NationStates Jolt Archive

You know, we on the right, those on the left, and those in the apathetic middle go the rounds in politics again and again and again. It's not good.

Isn't there some way to compromise, let the American Left get some, let the American Right get some, and the American Middle get some; then leave it that way, and stop fighting.

For example, I'd be willing to submit to

1. a Leftist Economic System, a quasi-socialist economy, and the Dems can get their social spending, public housing, free health care, education, etc...

2. Let the Right win the moral/value fights, like abortion, gay marriage, separation of church and state, the Pledge, etc...

3. Let the Middle have their way on defense and foreign policy, foreign relations, UN, etc...

Would anyone agree to a compromise like that? Not necessarily the one I proposed, but this sort of a compromise?

You would be debating from here until eternity on the nature of your compromise.

Compromise is for losers.

You would be debating from here until eternity on the nature of your compromise.
Eggg-xactly.

Naw.

Why should we as centrists compromise?
We've got time and position on our side anyway.

I'm serious. It would be nice if we could come to SOME form of consensus in this country. I really get sick of the fighting, ON BOTH SIDES.

I said it didn't have to be the one I proposed, but if you would accept a compromise along those lines- You win this, you win that, and I win this- wouldn't that be acceptable?

I'm serious. It would be nice if we could come to SOME form of consensus in this country. I really get sick of the fighting, ON BOTH SIDES.

I said it didn't have to be the one I proposed, but if you would accept a compromise along those lines- You win this, you win that, and I win this- wouldn't that be acceptable?
Not in america's 2 party system.

Not in america's 2 party system.
Differences between the two major parties in America are greatly overemphasised and greatly overestimated.

No, leftists will never accept institutionalized greed and homophobia and rightists will never accept opposition to capitalism or religion. You can't expect them to compromise.

Nope, I really do enjoy the discord and endless fighting. It's very amusing.

You know, we on the right, those on the left, and those in the apathetic middle go the rounds in politics again and again and again. It's not good.

Isn't there some way to compromise, let the American Left get some, let the American Right get some, and the American Middle get some; then leave it that way, and stop fighting.

For example, I'd be willing to submit to

1. a Leftist Economic System, a quasi-socialist economy, and the Dems can get their social spending, public housing, free health care, education, etc...

2. Let the Right win the moral/value fights, like abortion, gay marriage, separation of church and state, the Pledge, etc...

3. Let the Middle have their way on defense and foreign policy, foreign relations, UN, etc...

Would anyone agree to a compromise like that? Not necessarily the one I proposed, but this sort of a compromise?

I can agee with 2 and 3 but not with number 1. Drop one and let the market take over and I can accept.

1. a Leftist Economic System, a quasi-socialist economy, and the Dems can get their social spending, public housing, free health care, education, etc...
Sounds good.

2. Let the Right win the moral/value fights, like abortion, gay marriage, separation of church and state, the Pledge, etc...
*Bad* idea, especially on these subjects! It would end up with only hate and intolerance towards gay and lesbians, abolishment of church/state separation, women being forced to get the child even after being raped and other braindead stuff like that :rolleyes:

3. Let the Middle have their way on defense and foreign policy, foreign relations, UN, etc...
Not as bad as the crap the religious right would do, but still far from optimal.

No, leftists will never accept institutionalized greed and homophobia and rightists will never accept opposition to capitalism or religion. You can't expect them to compromise.

I'm about as far right as they come. If you've ever seen any of my posts, you would know that. I've probably pulled the :sniper: and :mp5: and:mad: emoticons out more than any lefty ever did.

Yet even I see room for compromise. It is sensible. It worked for our Founding Fathers. The Constitution is an entire document of compromises.

The only issue that this country failed at compromising on was slavery. Every other time, it has worked.

I'm about as far right as they come. If you've ever seen any of my posts, you would know that. I've probably pulled the :sniper: and :mp5: and:mad: emoticons out more than any lefty ever did.

Yet even I see room for compromise. It is sensible. It worked for our Founding Fathers. The Constitution is an entire document of compromises.

The only issue that this country failed at compromising on was slavery. Every other time, it has worked.

Actually we did compromise on slavery. It was called the 3/5ths compromise.

I can agee with 2 and 3 but not with number 1. Drop one and let the market take over and I can accept.

I would like that better. But, in compromise, even the left/Democrats must get something. If they get nothing, they won't accept the other two.

Then it wouldn't be a compromise.

It'll be a cold day in Hell before I compromise with a conservative.

Actually we did compromise on slavery. It was called the 3/5ths compromise.

I'm not saying we didn't. Our compromises on slavery lasted about 100 years, then failed in something we called "The Civil War".

2. Let the Right win the moral/value fights, like abortion, gay marriage, separation of church and state, the Pledge, etc...

I can't speak for Americans but as a socialist there can be no compromise on basic freedoms and liberties. You either live in a free country or you don't.

Differences between the two major parties in America are greatly overemphasised and greatly overestimated.
True, but they'll never admit that.

I would like that better. But, in compromise, even the left/Democrats must get something. If they get nothing, they won't accept the other two.

Then it wouldn't be a compromise.

Well then lets sit and talk about it then.

It'll be a cold day in Hell before I compromise with a conservative.

how nice. I'm willing to negotiate with anyone.

I can't speak for Americans but as a socialist there can be no compromise on basic freedoms and liberties. You either live in a free country or you don't.

Ahem, I'd be giving up my economic freedom.

As a socialist, you would like to enslave me to the socialist system. So, technically, you don't live in a free society either.

I'm not saying we didn't. Our compromises on slavery lasted about 100 years, then failed in something we called "The Civil War".

But the fact remains is that we still compromised on slavery.

Our society IS a constant compromise. The fact that the negotiation is ongoing does not negate the fact that the rules we live under are made up of bits and pieces of ideas from both sides, the middle, and ideas from way off in other directions.

That everyone is trying to change, amend and update those rules, and that this does not cause civil war, just shows that the negotiating and compromising actually works.

If we were to install a dictator for life, I think you would find that the folks who opposed that dictator would rise up violently. At which point, the system would STOP working.

So yes, it is messy, but it gets the job done, and people with widely divergent viewpoints all get at least a shot at having their say, so I will vote for sticking with what we have got. And keep arguing for my preferences, too.

2. Let the Right win the moral/value fights, like abortion, gay marriage, separation of church and state, the Pledge, etc...

The Swedish right? Sure. They're liberal and would never abolish either abortion, or gay rights, or separation of church and state...

The US right? Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell no!

It'll be a cold day in Hell before I compromise with a conservative.
LOL! Uh ... what about a compromise with me? :D

It'll be a cold day in Hell before I compromise with a conservative.

What would a secularist/atheist/leftist know about Hell? *sacastic smirk on face*

Ahem, I'd be giving up my economic freedom.

As a socialist, you would like to enslave me to the socialist system. So, technically, you don't live in a free society either.

You're not enslaved, you don't have to participate if you don't want to.

True, but they'll never admit that.
Of course not. It's in their respective best interests to emphasize the differences.

You're not enslaved, you don't have to participate if you don't want to.

You mean... I DON'T HAVE TO PAY TAXES?!!!!

YIPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D :D :D

Let the right win on financial issues, with the sole exception of miterary spending. Let the democrats decide how much money is funneled into the miltary juggernaut.

The ccompromise for letting the right have most of the finanial freedom? give the left leeway on issues that dont affect anything at all, like gay marriage.

The Swedish right? Sure. They're liberal and would never abolish either abortion, or gay rights, or separation of church and state...

The US right? Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell no!

If you could get enough Swedes to move to America, and become citizens, and some how get them to constitute a "Right Wing", more power to ya.

Good luck...:rolleyes:

If you could get enough Swedes to move to America, and become citizens, and some how get them to constitute a "Right Wing", more power to ya.

Good luck...:rolleyes:

Or, you know, I could stay put and count my blessings not to be living in the US.

You mean... I DON'T HAVE TO PAY TAXES?!!!!

YIPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D :D :D

I was thinking more along the lines of you having the option to opt out and starve quietly if you refused to work. You could probably survive by eating wild berries and trapping rabbits (my survival information comes mainly from the Famous Five series :) ).

LOL! Uh ... what about a compromise with me? :D

You're a centrist ... that's different. Any compromise between you and I would still fall well left of Hillary Clinton (a real man's man) and not be so far to the right as to give Corneliu a stiffy.

As someone mentioned the 3/5th compromise concerning slavery, I know that that would be as unacceptable to you as it would be to me. A person is a person and no less than a person. The conservative right wing could never agree to that - which is why we went to war (among other things).

Or, you know, I could stay put and count my blessings not to be living in the US.

You don't live here?

Oh well, you're loss. I'll count my blessing that Americans aren't yet AS screwed up as Europeans. Not yet, at least...

I was thinking more along the lines of you having the option to opt out and starve quietly if you refused to work. You could probably survive by eating wild berries and trapping rabbits (my survival information comes mainly from the Famous Five series :) ).

I KNEW there was a catch.

Let the right win on financial issues, with the sole exception of miterary spending. Let the democrats decide how much money is funneled into the miltary juggernaut.


Democrat != Left/Liberal (Look at Joe Leiberman)
Republican != Right/Conservative (Look at the Logcabin Repubs)

You don't live here?

Oh well, you're loss. I'll count my blessing that Americans aren't yet AS screwed up as Europeans. Not yet, at least...

Actually Sweden is one of the least screwed up nations in Europe. If you want to believe Fass that is and who wouldn't? ;)

Or, you know, I could stay put and count my blessings not to be living in the US.

Still beats livin' in Saudi Arabia ..... for now ....

You're a centrist ... that's different. Any compromise between you and I would still fall well left of Hillary Clinton (a real man's man) and not be so far to the right as to give Corneliu a stiffy.

As someone mentioned the 3/5th compromise concerning slavery, I know that that would be as unacceptable to you as it would be to me. A person is a person and no less than a person. The conservative right wing could never agree to that - which is why we went to war (among other things).

WE MOST CERTAINLY DO! It's you who think an unborn human being is less than human. We believe all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with LIFE, LIBERTY, and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS (or property), which you don't seem to think babies have.:mad:

You mean... I DON'T HAVE TO PAY TAXES?!!!!

YIPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D :D :D

Sure... but then you may not drive on public roads, send your kids to public schools, hook your house up to the water or sewer systems, call for police if you are burgled, or the fire department if your house burns.

You may not vote, nor visit a public park, the library, or any other public building. You may not have a passport, so if you leave the country, you had better not plan on coming back. You may not take anyone to court for violating your rights...

The list goes on and on.

You don't live here?

Oh well, you're loss. I'll count my blessing that Americans aren't yet AS screwed up as Europeans. Not yet, at least...

And how pray is Europe screwed? Is it because we aren't the most hated country/continent in the world? Maybe it's because we don't have such a stupidly large national debt? Or maybe it's because we don't try to enforce religous morality onto other people?

I was thinking more along the lines of you having the option to opt out and starve quietly if you refused to work. You could probably survive by eating wild berries and trapping rabbits (my survival information comes mainly from the Famous Five series :) ).
Leftists have that same right when it comes to escaping the capitalist exploitation of the workers in a capitalist system. I really don't see why we should move rights around like a deranged shell-gamer when the status quo suits me just fine.

Compromise is a way of convincing good men to do nothing. By accepting the Middle Ground because it is the Middle, you are disenfranchising yourself and fucking over future generations for no reason other than your own laziness and fear.

I KNEW there was a catch.

What are you complaining about? Surely you wouldn't want to scrounge of your peers if you weren't doing something to earn your keep. ;)

WE MOST CERTAINLY DO! It's you who think an unborn human being is less than human. We believe all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with LIFE, LIBERTY, and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS (or property), which you don't seem to think babies have.:mad:

The day you fight for the right to let a 5 year old vote, then I'll believe you give "babies" the right to life, etc etc.

I also challenge you to add "heterosexual" to your "all men" rhetoric.

Incidently, an unborn human being isn't a human being. Even the Bible says so.

You don't live here?

Heavens no, perish the thought.

Oh well, you're loss.

Unlamented, to say the least.

I'll count my blessing that Americans aren't yet AS screwed up as Europeans. Not yet, at least...

Nope, you passed our stage of "screwed up" when all our religious wackos emigrated some 200-300 years ago.

And how pray is Europe screwed? Is it because we aren't the most hated country/continent in the world? Maybe it's because we don't have such a stupidly large national debt? Or maybe it's because we don't try to enforce religous morality onto other people?

You really don't want me to start spouting off what's wrong with Europe. It could take a LONG while.

Trust me, don't ask, for your sake, and everybody else's.

Besides, you don't want to hear the rantings of a religious fanatic, do you???:p

[ sings ... a sound you do NOT want to hear! ]

why cant we...

why must this be the end?
why cant we be
why cant we be
why cant we be friends
why wont you be my friend

:D

We believe all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with LIFE, LIBERTY, and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS (or property), which you don't seem to think babies have.:mad:

You know, unless they're white, Christian, male and heterosexual.

What would a secularist/atheist/leftist know about Hell? *sacastic smirk on face*
I'm a leftist christian, the right does not have a monopoly on God, or Hell(although... :D).
Why do you dislike taxes if you're christian and you're supposed to care about more then yourself?

The day you fight for the right to let a 5 year old vote, then I'll believe you give "babies" the right to life, etc etc.

I also challenge you to add "heterosexual" to your "all men" rhetoric.

Incidently, an unborn human being isn't a human being. Even the Bible says so.

I'd be fine and dandy if any age could vote. Eliminate the voting age. Seriously. I'd be all for that.

I don't get the second point. What are you asking me to do exactly?

And I'd like a reference to the Bible as to where it says that.

Leftists have that same right when it comes to escaping the capitalist exploitation of the workers in a capitalist system. I really don't see why we should move rights around like a deranged shell-gamer when the status quo suits me just fine.

Trying to improve a system and opting out of it are very different things. The Niamen was inquiring about opting out, I plan to improve the current system.

Compromise is a way of convincing good men to do nothing. By accepting the Middle Ground because it is the Middle, you are disenfranchising yourself and fucking over future generations for no reason other than your own laziness and fear.

Which is why I said that I refuse to compromise on basic rights and freedoms.

You know, unless they're white, Christian, male and heterosexual.
Yayy! Let's hear it for WASPs! :D

[ sings ... a sound you do NOT want to hear! ]

why cant we...

why must this be the end?
why cant we be
why cant we be
why cant we be friends
why wont you be my friend

:DBecause you just randomly started singing and I don't especially like musicals

You really don't want me to start spouting off what's wrong with Europe. It could take a LONG while.

Trust me, don't ask, for your sake, and everybody else's.

Besides, you don't want to hear the rantings of a religious fanatic, do you???:p

The scarcity of religous fanatics is one of the reasons why Europe is so great.

I'm a leftist christian, the right does not have a monopoly on God, or Hell(although... :D).
Why do you dislike taxes if you're christian and you're supposed to care about more then yourself?

I never said anything about not caring about others. And what kind of Christian spells it "christian" without capitalizing? Not a good one. I carry His name with honor.

Because you just randomly started singing and I don't especially like musicals
"Why Can't We Be Friends" is from a musical??? :eek:

I'd be fine and dandy if any age could vote. Eliminate the voting age. Seriously. I'd be all for that.

Right.

I don't get the second point. What are you asking me to do exactly?

Conservatives do not believe homosexual men or women should have equality, hence, you must add "all heterosexual men are created equal" and leave it at that.

And I'd like a reference to the Bible as to where it says that.

"If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, `Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity. It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.'" - Ecclesiastes 6:3-5

Clearly there is a quality of life issue being put forth in the Scriptures. And in this case, Solomon makes the point that it is sometimes better to end a pregnancy prematurely than to allow it to continue into a miserable life.

"Why then hast Thou brought me out of the womb? Would that I had died and no eye had seen me! I should have been as though I had not been, carried from womb to tomb." - Job 10:18-19

Clearly there is a strong argument here that the quality of a life is as important if not more important than the act of being born. Indeed, we could claim that the Bible supports ending a pregnancy in the face of a life without quality. And, if I wanted to be bold, I could claim that this interpretation is in fact a biblical mandate to support the use of abortion as a way to improve our quality of life.

Finally ....

"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." - Exodus 21:22-25

This is a very illuminating passage. In it we find a woman losing her child by being stuck by men who are fighting. Rather than it being a capital offense, however, it is relegated to a civil matter, with the father-to-be taking the participants to court for a settlement. But, as we read on, if the woman is killed, a "life for a life," then the men who killed her shall be killed.

Mother > Baby, hence, Baby is not whole person.

"Why Can't We Be Friends" is from a musical??? :eek:
I don't know but randomly singing something that's easier just to say in a short sentance is what musicals are all about.

I never said anything about not caring about others. And what kind of Christian spells it "christian" without capitalizing? Not a good one. I carry His name with honor.One who knows the rules of english((<-- that wasn't capitalised even though you capitalise England))
Christ is capitalised, Jesus is capitalised, Christianity is capitalised, christian which is an adjective is not.

But you dislike taxes for selfish reasons.

Trying to improve a system and opting out of it are very different things. The Niamen was inquiring about opting out, I plan to improve the current system.
"Improve", no, you seek to shape the system to your ends. To "improve" something, your ends have to be the right ones, and since it is impossible to determine whether you are right without a certain amount of distance and hindsight, you're being rather presumptuous.
Which is why I said that I refuse to compromise on basic rights and freedoms.
And why I refuse to compromise in opposing your concept of "right" and will try to bring my own concepts of Freedom to fruition. If we were to, at some point, just give up and agree to a middle ground, we'd both be miserable anyway.

For example, I'd be willing to submit to

1. a Leftist Economic System, a quasi-socialist economy, and the Dems can get their social spending, public housing, free health care, education, etc...

2. Let the Right win the moral/value fights, like abortion, gay marriage, separation of church and state, the Pledge, etc...

3. Let the Middle have their way on defense and foreign policy, foreign relations, UN, etc...

Would anyone agree to a compromise like that? Not necessarily the one I proposed, but this sort of a compromise?
Err, a form of National Socialism? No thanks. How about we follow the Right's economic agenda, the Left's social agenda and the Centre's foreign policy attitude? That way we have a liberal economy and society and a defensive rather than offensive state.

"If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, `Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity. It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.'" - Ecclesiastes 6:3-5

Clearly there is a quality of life issue being put forth in the Scriptures. And in this case, Solomon makes the point that it is sometimes better to end a pregnancy prematurely than to allow it to continue into a miserable life.

"Why then hast Thou brought me out of the womb? Would that I had died and no eye had seen me! I should have been as though I had not been, carried from womb to tomb." - Job 10:18-19

Clearly there is a strong argument here that the quality of a life is as important if not more important than the act of being born. Indeed, we could claim that the Bible supports ending a pregnancy in the face of a life without quality. And, if I wanted to be bold, I could claim that this interpretation is in fact a biblical mandate to support the use of abortion as a way to improve our quality of life.

Finally ....

"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." - Exodus 21:22-25

This is a very illuminating passage. In it we find a woman losing her child by being stuck by men who are fighting. Rather than it being a capital offense, however, it is relegated to a civil matter, with the father-to-be taking the participants to court for a settlement. But, as we read on, if the woman is killed, a "life for a life," then the men who killed her shall be killed.

Mother > Baby, hence, Baby is not whole person.

Ecclesiates 6:3-5 doesn't say that, it says

3 ¶ If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth (aka, prematurity) is better than he.

4 For he cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name shall be covered with darkness.

5 Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor known any thing: this hath more rest than the other.


In Job 10:18-19, he's essentially bemoaning that it would have been better if he hadn't been born. That's a figure of speech that is common, even back then.

Exodus- if there is any further injury... Which there most certainly would be. And the Mosaic Law is fulfilled. No longer applicable.

What would a secularist/atheist/leftist know about Hell? *sacastic smirk on face*

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Keruvalia Muslim?

To the OP: If honestly believe that the Democrats are in any way opposed to capitalism I want some of what you're smoking.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Keruvalia Muslim?

To the OP: If honestly believe that the Democrats are in any way opposed to capitalism I want some of what you're smoking.

Oxygen. Wonderful thing. Much better than the marijuana you're on.

Oxygen. Wonderful thing. Much better than the marijuana you're on.
That stuff has a 100% death rate you know!:eek:

That stuff has a 100% death rate you know!:eek:

Too true, except everything else only speeds up the death process. I want to live for awhile longer.

"Improve", no, you seek to shape the system to your ends. To "improve" something, your ends have to be the right ones, and since it is impossible to determine whether you are right without a certain amount of distance and hindsight, you're being rather presumptuous.

Even if I accept your quibble it still doesn't detract from my point: I wish to alter/change the current system, he wants to opt out of it, your attempt to compare the two is fruitless.

And why I refuse to compromise in opposing your concept of "right" and will try to bring my own concepts of Freedom to fruition. If we were to, at some point, just give up and agree to a middle ground, we'd both be miserable anyway.

I propose we continue to waste our lives on net forums arguing inanely with other people who will never change their opinions and who will never change ours.

Ecclesiates 6:3-5 doesn't say that, it says

3 ¶ If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth (aka, prematurity) is better than he.

4 For he cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name shall be covered with darkness.

5 Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor known any thing: this hath more rest than the other.


In Job 10:18-19, he's essentially bemoaning that it would have been better if he hadn't been born. That's a figure of speech that is common, even back then.

Exodus- if there is any further injury... Which there most certainly would be. And the Mosaic Law is fulfilled. No longer applicable.

The first bible I laid my hands on reads as follows...

Ecclesiastes 6: 3-5
3 A man may have a hundred children and live a long time, but no matter how long he lives, if he does not get his share of happiness and does not receive a decent burial, then I say a baby born dead is better off. 4 It does that baby no good to be born; it disappears into darkenss, where it is forgotten. 5 It never sees the light of day or knows what life is like, but at least it has found rest-

I would think that even if "untimely birth" did mean premature baby, in that society and time a premature baby was probably dead anyway, or after a very short, painful time, would be.

It certainly does indicate that quality of life IS an issue to consider.

As does the Job passage. If God were dead set against the idea of abortion, then Job's lament would have been equivalent to damnation, which, from the rest of the story, we know not to be the case. That being so, and since the comment made it into the bible, the argument that quality of life is a valid issue does pertain, whether Job was serious, or whether he was speaking in hyperbole.

As to the Mosaic Law being fulfilled... there is no indication of another law supplanting it in this case, so I would suggest that at least the CONCEPT of this one still stands.

Ecclesiates 6:3-5 doesn't say that, it says

3 ¶ If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth (aka, prematurity) is better than he.

En man kan få hundra barn och leva otaliga år, men om han aldrig blir tillfredsställd i livet, hur länge han än lever, och kanske inte ens får en grav, då säger jag: Ett dödfött barn är lyckligare!

Nope. My version of the bible clearly states "dead born," i.e. either a miscarriage or the stillborn.

Differences between the two major parties in America are greatly overemphasised and greatly overestimated.
I've been saying this for years. Why do people think that the parties are polarised? It's because their most vocal supporters are.

I'm serious. It would be nice if we could come to SOME form of consensus in this country. I really get sick of the fighting, ON BOTH SIDES.
It's hardly any worse than in most countries. In many countries, politics comes with guns.

Which Bibles are we using.

I have the KJV. We can't be looking at the same version.

Which Bibles are we using.

I have the KJV. We can't be looking at the same version.

The NIV translates the word as 'stillborn'. Given that the NIV was translated from the original texts whereas the KJV was transcribed from the Latin Vulgate I'm inclined to trust the NIV.

Which Bibles are we using.

I have the KJV. We can't be looking at the same version.

http://www.bibeln.se - The Swedish 2000 translation, considered the best researched one.

The NIV translates the word as 'stillborn'. Given that the NIV was translated from the original texts whereas the KJV was transcribed from the Latin Vulgate I'm inclined to trust the NIV.

The KJV was translated also from the original texts. And, it is the official volume for my church, which is headed by Christ. I'm more inclined to trust what God says.

I resent the implication that the middle is 'apathetic'. I agree and disagree with aspects of both the Democratic and Republican parties' stances on issues.

That doesn't make my opinions any less strong. I just choose to recognize wrongness when I see it, regardless of it's source.

But ofcourse, nobody listens to us wackos. :p

But ofcourse, nobody listens to us wackos. :p
Until it's too late :)

The KJV was translated also from the original texts. And, it is the official volume for my church, which is headed by Christ. I'm more inclined to trust what God says.

No, my church is headed by Christ. Not yours. :rolleyes:

Until it's too late :)

Why do you think I'm proposing compromise?

So that it never becomes too late.

Why do you think I'm proposing compromise?

So that it never becomes too late.
When he takes over, it will already be too late. Anyway, I more or less ascribe to a mixture of various beliefs, but I am not American so neither party concerns me either way.

No, my church is headed by Christ. Not yours. :rolleyes:

I thought Europeans were anti-religion (with the exception of Islam, and maybe a few Catholics and the Church of England, all being/becoming state religions)

No, my church is headed by Christ. Not yours. :rolleyes:
No, no, you're both wrong. Mine is. :eek:

The KJV was translated also from the original texts. And, it is the official volume for my church, which is headed by Christ. I'm more inclined to trust what God says.

So your saying that a church isn't using the KJV it isn't headed by Christ?

I thought Europeans were anti-religion (with the exception of Islam, and maybe a few Catholics and the Church of England, all being/becoming state religions)
Yes, we operate as a collective hive mind you see. We hate notions such as individuality and such...

The KJV was translated also from the original texts. And, it is the official volume for my church, which is headed by Christ. I'm more inclined to trust what God says.

Most scholars who spend their lives working with Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew regard the KJV as a highly questionable version of the Bible. They point out that its interest in making the language poetic or streamlined is done at the cost of accuracy in translation. Futhermore, it is a translation of a translation, rather than a reexamination of all avaliable fragments of scripture used to produce a translation that is closer to the original languages of the Bible. They regard the KJV as a poor representation of the original tone, meaning, and text of Scripture, instead preferring the RSV, NRSV, or NIV versions of the Bible. Evidence of this can be found in the fact that most of today's leading exegetes (Elizabeth Achtemeier, Walter Brueggemann, Marcus Borg, James L. Crenshaw, Robert W. Funk, Luke Timothy Johnson, John Dominic Crossan, and Harold C. Washington), do not endorse the KJV for serious students. In fact, some scholars find it misleading, if not dangerous to use in serious scholarship.

It would seem that Bible scholars are in disagreement with you.

So your saying that a church isn't using the KJV it isn't headed by Christ?

Based on which version you use, no.

However, in our church, we believe we are the only true church with all the fullness of Christ's gospel. All religions have mostly truth, but we believe we are the only ones with ALL truth.

I thought Europeans were anti-religion (with the exception of Islam, and maybe a few Catholics and the Church of England, all being/becoming state religions)

I'm an atheist. I'm just taking the piss out of you for claiming your church is headed by Christ, and no other church, and that only yours (come on, the KJV is so out of date and so notoriously erroneous it's quite surprising anyone even still uses it) is the right translation. It's so silly.

It would seem that Bible scholars are in disagreement with you.

I forgot the link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KJV#Criticism_by_Bible_Scholars), sorry.

Based on which version you use, no.

However, in our church, we believe we are the only true church with all the fullness of Christ's gospel. All religions have mostly truth, but we believe we are the only ones with ALL truth.
The Truth, no? Absolute and Eternal.

Based on which version you use, no.

However, in our church, we believe we are the only true church with all the fullness of Christ's gospel. All religions have mostly truth, but we believe we are the only ones with ALL truth.

Now where have I heard that before...

It'll be a cold day in Hell before I compromise with a conservative.
Yeah! :mp5:

Not really, I'm an advocate of compromise. Everything in life seems to work out well when the middle road between extremes is taken.

I can't speak for Americans but as a socialist there can be no compromise on basic freedoms and liberties. You either live in a free country or you don't.
Well, it "worked" for Ireland for 80 years. I would also prefer social freedoms, but to me economic issues are more important.

how nice. I'm willing to negotiate with anyone.
At least Keruvalia is honest. I don't believe you.

The Swedish right? Sure. They're liberal and would never abolish either abortion, or gay rights, or separation of church and state...

Doesn't Sweden have a state lutheran church?

Ahem, I'd be giving up my economic freedom.

As a socialist, you would like to enslave me to the socialist system. So, technically, you don't live in a free society either.
Well, economic freedom is dependent on your outlook. Socialists think of their system which lacks a market, as freedom and capitalists think of theirs as freedom. Both have good solid reasons to back up their claims.

WE MOST CERTAINLY DO! It's you who think an unborn human being is less than human. We believe all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with LIFE, LIBERTY, and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS (or property), which you don't seem to think babies have.:mad:
If there's anything I've learned from the past few months of posting on NS, is that the right puts the right to private property first,a nd the left puts the right to life first.

For example, right-wingers think that their right not to be taxed is more important than the right to medical treatment.

Another example, right-wingers think that killing people is justified if they violate your property rights. (I'm not endorsing or defending criminals, I just think that "your wallet is worth more than their life" thinking is silly.)

I'm a leftist christian, the right does not have a monopoly on God, or Hell(although... :D).
Why do you dislike taxes if you're christian and you're supposed to care about more then yourself?
The 'religion' is a front for selfishness.

The scarcity of religous fanatics is one of the reasons why Europe is so great.
I agree. Let's close the borders. *adds another contentious issue to the thread, tee hee!*

Err, a form of National Socialism?
Hitler's foreign policy was not centrist by any means!

It would seem that Bible scholars are in disagreement with you.

The only versions that are the most correct are the Greek New Testament, and the Hebrew Old Testament.

But not every one can read Greek or Hebrew, hence, many versions, all of which are fallible.

Even the Greek and Hebrew versions aren't without flaw. Time has allowed for small errors.

But God will fix that when he sees fit.

I thought Europeans were anti-religion (with the exception of Islam, and maybe a few Catholics and the Church of England, all being/becoming state religions)
Islam isn't becoming any european country's state religion.

Hitler's foreign policy was not centrist by any means!
I was referring more to the convergence of the Right's social agenda and the Left's economic agenda.

Doesn't Sweden have a state lutheran church?

Nope.

I'm an atheist. I'm just taking the piss out of you for claiming your church is headed by Christ, and no other church, and that only yours (come on, the KJV is so out of date and so notoriously erroneous it's quite surprising anyone even still uses it) is the right translation. It's so silly.
His assumption that religiosity (or lack thereof) is the same all across Europe is also idiotic, as is his view that it is limited to the religions he mentioned.

Based on which version you use, no.

However, in our church, we believe we are the only true church with all the fullness of Christ's gospel. All religions have mostly truth, but we believe we are the only ones with ALL truth.

And what Church are you?

Islam isn't becoming any european country's state religion.

Tell that to France and Britain.

Tell that to France and Britain.
Both are secular, both have Christian majorities. And they are by no means Europe on their own.

And what Church are you?

The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints.

The only versions that are the most correct are the Greek New Testament, and the Hebrew Old Testament.

But not every one can read Greek or Hebrew, hence, many versions, all of which are fallible.

Even the Greek and Hebrew versions aren't without flaw. Time has allowed for small errors.

But God will fix that when he sees fit.

You did read the quote didn't you? Most Bible Scholars regard the KJV as dangerously innaccurate, the main reason why it is rejected is that it contradicts some long standing dogma.

At least Keruvalia is honest. I don't believe you.

That doesn't surprise me but yes. I do like to compromise.

Both are secular, both have Christian majorities.

Not true, currently, the State Religion of Britain is the Church of England, as it has been since Henry VIII.

His assumption that religiosity (or lack thereof) is the same all across Europe is also idiotic, as is his view that it is limited to the religions he mentioned.

It's just in the same vein of ignorance he's displayed so far.

The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints.

MORMON?

That explains that mentality. Ok folks, let us move along! :D

Tell that to France and Britain.

Wow. Just... wow. Sometimes I forget that people who believe that crap actually exist.

The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints.

Mormons? The ones who believe indians are hebrews even though DNA proves them wrong? Right...

Tell that to France and Britain.

Ok. They'll say "Yes, you're very correct. Islam is not the state religion in our respective countries."

Well, it "worked" for Ireland for 80 years. I would also prefer social freedoms, but to me economic issues are more important.

Meh, at least I'm honest about my willingness to compromise.

I agree. Let's close the borders. *adds another contentious issue to the thread, tee hee!*

Did I mention that Jesus was a Communist? ;)

MORMON?

Yes, if you will have it.

Not true, currently, the State Religion of Britain is the Church of England, as it has been since Henry VIII.
Its Parliament, ie its governing force, is secular. The Church is more to do with the Monarchy. Either way, this further contradicts your view of Islam somehow taking over.

Yes, if you will have it.

I have a mormon friend and I do not believe she subscribes to whatever sect you do.

The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't your founder alter several Old Testament tracts which he claimed were innaccurate? The story of Lot and Sodom for example. If so then you can hardly claim to follow an accurate translation.

I have a mormon friend and I do not believe she subscribes to whatever sect you do.

What? Is she part of the polygamist wacked out sects?

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't your founder alter several Old Testament tracts which he claimed were innaccurate? The story of Lot and Sodom for example. If so then you can hardly claim to follow an accurate translation.

OH BURN baby BURN!

*hands Randomlittleisland a cookie*

What? Is she part of the polygamist wacked out sects?

Hell no. But she is more down to earth than you are.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't your founder alter several Old Testament tracts which he claimed were innaccurate? The story of Lot and Sodom for example. If so then you can hardly claim to follow an accurate translation.

Actually, as scholars have researched, more and more of those "Changes" have been proven correct.

Hell no. But she is more down to earth than you are.

Humility has never been one of my strengths. ;)

OH BURN baby BURN!

*hands Randomlittleisland a cookie*

It's quite scary to find a topic that we agree on. :p

It's quite scary to find a topic that we agree on. :p

Oh yes it is. In this case this though, this is the 2nd thread that I have found a false witness for the Lord.

You know, Corneliu, I'm on the same side as you, why on earth would you need to attack my faith? :confused:

You know, Corneliu, I'm on the same side as you, why on earth would you need to attack my faith? :confused:
I would venture a guess that it is because you are saying that your denomination is the absolute Truth to the exclusion of all others.

You know, Corneliu, I'm on the same side as you, why on earth would you need to attack my faith? :confused:

Because of your stupid comment regarding that your church is the only True Church of Jesus Christ which is, in fact, false.

I'm a methodist and I believe in the Lord God but i do not go around saying that the Methodists are the true believers of God. I have Catholic family members who know that there are more than one segment of the Christian Community.

Stop making false claims and I will no longer pounce on your back for stupid quotes.

I would venture a guess that it is because you are saying that your denomination is the absolute Truth to the exclusion of all others.

So do most religions. I never said they were bad, or horrible.

I believe there are many good people.

I would venture a guess that it is because you are saying that your denomination is the absolute Truth to the exclusion of all others.

That is what the Mormons actually believe, believe it or not.

Actually, as scholars have researched, more and more of those "Changes" have been proven correct.

The majority of corrections are minor clarifying statements and language modernization. In some instances, these minor changes seem to coincide with the Septuagint, recent discoveries in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi library, other translations of the Bible, and other ancient documents not available to Smith. This fact has been used by Latter Day Saints as evidence that Smith was inspired. On the other hand, skeptics suggest that Smith may have had access to traditions that would have led to some of his "correct guesswork," and point to the fact that some lengthy changes, such as the prophecies of Moses are not included anywhere in any known documents, traditions or other accounts. Some Latter-day Saint apologists and scholars point to similarities of the prophecies of Enoch and Joseph (one of the twelve sons of Jacob or Israel) to Kabbalistic, Masonic and (Egyptian) Gnostic traditions as evidence of Smith's inspiration.

Many of Smith's revisions to the Bible led to significant developments in the doctrines of Mormonism. During the process of translation, when he came across troubling Biblical issues, Smith often dictated revelations relevant to himself, his associates, or the Church. About half of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants are in some way connected to this translation process, including background on the Apocrypha (LDS D&C section 91), the Three Degrees of Heaven (LDS section 76), the Eternal nature of marriage and plural marriage (LDS section 132), teachings on baptism for the dead (LDS section 124), various revelations on priesthood (LDS sections 84, 88, 107) and others. In addition, many other works that have been considered canon by various Latter Day Saint faiths, including the Lectures on Faith and the Pearl of Great Price are largely the result of the translation.

For some of Smith's revisions, critics argue that the change has more to do with supporting Latter Day Saint theology, than with restoring original meaning or intent. For example, one of Smith's revisions includes a prophecy about Joseph Smith himself.

;)

link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible#Content_of_the_translation)

Because of your stupid comment regarding that your church is the only True Church of Jesus Christ which is, in fact, false.

I'm a methodist and I believe in the Lord God but i do not go around saying that the Methodists are the true believers of God. I have Catholic family members who know that there are more than one segment of the Christian Community.

Stop making false claims and I will no longer pounce on your back for stupid quotes.

I wasn't making false claims. I just stated my beliefs. We aren't the only ones who believe in God and Christ. I don't believe we have monopoly on righteousness. And I don't think people of other faiths are bad, or are damned, or condemned to go to hell. I believe most people are good, most will make it to heaven.

;)

link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible#Content_of_the_translation)

*gives random another cookie*

This is now getting to be to much

*laughing harder*

So do most religions. I never said they were bad, or horrible.

I believe there are many good people.
Not to the same extent. Catholicism and Orthodoxy both claim that they are the most correct denominations, and both have greater claim to this than Mormonism. Neither maintains (presently) that all other Christians are heathens though.

I wasn't making false claims.

Yes you did.

I just stated my beliefs.

Which is fine until you crossed the line saying that you are the only true church of the Christian Faith.

We aren't the only ones who believe in God and Christ.

Now your back pedaling.

I don't believe we have monopoly on righteousness. And I don't think people of other faiths are bad, or are damned, or condemned to go to hell. I believe most people are good, most will make it to heaven.

Yep, most definitely backpedaling.

You are forgiven my child.

Not to the same extent. Catholicism and Orthodoxy both claim that they are the most correct denominations, and both have greater claim to this than Mormonism. Neither maintains (presently) that all other Christians are heathens though.

Neither do I.

I have not attacked your faith, why are you attacking mine?

Neither do I.

I have not attacked your faith, why are you attacking mine?
You don't even know my faith to begin with, because I have never stated it. I am merely questioning the hypocritical attitude you were displaying earlier. As Corneliu noted, you are backtracking now.

Neither do I.

I have not attacked your faith, why are you attacking mine?

Actually we aren't. If we did, we would be attacking Momonism itself. What we are doing is pointing out that you are not the True Church of God. We are not attacking you personally nor attacking your faith.

What we have attacked is your quotes with scriptural and historical facts.

You don't even know my faith to begin with, because I have never stated it. I am merely questioning the hypocritical attitude you were displaying earlier. As Corneliu noted, you are backtracking now.

I'm not back tracking. This is what I believe. I'm not going to unbelieve just because someone might take offense.

That is what I believe, all of it. I don't need to backtrack.

I'm not back tracking. This is what I believe. I'm not going to unbelieve just because someone might take offense.

That is what I believe, all of it. I don't need to backtrack.
You have definitely toned down the intensity of your conviction though.

Exodus- if there is any further injury... Which there most certainly would be. And the Mosaic Law is fulfilled. No longer applicable.

Then it's ok to kill and, thus, abortion is acceptable.

Thanks for playing.

You have definitely toned down the intensity of your conviction though.

Which in essence is backtracking :D

Just for the amusement of Corneliu and any bored lurkers who happen to be around, a comparison of the Mormon translation and the NIV translation:

Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

NIV link (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=19&version=31)

And Lot said, Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, plead with my brethren that I may not bring them out unto you; and ye shall not do unto them as seemeth good in your eyes;

Mormon link (http://www.centerplace.org/hs/iv/iv-gen.htm)

I thought Europeans were anti-religion (with the exception of Islam, and maybe a few Catholics and the Church of England, all being/becoming state religions)
Europe is not the USSR. We have religious freedom here.

Which in essence is backtracking :D
Precisely. :) I'll let him figure out the rest.

Just for the amusement of Corneliu and any bored lurkers who happen to be around, a comparison of the Mormon translation and the NIV translation:



NIV link (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=19&version=31)



Mormon link (http://www.centerplace.org/hs/iv/iv-gen.htm)

*begins to utter a prayer*

I have the KJV. We can't be looking at the same version.

You're right. I have a Hebrew Tanakh. I think mine carries more weight when it comes to OT stuff like Exodus and Psalms and whatnot seeing as how my people wrote them.

But, hey, what do Jews know about the Bible, right? We'd much rather take the word of a misogynist fag-basher who wanted a poetic Bible rather than accurate. *shrug* Suit yourself.

I'd feel better if you used at least the Vulgate, though. It's more accurate than the KJV.

I was referring more to the convergence of the Right's social agenda and the Left's economic agenda.
Nor was Hitler a socialist, other than in name. And his social agenda was much more extreme than that of the US Right. All in all, Naiman is not proposing Nazism.

Why is Hitler slightly right ? The Nazis were socialists, so they weren't fascists either.

Let's start with the second part first. Some respondents confuse Nazism, a political party platform, with fascism, which is a particular structure of government. Fascism legally sanctions the persecution of a particular group within the country - political, ethnic, religious - whatever. So within Nazism there are elements of fascism, as well as militarism, capitalism, socialism etc. To tar all socialists with the national socialist brush is as absurd as citing Bill Gates and Augusto Pinochet in the same breath as examples of free market capitalism.

Economically, Hitler was well to the right of Stalin. Post-war investigations led to a number of revelations about the cosy relationship between German corporations and the Reich. No such scandals subsequently surfaced in Russia, because Stalin had totally squashed the private sector. By contrast, once in power, the Nazis achieved rearmament through deficit spending. One of our respondents has correctly pointed out that they actively discouraged demand increases because they wanted infrastructure investment. Under the Reich, corporations were largely left to govern themselves, with the incentive that if they kept prices under control, they would be rewarded with government contracts. Hardly a socialist economic agenda !

We wonder if respondents who insist on uncritically accepting the Nazis' self-definition of 'socialist' would be quite as eager to believe that the German Democratic Republic was democratic.

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/faq.php#hitler

Tell that to France and Britain.
France, which bans the bur'qua in public schools? Britain, with a large Christian majority?

Not true, currently, the State Religion of Britain is the Church of England, as it has been since Henry VIII.
Are you expecting the Church of England to morph into Islam?

That doesn't surprise me but yes. I do like to compromise.
Sorry to grave-dig, but you asked for it:
Yes America can do better. Things will get better when the Liberals in Both houses of Congress get their asses tossed right out of power.

Meh, at least I'm honest about my willingness to compromise.
OK. I was just saying that religiously-influenced gov't policy is not absolutely intolerable, although not ideal, when you have economic equality and workers' rights.

Did I mention that Jesus was a Communist?
Yeah, maybe. He was a pacifist though, and I am always suspect of pacifists who claim to be communists.

I can't speak for Americans but as a socialist there can be no compromise on basic freedoms and liberties. You either live in a free country or you don't.
Socialism is the reason the the UK went from being a world super-power to... not. It is the reason for the United States being created. It is the reason that people on the dole make more than the working class. Socialism has NEVER worked.
example: If farmers don't make enough money, rather than planting different crops or selling their land, let's help them lose MORE money with subsidies! Anytime something isn't working, rather than doing something else, lets MAKE it feasible by stealing from everyone else.
On the converse, letting a few religious zealots dictate what everyone else does with their lives is moral socialism. Lefties tell me that I can't spend my own money on what I want, Righties tell me that I have to use my body and mind in the ways that they specify. It's the same thing.
I think that we should ban political parties in the US. Isn't it interesting how no matter what the issue, the senate always votes along party lines. If there were no parties, we, (and the politicians) would have to use our brains.

I can't speak for Americans but as a socialist there can be no compromise on basic freedoms and liberties. You either live in a free country or you don't.

That is the problem, in all socialist communist nations all basic freedoms and liberties are taken away.

1. A one party political state, with no active oppostition in any level of government of diffrent political partys with diffrent economic, political or social views.

2. 100 percent government control media, press, radio, television, internet, cable, satelite dishes, you name it.

3. All civil social organizations under government run control.

4. When the state controls all the means of production, the workers are not really in control, the state is as practiced and this creates an automatic dictatorship.

In European Socialist nations, socialist partys can work with other political partys because they concentrate more on providing social services or social welfare than on state control of all the means of production and social organizations.

I have no doubt Randomlittleisland believes in a just fair socialist system of government, but as put in practice the world over, it becomes an automatic dictatorship.

I have to go for now.

Nor was Hitler a socialist, other than in name. And his social agenda was much more extreme than that of the US Right. All in all, Naiman is not proposing Nazism.
It isn't, I know, but definitely not a regime I'd like to live under.

Hitler's attitude towards the economy wasn't capitalist either though, was it? I think he went for a mixed economy.

Socialism is the reason the the UK went from being a world super-power to... not. It is the reason for the United States being created. It is the reason that people on the dole make more than the working class. Socialism has NEVER worked.
No, World War II, dismantling the empire and being eclipsed by the unchalleangable military might of the US and USSR caused the UK to drop from super-power to regional power.

People on the dole should not be making more money than workers. Any real socialist will tell you that.

You know, Corneliu, I'm on the same side as you, why on earth would you need to attack my faith? :confused:
NS is not about factionalising and never criticising those who vaguely share your ideology.

Just for the amusement of Corneliu and any bored lurkers who happen to be around, a comparison of the Mormon translation and the NIV translation:



NIV link (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=19&version=31)



Mormon link (http://www.centerplace.org/hs/iv/iv-gen.htm)

Um...That's an RLDS site. They're a break away. Go to LDS.org, and there you will find the translation.

Hitler's attitude towards the economy wasn't capitalist either though, was it? I think he went for a mixed economy.
Yes, his policies were roughly Keynsian.

It bothers me when others tell me what I "really" believe. For all of you purporting to know what I, as a "Mormon" believe, please, save it. I studied the church doctrine 24/7 and have helped many a pastor and priest find the scriptural reference they were looking for to "prove" me wrong. You aren't going to convince anyone that you know more about his/her religion than he/she does. What you are going to do, however, is make that person hate you more and dismiss anything you have to say as stupid. Most people know more about what they believe than anyone else. So if you are just trying to be a jerk and breed the spirit of contention, and not the spirit of Christ, continue. (But preferably in a different, more relevantly titled thread...) But if you want to have an honest discussion of religion, don't tell anyone else what they believe.

It bothers me when others tell me what I "really" believe.

Amen, brotha (sista?). I don't even let the Almighty tell me what I really believe.

Um...That's an RLDS site. They're a break away. Go to LDS.org, and there you will find the translation.

I apologise, I would edit my post but my jolt account is screwed up.

It bothers me when others tell me what I "really" believe. For all of you purporting to know what I, as a "Mormon" believe, please, save it. I studied the church doctrine 24/7 and have helped many a pastor and priest find the scriptural reference they were looking for to "prove" me wrong. You aren't going to convince anyone that you know more about his/her religion than he/she does. What you are going to do, however, is make that person hate you more and dismiss anything you have to say as stupid. Most people know more about what they believe than anyone else. So if you are just trying to be a jerk and breed the spirit of contention, and not the spirit of Christ, continue. (But preferably in a different, more relevantly titled thread...) But if you want to have an honest discussion of religion, don't tell anyone else what they believe.

We'll just use the scripture instead. I take offense to any one who claims that they are the True Church of God and I will denounce them and I do not care if they are Mormon, catholic, methodist, Presbyterian, Protestant, Lutheran, etc etc etc. As a Christian, it is my duty to denounce false teachings as well as denounce false prophets.

I apologise if I confused anyone with the term 'socialist', I don't follow the original Marxist definition so if you want an idea of where I stand in general terms I score -10 economic and -7 liberal on the political compass.

That is the problem, in all socialist communist nations all basic freedoms and liberties are taken away.

1. A one party political state, with no active oppostition in any level of government of diffrent political partys with diffrent economic, political or social views.

I'm a democratic socialist so I fully support the idea of opposition, I should have made this clearer though so I apologise.

2. 100 percent government control media, press, radio, television, internet, cable, satelite dishes, you name it.

Not necessarily, suppose we had 10 media broadcasting stations, each one could be run by anyone who was qualified and wanted the job without government regulation. As long as they made any political affiliations clear and attracted a reasonable number of listeners/viewers/readers then they could be left to their own devises.

Also, bear in mind that traditional media could be on its way out, the upsurge in blogging could eventually replace it with a completely free medium of communication.

3. All civil social organizations under government run control.

I'm not quite sure waht you mean, are you refering to public services?

4. When the state controls all the means of production, the workers are not really in control, the state is as practiced and this creates an automatic dictatorship.

Nope, the state is effectively there simply as a central organiser, the (democratically elected) government will build what is required or desired, we could devolve power down to a a multitude of small communities or some other system of organisation. I'm not likely to take power anytime soon so I've got time to plan. :p

In European Socialist nations, socialist partys can work with other political partys because they concentrate more on providing social services or social welfare than on state control of all the means of production and social organizations.

I have no doubt Randomlittleisland believes in a just fair socialist system of government, but as put in practice the world over, it becomes an automatic dictatorship.

I have to go for now.

I'm glad that you see me as well-intentioned. :)

It bothers me when others tell me what I "really" believe. For all of you purporting to know what I, as a "Mormon" believe, please, save it. I studied the church doctrine 24/7 and have helped many a pastor and priest find the scriptural reference they were looking for to "prove" me wrong. You aren't going to convince anyone that you know more about his/her religion than he/she does. What you are going to do, however, is make that person hate you more and dismiss anything you have to say as stupid. Most people know more about what they believe than anyone else. So if you are just trying to be a jerk and breed the spirit of contention, and not the spirit of Christ, continue. (But preferably in a different, more relevantly titled thread...) But if you want to have an honest discussion of religion, don't tell anyone else what they believe.

Wow, another one of us. Hail, Nationalist Genius.

Right.
"If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, `Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity. It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.'" - Ecclesiastes 6:3-5

Clearly there is a quality of life issue being put forth in the Scriptures. And in this case, Solomon makes the point that it is sometimes better to end a pregnancy prematurely than to allow it to continue into a miserable life.

"Why then hast Thou brought me out of the womb? Would that I had died and no eye had seen me! I should have been as though I had not been, carried from womb to tomb." - Job 10:18-19


In which part of this passage did anyone condone deliberately ending a pregnancy? If you hold to the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, all children are free from original sin through Christ's atonement, and are saved. In this context, Job and Solomon simply say that they would have preferred the easy route. Tell me, did Job kill himself? Did Solomon execute people for being poor? Solomon put forth his explicitly personal view that living a short life isn't all that bad if your life sucks, but how in the world did you find that invisible sentence where God says "Amen! poor woman pregnant? I transfer my power to decide who lives and who dies to you, all knowing one!"

Nice try.

In which part of this passage did anyone condone deliberately ending a pregnancy? If you hold to the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, all children are free from original sin through Christ's atonement, and are saved. In this context, Job and Solomon simply say that they would have preferred the easy route. Tell me, did Job kill himself? Did Solomon execute people for being poor? Somomon put forth his explicitly personal view that living a short life isn't all that bad if your life sucks, but how in the world did you find that invisible sentence where God says "Amen! poor woman pregnant? I transfer my power to decide who lives and who dies to you, all knowing one!"

Nice try.

I'm soooooo glad you're here. Two heads (especially someone else's) are 300x better than one.

thanks to all involved in this thread, most enjoyable ive read since joining NS, and distracted me from the essay i was typing........

No, World War II, dismantling the empire and being eclipsed by the unchalleangable military might of the US and USSR caused the UK to drop from super-power to regional power.

People on the dole should not be making more money than workers. Any real socialist will tell you that.

But the US and USSR have nothing to do with the UK's economy and military growing stagnant. Socilism prevented them from keeping up.

And as our Cuban friend will tell you, a real socialist's ideals are noble, but don't work in the real world.

Example:
The economy hits a patch of recession. Unemployment rises, and more people are forced to claim social benefits. Wages go down because more people need jobs. Who would re-elect a politician that proposes that you cut everyone's social benefits in tough times? Nobody. So, when wages are eclipsed by benefits, what incentive is there to work and grow the economy? Your low-income worker and your social leech are then destined to hover at the same standard of living forever.

Why do you dislike taxes if you're christian and you're supposed to care about (others) more then [sic] yourself?

Who said he doesn't? As Americans, it is our right to be selfish, stingy, offensive, and immorral. Just because I defend these rights does not mean that I subscribe to their excercise. I donate more money to the poor than I pay in taxes, but I'll fight you to the death if you tell me I have to be charitable. I am not 100% decided, but I think that I support most forms of stem-cell research. But is it my place to tell someone who disagrees with me that they have to support it with their money anyway? IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY. YOU DIDN'T EARN IT. Why should you be able to force me to spend it according to YOUR morals, you communist?

you communist?
What are you living 20 years ago? It's 2006 the cold war is over! I'll reply to the rest tomorrow when I have time

EDIT: And FYI, I'm not a communist I'm a social democrat, which means I want more fairness within the capitalist system to put it basicly.

The economy hits a patch of recession. Unemployment rises, and more people are forced to claim social benefits. Wages go down because more people need jobs. Who would re-elect a politician that proposes that you cut everyone's social benefits in tough times? Nobody. So, when wages are eclipsed by benefits, what incentive is there to work and grow the economy? Your low-income worker and your social leech are then destined to hover at the same standard of living forever.
Duh, the government just follows the Keynes/FDR formula: begin massive public works projects and a rearmament programme.

Who said he doesn't? As Americans, it is our right to be selfish, stingy, offensive, and immoral. Just because I defend these rights does not mean that I subscribe to their excercise. I donate more money to the poor than I pay in taxes, but I'll fight you to the death if you tell me I have to be charitable.
If you believe that this aspect of Christian religion should be voluntary, then you also have to be socially liberal. Either enforce none of the Bible or enforce all of it.

I am not sure if anyone has suggested this yet, I only read the first post, but here is my response...

What about a crazy system where there are a few hundred positions in an elected government (It could be called a congress or a national assembly or a parliament or something like that) and each group of people in a given area elects someone who represents their aggregate views. The resulting body of representatives would be forced to find a compromise as they dictate legislation to the rest of us.

It's radical, I know, but it just might function decently, or at least for a few hundred years until a better system was found.

If you believe that this aspect of Christian religion should be voluntary, then you also have to be socially liberal. Either enforce none of the Bible or enforce all of it.

Socially liberal does not mean economically liberal. And when did I say that any part of any scripture should be enforced by law? Read the first ammendment to the US Constitution. Moreover, from Joseph Smith:
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Who said he doesn't? As Americans, it is our right to be selfish, stingy, offensive, and immorral. Just because I defend these rights does not mean that I subscribe to their excercise. I donate more money to the poor than I pay in taxes, but I'll fight you to the death if you tell me I have to be charitable. I am not 100% decided, but I think that I support most forms of stem-cell research. But is it my place to tell someone who disagrees with me that they have to support it with their money anyway? IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY. YOU DIDN'T EARN IT. Why should you be able to force me to spend it according to YOUR morals, you communist?
I'm all for letting people not pay of course they'll not be allowed into any public space or avail of any public service. Including things like roads. The government would have no duty to you, (to make sure that electricity lines go to your house or gas lines. You or the company will have to pay for that and if it has to go through extra public land then you'll have to buy or rent the land if the government lets you.) Any deliveries you get that use public roads would have to have a government charge for indirect use of a public service.
Instead of VAT you should be charged export duties because you or a bussiness that's delivering it is bringing it out of state juristriction. You will not be allowed a state passport or a vote.

Of course you must agree because you only get what you pay for!

Why should you be able to force me to spend it according to YOUR morals
Ok then we can't apply anyones morals to spending.
No more enforcement of law, laws are just someones morals, sure I think murder and rape is wrong but it's not against murders or rapists morals! No more protection by the military, sure my morals tell me it's not ok for a forgien power or internal dictator to take over but what about their morals!?

Actually we did compromise on slavery. It was called the 3/5ths compromise.

And the don't make us kick your ass again compromise of 1865.

Socially liberal does not mean economically liberal.
You're arguing for economic liberalism, aren't you? Free markets and no taxes and all that?

I'm all for letting people not pay of course they'll not be allowed into any public space or avail of any public service. Including things like roads. The government would have no duty to you, (to make sure that electricity lines go to your house or gas lines. You or the company will have to pay for that and if it has to go through extra public land then you'll have to buy or rent the land if the government lets you.) Any deliveries you get that use public roads would have to have a government charge for indirect use of a public service.
Instead of VAT you should be charged export duties because you or a bussiness that's delivering it is bringing it out of state juristriction. You will not be allowed a state passport or a vote.

Of course you must agree because you only get what you pay for!

...

Ok then we can't apply anyones morals to spending.
No more enforcement of law, laws are just someones morals, sure I think murder and rape is wrong but it's not against murders or rapists morals! No more protection by the military, sure my morals tell me it's not ok for a forgien power or internal dictator to take over but what about their morals!?

Rather than fill the page with "HAHAHAH!" I will assume that you think that your argument has some merit and will extend you the courtesy of addressing it, because my daughter is asleep right now.

First of all, every item that I purchase in the USA has the cost of the roads added into its value. The Lorrie drivers pay tax on every gallon of petrol that they buy, and that tax goes to the roads. The increased cost of shipping is added into the final value of the product on the store shelves. When I drive to the store to buy something, the tax on the petrol that I use pays for the roads I drive on. The property tax that I pay on my house pays for the road directly in front of my property which allows me access to it. Power and gas lines are paid for with the taxes on my utility bill, thus, I pay for the portion that I use. I realize that I'm oversimplifying this, but I hope get the point, that we DO get what we pay for, and in the instances which these services are subsidized, I oppose them and push for change.
I don't know if you understand that the police are hired by each city or county where they work to uphold the laws that ARE the government. The amount of funding is determined by taxes taht each city levies, so, because they are so localized (with the exception of the Highway Patrol,) I am free to live in a city with as much or as little protection as I choose. There is a town about five miles from here that is practically a police state. They give speeding tickets for driving one mile over the limit. Property taxes are so ridiculously high compared with the four neighboring towns that I would never live there, and nobody will force me to.
Now, as far as law enforcement goes, I am for doing away with all laws that dictate personal morality. The problem is that most illegal actions take away the right to personal morality of OTHERS. (If I rob someone, I take away their choice to use their money how they see fit. If I rape someone, I take away their ability to be healthy, happy, virtuous, etc...) If someone wants to smoke pot, let them. I don't care if they want to be brain dead. But if they operate a vehicle and endanger others, (taking away their right to or not to smoke pot,) this is when one person is taking away the agency (or morals) of someone else.
And if Hillary Clinton wants to electively donate the large percentage of her income that she wants everyone else to give to to the government, that's fine and dandy. But why would anyone but a communist or a mooch want to forcibly take my money and provide no goods or services in return, let alone ones of my choosing?

You're arguing for economic liberalism, aren't you? Free markets and no taxes and all that?

In the US that is considered the conservative end of the spectrum. For some reason, liberal and conservative often have different meanings in our two countries. And I argue for a few taxes, just not many.

Ya, I don't really like Hilary Clinton. I just chose that option because I'm showing that I'm a leftist. So don't get the notion that I'm going soft and supporting a democrat :D Communism all the way!

Ok...
NO!
Id rather live capitalist and liberal than socialist and conservative.

Basically your saying "I know, lets take the worst of both :D " besides, the right-wingers conservative policies are killing them off, let it stay the way it is and the lefts will govern soon

You know, we on the right, those on the left, and those in the apathetic middle go the rounds in politics again and again and again. It's not good.

Isn't there some way to compromise, let the American Left get some, let the American Right get some, and the American Middle get some; then leave it that way, and stop fighting.

For example, I'd be willing to submit to

1. a Leftist Economic System, a quasi-socialist economy, and the Dems can get their social spending, public housing, free health care, education, etc...

2. Let the Right win the moral/value fights, like abortion, gay marriage, separation of church and state, the Pledge, etc...

3. Let the Middle have their way on defense and foreign policy, foreign relations, UN, etc...

Would anyone agree to a compromise like that? Not necessarily the one I proposed, but this sort of a compromise?

Well we can have a strong economy but uhh dare i ask where we'd send the gays? And if i ever had to endure some Christianity class in school, i think i may be spared justifiable homicide?

May i ask also why there is no tax on clothes you can wear to church? If so do they specify which church? If not you could be tax exempt on all clothes... >.<

I don't like compromise. I'm not letting the righteous right tell me what to think, do, or be (frankly, I'd rather die twice.), anymore than I'm going to let the loony left give my money to Dave the Drunk down the street (If he made an honest effort to get and hold a job and failed, I'd gladly give him some money to get back up on his feet, but I won't pay for him to waste away on beer while making no effort to stand on his own two feet). Compromise means that I let you rip my left arm off if I can rip off your right arm. Neither of us is truly happy, and it crushes the ability for personal political beleifs to be used in the long run.

Besides which, any healthy democracy depends on two competing parties of different ideologies. Guess that screws us Americans over, eh? :p

May i ask also why there is no tax on clothes you can wear to church? If so do they specify which church? If not you could be tax exempt on all clothes... >.<

In some states you are :D

I know in PA there is no tax on clothes.

....Lorrie......petrol ...

a brit?