twa Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 Uh, it isn't the Democrats who keep passing anti-abortion bills Well you are right there:D .....:poke: On the verification bit... The White house has now recognized the need for a verification of alien status of some sort...Now;) Strange how they recognized some might have thought otherwise...must be empaths:silly: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 innocent until proven guilty, and dead men can't be proven guilty, so he was in fact legally innocent He was judged otherwise...now we await to see if his judge remained innocent;) I don't know, I kind of like Churches I think taking tax exemption away would hurt them too much I think taking it away would create pressure for tax reform,as well as perhaps return them to their primary mission(which I feel most neglect) The whole non-profit system is corrupted imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 What? I actually lol at that comment and thought it was spectacular in how articulately succinct it was. now you just confusing me but no worries I still have a large dislike for the GOP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 Well you are right there:D .....:poke: My entire statement was right. Not just the part you don't want to hide from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 As for the previous "who donates more question" does donating money to things like the 700 club count as charity? Maybe the conservative religious organizations just have stronger charity networks? Previous posts stated if you discount all charitable contributions to Religious Organizations (for example the Salvation Army) Liberals contribute slightly more than Religious Conservatives. However if you then discount Liberal contributions to University foundations (ie the Harvard foundation) then you end up with Conservatives giving substantailly more (Bulk of liberal charities is to those foundations). Bottomline is that Religious conservatives do far more for the poor than liberals, so it probably wasn't smart of the OP to go down the track he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 My entire statement was right. Not just the part you don't want to hide from. The last part is rather iffy....just picking.no need to break out the underlines Gotta work...later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 Previous posts stated if you discount all charitable contributions to Religious Organizations (for example the Salvation Army) Liberals contribute slightly more than Religious Conservatives. However if you then discount Liberal contributions to University foundations (ie the Harvard foundation) then you end up with Conservatives giving substantailly more (Bulk of liberal charities is to those foundations). Bottomline is that Religious conservatives do far more for the poor than liberals, so it probably wasn't smart of the OP to go down the track he did. The only problem is that the problem exceeds the giving, especially when only 23% of giving is directed to the poor. The scope of the problem is far greater than the response that we are seeing from the Religious and the Secularists combined. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117565580732059314.html?mod=todays_us_opinion So we can parade around how much better we are doing than the other guy, but the reality is that neither side is making a real dent, and that's not something we should be taking pride in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 Okaaay...:fortune:...I'm getting something...what's that? You've seen the light! Excellent, I'm glad we were able to convince you to get on board with Obamacare. It's interesting. My guess is that everybody here probably assumes I'm against nationalized health insurance, because I'm an evangelical Christian and a libertarian, but I've never announced my position. All I did was take exception to one particular line of reasoning, and I've been known to do that even when the reasoning supports something I agree with. I do think this is one of those issues where an actual friendly relationship with the involved parties could go a long way to avoid any misunderstandings, and a lot of the vitriol. I wonder again, for instance, how many of the people objecting to the religious right actually personally know and are on friendly terms with anybody in the religious right in real life. I'm an evangelical, so many of my friends and acquaintances at church are members of the religious right (and, as I said, my circle includes some of the bigger players on the Hill), and while I don't always agree with them, I can tell you that they are generally sincere individuals that pursue policies that they genuinely believe are the best for this country. They are not hypocrites, and they are not selfish ****s (at least that I can tell). I'm a teacher, so many of my friends and acquaintances at work are liberals, and while I don't always agree with them, I can tell you that they are generally sincere individuals that pursue policies that they genuinely believe are the best for this country. They are not hypocrites, and they are not power hungry maniacs trying to use the poor as a means to gain control over everybody's life (at least that I can tell). I suspect a little real life interaction (not at a protest yelling at each other) could go a long way here, though it's hard, because people always have a tendency to self-segregate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 I wonder again, for instance, how many of the people objecting to the religious right actually personally know and are on friendly terms with anybody in the religious right in real life. :ciao: Me, but then it kinda goes with the territory in my line of work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 :ciao:Me, but then it kinda goes with the territory in my line of work. And in your region of the country. I specifically didn't mention you (though I thought about it), but I'm chalking some of your more intemperate comments up to your tendency (which I've seen you admit) to get overly emotional, plus you've got the whole "passion of the converted" thing going on. What can I say? I tend to see the best in people. *EDIT*I should also specify that I'm not talking about objecting to the religious right or their policies in general (heck, I love to argue with them myself), but rather some of the implications (or even explicit statements) being made about them and their internal thoughts and motivations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 I'm a teacher, so many of my friends and acquaintances at work are liberals, and while I don't always agree with them, I can tell you that they are generally sincere individuals that pursue policies that they genuinely believe are the best for this country. They are not hypocrites, and they are not power hungry maniacs trying to use the poor as a means to gain control over everybody's life (at least that I can tell). Having genuine beliefs does not exclude the possibility of also being a hypocrite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 Having genuine beliefs does not exclude the possibility of also being a hypocrite It does when the supposed hypocrisy involves a supposed conflict between two of those beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 It does when the supposed hypocrisy involves a supposed conflict between two of those beliefs. One can hold genuine beliefs without feeling obligated to make sure that those beliefs are not contradictory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 And in your region of the country. I specifically didn't mention you (though I thought about it), but I'm chalking some of your more intemperate comments up to your tendency (which I've seen you admit) to get overly emotional, plus you've got the whole "passion of the converted" thing going on. What can I say? I tend to see the best in people. I talk a big game and when in debate like here or with others who are adequately versed on the issues I typically don't hold back much because this is pretty much a open exchange debate. We had a forum like this when I was in seminary and we'd beat each other up all the time over these issues on the forum and then go out and have lunch with each other right after. We know we disagree on certain issues, but we like each other in spite of those differences, and we weren't afraid to call each other to task either which was probably the best part. Some students didn't like the environment because they attached their feelings to their beliefs and when their beliefs were challenged they took it personally. The question is typically asked of me; would you discuss things like this with your church members? My answer is no, and that's because the environment is completely different; however it must be noted that my opinions don't change I just typically take a different tone because in that situation its not a chess match like a lot of our discussions here. Plus here I get to play with the rhetoric, and those are the times when it appears I'm being a bit intemperate. As for the "passion of the converted" yeah, that drove my conservative friends loony. They would routinely say things like, "there is nothing more annoying than a former anything." Mostly it was because I knew their playbook. I look at it this way. There isn't a single thing that I've discussed on this board or disagreed with others that would keep me from meeting anyone of ya'll for a beer. Do we disagree? Sure. Do we sometimes passionately disagree? You bet. But does that mean that I dislike anyone who passionately disagrees with me? Not a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 One can hold genuine beliefs without feeling obligated to make sure that those beliefs are not contradictory. Yep, but they had just better be prepared to be called out when those unresolved contradictions make themselves public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 One can hold genuine beliefs without feeling obligated to make sure that those beliefs are not contradictory. That's an interesting semantic question. If I hold two beliefs, and I genuinely believe they are not contradictory, but in actuality they are (and thus at least one must be false), am I actually a hypocrite? I'd argue no, and that a person must at some level be aware of what he's doing in order to be a hypocrite. Otherwise, he's just deluded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 That's an interesting semantic question. If I hold two beliefs, and I genuinely believe they are not contradictory, but in actuality they are (and thus at least one must be false), am I actually a hypocrite?I'd argue no, and that a person must at some level be aware of what he's doing in order to be a hypocrite. Otherwise, he's just deluded. I think I understand where you're going with this; hypocrisy entails intentionality, if said contradiction is unintentional then the person is just delusional. I might have chosen a different word than delusional maybe; confused, contradictory, or illogical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 That's an interesting semantic question. If I hold two beliefs, and I genuinely believe they are not contradictory, but in actuality they are (and thus at least one must be false), am I actually a hypocrite?I'd argue no, and that a person must at some level be aware of what he's doing in order to be a hypocrite. Otherwise, he's just deluded. Human mind is a very flexible organ. It is very capable of keeping itself unaware of things that make it uncomfortable. Awareness is a shaky concept... Maybe a necessary property of a hypocrite is the unwillingness to examine beliefs for hypocrisies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 Human mind is a very flexible organ. It is very capable of keeping itself unaware of things that make it uncomfortable. See I'm not sure that we actually live with contradictions in our lives as far as in how we actually live, because I think a lot of the decisions we make are made by what works for us right now without giving thought to the larger implications. So, even if there are larger philosophical contradictions in our lives, I think we are able and willing to live with those so long as our lives work practically for our own benefit. jus thinkin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 I might have chosen a different word than delusional maybe; confused, contradictory, or illogical. You haven't minced words so far, why start now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 See I'm not sure that we actually live with contradictions in our lives as far as in how we actually live, because I think a lot of the decisions we make are made by what works for us right now without giving thought to the larger implications. So, even if there are larger philosophical contradictions in our lives, I think we are able and willing to live with those so long as our lives work practically for our own benefit.jus thinkin' Maybe it comes down to the way one deals with these implications... Certainly it's difficult, if not impossible, to live a daily life while worrying about these things. One way of dealing with them would be to push them far and away. My preferred approach is to slowly take them on, not pushing them away but also not trying to do them all at once. Yes I know that I could use less paper towels and that maybe some day I will stop eating animals. Those are the things I know I need to change, but I'm not yet ready for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 You haven't minced words so far, why start now? LoL! touche. As for this debate, I don't think the leaders "Christian Right" to whom I am addressing are delusional or confused at all. I think they know very well what they are doing, which is what aggravates me the most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 Maybe it comes down to the way one deals with these implications... Certainly it's difficult, if not impossible, to live a daily life while worrying about these things. One way of dealing with them would be to push them far and away. My preferred approach is to slowly take them on, not pushing them away but also not trying to do them all at once. Yes I know that I could use less paper towels and that maybe some day I will stop eating animals. Those are the things I know I need to change, but I'm not yet ready for that. Agreed, (except I'm not gonna stop eating animals ) although I'm not certain that everyone carries around the level of self awareness that you're suggesting. I think it is a lot more about the practical day to day living, like going green; if it costs less or saves us money we typically do it without question although we don't all go to the same extent because we like to maintain the level of comfort so if its seamless we do it, but if we view it as impractical we don't even if its contradictory to our stated beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 It's interesting. My guess is that everybody here probably assumes I'm against nationalized health insurance, because I'm an evangelical Christian and a libertarian, but I've never announced my position.All I did was take exception to one particular line of reasoning, and I've been known to do that even when the reasoning supports something I agree with. I know that feeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 Agreed, (except I'm not gonna stop eating animals ) although I'm not certain that everyone carries around the level of self awareness that you're suggesting. I think it is a lot more about the practical day to day living, like going green; if it costs less or saves us money we typically do it without question although we don't all go to the same extent because we like to maintain the level of comfort so if its seamless we do it, but if we view it as impractical we don't even if its contradictory to our stated beliefs. Here is an example... I am doing much more recycling now compared to what I was doing just a little while ago. The difference is that I now live in a place where all recyclables are picked up in one container, so there is no need for sorting. Before I moved, it looked like my options were: 1) Recycle more and suffer more pain or 2) Recycle less and suffer less pain. Now, thinking about it looking back, I also had the option of 3) Get in touch with city govt and make it so unified recycling becomes available. We all influence each others choices. Another example is "fair trade" stuff. I don't mind paying a little bit more for "fair trade" goods. If I live in a place where "fair trade" goods are less common, the price difference will be larger. If I live in a place where there's a lot of demand for "fair trad" goods, the price difference will be lower. It is very important to have right processes in place... being organized is a way to facilitate a choice to clean up. Cleaning up becomes a painful monstrous task if one is not properly organized. It seems people tend associate the "right" choice with pain. It does not have to be that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.