Mister D (10-03-2012)
Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.
~Alain de Benoist
Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.
~Alain de Benoist
That's not what James and Jesus said. So if you are interpreting their plain language metaphorically, that's OK with.
The issue is the religious right says the bible must be taken literally. Taken literally, ALL the rich are damned to hell.
By they way, why do you take issue with this saying of Jesus. It's meaning is perfectly clear and unambiguous to me. What sense exactly are you giving it.
MATTHEW 6
19Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal,
20but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal.
21For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
"Romney's 47% comment is a country-club fantasy"
- David Brooks
Spin spin spin.
So we're supposed to take the bible symbolically and not literally:
James 5:1 Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you.
So you see the word "Idolotry" there? I see the word "you rich".
Seems like God has darkened your understanding, like the idolators of Romans 1
"Romney's 47% comment is a country-club fantasy"
- David Brooks
Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.
~Alain de Benoist
Mister D (10-03-2012)
Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.
~Alain de Benoist
KC (10-03-2012)
Your first point: Agreed.
Your second point: not so sure. If we understood morality the way we do because of biological origins, it does not necessarily follow that we do not make those choices. If biology compelled us to behave moral (which we know it does not), then those choices would not be moral, as you say.
The question is why are our choices moral. What does that mean? Are those choices moral because they helped us survive in past and perhaps continue to in certain ways? Why is that good? In order to make such a determination we have to refer to something external to the subject (i.e. humanity). Otherwise, it's circular reasoning: morality is useful to human survival and that's good because human survival is good.
Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.
~Alain de Benoist