They are, but at least Catholicism has the possibility of growing a spine if it chose to.
I was a Friend and it pains me to say that the problem in the Friends is that the sinking lifeboat analogy DOES NOT WORK. There are people who rationally believe that until America is dragged down to the level of the third world, we have a moral imperative to keep taking in more people from the third world. That sinking the lifeboat is morally correct. The immediacy of helping those who's need is greatest takes precedence over building the community.
And the thing is, I can't say they're wrong. I understand where they're coming from, my understanding of the divine leads me to the same conclusions they do. So all I have to fall back on is saying Friends shouldn't be voting at all.
I would tell them they are wrong because by sinking the lifeboat, they destroy the most amount of lives.
It is not moral to destroy yourself for others.
It is like how on an airplane when there is a cabin air failure, you take care of your own mask before helping your child and then the rest of your family and friends.
That analogy is how I feel about life, you help yourself so you can help your family and then help your nation. It is moral to put yourself, your family and nation before others.
I have no qualms in saying that I view the Quakers as soft and weak individuals if they want to continue to sink the societal lifeboat to help random people from across the world over their misguided and naive view of social justice.
I have no qualms in saying that I view the Quakers as soft and weak individuals if they want to continue to sink the societal lifeboat to help random people from across the world over their misguided and naive view of social justice.
I would go further and say that they should be actively considered an enemy force for engaging in such actions.
Christianity should not become a religion that preaches self destruction over a misguided sense of fraternity.
Christianity is a religion that preaches fraternity as the goal, blind to any consequences. Always has been. If we're brought to ruin by doing so, c'est la vie.
We are told to follow the example of Christ, but Christ did not offer His children upon the cross, nor His friends. He offered Himself - and before doing so, He ordered His disciples to arm themselves.
You may bear any burden you choose, but you may not load a burden upon another and call yourself Christian.
God does not recognize the lines you've drawn that distinguish community. There is only the individual and the whole of humanity, no intermediate gradations.
Dying to help another is the pinnacle of virtue.
Look, I get what you're saying. I just cannot contrive a christian divine argument for your side.
Since a lot of people here seem to be incapable of reading between lines and thinking, I'll spell it out plainly.
The problem is Christianity. Period. Christianity is a an ascetic, compassionate religion that aspires to a world without suffering and division. And that is good; too good for its own good. It is an ideology that CANNOT SAVE ITSELF FROM ITSELF.
Islam is not an adequate replacement for Christianity. I admit it's better than Christianity at combatting SJWs, but it's not going to convert christians in the west, it's too incompatible.
What is needed is a new prophet.
I don't want to be a prophet. I am not a leader, I don't have the personality or persuasiveness for it. I talk and people aren't moved, they don't listen, they aren't inspired, they just bicker.
Sure I could do it, I could be that lunatic who goes around claiming to be the voice of god, but frankly, if I'm going to be an outcast either way, I'd rather be a low profile outcast than a high profile madman. And if god wants to be mad at me afterwards for declining the job, fine, I'll cross that bridge when it comes up; but if I'm supposed to lead people to truth then even just one guy in the crowd saying "You can do it!" without being prompted to would have been nice.
They are, but at least Catholicism has the possibility of growing a spine if it chose to.
I was a Friend and it pains me to say that the problem in the Friends is that the sinking lifeboat analogy DOES NOT WORK. There are people who rationally believe that until America is dragged down to the level of the third world, we have a moral imperative to keep taking in more people from the third world. That sinking the lifeboat is morally correct. The immediacy of helping those who's need is greatest takes precedence over building the community.
And the thing is, I can't say they're wrong. I understand where they're coming from, my understanding of the divine leads me to the same conclusions they do. So all I have to fall back on is saying Friends shouldn't be voting at all.
I would tell them they are wrong because by sinking the lifeboat, they destroy the most amount of lives.
It is not moral to destroy yourself for others.
It is like how on an airplane when there is a cabin air failure, you take care of your own mask before helping your child and then the rest of your family and friends.
That analogy is how I feel about life, you help yourself so you can help your family and then help your nation. It is moral to put yourself, your family and nation before others.
I have no qualms in saying that I view the Quakers as soft and weak individuals if they want to continue to sink the societal lifeboat to help random people from across the world over their misguided and naive view of social justice.
I would go further and say that they should be actively considered an enemy force for engaging in such actions.
And that is why you are not a christian.
Men created divisions, not god. God would have those with more give eagerly to those with less.
If being a Christian requires being self destructive then I hope more people walk away from Christianity.
America is on the path to self destruction because of notions of social justice like this.
Christianity should not become a religion that preaches self destruction over a misguided sense of fraternity.
All people are not the same. Different cultures have different values. To not see that and acknowledge that, is suicidal on a societal level.
It is the mentality of the "Friends" why Europe is full of leftists proud of mass importing rapefugees.
I truly have nothing against Christians but I just don't like people of any background who push destructive policies.
I think the "friends" and any people like them should not be voting.
Christianity is a religion that preaches fraternity as the goal, blind to any consequences. Always has been. If we're brought to ruin by doing so, c'est la vie.
Maybe you should.
We are told to follow the example of Christ, but Christ did not offer His children upon the cross, nor His friends. He offered Himself - and before doing so, He ordered His disciples to arm themselves.
You may bear any burden you choose, but you may not load a burden upon another and call yourself Christian.
It's not me that distributes burdens.
I'm just reminding you that they're there, and that there were people who tried a lot harder in the past to carry them, than people do today.
And this is why I only really look to the Sermons for inspiration because the rest of the book is contradictory.
You're what I call a "litigatious christian", ie, one who uses texts as a set of loopholes to be exploited.
Sure you can. Suicide and condemning your own community is wrong.
God does not recognize the lines you've drawn that distinguish community. There is only the individual and the whole of humanity, no intermediate gradations.
Dying to help another is the pinnacle of virtue.
Look, I get what you're saying. I just cannot contrive a christian divine argument for your side.
Since a lot of people here seem to be incapable of reading between lines and thinking, I'll spell it out plainly.
The problem is Christianity. Period. Christianity is a an ascetic, compassionate religion that aspires to a world without suffering and division. And that is good; too good for its own good. It is an ideology that CANNOT SAVE ITSELF FROM ITSELF.
Islam is not an adequate replacement for Christianity. I admit it's better than Christianity at combatting SJWs, but it's not going to convert christians in the west, it's too incompatible.
What is needed is a new prophet.
I don't want to be a prophet. I am not a leader, I don't have the personality or persuasiveness for it. I talk and people aren't moved, they don't listen, they aren't inspired, they just bicker.
Sure I could do it, I could be that lunatic who goes around claiming to be the voice of god, but frankly, if I'm going to be an outcast either way, I'd rather be a low profile outcast than a high profile madman. And if god wants to be mad at me afterwards for declining the job, fine, I'll cross that bridge when it comes up; but if I'm supposed to lead people to truth then even just one guy in the crowd saying "You can do it!" without being prompted to would have been nice.
I don't care about your christian divine argument. If God is unjust then I should not want to worship him. From what you're saying it sounds like he's on board with an increase in net suffering.
That's the thing.
It's not "net".
You only think it's "net" because of your perspective. In this regard, the SJWs are correct.
You won't beat the SJWs with Christianity, and even if you beat the SJWs, as long as Christianity is the prevailing moral system, they'll be back.