(02-18-2013 02:17 PM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  I had a woman come into my store the other day who spent thirty minutes telling me how we should, "Take all them **** and atheists and torture and kill them as an example.".

Then she told me to have a blessed day.

Edit: the censored word is f-a-g-s

"Only God may judge. You ******* Atheist (or Agnostic in my case) is going to burn in hell! You and all other liberal heathens!"

(01-31-2013 08:00 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(01-31-2013 06:43 PM)InjunJohn Wrote:  

(01-31-2013 04:59 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(01-31-2013 02:05 PM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(01-31-2013 12:54 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  Because Agnostics can't read? An Agnostic could never know anything about Christianity or any other religion, right?

Anyhow, it's not charity or slavery, it's civic duty.

Giving what you have to those in need is the definition of charity. Paying taxes to support government is civic duty. However, when the government confuses its proper role for a charitable one and justifies forced redistribution of wealth on charitable grounds, that is when slavery (taking someone's labor without compensation) begins.

Considering welfare programs date back to at least the Roman empire and most social programs in place today in the United States date back well before your first paycheck was ever cut, I'd say your argument holds no water whatsoever.

Considering that "Roman welfare programs" were to ensure that the populace did not uprise and to pay off certain sections of Roman society, I guess you could compare that to our modern welfare programs, especially how the liberal voices of our society use them.

I get the whole "we need to help people" arguement. I understand that it breaks your heart to see folks hurting (whether truly or putting on a good show). I just find it very funny that liberals who want to be compasionate and giving with money tend to want to be compasionate and giving with other people's money.

You said earlier that it was our civic duty. Now, not sure if you meant to pay taxes or hand out money to other folks. Remember, government governs with the consent of the people. It is our money that they spend. And let me tell you something, nothing pisses me off more than to see someone who is drawing government assistance (our tax money) and whipping out their cell phone to text their buddies, to see someone with $100 sneakers on their feet, or buying more expensive food than I buy in the store. Generally when I have a convesation with someone who talks about how poor they are and that the government should do more for them, it is generally in a bar where they are drinking and smoking. I get just as pissed off seeing the GAO spend over $850,000 for a conference in Las Vegas or the 9th Circuit Court dropping a cool million for a group grope in Hawaii. I don't give a damn about a starving artist who is seeking a hand out from the the government. Ethanol producers shouldn't get a dime. It is economically nonviable and is indirectly driving up the costs of most other food.

Again, you want to be generous, you do it. Stop wanting to be generous with my money. I said it before, there are a few things that government must do and all of society benefits from. Everything else goes to segments of society or benefits only portions. That is a nice to have program but not a reason to go into debt. This country is $16 Trillon in debt. We have been adding approximately $1 Trillon each year for the last 4 years. The Senate has refused to pass a budget for the last 4 years. No business could operate like that. You could not manage your household budget like that yet we have become a society that accepts that and doesn't demand better.

Back to Rome.....the Empire prospered through conquest, slavery, and controlling the goods needed to feed the citizens. That could carry them only so far. Emperors bribed the citizens of Rome with free bread and entertainment, hence the saying "Bread and circuses." When there was a shortage of wheat, go look at what happened to those emperors. There are parallels to Rome and the United States. We have a lot of "well meaning" folks who are doing the same thing and when there aren't enough of us paying the way and cuts have to come, wait and see what will happen. All you have to do is look at what has happened in Greece.

And here we go. You people always heavily generalize and act like every person getting governmental assistance is milking the system. Unemployment is at 10%. It's difficult to find a job in this economy.

You want to cut debt? Then cut the Defense budget. The Military Industrial Complex is bankrupting the country and we let it happen.

You are a tard.

(02-20-2013 10:50 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(01-31-2013 08:00 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(01-31-2013 06:43 PM)InjunJohn Wrote:  

(01-31-2013 04:59 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(01-31-2013 02:05 PM)Panthersville Wrote:  Giving what you have to those in need is the definition of charity. Paying taxes to support government is civic duty. However, when the government confuses its proper role for a charitable one and justifies forced redistribution of wealth on charitable grounds, that is when slavery (taking someone's labor without compensation) begins.

Considering welfare programs date back to at least the Roman empire and most social programs in place today in the United States date back well before your first paycheck was ever cut, I'd say your argument holds no water whatsoever.

Considering that "Roman welfare programs" were to ensure that the populace did not uprise and to pay off certain sections of Roman society, I guess you could compare that to our modern welfare programs, especially how the liberal voices of our society use them.

I get the whole "we need to help people" arguement. I understand that it breaks your heart to see folks hurting (whether truly or putting on a good show). I just find it very funny that liberals who want to be compasionate and giving with money tend to want to be compasionate and giving with other people's money.

You said earlier that it was our civic duty. Now, not sure if you meant to pay taxes or hand out money to other folks. Remember, government governs with the consent of the people. It is our money that they spend. And let me tell you something, nothing pisses me off more than to see someone who is drawing government assistance (our tax money) and whipping out their cell phone to text their buddies, to see someone with $100 sneakers on their feet, or buying more expensive food than I buy in the store. Generally when I have a convesation with someone who talks about how poor they are and that the government should do more for them, it is generally in a bar where they are drinking and smoking. I get just as pissed off seeing the GAO spend over $850,000 for a conference in Las Vegas or the 9th Circuit Court dropping a cool million for a group grope in Hawaii. I don't give a damn about a starving artist who is seeking a hand out from the the government. Ethanol producers shouldn't get a dime. It is economically nonviable and is indirectly driving up the costs of most other food.

Again, you want to be generous, you do it. Stop wanting to be generous with my money. I said it before, there are a few things that government must do and all of society benefits from. Everything else goes to segments of society or benefits only portions. That is a nice to have program but not a reason to go into debt. This country is $16 Trillon in debt. We have been adding approximately $1 Trillon each year for the last 4 years. The Senate has refused to pass a budget for the last 4 years. No business could operate like that. You could not manage your household budget like that yet we have become a society that accepts that and doesn't demand better.

Back to Rome.....the Empire prospered through conquest, slavery, and controlling the goods needed to feed the citizens. That could carry them only so far. Emperors bribed the citizens of Rome with free bread and entertainment, hence the saying "Bread and circuses." When there was a shortage of wheat, go look at what happened to those emperors. There are parallels to Rome and the United States. We have a lot of "well meaning" folks who are doing the same thing and when there aren't enough of us paying the way and cuts have to come, wait and see what will happen. All you have to do is look at what has happened in Greece.

And here we go. You people always heavily generalize and act like every person getting governmental assistance is milking the system. Unemployment is at 10%. It's difficult to find a job in this economy.

You want to cut debt? Then cut the Defense budget. The Military Industrial Complex is bankrupting the country and we let it happen.

You are a tard.

And who could argue with that kind of contribution to the conversation?

I'm kinda surprised at how pleasant (relatively) this thread was even after invoking religion.

Also pretty surprised at the ignorance of calling out the Church for not providing assistance to people.

Private charity is more efficient than govt. charity. 70% of each charitable dollar gets to the needy while 30% of each govt. welfare dollar gets to the needy. [PDF]

Also, you can choose which charities you give your money to. So if 70% isn't good enough, there are some with higher efficiency #s. [Forbes.com]

Also, with the private route, you have an option over where your money goes (if it goes at all). With govt. charity, you don't have a direct choice of where, who, how, when, etc. or even how much goes. If you decide to not "give" you're thrown in jail. So it is only a "civic duty" in the legal sense, not moral.

There are many good reasons that make govt. inefficient. However, it doesn't matter what those reasons are, or how good the reasons for inefficiency may be. The problem is that they're inefficient.

I've seen some ignorant and short-sighted comments about what govt. Jesus would support, and some posted here rank right up there. Jesus' comments on taxes were fairly indifferent. In Matthew 22:21 Jesus, holding a coin with Caesar's face on it (one could say they were "made in his image"), says to give to Caesar what is his as (coinage in general, not just taxes).

As far as economic systems go Capitalism is the best system we know of to lift people out of poverty, but God is also not too concerned with that. The other half of the Matthew passage says to give to God what is his. Another popular verse (Genesis 1:27) says God created man in his own image. So, we are to give to Caesar what is in his image (coins/money), and give to God what is in His. Ourselves.

God is not concerned with money.

(02-23-2013 09:31 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  I'm kinda surprised at how pleasant (relatively) this thread was even after invoking religion.

Also pretty surprised at the ignorance of calling out the Church for not providing assistance to people.

Private charity is more efficient than govt. charity. 70% of each charitable dollar gets to the needy while 30% of each govt. welfare dollar gets to the needy. [PDF]

Also, you can choose which charities you give your money to. So if 70% isn't good enough, there are some with higher efficiency #s. [Forbes.com]

Also, with the private route, you have an option over where your money goes (if it goes at all). With govt. charity, you don't have a direct choice of where, who, how, when, etc. or even how much goes. If you decide to not "give" you're thrown in jail. So it is only a "civic duty" in the legal sense, not moral.

There are many good reasons that make govt. inefficient. However, it doesn't matter what those reasons are, or how good the reasons for inefficiency may be. The problem is that they're inefficient.

I've seen some ignorant and short-sighted comments about what govt. Jesus would support, and some posted here rank right up there. Jesus' comments on taxes were fairly indifferent. In Matthew 22:21 Jesus, holding a coin with Caesar's face on it (one could say they were "made in his image"), says to give to Caesar what is his as (coinage in general, not just taxes).

As far as economic systems go Capitalism is the best system we know of to lift people out of poverty, but God is also not too concerned with that. The other half of the Matthew passage says to give to God what is his. Another popular verse (Genesis 1:27) says God created man in his own image. So, we are to give to Caesar what is in his image (coins/money), and give to God what is in His. Ourselves.

God is not concerned with money.

"Cus the Bible tells me so..."

Sound logic when you were four, sound logic today...

(02-24-2013 10:44 AM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  

(02-23-2013 09:31 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  I'm kinda surprised at how pleasant (relatively) this thread was even after invoking religion.

Also pretty surprised at the ignorance of calling out the Church for not providing assistance to people.

Private charity is more efficient than govt. charity. 70% of each charitable dollar gets to the needy while 30% of each govt. welfare dollar gets to the needy. [PDF]

Also, you can choose which charities you give your money to. So if 70% isn't good enough, there are some with higher efficiency #s. [Forbes.com]

Also, with the private route, you have an option over where your money goes (if it goes at all). With govt. charity, you don't have a direct choice of where, who, how, when, etc. or even how much goes. If you decide to not "give" you're thrown in jail. So it is only a "civic duty" in the legal sense, not moral.

There are many good reasons that make govt. inefficient. However, it doesn't matter what those reasons are, or how good the reasons for inefficiency may be. The problem is that they're inefficient.

I've seen some ignorant and short-sighted comments about what govt. Jesus would support, and some posted here rank right up there. Jesus' comments on taxes were fairly indifferent. In Matthew 22:21 Jesus, holding a coin with Caesar's face on it (one could say they were "made in his image"), says to give to Caesar what is his as (coinage in general, not just taxes).

As far as economic systems go Capitalism is the best system we know of to lift people out of poverty, but God is also not too concerned with that. The other half of the Matthew passage says to give to God what is his. Another popular verse (Genesis 1:27) says God created man in his own image. So, we are to give to Caesar what is in his image (coins/money), and give to God what is in His. Ourselves.

God is not concerned with money.

"Cus the Bible tells me so..."

Sound logic when you were four, sound logic today...

So, nothing about the 90% of my post that wasn't addressing The Bible?

And "Cus the Bible tells me so..." isn't even close to what I wrote. I kept myself out of it, actually. Didn't insert any opinion, or even any outlandish interpretation of the passage. In order to respond to the claims of WWJD, I had to use The Bible. Seems logical, yes?

Re-read, and try responding again.

(02-24-2013 01:23 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 10:44 AM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  

(02-23-2013 09:31 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  I'm kinda surprised at how pleasant (relatively) this thread was even after invoking religion.

Also pretty surprised at the ignorance of calling out the Church for not providing assistance to people.

Private charity is more efficient than govt. charity. 70% of each charitable dollar gets to the needy while 30% of each govt. welfare dollar gets to the needy. [PDF]

Also, you can choose which charities you give your money to. So if 70% isn't good enough, there are some with higher efficiency #s. [Forbes.com]

Also, with the private route, you have an option over where your money goes (if it goes at all). With govt. charity, you don't have a direct choice of where, who, how, when, etc. or even how much goes. If you decide to not "give" you're thrown in jail. So it is only a "civic duty" in the legal sense, not moral.

There are many good reasons that make govt. inefficient. However, it doesn't matter what those reasons are, or how good the reasons for inefficiency may be. The problem is that they're inefficient.

I've seen some ignorant and short-sighted comments about what govt. Jesus would support, and some posted here rank right up there. Jesus' comments on taxes were fairly indifferent. In Matthew 22:21 Jesus, holding a coin with Caesar's face on it (one could say they were "made in his image"), says to give to Caesar what is his as (coinage in general, not just taxes).

As far as economic systems go Capitalism is the best system we know of to lift people out of poverty, but God is also not too concerned with that. The other half of the Matthew passage says to give to God what is his. Another popular verse (Genesis 1:27) says God created man in his own image. So, we are to give to Caesar what is in his image (coins/money), and give to God what is in His. Ourselves.

God is not concerned with money.

"Cus the Bible tells me so..."

Sound logic when you were four, sound logic today...

So, nothing about the 90% of my post that wasn't addressing The Bible?

And "Cus the Bible tells me so..." isn't even close to what I wrote. I kept myself out of it, actually. Didn't insert any opinion, or even any outlandish interpretation of the passage. In order to respond to the claims of WWJD, I had to use The Bible. Seems logical, yes?

Re-read, and try responding again.

I read it, understood it perfectly, and responded in kind.

Any person who takes the Bible seriously falls under what I said. Any person who would use that contradiction filled, illogically based, collection of books as an attempt to define the will of a supreme, omnipotent being is an idiot. To even assume, as a piece of **** human being, that you could understand an omnipotent being...it really is one of the biggest jokes played on our species. Man defining god, defining will of god, condemning man.

But please continue with what you were saying.

(02-24-2013 01:36 PM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 01:23 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  Re-read, and try responding again.

I read it, understood it perfectly, and responded in kind.

Any person who takes the Bible seriously falls under what I said. Any person who would use that contradiction filled, illogically based, collection of books as an attempt to define the will of a supreme, omnipotent being is an idiot. To even assume, as a piece of **** human being, that you could understand an omnipotent being...it really is one of the biggest jokes played on our species. Man defining god, defining will of god, condemning man.

But please continue with what you were saying.

There was a large portion of my post that said nothing about The Bible. Also, the analysis that I did on the passage could have been done by a 10th grade atheist studying for the PSAT. There was no indication of my own beliefs in the analysis.

There were two main points:
-Private charity is more efficient than govt. charity.
-WWJD is irrelevant as he'd probably not be interested in govt. at all.

You've made your anti-God point. You've established your atheist 'cred with mathenis89. Care to discuss the information that I've presented?

(02-24-2013 05:29 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 01:36 PM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 01:23 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  Re-read, and try responding again.

I read it, understood it perfectly, and responded in kind.

Any person who takes the Bible seriously falls under what I said. Any person who would use that contradiction filled, illogically based, collection of books as an attempt to define the will of a supreme, omnipotent being is an idiot. To even assume, as a piece of **** human being, that you could understand an omnipotent being...it really is one of the biggest jokes played on our species. Man defining god, defining will of god, condemning man.

But please continue with what you were saying.

There was a large portion of my post that said nothing about The Bible. Also, the analysis that I did on the passage could have been done by a 10th grade atheist studying for the PSAT. There was no indication of my own beliefs in the analysis.

There were two main points:
-Private charity is more efficient than govt. charity.
-WWJD is irrelevant as he'd probably not be interested in govt. at all.

You've made your anti-God point. You've established your atheist 'cred with mathenis89. Care to discuss the information that I've presented?

Not atheist.

Nice assumption, though.

(02-24-2013 06:09 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 05:29 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 01:36 PM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 01:23 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  Re-read, and try responding again.

I read it, understood it perfectly, and responded in kind.

Any person who takes the Bible seriously falls under what I said. Any person who would use that contradiction filled, illogically based, collection of books as an attempt to define the will of a supreme, omnipotent being is an idiot. To even assume, as a piece of **** human being, that you could understand an omnipotent being...it really is one of the biggest jokes played on our species. Man defining god, defining will of god, condemning man.

But please continue with what you were saying.

There was a large portion of my post that said nothing about The Bible. Also, the analysis that I did on the passage could have been done by a 10th grade atheist studying for the PSAT. There was no indication of my own beliefs in the analysis.

There were two main points:
-Private charity is more efficient than govt. charity.
-WWJD is irrelevant as he'd probably not be interested in govt. at all.

You've made your anti-God point. You've established your atheist 'cred with mathenis89. Care to discuss the information that I've presented?

Not atheist.

Nice assumption, though.

So, no response to the inefficiencies of govt. charity? No response to the lack of personal choice when it comes to govt. charity? No response to my explanation of WWJD that supplants your assumption? No constructive comments at all?

(02-24-2013 07:38 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 06:09 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 05:29 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 01:36 PM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 01:23 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  Re-read, and try responding again.

I read it, understood it perfectly, and responded in kind.

Any person who takes the Bible seriously falls under what I said. Any person who would use that contradiction filled, illogically based, collection of books as an attempt to define the will of a supreme, omnipotent being is an idiot. To even assume, as a piece of **** human being, that you could understand an omnipotent being...it really is one of the biggest jokes played on our species. Man defining god, defining will of god, condemning man.

But please continue with what you were saying.

There was a large portion of my post that said nothing about The Bible. Also, the analysis that I did on the passage could have been done by a 10th grade atheist studying for the PSAT. There was no indication of my own beliefs in the analysis.

There were two main points:
-Private charity is more efficient than govt. charity.
-WWJD is irrelevant as he'd probably not be interested in govt. at all.

You've made your anti-God point. You've established your atheist 'cred with mathenis89. Care to discuss the information that I've presented?

Not atheist.

Nice assumption, though.

So, no response to the inefficiencies of govt. charity? No response to the lack of personal choice when it comes to govt. charity? No response to my explanation of WWJD that supplants your assumption? No constructive comments at all?

Wouldn't waste my breath. I would provide proof; you would refute facts with made up statements. I would provide a compelling argument; you would argue an idiotic, hypocritical point.

Educating you is not worth my time.

(02-24-2013 10:37 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 07:38 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  So, no response to the inefficiencies of govt. charity? No response to the lack of personal choice when it comes to govt. charity? No response to my explanation of WWJD that supplants your assumption? No constructive comments at all?

Wouldn't waste my breath. I would provide proof; you would refute facts with made up statements. I would provide a compelling argument; you would argue an idiotic, hypocritical point.

Educating you is not worth my time.

So, no response, eh?

I don't deal well with ignorant BS like this post. You can't take another opinion, and DEFINITELY won't consider facts presented to you that oppose your established view.

I'm in this for a real discussion. You seem to think off-topic one-liners and strawmen arguments pass for intelligent discourse.

Justify your thoughts and opinions. If you can't/won't then graciously bow out of the discussion. We're a fairly civil bunch here. Support your side. Myself and others will be glad to listen.

(02-24-2013 10:55 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 10:37 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 07:38 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  So, no response to the inefficiencies of govt. charity? No response to the lack of personal choice when it comes to govt. charity? No response to my explanation of WWJD that supplants your assumption? No constructive comments at all?

Wouldn't waste my breath. I would provide proof; you would refute facts with made up statements. I would provide a compelling argument; you would argue an idiotic, hypocritical point.

Educating you is not worth my time.

So, no response, eh?

I don't deal well with ignorant BS like this post. You can't take another opinion, and DEFINITELY won't consider facts presented to you that oppose your established view.

I'm in this for a real discussion. You seem to think off-topic one-liners and strawmen arguments pass for intelligent discourse.

Justify your thoughts and opinions. If you can't/won't then graciously bow out of the discussion. We're a fairly civil bunch here. Support your side. Myself and others will be glad to listen.

What "facts" did you post, exactly?

(02-24-2013 11:36 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 10:55 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 10:37 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 07:38 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  So, no response to the inefficiencies of govt. charity? No response to the lack of personal choice when it comes to govt. charity? No response to my explanation of WWJD that supplants your assumption? No constructive comments at all?

Wouldn't waste my breath. I would provide proof; you would refute facts with made up statements. I would provide a compelling argument; you would argue an idiotic, hypocritical point.

Educating you is not worth my time.

So, no response, eh?

I don't deal well with ignorant BS like this post. You can't take another opinion, and DEFINITELY won't consider facts presented to you that oppose your established view.

I'm in this for a real discussion. You seem to think off-topic one-liners and strawmen arguments pass for intelligent discourse.

Justify your thoughts and opinions. If you can't/won't then graciously bow out of the discussion. We're a fairly civil bunch here. Support your side. Myself and others will be glad to listen.

What "facts" did you post, exactly?

You really are proving yourself to be quite unreasoable. He posted a perfectly reasonable post, and all you can do is ridicule.

He posted the FACT that private charity is far more efficient than public charity. Given that, why should the government be in charge of social programs? Of course, I would guess that your response would involve compulsion - you can force someone to pay taxes, you can't force them to give to charity. However, what if you could? What if we passed laws that instead of giving tax deductions for charitable contributions, gave tax credits for contributions to charities that address social problems? People could pick what they wanted to give to and give to that instead of paying taxes. Do you still think that would change people's giving patterns?

Plenty of facts to address in his post without getting being an arsehat about it.