US Political Discussion: Biden/Harris Edition (Rules in OP)

[TheBlackBard]

If the Bible was just a story about like, morals/ethics to live by and being a decent person for the intrinsic value of being a good person, it'd be fine; but because it's all tied to the afterlife and how people can come to think their version of it is the right one, etc... it becomes another tool for manipulation; which is unfortunate.

I wish I could have more sympathy for the not-so-bad Christians who are getting lumped in with the Evangelical ones, but they made their bed, and the people in power need to be calling those people out but they never will.

Which people in power do you mean? Do you mean the Pope? Politicians? Regardless, if there are a few allies for LGBTQIA+ and pro-choice, and they DO exist as a matter of fact, within some religions, I'd kinda... you know... like to keep them on this side of the argument. Saying they made their bed if all they're trying to do is help isn't productive. Having allies in groups like that is how you change things ultimately. There are more progressive churches out there, even in some of the more "extreme" religions, and I think it's important that they do be recognized for allowing marginalized groups a place to worship with community and also there are some churches that have a FAR more leftist stance on abortion than others. It would seem to me that those churches have the kind of people who aren't necessarily worried about whether their way of belief is the best, if their religion is the right one, seems to me all they want is a place to worship while being themselves and ultimately being left the fuck alone unless it pertains to fighting for their rights. Those are the people who give a fuck about the poor, the marginalized, the less fortunate, and I doubt they're the ones going around wanting to spread fear, rather they want to spread love, which is FAR fucking closer and dead on to the message that too many Christians today claim to follow and sit on their asses at home ignoring everything around them AT BEST and at worst, well... we know how far that gets.

I say all of this as an atheist. If God had really progressive followers that actually followed the message of love? My days of complaining about them would be over. As long as they actually help people, do work instead of just getting on their knees and saying some words, try to make it a better place for ALL people, they can believe in whatever deity they want.

 

[StevenC]

Time to resurrect the Solar Cult thread?

 

[TheBlackBard]

Time to resurrect the Solar Cult thread?

Wait, what?

 

[MFB]

Which people in power do you mean? Do you mean the Pope? Politicians? Regardless, if there are a few allies for LGBTQIA+ and pro-choice, and they DO exist as a matter of fact, within some religions, I'd kinda... you know... like to keep them on this side of the argument. Saying they made their bed if all they're trying to do is help isn't productive. Having allies in groups like that is how you change things ultimately. There are more progressive churches out there, even in some of the more "extreme" religions, and I think it's important that they do be recognized for allowing marginalized groups a place to worship with community and also there are some churches that have a FAR more leftist stance on abortion than others. It would seem to me that those churches have the kind of people who aren't necessarily worried about whether their way of belief is the best, if their religion is the right one, seems to me all they want is a place to worship while being themselves and ultimately being left the fuck alone unless it pertains to fighting for their rights. Those are the people who give a fuck about the poor, the marginalized, the less fortunate, and I doubt they're the ones going around wanting to spread fear, rather they want to spread love, which is FAR fucking closer and dead on to the message that too many Christians today claim to follow and sit on their asses at home ignoring everything around them AT BEST and at worst, well... we know how far that gets.

I say all of this as an atheist. If God had really progressive followers that actually followed the message of love? My days of complaining about them would be over. As long as they actually help people, do work instead of just getting on their knees and saying some words, try to make it a better place for ALL people, they can believe in whatever deity they want.

Every Republican has been beating the "wholesome, Catholic, Nuclear Family" drum for as long as I can recall and projecting their own offensives towards others and claiming that "iT's In ThE bIbLe!" The pope himself has ironically had to start coming out (no pun intended) and being like, "gays are OK," and has his own people disgusted with him that he'd accept them with open arms as Jesus would - what with the whole, love they neighbor and all - instead of shunning them and casting them out. There's been various stories over the years of people asking pastors where'd they get all this rhetoric that sounds like socialism, and they have to outright tell them "it's in the bible!" to which they'd hem and haw for outting themselves as having never actually read it.

 

[TheBlackBard]

Every Republican has been beating the "wholesome, Catholic, Nuclear Family" drum for as long as I can recall and projecting their own offensives towards others and claiming that "iT's In ThE bIbLe!" The pope himself has ironically had to start coming out (no pun intended) and being like, "gays are OK," and has his own people disgusted with him that he'd accept them with open arms as Jesus would - what with the whole, love they neighbor and all - instead of shunning them and casting them out. There's been various stories over the years of people asking pastors where'd they get all this rhetoric that sounds like socialism, and they have to outright tell them "it's in the bible!" to which they'd hem and haw for outting themselves as having never actually read it.

Yeah, I'm aware of that, and although it's a SLOW step in the right direction (or left ) it's a step nonetheless. I ain't gonna bag on them for it unless they just outright stop walking. Keep coming this way folks, you've got a long way to go, but you can do it! And honestly? In terms of power and all that, I know the politicians ain't living by what the Bible says, but the Pope is there, or getting there, and that's a little bit of a stronger symbol to me. Now we just need his descendants to become WAY more progressive in the future, and hopefully somehow be a born US citizen, or at least... change some stuff up in the qualifications.

But I still believe that the fights on the street, that being churches who are far more welcoming, and again, they do exist, and many of them teach acceptance, not mere tolerance, I feel those are an important step as well. So... forgive me if I'm going to give those people the benefit of the doubt, even if their bed is made, so to speak.

 

[StevenC]

Wait, what?

Global agenda(s) from elitists shaping world events

In the latest Pope heresy thread, I mentioned that pope and jesuits/catholic church is a front for an ancient solar cult, and are the ones pulling the world strings. And that this secret fraternity has been orchestrating deception since day one. All the way from all from all out slaughter of...

sevenstring.org

A simpler time

 

[TheBlackBard]

I'm guessing that while the premise is interesting, the comments thereafter are what REALLY make it all worth it.

 

[Crungy]

Global agenda(s) from elitists shaping world events

In the latest Pope heresy thread, I mentioned that pope and jesuits/catholic church is a front for an ancient solar cult, and are the ones pulling the world strings. And that this secret fraternity has been orchestrating deception since day one. All the way from all from all out slaughter of...

sevenstring.org

A simpler time

So not Ola Englund Solar Cult. Meh.

 

[tedtan]

To add some context to the first point - the issue here isn't that people don't like real estate as collateral. In general, real estate is excellent collateral, because it's tangible and not very volatile. It's just, most real estate is already collateral, usually as collateral to the loan used to buy it. So, to put his properties up as collateral, basically he has to do so as a second lien; in the event of a bankruptcy/default, the first lien would be to the bank underwriting the mortgage, and the second lien would then go to the bond. This is of course a much riskier loan to make.

Even then, Bloomberg's coverage got inyo a fair amount of detail and evidently his team is arguing that it should be lowered because this sort of second lien bond would cost him about 2% a year, or an estimated $18mm a year, in financing costs. Which, like, I don't know if any of you have looked at interest rates recently, but if someone's prepared to loan you half a billion dollars at 2%, you should probably jump at that.

All true. I suspect that liquidity is a concern here, too, because Trump’s properties (golf courses, hotels, sky scraper type buildings, etc.) don’t sell as quickly as houses, strip malls, self storage facilities, etc.

 

[Drew]

All true. I suspect that liquidity is a concern here, too, because Trump’s properties (golf courses, hotels, sky scraper type buildings, etc.) don’t sell as quickly as houses, strip malls, self storage facilities, etc.

Or, I mean, liquidity is just not great in real estate, period. I'm in a very in-demand market, and I'd be hard pressed to turn my condo into cash in less than 2-3 months. Commercial real estate is in kind of rough shape these days too, so not only might it take longer, he might not love some of the bids he's going to get if he tries to go down that road. All things to think about before committing crimes.

Dan Rather seemed to think the next step here was the government seizing some of his property as collateral - I have NO idea if that's realistic, seems a bit aggressive but it's not like he's never stiffed a creditor before or anything...

 

[Randy]

Or, I mean, liquidity is just not great in real estate, period. I'm in a very in-demand market, and I'd be hard pressed to turn my condo into cash in less than 2-3 months. Commercial real estate is in kind of rough shape these days too, so not only might it take longer, he might not love some of the bids he's going to get if he tries to go down that road. All things to think about before committing crimes.

Dan Rather seemed to think the next step here was the government seizing some of his property as collateral - I have NO idea if that's realistic, seems a bit aggressive but it's not like he's never stiffed a creditor before or anything...

Oh that absolutely is the next step. Letitia James explicitly said she would seize Trump Tower.

 

[spudmunkey]

Oh that absolutely is the next step. Letitia James explicitly said she would seize Trump Tower.

And she legally could have, day 1. This 30 day window was a compromise.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Letitia James explicitly said she would seize Trump Tower.

That's some fucking symbolism and I'm here for it.

 

[spudmunkey]

 

[narad]

I'm guessing that while the premise is interesting, the comments thereafter are what REALLY make it all worth it.

Maybe the real conspiracy was the friends we made along the way.

 

[RevDrucifer]

The same insight could be had outside of it too though. Or could be studied without the need to commit to a faith. The fundamental part I can't get behind is this:

I agree that it's good to admit that nobody can just solve everything on their own, but then that should be the end of the sentence. Not everything needs to be solved. In fact, not everything can be solved. The solution to an unsolvable problem should not be to invent something that fills the gaps, it should be to accept not knowing as a valid outcome. If you can unglue the teachings from the underlying attempts to rationalize a universe that wasn't well understood at the time they were written, then sure. Nothing wrong with that, on the face of it.

There's nothing that stops someone from taking the teachings of a faith, subtracting the faith part from it, and still taking in the message. There's nothing particularly spiritual baked into "do unto others".

But I don't expect that the kind of person who would use what they interpret from those teachings to look down on people, or to try to legislate against people, would be the kind of people willing to do that un-glue-ing. If you're trying to win a political game or argument, what possible higher authority could you appeal to than literally God? By definition, God can't be wrong, so then neither could someone who is speaking His message, right? It's not just filling in the gaps on a personal level, but also claiming that we can fill in those gaps for your party. At that level, I'm not sure I'm convinced it's even really faith anymore, it's just a political story wearing faiths clothing.

Or to phrase it a way that would annoy right-wing types - it's politics identifying as religion.

Well, the whole ‘let go and let God’ basically IS acceptance of not knowing a valid outcome.

I don’t disagree with anything you wrote and the middle bit describes me perfectly, while there’s a ton of insight in the Bible, I don’t feel the need to title myself a Christian to benefit from it or follow their any dogmatic practices. I don’t even believe in “God” the same way they do.

The one point that raised a ‘eh, that’s kinda missing the point’ and I don’t think it’s YOU missing the point, was the ‘God can’t be wrong, so then neither could someone who is speaking His message” as uh….history has proven that to not be the case time and time again. I’d have to think that the people that see pastors or anyone speaking on God’s behalf as equal to God have missed the point.

 

[RevDrucifer]

Yeah, I'm aware of that, and although it's a SLOW step in the right direction (or left ) it's a step nonetheless. I ain't gonna bag on them for it unless they just outright stop walking. Keep coming this way folks, you've got a long way to go, but you can do it! And honestly? In terms of power and all that, I know the politicians ain't living by what the Bible says, but the Pope is there, or getting there, and that's a little bit of a stronger symbol to me. Now we just need his descendants to become WAY more progressive in the future, and hopefully somehow be a born US citizen, or at least... change some stuff up in the qualifications.

But I still believe that the fights on the street, that being churches who are far more welcoming, and again, they do exist, and many of them teach acceptance, not mere tolerance, I feel those are an important step as well. So... forgive me if I'm going to give those people the benefit of the doubt, even if their bed is made, so to speak.

100% agreed on this and your previous post.

That exact aspect of “acceptance, not mere tolerance” is something I saw continuously displayed in my boss that really removed my cynicism towards the Christian church.

I mean, when we were first getting to know each other and I brought up my previous interests in religion I kinda went off on Christianity, knowing how it was formed and the greater goal of it, what it borrowed/stole from and why I found it disingenuous to be presented that way when the story has been re-told for thousands of years before year 0.

For years I was quite a bit “Fuck all that and especially fuck the people that buy into it” so for her to actually NOT use any kind of trickery or ulterior motives and got me to come around and separate all the bad shit that’s been done in the name of the church to see the good it can do.

And what you described in your previous post is basically her and her church, to a T. Her weeknights are filled with meetings, food and clothing drives, various forms of outreach. For her, it’s a compulsion at this point. I had to drop off a box for her one day when she was stuck in meetings, I thought it was going ot a church, but it was directly in a low income apartment complex, where I met 30-40 other women who all seemed to be just like her, like it was their duty to provide for people less fortunate and they’e happy to do it. Not in a “well *I* do this for these people, look at me”, because they aren’t bragging, they aren’t asking for donations, it’s all on their own.

Hahahah we had a good laugh a couple months back when I started hearing things about Jesus being a socialist from the right-wing, she almost spit out her coffee and said laughing “He’s the biggest socialist the word has ever known!”

 

[TedEH]

I’d have to think that the people that see pastors or anyone speaking on God’s behalf as equal to God have missed the point.

Or in some cases lack the capacity to tell the difference.

I know we're straying pretty far from the topic but I'm reminded of a friend who was once pointed to a church for help when going through a tough time in her life. The problem, in her case, was that she has a sort of schizoaffective disorder, and has a very warped view of reality to start with - which a priest could not have known about. So he spoke in what I can only assume is metaphor, telling her that her problems could be solved if she removed things from her life that did not lead her to Jesus. She, not knowing any better, took him literally and threw out most of her possessions. She's a 30-something in a permanent goth phase, so pretty much nothing she owns leads to Jesus. It ended up being a major mental health setback when she realized this didn't make her feel any better.

I know it's a stretch, but to me, that illustrates (as an extreme, granted) how some folks just plan don't have the capacity to pick up on that missing point. It becomes irresponsible to claim to speak for God, as religion sometimes does, but then fall back on the cop-out of "it was just a metaphor bro" when some of your constituents take it literally. For a type of organization that is so community oriented, I don't think there's any excuse for operating in a way, and communicating in a way, that assumes a certain level of "media literacy" (I don't know what else to call it) from everyone receiving the message. This would only happen if either the preaching party literally believes they are speaking for God, or they understand the separation of the message and the faith, the underlying metaphor, etc., but actively choose not to communicate them as separate anyway.

That's an irreconcilable problem, for me. The whole system is built up such that you can't tell what's metaphor or not. You can't tell which Christians actually believe in a literal god or just the metaphor of god. And participation often requires ignorance of that difference, because otherwise you could just admit that all of the positives don't actually require anything supernatural - which would alienate the parts of the community and the system that do actually believe. And in a political context, I have trouble believing that marketing yourself as a "good Christian" is not a very direct appeal to real faith. That's, to me, very deliberately hoping that the receiving end will entirely miss the point, and take you literally at your word.

Separation of church and state is a thing for very good reasons.

That's all a very long way to say that if someone claims to represent God, whether they intend it literally or not, and someone believes them - I don't blame the person on the receiving end, I blame the person who claimed to speak for God in the first place.

 

[Drew]

Oh that absolutely is the next step. Letitia James explicitly said she would seize Trump Tower.

Well now.

 

[RevDrucifer]

Or in some cases lack the capacity to tell the difference.

I know we're straying pretty far from the topic but I'm reminded of a friend who was once pointed to a church for help when going through a tough time in her life. The problem, in her case, was that she has a sort of schizoaffective disorder, and has a very warped view of reality to start with - which a priest could not have known about. So he spoke in what I can only assume is metaphor, telling her that her problems could be solved if she removed things from her life that did not lead her to Jesus. She, not knowing any better, took him literally and threw out most of her possessions. She's a 30-something in a permanent goth phase, so pretty much nothing she owns leads to Jesus. It ended up being a major mental health setback when she realized this didn't make her feel any better.

I know it's a stretch, but to me, that illustrates (as an extreme, granted) how some folks just plan don't have the capacity to pick up on that missing point. It becomes irresponsible to claim to speak for God, as religion sometimes does, but then fall back on the cop-out of "it was just a metaphor bro" when some of your constituents take it literally. For a type of organization that is so community oriented, I don't think there's any excuse for operating in a way, and communicating in a way, that assumes a certain level of "media literacy" (I don't know what else to call it) from everyone receiving the message. This would only happen if either the preaching party literally believes they are speaking for God, or they understand the separation of the message and the faith, the underlying metaphor, etc., but actively choose not to communicate them as separate anyway.

That's an irreconcilable problem, for me. The whole system is built up such that you can't tell what's metaphor or not. You can't tell which Christians actually believe in a literal god or just the metaphor of god. And participation often requires ignorance of that difference, because otherwise you could just admit that all of the positives don't actually require anything supernatural - which would alienate the parts of the community and the system that do actually believe. And in a political context, I have trouble believing that marketing yourself as a "good Christian" is not a very direct appeal to real faith. That's, to me, very deliberately hoping that the receiving end will entirely miss the point, and take you literally at your word.

Separation of church and state is a thing for very good reasons.

That's all a very long way to say that if someone claims to represent God, whether they intend it literally or not, and someone believes them - I don't blame the person on the receiving end, I blame the person who claimed to speak for God in the first place.

Hell, if you ask me we need a FUCK OF A LOT more separation of church and state.