@divegeester said
So is that a “no” you don’t love your Republican neighbour as yourself?

Sorry I got lost in the obfuscation.

It's not my fault that English is your second language, or maybe third. You seem remarkably ill-equipped to understand it.

@suzianne said
Clearly you didn't absorb anything from my post.

My point was that welfare and charity are functionally the same, given the original concepts, and not now, after the term "welfare state" has been stolen and misused by the right to further their political agenda. I'm not going to lay out my argument again, especially since you obviously didn't grasp it the first time.

Charity is, by definition, voluntary giving of help. It also presupposes that the giver chooses or approves of what the help is intended to do.

Programmes funded by compulsory taxes levied from people who may well not agree with what the money is being used for, a.k.a. welfare state etc., cannot be described as being synonymous with charity.

The government-mandated welfare might be doing similar things to charities, it might target similar groups, it might reap similar benefits, it work hand in hand with charities, it might have the support of the majority of taxpayers, but it's not charity.

State welfare is not charity.

If I have the political power to take money from my anti-abortion neighbour and use it to pay for abortions for poor people at a clinic, I would not be engaged in "charity" and nor would my neighbour, regardless of how many people voted for me.

If the clinic funded its activities from voluntary donations, then both the clinic and its donors would be engaged in charity

@philokalia said
The problem is that,

if you do not do politics, politics will be dune unto you.

We've learned the lessons of Russia.

And before Russia, people learned the lessons of even places here like Korea, where the King had Christians martyred, and where Buddhists were crushed and closely controlled by the King and the Confucian elites.

To keep quiet and passive because atheists are annoyed is not just illogical, but it is also cowardice.

Yeah Russia is a hundred times better now that the Orthodox Church is back in cahoots with the Csar. They are having a great time ignoring the murder of political dissidents and persecuting homosexuals.
Just reading through the thread I’m getting the impression that blasphemy is whatever upsets you and / or gives you a platform to spew forth your hatred of anyone who steps outside your narrow dogmatic worldview.
Way to Go Church of Iceland.

@fmf said
Charity is, by definition, voluntary giving of help. It also presupposes that the giver chooses or approves of what the help is intended to do.

Programmes funded by compulsory taxes levied from people who may well not agree with what the money is being used for, a.k.a. welfare state etc., cannot be described as being synonymous with charity.

The government-mandated welfar ...[text shortened]... activities from voluntary donations, then both the clinic and its donors would be engaged in charity

Re: the "welfare state": Again, you are using a recent definition, as defined by the right and those on the right. When originally used by Bismarck in the 1850's, the "social state" was a desirous outcome of government. When used in this original sense, this aim by government to provide for the general "welfare" of its citizens is not a "drain" on the nation nor its economy, but a by-product of an advanced society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment
As to your "example": In the US, the Hyde Amendment bars the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, which makes your example moot.

@suzianne said
Again, you are using a recent definition, as defined by the right and those on the right. When originally used by Bismarck in the 1850's, the "social state" was a desirous outcome of government. When used in this original sense, this aim by government to provide for the general "welfare" of its citizens is not a "drain" on the nation nor its economy.

I am not concerned about retail politics in your country. I am a supporter of many elements of a welfare state and other programmes related to that, and my support has nothing to do with what "the right" in the U.S. wishes for or what it's against. Philokalia is correct that there is a difference between charity and welfare provided by the state.

@suzianne said
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment
As to your "example": In the US, the Hyde Amendment bars the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, which makes your example moot.

No, the "Hyde Amendment" does not make my example moot.

I said this: If I have the political power to take money from my anti-abortion neighbour and use it to pay for abortions for poor people at a clinic, I would not be engaged in "charity" and nor would my neighbour, regardless of how many people voted for me. If the clinic funded its activities from voluntary donations, then both the clinic and its donors would be engaged in charity.

This has nothing to do with pro and anti-abortion politics in the U.S. My example is an illustration of what "charity" is, and how it is not the same as what a government does with money it takes from people.

@suzianne said
When originally used by Bismarck in the 1850's, the "social state" was a desirous outcome of government. When used in this original sense, this aim by government to provide for the general "welfare" of its citizens is not a "drain" on the nation nor its economy, but a by-product of an advanced society.

I am all for governments providing for the general "welfare" of its citizens using money raised through progressive taxes. Meanwhile, I am all for charity too.

@kevcvs57 said
Yeah Russia is a hundred times better now that the Orthodox Church is back in cahoots with the Csar. They are having a great time ignoring the murder of political dissidents and persecuting homosexuals.
Just reading through the thread I’m getting the impression that blasphemy is whatever upsets you and / or gives you a platform to spew forth your hatred of anyone who steps outside your narrow dogmatic worldview.
Way to Go Church of Iceland.

You are repeating a blatant lie -- there is o persecution of homosexuals -- it is completely legal to be gay, and to even go to gay clubs and live an openly gay lifestyle. It is just that Western propaganda agencies agitating for it and promoting it to youth are illegal.

And the actions of Putin are something I do not study and am not that concerned with. Just 30-some years ago Russia was a brutal, totalitarian, Communist state, and living in the shadow of this is, of course, very difficult.

I do not believe Putin is a messiah, and I think you have a lot more work to do if you want to prove that the Orthodox Church is in cahoots with his political assassinations.

Your debate tactic right now is just 'spray & pray' that an argument will stick.

@suzianne said
It's not my fault that English is your second language, or maybe third. You seem remarkably ill-equipped to understand it.

Do you love your Republican neighbours as yourself?

Simple question.

@divegeester said
Do you love your Republican neighbours as yourself?

Simple question.

I've answered this. I do not intend to do so again.

@suzianne said
I've answered this. I do not intend to do so again.

Now you’re just being dishonest. Why won’t you say whether or not you love your Republican neighbours or not?

As you are embarrassed to say, then I could guess I suppose. The answer is, of course... you don’t love your Republican neighbours as yourself.

And as I pointed out earlier, you have just picked up on the use of the phrase “love your neighbour as yourself” from your mentor Ghost of a Duke and used it thoughtlessly to have a dig at another posters whom you disapprove of.

@suzianne said
I've answered this. I do not intend to do so again.

Thumbs up from the online boyfriend 😆

@divegeester said
Now you’re just being dishonest. Why won’t you say whether or not you love your Republican neighbours or not?

As you are embarrassed to say, then I could guess I suppose. The answer is, of course... you don’t love your Republican neighbours as yourself.

And as I pointed out earlier, you have just picked up on the use of the phrase “love your neighbour as yourself” ...[text shortened]... r Ghost of a Duke and used it thoughtlessly to have a dig at another posters whom you disapprove of.

My answer to your first post about this says otherwise.

Maybe you should read it, instead of making stuff up about me.

@philokalia said
You are repeating a blatant lie -- there is o persecution of homosexuals -- it is completely legal to be gay, and to even go to gay clubs and live an openly gay lifestyle. It is just that Western propaganda agencies agitating for it and promoting it to youth are illegal.

And the actions of Putin are something I do not study and am not that concerned with. Just 30-s ...[text shortened]... ssassinations.

Your debate tactic right now is just 'spray & pray' that an argument will stick.

You are the one repeating blatant lies here.
You go with Kremlin and Orthodox propaganda I’ll go with the propaganda from sources that do not label homosexuals as a danger to children.
I take it the Salisbury poisonings were western propaganda as well?

@suzianne said
My answer to your first post about this says otherwise.

Maybe you should read it, instead of making stuff up about me.

Your reply is 8 inches of obfuscation; I don’t want a Jehovah’s Witness / Robbie carrobie / Galveston75 response, I’m asking you straight up , yes or no, as Jesus commanded, do you love your Republican neighbours as yourself?