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.
And you are the one talking about context? If Jesus was so anti-capitalistic then why did He break bread with wealthy people like Zacchaeus? He certainly didn't rebuke him for having possessions. But most scripture is there to teach us a lesson as here.
Jesus isn't saying that you must give up all possessions to be a Christian here. He is illustrating a point to the young rich man. The man was looking for an easy way to get in heaven by doing something like obeying the basic commandments. But Jesus is showing that we can't earn our way to heaven by doing actions. He is proposing a nearly impossible standard. Salvation is earned by a change in heart and surrender of one's self desires and control completely to God. Jesus is showing why none of us are perfect. The young man didn't have a changed heart. His possessions was his god.
And what did Zacchaeus say to JESUS? Here is the WHOLE STORY---
Then Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, ‘Look, Lord, I give half of my goods to the poor; and if I have taken anything from anyone by false accusation, I restore fourfold.’”
Sure, still sounds a lot like a socialist commune to me..
Enjoy those riches, and beware of the eye-of-the-needle..
So, let's see, we have progressed from working children in deep coal mines to having child labor laws.
Moral decline?
We have reached the point (sort of), that just about everyone can afford some sort of health care.
Moral decline?
We let women vote--OMG and even hold political office.
Moral decline?
The airwaves are filled 24/7 with somebody preaching some aspect of christianity.
Moral decline? (Possibly--depending on the message)
We are just now beginning to see the value of protecting the environment.
Moral decline? (Only perhaps because we may have waited too late---for which we may thank conservative politicians elected by religious people)
Sociologist Robert Nisbet finds that "No single idea has been more important than...the Idea of Progress in Western civilization for three thousand years.", and defines five "crucial premises" of Idea of Progress:
value of the past,
nobility of Western civilization,
worth of economic/technological growth,
faith in reason and scientific/scholarly knowledge obtained through reason,
It looks like you don't understand the distinction between quality of life and moral epistemology.
You don't count women voting as moral? Just "quality of life." Health care for all is quality of life, but refusal to provide it when it is entirely possible is not moral ineptitude?
And you are the one talking about context? If Jesus was so anti-capitalistic then why did He break bread with wealthy people like Zacchaeus? He certainly didn't rebuke him for having possessions. But most scripture is there to teach us a lesson as here.
Jesus isn't saying that you must give up all possessions to be a Christian here. He is illustrating a point to the young rich man. The man was looking for an easy way to get in heaven by doing something like obeying the basic commandments. But Jesus is showing that we can't earn our way to heaven by doing actions. He is proposing a nearly impossible standard. Salvation is earned by a change in heart and surrender of one's self desires and control completely to God. Jesus is showing why none of us are perfect. The young man didn't have a changed heart. His possessions was his god.
His first century followers rejected His teaching if He was a capitalist.
Quote:
And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.…
Acts 2:44-45a
Quote:
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had
. Acts 4:32
Clearly you don't read scripture carefully or dismiss the parts you don't like--as you have accused us liberals of doing!!!
Health care for all is quality of life, but refusal to provide it when it is entirely possible is not moral ineptitude?
How very quaint.
Healthcare for all is quality of life.
Refusal to provide help to the needy is moral neglect.
The two concepts are not synonymous. One is a fact-based idea that is measurable empirically, and thus nothing to do with ethics (by Hume's Law). The other concerns values systems insofar as it concerns a moral right or moral wrong, and can't be quantified empirically.
Sounds like he's a moral utilitarian and conflates the two.
If it isn't being acted out in public life, then all the "belief" in the world is of no account.
Try reading God's Politics by Jim Wallis. Although at least ten or more years old, it certainly highlights how the faith life should be put into political action or it isn't faith life.
Quote:
Jim Wallis argues that America's separation of church and state does not require banishing moral and religious values from the public square. God's Politics offers a vision for how to convert spiritual values into real social change and has started a grassroots movement to hold our political leaders accountable by incorporating our deepest convictions about war, poverty, racism, abortion, capital punishment, and other moral issues into our nation's public life. Who can change the political wind? Only we can.
Health care for all is not a "moral" issue if it is impossible to incorporate it financially. But with every European country and quite a few others--even Taiwan--able to do so, the United States failure to accomplish such is a MORAL FAILURE of the first degree--particularly if we can stay engaged in one form of warfare or another all over the world.
MY value system includes health care for all--at least in this nation--then looking to spread it everywhere--just like the gospel.
By the way, there were scores of physician missionaries who understood health care as a method of spreading the gospel---and Jesus gave away health--for FREE!
Health care for all is not a "moral" issue if it is impossible to incorporate it financially. But with every European country and quite a few others--even Taiwan--able to do so, the United States failure to accomplish such is a MORAL FAILURE of the first degree--particularly if we can stay engaged in one form of warfare or another all over the world.
MY value system includes health care for all--at least in this nation--then looking to spread it everywhere--just like the gospel.
By the way, there were scores of physician missionaries who understood health care as a method of spreading the gospel---and Jesus gave away health--for FREE!
Sorry but you've not understood the subject matter. Without some formal reading in normative ethics this can take an afternoon or so to explain. It's also beyond the scope of the thread.
Last edited by Hightower72; 07-20-2015 at 11:22 PM..
I don't see how having a definite date is necessary to argue that a moral decline exists.
It doesn't, but since you have not offered any other arguments that a moral decline exists, except to declare there is one.... I am not sure what you feel is necessary. But it certainly is nothing you presented so far.
What the lack of date DOES do however is simply, as I said in my previous post, make you look like one of those "The End Is Nigh" placard holders. It is just vague, timeless, ongoing, bemoaning the future. And your false accusations about moral decay and the like, you are doing little more than declaring your hatred for your own country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Really, then do explain how you would measure a decline in morality.
You are the one declaring such a thing is happening, so it is YOUR measure that is important here, not ours. So by all means present one. So far your "measure" appears to be to cherry pick specific events and declare they are representative of the whole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
The negatives like suicide and bullying remain.
Then the issue is bullying. And we should be addressing that, not homosexuality. But of course your homosexuality narrative loves the bullies, because it gives you a false argument against homosexuality. That people are being bullied for X is not an argument against X. At all. You like to pretend otherwise.
If bullying is happening then this has NOTHING to do with with the merits or demerits of homosexuality. Lets indict the bullies. Not the targets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Which doesn't explain to me why our nation's major cities are not trending the same way. And your charge that I refuse to do research is insulting. I put in a lot of time and effort to find articles to back up my points like today. Sad that you can't fairly give me an ounce of credit.
Unfortunately you have not given us a reason to credit you. You might find the occasional study or paper (very occasionally) but when you do, you blatantly and willfully misrepresent and distort those studies and what they are saying. The most obvious example is how you take studies of specific groups like MSM, and you pretend that they are studies about homosexuals as a whole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Funny how these "facts" are always slanted to favor your version of reality.
Yea funny how facts are already slanted towards one view, whereas you have to slant and distort yours to make them fit. Does this not tell you that perhaps facts are not supporting your world view as it does for others and that maybe there is an issue with yours?
Sorry but you've not understood the subject matter. Without some formal reading in normative ethics this can take an afternoon or so to explain. It's also beyond the scope of the thread.
Oh, I think I get it now. You are a technician with the subject matter, not invested in it.
I stand corrected--technically--but then I AM invested in it. You are like the pig farmer who looks at the technical aspects of raising pigs for bacon.
As a pig, wallowing in the mud with my fellow pigs, I'm invested in it.
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.
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.
