Who came up with the thread title 'Liberal World-view leads to a Corrupted Soul', how does it relate to this article, what is a 'soul' anyway, and how does a corrupted 'soul' manifestly differ from an uncorrupted one? It seems like the inventer of the thread title is extrapolating from one man's views to an entire group he/she has labelled 'liberal'.
Liberal World-view leads to a Corrupted Soul
by Shining One 23 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
ignored_one
A source would be nice too.
-
Pistoff
fairmind wrote:
"As far as I'm concerned, those who believe if we leave them (Islamic) alone they?ll leave us alone are sadly mistaken.Have no doubt; the battle lines have been drawn"
What in the world does this mean? Do you mean that the US must invade countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 in order to send a message to the few radicals that did?
Or does it make more sense to use INTELLIGENCE to stop the plots, and covert ops to root out the culprits?
How does invading countries, namely mostly innocent people, root out the tiny number of radicals?
Did England defeat the IRA by bombing Ireland into the stone age?
Wake up; stop reading right wing drivel. Read a book. -
Terry
If God created "Nature" and nature is cruel; what does that make God??
Nature weeds out the weak with astonishing virulence and efficiency.
99.99% of every species that has ever lived on the earth is extinct. God's plan?
When it comes to a POLICY about abortion I draw the line. Individuals make decisions; not policies.
Until humanity has the right to consist of individuals seeking their own best interests free from policy makers there will be no moral society.
Life is a potential which must be made into something worthwhile over a period of a lifetime. Life itself is nothing more than that potential. Life is not sacred; intelligent use of life is sacred. Intelligence is not automatic. A focused mind with rational intent must seize life and wring a substantial measure of provision from it. We are all a hair's breadth from non-existence if we do not practice vigilance.
LIBERAL world view means somebody has to make a sacrifice of their talent, intelligence, hard work and earnings so that somebody else can benefit who has inferior talent, intelligence and no intention of working or earning.
CONSERVATIVE world view means each individual must learn and earn for themselves. We own our life. We succeed or fail by our own rational plan of improvement or impoverishment.
Social Justice is a fancy way of saying one group plays while the other group pays.
"Haves" aren't rich because of nothing. "Have nots" aren't poor because of nothing either. There is a cause behind earning and a cause behind lack of earning.
Somewhere in a family's history somebody has to be responsible for creating a substantial core of wealth. Among the "poor", people merely exist rather than bettering themselves. One group creates a living which accrues a multiplying force of wealth while the other group merely subsists off of minimal effort. The injustice comes when the slacker demands of the earner that the wealth be "shared" merely because the slacker has "needs"!
The corrupt soul is the person who thinks there is such a thing as causeless prosperity and causeless poverty.
Until each soul on Earth takes responsibility for each his own life and welfare there can be no social justice.
-
Fangorn
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
-
daniel-p
I nominate this thread for the "Funniest Thread Title of the Year" award.
-
Warlock
...ever see Logans Run?
But remember, it was all based on a lie. No one actually survived "Carousel".
Warlock
-
Arthur
LIBERAL world view means somebody has to make a sacrifice of their talent, intelligence, hard work and earnings so that somebody else can benefit who has inferior talent, intelligence and no intention of working or earning.
CONSERVATIVE world view means each individual must learn and earn for themselves. We own our life. We succeed or fail by our own rational plan of improvement or impoverishment.
Well Terry, nothing against you personally; but I respectfully disagree somewhat. First of all, I think that the "liberal" and "conservative" labels are a little bit limited in scope. I don't think that the liberal world view always means a wealth redistribution toward societies and individuals who have no intention of working or earning. A case in point: U.S. aid to Africa. I think that the U.S. aid to Africa (particularly AIDS funding) can and has done much good in improving international relations, as well as helping to jump start local economies, where there would not otherwise be any investment capital pumped into that region. I think that millions in Africa are at the mercy of their regions geo-political ineptitude, corruption, and inability to maintain stability. I don't care how hard working a person is. If there is no economic engine or infrastructure to support the creativity and hardwork of a labor force; there is no way they will be able to survive (particularly in countries run by armed rebels). There can be no free market economy where there is no stable government. This helps explain why many from African nations have been immigrating into Eastern European countries illegally - they are looking for the opportunity to participate and produce in a free economy. I'm not saying that illegal immigration is okay; I'm just pointing out that those who wish to be productive contributors to a free market economy are often at the mercy of a government which does not believe in such.
I also am convinced that there is a huge difference in earning potential between someone born into a multi-millionaire family; and someone born into a poverty-stricken inner city. One can attend an ivy-league university paid for by his parents; the other must struggle like hell just to be able to pay for community college. I think that equal educational funding at the local levels for every student in the U.S. (what some may call "liberal") only makes sense in the preservation of a free market system. I personally believe in a free-market economy. This is why I do not want to see a widening gap between the rich and the poor. This type of society eventually loses it's competitave edge in the world economy, and destablizes the very free enterprise system that I support.
Personally, I don't consider myself either "liberal" or "conservative". My views differ from issue to issue. But I think that many of us can get caught in the trap of "black and white" reasoning when it comes to political views; and particularly what we might consider as either "liberal" or "conservative".
But, I realize that this is just my personal opinion.
-
skeptic2
LIBERAL world view means somebody has to make a sacrifice of their talent, intelligence, hard work and earnings so that somebody else can benefit who has inferior talent, intelligence and no intention of working or earning.
Liberal:
- broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"
- having political or social views favoring reform and progress
- tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
- a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
- a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
Liberalism is a political current embracing several historical and present-day ideologies that claim defense of individual liberty as the purpose of government. It typically favors the right to dissent from orthodox tenets or established authorities in political or religious matters. In this respect, it is sometimes held in contrast to conservatism. ...
Political viewpoint with origins in Western Europe during the 19th century; stressed limited state interference in individual life, representation of propertied people in government; urged importance of constitutional rule and parliaments.
To be liberal politically, is to emphasize political and economic freedom .
But this definition agrees with yours, from 'cyberlearning-world.com':
Political view that supports gradual change and government spending to assist lower classes in society.
I think there is a problem here of confusing Liberal with Social Democrat, which two ideas might well contribute towards the policies of the US Democrats.
-
skeptic2
I think it's this logic that allows for the marriage between Classic Liberals and Social Democrats:
Liberalism supports social insurance programs, because it believes that they encourage savings (thus being less dependent on the State), shares the risk of unemployment, injury and retirement amongst all those at risk. Liberalism believes in full employment as a social program, so that people support themselves and can be less dependent on the State.
The heart of (classic) Liberalism is the idea that:
- everyone should have as much freedom as possible, insofar as this does not incur on other people's freedoms.
- the government should facilitate this situation with as little interferance as possible.
I dont think social welfare/justice should be cast into a light of have it/dont have it. I'm sure it can be a useful tool, in the right form, in helping to enabling that everyone has an opportunity to make something of themselves. I don't think a one-size-fits-all program across a whole country is the best way to do things, it should be up to local people to come with ideas and plans to help those around them.
I dont think Liberals and Conservatives are as far apart as people make out.