Originally Posted by MSI Magus So in other words you pull a theory out of your ass and then ask the rest of us to do the work to prove your theory. Yep sounds like a Knoell post. But hey lets enter Knoell world for a minute(just a foot in to your world though, dont want to catch the crazy). Lets say your right. Lets say that Christians, hell lets take it a step farther and say all of religion combined does more good then all government and non profit organizations combined. Do you think they alone can meet the needs of the impoverished masses? Do you think they alone can feed the hungry, clothe the poor, give shots to those in third world countries and clean their water supplies? Even if we pretended that every last freaking religious person in the world was the good hearted soul you naively believe them to be it would not be enough. As it stands though your world is a sham that you build to back your beliefs. The reality is that not all churches do charity, those that do charity do not do so every week or even month.....yet charity is needed every day in massive amounts. So I am sorry but it changes nothing. Most conservatives are anti abortion while at the same time pro small government. You do believe in cutting welfare programs, international aid and other vital programs. You may go and work a soup kitchen or most likely handle charity like my mother in laws church who does charity that directly benefit church members not the unwashed masses. But if you then go to the voting booth and vote to cut federal funding to these vital programs it means your a pro life Christian 2 or 3 days a month.

As for this mess of a post that is full of insults, which is why I retaliated besides being on my way out.

Anyways, I admit I spoke too soon when I said conservative christians, when I wrote that I had all christians in my head and was only quoting the term someone used.

Here is another thing, what conservative christian wants to eliminate all government programs? What conservative christian thinks they alone can help everyone? They are usually grateful for whatever help they can get. Another wrong assumption.

We are 2 for 2 in BS.

I never said all christians a true hearted. If I did, please quote me. So quit being a damn liar and assuming things. I am not sure what this even has to do with anything besides your simpleton hate for hypocritical christians. Possible stemming from noone asking you if you needed help. I think there is even a quote of me somewhere on this forum saying that the country is 75% people claiming to be christians but I don't believe anywhere near that number is the amount of true christians.

3 for 3 in BS.

Churches do more than drives, events, and soup kitchens. They consistantly stretch out to help anyone who comes to them for help. If they run out of money, they appeal to the congregation to donate to a special cause. However you are right, this isn't enough, but it is an indication that christians who are conservative or liberal want to help the community. Reducing social programs is not a matter of hurting the poor it is a matter of spending money more effectively. If the social programs that exist were at all effective more people would be for them.

So I will give that one to you even though you have no idea what conservative christians are really for. 3 for 4 in BS.

Lastly, I have never heard of a church that runs a soup kitchen for its congregation. But okie dokie, those bastard churches are just helping their own!

4 for 5 in BS.

Originally Posted by MSI Magus /nod thats another fact that I did not take in to consideration. Many churches besides doing work that mostly benefits their congregation also tend to proselytize in the process. It is rarely charity for charities sake. My mother in law that is out twice a month for her churches breast cancer walks and fairs(which started when a member of the churchs sister got breast cancer)pitched a fit and then refused to toss my wife a Bridal shower when she said we didnt want gifts, we wanted people to donate to charity. When at Christmas we said we didnt want to get gifts and again asked for charity donations we had the same reaction(the following year we stopped celebrating Christmas). I am not saying I think this is the typical Christian, I certainly dont...but I think its much more common then Knoell would ever admit.

More bias BS. How often do people donate to causes that affect them directly? I know a number of people who have had loved ones with cancer or have died from various cancers who donate for a cure. Does this somehow negate the donation to the cause? Come on man be reasonable, it is common sense for people to be more appreciative of causes that affect them than not. Regardless of that people are still charitable without being affected personally. How many churches sent help down to haiti? How many people donated to the cause in haiti? japan?

Regardless of your personal stories of how your mother in law is so greedy, I can give you 10 times that in stories of churches I have seen being selfless. It is all conjecture. Go and find a church you actually like, and you will see what they do. (You do have to find one you like, as there are a lot of bad ones, but thats just me being naive isn't it? )

Originally Posted by MSI Magus Meh I just put him back on ignore. Took him off a few months ago and iv tried hard to talk to him a few times...but unlike people like uncle bob or thrust that I may not always agree with...there is just no debating with him. Bob may twist things some of the time but he at least attempts to put forth SOME kind of debate....Knoell just ignores points, facts and statistics to focus on twisted logic. I really wish everyone else here would put him on ignore too. I think we would be better off not just as a board but as a nation if we learned hard to try and find a middle ground and discuss issues civilly....but then ignore the people that prove they have no interest in facts or logic the way we would a child.

I am not sure which facts, or statistics that I am ignoring in your posts but feel free to point them out to me. So sorry I am not "debating" with you on your terms of complete and utter bull shit.

Originally Posted by Knoell I thought that you would be the first to call him out that his experience with christians is anecdotal evidence. ... What I was saying is that christians care for the poor and do ALOT of charity and donating so I don't believe painting them to be ignorant of low income people is accurate.

He had anecdotes of Christians behaving badly, you have offered nothing but worthless conjecture. If I was going to call anyone out it would be you.

If conservative Christians care so much about the poor, how do you explain the candidates they routinely support?

Originally Posted by camoor If conservative Christians care so much about the poor, how do you explain the candidates they routinely support?

banning abortion is more important in their view

The institute of Medicine recommended today that health care insurers should under the new health care laws provide birth control for free through insurance. Anti abortion groups have already announced opposition. This again goes with what I was saying earlier about the "pro life" crowd not caring about the well being of families and the already born and instead just with people having as many babies as possible.

Jesus is laissez-faire capitalism.

Originally Posted by MSI Magus The institute of Medicine recommended today that health care insurers should under the new health care laws provide birth control for free through insurance. Anti abortion groups have already announced opposition. This again goes with what I was saying earlier about the "pro life" crowd not caring about the well being of families and the already born and instead just with people having as many babies as possible.

They care about protecting what they consider life. It goes beyond forcing people to do anything, they are protecting life.

There wouldnt be as much against this if they limited it to birth control that does not cause early abortions. Regardless it is not the institure of medicines job to decide whether or not abortion is wrong, so free birth control would make sense to them.

Originally Posted by camoor He had anecdotes of Christians behaving badly, you have offered nothing but worthless conjecture. If I was going to call anyone out it would be you.

Do you really think I don't have the same but opposite anecdotes? This part of the argument is ridiculous, useless, and really shows how bias you are towards opposing views, and the lack of criticism you have for your own.

Because here is what you said while discussing it with him -

I am loath to criticize the Christians who do bona fide charity work, it is actually one of the things I admire about true Christians.

However if MSI Magus says he has examples of bad christians then Knoell couldn't possibly be right in saying there are a whole lot of christians who do charity even if it completely goes against what I just said.

Originally Posted by camoor If conservative Christians care so much about the poor, how do you explain the candidates they routinely support?

I already explained to you that most people do not believe the current social programs are at all efficient. Obviously you disagree with conservative ideology so you are not going to support conservative candidates or think they are remotely right. I can say the same thing about Liberal candidates. If you care about the economy, life, prosecution of criminals etc how do you explain your support for particular liberal candidates?

Originally Posted by Knoell They care about protecting what they consider life. It goes beyond forcing people to do anything, they are protecting life. There wouldnt be as much against this if they limited it to birth control that does not cause early abortions. Regardless it is not the institure of medicines job to decide whether or not abortion is wrong, so free birth control would make sense to them.

Gotta protect those unborn babies, but once they're out of the womb those little ers better get jobs, right? You all love to act holier than thou when it comes to "protecting life" but as soon as the umbilical cord is cut you'd just as soon let the kid starve in the street as help it's family. Hypocrites of the highest order.

Originally Posted by Clak Gotta protect those unborn babies, but once they're out of the womb those little ers better get jobs, right? You all love to act holier than thou when it comes to "protecting life" but as soon as the umbilical cord is cut you'd just as soon let the kid starve in the street as help it's family. Hypocrites of the highest order.

You do realize that you can have it both ways. You can get rid of abortion and give the poor all the money you can possibly want. Right?

But even if liberals were to enact the best care for the poor the world has ever seen, you would still not get rid of aboriton. Hypocrites of the highest order indeed.

Originally Posted by Knoell Do you really think I don't have the same but opposite anecdotes? This part of the argument is ridiculous, useless, and really shows how bias you are towards opposing views, and the lack of criticism you have for your own.

I'm not saying that what he said is irrefutable, but you get on here and offer up conjecture with no factual basis whatsoever and then act dumbfounded when we call you out on your bullshit. Your act is getting stale, bro.

Originally Posted by Knoell Because here is what you said while discussing it with him - However if MSI Magus says he has examples of bad christians then Knoell couldn't possibly be right in saying there are a whole lot of christians who do charity even if it completely goes against what I just said. I already explained to you that most people do not believe the current social programs are at all efficient. Obviously you disagree with conservative ideology so you are not going to support conservative candidates or think they are remotely right. I can say the same thing about Liberal candidates. If you care about the economy, life, prosecution of criminals etc how do you explain your support for particular liberal candidates?

Wow - first time I heard that your issue is with the efficiency of social programs. Then why don't you propose social programs that are more efficient instead of characterizing the users of social programs as lazy and unmotivated?

You're such a coward, you're always backtracking, and it's funny to see you collapse whenever someone points out that your viewpoint is completely unChristian.

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by Knoell You do realize that you can have it both ways. You can get rid of abortion and give the poor all the money you can possibly want. Right? But even if liberals were to enact the best care for the poor the world has ever seen, you would still not get rid of aboriton. Hypocrites of the highest order indeed.

Why is that hypocritical? If we don't believe that the zygote is a human being then why should it be protected as if it were a baby? The circumstances awaiting a fictional baby are irrelevant.

Originally Posted by camoor Why is that hypocritical? If we don't believe that the zygote is a human being then why should it be protected as if it were a baby? The circumstances awaiting a fictional baby are irrelevant.

While I have Knoell blocked I can still see posts of his you guys quote(which is again why I wish others would just ignore him and stop wasting time). Because of that I could see that last response. I must say that it was a rather big assumption to make on his part and for you to also speak for all liberals.

Personally I can not stand the issue of abortion. Its one that I am totally on the fence about as I feel most Americans are. its an issue we tend to despise because its very philosophical and its very difficult for people to pin point how they feel much of the time. So while many conservatives and liberals see the issue as black and white .....id bet at least a third of the nation if not a majority see it more grey.

Personally if people like Knoell could step up and act like...well like Christians and take care of the poor then id be ok with MUCH stricter abortion laws. If we actually took care of the sick, the infirm, the homeless and the hungry I would be comfortable with the idea of banning abortions in all cases not relating to rape, incest or a health risk to the mother.

But hey this goes outside the black and white world knoell lives in so I am sure he will ignore the crux of this post to focus on one part(Im guessing the fact that id allow abortions for extreme cases and thus I am some kind of crazy pro abortion liberal).

Originally Posted by MSI Magus While I have Knoell blocked I can still see posts of his you guys quote(which is again why I wish others would just ignore him and stop wasting time). Because of that I could see that last response. I must say that it was a rather big assumption to make on his part and for you to also speak for all liberals. Personally I can not stand the issue of abortion. Its one that I am totally on the fence about as I feel most Americans are. its an issue we tend to despise because its very philosophical and its very difficult for people to pin point how they feel much of the time. So while many conservatives and liberals see the issue as black and white .....id bet at least a third of the nation if not a majority see it more grey. Personally if people like Knoell could step up and act like...well like Christians and take care of the poor then id be ok with MUCH stricter abortion laws. If we actually took care of the sick, the infirm, the homeless and the hungry I would be comfortable with the idea of banning abortions in all cases not relating to rape, incest or a health risk to the mother. But hey this goes outside the black and white world knoell lives in so I am sure he will ignore the crux of this post to focus on one part(Im guessing the fact that id allow abortions for extreme cases and thus I am some kind of crazy pro abortion liberal).

I suppose but then I wouldn't classify your position as pro-choice. You're not interested in protecting a woman's right to choose, you're really more interested in whatever policy will cause the least amount of suffering.

As much as I disagree with anyone who would advocate restricting a woman's right to choose under any circumstances (on principal, as stated in my last post), I do respect your compassion.

Originally Posted by MSI Magus While I have Knoell blocked I can still see posts of his you guys quote(which is again why I wish others would just ignore him and stop wasting time). Because of that I could see that last response. I must say that it was a rather big assumption to make on his part and for you to also speak for all liberals. Personally I can not stand the issue of abortion. Its one that I am totally on the fence about as I feel most Americans are. its an issue we tend to despise because its very philosophical and its very difficult for people to pin point how they feel much of the time. So while many conservatives and liberals see the issue as black and white .....id bet at least a third of the nation if not a majority see it more grey. Personally if people like Knoell could step up and act like...well like Christians and take care of the poor then id be ok with MUCH stricter abortion laws. If we actually took care of the sick, the infirm, the homeless and the hungry I would be comfortable with the idea of banning abortions in all cases not relating to rape, incest or a health risk to the mother. But hey this goes outside the black and white world knoell lives in so I am sure he will ignore the crux of this post to focus on one part(Im guessing the fact that id allow abortions for extreme cases and thus I am some kind of crazy pro abortion liberal).

If you knew anything about me, I have said I would make exceptions for extreme cases as well. But here we are, you accusing me of living in a black and white world of which you completely and utterly put upon everybody else who disagrees with you.

Also your argument that there are not enough social programs for the poor is not a capable argument when you are discussing what you to believe to be a human life. If you really believe the unborn are to be protected then you should be for banning abortion and better social programs, not on the fence about abortion and for better social programs. Not existing is not more compassionate than being poor.

Your argument could fit very well with killing infants as well. "Hey if the mother says she cannot afford another baby then why should she have to keep it? Until we have social programs capable of feeding that baby, then I would support laws against killing it."

But alas you won't hear this because I won't listen to all the FACTS and STATISTICS that you are so proudly exhibiting in this thread of which there are none.

Originally Posted by camoor I'm not saying that what he said is irrefutable, but you get on here and offer up conjecture with no factual basis whatsoever and then act dumbfounded when we call you out on your bullshit. Your act is getting stale, bro. Wow - first time I heard that your issue is with the efficiency of social programs. Then why don't you propose social programs that are more efficient instead of characterizing the users of social programs as lazy and unmotivated? You're such a coward, you're always backtracking, and it's funny to see you collapse whenever someone points out that your viewpoint is completely unChristian.

I am the coward? You are the god damn coward. I have consistantly said the problem people have with social programs is their efficiency not what they are trying to accomplish. I have said this multiple times in multiple threads, some of them were even in direct response TO YOU. I am starting to get sick of you constantly making things up.

Why don't you back up the bullshit you are toting about liberal christians giving more, and helping the poor more than conservative christians. I will be waiting, although you will do one of two things - avoid it by insulting me, or avoid it by claiming I don't have to provide proof for the statement I recanted so why should you have to provide proof for the statement you openly got away with because you are all a bunch of buddies on this site.

Heres another challenge, quote me saying we don't need social programs. I bet you won't and can't.

Coward.

Originally Posted by Knoell we don't need social programs.

Sorry, was too easy

But I will agree with Knoell on this one point. When you hear many so-called Christian Conservative politicians talk about cutting social programs, they do quite often say that they believe that the goals can be better met by the private sector. Anyone is free to disagree with this belief, but to insinuate that they simply dont feel that social programs need to exist is a gross misinterpretation of thier position.

They state that they see a need for social programs, they just dont think that government (particularly Federal Government) should be running said programs.

Who has more overhead? Government programs or private charities?

Originally Posted by hostyl1 Sorry, was too easy But I will agree with Knoell on this one point. When you hear many so-called Christian Conservative politicians talk about cutting social programs, they do quite often say that they believe that the goals can be better met by the private sector. Anyone is free to disagree with this belief, but to insinuate that they simply dont feel that social programs need to exist is a gross misinterpretation of thier position. They state that they see a need for social programs, they just dont think that government (particularly Federal Government) should be running said programs.

Which is ridiculous because we can't force the private sector to do shit. Conservatives think the private sector would do a better job, great, so how are you going to make them do it?

@ Clak - On the thought of restricting a woman's rights. The thing is I cant wrap my head behind the science and I think even if I could I still would just have this gut feeling that its wrong. That said I feel its equally wrong to force a woman to have a baby when she is not prepared to do so(unwed single mother that is poor). If society had good orphanages and plenty of them as well as welfare programs that truely helped people, then I could understand restricting abortion further. Either way I appreciate you respecting my position. Its amazing how the "pro choice crowd" can respect disagreement when its done from a reasonable basis.

@hosty1l - Me and others have already smashed Knoells little theory on the private sector taking care of charity but you might have missed it. Here is the question do you really think the private sector can take care of every last bit of charity that needs to be done? Do you think they can feed and clothe every last poor person? Do you think they can handle giving the multitude of shots that are needed across the globe? Do you think that they can do the numerous reparative surgeries kids across the worlds need? I have volunterred at a lot of charities through church, through school and on my own...and from first hand experience I can vouch that these places are SWAMPED.

People like Knoell who propose its not the government job like to pretend that the private sector can handle it, truth is that even with current government assistance its not enough. If you believe that it is simply not governments job to help out the poor, the hungry etc etc fine you have that right. But to deny that it means those people suffer is just another conservative fairy tale(I think we liberals need to start telling fairy tales, maybe thats how we convince people like Knoell). Again the issue is not believing in what government should or should not do, the issue is with the myth that we have debunked time and time again that the private sector can handle it.

Edit - Whats crazy too is sitting here the last few mins I keep thinking, the druggies and the drunks, the burn victoms, those that need plastic surgery from serious accidents etc etc. There are just so many damn forms of charity that need assistance. Its beyond insane to think the private sector can take care of them all. There is also the issue that people in the private sector tend to support things that directly effect them or people they know meaning things like third world charities suffer.

People seem to forget that the goal of private companies is to make money. That's it. Whenever a public service is privatized, you get less service for more money. Healthcare, prisons, mercenaries are huge offenders. I don't know how anyone can support this. The goal should be to provide services foremost, not eke every penny you can from the system.