Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I used to be a Republican when they believed in and stood for balanced budgets and small government. George W. Bush doubled the national debt, expanded government by 15% and ran the economy into a ditch. I'll never vote Republican again as long as I live.
I'm a miltant agnostic. I don't know and you don't either!
I'm almost stunned this is your comeback. Enough so I'm going to concede much of what I'm about to say really doesn't involve religion.
Surely you aren't saying that in all cases poor people can just "work hard" and fix it? That there are never factors beyond one's control. That no one ever needs to rely on charity? That helping people is for suckers or something? Surely you don't mean something that callous?
I'm Republican-leaning myself, but fact of the matter is there are times people need help. What if a person's poor and mentally ill? Or poor due to high medical costs from a rare condition. Or even addicted to drugs? What do you say then? What do you say when the person's trapped in a corrupt and impoverished society like Bangladesh or certain Sioux Indian Reservations?
There are weak and vulnerable people who need help. As I said I'm putting the religious thing on hold for a second. I think a thoroughly secular social-worker type would agree with me there are some people who need to rely on charity. Or on the aid of others in some sense. What do you think mental institutions and rehab facilities are? (Most psychiatrists are irreligious so this should show I'm diverting from the religion/irreligion discussion for this) Do you think people can just pull themselves up from schizophrenia by their bootstraps? Or even if it's something else, even if it's just living in Clay County, Kentucky. Do you really think it's that simple?
My Republican sympathies might say the government doesn't need to provide all the aid I mean, but I think someone needs to help someone. Going back to the religious deal a bit even if I was a total atheist I think I could get "an ecology of help", as Nancy Kress once called it, from humanism and empathy alone. (Granted I do think Christianity, properly understood, does a better job of encouraging this desire to help the most vulnerable)
If history shows us anything, its that the only way to secure your way out of the gutter, is to pull yourself up, clean your self off, and try again, harder.
Not everyone makes it, its a tough world. However, for those who do make it, God isn't the driving force behind it.
Since the overwhelming part of the world is downtroden, poor, and living in what could be compared to a state of slavery, if God gets credit for the good, he should also get credit for the bad.
You're skipping over a good deal to get to that. Like the part where those who feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, show hospitality to strangers, visit the sick, and visit prisoners gain eternal bliss. Or about giving all your possessions, not for building costs, but to help the poor and needy. The people like Francis of Assisi, Karl Barth, Dorothy Day, Katharine Drexel, Cicely Saunders, William Wilberforce, etc.
Oh you mean the hollow rhetoric about being charitable, not the reality of mega building funds, trips and perks, and jewelry and expensive cars and kept women all paid for by the tithing of the sheep. I stand corrected
Yes, there are some churches, religious groups that are charitable, but for the majority I think the phrase "charity begins at home" is far more accurate.
[quote=Asheville Native;11040521]
there are some churches, religious groups that are charitable quote]
Yep...after the preacher's salary, home and travel expenses are paid and the building fund, maintenance staff, pews, steeples, carpeting, stained glass, musical instrunents, sound systems, etc. are paid for if there's anything left after anteing up to the convention and missionary work the needy can share from whatever there is remaining.
Now, I should say, I am quite unique among everyone I know in my feelings towards Santa. I believed in him as a child because I had perfect trust in my mom, and she had led me to believe he was real. I was devastated when I found out he wasn't real, not because I cared that much about Santa, but because my mom (whom I loved and trusted) lied to me about Santa's existence. I felt so betrayed. It was my introduction to the cold, harsh world; a world in which I could not even trust my mom who seemed so loving and good-hearted. I vowed that I would never lead my kids to believe that Santa was real. I don't want to do anything purposefully, that would make them feel betrayed by me. [OK, so I am neurotic about it, but that is how I feel].
Now, I should say, I am quite unique among everyone I know in my feelings towards Santa. I believed in him as a child because I had perfect trust in my mom, and she had led me to believe he was real. I was devastated when I found out he wasn't real, not because I cared that much about Santa, but because my mom (whom I loved and trusted) lied to me about Santa's existence. I felt so betrayed. It was my introduction to the cold, harsh world; a world in which I could not even trust my mom who seemed so loving and good-hearted. I vowed that I would never lead my kids to believe that Santa was real. I don't want to do anything purposefully, that would make them feel betrayed by me. [OK, so I am neurotic about it, but that is how I feel].
When I was a child in the 1930's Montgomery Ward and Sears were the big promoters of Santa. Now it's Target, Walmart and Best Buy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.