Originally posted by @fmf If you want to sling mud at your political opponents, take it to Debates, Suzianne. I'd prefer this thread to be about the "spiritual" and moral side to deciding what a government's role should be.
"Playing the woman" again?
I thought the "morality" of what I was saying was obvious, but not to the "immoral", I suppose.
Originally posted by @rajk999 Why do Americans insist on bringing their stupid American politics in every discussion, as if the rest of the world cares?
See my reply to FMF. My reply to you is identical.
Originally posted by @fmf How should "black families" have been treated differently by the government and what would the spiritual/moral justification for those policies have been?
If you have to ask this, clearly you have zero idea what's going on in America and the basic moral difference between the two major political parties.
Originally posted by @josephw The "religious right" has been feeding half the world for the past 2000 years dip stick.
You're so full of misinformation it's impossible to engage in an intelligent discussion with you.
While you say, "The problem is 2% of the worlds population controls 90% of the wealth. Greedy bastards", it would seem that you're ignorant of the fact that in the US their agenda is enacted by the Republican party which is also the party of the "religious right".
From what I can tell, you swallow their propaganda hook, line and sinker.
If you support "the least of these", i.e., "for the poor and marginalized", then you should be advocating for the "religious left".
Originally posted by @fmf If there is a non-political solution to the uneven distribution of wealth and to the control of wealth exerted by the "greedy bastards", what is it?
To my way of thinking, any morally sound concerted steps that a society might take to address the issues in the OP would be, by definition, political, while taking or endorsing concerted action that had no realistic chance of succeeding would not be morally sound. What do you think?
Don't be naive. There's never been a political solution in all of human history for the demise of a culture. The salvation of a morally corrupt society is found in faith toward the true and living God, and not in a political god figure made in the image of man.
Forget it FMF. I already know you're not going to believe it. Put your faith in man. Build your house on sand.
That children go hungry is directly related to their efed up fathers. Politicizing the issue of childhood malnutrition is simply an issue of political power grabbing.
There's more than enough wealth too around. Warren Buffett once said the world is awash with cash. The problem is 2% of the worlds population controls 90% of the wealth. Greedy bastards.
And that means that another problem is that people like you vote for that 2% and do your best to keep those "greedy bastards" in office.
Originally posted by @rajk999 Most of the wealthy are born again Christian Saints, who are taught not to go around doing good works like helping the poor and needy
Stop lying.
The rich are not rich because they're Christians, there's nothing Christian about them. They call themselves "Christian" to keep getting elected by an ignorant electorate.
Originally posted by @suzianne If you have to ask this, clearly you have zero idea what's going on in America and the basic moral difference between the two major political parties.
I don't know what your answer is going to be. That's why I asked you. Here it is again: How should "black families" have been treated differently by the government and what would the spiritual/moral justification for those policies have been?
In other words, what exactly do you think the government should have done [and from what moral truths, in your view, would they derive their political authority to do it]?
Originally posted by @josephw Don't be naive. There's never been a political solution in all of human history for the demise of a culture. The salvation of a morally corrupt society is found in faith toward the true and living God, and not in a political god figure made in the image of man.
So what should the government do in response to the "Children just must not go hungry" exhortation? Something? Nothing? If 'nothing', what would be the moral justification for such a course of (in)action? If something, what? And with what moral underpinning?
Originally posted by @fmf I don't know what your answer is going to be. That's why I asked you. Here it is again: How should "black families" have been treated differently by the government and what would the spiritual/moral justification for those policies have been?
In other words, what exactly do you think the government should have done [and from what moral truths, in your view, would they derive their political authority from]?
My answer stands. The only reason this thread exists is for you to keep beating your meaningless anti-Christian drum. You don't care about "moral dimensions". Get real.
Originally posted by @fmf I don't know what your answer is going to be. That's why I asked you. Here it is again: How should "black families" have been treated differently by the government and what would the spiritual/moral justification for those policies have been?
In other words, what exactly do you think the government should have done [and from what moral truths, in your view, would they derive their political authority to do it]?
"...to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me"
" to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me."
"treat people the same way you want them to treat you"
26 Jul '17 23:421 edit
Children just must not go hungry
Back to Top