Originally posted by whodeySo starving people in a democracy would be preferable to people living under a benevolent dictatorship? Not that I believe Chavez is in any way a dictator- he has been voted in with a popular mandate several times. He has given people more rights than they previoualy had- the rights to basic such as education and healtcare. He supports devolution to grassroots levels- to build up a sense of local community.
I would like to make one thing clear, I do not hate Chavez in any way or wish him any harm. As a result, I am in no way attempting to slander him in any way. I am merely attempting to bring the truth to light behind what is really going on in Venezuala and is why I opened this thread. To be honest, I think the man has done some good things for his country. ...[text shortened]... ans in the past have unfortunatly chosen this method to try and convert people to the faith.
I dn't think Chavez would attempt to force convrsion to chrstianity on the country- many people there are already christian, and he doesn't have any reason personally to divide an already divided country further.
Its intersting how you see Jesus' actions as a way for pople to live their lives- don't forget in the Bible you also have extreme rightwingers like Paul, which unfortunately the Protestant and Catholic church seem to focus on- mainly due to his reactionary writings.
Originally posted by wedgehead2Would starving people in a democracy be preferable to people living under a benevolent dictatorship? No, as long as it was a benevolent dictatorship. The problem then becomes, however, how to mantain that benevolent dictatorship. I would rather starve than be tortured and manipulated for my food. Power has a way of currupting people and even if Chavez is or deos not trun bad one of his predecessors inevitably will. That is a promise. In short, a dictatorship is a flawed form of government because man's nature is flawed.
So starving people in a democracy would be preferable to people living under a benevolent dictatorship? Not that I believe Chavez is in any way a dictator- he has been voted in with a popular mandate several times. He has given people more rights than they previoualy had- the rights to basic such as education and healtcare. He supports devolution to grass ...[text shortened]... the Protestant and Catholic church seem to focus on- mainly due to his reactionary writings.
As far as you charge that Paul was a "right winger" can you explain?
Originally posted by whodeyChavez has won three elections, including one a couple weeks ago. Interesting "dictator".
Would starving people in a democracy be preferable to people living under a benevolent dictatorship? No, as long as it was a benevolent dictatorship. The problem then becomes, however, how to mantain that benevolent dictatorship. I would rather starve than be tortured and manipulated for my food. Power has a way of currupting people and even if Chavez is ...[text shortened]... n's nature is flawed.
As far as you charge that Paul was a "right winger" can you explain?
Originally posted by whodeyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus
Would starving people in a democracy be preferable to people living under a benevolent dictatorship? No, as long as it was a benevolent dictatorship. The problem then becomes, however, how to mantain that benevolent dictatorship. I would rather starve than be tortured and manipulated for my food. Power has a way of currupting people and even if Chavez is ...[text shortened]... n's nature is flawed.
As far as you charge that Paul was a "right winger" can you explain?
"His teaching has been criticised as being conservative and even quietist. His view of the shortness of the time before the end is thought to have influenced his ethic. That what he says – for instance, about the appropriate attitude towards unbelievers – appears to vary may be the result of his responding to different questioners whose enquiries are unknown to us. Three particular issues, not all of them controversial at the time have assumed great contemporary importance. One is his attitude towards slaves, the second towards women and the third his attitude towards homosexual acts."
Also, "If a man will not work he shall not eat"
Originally posted by WajomaThats just wrong! A right/ freedom/ liberty to acquire free/ low priced education/ healthcare is not a restriction of rights. It is the state that sets rights through laws- without them you would have no "right", you would just seize or have things seized off you.
The state cannot 'give' rights. Men have rights and various states take them away to different degrees.
1 edit
Originally posted by wedgehead2The state cannot give rights, it is the role of the state to protect them - only.
Thats just wrong! A right/ freedom/ liberty to acquire free/ low priced education/ healthcare is not a restriction of rights. It is the state that sets rights through laws- without them you would have no "right", you would just seize or have things seized off you.
A police force, justice system, defence force, full stop.
Originally posted by wedgehead2So you have a beef with the following concerning Paul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus
"His teaching has been criticised as being conservative and even quietist. His view of the shortness of the time before the end is thought to have influenced his ethic. That what he says – for instance, about the appropriate attitude towards unbelievers – appears to vary may be the result of his responding to ...[text shortened]... d his attitude towards homosexual acts."
Also, "If a man will not work he shall not eat"
1. He did not condenm slavery
2. His attitude toward women
3. HIs attitude towards gays
4. His attitude that one must work in order to eat
I did read the article and the article did defend some of these complaints. The article pointed out that he tells Philemon to treat slaves as if they were his own brother, thus he did not outwardly condemn the social norm of that time which was slavery, rather, he encouraged an inward change in how man treats his fellow man. Personally I think that learning to treat your fellow man as your brother is a greater victory than outlawing a particular social norm that is generally accepted despite being distasteful. For example, in the world today you could argue that someone working for a minimum wage is nothing more than a slave to their boss. They probably have little options in terms of employment and are therefore limited as to how they can feed and cloth themselves and may feel as though they must endure maltreatment from their respective employers or loose their job and their economic means of survival. To try and remedy the problem, you could outlaw minimum wage jobs to help alieviate the plight of the working poor or you could challenge the employer to change his attitude towards his employee by treating him as though he or she were his equal and allowing them oppurtunities for advancement and taking an active interest in their personal affairs and possibly helping them financially if they need assistance.
The other issue was in his teachings about women. Paul defended the social norms of the society in regards of the man being the head of the woman and of the household and for women not over stepping their bounds in terms of the social norms of the time. However, he did also say that in Christ their is neither male nor female and that both were of equal stature spiritually. I find this teaching to be remarkable in terms of the time in which he lived and the social norms of the time. As a result, I do not think you give him much credit for such teachings and I challenge you to find equal or comparable teachings such as this during or before the time of Paul. Where else in the ancient world were women seen as equals in any way to men as in the Pauline letters? It seems as though he is attempting to challenge the attitude towards women without directly opposing the social norms of his time in reagards to societies attitudes towards women. This was probably in an attempt to avoid social upheaval and unrest which Paul strove to avoid. I think he would say that such unrest is carnal in nature and therefore should be avoided if possible. When I say carnal I am referring to the concept that changing ones position in the world in terms of class and/or social position may be desirable but should not be the focus of a Christian. The Chrsitians battle is a spiritual battle in which a man's spiritual position and destiny is eternal and thus superceedes the never ending battles in this temperal life in which he currently finds himself. I would say that his attitude towards slavery is very similar to that of womens role in society in this regard.
In regards to homosexual relations I would say that Paul simply reiterates the general theme throughout the Bible which is that in the eyes of God, sex is only permitted between a man and a woman who are married. If this makes him a right winger then perhaps the entire Bible is right wing dogma in your eyes. However, nothing has changed here and both Old Testament teachings as well as Christ's teachings back Paul in such theology. You are free to disagree unless you claim to be a follower of Christ and a Christian. It is not a mandate soley against the homosexual, rather, it is also a mandate against all immoral sexual practices which include such activity as adultry and fornication.
As far as his teaching that one must work to eat I guess this may go against a welfare mind set that thinks that the government owes them a living even though they may not work for a living. I would say, however, there is a difference here between those that can work and those who do not wish to work. I say that if one is able and not willing to work they should not eat and agree with Paul in this regard. Perhaps this makes me a right winger as well?
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI guess Jesus should have told everybody at the wedding to go get a job rather than do the miracle of the loaves.🙄 And you can tell by the Sermon on the Mount and the whole Gospels how much he hated charity!
So you have a beef with the following concerning Paul
1. He did not condenm slavery
2. His attitude toward women
3. HIs attitude towards gays
4. His attitude that one must work in order to eat
I did read the article and the article did defend some of these complaints. The article pointed out that he tells Philemon to treat slaves as if they were his o uld not eat and agree with Paul in this regard. Perhaps this makes me a right winger as well?
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/paul.html
Don't marry unless you 'cannot control yourselves' (1 Cor. 7:1, 1 Cor. 7:38 - From genuine teachings of Paul)
Don't get divorced (1 Cor. 7:11 - Genuine)
Don't get circumcised (1 Cor. 7:19, Gal. 5:2 - Genuine)
Don't seek freedom from slavery (1 Cor. 7:21, Tit. 2:9 - Former genuine, latter a fake)
Don't have long hair [men] (1 Cor. 11:14 - Genuine)
Do you think St Paul was kinda reactionary?
Originally posted by whodeyIts interesting that you focus on the spirtual side of Christianity, as opposed tp the possibly revolutionary aspects of it- such as Jesus' actions against the money changers, who can be seen as capitalists, the story of the Sheep and the Goats, etc.
The other issue was in his teachings about women. Paul defended the social norms of the society in regards of the man being the head of the woman and of the household and for women not over stepping their bounds in terms of the social norms of the time. However, he did also say that in Christ their is neither male nor female and that both were of equal ...[text shortened]... attitude towards slavery is very similar to that of womens role in society in this regard.
Socialism and communism can be seen to be the key part of Christianity- to create a fair and more equal society. Hugo Chavez claims, as other commentators have, that Jesus was a communist/ socialist. Sadly, these more active revoluntionary Christian beliefs haven't managed to do as successfully, understandly, as those which the more wealthy seek to progate, such as the Parable of the Talents,
7 edits
Originally posted by wedgehead2But the incident with the money changers was a spiritual matter. They were in the "Fathers" house and were polluting it. Christ was focused on the will of the Father and the Fathers outreach to his creation which included the goings on in the temple such as prayer and worship. The money changeres, however, were there to make a buck, albiet dishonestly, which refocused their attention on carnal affairs. It had nothing to do with a preference for or against capitalism. The Bible does not speak out against wealth unless it involves the love of money. A man once approached him who was very wealthy and asked what he must do to follow him. Christ told him to sell all that he had and give it to the poor and follow him. The man went away very sad and could not go through with this action. Notice, however, that Christ in no way condemned him for being wealthy. Nor does it say anywhere in the Bible that one must be financially in need to enter heaven. However, Christ could see where his heart was and saw that not only did he have wealth, but his wealth had him as well, so to speak. If you look at men of God thoughout the Bible there are many wealthy individuals. Job and Abraham come to mind. They, however, were generous men who were simply blessed to the point of wealth and gave to those in need without reservation. In these examples we can see that the wealth was not a source of worship for them, rather, their focus was serving God. Christ said man cannot serve both God and mammon (money). However, even the poor can serve mammon and desire wealth above the desire to serving God. Therefore, the desires of your heart is what God cares about and not how many dollars you have in your savings account. Christ once said that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven and then his disciples then asked him, "Who then can be saved?' Christ then said that what is impossible for men is possible with God. With God even the wealthy can be saved. As long as God is your master and not your bank account your wealth is nothing more than a resource for God and his kingdom here on this earth and a potential blessing for those in need.
Its interesting that you focus on the spirtual side of Christianity, as opposed tp the possibly revolutionary aspects of it- such as Jesus' actions against the money changers, who can be seen as capitalists, the story of the Sheep and the Goats, etc.
Socialism and communism can be seen to be the key part of Christianity- to create a fair and more equal rstandly, as those which the more wealthy seek to progate, such as the Parable of the Talents,
You must ask yourself, if Christ were concerned with the affairs of the state, such as type of government and economy of the land, why did he not focus on these issues? Why did he say that his kingdom was not of this world if his focus was not on spiritual matters? What he did was to hang around 12 disciples who had no wealth or political sway in such matters. Christs focus was to change the hearts of men rather than the material constructs of society. It would stand to reason, however, that if one could change the hearts of men, the material constructs of society would natrually change along with them. Socialism/communism attempts to force people to give as they should even when they do not desire to as where Christianity attempts to change the hearts of men so that they will to give as they ought. You see the issue is free will. If God gave us free will who is man to violate it via manipulating that free will?
Originally posted by whodeyFree will to oppress other humans? What benevlent God would do that? Socialism/ communism is about liberty through equality, which is a different type of freedom/ free will to that which you write about.
But the incident with the money changers was a spiritual matter. They were in the "Fathers" house and were polluting it. Christ was focused on the will of the Father and the Fathers outreach to his creation which included the goings on in the temple such as prayer and worship. The money changeres, however, were there to make a buck, albiet dishonestly, whi ...[text shortened]... ee will. If God gave us free will who is man to violate it via manipulating that free will?
If Chavez, as a christian, is endevouring to follow Jesus' example by giving people equal opportunity in life, through christian socialism, is that a corruption of the intial message?
Originally posted by no1marauderSo tell me, who would you feel compelled to give to. Someone who is perfectly able to work with plenty of oppurtunity to work, or someone who is unable to work due either to physical/mental abilities or lack of oppurtunity? Jesus once fed a multitude with a handful of fish and bread via miracle. He did so not only to feed them, but to gain their attention. His main goal was not to feed them, rather, it was to speak to their hearts instead of merely their stomachs. If his main goal was charity he would have fed them all till the day they died.
I guess Jesus should have told everybody at the wedding to go get a job rather than do the miracle of the loaves.🙄 And you can tell by the Sermon on the Mount and the whole Gospels how much he hated charity!