Verified Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

64 Sterling

About maxwere

  • Rank
    Asst Professor
  • Birthday 10/29/1975

Profile Information

  • Location
    Houston, TX
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,031 profile views
  1. Thanks DKW. Ironically, that's very liberal of them. When you see this, you could point out to them the following from: ...pretty straight forward contradiction. I think the artists (using the word lightly) here were generally going for the transfigured Christ. Since very little of that form has been revealed to us (as it is in heaven above), its a pretty straightforward violation for the very reasons you point out. It's not melanin levels that corrupt a man. The underlying fallacy of the talk here is that a conservative contradiction in some way justifies a more socially liberal one. In "conservative" churches, I suspect you are more likely to hear homosexuality named as a sin than unlawful divorce or heterosexual sin. By the same token, liberal churches will proclaim sins of bigotry, misogyny, inequality and so forth (none of that in here). After all, its much easier to call out the sin of those outside your congregation than those within. The offering plate may get quite a bit lighter if you do. IMO that's not preaching, its campaigning.
  2. I never run across anyone/denom who overtly stated these things. If you find people worshiping some image of a pale skinned blondie... (or a former skateboarder from El Paso)... show them the second commandment. The beauty of the law is that it impartially cuts both ways.
  3. As a person who self identifies as a very conservative white evangelical... I approve this post. (I can provide anecdotal evidence to each point, but observe the general crux) Don't ignore the hypocrisy and religious dogmatics of the left (Jn 7:24). It too is a product of 19th century fundamentalist evangelical revivalism.
  4. You know, that list can be applied to leftist revolutionaries too? The Bolsheviks represent a tiny minority. Most American's left and right are in their heart of hearts trapped in a kind of populist theater. It's much easier to stake a claim as "not (better than) the other". When from a non partisan view, the similarities are eerie. Does Trump carry a certain cult-of personality similar to dictators of the past (and present)? Absolutely. I think its more a symptom of opportunity, than grand ideology.
  5. IMO, calling it Fascism is too narrow a characterization to preserve credibility. Trump is a pragmatist/crony capitalist. In other words, he's largely who "the people" (who oppose the left) want him to be. The people (public opinion) is largely the construct of media propaganda. No one ever got brainwashed reading Mein Kampf. Populist movements are world wide phenomena. Some are far left. All are collectivist (democratic) and ultimately totalitarian. The myth in the beginning is always that the leader represents the people to the corrupt state (ie the swamp or the millionaires and billionaires). When in practice, its the leader that (ad)"ministers" the corrupt state unto the people. Regardless of where you are on the issues, chances are the next president won't solve it whether you agree with them or not. Its the increasing view that the next president CAN or should solve the problems identified in the issues that is of great concern to me.
  6. Britt, very good thoughts. I think the species of the thing you are looking for is best characterized as 19th century "Old Hegelian" (as opposed to the younger). Both are revolutionary, anti-Chrisitian, though the former retains syncretistic rhetoric of the State. Both ideologies are collectivist and seek to squash individual liberty. Has American conservatism moved to a more collectivist bent? Absolutely! To that end Trump is as good a representative as any. But Trump (or any leftist populist equivalent) is a symptom of our own indebtedness to the state. Its "the people" that should concern us.
  7. I agree with this platitude. Never debated, in fact. The problem with you’re argument, how do you conflate “his believers” with “the state”? Should believers petition an organization (of State), (ethically) outside “the believers” (the church), who doesn’t keep the commandments of Christ (1st, 2nd, 8th, 10th) to do his work? This is a grave error. In fact, it has been tried before to epic failure. Francoist Spain (Fascism). Footnote: Debating sentiment on message board is quite silly (as is possibly debating anything). I don’t question anyone’s heart, emotions, feelings etc. That’s an Ad Hominem approach. In reality, we both want the same outcome (lower healthcare costs).
  8. No offense taken, my friend... I did hear Martin Luther was a big golfer. Likewise Augustine, Calvin, Knox, Cramner... ? So, given 10000 manuscripts, 23,000 verses, two ancient languages, you are comfortable selecting 2-3 English snippets (Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's) to form the sum and substance of biblical teaching on The State? Caesar, specifically Tiberius, was a known pedophile, slave master, tyrannt etc. Jesus, being omniscient as He is, is presumably aware. So, Jesus is saying "render unto Caesar his slave harem" or "render unto Caesar his young boys for sexual proclivity"? Under Roman law, those things are Caesars, right? That's the logical interpretation of this literal statement is it not? Does that sound like Jesus's intent? Consider: At trial, Jesus was accused of teaching against the tribute to Caesar. Likewise another teaching: Mt 28:18 So we must conclude he was simply "teaching" the Pharisees to "pay your/their taxes"?
  9. If by "we" you mean The State, then no we don't have an obligation to do anything positive for anyone. Likewise, you have no right to eat the food or water of others. You DO have the right to NOT have your food or water eaten by others. Charity is a function of individual choice and personal conscience. Since you asked... Circumstantially, I have the obligation to help my brother/neighbor or even enemy. That is my personal obligation as a confessing Christian via my priestly office imputed through Christs sacrifice (Mt 20, Heb 7, 1 Pt 2:9) (summarily known as the priesthood of all believers). It is not an obligation of the state or even non-believers (though it might be expected of an Aw-bun man). Yes, individuals in this country are still compassionate in ways other countries are not. That has a lot to do with 500 years of moral capital built by the spread of Christianity, the church and particularly protestant reformation in the west. It is the backbone of the DoI and how the framers would have us interpret. I say this partially as an attempt to fully answer your question @homersapien openly, but primarily for the benefit of those confessing Christians who blabber on about this theologically absurd (technically blastphemous) idea of state healthcare/welfare. Denathors that they are, they truly dishearten me and should know better. I dare say their pastors have failed them. Socialized medicine has both spiritually and physically devastating consequences. Lets look away from decades of government failure, not toward it. With that, probably having offended too much, I'll take a break. Good debate as usual.
  10. I'm on board with this as an intermediate stage. And echo your first statement. I'd really like to see a distinction, call a spade a spade. Incidentally, low deductible auto insurance (think body shops) have plenty of sketchiness. Mainly b/c they are able to scam the insurers a bit (most of their clients). Hard to scam a guy paying out of pocket. That's why low deductible plans are so $$. If you're like me you probably keep a $500 or higher deductible to save money figuring you just pony the dough if you had to. Same principles apply to major med/preventative services. Private doesn't eliminate crony. It just drastically reduces its impact.
  11. I was just thinking of that... you mean life, liberty and property? (negative rights) ...and I assume you translate "life" to be collective social healthcare?
  12. Poor people, on average, have lower morbidity and longevity that wealthy. Everyone agree? Feel better? Can government change this? yes, see Cambodia. Can government improve overall health? No. That can only be a issue of personal responsibility and self governance. Also, its funny how my real world historic examples are labeled "economic theories". Group (third party) insurance moves the consumer further away from the provider and real costs. There is no rationing or cost comparisons, just unchecked consumption. This is not a theory. 100% observable. I observe it in my own behavioral choices when it comes to healthcare (like when my annual copay has been met). Don't give up on markets guys!
  13. Would you agree, (1) there is a price at which private companies will offer a service to pre-existing or elderly? Secondarily, a specialization in higher demand health clients would create overall cost savings? Assuming you would #1, then we are essentially arguing the price is far too high for those cases to afford. Then, we are essentially talking about welfare, not healthcare.
  14. The only space of modern "health" the free market has been allowed to function without significant regulatory oversight is the elective market of cosmetic surgery and lasik. I don't need to tell you what costs have done over time. The free market has been regulated out of preventative and non-elective dating back to the great depression. Yes, we need to buy a lot less military hardware, but that's beside the point. The fact that we have poor elderly, sick, wounded vets, etc... in no way invalidates market theory. It takes only a stroke of a pen to enact many government UFLs, but much pain and lots of time to fund them (what will need to be done to rollback something like medicare). This is a very complex transition.