My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Human fat power | Main | Is this newsworthy? »

Comments

Rick

Excellent post, Andrei.

I suspect there are not many who can make the distinction between changing the world by encouraging each individual to change themselves, and attempting to change the world via socialism. The proof is borne out in blogs like this every day in the attacks of trolls.

Loving thy neighbour bears no relation whatsoever to being forced to accept one's neighbour through legislation.

I have no clear picture of what is spiritually correct for this country. My choice has already been made by wordly eyes and earth based mind.

peter

Generally people define God to be whatever is to their own best advantage. e.g. Joyce Meyer would argue wealth is the reward for the God fearing because she is so rich.

From there, simply look at which party matches your definition of God and you know who to vote for!!!

robk

Peter

Is Helen your god/ess then?

Andrew Davies

The good Samaritan provides a lesson. He was not a bureacrat driving around in a publically funded car giving out other peoples' money which has been taken from them by force. He was a private citizen who made an individual choice to meet a need. Interestingly he did not give any money to the injured traveller but left some with the innkeeper to meet "future needs".

Social justice requires the needs of both benefactors and beneficiaries to be met, otherwise it is not just. The former need to know their money is being used wisely to meet real needs, the entitlement is not unlimited and that the beneficiary is doing what they can to help themselves. The latter need consistency of supply whilst their need exists.

The Samaritan and the traveller had a direct relationship and therefore responsibility and accountability. Putting a large government bureacracy into the mix destroys that relationship and leads to a system unsatisfactory to all parties involved.

peter

The good samaritan was of course from a parable, not a real person.

There is ample scope for us all to be good samaritans - and ample evidence that a complete laissez-faire economy will surely fail.

If Jesus was around and interested in politics and even organised religion (fat chance), I think he would be a liberal.

Full marks to the Anglicans on the eve of Xmas with this item:

http://beyondbelief.freedomblogging.com/2007/12/20/clearcut-homosexuality-report-goes-to-church-of-england/

Chandler Frank

The Family Party.
The only openly Christian Party on the electoral roll this coming election.

www.thefamilyparty.org.nz

robk

Homosexuality. Not Disorder. Is sin.

Adultery. Not disorder. Is sin.

Fornication. Not disorder. Is sin.

Paedophilia. Not disorder. Is sin.

Andrew Davies

"The good samaritan was of course from a parable, not a real person."

And?

Adolf Fiinkensein

Ya gotta larrf at these self proclaimed goody two shoes holier than thou propagandists.

"Just like the hitting little children, cutting the benefits of the poorest and giving more money to the rich that the National Party works so hard for."

Straight out of ninth floor daily talking points for blog trolls. Is this what Labour meant when some months ago they talked about forming a religious arm?

I'm surprised she didn't give a serve to the Exclusive Brethren or the Mormons.

Psycho Milt

I think you're posing a false dichotomy here, Andrei - the welfare state wasn't created at the expense of Christians' ability to play Good Samaritan.

I also think you're just plain wrong about the bad effects of welfare. Not about there being some (nothing crafted by humans is perfect) - but about the existence of social welfare being a bad thing in itself because it undermines private charity. You might have a case if we had evidence of poverty and misery having increased since the creation of social welfare systems, but in fact the reverse is true. Look back at Western societies pre-welfare, and the evidence doesn't show a golden age of Christian charity, it shows the very poverty and misery that led people to create social welfare systems in the first place. If you think there's a reason to recreate those miserable social conditions, please a case for it not based on the beauty of ideological purity - the rest of us don't consider that a reason for re-introducing genuine poverty to our societies.

robk

Not sure myself. If you make a safety net, there are always going to be those who treat it as a hammock...

I would like to see the benefits kept low but more part time work allowed before the benefits are affected (reduced). Some people will need this nudge, others will accept it gladly.

People need to feel useful, and most are capable of contributing something.

There is still lots of room for charitable acts even with the government being the big Robin Hood.

peter

There is a problem historically. Most rich people are greedy and mean. That is how they get rich. That is how they stay rich.

Under the scheme proposed by extreme right wing Christian fundamentalists here, the bulk will not share the burden. A small number of philanthropists will provide the charity when they feel like it. Good for the corporate image too fundamentalists!

ZenTiger

Under the scheme proposed by extreme right wing Christian fundamentalists here,

I missed this bit. When did they comment?

Danyl Mclauchlan

The real question is: who would Klaus Kinski vote for?

dad4justice

No , no Danyl the real question is how many crack pot "fiend's "you have???

Danyl are you the full tin ?

AVG

Dear robk. Happy Christmas to you. The wisest words on this topic. The balance we need to have in all social relationship.

George

Another question is "If Jesus stood for political office who would vote for him"?

Obviously not the remoras and pilot fish of evil that are obsessed with disrupting TBR.

Apart from that, He is not standing, cap in hand, cajoling, appealing, promising, avoiding or prevaricating. Jesus just makes a clear statement that he is returning and will establish the Kingdom of God. He does not need our vote, nor a press secretary.

He simply states, 'Come, follow me'

I am happy to celebrate His birth and look forward to the future.

dad4justice

Just imagine the earth when Jesus rules . Can't wait. I will be doing plenty in the name of the Father . The evil that lurks here with it's cowardly attacks is water of a ducks back to me, as the power of faith gives amazing strength and patience .

The evil is frustrating to tolerate, but almost pathetically laughable .

dad4justice

Like that satan - bring it on dirt bag !!!!!

peter

Georgie says:

"Jesus just makes a clear statement that he is returning and will establish the Kingdom of God. He does not need our vote, nor a press secretary."

Well maybe some writer that was published through the Bible made this claim, and in fact Christians have been waiting with baited breath ever since!

The claim is of course a complete hoax.

The comments to this entry are closed.