What left wing views do you hold?

They don't really have what it takes to fix the world's problems. They dwell in an imaginary realm.

Because of this I've concluded they are in some crazy way liberals but don't want to admit it. Every single libertarian I know, and I know a bunch across the country, all supported lock downs and masks. They thought people should be forced into it...because the free market of the community had spoken. It was bizarre. They all support authoritarianism if issued by the local city council.
 

DanielH

Pelican
I have no left wing views.

It is clear that propaganda has impacted a lot of people on this forum if people are considering:
  • Healthy foods
  • A clean environment
  • Being against usury
left wing. We need to completely separate the idea of the Republican party in our self reflections. Just because the republican establishment supports something does not mean it is right wing, in fact, I think it means a given viewpoint is more likely to be left wing at this point.

Left is to right as satanism is to Christianity, and this was implicitly admitted by the members here who correctly identified such ideas as public nudity, legalizing drug use, and gay marriage as left wing ideas.

Libertarianism is a degenerate lukewarm ideology and you should not associate with people who are libertarian ideologues, and I am speaking as a former one (former Ancap).
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
I believe in environmental conservation (not to be confusing with “climate change”), authoritarianism, and that the working class needs to be protected from those elements of the employer class that are unscrupulous and tyrannical...
The first and third ideas you mention address problems that would not exist if it were not for the Industrial Revolution and its consequences (modern technology, etc). And the second one would not be necessary if it were not for technology/industrialism.
 
Pro organic food, and pro environment without falling into the climate change trap.

I am fine with aspects of a welfare state, such as unemployment insurance, universal healthcare, and state funded pensions, but I also recognize that these can create dependency on the government and unfunded liabilities. So there needs to be balanced accounting.

In favour of strong financial regulation to reign in Wall Street greed and profligacy. Also pro labour unions, up to a point.

Anti-war unless it is purely defensive.

In favour of indigenous peoples’ rights to land and tribal self-determination. This may extend to nationalization of natural resources.

The thing is, so many of these positions used to be left wing, but now are associated with the nationalist right.
Things have come full circle 100 years later. These were originally conservative ideals before the word conservative got bastardized and associated with & by capitalist doctrine in the mid 1980s


@MichaelWitcoff same. Us hunters and fishermen understand you can't trash the environment to get good food
I believe in environmental conservation
 

Salinger

Kingfisher
Pro Choice. I understand how some people are vehemently against it, but I strongly lean left.

1. It doesn't affect me personally. We have so many other problems in the West that pose much bigger problems to us and come with direct consequences. So when I see conservatives organizing anti-abortion rallies, my only thought is, why aren't they out on the streets opposing white hate or the persecution of Christians instead?

2. The Bible doesn't directly mention abortions as being bad. Republicans have to do mental gymnastics with verse to convince others that the Bible says it's wrong. IMO, this belief was instilled on the right by the puppet masters to create this political chasm that separates the conservatives from the dems.

3. Rape. It's not fair for a woman to have to support a baby that she never wanted. And since there's no father, it's not fair for the child to grow up without one.

4. No father on the scene. Just like the rape scenario, if a woman has sex with a man who has no intention to be the father, it's not fair for the kid to grow up without a father. In fact, I always found it strange that conservatives, people who treasure family, would in this case argue on the side of a woman raising a son without a father.
 
I used to love driving and now I hate cars in general. There is nothing more atomizing than sitting at a stoplight in metal boxes, void of all human interaction, climate variables and physical exertion. National parks and recreation areas in the USA are a shitshow because of how easy it is to just drive up and park, while it used to be only the most rugged and determined could gain the best access. Don't get me started on boats and RVs, seeing what they are doing in the western USA I would ban them so fast a boomers head would spin
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
Pro Choice. I understand how some people are vehemently against it, but I strongly lean left.

1. It doesn't affect me personally. We have so many other problems in the West that pose much bigger problems to us and come with direct consequences. So when I see conservatives organizing anti-abortion rallies, my only thought is, why aren't they out on the streets opposing white hate or the persecution of Christians instead?

2. The Bible doesn't directly mention abortions as being bad. Republicans have to do mental gymnastics with verse to convince others that the Bible says it's wrong. IMO, this belief was instilled on the right by the puppet masters to create this political chasm that separates the conservatives from the dems.

3. Rape. It's not fair for a woman to have to support a baby that she never wanted. And since there's no father, it's not fair for the child to grow up without one.

4. No father on the scene. Just like the rape scenario, if a woman has sex with a man who has no intention to be the father, it's not fair for the kid to grow up without a father. In fact, I always found it strange that conservatives, people who treasure family, would in this case argue on the side of a woman raising a son without a father.
1, 3, and 4 can all be applied yo infanticide as well. Why should a poor and/or rape victim single mother have to raise all her children? Why can't she just kill them off? After all, it's not fair to the child to make him live in a poor/broken family. Right?

And to address #2, the Bible most certainly does address abortion.

The fifth commandment: Thou shalt not kill.

How much more simple can it get?
 

Salinger

Kingfisher
1, 3, and 4 can all be applied yo infanticide as well. Why should a poor and/or rape victim single mother have to raise all her children? Why can't she just kill them off? After all, it's not fair to the child to make him live in a poor/broken family. Right?

And to address #2, the Bible most certainly does address abortion.

The fifth commandment: Thou shalt not kill.

How much more simple can it get?

Ok, but if it means that babies shouldn't be killed, then that would also mean that shooting someone in a war or in self-defense is also a sin.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Ok, but if it means that babies shouldn't be killed, then that would also mean that shooting someone in a war or in self-defense is also a sin.

Since I was paged (not that I accept being a credible source, but because this issue is actually very simple and clear):

It would mean that, but obviously it does not. It all comes down to bad translation, as so many other things do (that and lack of reliance in hierarchical interpretation, of course).

The commandment actually is: thou shalt not murder. Murder is obviously not simply killing, but killing without being in retribution or self-defense. So unless a baby attacks you, you cannot kill it.

This distinction between murder and killing should be obvious in the general tone of the Bible anyway, even without this clarification regarding translation.

But anyway, all of this is weird to even consider. I can't think of a single problem that can be properly solved by killing a baby, inside or outside the womb.
 

get2choppaaa

Pelican
Ok, but if it means that babies shouldn't be killed, then that would also mean that shooting someone in a war or in self-defense is also a sin.
As I understand it, Murder is still a sin. Even if you need to do so out of self defense. It is forgivable, like all sins except turning your back on God and rejecting him... but it is still not right.

So you would repent for killing someone, and have to live with that burden. Though it's a little different being placed in a situation where it is kill or be killed vs going out and killing someone out of anger/lust/envy/ect...

This is something I actually am needing to speak with my Priest about as I am not sure exactly how this works having been in the military. There are many Saints who are Soldiers and military membership is not viewed as evil in and of itself. We know that we are called to defend our faith, and defend our family/children home ect.... so of course it is understood that we are not supposed to just lie down and accept violence against us unwaranted... so there is no doubt some situational nuance to the answer of "Just War" within Christianity (many Saints such as Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas have written on this as well as the The War and Peace section in the Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church which discusses Just War vs Aggressive War)


The fact that there is even an equivocation about the "The Bible explcitly say it" is the sort of thing someone who is trying to subvert Christianity would say.

Its like saying "The Bible doesnt literally say I cant have 15 beers so its not a sin for me to do so" when you know that drinking to excess is discussed.
 
Last edited:

Oberrheiner

Pelican
It would mean that, but obviously it does not.
That's not obvious at all, though.
What about turning the other cheek ?

I thought about the our father too, but then a quick search revealed that while in french it says forgive our offenses (as we forgive those who offended us) etc, in english it seems to be either forgive our sins (very different) or forgive our debts (even more different).

So you basically have 3 entirely different religions just based on three translations alone .. my interrogation generated more questions than answers in the end :(
 

GodfatherPartTwo

Woodpecker
I wouldn't call it a left wing view but I'm not pro capitalist to the point that I would accept greed to someone else's detriment. I think any and all secular system is doomed to fail, capitalism included.

To add further tragedy to the socialists, the only time something even resembling socialism was successful was among the First Christians.

Yesterday it was simple, capitalism good and socialism bad. Today, even free-market capitalism is used against Christ, especially so.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
That's not obvious at all, though.
What about turning the other cheek ?

I thought about the our father too, but then a quick search revealed that while in french it says forgive our offenses (as we forgive those who offended us) etc, in english it seems to be either forgive our sins (very different) or forgive our debts (even more different).

So you basically have 3 entirely different religions just based on three translations alone .. my interrogation generated more questions than answers in the end :(

You are misreading everything.

Salinger said that if killing babies was wrong then killing men in any situation was wrong, according to the commandment. That is obviously not so: first, it makes no intuitive sense; second, it is establishing a law; third, different translation, which gives a very different meaning.

Turning the other cheek, which is about not taking personal insults further into violence, not letting anger get the best of you, rising above insults, etc, has of course nothing to do with establishing a law against murder, as it should be obvious - unless you are purposefully trying to misunderstand.

And lastly, the Lord's prayer: no, you are not dealing with entirely different religions based on three different words for the same thing, as here, unlike in the murder/kill example, you are actually dealing with the same meaning. You also have 'trespasses' to add to your list, which seems to be the most literal translation. If you had any deeper understanding, you would see how sin/offense/debt/trespass can indeed mean the same thing - or, perhaps even better, point towards the same thing, because obviously it's not supposed to be a 'literal' debt to the bank, unless you're purposefully trying to misunderstand, which I know you sometimes do just for fun.

If you want to quibble about translation on the Lord's prayer, there is something much more insidious in some English translations: which is that, unlike in Portuguese or French, and more faithfully, it says 'do not let us fall into temptation', in English it says 'lead us not into temptation'. Now, that is actually a very different God indeed. I believe this was addressed by the Church recently.
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
I was not trying to troll, but to address a more general question which was is it ok (according to christianity) to kill another human at all.
If yes then of course only in certain circumstances, which can be debated etc, but just basically, without talking about potential justifications - yes or no ?

I didn't even try to address the point about babies because that's just stupid anyway, murdering innocents can never be acceptable regardless of whatever whichever religion says (looking at you here, islam).

Growing up in a rather religious environment I was taught that killing is never ok period.
Which some might argue is a very benevolent interpretation, but the sermon on the mount seems pretty clear on non-violence to me.

But then of course other christians might disagree :
24337724-7966421-image-a-18_1580897241078.jpg


I was curious about your opinion since you seemed to also have lived in such an environment, but apparently it was not entirely similar either ..
But still, what do you think about using technology to bring god's just revenge on the enemies of orthodoxy, as in that picture ?
In my experience of christianity, jesus would certainly not agree to that, and you would require some serious pilpul to justify it anyway.

By the way this post is a perfect example of why I was concerned about the new rule about secular posting.
I'm not pro-secular or anti-christian, but I ask questions which many people don't like and often react to like I'm attacking their faith, when I'm in fact neutral and just trying to understand, if I'm honest.

Regarding our father, I checked and the official french catholic version seems to be "do not let us enter temptation".
I learned it as "do not submit us to temptation", which is a third way to interpret it.
 
As I understand it, Murder is still a sin. Even if you need to do so out of self defense. It is forgivable, like all sins except turning your back on God and rejecting him... but it is still not right.

So you would repent for killing someone, and have to live with that burden. Though it's a little different being placed in a situation where it is kill or be killed vs going out and killing someone out of anger/lust/envy/ect...

This is something I actually am needing to speak with my Priest about as I am not sure exactly how this works having been in the military. There are many Saints who are Soldiers and military membership is not viewed as evil in and of itself. We know that we are called to defend our faith, and defend our family/children home ect.... so of course it is understood that we are not supposed to just lie down and accept violence against us unwaranted... so there is no doubt some situational nuance to the answer of "Just War" within Christianity (many Saints such as Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas have written on this as well as the The War and Peace section in the Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church which discusses Just War vs Aggressive War)


The fact that there is even an equivocation about the "The Bible explcitly say it" is the sort of thing someone who is trying to subvert Christianity would say.

Its like saying "The Bible doesnt literally say I cant have 15 beers so its not a sin for me to do so" when you know that drinking to excess is discussed.
Good points. I think the Bible does expressly forbid it anyway. The modern practice of abortion is just worship of Molech, the Old Testament pagan god that required child sacrifice. This was detested by God. As I recall, the practice of “passing children through the fire” in sacrifice to Molech was the subject of God’s ire on several occasions when he decided to just wreck an offending tribe or people. Which brings us to modern day America . . .
 
Top