I don't know if you realize this but every incident of assassination or attempted assasination in this country was committed by a leftist. Crazy often, but still left leaning.
So youre saying that all prisoners are leftist? Or do presidents etc. deserve to live more than any other innocent person? Anyways, I could just say that rightists tend to dislike civil liberties and don't like gay marriage, promiscuity, like the Big Police and Military State, and are against the woman's right to chose. And, I'd be correct. So what?
No, Jesus is not a socialist; "Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to God what is to God's" Matthew 22:21 Jesus was very clear "My Kingdom is not of this world"
None of that has anything to do with economics, but in any case, I don't know what "Jesus" would have said about economics exactly. He was staunchly against materialism, but he was also a..carpenter. Maybe..a geoist?
What exactly is not God's, theologian? He was joking about the holy pharisees carrying Occupation money, which they weren't supposed to. He'll leave this world to the Devil and his capitalists then, and go elsewhere? Grow up!
I wish republicans would be more faithful to their own doctrine, rather than insist they can be even more faithful to the doctrine of someone else.
If (if) Jesus had not worked to replace the authority of men (and their imperfect and wicked governments) with the authority of God you might have a point. But Jesus prescribed a strict moral code and mode for behavior that is anything but anarchistic. In fact Jesus taught others to submit to the authority of Caesar, when necessary, and to submit to God in all other matters (which would be virtually everything). I see no anarchy there whatsoever!
Ok. The reason I didnt give it before was because my computer was playing games with me. Anyway, here you go: 'Individualist anarchism refers to several traditions of thought within the anarchist movement that emphasize the individual and his or her will over external determinants such as groups, society, traditions, and ideological systems.[1][2] Individualist anarchism is not a single philosophy but refers to a group of individualistic philosophies that sometimes are in conflict. From there it expanded through Europe and the United States. Benjamin R. Tucker, a famous 19th century individualist anarchist, held that "if the individual has the right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny."[3]' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism For Jesus he would also adhere to: Anarcho-pacifism and Altruistic ethics Both including: Anarcho-pacifism (also pacifist anarchism or anarchist pacifism) is a tendency within the anarchist movement which rejects the use of violence in the struggle for social change.[1][2] and Altruism (also called the ethic of altruism, moralistic altruism, and ethical altruism) is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest.
How so? Also, rejection of all human authority IS anarchism. "When necessary" is not "because its the right thing to do". His submission to Ceasar PROVES his anarchic tendencies by showing his non-violent attitude to life. He never said "follow" Caesar or "embrace him." He simply said, if you have to give the guy money and respect his authority for the sake of harmony and a greater outcome, go ahead. I see no conflict here between that and anarchism. Then you dont know the meaning of the word.
Quite simply Jesus is not rejecting human authority, per se! He is rejecting human authority if it is not based on God's wishes and biblical teachings. This can't be that difficult to understand, can it? Jesus never pretended it was and his admonition (to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's) caused people to examine where their allegiances and priorities lie. I don't think you know what the word "anarchism" means. In fact, I know you don't and you've only proved that over and over again. If one bows to Caesar and his rule, even for expediency's sake, one is submitting to all the laws, power, money, order, rule, etc. of the empirical Roman Empire! Does mighty Rome represent "anarchy" to you? Ouch!! That stings considering you are throwing around words and concepts you can't possibly understand.
"of the empirical Roman Empire!" This is obviously a typo, in case anyone wants to make a cheap point over it.
Did Jesus ever advocate for an economic system whereby the government assumed ownership over the means of production? No? Then he's not a socialist.
A remarkably simplistic and incorrect take on the tribute story. To derive a moral from the story properly, you'd first have to explain what it was that Jesus believed belonged to Caesar.
So the answer to people destroying freedom is to create a totalitarian state that decides, arbitrarily, whether people will live or die. I don't care if you care that I disagree or not, I'm just pointing out your strange reasoning and conflicting rhetoric.
This is a strawman, but I will say that I do care and I think that we should consider that apes, while not nearly as capable as humans in being rational moral actors, do have some limited capacity to that effect. That should be considered. To the extent that they can respect the rights of other apes and of humans, those rights should be respected in them. Putting them in cages in zoos is wrong, IMHO. I feel the same about dolphins. It's a complex problem with no easy solution at this time. I focus on humans, because human freedom and escape from the barbarity of the state will ultimately lead to more freedom and respect for the higher animals. I'm curious, however, as to why you bring it up. Do you care? You've advocated killing humans who are not up to your standards of production or intelligence, so I'm not sure why you'd give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about an ape. Well, certainly. I've never argued otherwise. There are lots of things that are objective which are also optional. The scientific method is an optional form of inquiry into the nature of things. You are welcome to use it or not use in order to discover new things about nature. Would you argue that because it is optional that it is subjective and that which is derived from it is subjective?
I think that he might have been exposed to Buddhism, or Taoism. Many of his teachings are similar to those expressed in the east and very well formed for a man who only taught for a few years.
Where did he talk about the inherent right of rule of some over others? Anarchy means to be without rulers, so if Jesus wasn't an anarchist, tell us who he believed should rule. Other than God, of course.
If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also, but if he show a middle finger to a government employee with a badge or defecate upon a national flag, then beat him senseless, blind his eyes with pepper, and cast him into a dungeon.
Now you're talking like a...well, the first part sounds like a fool that would let someone beat up on them, and the second part sounds like either a commie or a Republican
No; I'm saying that stupid/otherwise incompetent people shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. That causes nothing but harm for everyone except themselves. (*)(*)(*)(*) them.
Ok, that works. But stupid people will give us a hard time if we let them be free. I don't. My point is that just being conscious doesn't equate to deserving freedom. Nor does being a member of the human species. I think morals are subjective because 2+2=4, and that's objective; person A could stab person B's kids in the head with an ice pick for no other reason than that they got horny over it, and that's not objectively "wrong". It's something that I personally would have him tortured to death for, but it's not objectively "wrong". On the other hand, 2+2=5 is objectively wrong.
