What left wing views do you hold?

ilostabet

Pelican
Starting from the last 'do not submit us to temptation' is the same as 'do not lead us' - except for literalism, which is just stupidity. The question here is simply: is God the one who leads/submits us to temptation? No. God does not tempt us. Satan (the anti-God) tempts us. God can help us resist these temptations.

I don't think it is licit to bring God's vengeance, God himself is the avenger, not us with our means. This goes, as with everything, on the microcosm as on the macro, for the personal and for the societal. But again, this is not the same as defending your country, just as it is not the same as self-defense on a personal level. Defense is not avenging, defense is defense.

The Sermon on the Mount is not a social program, nor a law for governance. Those things, which can indeed be extracted from it, are to be done (and were done by the Church) later, not even in Paul's Epistles, but after. To understand these things, as I have often said, you have to remove the materialist veil from your eyes (which is why I recommended that book to you, as I see no better primer in our day). Perhaps you will understand after that how trespass/debt/sin/fault/offense are the same thing; just like, for example, earth/time/substance are the same thing.

Similarly, in the same type of error, pictures cannot give you interpretations of themselves, so I don't know what the context is for the blessing of those things, and neither do you. You are reifying pictures and also reifying words - this is common. It is common since the Fall, and becoming more common as the process of degeneration proceeds and the cycle comes to a close. That does not mean we shouldn't fight it - as that is in fact the error upon which the whole modern edifice rests (it is, in other words, materialism), and what makes our understanding of things ever more narrow.

Now, on the specific question of modern weapons, they have very different implications from traditional weapons. This just makes their use much more susceptible to error (which is the same as sin, btw). So, in that regard, its Holy use has to be much more thought out. The question of Just war for our times requires further considerations, therefore, as all thinkers who have dealt with modern technology recognize its distinct essence, including religious ones, and nothing is ever neutral, as so many people seem to think with regards to technology, which can only be attributed to a modern kind of blindness, which is even more inexcusable in religious folks. The ancients, of course, did not have this narrow view, that's why there's even a saying towards the opposite understanding: to a hammer everything looks like a nail. So much for neutrality.

Lastly, I have no problem with you asking 'secular' questions, nor do I think that was the point of the new rule. I think you are being consistent in your materialism, and it bothers me much more, and I find more dangerous, when the religious don't even recognize their materialism. This is how waters are muddied - not in the asking of questions, but in giving bad answers (which is what I think the rule is for).
 
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 :(

Let's begin with Scripture, and some observational notes from the sociological well of Malina and Rohrbaugh's Social Science Commentary on the Synoptics. A favored argument of Skeptics against "un-Christian" behavior of ridicule is to place such behavior against admonitions to "turn the other cheek." Is it proper to do so?

An irony here is that some skeptics, such as George Smith, interpret this and similar commands as directives to tolerate injustice and be a doormat, and say "such precepts require the obliteration of one's capacity to distinguish the good from the evil". [323] Depending on what Skeptic you speak to, this is either a command to be very nice to them, or a command to be so nice to them that you become a gullible fool, as they see it.

Taken in their social context, such commands require neither action. "Resist not evil," which precedes the "cheek" admonition, is a well-known Jewish proverb (Ps. 37:1, 8; Prov. 24:19) and actually means, do not compete with evildoers by trying to outdo them in terms of getting back at them. Three examples for the teaching follow: Turn the other cheek; if someone sues you for your cloak, also give them your tunic; if you are forced to go one mile, go two.

All three of these things refer to what amount to inconvenient, but nevertheless perfectly legal, impositions on the person. The "slap on the cheek" is a type of personal insult, so that the command to turn the other cheek is essentially a command not to start trading insults, but take the higher ground and turn away from the exchange. It is not a license to allow yourself to get beat up.

For example when a Roman soldier sues you for your cloak and you give them your tunic. And if forced to go one mile go two(Matthew 5:41)

The Greek text has a Persian word here signifying “to press into service as a courier” for the royal post, then, generally, “to force to be a guide,” “to requisition,” men or cattle. This was one of the exactions which the Jews suffered under the Romans. Alford quotes Joseph. Ant. xiii. 2, 3

Its a way of making the person responsible feel ashamed. And Roman Soldiers have a strong sense of Honor. So they are likely to be ashamed as a result of the person who does this.

Also:
“If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other cheek toward him.” The statement seems to imply that one should invite an aggressor to leave no part of the face out of a good beating. This statement does not sit well among Bible readers who believe that a man should protect his property and family against aggression. It really does not sit well in the mind of the careful and culturally informed reader.

Jesus does not just tell someone who takes a fist to the face to expose the uninjured side. He gives clear instruction to expose the left cheek. This leads to a couple important questions. Why would Jesus indicate that the first blow will come to the right cheek? Why would he instruct someone to offer the left cheek to an attacking Roman soldier?

The answer is simple. Roman soldiers tended to be right-handed. When they struck an equal with a fist, it came from the right and made contact with the left side of the face. When they struck an inferior person, they swung with the back of their right hand making contact with the right cheek.
In a Mediterranean culture that made clear distinctions between classes, Roman soldiers backhanded their subjects to make a point. Jews were second-class. No one thought twice about the rectitude of treating lesser people with less respect.

Peaceful Subversion

When Jesus tells fellow Jews to expose the left cheek, he is calling for “peaceful subversion.” He does not want them to retaliate in anger nor to shrink in some false sense of meekness. He wants to force the Roman soldiers to treat them like equals. He wants the Jews to stand up and demand respect. He wants to make each attacker stop and think about how they are mistreating another human being. It is the same motivation behind his command to “go an extra mile” after a soldier forced you to carry water for the first mile (Matt 5:41). It is intended to activate the soldier’s conscience.


Jesus’ command to “turn the other cheek” is ultimately a call to peaceful resistance. It is the mantra of reformers inspired (at least in part) by Jesus like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. Elsewhere in the Bible the books of Proverbs and Romans call it “heaping burning coals upon your enemy’s head.” That expression is an ancient Near Eastern mourning ritual. People put ashes on their head to express deep sorrow or regret. The apostle Paul’s call to “overcome evil with good” and thereby “heap burning coals on an enemy’s head” is a call to shame evil people into repentance. It is a peaceful plan to subvert cultural evils.


Its not for the individual to avenge himself(Romans 12:19-21). That job according to God belonged to the State(Romans 13) as his chosen Angel of Vengeance.

Rather the individual Citizen was to act in such a way as to activate the conscience of the person in question. And to get him to be ashamed in his inner conscience of his actions.

Revenge therefore is only permitted through the organized violence of the State where there is more rationality involved in due process for example. But individuals are to be good peaceable citizens to others personally.

Therefore motivating change for the better.
 

Elipe

Kingfisher
Rather the individual Citizen was to act in such a way as to activate the conscience of the person in question. And to get him to be ashamed in his inner conscience of his actions.

Revenge therefore is only permitted through the organized violence of the State where there is more rationality involved in due process for example. But individuals are to be good peaceable citizens to others personally.

Therefore motivating change for the better.
Any thoughts on how this applies to the modern context of arrogant SJWs? Can their consciences even be activated in a way that isn't just fake white guilt? And for the non-white SJWs who apparently have a burning hatred for anything white, how does one activate a conscience that doesn't appear to be there at all?

There's talk about Roman soldiers having a strong sense of honor, but then I look around myself and find no honor.
 
Any thoughts on how this applies to the modern context of arrogant SJWs? Can their consciences even be activated in a way that isn't just fake white guilt? And for the non-white SJWs who apparently have a burning hatred for anything white, how does one activate a conscience that doesn't appear to be there at all?

There's talk about Roman soldiers having a strong sense of honor, but then I look around myself and find no honor.

In private perhaps. But in Public not really. Jesus' Response and by extension our responses to the Public challenge of SJW's would probably be to treat them like our LORD treated the Pharisees because they are very high on their own Hypocritical Religious Self-Righteousness.

Our LORD who taught us to turn the other cheek probably did on the right occasions most likely in private situations in which he probably almost never encountered them or in relations to Roman Soldiers. But in the Public Arena its different. In that same article I linked:
Many ancient societies (and we shall see below, certain modern social groups) engage in a process known as challenge-riposte. The scene of such processes is public venues in which two persons or groups have competing honor claims: "...the game of challenge-riposte is a central phenomenon, and one that must be played out in public." [42] The purpose is for each party to try to undermine the honor, or social status, of the other in an exchange that "answers in equal measures or ups the ante (and thereby challenges in return)."

In the Gospels, Jesus "evidences considerable skill at riposte and thereby reveals himself to be an honorable and authoritative prophet." Many of these challenges are clear, but some are so hidden to us that they need exposition.

I imagine Skeptics pass this one over without a thought:


Matthew 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?


Most Skeptics are too busy worrying about Abiathar and Ahimelech in this passage in the Markan parallel, but read closely it is a tremendous insult to Jesus' Pharasaic opponents. "Have you not read...?"

Of course they had. The Pharisees were experts in the Scriptures. They read them every day. They were the Ph. Ds in Bible in their time. To ask them, "Have you not read...?" is to essentially call them stupid, unable to read what was in front of them, not having done proper study.

This is proper in the public forum and a response to the honor challenge laid down by the Pharisees, who challenge Jesus on the behavior of his disciples. Jesus ups the ante by questioning their very knowledge of the Scriptures, a trait they most cherished.


The art of insult was highly valued in antiquity. Our modern "victim culture" encourages persons to find the art offensive, but before getting too judgmental, consider that in these honor challenges, the person who ended the game by throwing a punch was considered the big loser. Losing one's temper and throwing a punch was as much an admission that one could not keep up the battle of wits and had to resort to violence. When Jesus runs from those who pick up stones to stone him, he is not the coward, but the winner taking his spoils.

I think we are to do similar. In modern parlance imagine a Rap battle where both opponents dissed each other until one side wins in a public arena. This is the ancient equivalent that our LORD participated in.
 

Kona

Crow
Gold Member
My lady at work has a three legged dog. It's the quintessential American Golden Retriever. This guys got a lot of heart. Very spunky, with a positive can-do attitude. I was throwing branches and he did his best to run them down with gusto.

Thus, a left wing viewpoint I now support is three legged dog ownership is noble.

Aloha!
 

get2choppaaa

Pelican
My lady at work has a three legged dog. It's the quintessential American Golden Retriever. This guys got a lot of heart. Very spunky, with a positive can-do attitude. I was throwing branches and he did his best to run them down with gusto.

Thus, a left wing viewpoint I now support is three legged dog ownership is noble.

Aloha!
You Commie!
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican

For example when a Roman soldier sues you for your cloak and you give them your tunic. And if forced to go one mile go two(Matthew 5:41)



Its a way of making the person responsible feel ashamed. And Roman Soldiers have a strong sense of Honor. So they are likely to be ashamed as a result of the person who does this.

Also:


Its not for the individual to avenge himself(Romans 12:19-21). That job according to God belonged to the State(Romans 13) as his chosen Angel of Vengeance.

Rather the individual Citizen was to act in such a way as to activate the conscience of the person in question. And to get him to be ashamed in his inner conscience of his actions.

Revenge therefore is only permitted through the organized violence of the State where there is more rationality involved in due process for example. But individuals are to be good peaceable citizens to others personally.

Therefore motivating change for the better.
Yeah ok there goes the pilpul :)
 

Steiner

Pigeon
You don't fall under the reasons I am OK with abortion. My fear that without it, the nation will be overwhelmed by violent sub 85 IQ people who will destroy the modern world.
As if this is not already happening, even with abortion?

Let me get this straight. You fear "violent sub 85 IQ people who will destroy the modern world", the very thing our ancestors overcame to create the modern world... without stooping to murdering babies in the womb?

That's extreme cowardice brother. Seek God.
 

Elipe

Kingfisher
As if this is not already happening, even with abortion?

Let me get this straight. You fear "violent sub 85 IQ people who will destroy the modern world", the very thing our ancestors overcame to create the modern world... without stooping to murdering babies in the womb?

That's extreme cowardice brother. Seek God.
To add to this, those people also have the highest rate of abortion currently. The only way you could achieve your goal even more would be to force 100% abortion rate on them.

But if we had that kind of political clout, we wouldn't even need to do that. There would be more moral ways of dealing with those people, such as dumping them off at the nearest African harbor.
 

Chains of Peter

Woodpecker
You don't fall under the reasons I am OK with abortion. My fear that without it, the nation will be overwhelmed by violent sub 85 IQ people who will destroy the modern world.
The reason the West is falling to those sub-85 IQ's is because they aborted and contracepted their military age protectors out of existence.

Don't blame the sub-85's for filling a natural vacuum.

Back on topic... The most left wing view I have is that employers must be obligated to pay a just wage (defined as sufficient for a family man to support a wife and children in basic housing).
 

DanielH

Pelican
Affordable healthcare should be freely available. I guess I had too much soy juice those morning.
It was before a third of "Americans" were obese and 80% were drug using plastic-wrapped coomers. Importing a hundred million people who couldn't or wouldn't pay for their healthcare didn't help either. An illegal immigrant at my wife's hospital just racked up over a million in expenses. There's no policy that will fix healthcare costs/accessibility without addressing the root cause of it. We talk about people with the flu filling up hospital beds but not an officially unemployed obese Guatemalan diabetic.

1616792425203.png
 

Coja Petrus Uscan

Hummingbird
Gold Member

I have a problem; I have gone so far right I can barely see myself. Being a Scroogist I cannot pay for a hair cut. Any mirror I use to assist me in this act veers dramatically to the left. Sometimes I cut my hair in ladies' powder rooms. The fat positivists in the powder rooms don't like me "throwing" all the mirrors at them. They, of course, don't mind me being there. It's "the current year" they say. One time Richard Spencers of the alt-rightists emailed me. He said, "You've gone so far right you are making the alt-right look gay." I tried to reply that I am just trying to balance the Overton thingy, but typing the names of reflective objects causes me to uncontrollably enter the
220px-Emoji_u1f44c.svg.png
emoji. I have it mapped to the ALT (right) key. I even went so far right I came out the other side, but I didn't pick up any left-wing ideas because all the leftists ran away.

**********************

A big issue is the extent to which the political labels have shifted left.

Conservative initially meant someone who thinks the primary organising factor in society is God, the family (peace)

Liberals believed the primary organising factor is the individual (Tower of Babel)

Leftists believed the primary organising factor is a redistributive state (Sodom)

Clint Eastwood is not a conservative. He has married and divorced several times and won't say how many children he has. He is a liberal. Rugged individualism is liberal.

All Western governments are social democratic, which is a Marxist derivative, and with the exception of no state-provided healthcare in The US, all Western countries are 100% social democratic. You can vote for any party and you will get this Marxist derivative, which is broadly behind the decline of religion. The majority of the wealth and the majority of the taxes are paid for by about 7% of the population. In The UK, the tax contribution of a minimum wage worker is not enough to pay for the average cost of state-provided healthcare alone. Words you hear the left using like hyper-capitalism, late-capitalism and neo-liberalism are all used due to the shifting of the Overton thingy. What they are really saying is social democracy is not far enough left for them. The current systems all bare more resemblance to leftism, than they do to liberalism or capitalism.

This is not to say that there are not oligarchs. If you run a game long enough, some people will become good at it. And despite the high levels of taxation certain people have become good at the half-capitalism of social democracy. Capitalism is doing fine, it is the welfare state that is in terminal decline.

Democracy skews left. It is during the period that democracy the left arose. The very nature of it favour endless leftward movement. All material and social capital spreads itself hierarchically. Thus in a materialist democracy, there will always be a leaning to people voting to get more things from others, which is not Christian. Nor are certain practices of the oligarchs. In a materialist society most people vote based on social and economic capital redistribution, over morals.

If you are a conservative or Christian democracy is a loser. It's also this period in which churches have collapsed. There was at no point at the past you could describe even Protestant churches as liberal. They went liberal with democracy. Before they were always conservative. Politics suggests that there will always be change, which itself is inherently anti-conservative. You have the left and liberals constantly agitating for change and conservatives (which are by and large non-existent in Western countries) pulled along with them.

If you are asking for material from the government, you will get everything you are getting now and what is to come. People set up schools, private insurance concerns and had welfare from the church (organised locally) since time immemorial; and they didn't pawn off their children's futures to do so. The level to organise on is typically, local, where it is easier to end abuses, have accountability and meaning. There is no meaning in the modern welfare state. It is a faceless borg. There was meaning in the old overseers of the poor and alms by a number of generous individuals.

Politics is war by another means. In war you seek to destroy or subjugate your enemy with violence. In politics you seek to destroy your "opponent" by making them look like a monster. And that latter way is a leftist mode of being - there is little more they do. The leftist cries out in pain as he strikes you. I don't have any left-wing ideas, because there are none. The left is little more than accruing power by crying while hitting you. Watch over the next decade as your center-left acquaintances who called you a Nazi are mauled by the spiritually afflicted who have more of a right to hit them while crying. Virtually everything they say they are against are the most prevalent in the areas they have controlled the longest with super-majorities.

The bottom line is the primary concerns of Western societies are material and not moral character. Those who want to continue going left may have mistaken the welfare state for the kingdom of heaven.
 

Salocin

Robin
1) I do not support the death penalty. For the most heinous crimes a life sentence with no possibility of parole in a Supermax type prison should be the sentence.

2) The system is broken. I am certainly open to hearing proposals regarding raising the minimum wage, universal basic income, healthcare for all, etc. We will never create a utopia ourselves, but we can and should do better.

3) Probably 90% of the food I buy is organic, and/or non-GMO.

4) I do not drink any tap water, nor make my coffee or cook my food in tap water because I avoid ingesting fluoride. I also only buy toothpaste without fluoride.
 

RexImperator

Crow
Gold Member
Arguing against minimum wage increases based on economics and logic is a losing proposition for the right. We might as well just agree and amplify. Want $15 per hour? OK Let’s make it $25. The only thing is that there should be an adjustment for cost of living by locality. I’m fine with the minimum wage being $35 in San Francisco and $10 in South Dakota. It will encourage the development of robots.
 

Elipe

Kingfisher
Arguing against minimum wage increases based on economics and logic is a losing proposition for the right. We might as well just agree and amplify. Want $15 per hour? OK Let’s make it $25. The only thing is that there should be an adjustment for cost of living by locality. I’m fine with the minimum wage being $35 in San Francisco and $10 in South Dakota. It will encourage the development of robots.
The problem is that the Right really doesn't want to play by clown world rules. They genuinely want to care for businesses and make it easier to run a business, because the Right sees economy as a well-oiled machine that requires that everybody get a fair shot at making their own living. To the Right, proposing agreeing and amplifying on minimum wage is tantamount to having the US commit complete and utter economic suicide.

I mean, I suppose that's not entirely a bad goal, because that could potentially trigger the financial meltdown and that would certainly frustrate globohomo. But on the other hand, let's face it, we're very used to having a certain standard of living. It would be very painful for us too.
 
Politics is war by another means.
That is actually the wrong translation of Clausewitz. Its:
Clausewitz’s masterwork On War proclaims — uniformly — that war is a mere continuation of policy “with other means” (mit anderen Mitteln), or sometimes “with the addition of other means” (mit Einmischung anderer Mitteln). Nowhere in On War or his prefatory notes does the Prussian write “by” other means.


"Politics is War with other means"

That means that violence isn't the only tool in the arsenal. And other means do not cease to be utilized. Like Diplomacy in conjunction with War.

Like how Subutai got himself out of a situation of being trapped in the Mountains:

From 0-3:26


Diplomacy is its own offensive weapon when used properly.
 
Last edited:
Top