variables and has an infinite number of premutations that we, as finite beings, cannot fully process. So the problem arises when we, in our limited consciousness, blindly apply the "absolute" in an "under all circumstances and across the board" manner.

This just occured to me...another reason not to believe in hell. If I did the above, which is essentially murder, becasue I was misguided and trying to do God's will...well, should I go to hell for being an idiot? :lol:


What really scares me is that people can take the parables literally and so therefore mistreat people based on things that were only meant to illustrate, not educate literally.[/quote]

I agree that the parables of the Bible are likely allegories designed to impart moral lessons. I also believe that it doesn't matter if I believe that they actually happened, so long as I learn what they are trying to teach. Moreover, I believe the the debate is pointless, so long as I have faith enough to believe that with God anything is possible. So long as my faith is strong enough to believe that the parables could have actually happened as written, what does it matter if they did or not?

If people use the Bible as justification to mistreat people, they are likely projecting something there that was not the intent.
__________________
now playing: Luscious Jackson Fever In Fever Out

[jaques]

Soberman, thanks for the extremely prolific replies to my thoughts. I think we're on very different wavelengths, because you seem to be arguing against some things I wasn't really saying -- in some cases, like the John Kerry comment, going into territory that I didn't really understand the precursor for.

(For what it's worth, I didn't listen to many Kerry speeches at all. The guy was boring as a stump, with almost as much charisma.)

Since we clearly have very different definitions for moral relativism, it probably does us no good to debate the merits of that.

As for the selfishness/sex debate, let me ask you some questions.

(1) Do you think our society does a good job of educating people on how to approach their sexuality safely and maturely?
(2) Do you think that such an education should consist simply of teaching people to stay celibate until married?
(3) Do you think our society does a good job of educating people on how to find and keep a suitable spouse?

I would propose that until 1 and 3 can be answered with a resounding "yes," people are going to be screwed up by the bad choices of their parents regardless of whether those bad choices included casual sex or not. I would further propose that if 1 and 3 could be answered with a resounding "yes," it would vastly reduce the likelihood of a person being screwed up as a result of being the product of casual sex.

[soberman]

A lifetime of misery for 3 people in exchange for 30 minutes of physical bliss.

30 minutes?! I'm definitely doing something wrong.

:lol: Check out the "Goddess Worship" instructional DVDs on Amazon! 45 and up is more like it! But...you can't be "selfish." :wink:

[soberman]

"jaques" sez:]
Soberman, thanks for the extremely prolific replies to my thoughts. I think we're on very different wavelengths, because you seem to be arguing against some things I wasn't really saying -- in some cases, like the John Kerry comment, going into territory that I didn't really understand the precursor for.

Just me being a cheeky monkey AND behind the times in one fell swoop. I just don't want to join the boy's club and pick on the woman front-runner. :wink: I guess my point was about espousing a belief and then not really holding it. Flip-flops and all.

(For what it's worth, I didn't listen to many Kerry speeches at all. The guy was boring as a stump, with almost as much charisma.)
:lol:

We are on different wavelengths- but I like you! I think some of the arguing against things you aren't really saying could be an effort on my part to find common ground between us.(?)
__________________
"wearing nothing is divine, naked is a state of mind" - L. Jackson

[jaques]

Just me being a cheeky monkey AND behind the times in one fell swoop. I just don't want to join the boy's club and pick on the woman front-runner. :wink: I guess my point was about espousing a belief and then not really holding it. Flip-flops and all.


Aieee!!!! If you're trying to find common ground with me, don't accuse John Kerry of being a flip-flopper. The fact that such an accusation stuck to him and not to Bush drives me utterly insane.

Please, please do not respond with any further discussion of the Kerry/Bush election, though. I am trying to blot the whole thing from my mind, because it was such a ghastly nightmare.

P.S. I'm off to a week at my in-laws' tomorrow. Don't know if I'll be posting while there, so please don't anyone assume I'm ignoring you if you address me and I fail to respond.

[Tiberius]

Soberman, thanks for the extremely prolific replies to my thoughts. I think we're on very different wavelengths, because you seem to be arguing against some things I wasn't really saying -- in some cases, like the John Kerry comment, going into territory that I didn't really understand the precursor for.

(For what it's worth, I didn't listen to many Kerry speeches at all. The guy was boring as a stump, with almost as much charisma.)

Since we clearly have very different definitions for moral relativism, it probably does us no good to debate the merits of that.

As for the selfishness/sex debate, let me ask you some questions.

(1) Do you think our society does a good job of educating people on how to approach their sexuality safely and maturely?
(2) Do you think that such an education should consist simply of teaching people to stay celibate until married?
(3) Do you think our society does a good job of educating people on how to find and keep a suitable spouse?

I would propose that until 1 and 3 can be answered with a resounding "yes," people are going to be screwed up by the bad choices of their parents regardless of whether those bad choices included casual sex or not. I would further propose that if 1 and 3 could be answered with a resounding "yes," it would vastly reduce the likelihood of a person being screwed up as a result of being the product of casual sex.

So I played a few games with Soberman this past weekend and he asked me if I was ever coming back to this thread, or if I had dropped out. I am just dealing with some personal life issues right now, but this post by Jaques asked a few questions that really caught my interest and I would like to share some of my thoughts.

His three questions regarding our society and the education of people having safe and mature sexual relations is a good one. And for all three I have to go with the answer depends to no. Does society teach kids to approach thier sexuality safely and maturely? Do you mean thier orientation or the dating/marraige/sex in general? Sex is prevalent in our society, in TV, magazines, media, all over the place. We are in a society that caters to your entertainment and pleasure first, responsibility second. But that said, the parents are still the biggest, or should be the biggest, influence in a child's life. They should be the ones teaching thier kids what is right and wrong, how to approach sexuality, not TV, not magazines or the media. I see too many parents allowing thier kids to watch questionable material and using that as a baby sitter instead of spending that time with thier children. There are of course exceptions to this.

I do not beleive that teaching someone only to be celibate will help matters. They need to know the right way to do things, the safe way to do things and the consequences of messing up. Diseases, unwanted pregnancies, heartache, etc. I do believe that abstinance until you are married is the best way to avoid all of that because even safe sex and then a breakup can lead to painful heartache. When you join together with someone, more than just your body comes together, I beleive your soul does too. It isnt so easy to seperate that. But just because it is the best way to avoid that, and it is what should be practiced as it would be a wonderful gift to give your future spouse (I waited for you...because you are that important to me), it doesnt mean kids are going to listen. They need to know what is at stake and if they do mess up it isnt the end of the world. They will mess up and they need to know that there is support and help and forgiveness for those people.

Do I think our society does a good job on how to find and keep a suitable spouse? Our society does not. It promotes one night stands and if it feels good, do it and do it now. So I would say no, society actually works against marraige, in my opinion. There are extremes on both sides as well. There are those who are taught that sex is evil and a sin and I dont believe that either when it is in the right context of marraige. But there are too many christian views that drag that baggage into marraige and it really hurts the relationship as well. So the real issue is dont focus on the act so much, what are the consequences and am I in a good place in my life to deal with them. Marraige is the best place and in my opinion, the only place it should be, but that isnt reality.

Overall, society may teach you to use a condem, but is that really safe sex, or just teaching you to do what you want to whoever you want because you can avoid some of the consequences?

[Jotun]

A lifetime of misery for 3 people in exchange for 30 minutes of physical bliss.

30 minutes?! I'm definitely doing something wrong.

:lol: Check out the "Goddess Worship" instructional DVDs on Amazon! 45 and up is more like it! But...you can't be "selfish." :wink:

I dunno, man. That sounds like it's going to cut into some serious World of Warcraft time.

[soberman]

A lifetime of misery for 3 people in exchange for 30 minutes of physical bliss.

30 minutes?! I'm definitely doing something wrong.

:lol: Check out the "Goddess Worship" instructional DVDs on Amazon! 45 and up is more like it! But...you can't be "selfish." :wink:

I dunno, man. That sounds like it's going to cut into some serious World of Warcraft time.

:lol: I believe Taeblewalker put it best when he called it "World of Warcrack."

Oddly enough, my nephews got off the stuff when they discovered girls. Traitors.

[theats]

*uninstalls WOW*

What are these...GIRLS... of which you speak?

[Jotun]

*uninstalls WOW*

What are these...GIRLS... of which you speak?

They're found on the elemental plateau in Nagrand. You have to be lvl 70 and have a flying mount to reach them. You also need a good day job.

[jbbnbsmith]

As for the selfishness/sex debate, let me ask you some questions.

(1) Do you think our society does a good job of educating people on how to approach their sexuality safely and maturely?
(2) Do you think that such an education should consist simply of teaching people to stay celibate until married?
(3) Do you think our society does a good job of educating people on how to find and keep a suitable spouse?

I would propose that until 1 and 3 can be answered with a resounding "yes," people are going to be screwed up by the bad choices of their parents regardless of whether those bad choices included casual sex or not. I would further propose that if 1 and 3 could be answered with a resounding "yes," it would vastly reduce the likelihood of a person being screwed up as a result of being the product of casual sex.
I'm really trying to stay out of this thread, but it keeps sucking me back in.

Based on teenage pregnancy rates, STD rates, and the divorce rate, I agree that we, as a society, are not doing a very good job with #1 and #3. Fortunately, there are many families who are doing far better!

As for #2, I do not think that sex education should consist simply of teaching people to stay celibate until marriage. However, I believe it is more than worthwhile to explain the benefits of staying celibate until marriage.

It is part of my belief system that God did not intend for us to have sexual relations outside of marriage. I teach/will teach that to my children, just as I teach them the dangers of drugs, or teach them not to steal. While I hope my children will remain celibate until marriage, they also are/will be taught about birth control and "safe sex". They are also taught that their mother and I will always love them and stand with them no matter what mistakes they make.

So while I hope my children never shoot heroine, they will be taught the dangers of sharing a needle with others. And while I hope my children never rob anyone, I will make sure they understand that the consequences are far worse if they use a gun in the robbery. And while I hope my children will remain celibate until marriage, they will understand the consequences of unprotected sex.

Edit: I just read Tiberius's post. Well said!

[Taeblewalker]

As for the selfishness/sex debate, let me ask you some questions.

(1) Do you think our society does a good job of educating people on how to approach their sexuality safely and maturely?
(2) Do you think that such an education should consist simply of teaching people to stay celibate until married?
(3) Do you think our society does a good job of educating people on how to find and keep a suitable spouse?

I would propose that until 1 and 3 can be answered with a resounding "yes," people are going to be screwed up by the bad choices of their parents regardless of whether those bad choices included casual sex or not. I would further propose that if 1 and 3 could be answered with a resounding "yes," it would vastly reduce the likelihood of a person being screwed up as a result of being the product of casual sex.
I'm really trying to stay out of this thread, but it keeps sucking me back in.

Based on teenage pregnancy rates, STD rates, and the divorce rate, I agree that we, as a society, are not doing a very good job with #1 and #3. Fortunately, there are many families who are doing far better!

As for #2, I do not think that sex education should consist simply of teaching people to stay celibate until marriage. However, I believe it is more than worthwhile to explain the benefits of staying celibate until marriage.

It is part of my belief system that God did not intend for us to have sexual relations outside of marriage. I teach/will teach that to my children, just as I teach them the dangers of drugs, or teach them not to steal. While I hope my children will remain celibate until marriage, they also are/will be taught about birth control and "safe sex". They are also taught that their mother and I will always love them and stand with them no matter what mistakes they make.

So while I hope my children never shoot heroine, they will be taught the dangers of sharing a needle with others. And while I hope my children never rob anyone, I will make sure they understand that the consequences are far worse if they use a gun in the robbery. And while I hope my children will remain celibate until marriage, they will understand the consequences of unprotected sex.

Edit: I just read Tiberius's post. Well said!

While I do not believe in God (nor anything that he intended or did not intend regarding sex outside of marriage), I agree with your points about what is sensible and what is dangerous. Also, I applaud that you will teach your children what happens when we mess up, rather than just say "Don't do it" and hope that they won't.

[Revdyer]

You all know that I believe in God and all those arcane doctrines like the Virgin Birth and miracles and the Resurrection. So, what worries me is that the United States is currently 19th in the world in infant mortality. We're losing more babies than 18 other countries! That, I believe, is bad. What do we need to do to change this?

[Jexik]

You all know that I believe in God and all those arcane doctrines like the Virgin Birth and miracles and the Resurrection. So, what worries me is that the United States is currently 19th in the world in infant mortality. We're losing more babies than 18 other countries! That, I believe, is bad. What do we need to do to change this?

I think we need more tax cuts for rich people. That should do it. Universal health care is for sissies.

That's what Jesus said, right? Screw your neighbor, papa needs a new SUV.

[Revdyer]

You all know that I believe in God and all those arcane doctrines like the Virgin Birth and miracles and the Resurrection. So, what worries me is that the United States is currently 19th in the world in infant mortality. We're losing more babies than 18 other countries! That, I believe, is bad. What do we need to do to change this?

I think we need more tax cuts for rich people. That should do it. Universal health care is for sissies.

That's what Jesus said, right? Screw your neighbor, papa needs a new SUV.Albeit flippant, your response rings truth in my ears. (Assuming the complete irony and reversal of values implicit in your post.)

[Jexik]

Yeah, I don't actually believe what I said. I like sarcasm.

What I get annoyed with is people who choose their political party based on one particular issue, and ignore everything else a given leader does. It upsets me that the party that claims to be religious has many domestic and foreign policies which are contrary to what I thought I learned in Sunday school. Basic ideas like love for your fellow man and helping the poor seem to get covered up by stances on gay marriage and abortion.

Saying that the life of an American fetus is more important than a ton of civilians halfway across the world is upsetting to me. (Or even as Rev. points out... the life of a baby here at home.)

I think I'll be quiet before I touch too many buttons.

(One thing I did learn when I took a class with Steven Levitt, that economist who wrote about how Roe v. Wade seemed to lower crime 20 years later, is that even he doesn't think it was necessarily worth it. In 1980, there was one abortion for every 2 live births. [About 1.5 million abortions in that year alone.] That's INSANE. Even if you only think a fetus is 1/100 of a human life, he's not convinced that the decrease in crime or any other positive outcomes were worth that loss of human life.)

[Onion Knight]

That is a pretty shocking statistc Rev.
Our health care system is a bloody mess, that is for sure.
IMO, I don't see how universal coverage really solves anything, though. Babies aren't being turned away from medical treatment in America.

You may find this article somewhat enlightening.
http://www.slate.com/id/2161899/

The real problem with Health Care lies in the cost. If we can get costs down, then more people will have access. Government involvement in anything NEVER results in costs going down. Doctors have to practice defensive medicine in order to protect themselves from lawsuits. Insurance companies callude with doctors and drug companies while having a stranglehold on the market. It may not ever be fixed. But, if laws were changed allowing people to purchase health insurance across state lines (allowing more competition,) in addition to reforming the malpractice system, we may actually get somewhere with bringing down costs.

As to political parties and abortions, It seems to me that the life of every fetus is just as important as a ton of civilians halfway across the world.

(And we need more tax cuts for all people.):wink:

[Revdyer]

I don't think I said a word about universal healthcare. I would be much more inclined to think that a concerted effort at pre-natal education and care would be more efficacious. It is the lack of knowledge and desire and ability to get care in the parents-to-be (both father and mother) that is the cause of that sad infant mortality statistic, I think.

[Onion Knight]

I don't think I said a word about universal healthcare. I would be much more inclined to think that a concerted effort at pre-natal education and care would be more efficacious. It is the lack of knowledge and desire and ability to get care in the parents-to-be (both father and mother) that is the cause of that sad infant mortality statistic, I think.
Sorry, if I misunderstood.
Jexik mentioned it and I thought you agreed. I was just commenting on the opinion of government health care (which he brought it up.)

[Jexik]

I think he was mostly agreeing with the concept that you shouldn't try to screw over your neighbors for your own gain, whether or not any of the policies I alluded to would actually achieve that goal.

[Onion Knight]

:oops:

Aw, screw my neighbor!

[Taeblewalker]

:oops:

Aw, screw my neighbor!

Maybe that's why we have so many babies (and fetuses!) :wink:

Health care aimed at educating people about birth control might help avoid the entire issue of abortion.

[thezandcshow]

I'm an atheist, but Christmas is the most important holiday for me, so I said Christian. :oops:

[Taeblewalker]

I'm an atheist, but Christmas is the most important holiday for me, so I said Christian. :oops:

I'm an atheist, but National Heroscape Day is the most important holiday for me, so I said Scaper. :lol:

[theats]

I'm an atheist, but Christmas is the most important holiday for me, so I said Christian. :oops:

I'm an atheist, but National Heroscape Day is the most important holiday for me, so I said Scaper. :lol:
:D

[Snotwalker 8000]

Not to turn this into a Republican vs. Democrat/Socialist thread, but to perhaps help point out a difference in the two different philosophical approaches to the recent topic of "good". Some here are trying to portray Republicans as heartless money-grabbers and Democrats as sympathetic bleeding hearts.

Here's the big difference in the approach to helping one's neighbors:

Democrat: Give a man a fish.
Republican: Teach a man to fish.

Both approaches are caring, helpful, and "good" ways to assist one's neighbor. However, I personally believe that "teaching a man to fish" is the MORE compassionate method, since it gives him back his dignity, allows him to be productive, and also gives him the opportunity to help someone else too, versus always living in an entitlement/victim mentality.

Both sides of the aisle approach the topics of healthcare, poverty, etc. from a desire to do what's right. They just approach it differently. I see the primary difference as one's giving a hand-out, while the other's giving a hand-up. There's a time and place for both.

And on the topic of healthcare, I personally don't want a large Governmental Bureaucracy controlling my healthcare. Socialized government-controlled medicine DOENS'T WORK. Look at the collapse of Walter-Reed Hospital. It was a mess because it was a hospital ran by the government. But I digress.

[jaques]

Here's the big difference in the approach to helping one's neighbors:

Democrat: Give a man a fish.
Republican: Teach a man to fish.


SW8k, if this were true, I'd be first in line to vote Republican. But it's not. The reality looks more like this:

Democrat: Let's try, uh, giving out some fish, and, uh, I guess establish some regulations about where and when to fish, and, uh, allow them to fill out some crazy triplicate forms, assuming they know how to get the forms, that will give them a tax break for tuition if they take classes on how to fish, and, uh, debate over whether to offer some fishing scholarships.
Republican: Let 'em starve. Sooner or later, they'll figure out how to fish.

Given that reality, the Democratic approach is superior in my view, although clearly not ideal.

[Snotwalker 8000]

Here's the big difference in the approach to helping one's neighbors:

Democrat: Give a man a fish.
Republican: Teach a man to fish.


SW8k, if this were true, I'd be first in line to vote Republican. But it's not. The reality looks more like this:

Democrat: Let's try, uh, giving out some fish, and, uh, I guess establish some regulations about where and when to fish, and, uh, allow them to fill out some crazy triplicate forms, assuming they know how to get the forms, that will give them a tax break for tuition if they take classes on how to fish, and, uh, debate over whether to offer some fishing scholarships.
Republican: Let 'em starve. Sooner or later, they'll figure out how to fish.

Given that reality, the Democratic approach is superior in my view, although clearly not ideal.

jaques, if you really, truly believe that, then I'd encourage you to avoid any further contact with the vitriolic MoveOn.org crowd. :wink: This sort of mudslinging, labeling, and character-attacking isn't productive. I strongly disagree with the enabling, entitlement, and DIS-incentives that the Democrat approach creates in society, (as all Socialist programs do)but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that the Democrats do this out of selfish reasons, (trap people into government dependency, e.g.). I see both sides as having good intentions in their approaches.

For example, it was a combined effort between Republican-controlled congress and Bill Clinton that led to reform for the "Welfare-to-Work" program, helping to provide vocational assistance and incentives for long-term welfare individuals to become gainfully employed and self-sufficient. Both my wife and I worked with that population in assisting them with that goal. Some were very successful and secured benefited full-time positions that provided for themselves and/or family, getting off of welfare. Others openly admitted to us that they didn't want to work, we couldn't make them work, and that their friends/family would actually ridicule them if they got a job... Why? Because why work for "the man" when you can get money, food, and housing for free? They knew how to play the system. They couldn't keep it up forever, but they knew how to milk the system for as long as possible.

I saw that mentality and excuse from a lot of welfare people I worked with in the Chicago area. But I also saw many who wanted off welfare, and just needed vocational and financial incentives to do so.

I'm a Republican and a Certified Vocational Counselor. I teach people to fish. I never say or think "let 'em starve". But I do want us to continue to remove the shackles that a Socialist/Entitlement/Hand-Out State creates in some circles.

Comments like "Republicans believe "let 'em starve" is both untrue, and only encourages more blind hatred and misunderstanding. There are good intentions on both sides. I disagree with the Democrat approach, but I won't question their compassion for others because of it.

:grouphug:

[jaques]

Here's the big difference in the approach to helping one's neighbors:

Democrat: Give a man a fish.
Republican: Teach a man to fish.


SW8k, if this were true, I'd be first in line to vote Republican. But it's not. The reality looks more like this:

Democrat: Let's try, uh, giving out some fish, and, uh, I guess establish some regulations about where and when to fish, and, uh, allow them to fill out some crazy triplicate forms, assuming they know how to get the forms, that will give them a tax break for tuition if they take classes on how to fish, and, uh, debate over whether to offer some fishing scholarships.
Republican: Let 'em starve. Sooner or later, they'll figure out how to fish.

Given that reality, the Democratic approach is superior in my view, although clearly not ideal.

jaques, if you really, truly believe that, then I'd encourage you to avoid any further contact with the vitriolic MoveOn.org crowd. :wink: This sort of mudslinging, labeling, and character-attacking isn't productive. I strongly disagree with the enabling, entitlement, and DIS-incentives that the Democrat approach creates in society, (as all Socialist programs do)but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that the Democrats do this out of selfish reasons, (trap people into government dependency, e.g.). I see both sides as having good intentions in their approaches.

For example, it was a combined effort between Republican-controlled congress and Bill Clinton that led to reform for the "Welfare-to-Work" program, helping to provide vocational assistance and incentives for long-term welfare individuals to become gainfully employed and self-sufficient. Both my wife and I worked with that population in assisting them with that goal. Some were very successful and secured benefited full-time positions that provided for themselves and/or family, getting off of welfare. Others openly admitted to us that they didn't want to work, we couldn't make them work, and that their friends/family would actually ridicule them if they got a job... Why? Because why work for "the man" when you can get money, food, and housing for free? They knew how to play the system. They couldn't keep it up forever, but they knew how to milk the system for as long as possible.

I saw that mentality and excuse from a lot of welfare people I worked with in the Chicago area. But I also saw many who wanted off welfare, and just needed vocational and financial incentives to do so.

I'm a Republican and a Certified Vocational Counselor. I teach people to fish. I never say or think "let 'em starve". But I do want us to continue to remove the shackles that a Socialist/Entitlement/Hand-Out State creates in some circles.

Comments like "Republicans believe "let 'em starve" is both untrue, and only encourages more blind hatred and misunderstanding. There are good intentions on both sides. I disagree with the Democrat approach, but I won't question their compassion for others because of it.

:grouphug:

Please reread your own post here, SW8k. It's full of the kind of labeling and insulting propaganda that you're now accusing me of. You start off by insinuating that my opinions are not my own, but are parroted from MoveOn.org. Then you proceed to label Democrats as Socialists and apply blanket statements that decry all Democratic programs as enabling and disincentivising.

If you want a :grouphug: you have to do more than assume good intentions on the part of the other side. You have to undertake a real attempt to understand the programs that have been proposed, on their merits, and discuss them individually instead of slandering them all across the board.

I appreciate your attempt at peacemaking, and I'm willing to meet you halfway. But I'm not going to take very many steps toward that halfway point when your posts demean and dismiss my point of view.

[Timberwolf]

I'm a Christian and proud of it. LOL

[Tiberius]

Well I dont know much about republican or democrat policies and I am pretty sure this isnt the place to get into it. Anyhow, we were discussing how do you define "Good". Well I, of course, will come from a biblical perspective as that is what my opinion and beleifs are based on.

There are two things, one is that I beleive the core of good things happens when you put the needs of others above your own needs. You are no longer motivated by self or selfish acts and thoughts and the need to serve and help others over rides that. The golden rule, do onto others as you would have them do unto you, or love others as yourself. It is all the same. Now there is nothing wrong with loving yourself, you should have a good healthy caring for yourself. I downright love myself. But you will find that doing good has to do with more than self service.

Did you ever hear the expression "God is good"? So if God = good, then who or what is God? What are other words used to describe God?

God is love. Love is good, I think most people will agree. I am not talking about eros but agape love. Agape love is the selfless sacrificial love, an example would be Jesus dieing on the cross for mankind to allow our sins to be forgiven, justified before God. This ties into the point above, about putting others needs before your own.

How about God is just. This has to do with God's holiness. Holiness is a state of purity or goodness, the absence of sin. In fact God is so just and holy that any sin coming into his presence cannot withstand this. We see many examples of that in the bible, where God's presence will come upon someone and they just drop on thier face and cannot stand to be there because thier lips or whatever are impure. God is so good, that sin cannot stand in His presence. This is a little different because it isnt something we have encountered personally, at least I have not really been in the presence of the full glory of God. It would probably kill me.

So I see good as having really three meanings, one is loving and caring for others, meeting needs and furthing what I would consider to be God's kingdom on earth, doing the work of the Lord and the work of the church. Another is a state of being being free of sin. The third I really have not spoken much on, that refers to the Genesis account. When God created stuff, he followed it up with, and he looked at what was made and saw that it was good. Good as in satisfying in God's eyes. Just the way he wants it, that sort of thing. Does that make sense?

[Snotwalker 8000]

jaques, there's a difference between disagreeing with the approach a party takes, which is fine to do, and with saying that "So and So doesn't care if X starves to death". Do you see the difference?

(and please note the wink following the moveon.org comment. tongue in cheek with a smile is there for a reason. I need to create a "no offense intended" / tongue-in-cheek / "typing this with a smile" simile... ).

Anyway, I do criticize the Democratic movement toward Socialized Healthcare (and it IS a socialized approach, is it not?), and other handout programs that DO provide disincentives. I've personally worked with the resultant fallout of entitlement and enablng in the welfare system... That's not labeling and character attacking. That's experienced fact.

If you support a Democratic approach to improving the lives of the poor, or for improving the affordability of healthcare, more power to ya. Examine their solutions and examine the Republican solutions. Absolutely vote for whichever one you see as the best for the country.

All I'm asking is that you re-examine your blanket statement that Republicans essentially don't care if so-and-so starves. BOTH sides have good intentions. We can disagree about the approach. You can argue that a particular view has bad results. But we should avoid applying EVIL INTENT ( :twisted: ) to the opposing view.

Fair enough?

If nothing else, I hope we can at least agree that both of us (whether Republican or Democrat alike) have the best intentions for our neighbors, even if we disagree on the approach taken.

:toast:

[Jotun]

Since this has gone a bit political recently, I have a question for the group. What single issue is most important to you in the next presidential election? For those who would like to do this, just choose one.

Mine would be global warming.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change just released a new report which backs up what I've been reading elsewhere. We have extremely less time to stop the increase in greenhouse gases. Seven years. By 2015 we have to have stopped the increase of gases in order to avoid the minimum of a 3.6 degree (F) increase in temperatures. Considering we probably won't get anywhere near stopping--it'll continue increasing--scientists will have to use technology (http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/192) to cool the planet.

[soberman]

Here's the big difference in the approach to helping one's neighbors:

Democrat: Give a man a fish.
Republican: Teach a man to fish.


Exactly the words I've used to describe the 2! Great! Right on!

Did Republicans create the welfare state that is New Orleans? No more than they were responsible for the storms that ravaged it.

My lovely state Dem Governor Ed Rendal, or Red End-all as I call him, has made all the state Mental Hospitals close at the rate of 1 per 2 years. I really wanted a mental health Therapy job, and I'm forced to go wipe bum at the nursing home instead. Hopefully, the locked units of the local hospitals will expand- 2 MH patients released to the community have already killed themselves.

Anyway, we have more casinos now. Creating wealth by moving money around is a fools errand, but hey!

Anyhow, lest anyone take offense- I do believe in working towards finding "common ground" for the parties. If you look at the 2 statements regarding fish the objective is the same, only the methods differ.
_________________________
now playing: Leonard Nimoy Presents Mr. Spock's Music From Outer Space

[jaques]

jaques, there's a difference between disagreeing with the approach a party takes, which is fine to do, and with saying that "So and So doesn't care if X starves to death". Do you see the difference?

(and please note the wink following the moveon.org comment. tongue in cheek with a smile is there for a reason. I need to create a "no offense intended" / tongue-in-cheek / "typing this with a smile" simile... ).

Anyway, I do criticize the Democratic movement toward Socialized Healthcare (and it IS a socialized approach, is it not?), and other handout programs that DO provide disincentives. I've personally worked with the resultant fallout of entitlement and enablng in the welfare system... That's not labeling and character attacking. That's experienced fact.

If you support a Democratic approach to improving the lives of the poor, or for improving the affordability of healthcare, more power to ya. Examine their solutions and examine the Republican solutions. Absolutely vote for whichever one you see as the best for the country.

All I'm asking is that you re-examine your blanket statement that Republicans essentially don't care if so-and-so starves. BOTH sides have good intentions. We can disagree about the approach. You can argue that a particular view has bad results. But we should avoid applying EVIL INTENT ( :twisted: ) to the opposing view.

Fair enough?

If nothing else, I hope we can at least agree that both of us (whether Republican or Democrat alike) have the best intentions for our neighbors, even if we disagree on the approach taken.

:toast:

SW8k, your "Give a man a fish/teach a man to fish" analogy was a misrepresentation of the two parties. It presents a contrast so simplistic and so obvious that only a moron would choose the "give a man a fish" alternative. So I'm sorry if I took offense where none was intended, but it sounded to me like you were calling Democrats morons.

As to universal health care, some of the proposals are more socialistic than others. I'd point out that health insurance is a socialistic method of providing health care to start with -- a means of defraying among the many the health-care costs of the few. Once you've accepted that it's problematic to force individuals to pay for their own expenses if they have the bad luck to experience a major health problem, you're faced with several alternatives.

1) An inefficient hodgepodge of government care, private health insurance, and total lack of insurance.
2) A single-payer system in which the government essentially provides health insurance to everyone.
3) True socialized medicine, in which the government owns and runs all health care providers.

To my knowledge, no one is proposing #3, and it's clear that #1 is not serving us very well. Our fellow industrialized nations have mostly adopted #2, and provide care that is about as good or better than ours for around half the cost.

Finally, let me note that I never said Republicans had "EVIL INTENT." At most, I accused them of callousness, and I will be the first to admit that one can be callous while having good intentions.

[Snotwalker 8000]

To quote Ronald Reagan: The scariest words you'll ever hear are:

"I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help you."

Aaaahhhh! Run to the hills!!!!!!

:lol:

[jaques]

To quote Ronald Reagan: The scariest words you'll ever hear are:

"I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help you."

Aaaahhhh! Run to the hills!!!!!!

:lol:

Well, I grew up an Air Force Brat, and my doctors were all government employees, so I know that's not true, and I also find it blindly derogatory to all the hard-working people who've chosen to help their fellow Americans through government service.

Sorry to be such a sour-puss, but there are certain ideas that are just so wrong-headed that no emoticon softens the blow for me.

[Jotun]

I just read an interesting quote. I believe that it's a light joke about Buddhism. "They're god is so great, he doesn't even have to exist."

[Jexik]

Democrat: Give a man a fish.
Republican: Teach a man to fish, but let's kill public education first.

Fixed.

(I know all the economic arguments against public education- I've heard them a million times. I've met some really bright economists, but they often make a lot of incorrect assumptions about tranportation costs, among other things. I just disagree that vouchers and similar programs would be nearly as successful as they claim to be at least in the short run, and would create a HUGE mess if we tried it.)

As for the actual topic of the thread- I am a Lutheran, as is my father. My mother was Jewish and converted when she married my father, but eventually went back. [They've been married happily for 40 years though.] They are both retired public school teachers. Now I guess you can see where I'm coming from. :D My girlfriend is Catholic. My upbringing has led me to believe most of what they say in the Bible, right up until the part where they say that everyone else is gonna burn in hell. It might be in there, but it just doesn't sit well with me.

I get kind of annoyed when anyone that is extremely educated or well-versed in a given field tries to tell someone else what is right for them. Biologists who think they have religious knowledge (or vice versa), or economists who think they know more about health care or teaching (when they are awful lecturers) than doctors and teachers really make me laugh. These people know their own part really well, but don't know everything.

I guess my general concept of good is two-fold. First, don't try to harm other people. (Read John Stuart Mill's On Liberty- it'll grow hair on your chest.) Secondly, try to help others. Don't try to do the second if it breaks the first rule. Also, I get annoyed by arguments that are clearly fallacious, especially moral ones, like the guy who says that he hates gay people because they are sinners, but thinks that his own pre-marital sex is A-okay. At least be consistent.

[HSisforcoolkids]

My upbringing has led me to believe most of what they say in the Bible, right up until the part where they say that everyone else is gonna burn in hell. It might be in there, but it just doesn't sit well with me.


It doesn't sit well with me either. In my study of the Bible, that is not what I have read. I get pretty frustrated when I hear Christians say things like "everyone is going to hell," or "Jesus talked more about hell than heaven." I find both of those statements egregious when held up next to the writings in the New Testament. A few posts ago the Rev said something about people being lazy with their studies. I find that too few Christians actually pick up the Bible to see what it says for themselves.

[Taeblewalker]

My upbringing has led me to believe most of what they say in the Bible, right up until the part where they say that everyone else is gonna burn in hell. It might be in there, but it just doesn't sit well with me.


It doesn't sit well with me either. In my study of the Bible, that is not what I have read. I get pretty frustrated when I hear Christians say things like "everyone is going to hell," or "Jesus talked more about hell than heaven." I find both of those statements egregious when held up next to the writings in the New Testament. A few posts ago the Rev said something about people being lazy with their studies. I find that too few Christians actually pick up the Bible to see what it says for themselves.

Amen. Although for those who do pick it up, there are some really wacky (in my opinion) things in there. Revelations will scare anyone!

[Matthias Maccabeus]

I've been trying to stay out of this thread for many reasons, the main one being that you cannot debate/argue a "religion" onto/into someone. I myself am a youth pastor and a Christian. But what does "being a Christian" really mean? Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship with Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of your life. Christianity is not a set of rules you have to follow, but it's choices that you make because of your relationship with Jesus. If we (Christians) view it as a set of "rules" than, I don't think we are getting the concept. I think that far to many "Christians" see it as rules. That's where we fail I think. That's why I respect Muslems. Their religion is their lifestyle. I wish Christians would do the same. I know that there are a lot of hypocrites in all aspects of life, but people sure do seem to watch the Christian ones the most, just waiting for them to mess up, which we all do. There's a quote by the band D.C. Talk on their Jesus Freak album (which rocks for those of you who have never heard it) that says "The single biggest cause of Aethieism (spelling) today is Christians, who acknowledge Christ with their lips, but deny him with their lifestyle.

O.K. I'm done ranting now, and yes I use heroScape to teach Biblical lessons. Oh, and I believe that if you're a Christian, then you have to believe the Bible to be infallible. I just don't think you can say both. And yes Revelations is an interesting book to read.

[thezandcshow]

Since this has gone a bit political recently, I have a question for the group. What single issue is most important to you in the next presidential election? For those who would like to do this, just choose one.

Mine would be global warming.

Me too. SAVE THE POLAR BEARS!!!
SAVE THE PENGUINS!!!
SAVE ANY FRIGGIN' ANIMAL YOU CAN!!!
:D

[Taeblewalker]

Since this has gone a bit political recently, I have a question for the group. What single issue is most important to you in the next presidential election? For those who would like to do this, just choose one.

Mine would be global warming.

Me too. SAVE THE POLAR BEARS!!!
SAVE THE PENGUINS!!!
SAVE ANY FRIGGIN' ANIMAL YOU CAN!!!
:D

Mine is rebuilding relationships with other nations (while not being soft on terrorism).

[Snotwalker 8000]

Single biggest issue? Hmmmm. Hard to narrow down, but I would rank controlling our borders as a top priority.

If we don't get a handle on our Illegal Immigration problem, then we're going to have a hard time stopping terrorists from enterning our nation too.

And just to clarify up front, I'm a big fan of LEGAL immigration. If people follow the rules and obey the laws of LEGALLY becoming a US citizen, I welcome them with open arms.

Here's a quick n' dirty ranking:

1) Illegal Immigration (can't fight terrorism if we don't control our borders)
2) War on Terror (all else is moot if we don't protect ourselves from those bent on killing us)
3) Don't kill the economy (or my pocketbook) by raising taxes. (It's proven fact that when you lower taxes, the government gets higher revenue... so why kill the economy and hurt my family budget by raising taxes on us middleclass folk?) (and yes, it's the middle class that gets hurt if Bush's tax cuts don't get renewed... That $500/kid tax cut is a HUGE help to us...)
4) Make National Heroscape Day a nationally recognized holiday. (self-explanatory :D )

[Ugly-Caco]

4) Make National Heroscape Day a nationally recognized holiday. (self-explanatory :D )
This is the one thing that all will agree on (in this thread).

[Onion Knight]

and yes, it's the middle class that gets hurt if Bush's tax cuts don't get renewed... That $500/kid tax cut is a HUGE help to us...)

That's $1000 per child, and I'm pretty sure it goes up to $1200 next year. And, I agree, it's a HUGE help. :D

[jbbnbsmith]

and yes, it's the middle class that gets hurt if Bush's tax cuts don't get renewed... That $500/kid tax cut is a HUGE help to us...)

That's $1000 per child, and I'm pretty sure it goes up to $1200 next year. And, I agree, it's a HUGE help. :D
Agreed!

I live in Maryland. Maryland, as you probably know, is very much a "blue state." Somehow we managed to have a republican governor for one term. Part of his platform was to introduce slots as a way to generate state income without raising taxes. The dems blocked it, not wanting him to have a "victory." Six years later, we have a democratic governor again, and he and the dems have already raised taxes and are introducing slots legislature. Of course, there are no corresponding cuts in government spending.

[jaques]

So what specific acts of goodness have you guys undertaken with your Bush tax cuts? I don't mean donations to church or charity that you would have made anyway, but actual, specific actions to improve the world that you have taken thanks to having more money than you would have without the tax cuts.

I'm honestly trying to bring the dialogue back on-topic here, and if you present some good examples, it will make me feel a lot better about a policy that I've always viewed as extremely short-sighted and selfish.

[Snotwalker 8000]

So what specific acts of goodness have you guys undertaken with your Bush tax cuts? I don't mean donations to church or charity that you would have made anyway, but actual, specific actions to improve the world that you have taken thanks to having more money than you would have without the tax cuts.

I'm honestly trying to bring the dialogue back on-topic here, and if you present some good examples, it will make me feel a lot better about a policy that I've always viewed as extremely short-sighted and selfish.

I never saw investing in my two beautiful children as selfish or short-sighted... quite the contrary.

I can't imagine a better way of improving the world than by raising two kind, giving, fair, loving, and someday productive members of society. Keeping our own hard-earned money to invest in those children isn't selfish. It's our responsibility.

It's more selfish a concept for someone to think they have a right to take someone else' hard-earned money to spend as they like. We freely give to charities, both time and money, and do so from a thankful heart. We pay our taxes dutifully to support our government in doing it's job of protecting us and providing us with local infrastructure. But I disagree that my 2K a year in child tax credits will be BETTER invested in improving the world by a large impersonal governmental beauracracy driven largely by political agendas, than by a loving mother and father caring and saving for their children, who are our world's future.

My :2cents: x $1,000/yr.

[jaques]

I never saw investing in my two beautiful children as selfish or short-sighted... quite the contrary.

I can't imagine a better way of improving the world than by raising two kind, giving, fair, loving, and someday productive members of society. Keeping our own hard-earned money to invest in those children isn't selfish. It's our responsibility.

It's more selfish a concept for someone to think they have a right to take someone else' hard-earned money to spend as they like. We freely give to charities, both time and money, and do so from a thankful heart. We pay our taxes dutifully to support our government in doing it's job of protecting us and providing us with local infrastructure. But I disagree that my 2K a year in child tax credits will be BETTER invested in improving the world by a large impersonal governmental beauracracy driven largely by political agendas, than by a loving mother and father caring and saving for their children, who are our world's future.

My :2cents: x $1,000/yr.

What you just told me is, "That money went straight into my budget and I don't really know where any of it went."

You do a good job of getting up on your high horse and talking about your investment in your children, but the honest truth is, you think you should be able to keep every single dime that you earn, and you don't think there's any justification for anyone taking any of it away from you. So when you're allowed to keep a little more of it, you just do with it whatever you do with the rest of your money.

I'm not even going to argue about whether you're right on that point. But I think there's a commandment somewhere that suggests maybe you ought to just come right out and say so, instead of making excuses about investing in your children.

After all, if you're a good person and a good Christian, then no matter what your financial situation, they'll probably turn out to be good, productive members of society. And if the extra two grand a year really does make the difference in how your kids turn out, what does that really say about the worth of all of your values?

[Jotun]

I'm not even going to argue about whether you're right on that point. But I think there's a commandment somewhere that suggests maybe you ought to just come right out and say so, instead of making excuses about investing in your children.

I don't think he was lying. I believe he just didn't know you wanted to see the receipt.

[jaques]

I'm not even going to argue about whether you're right on that point. But I think there's a commandment somewhere that suggests maybe you ought to just come right out and say so, instead of making excuses about investing in your children.

I don't think he was lying. I believe he just didn't you wanted to see the receipt.

Thanks for trying to rein me in, Jotun. The previous post was possibly one of the ugliest I have written, and I'm unhappy that this whole subject makes me upset enough to behave this way.

[Taeblewalker]

I'm not even going to argue about whether you're right on that point. But I think there's a commandment somewhere that suggests maybe you ought to just come right out and say so, instead of making excuses about investing in your children.

I don't think he was lying. I believe he just didn't you wanted to see the receipt.

Thanks for trying to rein me in, Jotun. The previous post was possibly one of the ugliest I have written, and I'm unhappy that this whole subject makes me upset enough to behave this way.

Back on topic, it is "good" that people make the effort to see when they were upset and try to refocus their mood. No worries!

[jaques]

Good thoughts, Taeblewalker. I'd go a step further and say it's a better idea that, when one recognizes that a situation is intrinsically likely to cause anger, one should take care going into it and keep a lid on one's emotions.

SW8k, I definitely owe you an apology. I recognized that fact pretty quickly after posting, but I had to wait a while to calm down so that I would actually feel like I meant it, as opposed to just saying it because I thought I "ought" to.

Anyway, I'm sorry, and I'll try to hold myself to a higher standard of conduct in the future.

[Snotwalker 8000]

I never saw investing in my two beautiful children as selfish or short-sighted... quite the contrary.

I can't imagine a better way of improving the world than by raising two kind, giving, fair, loving, and someday productive members of society. Keeping our own hard-earned money to invest in those children isn't selfish. It's our responsibility.

It's more selfish a concept for someone to think they have a right to take someone else' hard-earned money to spend as they like. We freely give to charities, both time and money, and do so from a thankful heart. We pay our taxes dutifully to support our government in doing it's job of protecting us and providing us with local infrastructure. But I disagree that my 2K a year in child tax credits will be BETTER invested in improving the world by a large impersonal governmental beauracracy driven largely by political agendas, than by a loving mother and father caring and saving for their children, who are our world's future.

My :2cents: x $1,000/yr.

What you just told me is, "That money went straight into my budget and I don't really know where any of it went."

You do a good job of getting up on your high horse and talking about your investment in your children, but the honest truth is, you think you should be able to keep every single dime that you earn, and you don't think there's any justification for anyone taking any of it away from you. So when you're allowed to keep a little more of it, you just do with it whatever you do with the rest of your money.

Please reread my post, particularly this sentence: "We pay our taxes dutifully to support our government in doing it's job of protecting us and providing us with local infrastructure." So obviously I see justification for reasonable taxes to support our nation's government in doing its consitutional duty. But I don't see justification for someone else to believe that the government will know better how to invest in my children than I do. Or that the government will be a better steward of my money.

And it sadly appears that you are only interested in throwing out baseless character attacks instead of discussing our different views. Instead of arguing your beliefs on their merits, you accuse me of lying. Instead of explaining how you believe that the government is better at wisely investing our money than we are, you want to instead question my personal values and my walk with God.

I love discussing various views, and better understanding why people believe what they believe. But I always try my best to do so in a respectful manner, though sometimes I do stumble a bit here and there. But this last post of yours added nothing to the discussion other than to personally attack and accuse my values and beliefs.

Here, feel free to slap my other cheek now.

Later guys.

[Snotwalker 8000]

Jacques, just saw your post you must have posted while I was posting.

apology accepted. But I'm still bowing out of this thread for now. I'll most likely pop back in in a few weeks to see where it's headed. But once this type of thread starts to get personal, even in temporary moments of anger, it's time to head to cooler fields for a bit.

Best wishes to ya.