What is the point of war? Does it create peace?

[Stopper]

I was "playing devil's advocate" to point out the inherent flaws in marxism.

So, if I understand correctly - because you were playing devil's advocate, you don't agree with the following statement?

So, we try to ... help our fellow man according to our ablity (maybe not nessesarily according to his/her/their need, but some is better than none)

Read some of my last posts. Am I, all by my lonesome, going to feed all the starving? No. Is everyone in my church, together, going to have the funds. No. Why go we try? Because firstly, being a cheerful and able giver is part of being a disciple. Secondly, we'd all be assholes if we didn't.

So presumably, the formulation you'd prefer would be:

We try to help our fellow man according to our ability, and according to his needs.

I agree that while in princible that is a good idea, I sincerely doubt that it is possible to implement without strictly regulating the actions of inviduals.
However, we should try to meet the need and give according to what we can afford to part with. Is that going to be enough, no, but then as I said, having more than you did yesterday is better than what you had yesterday only.

I can't get any of these quotes to fit properly now, though I'm a little resentful that you yourself haven't made much effort to get them in order, but never mind.

Just to make absolutely clear where I was coming from in my first post - you came very close to stating a Marxist maxim, and qualified it in a half-arsed way, when you realised that to sound like a Christian might mean sounding like a Marxist.

Now, I can't speak for bk, but it seems to me that this attitude towards wealth is very common amongst American protestants, where they tie themselves in knots to justify the large amounts of wealth that they have, while at the same time, their neighbour in America, or Africa, has next to nothing. Some protestants (though I admit, a minority) seem to say that people are only rich because God's favour is upon them - and people are only poor because they're out of favour, and not doing enough to propitiate this God.

I'm not suggesting that you as an individual, or your local congregation, should impoverish yourselves to make hardly a dent in the lives of all those masses. That would be stupid, even if your Bible appears to demand it at times.

I just don't understand why, when the maxim of "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs" is 90-99% fulfilled by most developed countries (except America), without the need for revolutionary communism, protestant evangelists in America still fight tooth and nail against any suggestion that each member of society could pay a little bit more in tax to alleviate the conditions of a lot of people, and could perhaps stop focusing on social issues such as abortion and homosexuality, when there are a lot more people in the world suffering far worse, and often at the hands of America itself.

I know Jesus says, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, but it often seems as if the Christian beliefs of large groups in America do not enter into their political beliefs at all. You say, in theory, you might shelter a homeless man in your own home, but even though you'd never actually do that yourselves, you're damned if you'll pay the government to do it for you.

[b.k. barunt]

Nailed that one Stopper. This wanker is an excellent example of why people hate Christianity. The message that Jesus brought had to do with sacrifice and self denial, but it has been glibly bastardized in this country to reflect materialistic hypocrisy and self serving right wing politics. Notice jenos' reference to "prosperous lives", and giving to others "well maybe not as much as they need, but some is better than none". Now he wants to play God by manipulating procreation. I know this isn't flame wars, but i have to say that jenos is one of the most ignorant cheesewankers i have had the misfortune to come across.

Read me now, Asswipe?!

Try reading your Bible instead of preaching it. James 1:26 - "If any man among you seemeth to be religious and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain."

I'll admit, my choice of words was unwise. But you failed to address the real issues, especially the ones Jehan brought up. And given that you called me 'wanker' and 'cheesewanker' first, I think you need to reflect on the Word just as much as I do, if not more. Thanks for the verse, though.

I make no claim to be a Christian or to follow the Bible. You are the one that blazens it all over your sig, and runs your mouth about. Your hypocrisy is ridiculously offensive to anyone actually interested in truth. Remember, if someone smite thee on the cheek, punch the f*ck out of them.

[Jenos Ridan]

I was "playing devil's advocate" to point out the inherent flaws in marxism.

So, if I understand correctly - because you were playing devil's advocate, you don't agree with the following statement?

So, we try to ... help our fellow man according to our ablity (maybe not nessesarily according to his/her/their need, but some is better than none)

Read some of my last posts. Am I, all by my lonesome, going to feed all the starving? No. Is everyone in my church, together, going to have the funds. No. Why go we try? Because firstly, being a cheerful and able giver is part of being a disciple. Secondly, we'd all be assholes if we didn't.

So presumably, the formulation you'd prefer would be:

We try to help our fellow man according to our ability, and according to his needs.

I agree that while in princible that is a good idea, I sincerely doubt that it is possible to implement without strictly regulating the actions of inviduals.
However, we should try to meet the need and give according to what we can afford to part with. Is that going to be enough, no, but then as I said, having more than you did yesterday is better than what you had yesterday only.

I can't get any of these quotes to fit properly now, though I'm a little resentful that you yourself haven't made much effort to get them in order, but never mind.

Just to make absolutely clear where I was coming from in my first post - you came very close to stating a Marxist maxim, and qualified it in a half-arsed way, when you realised that to sound like a Christian might mean sounding like a Marxist.

Now, I can't speak for bk, but it seems to me that this attitude towards wealth is very common amongst American protestants, where they tie themselves in knots to justify the large amounts of wealth that they have, while at the same time, their neighbour in America, or Africa, has next to nothing. Some protestants (though I admit, a minority) seem to say that people are only rich because God's favour is upon them - and people are only poor because they're out of favour, and not doing enough to propitiate this God.

I'm not suggesting that you as an individual, or your local congregation, should impoverish yourselves to make hardly a dent in the lives of all those masses. That would be stupid, even if your Bible appears to demand it at times.

I just don't understand why, when the maxim of "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs" is 90-99% fulfilled by most developed countries (except America), without the need for revolutionary communism, protestant evangelists in America still fight tooth and nail against any suggestion that each member of society could pay a little bit more in tax to alleviate the conditions of a lot of people, and could perhaps stop focusing on social issues such as abortion and homosexuality, when there are a lot more people in the world suffering far worse, and often at the hands of America itself.

I know Jesus says, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, but it often seems as if the Christian beliefs of large groups in America do not enter into their political beliefs at all. You say, in theory, you might shelter a homeless man in your own home, but even though you'd never actually do that yourselves, you're damned if you'll pay the government to do it for you.

I just hope we are now both clearer about this. I'll agree, in princible, that the Marxist maxim is a good ideal. I'm not going to advocate handing over all power to the government in order to do so, I don't care if it is this one or some revolutionary government with all the good intentions in their collective hearts. I firmly believe that one should do what you can, REGARDLESS what you believe or disbelieve, as the case may be for some.

[Jenos Ridan]

I make no claim to be a Christian or to follow the Bible. You are the one that blazens it all over your sig, and runs your mouth about. Your hypocrisy is ridiculously offensive to anyone actually interested in truth. Remember, if someone smite thee on the cheek, punch the f*ck out of them.

My sig is from a good friend of mine who holds views I sometimes disagree with. If you met him, you'd think I'm liberal by comparion. The First part, was his sig on NationStates.net. The last part is merely something he would say. I didn't go for a "Jesus Freak" group sigy and I might not. I don't see how my sig proclaims my faith (or as you chose to see it, a lack thereof). As for running my mouth, old habits die hard and sometimes, I say things I later regret. A real hypocrite wouldn't ever admit he/she could screw up. I do freely admit that I have and probably will again, screw up.

And it goes "Turn the other check".