Opinion of this quote.

[k-onmmunist]

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel or envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

FQ, obviously.

[pogo stick]

Freedom Quote. Socialism sucks

[Scam of God]

I agree. I could also replace 'socialism' with 'Christianity' in that quote and have it mean the exact same.

[Franzl]

tend to agree, yes.

[k-onmmunist]

I agree. I could also replace 'socialism' with 'Christianity' in that quote and have it mean the exact same.

I agree with this also.

[paul718]

I agree. I could also replace 'socialism' with 'Christianity' in that quote and have it mean the exact same.

I agree with this also.

How so?  Practicing Christianity has no inherent effect on anyone but the believer.  The practice of Socialism, however, will affect every person living within the state.

[k-onmmunist]

I agree. I could also replace 'socialism' with 'Christianity' in that quote and have it mean the exact same.

I agree with this also.

How so?  Practicing Christianity has no inherent effect on anyone but the believer.  The practice of Socialism, however, will affect every person living within the state.

Of course it effects everyone.. if a Christian fundamentalist such as Eisenhower is allowed to gain power, the secular status of a nation can be undermined as it has been in the US.

[Scam of God]

I agree. I could also replace 'socialism' with 'Christianity' in that quote and have it mean the exact same.

I agree with this also.

How so?  Practicing Christianity has no inherent effect on anyone but the believer. 

The value-set inherent in the doctrine of 'original sin', which all the major schisms of the religion have adopted as a core tenant, holds that man's 'fallenness', or sinful nature, has been accorded to all men equally. Furthermore, Christianity, as a life-denying, atavistic Eastern religion, rejects as 'sinful' all of those psychological necessities that make life that which it is: greed, envy, gluttony, etc. It is therefore the socialism-of-the-spirit.

Christianity in practice is socialism in theory.

[paul718]

I agree. I could also replace 'socialism' with 'Christianity' in that quote and have it mean the exact same.

I agree with this also.

How so?  Practicing Christianity has no inherent effect on anyone but the believer.  The practice of Socialism, however, will affect every person living within the state.

Of course it effects everyone.. if a Christian fundamentalist such as Eisenhower is allowed to gain power, the secular status of a nation can be undermined as it has been in the US.

That's Eisenhower, not Christianity.  There are plenty of Christians who disagree with the actions Eisenhower took.

I agree. I could also replace 'socialism' with 'Christianity' in that quote and have it mean the exact same.

I agree with this also.

How so?  Practicing Christianity has no inherent effect on anyone but the believer. 

The value-set inherent in the doctrine of 'original sin', which all the major schisms of the religion have adopted as a core tenant, holds that man's 'fallenness', or sinful nature, has been accorded to all men equally. Furthermore, Christianity, as a life-denying, atavistic Eastern religion, rejects as 'sinful' all of those psychological necessities that make life that which it is: greed, envy, gluttony, etc. It is therefore the socialism-of-the-spirit.

Christianity in practice is socialism in theory.

I understand your theory, but I think it's a stretch. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"...a philosophy of failure..."

I  guess you addressed that above.  "Fallenness", etc. 


"...creed of ignorance..."

Christianity, and all religions for that matter, involve some level of ignorance.  But so does atheism.  For example, the religious substitute the unexplained with a higher power until a scientific explanation is discovered, while the atheists substitute the unexplained with reason that has yet to be realized.  They both remain, however, ignorant. 

"...the gospel of envy..."

You just acknowledged, yourself, that Christianity rejects envy.


"...its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

If you choose to deny the idea that you were born with original sin, that's your prerogative.  Subjecting oneself to the strictures of Christian doctrine is completely voluntary.  Subjecting oneself to Socialism, however, is not. 

[opebo]

Quoting Winston Churchill is like idolizing Colonel Blimp!

[Marokai Backbeat]

Ignorant.

[Scam of God]

To focus on the one salient point you have really attempted to refute:

"...the gospel of envy..."

You just acknowledged, yourself, that Christianity rejects envy.

It claims to, yes. In practice, however, Christianity exacerbates envy, by demanding from its adherents a standard they can never conceivably live up to; that famous hypocrisy which virtually all Christians engage in is therefore little more than the inevitable result of a system of values which is totally impracticable - exactly like socialism.

Moreover, inherent within the very idea of Christianity itself is envy: this Nietzsche appropriately attributed to an inversion of values. The ancient Jew envied (through the process of ressentiment) his Latin master's worldliness and wealth, but it was unobtainable to him. Therefore, instead of accepting his lot, he inverted the earthy values of the Romans: where the Romans favored what amounted to basically a pragmatic hedonism, where everyone understood that his own happiness, coupled with self-mastery, was of the greatest value, the early schismatic cultists that eventually congealed together into the first form of Christianity resented and rejected his embrace of life; they centered their source of all values in 'the beyond', a world-behind-the-world, and, in doing so, nihilated the values of this life.

Christianity's alleged rejection of envy, then, is little more than a cover for the basically envious beginnings of the religion. Christianity is, in every respect, socialism-of-the-spirit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not if your political allies have their way.

[paul718]

To focus on the one salient point you have really attempted to refute:

"...the gospel of envy..."

You just acknowledged, yourself, that Christianity rejects envy.

It claims to, yes. In practice, however, Christianity exacerbates envy, by demanding from its adherents a standard they can never conceivably live up to; that famous hypocrisy which virtually all Christians engage in is therefore little more than the inevitable result of a system of values which is totally impracticable - exactly like socialism.

I'm not sure I understand you here.  What is this unattainable standard that Christians are held to?  Being a "good person"?  How is that impracticable? 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a theory formulated by Nietzsche, and subscribed to by you (I assume).  That's fine.  I don't subscribe to it, myself, but I can see how you relate it to Churchill's quote.  Interesting point. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not if your political allies have their way.
[/quote]

That's their perverted view of Christianity.  Compulsory adherence to Christian law is not inherent in the religion. 

[Scam of God]

To focus on the one salient point you have really attempted to refute:

"...the gospel of envy..."

You just acknowledged, yourself, that Christianity rejects envy.

It claims to, yes. In practice, however, Christianity exacerbates envy, by demanding from its adherents a standard they can never conceivably live up to; that famous hypocrisy which virtually all Christians engage in is therefore little more than the inevitable result of a system of values which is totally impracticable - exactly like socialism.

I'm not sure I understand you here.  What is this unattainable standard that Christians are held to?  Being a "good person"?  How is that impracticable? 

If you read the Christian Scripture, you come to understand that the ideal proffered by the likes of Christ and his ilk is far more than simply "being a good person" - calls to "pluck thine eye out" should it offend you, and most of the moral percepts in the Pauline epistles, quite clearly call for a form of radical asceticism, practiced by virtually no one today because it is impracticable. The idea of the Christian as a shrew, who does a friendly deed now and then and is silent otherwise, is a modern innovation, a compromise with nature. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then perhaps you would do well to remind them of that, every now and then. I am getting very tired of hypocritical right-libertarians scraping and bowing to the theocrats because they do not believe they can win on their own.

[paul718]

To focus on the one salient point you have really attempted to refute:

"...the gospel of envy..."

You just acknowledged, yourself, that Christianity rejects envy.

It claims to, yes. In practice, however, Christianity exacerbates envy, by demanding from its adherents a standard they can never conceivably live up to; that famous hypocrisy which virtually all Christians engage in is therefore little more than the inevitable result of a system of values which is totally impracticable - exactly like socialism.

I'm not sure I understand you here.  What is this unattainable standard that Christians are held to?  Being a "good person"?  How is that impracticable? 

If you read the Christian Scripture, you come to understand that the ideal proffered by the likes of Christ and his ilk is far more than simply "being a good person" - calls to "pluck thine eye out" should it offend you, and most of the moral percepts in the Pauline epistles, quite clearly call for a form of radical asceticism, practiced by virtually no one today because it is impracticable. The idea of the Christian as a shrew, who does a friendly deed now and then and is silent otherwise, is a modern innovation, a compromise with nature. 

I don't read scripture, and I don't want to.  It's so open to interpretation and various criticisms that I cannot use it as a form of black-letter law.  From what I understand, the bases of Christianity are a belief in the Holy Trinity and to "love your neigbor as you love yourself."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then perhaps you would do well to remind them of that, every now and then. I am getting very tired of hypocritical right-libertarians scraping and bowing to the theocrats because they do not believe they can win on their own.
[/quote]

Will you, as a Democrat, cease following along with the protectionist, statist element that dominates your party?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Freedom Quote

[Scam of God]

To focus on the one salient point you have really attempted to refute:

"...the gospel of envy..."

You just acknowledged, yourself, that Christianity rejects envy.

It claims to, yes. In practice, however, Christianity exacerbates envy, by demanding from its adherents a standard they can never conceivably live up to; that famous hypocrisy which virtually all Christians engage in is therefore little more than the inevitable result of a system of values which is totally impracticable - exactly like socialism.

I'm not sure I understand you here.  What is this unattainable standard that Christians are held to?  Being a "good person"?  How is that impracticable? 

If you read the Christian Scripture, you come to understand that the ideal proffered by the likes of Christ and his ilk is far more than simply "being a good person" - calls to "pluck thine eye out" should it offend you, and most of the moral percepts in the Pauline epistles, quite clearly call for a form of radical asceticism, practiced by virtually no one today because it is impracticable. The idea of the Christian as a shrew, who does a friendly deed now and then and is silent otherwise, is a modern innovation, a compromise with nature. 

I don't read scripture, and I don't want to.  It's so open to interpretation and various criticisms that I cannot use it as a form of black-letter law.  From what I understand, the bases of Christianity are a belief in the Holy Trinity and to "love your neigbor as you love yourself."

"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Oh, but class warfare is just fine when it's the Son of God pontificating about its merits!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not the hypocrite who's cow-towed to a fundamentally anti-individualist and profoundly pro-Statist clique for the sake of electoral gain all my political life. Is it hypocrisy to ally myself with populist Democrats? Possibly; but no more so than the ill-begotten Reagan coalition. And unlike your ilk, I'm not going to forget my roots and begin to mindlessly adopt their every policy as my own. I think I've earned it, after long years of listening to you sellouts.

You can stay on your sinking ship, or you can get smart and adopt a flexible, pragmatic voting and endorsement policy. The choice is yours.

[paul718]

I don't read scripture, and I don't want to.  It's so open to interpretation and various criticisms that I cannot use it as a form of black-letter law.  From what I understand, the bases of Christianity are a belief in the Holy Trinity and to "love your neigbor as you love yourself."

"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Oh, but class warfare is just fine when it's the Son of God pontificating about its merits!

Again, I don't read scripture.  I don't know in what context that passage was written, so quoting it really doesn't mean anything to me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not the hypocrite who's cow-towed to a fundamentally anti-individualist and profoundly pro-Statist clique for the sake of electoral gain all my political life. Is it hypocrisy to ally myself with populist Democrats? Possibly; but no more so than the ill-begotten Reagan coalition. And unlike your ilk, I'm not going to forget my roots and begin to mindlessly adopt their every policy as my own. I think I've earned it, after long years of listening to you sellouts.

You can stay on your sinking ship, or you can get smart and adopt a flexible, pragmatic voting and endorsement policy. The choice is yours.
[/quote]

I don't "mindlessly adopt every policy as my own".  And I think I have a more pragmatic voting policy than most.  Did you vote for any Republicans this past election?