Do aspies generally dislike conservatives?
No. A compassionate Conservative would follow Matthew 19:21. Anything less would be just a regular Conservative, and a non-Christian.
No. A compassionate Conservative would follow Matthew 19:21. Anything less would be just a regular Conservative, and a non-Christian.
The liberal version:
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
AngelRho
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
No. A compassionate Conservative would follow Matthew 19:21. Anything less would be just a regular Conservative, and a non-Christian.
I don't think we're really concerned with religion. Even if we were, Matthew 19:21 isn't meant to politicize anything. You're taking something out of context. Matthew 19:21 is all about dealing with things that distract us from the gospel. The story of the rich man addresses an ancient belief that in order to be blessed in heaven, you had to be blessed on earth. The greater the earthly riches, the greater the heavenly reward. That's reflected in verse 27. Jesus was debunking the idea that material possessions are indicators of heavenly reward.
And Jesus didn't even intend to convey the idea that salvation requires all your earthy possessions be sold/given away, either. Jesus didn't say that the rich can't be saved. He merely said it was difficult for them. If selling all your possessions was required for salvation, Jesus wouldn't have said that "with men these things are impossible," meaning man can't save himself, but "with God all things are possible," meaning God can save all who willingly accept Him, regardless of any kind of status.
No. A compassionate Conservative would follow Matthew 19:21. Anything less would be just a regular Conservative, and a non-Christian.
I don't think we're really concerned with religion. Even if we were, Matthew 19:21 isn't meant to politicize anything. You're taking something out of context. Matthew 19:21 is all about dealing with things that distract us from the gospel. The story of the rich man addresses an ancient belief that in order to be blessed in heaven, you had to be blessed on earth. The greater the earthly riches, the greater the heavenly reward. That's reflected in verse 27. Jesus was debunking the idea that material possessions are indicators of heavenly reward.
And Jesus didn't even intend to convey the idea that salvation requires all your earthy possessions be sold/given away, either. Jesus didn't say that the rich can't be saved. He merely said it was difficult for them. If selling all your possessions was required for salvation, Jesus wouldn't have said that "with men these things are impossible," meaning man can't save himself, but "with God all things are possible," meaning God can save all who willingly accept Him, regardless of any kind of status.
NOW who's not taking the Gospel literally?


I imagine it would be a sight better to be filthy rich than to be dirt poor.
Funny thing, though, is that I've never heard a preacher say anything about Jesus wanting us all to be rich.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
When I was a teenager we lived in TN. My stepfather worked the rail cars and warehouses unloading food pallets by the train load. If one was damaged, they usually split it up because it couldn't be sold. Then it became illegal.
When I moved up to WV. My grandmother and I were discussing all of the dented cans they throw away and she told me, there's a real easy way to see if the seal is broken or not. Brush the can with soapy water and it will blow bubbles or hold it beneath the water.
I told her about the pallets and stuff and said that if it hadn't been for that food we probably would have gone hungry. The job didn't pay enough.
I said, "Nanny, why don't they let people buy those dented goods. Like maybe set up stores with just dented items in it. The poor could pay reduced rates or volunteer to work so long and get free food in return. That way, they could retain their dignity instead of being on foodstamps and being treated like dog doo."
She being the Democrat that she was, said, "Why don't you write Rockefeller and introduce yourself. We went to school together and I think he needs to hear your ideas."
So I did and I emphasized the idea that it should be criminal to throw away all of that food and that the laws making it illegal to get it or buy it should be changed. I got a personalized letter back from him. He was governor at the time. I was so excited. At least, until I read the letter. He basically said, Thank you for writing. That's why we have the foodstamp program.
I got angry and told my grandmother that his dismissal was a snotty arrogant way of saying, your letter wasn't even important enough to read and I'm too busy to mess with a teenager's ideas. So I fired off a letter and told him so.
He sent me back an application for food stamps and a pamphlet on the benefits of foodstamps. I told my grandmother that I would never ever vote for a Democrat when I got old enough to vote and I haven't.
That's the stupidest reason for being a conservative I've ever heard. You were in favor of feeding the poor on the wasted damaged products of the food industry, but unwilling to give them actual healthy food that they could eat with dignity? What's wrong with you? You do realize that with organized labor and minimum wage laws, your family wouldn't have had to eat damaged goods in the first place?
/\
No sensible person is going to automatically consider food from dented cans to be damaged.
It's a matter of the government's preference for raping the taxpayer over utilizing other resources under false pretenses.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
No sensible person is going to automatically consider food from dented cans to be damaged.
It's a matter of the government's preference for raping the taxpayer over utilizing other resources under false pretenses.
You think no one pays for those cans? And do you think the entire problem of food insecurity can be solved by giving the poor these things? It's not realistic, and it treats the poor without the dignity they deserve. How many poor people dying from food poisoning is acceptable? You said yourself you have to test the cans to see if they are still safe. Who is doing this testing? And what if they make a mistake? What if someone sues the food packing company for negligence?
It's a matter of the government's preference for raping the taxpayer over utilizing other resources under false pretenses.
If they go to waste then it's still money wasted.
It sure won't hurt.
It is realistic and dented can or not the food will still taste the same.
You said yourself you have to test the cans to see if they are still safe. Who is doing this testing? And what if they make a mistake?
I wasn't the one that said anything about testing cans, that was the person before me.
Some stores specifically buy lots of canned food with dents to SELL them to their customers at a discount.
My grandmother would look for dented cans in the store she used because they gave a discount for dented cans but never got food poisoning. The can either leaks or it doesn't. If it's good enough for paying customers it should be good enough for those who aren't.

What if? What if? What if?
You can what if anything to death.
The dents can occur at any time after the canning process is complete. The packaging company can't be held responsible for whatever happens after a product leaves their loading dock.
How much simpler does it need to be made for you?
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
auntblabby
Veteran

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,798
Location: the island of defective toy santas
Maybe this has already been asked, but what exactly is meant by the term "conservative" here? I ask because many of my own personal views could be called such (ex. my opposition to same-sex "marriage" and abortion), but I'm also further to the left than most on other issues (ex. welfare, economics in general). My political views cover a wide spectrum, they're all over the place, and instead of resorting to a useless label like "conservative" or "progressive" and stubbornly refusing to venture beyond the artificial intellectual box I have created for myself, actually prefer to examine each and every issue on its merits, using things like... well, you know - EVIDENCE, and basing my position on that.
Maybe I'm just too reasonable for this irrational world I live in.
auntblabby
Veteran

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,798
Location: the island of defective toy santas
No. A compassionate Conservative would follow Matthew 19:21. Anything less would be just a regular Conservative, and a non-Christian.
I don't think we're really concerned with religion. Even if we were, Matthew 19:21 isn't meant to politicize anything. You're taking something out of context. Matthew 19:21 is all about dealing with things that distract us from the gospel. The story of the rich man addresses an ancient belief that in order to be blessed in heaven, you had to be blessed on earth. The greater the earthly riches, the greater the heavenly reward. That's reflected in verse 27. Jesus was debunking the idea that material possessions are indicators of heavenly reward.
That's one way of looking at it I suppose, but the fact remains that the rich will NEVER enter The Kingdom of Heaven. Sorry, but that's just a fact.
Ur... no. The rich, by definition, cannot gain salvation. The reason? In order to become rich in the first place, one must make the accumulation of material wealth one's first priority, otherwise it just will not happen. The focus, of those who are rich, is on the material world, whereas it should be the spiritual realm instead.