When Christians Hate Christ

Yes he was, with the foresight to comprehend that if humans continue on their crappy path into the individualistic self center, the world would be shot to sh** eventually~I daresay he was spot on~look around us~everyone is into self~few stop to get involved where involvement is needed~few extend hands for fear of being bitten~everyone is freaked out over lawsuits which this nation utilizes as nothing more than a means to a self centered end~justice has f***ed little to do with it anymore~
I hear you loud and clear sister/wife~ Jesus was an inutitive liberal~the majority followers who espouse their faith in him are sorely lacking and self servingly misunderstanding of his teachings~

i luv it when purrrrrrrrrr growls.


tell 'em, baby!

Purr wife/sista you can growl like no other.

Your tags are hilarious.

horny Llamas? would make baby jesus cry.

and what's a throbbin vobin?

My tags....throbbin vobin was actually dedicated to the old Robin V..remember her?

The story is this.

A friend of my old BF had a girlfriend, she used to be a stripper and her name was Robin. We called her Throbbin Robin. I thought the name appropriate for the Robin that was on gather.

Lori--haven't you called me Throbbin Robin a time or 2, or was that just pure dream?

Quick note, I was never a stripper! EEEEK!

I am in Robi's dreams....yahoo!!!

You can be Throbbin Robi:)

I barely remember Robin V. I didn't know her, but I think she sent me a few emails. There are so many Robin's I can't keep up with who is who. Same for Heather.

Sit down Robi, I know your ready to drop soon, but I was once a stripper, oh yes I was.

Sharon:o

so was I~ =P

I cant dance so I had to become a Bunny.

both pull in the buko $'s and promise an early retirement~ UNTIL the economy collapses~ and then we're f***ed~noone wants to see a 43 year old stripper upside down on the pole~becauseno matter how good one's genetics may be~gravity is a bitch~ ;)

Ha ha ha!!!

You would be surprised what many men long to see.

eyuuuuu ;)

AMEN LORI!! Many also forget this verses:
Matthew 25:32-46
All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Exactly Lisa.

Did it occur to you that these passages might refer to charitable giving and not coerced giving by government?

So then AC what you are saying is this.

Its OK for rich people to not pay taxes. To not look out for the poor IF they throw a buck or two into the Salvation Army Santa Jar at Christmas time?

YOU dont even believe that nonsense.

I didn't say it was okay for rich people to not pay taxes. In fact, I would argue that they do pay taxes, and a disproportionate share. I have a great article from the Dallas Morning News at home that I'll try to remember to share with you tonight. It breaks down the IRS data and shows how the percentage of the federal income tax paid by the wealthiest Americans has gone up over the past several decades, including after the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.

But back to your post. Where does the promotion of kindness and giving to the poor translate into government coerced redistribution of wealth?

Oh, and if we're talking about the rich paying taxes, maybe we could start with the recent cabinet nominees of the current president. Just a thought.

AC I think Jesus meant the government.

Remember in those times. Only rich people could run for office. Rich people built their own armies. Rich people made the rules. They didnt tax the rich but rather relied on the poor for taxes.

Jesus was opposed to all of this.

Deja Vu this sounds familiar.

AC I have had tax problems in the past. Does that make me a bad person?

There is a BIG difference between NOT paying your share of taxes because of loopholes and not being able to afford to pay your share of taxes.

And if I remember correctly most of Obama's current cabinet fell into the latter catagory.

Now take someone like Cheney.

I bet I pay more taxes than he does.

Spin away AC.

If you analyse the tax record it breaks down to something like this.


Say you make $50,000 a year. And you pay $12,500 in taxes. You have paid .25% of your salary in taxes.

Now lets say you make $2,000,000 a year and you pay in $25,000 in taxes. You have paid MORE in taxes than the other but LESS of your income in taxes.

"...I think Jesus meant the government."

Based on what? Your interpretation of history? The references are clearly to fellow men, individuals, not government bodies.

"Does that make me a bad person?"

No. But the rich guys (and gals) I referred to are as good a place to start as any if we are going to talk about the rich paying taxes.

By the way, what loopholes are written into U.S. tax law that are only available to the rich? Are they not available to anyone, regardless of income? The law doesn't discriminate by income level when it comes to exemptions, etc. Not everyone may be in a position individually to take advantage of existing provisions, but their provision is made available to all.

AC I base it on history.

I wouldnt catagorize the ones you are talking about as rich. They make a good living but they are not in the Dick Cheney, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates catagory.

If you dont know the loopholes and tax breaks then how are we supposed to have an informed conversation?

"You have paid MORE in taxes than the other but LESS of your income in taxes."

Personally I don't believe in penalizing success by having a progressive tax system. We can agree to disagree on that. I think it is fundamentally unfair.

Here's a great example of what I'm talking about:

Many years ago I served in the military. I sent my kid to the military child care facility on the base where I was stationed. The fee for child care was determined by how much you made. The lower enlisted guy paid one amount, and I paid a higher amount because I made more. Our kids received the same attention and service, but I was charged more because I could afford more. How does that make sense?

What about milk? I can afford to pay more for milk than my brother can. Does that mean I should pay more? All citizens are entitled to the same services from government: roads, schools, fire and police protection, etc. It is fundamentally unfair to charge some citizens more just because they can afford to pay more.

"If you dont know the loopholes and tax breaks then how are we supposed to have an informed conversation?"

Please explain them to me then. Specifically I'd like to hear about the tax laws that say they only apply to the rich and not to every citizen.

How about the elimination of the inheritance tax. Inhertiance is income.

Tucked away on Page 122 of President Obama’s budget is a proposal that has the fast money crowd up in arms: “Tax carried interest as ordinary income.”

It sounds like something only a certified public accountant would care about. But in fact, the Obama administration wants to close one of the biggest tax loopholes on Wall Street — one nobody seemed to notice in good times, when everyone was minting money.

As things stand now, private equity firms and hedge funds get a much better deal from the taxman than the rest of us. They are taxed at a mere 15 percent — the capital gains rate — on most of their income, instead of the higher regular income tax rate. For the past two years, they have scrambled to keep it that way. And with the economy swooning, the industry was hoping lawmakers might just forget about this little tax giveaway.

How do they justify it? Private equity types and other investors argue that they’re in the business of investing, so they should be taxed like investors who make money in the public markets. The “carried interest” in question — the bulk of these firms’ profits — refers to the 20 percent cut of profits they take when they sell, or exit, investments.

This tax deal always struck a lot of people as a little too sweet. One study commissioned last year by a Congressional committee estimated that executives would save $30 billion in taxes over the next 10 years if the rules did not change. (Of course, that was before the financial crisis began.) Buyout firms and their executives have some skin in the game, but mostly they invest using other people’s money, like pension funds. So their 20 percent cut of profits is closer to a commission than a true capital gain.

Warren E. Buffett has pointed out that this tax treatment has enabled ultrawealthy executives to pay a lower tax rate “than our receptionists do or our cleaning ladies.” (I know, I know: many people believe Mr. Buffett has managed to avoid taxes too, in part by giving away his fortune to charity, but that’s beside the point.)

And Robert E. Rubin, the former Treasury secretary who was a senior adviser at Citigroup, has also been a sharp critic.

“You can characterize it as a performance fee, you can characterize it as a carried interest, you can characterize it any way you want,” Mr. Rubin said in a controversial comment in 2007. “I think at the core there is a very good argument to be made for treating this as ordinary income.”

The inheritance tax (although I like the term death tax better) is double taxation. That money has already been taxed once.


"Tax carried interest as ordinary income."

This is not a tax reserved by the law only for the wealthy. It applies to ANYONE who chooses to invest in equity funds or hedge funds. You can buy into a hedge fund if you want to, Lori.

Well if thats the case why do we have income tax. The money we receive in our checks has already been taxed once when the company made it so why do we have to pay tax again?

Warren Buffet admits he pays less in tax than his adminstrative asst or cleaning lady.

She pays 30% tax on her $60,000 he pays 17.5%.

There is NO justification for it AC.

"Well if thats the case why do we have income tax."

Exactly. We shouldn't have income tax. I'm personally in favor of a consumption tax.

I love when I get you fired up. We've got kind of a Carville - Matalin thing going on here. :)

We are good arent we AC?

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (in the book of Matthew or Mark or both of them)

It's part of being a good citizen.

"We are good arent we AC?"

We COULD be. :)

"It's part of being a good citizen."

By who's definition? Do you think there's one universally accepted definition of what it is to be a good citizen? Or are you applying your own personal definition?

That may be, but there's no equivocating good and evil. I don't know much, but i know which side of the human fence you fall down on. Self deception and a ton of rationalizations don't erase a self interested outlook on life, and the glorification of the accumulation of wealth at the expense of your fellow man won't fool the ultimate judge of men. Camel through a needle's eye. Period.

Try one or more of these, after you've had a big glass of STFU:

Rebuilding Together

Habitat for Humanity


Bread for the World

Ron, you deserve a standing ovation for that comment.

"The inheritance tax (although I like the term death tax better) is double taxation. That money has already been taxed once."

Yes, the death tax, that singularly misleading frame the conservative think tanks hung on it to trigger a negative connotation by association. Of course you prefer it. That's how the rich get people in tar paper shacks to oppose a tax that has a low end threshold of 3.5 million dollars. Any estate below that isn't even considered. All money has previously been taxed, when it came into the possession of another individual. When it comes to you, it is again taxable, and rightly so. This is one of the only things that protects our country from having a perpetual moneyed class, akin to barons and lords, lording it over the rest of us serfs, and what the rich hate about it so much... This is what conservatism comes down to, BS for the lower classes, to get them to support the interests of the rich. And damned effective BS it is, too.

It only applies when someone dies, Ron, therefore the name is an appropriate one.

I can assure you it will not apply when I die, AC. There will be nothing for anyone to inherit.

No, it's only appropriate when the rich die, so it ain't a "death tax" for the other ninety eight percent of us, bucko, and it's another case of subliminal framing from the best minds the rich can buy, pure and simple.

And that's where our fundamental difference comes into play. I don't believe it's right to discriminate against the "rich," just because they are "rich." I believe the tax code should apply equally to everyone.

It does. When I get a 3.5 million dollar estate, I'll be subject to it too, AC. I've met very few rich people that didn't get that way on other's backs, so don't look to me to shed a tear for them.

It does not treat everyone equally. It punishes success. We obviously disagree on whether or not that is the correct thing to do.

"It punishes success." More framing. The idea that those that have benefited the most from this system should support it at a greater rate than those they have used in their climb to that success is hardly "punishment", AC. I still maintain, when I obtain a 3.5 million dollar estate, I will also be subject to that tax, and quite frankly, considering how lucky I would consider myself to be to get to that state, I don't think, like you, I would resent it all that much, I would just be thankful I got there. Of course, I never will, because I would find ways to benefit others with some of that wealth, before I died.

Call it framing if you wish, Ron, but at the end of the day the fact remains: as income increases the tax rate increases--otherwise known as punishing success.

No, otherwise known as a progressive tax rate, to insure that those that have, put their fair share in the kitty, at a commensurate rate as those without. Of course, that's consistently been subverted by the forces of conservatism, as we've already noted in the case of capital gains, but that's the premise from which it stems. Should a man that's made 2 million last year, while paying his factory workers minimum wage pay the same, dollar for dollar, as the workers that helped him excel to that pinnacle? I think not, and the idea of fair play rejects that notion. Greed, though, tells others something else. A consumption tax is obviously regressive, and penalizes the poor, more than the rich, plain and simple, but that doesn't seem to bother you? I wonder why injustice is a one way street with you, AC?

"...otherwise known as a progressive tax rate...."

That punishes success.

"Should a man that's made 2 million last year, while paying his factory workers minimum wage pay the same, dollar for dollar, as the workers that helped him excel to that pinnacle?"

Absolutely. There is no slave labor here. Workers agree to work for certain wages, and different positions bring different skill sets to the table. Not all work is of equal value.

Greed makes many things sound reasonable, I suppose, AC. The idea that the rich and the poor have an even footing to excel in this country is pure hogwash. I guess if you believe that, though, then your view would be reasonable, but of course, it's not. Thank God you money worshippers have been marginalized, at least for the time being...

Isn't my "reasonableness" a matter of subjective interpretation / opinion? Does it ever occur to you that not everyone thinks the same way?

Good and evil is subjective, as well,... to those that advocate the latter, it's second nature.

(Cue the excuses.)

Yep

Well said, Lori, and Lisa.

Thanks Lune.

i always thought Jesus was a socialist... :P

Me too.

This is hate speech!

Maybe

Just because you hate it, doesn't make it hate speech.

"Just because you hate it, doesn't make it hate speech."

MJ, have I told you lately that you are just too drop-dead damned funny???!!!

All Hating aside, Jesus was the founder of the Christian Religion, and through Western, and Christian traditions, more specifically the Passion Narratives, represented the spirit of charity and forgiveness. Likely the first, true conservative 'liberal' living in antiquity, with a voice ~

Those are the historical facts -

LOL

Jesus, by his own words, would have abhorred the break with the Jewish religion, and he didn't start Christianity, his disciples did. You can make your own conclusions as to why, I certainly have, but he was a devout Jew, not a Christian, and in his time, as with the founders of this nation, he was one of the most radical liberal voices in existence. THOSE are the historical facts

Wrong, sonny! My resources is the The Phylosophy and Relgious Dictionary, Eastern, and Western Thought by W.L. Reese - Do you're research, I bow to no such religion, or man. Newer said he wasn't a jEW. lISTEN i DON'T NEED TO BE EDUCATED BY YOU about the Historicity of my comments, ESPECIALLY YOU. You're obviuously ignorant of the facts, and don't know how to read, evidently.

Jesus was the founder, the ciples didn't find anything, save for the Christ -

LOL RON

Ninety percent, excluding the direct words of Christ, of the content in the new testament, is all written by men, most long after his death. The idea of a new covenant is based on his death, and him rising from the grave. All after he died, SONNY. If you want to consider his death, and his resurrection, the starting of the religion, then yes, but that hardly qualifies. Christianity, as we now know it, didn't even come into being until after the first council of Nicaea in AD 325, followed up by the succeeding council in AD 787, etc. Up to that time, and a good deal after, it was a fabric of many different beliefs (some still in existence today), many different writings, many of which didn't make it into the new testament. As for the thoughts of Jesus about breaking from the Jewish laws, read the sermon on the mount. He distinctly specified that until ALL the prophecies were fulfilled, all the old laws were to be followed. Christians do not follow those laws, and the prophecies have not been fulfilled, to date. Apparently you need to be educated by somebody, but I doubt the effort will bear fruit.

And at least learn how to spell philosophy and religious, for craps sakes. If that's an example of what you retained from the reading, it's no wonder you're confused.

Blah Blah you big Dope ~ God Speed -

Lori, good post!

Thanks Leo

Thanks for posting to GutterGirls~sister/wife =)
FEATURED~ ;)

Purr my love

Great tags! LOL

I use the same ones all the time.

So true Lori!

Thanks Dan.

Reminds me of going to a church one time and asking them for help with I think it was rent I don't remember. However they said we don't have an account set up for that we give our money to the ministerial alliance you will have to contact them. Contact them they said we can help one time a year with $75. Makes you wonder if all the churches are giving to one place why can they only help with $75 when a family could be on the street. Of course we made our ends meet and without their help.

Especially when a family is only coming there once a year as their requirements.

Does make you wonder. After all they dont pay taxes.

Renee: They may have a budget they follow. They may allot X amount to each family that comes to them for assistance in order to try to help as many as possible. My parish gives money to a central agency so the parish does not need to administer the money. There are many folks who frequent agencies to the extent they are not even trying to make ends meet, but living off of the charity of others.(for no reason beyond they would prefer to do this than to attempt to work for a living) By giving funds to a central agency, there was verification of the need as well as monitoring the needs in the community and attempts to make the money go to as many as possible.

There is no way to live off a charity once a year. I can understand the once a year requirement, but when someone needs help on things like utilities, rent that $75 is not going to help from keeping their utilities staying on or from being out on the street.

Renee: perhaps I did not explain myself very well. It may just be the budget that they have.
I live in a large metro area where I have had clients go from agency to agency to get what they can. Again this is an atypical situation, as they are not trying to make ends meet on their own, but trying to get what they can so they do not need to make ends meet.

He turned water into wine. I want him to come over right now !!!

He would be a great hit at a party.

He was a hit at that party !!! Woot !!! Jesus the party God !!!

Ah, I miss the horny llamas, Lori.

Great article - and greater point. It astounds me daily when I hear so-called Jesus folk ranting and raving about giving to what they call the 'have nots'.

I was raised to believe, 'there but for the grace of god go I..' Which whether you believe in god or not is a pretty good way of thinking. So many love to brag how they pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps. Well, good for them! That doesn't mean that everybody's situation is the same. I get physically sick when I read Gather comments about how happy someone is with their healthcare and they don't want it changed, so they hope Obama fails. I often wonder if they would say the same thing if Jesus was actually standing in front of them, looking them in the eye, with his arms around the sick and dying.

Ugh. Just thinking about it depresses me.

It does not surprise me at all that Sotomayor and Obama were criticized for mentioning empathy as an attribute - these people have no concept of what empathy actually is, so how could they ever realize that it would make someone a wiser person?

Sheryl it depresses me too.

Amen Sheryl.. once again you hit the nail on head!

Absolutely, Sheryl. Great comment.

That's one of the things I loved about the nuns that taught me. They took the words "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."

They taught about true Christianity being an religion of action. They said not to memorize bible passages but to live the example that Christ lived for us.

And that's how I became a Socialist and a social activist. Thank you Sisters of Charity of St. Augustine - I know you have since disbanded and all gone into lay ministry, but I appreciate all I was taught.

Very well said Sharon.

"For every nickel you have, keep 2 cents for yourself and give away 3 cents." My granddad taught that to me when I was about 5. I've worked hard to do that my whole life. I am one of the has-nots ... by choice.

I'm still disgusted by that "government coerced" BS above. Either you want to help people or you don't. Either you think the poor are worth as much as you are or you don't. It's a very simple sentiment and a simpler religion without cluttering it up with self-pitying crap about oh, poor me and my taxes, or oh, poor white me and my money might help someone who looks different, or oh, poor me, my money might help someone who isn't deserving. You can whine all you want about the government but I don't think your self-serving nuances would have convinced Jesus.

Yep the spin and shat gets pretty deep Kris.

"Either you want to help people or you don't."

If I want to help people, why can't I do it in the way I choose? Why does government have to tell me how to do it? Did government earn the paycheck?

AC, if this really were a Christian nation there would be no need for government action to care for the poor because the Christians would be caring for them. We, as a nation, produce far more of all the necessities of life than we need. Therefore, providing for the poor would not deny any well of person anything. The clothing, housing, food, and even medical care that the poor need are not the materials or services that the well off care to consume.

Therefore, if the government taxes to give to the poor it is because of the failure of the Christians to live up to the requirements of their religion.

Perhaps most are doing what is within their means, Larry. Just being Christian does not necessarily put one in a position to help others. There are plenty of Christians, I'm sure, who could use a hand as well.

"If I want to help people, why can't I do it in the way I choose? Why does government have to tell me how to do it? Did government earn the paycheck? "

Because many don't want to, in the first place, and don't.

Obviously.

Actually, religions aside, it's smart to make sure the basic standard of living meets the basic human needs - food, clothing, shelter, health care, and education. Once people don't have to struggled endlessly to obtain those things, they are either satisfied or they flourish and go further.

If you look at your taxes and social programs as an investment program for the continuation of a healthy and safe environment, then you understand it's not only the poor who profit.

AC W: "Did government earn the paycheck?"

Yes, the government did earn the paycheck. Take your awesome skills to North Korea and see how big your paycheck is there. You can't have it both ways, AC. Defend this country, ballyhoo the greatness of the country, and then go AWOL when it comes time to step up and share the bounty that is afforded to those who are fortunate enough to have worked the ropes of the particular rules and regs of the current generation.

But I do share the bounty, Dave, of my own free will. I understand when Ron says not all give freely, but that doesn't make it right to compel them to do so.

I'm confused about the "compelling" in the first place, AC. But the affirmation, if that is what it is, of our beliefs ought to be hard to argue with. Particularly if others are not as disciplined as you.

But should that affirmation come through the forced redistribution of wealth? Some think so. Some do not. I fall into the latter camp.

That's because it's about your personal greed. If it wasn't, you would never have introduced taxes into the conversation -- acting, by the way, as if you shouldn't pay them because you don't use silly things the rest of us do, such as "roads." But it's about you not wanting to contribute to the common good OR the poor, and Jesus is pretty clear on that.

Personally, I don't know or care if you self-identify as a Christian. It makes no difference, since I don't know you and don't feel I'm missing out on anything because of it. But you're still motivated all the way through this conversation by your personal greed. You should at least defend it for what it is -- a personal and moral failure of decency in anyone's name.

I never said I shouldn't pay taxes, Kris. I have concerns about the amount I pay in taxes and what those tax dollars are used for. Am I not entitled to those concerns?

I identify as an agnostic and I give freely and generously to charitable causes. There's no personal greed here, and frankly, you're not in a position to know whether I'm greedy or not.

Nor, as I stated, do I care. But if there's "no personal greed," you've had ample opportunity to point out other problems regarding use of tax dollars than those associated with helping people in need. Yet you haven't, and again, you introduced taxes into a conversation that had nothing to do with them. If there's "no personal greed," you're hiding your lack of it tremendously well.

"You've had ample opportunity to point out other problems regarding use of tax dollars...."

You're not familiar with my posts, are you?

"But should that affirmation come through the forced redistribution of wealth? Some think so. Some do not. I fall into the latter camp."

"Forced redistribution of wealth", more framing. It is a statistically verifiable fact that the redistribution of wealth has been from the middle and poor classes to the wealthy since the late seventies. Whatever you choose to call it, it isn't like the masses chose to give their money to the rich, either. Forced redistribution of wealth is obviously only a concern to the wealthy when it is applied to themselves. Hypocrisy...

It doesn't matter to me who it's coming from, Ron. It's the practice of forcible redistribution that I disagree with. By the way, how many of the rich qualify for the earned income tax credit? Oh wait, that's taking money from those who pay taxes and giving it to those who don't.

Of course, I realize you think the rich are stealing from the poor and middle class, whereas I am referring to the government redistributing wealth.

Why restrict it to that, AC? Maybe because you know the truth of it, and it doesn't prop up your ideological views? The proof is documented, in black and white. I don't think, I know, and anyone can read the data for themselves. They control government, Dems and Repugs, through a little wealth redistribution of their very own, they are the only ones with that kind of influence, and the only curb on that is massive public opinion. Conservatism is merely their attempt to curb that public opinion, through the use of framing, deception and lies... .

Influence yes, control no. Both Dems and Repubs are equally guilty when it comes to taking money from companies. That is not a conservative problem, but a politician problem.

Well, for conservatives, with their world view, it often doesn't take coercion to make them vote against the good of this country, and for the agenda of the rich, though, but I agree. The neutering of the lobbying industry, and the public financing of all campaigns is necessary to the solution of this deplorable condition we find ourselves in. Stronger ethics rules would also help, with independant investigation, outside the good old boy network. I know, I know, you probably don't agree with all that, but hey, the truth is the truth.

"...vote against the good of this country...."

Who's definition of good? Yours? Do you think Barack Obama and John McCain had different ideas about constitutes "good?" What about Pelosi and Boehner? There is no universal consensus about what is "good" for the country, Ron. I understand that you think your view is the right one, and I think mine is the right one. Around and around we go.

Again, AC, my definition of good can be found at the top of this page. It has cred, as the same definition can be found in most religions, ascribed to by the vast majority of the human beings upon this earth. I'm not a member of any of those, I'm a deist, but even I recognize good and evil, and the BS that allows one to embrace evil and call it good. Good is not affected by conservative ideology and spin, rationalization or excuse, it is good. Evil is another manifestation, and you can call it good all you wish, but it doesn't change what thinking people with a conscience see when they read your words.

Again, Ron, what constitutes good and evil is a matter of opinion. It is subject to individual biases and preferences. It is pretty egotistical to believe that your opinion is the right one and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

Good and evil is not my opinion, AC. It is recognizable in the results of actions, easily evaluated by almost all human beings that are not mentally impaired. It is not a product of my ego, it is a product of the collective cognizance of man. I hold no different view of good and evil than most. That you can rationalize it to mean something else is what is most telling of the conservative mind.

There is no "collective cognizance" of man.

Most of the world says different, all you have to do is read their religious tenets. There is, quite plainly, a collective recognition of good and evil in this world, and a few examples of their collective judgment are at the top of the page here. Many of your own brethren in conservatism recognize those tenets, as well, until it's time for them to actually put them in action, other than in the most minimal of ways. That you can deny that, as I said, says much about you, and contradicts, in my mind, anyway, your claim to care about your fellow man, other than as lip service, and self validation, AC. Those of your stripe can and have done things like give massive tax breaks to the rich, at the same time as they cut off funding to feed children of the inner city poor, some of them, the only real meal they got all day, according to those administering the plan. Yeah, your boys did that, and a lot more. Evil isn't all that subjective to those willing to see it...

"There is, quite plainly, a collective recognition of good and evil in this world...."

You have consistently equated conservativism with evil on this thread. Are the nearly 60 million Americans who voted Republican in 2008 embracing evil? What about the voters who elected conservative governments in Germany, France, the Netherlands, and parts of Eastern Europe?

I believe you stretch the concept of evil to the point of absurdity.

That would fit with your belief, I suppose. As for are they all evil, see my comment about even the good man, being in service to evil masters. Conservatism, in it's present manifestation, is the tool of the rich. Those that worship money at the expense of their fellow man. Yeah, evil about covers it, AC.

Thank you for pointing this out, Lori.

Can anyone find the chapter and verse in the bible that says, "and your preachers must drive Caddies, BMW and finer automobiles. They must dress in the finest clothing and eat until they are full to bursting."

Also I would like to know which verses say it's just dandy if you're stupid and refuse to learn anything past what your preacher or Fox news tells you is true.

EM I believe that particular verse is between the "Obama is the antichrist" and the "War In Iraq is Gods War" passages.

Hmm..I don't remember any of those verses when I was being force-fed the word of god.

It's in the New Testement of Baby Bush and Darth Cheney.

I don't know exactly where to find that, Em Jay. But I remember a sermon that must have been based on that verse. A priest explained to a woman with six kids in a two-bedroom apartment that she was supposed to help the missions and not worry about material goods (like food and clothes for her family). Meanwhile, he lived in a two-story home with one other priest, drove a new car, had central air and wall-to-wall carpeting (most people in his parish had neither), and had a housekeeper and cook.

EM JAY: "I was being force-fed the word of god." -- All of a sudden you are immune to being "force-fed" messages--or are you, EM JAY? If you were that impressionable then, how can we have any assurance that your views have not as easily been manipulated now?

Look, I'm not happy with this substring. My right hand is sore because I spent 5 hours Saturday scraping and painting a portion of the home of a low-income senior couple who are at risk of being evicted by the city for building code violations. My church pointed me to this opportunity. There will be no recognition for this, and I post this here to say that the formulaic hatred of Christianity that is championed here is off-task. Best to look at those parts of life that you are most familiar with to find irony. This hurts. Go ahead and find the examples that feed your own prejudices.

Dave A. - as a kid I had no choice about religion. I was dragged to a fundie church, punished by having to write bible verses, kept up late at revivals and threatened with hell for an eternity. I was sent off to bible camp where the routine was up at 7 AM and kept up past midnight while a preacher screamed at us little sinners. That is what I consider being force fed. That's how I learned what bullshit is.

When I was poor and hungry and struggling, churches did not feed me. Food stamps and WIC gave me food for my kids. When I couldn't afford winter clothes for my kids, an organization made up of businessmen gave them coats and warm clothes. That is what helped me keep the roof up and the heat turned on.

All churches ever did was leave trash on my doorstep and wake me up early on the weekends to invite me to join them in their insanity. They said they would pray for me, but did they ever offer any real, tangible help? Hell no.

Hooray for you going out to help people in need, but realize that there is a dark, hateful side to christianity that puts conditions on how they help, who they help, and when they help, and most of them only want to help by praying, which only helps them feel less guilty about being shitheads.

You have experienced darkness and I will not attempt to dismiss it. There is darkness all around, of course, and not limited to the failings of Christians when they occur. I mentioned the service opportunity because it was an example of a Christian community following through, as Lori says, on Jesus' message.

There are lines that can easily be crossed to help make us into shitheads, and one must be vigilant. I attended an recruitment session on a prison literacy program a few years ago. The catch? The volunteer would teach the incarcerated person to read the Bible (exclusively). I walked out on that "opportunity."

You are offering an advertisement for the failure of Christians and by extension the church. I don't question that failings occur among parishioners or leadership. But that's not nearly the whole story, regardless of what your preacher or Fox news said.

Keep up the good works, and ask yourself - would you volunteer for the good of your fellow citizens if you weren't Christian? I bet you would. Your faith has very little to do with your motivation to help those in need. Either you feel compassion for people or you don't.

Christians need to save themselves. Many of us do just fine without them.

In all fairness, I think the darkness and hate isn't on the part of Christianity. It's on the part of the people who claim to practice it. I would never try to argue, though, that it's not there.

(slaps forehead) On the part of SOME people, I should have said. D'oh!

The fact that the "good" Christians don't try to work with the "bad" ones shows the huge lack of not really giving a hoot about the quality or mission of the the "product."

I can start a "Christian church" in my garage if I fill out the paperwork. Then I am free to indoctrinate people with any kind of interpretations and wackiness and cruelty I wish. I can disallow discussion if anyone questions what I deem to be "the word." I can tell people what to wear, who to see, and how much to put in the plate. I can apply for federal money and run whatever kind of "mission" I want, even if that means people have to listen to a sermon before they are fed or given shelter and if they refuse, I can shut them out.

And it's the nut jobs that get the spotlight without a word from the people who claim to be of the same faith, yet sit by and let assholes take over their name. Christians need to save themselves.

I don't know, Em Jay. That seems kind of like blaming all Americans for electing Bush or for the Iraq war, or all Germans for the Nazis, all Muslims for 9/11, all Mexicans for the drug trade, etc.--the list is endless.

Christians are no more responsible for what other Christians do (or fail to do) than members of the above groups are for the failings of others who share their nationality of religion.

What I'm saying Aniko, is they have let their "brand name" get so misrepresented that the sound of turns people off.

Why did we vote in a new face and direction to the Presidency? Because we know the old one was giving all Americans a bad name. We know the world sees us as one.

Christianity is so very fractured, yet its followers expect everyone to follow in their footsteps which are going off in a million different directions. If you feel the need for a "personal savior" keep it personal .

There's no smart "we"* that voted for the new face any more than there was an idiotic "we" that voted for Bush a second time. In both cases, there were only people--some smart, some less so--voting the way they did for a variety of different reasons. The rest is statistics, and the phenomenon of a "direction" is an emergent one. There is no single mind, no single intention behind it. If you search for one, you'll find the same fractured look you describe for Christianity. And for this same reason, there are no Christians that "expect everyone to follow in their footsteps which are going off in a million different directions", because each Christian's footsteps are his or her own, and lead in a single direction. If they want you to follow, that's the direction they mean, I think.

*You, really. I'm not American, and I hear plenty of anti-American statements from "the world". I try to point out the same thing I've tried here, with similar results--I'm not very popular with "the world". (Not if it means Europeans who know less than most of my American friends but are certain all Americans are ignorant, or third world people who think it's below them to ever turn off the TV, walk to a store with your own shopping bag, or recycle anything, but make passionate speeches about how Americans are wasteful and destroying the planet.)

Jesus was a radical, not a liberal. He believed things that many of his contemporaries thought were nonsense.

In the late middle ages one of the big controversies in the Catholic Church was over the poverty of Christ and the apostles. Some factions in the Church believed that property should be held in common. They were considered heretics. St Francis was a very controversial figure in his day.

Well since you put it like that Nips. OK Jesus was a radical.

I love St. Francis. He gave away everything upon his conversion, including his clothes. There's a wonderful book about him by Valerie Martin, although I can't remember the name...

"He gave away everything...."

Exactly. Of his own free will....government didn't force him to give away anything.

In his case, government didn't have to. In yours that's obviously not the case.