How is it mind boggling? I know you disagree that Jesus was or would have been socialist; are you actually unable to see how somebody could arrive at another conclusion?
Jez, I have a problem with comparing anyone to Jesus Christ. Some would say that it is blasphemy.
I say that it borders on blasphemy.
As for Jesus being a socialist, He was not interested in politics as far as I can tell from reading the Gospels.
In my view, Jesus cannot realistically be called a socialist. His Gospel is one of how to related to others on an interpersonal level -- not on a governmental one.
"Comparing anyone to Jesus Christ ... borders on blasphemy" I disagree, I think this is pretty close to "that halibut was good enough for Jehovah" territory. IMO blashphemy is reserved for impersonation of God, intentionally lying about who He is, or contemptuous language towards Him. But there isn't that much agreement about this, see eg. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm for a reasonably authoritative opinion with which neither of us agrees.
I agreed with the article at Western Hero a few weeks ago about blasphemy in Cruz's campaign,
"He was not interested in politics" I agree, but neither are many socialist voters. But had Rome been a democracy, mightn't He have voted for someone more like Sanders than the other candidates?
In dozens of socialist states around the world, theft remains a crime. This is only an incompatibility if you take the absurd view that the state cannot legitimately collect taxes.
Parable of the talents endorses capitalism about as much as other parables endorse certain farming or wine storage practices, ie hardly at all. It's really about proselytizing, isn't it?
Regardless, the parable of the talents describes investment capitalism at work. Jesus was pretty good at speaking in real world examples. How is the socialism preached by Sanders possible without theft and coveting?
HRC is not to be trusted in my opinion, she is s dirty rotten, lying SOB, who is a power hungry fraud, and Sanders is too far left for my taste, he should be running for the President of Cuba.
I'm for Bernie Sanders because America needs a true Progressive and not another Conserva-Dem. Hillary's moves to the Left (opposing the Keystone XL pipeline and the TPP, etc) is political posturing. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did the same. I trust that she's being honest in regards to emails and Benghazi, but not in regards to her claim of being Progressive. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, has a long record of Progressivism. He's an honest politician and says nothing just to get votes (he has never run a negative campaign ad). Bernie could absolutely win the General, BTW... And with Republican votes.
I know the Democratic party is far to the left, but what they want for America is certainly not extreme when you look at the Far Right and the America they favor...Check out the differences...I've layed it out for you dumbed our Righties, so that you won't over tax that little brain of yours!.
The Progressive Left believes in freedom with opportunity for all, responsibility to all, and cooperation among all. We believe that the purpose of government is to advance the common good, to secure and protect our rights, and to help to create a high quality of life and community well-being. We want decent paying jobs and benefits for workers and sustainable economic growth. We want growing businesses producing the world’s best products and services. We want an economy that works for everyone, not just the few. We want all nations to uphold universal human rights and to work together to solve common challenges. This is what a progressive America looks like.
Now for the Far Right, ...The Tea Party....Far-right politics commonly includes authoritarianism, anti-communism, and nativism. Often, the term "far right" is applied to fascists and neo-Nazis, and major elements of fascism have been deemed clearly far-right, such as its belief that supposedly superior people have the right to dominate society while purging allegedly inferior elements, and — in the case of Nazism — genocide of people deemed to be inferior. Claims that superior people should proportionally have greater rights than inferior people are sometimes associated with the far right. The far right has historically favored an elitist society based on belief of the legitimacy of the rule of a supposed superior minority over the inferior masses. Far-right politics usually involves anti-immigration and anti-integration stances towards groups that are deemed inferior and undesirable. Concerning the sociocultural dimension (nationality, culture and migration), one far-right position could be the view that certain ethnic, racial or religious groups should stay separate, and that the interests of one’s own group should be prioritized. Take some time and look at legislation the Tea Party proposes in states and in Washington. Extremism including murder of abortion doctors encouraged, dismantling programs for the poor, privatizing Social Security and Medicare which really means get rid of them they cost too much, ZERO abortion even if the Mothers life is at risk, guns in the hands of all Americans so they can defend themselves against government, a hate for public education, a hate for science, no regards to our environment, bloated military,
A power outage must have opened the electronic locks on the gates down at the nuthouse and now all the loony leftards have escaped. It's absolute bedlam!
Yes, how awful that someone actually challenge your pre-conceived notions and make you think. How horrible of them. Don't they know that the right can't survive outside of it's bubble where they and only they spew nonsense back and forth between them constantly?
I call them as I see them and what I see is that you and your fellow righties really don't want discussion unless it agrees with your narrow views. I get it. I do. It's hard to defend the indefensible platform that makes up the right these days.
Conservatives have a hate (shouldn't it be "hatred") for science? My degree is science based and I am a Conservative. You write with a paint roller dynamic which makes for sloppy analysis.
I never read where Jesus said, "Take from the rich and give it to the poor." He did say, (to one guy), “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” The guy didn't and Jesus didn't make him do it.
Ed... completely correct true that Jesus did not enforce that... but I think it is obvious from numerous passages in the NT, including 1 Cor 8 and Acts, that the writers saw the church as an instrument to care for the poor, independent of government action.
The question I think many have is why, given their faith stance, so many Christians, who are critical of government stepping in, do not themselves, abide by Jesus words in the parable you mentioned and the other clear teachings along this same vein in the bible.
Well Ed, I guess I would say that the choice of the church to not take those passages literally, and give to the poor, has brought us to the real question.
If the church, and individuals, will not heed God's clear call to care for the poor, who should do it? In the face of poverty, doesn't government, "of the people, by the people and for the people" have a responsibility to act "to promote the general welfare"?
The poor will always be with us because we don't have the character to construct a more equitable economic system. Yes, we can't completely eliminate poverty but we could do a much more effective job ameliorating it, Ed.
I don't see any reason to take that statement so literally. It's been used to justify a lot of mischief.
Guys, I believe the government should have a "widows and orphans" type of relief, and even temp help, just not a welfare state. "Promote the general welfare" would be more like "help the economy grow" to promote job opportunities than stifle it. It's a balancing act, and that's where discussions like this determine the balance at the ballot box. I honestly believe the church stands back because the state crowded them out.
Ed... I hear that statement "the church stands back because the state crowded them out" a lot from folks.
But governmental action, whether we agree with it, or not, does not excuse us as Christians, from doing what God desires.
You may be right in your statement, but I think theologically, Christians would have a hard time defending their lack of involvement by saying the government is doing it, so I don't have to.
And yet, I know people not only here, but in Mexico where is erve, who take just that approach.
It would be like telling Jesus when he asks us what we did for the least of these that we didn't feel we had to because the government was taking care of that.
The ultimate theological hall pass.
It is a balancing act... but it does seem as if the scales are frequently skewed to the powerful and those with the $$$ to pay to play.
The Catholic Church, followed by Baptists and Presbyterians, campaigned for and achieved a US Government takeover of their local welfare functions back in the late 1920s.
These are just college boys and girls and socialist loafers with nothing better to do. They have no jobs and they just sit around all day smoking dope, so they think its funny to mock Jesus in front of conservative Christians. It's nonsense and should be treated as such. Just like when the liberals who reject God and the bible go on lecturing us on morality. Morality? What would they know about that? Morality? Based on what?
If you're busy, you mustn't let us keep you. You keep mentioning dope. Do you want some? Can't help you on that front. I don't know much about morality, but I have progressed beyond the sort of consequentialism that freethinke (have you met?) frequently lapses. I think there's more to it than a prescriptive appeal to an invisible authority: even the most fastidious Christian enjoys liberty in many moral matters. Eg. we've just been agreeing that Jesus was an apolitical figure, so these political choices, which are at the same time moral choices, are up to the individual Christian aren't they?
jez my young friend, the Bible has provided the moral foundation for European societies. Hippies, socialists and nudist pot smokers have eschewed these values and many now wallow in noisy blasphemy, but they offer nothing but nihilism. It ain't going to be a pretty world you anarchists usher in.
What, worse than puritan iconoclasts, catholic burners, witch smellers, sectarian paramilitaries etc.? I wouldn't bet on it. BTW do be careful smoking without your pants, hair is very combustible.
Even after a few civilizing centuries under the influence of secular humanism, Christendom has retained many of its sectarian disputes. Extremist Islamism concerns me greatly, but that doesn't zero out my concern about the other religions. After all, as recently as the mid-1990s European Christians were engaged in genocidal purges. I don't blame what happened in Bosnia on Christian doctrine, but then I don't blame Islamic doctrine for ISIS either. Whatever's going on, I know that when otherwise good people surrender their sense of morality to any external authority, be it bible or qu'ran, imam or priest, st paul or mohammed, or any of the other religions, or any of the other political ideals, my danger klaxon goes off.
I'm far more familiar with the bible than I am with the qu'ran, but knowledge of the former has made it clear that the contents of the holy book is a poor predictor of its adherents' behaviour.
So, if a devout Muslim models his own behavior after that of Mohammed, violence against "the other" ensues. That is not true if Christians model their behavior after that of Jesus Christ.
I don't think the Bernie followers have thought out what socialism really entails. Do they know what a 90% tax rate is? I guess they don't ever plan to work for a living and just rely on the country to pay their way.
Ducky... I think Sanders has said publicly that rates in his plan would not approach the 90% marginal rates we had under Eisenhower. That was the rate on people who then earned more than 200K a year, or in 2016 dollars, 1.7 million.
We should keep in mind, the marginal rate is the rate on the last dollar earned in a year, not the first, so no one ever paid that rate on all of their income.
In spite, or maybe as a result of this tax rate, we built the interstate highway system, kept the debt essentially flat and saw the economy grow at a rate of about 2.5%, down a little from the Truman Admin.
Overall, not bad results. And Bernie is not proposing anywhere near a 90% rate.
I think "we" are aware of the mechanics of a graduated tax, Dave.
I'm not so sure about some Republicans.
There is little doubt that Sanders would support raising the top marginal rates (not that the House would ever initiate the legislation) if he could but at least he would have a pulpit to explain why progressive taxation is not confiscatory and why supply side cuts have failed miserably.
Cube, the Laffer Curve is WAY too complicated for libtards. Unless it is a free handout or a kitten purring they simply don't have a chance in hell of understanding it.
The Laffer Curve, so-called, expresses a philosophical notion common to many strains of thought, and though expressed latterly by Reaganites, it belongs to no culture or school.
Ever heard of The Golden Mean?
For those who enjoy inventing history for the purposes of falsely glorifying a murderous anti-intellectual politico-religious orthodoxy, I would direct your attention to Aristotle. If you avail yourself of a historical timeline, you will see he predates the crazed paedophile who founded the Cult of Insanity we now know as islam.
There are historical precedents other than those cited directly by Laffer. An argument along similar lines has also been advocated by Ali ibn Abi Talib, the fourth Caliph, in his letter to the Governor of Egypt, Malik al-Ashtar. A careful reading of the quote below shows that he explicitly says that revenues might rise in time because of this reduction of taxes. He writes: If the tax-payers complain to you of the heavy incidence to taxation, of any accidental calamity, of the vagaries of the monsoons, of the recession of the means of irrigation, of floods, or destruction of their crops on account of excessive rainfall and if their complaints are true, then reduce their taxes. This reduction should be such that it provides them opportunities to improve their conditions and eases them of their troubles.
Decrease in state income due to such reasons should not depress you because the best investment for a ruler is to help his subjects at the time of their difficulties. They are the real wealth of a country and any investment on them even in the form of reduction of taxes, will be returned to the State in the shape of the prosperity of its cities and improvement of the country at large. At the same time you will be in a position to command and secure their love, respect and praises along with the revenues. — Ali ibn Abi Talib, Nahj al-Balagha, Letter 53
I don't know. There was that whole descent into Hades, and freeing imprisoned Titans, and killing that olive tree, and healing just a very few, and trying to not get too involved in this place. Almost like mostly none of this stuff that is really going on has anything to do with the world of Man.
I do not know about politics, and any of that stuff. Irrelevant. Funny how the blind, and stuck, and living dead things are just not interested in anything but following That One everyone pretends to know.
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not Love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not Love, I am nothing.
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not Love, it profiteth me nothing.
Love suffereth long, and is kind; Love envieth not; Love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; [Love] beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. for we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child, but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
And now abideth Faith, Hope, Love, these three; but the greatest of these is Love.
~ St. Paul - First Corinthians Chapter 13, verses 1-13
That's Jesus , alright...take from those who've worked hard and give to those who have not. Screw the rich. No...it's work hard, provide for your family and be generous to those who need help, which is what this country used to do.
DAVE MILLER: What "lack of involvement" would most Christians be labeled for? The Christians I know give BIG time to worthy causes, work themselves building housing for the poor (a little too much in foreign lands for my taste because we have SO much need right here and those countries do not come here to help), they hold Bible studies for those who want it...
But Jesus said, “Leave her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7 For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them. But you will not always have me...." Mark 14:6
"whenever you want"...If you can, if it touches your heart to help....WHENEVER YOU WANT. I personally don't think we do enough giving in our country...we should want to help more than 'whenever we want'...but it's clear there is stipulation that it is FROM THE HEART that Jesus advises helping. That's socialism? hmmmmm
I do hope Sue's "freedom with opportunity for all" includes the right to work without coercion to join a union or to pay dues to fat cats who spend my money to counter my interests.
I've had more trouble posting here today, so I hope this one makes it.
I hope Sue's "freedom with opportunity for all" includes my right to work without union coercion, or paying fat cats to use my money against my interests. Tammy's right - paint roller dynamic.
Jesus was no socialist. He wanted us to take His righteousness and not try to pretend we can make our own. That will drive certain behaviors of love, compassion, patience, kindness, goodness and faithfulness which will manifest themselves in the way we treat others and respond to God. There is no way this can be interpreted as a mandate for a socialist system.
Does anyone have the faintest idea why I posted I Corinthians 13: 1-13, and how it relates to AOW's question as to whether or not Jesus Christ should be categorized as a "socialist?"
Does anyone know the difference between "spiritual" and "material?"
Does anyone understand the meaning of "Charity?"
Does anyone know what Jesus meant when he said, "My kingdom is not of this world?"
What does the phrase "Man does not live by bread alone ..." mean to you? How is it germane to this discussion?
Do you know the temporal reason why the Jews abandoned their Messiah and let Him be crucified?
"To fulfill biblical prophecy" is not the answer I am seeking.
What evidence could anyone present that Jesus Christ ought to be classified as a COLLECTIVIST who had a burning ambition to exert temporal Power and Control over the great mass of humanity and DICTATE to them?
"why I posted I Corinthians 13: 1-13" -- to remind us that biblically, faith takes precedence over works. Also, because you're a little obsessive-compulsive, and this is one of your repertoire of ticks.
"the difference between "spiritual" and "material?"" I echo your question, can anyone do this in a way which doesn't define "spiritual" as "not material"?
"the meaning of "Charity?"" in the context of St Paul, it is translated from the Greek Agape, which is the fraternal kind of love. In usual modern usage, charity is any donation which is made without expecting any return. There are also technical legal definitions.
"[Jesus] said, "My kingdom is not of this world?"" He meant, please don't expect me to lead a revolution against the Romans.
"Man does not live by bread alone" means that I have needs that cannot be met by the acquisition of goods. If we're talking about the merits of socialism, it reminds us that socialism does not solve every type of problem.
"the temporal reason why the Mesiah was abandoned" -- From memory, was it because the Pharisees wished it? BTW, how widely was Jesus' Messiahood accepted at the time?
We've already agreed that Jesus' politics are not known to us. What I don't accept is that Jesus would prefer our politics to purposefully leave many desperate problems unaddressed in order for preserve targets for individual charity (modern usage). I think a spirit of fraternity is consistent with a certain amount of welfare provision; furthermore I think a certain amount of redistribution is a beneficial economic effect, and I note that Jesus does not forbid this.
Behold, one of those glib, shallow, condescending modern men who has ready answers to most of the questions, but little or no understanding of their meaning, or how they might relate to the challenges of daily living.
Errata: My final paragraph contained at least the following typos: "...leave many desperate problems unaddressed in order for preserve targets for individual charity..." should be "...leave many desperate problems unaddressed in order to preserve targets for individual charity..." and "...a certain amount of redistribution is a beneficial economic effect..." should be "...a certain amount of redistribution has a beneficial economic effect..."
PC: Don't like the quick-fire answers? Ask better (and fewer) questions! "glib, shallow, condescending modern men" -- I wonder what adjectives apply to the antique men who pose patronising lists of questions then complain at the response?
You're very kind. It may have got lost above, but I repeated FreeThinke's question about the difference between "spiritual" and "material". I am sincerely curious to read an answer to it which does not resort to defining "spiritual" as "not material".
Don't you love it when the Christian hating left equates their candidate to Jesus? They did the same with Obama. Imagine how they would squeal if Ted Cruz was likened to Christ? Hell, left loons are going berserk at the sight of Donald Trump's name written in chalk on a sidewalk.
AOW, thanks for your responses...it's very heart warming when some can't respond; then you know what you're saying has made a dent and they have no comebacks...let's hope that's making a difference?
Mr. B says "they probably needed it!" But, seriously, we know the so-called 'Palestinians' set up rocket launchers and such by soft targets like schools, hospitals, and hotels in attempts to draw fire and opprobrium on the Israelis. Bernie Sanders is full of his initials.
We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion: 1. Any use of profanity or abusive language 2. Off topic comments and spam 3. Use of personal invective
How is it mind boggling? I know you disagree that Jesus was or would have been socialist; are you actually unable to see how somebody could arrive at another conclusion?
ReplyDeleteJez,
DeleteI have a problem with comparing anyone to Jesus Christ. Some would say that it is blasphemy.
I say that it borders on blasphemy.
As for Jesus being a socialist, He was not interested in politics as far as I can tell from reading the Gospels.
In my view, Jesus cannot realistically be called a socialist. His Gospel is one of how to related to others on an interpersonal level -- not on a governmental one.
"Comparing anyone to Jesus Christ ... borders on blasphemy"
DeleteI disagree, I think this is pretty close to "that halibut was good enough for Jehovah" territory. IMO blashphemy is reserved for impersonation of God, intentionally lying about who He is, or contemptuous language towards Him. But there isn't that much agreement about this, see eg. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm for a reasonably authoritative opinion with which neither of us agrees.
I agreed with the article at Western Hero a few weeks ago about blasphemy in Cruz's campaign,
"He was not interested in politics" I agree, but neither are many socialist voters. But had Rome been a democracy, mightn't He have voted for someone more like Sanders than the other candidates?
Socialism is incompatible with "thou shalt not steal' and "thou shalt not covet." And several hundred other property rights affirming scriptures.
DeleteYawn.
Next?
How does one read Jesus' parable of the talents and not see an endorsement of investment capitalism?
DeleteIn dozens of socialist states around the world, theft remains a crime. This is only an incompatibility if you take the absurd view that the state cannot legitimately collect taxes.
DeleteParable of the talents endorses capitalism about as much as other parables endorse certain farming or wine storage practices, ie hardly at all. It's really about proselytizing, isn't it?
DeleteThis is only an incompatibility if you take the absurd view that the state cannot legitimately collect taxes.
DeleteQuite true, as long as the State collects taxes in accordance with it's specifically enumerated powers.
Regardless, the parable of the talents describes investment capitalism at work. Jesus was pretty good at speaking in real world examples. How is the socialism preached by Sanders possible without theft and coveting?
DeleteParable of the talents is about stewardship, risks and rewards by individuals.
Delete...and socialism is not.
DeleteThe parable of the talents refers to the gift of God's mercy and the necessity of sharing that mercy.
DeleteIt has NOTHING to do with not taxing the rentier class.
What part of Sanders' socialism do you like, Ducky? The theft or the covetedness?
DeleteHRC is not to be trusted in my opinion, she is s dirty rotten, lying SOB, who is a power hungry fraud, and Sanders is too far left for my taste, he should be running for the President of Cuba.
ReplyDeleteI'm for Bernie Sanders because America needs a true Progressive and not another Conserva-Dem. Hillary's moves to the Left (opposing the Keystone XL pipeline and the TPP, etc) is political posturing. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did the same. I trust that she's being honest in regards to emails and Benghazi, but not in regards to her claim of being Progressive. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, has a long record of Progressivism. He's an honest politician and says nothing just to get votes (he has never run a negative campaign ad). Bernie could absolutely win the General, BTW... And with Republican votes.
ReplyDeleteI know the Democratic party is far to the left, but what they want for America is certainly not extreme when you look at the Far Right and the America they favor...Check out the differences...I've layed it out for you dumbed our Righties, so that you won't over tax that little brain of yours!.
ReplyDeleteThe Progressive Left believes in freedom with opportunity for all, responsibility to all, and cooperation among all. We believe that the purpose of government is to advance the common good, to secure and protect our rights, and to help to create a high quality of life and community well-being. We want decent paying jobs and benefits for workers and sustainable economic growth. We want growing businesses producing the world’s best products and services. We want an economy that works for everyone, not just the few. We want all nations to uphold universal human rights and to work together to solve common challenges. This is what a progressive America looks like.
Now for the Far Right, ...The Tea Party....Far-right politics commonly includes authoritarianism, anti-communism, and nativism. Often, the term "far right" is applied to fascists and neo-Nazis, and major elements of fascism have been deemed clearly far-right, such as its belief that supposedly superior people have the right to dominate society while purging allegedly inferior elements, and — in the case of Nazism — genocide of people deemed to be inferior. Claims that superior people should proportionally have greater rights than inferior people are sometimes associated with the far right. The far right has historically favored an elitist society based on belief of the legitimacy of the rule of a supposed superior minority over the inferior masses. Far-right politics usually involves anti-immigration and anti-integration stances towards groups that are deemed inferior and undesirable. Concerning the sociocultural dimension (nationality, culture and migration), one far-right position could be the view that certain ethnic, racial or religious groups should stay separate, and that the interests of one’s own group should be prioritized.
Take some time and look at legislation the Tea Party proposes in states and in Washington. Extremism including murder of abortion doctors encouraged, dismantling programs for the poor, privatizing Social Security and Medicare which really means get rid of them they cost too much, ZERO abortion even if the Mothers life is at risk, guns in the hands of all Americans so they can defend themselves against government, a hate for public education, a hate for science, no regards to our environment, bloated military,
After reading some of the above comments, I've come to the conclusion that
ReplyDeletethis is what happens when liberal fruitcakes take the helm of the country .
The Kool Aid is running thick today, huh?
DeleteEd,
DeleteThicker than molasses!
Good grief, AOW. Where did these people come from?
ReplyDeleteA power outage must have opened the electronic locks on the gates down at the nuthouse and now all the loony leftards have escaped. It's absolute bedlam!
DeleteAdrienne,
DeleteIt's the crazy pre-election season.
Yes, how awful that someone actually challenge your pre-conceived notions and make you think. How horrible of them. Don't they know that the right can't survive outside of it's bubble where they and only they spew nonsense back and forth between them constantly?
DeleteBlueBull,
DeleteYou presume and assume too much.
You could also use a dose of good manners instead of popping into my "home" (my blog) and smirking.
I call them as I see them and what I see is that you and your fellow righties really don't want discussion unless it agrees with your narrow views. I get it. I do. It's hard to defend the indefensible platform that makes up the right these days.
DeleteI have no problem with dissent. Gratuitous insults are another matter entirely as far as I'm concerned.
DeleteI do find it hard to believe that you yourself would take kindly anyone coming into your home for the purpose of hurling insults.
Will Bernie be able to feed the five thousand with a few loaves of bread? Nope, he will confiscate the bread.
ReplyDeletePerfect.
DeleteAnd you'll let them starve.
DeleteThe only way to starve a Bernie Sanders supporter is to hide their food stamps under some work boots.
DeleteSue,
ReplyDeleteConservatives have a hate (shouldn't it be "hatred") for science? My degree is science based and I am a Conservative. You write with a paint roller dynamic which makes for sloppy analysis.
Tammy
I never read where Jesus said,
ReplyDelete"Take from the rich and give it to the poor."
He did say, (to one guy),
“One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
The guy didn't and Jesus didn't make him do it.
... or we could take the story of St. Martin and the beggar to heart.
DeleteDuck,
DeleteAs individuals -- not as coerced by the government.
That's what Hoover (somewhat unjustly maligned) felt would rescue us from the great depression.
DeleteFact is that private charity has a couple flaws.
1. It cannot achieve the scope to manage the problem.
2. It is an impulse that wants to exist and can only exist if the poor stay poor.
Ed... completely correct true that Jesus did not enforce that... but I think it is obvious from numerous passages in the NT, including 1 Cor 8 and Acts, that the writers saw the church as an instrument to care for the poor, independent of government action.
DeleteThe question I think many have is why, given their faith stance, so many Christians, who are critical of government stepping in, do not themselves, abide by Jesus words in the parable you mentioned and the other clear teachings along this same vein in the bible.
Duck: "The poor you shall have with you always. "
DeleteSo charity desires poverty for it's raison d'etre?
Dave: Church not state.
Well Ed, I guess I would say that the choice of the church to not take those passages literally, and give to the poor, has brought us to the real question.
DeleteIf the church, and individuals, will not heed God's clear call to care for the poor, who should do it? In the face of poverty, doesn't government, "of the people, by the people and for the people" have a responsibility to act "to promote the general welfare"?
The poor will always be with us because we don't have the character to construct a more equitable economic system. Yes, we can't completely eliminate poverty but we could do a much more effective job ameliorating it, Ed.
DeleteI don't see any reason to take that statement so literally.
It's been used to justify a lot of mischief.
Guys, I believe the government should have a "widows and orphans" type of relief, and even temp help, just not a welfare state.
Delete"Promote the general welfare" would be more like "help the economy grow" to promote job opportunities than stifle it.
It's a balancing act, and that's where discussions like this determine the balance at the ballot box.
I honestly believe the church stands back because the state crowded them out.
Ed... I hear that statement "the church stands back because the state crowded them out" a lot from folks.
DeleteBut governmental action, whether we agree with it, or not, does not excuse us as Christians, from doing what God desires.
You may be right in your statement, but I think theologically, Christians would have a hard time defending their lack of involvement by saying the government is doing it, so I don't have to.
And yet, I know people not only here, but in Mexico where is erve, who take just that approach.
It would be like telling Jesus when he asks us what we did for the least of these that we didn't feel we had to because the government was taking care of that.
The ultimate theological hall pass.
It is a balancing act... but it does seem as if the scales are frequently skewed to the powerful and those with the $$$ to pay to play.
The Catholic Church, followed by Baptists and Presbyterians, campaigned for and achieved a US Government takeover of their local welfare functions back in the late 1920s.
DeletePretty sure we can call it a fail.
The more money the government extracts from my pockets, the less I have so as to help someone else.
DeleteLet's see....
As one who is self-employed, I lose at least 30% right off the top -- the SE (Social Security) taxes well exceeding the income's tax liability.
Then, there are health insurance premiums and real estate taxes gobbling up about 50% of the remaining.
That leaves me 20% to pay utility bills, etc.
These are just college boys and girls and socialist loafers with nothing better to do. They have no jobs and they just sit around all day smoking dope, so they think its funny to mock Jesus in front of conservative Christians. It's nonsense and should be treated as such. Just like when the liberals who reject God and the bible go on lecturing us on morality. Morality? What would they know about that? Morality? Based on what?
ReplyDeleteReligion Doesn't Make People More Moral, Study Finds
DeleteIf you're busy, you mustn't let us keep you.
DeleteYou keep mentioning dope. Do you want some? Can't help you on that front.
I don't know much about morality, but I have progressed beyond the sort of consequentialism that freethinke (have you met?) frequently lapses. I think there's more to it than a prescriptive appeal to an invisible authority: even the most fastidious Christian enjoys liberty in many moral matters. Eg. we've just been agreeing that Jesus was an apolitical figure, so these political choices, which are at the same time moral choices, are up to the individual Christian aren't they?
jez my young friend, the Bible has provided the moral foundation for European societies. Hippies, socialists and nudist pot smokers have eschewed these values and many now wallow in noisy blasphemy, but they offer nothing but nihilism. It ain't going to be a pretty world you anarchists usher in.
DeleteWhat, worse than puritan iconoclasts, catholic burners, witch smellers, sectarian paramilitaries etc.? I wouldn't bet on it.
DeleteBTW do be careful smoking without your pants, hair is very combustible.
I'd say we worked those things out pretty good. Seem the mohammedans are who you should be worried about.
Deleteas for me? I don't smoke and I sure wouldn't go running around with no clothes on like the San Francisco homosexual community does.
Even after a few civilizing centuries under the influence of secular humanism, Christendom has retained many of its sectarian disputes. Extremist Islamism concerns me greatly, but that doesn't zero out my concern about the other religions. After all, as recently as the mid-1990s European Christians were engaged in genocidal purges. I don't blame what happened in Bosnia on Christian doctrine, but then I don't blame Islamic doctrine for ISIS either.
DeleteWhatever's going on, I know that when otherwise good people surrender their sense of morality to any external authority, be it bible or qu'ran, imam or priest, st paul or mohammed, or any of the other religions, or any of the other political ideals, my danger klaxon goes off.
Jez,
DeleteI don't blame Islamic doctrine for ISIS either
Based on your own reading of the Quran?
I'm far more familiar with the bible than I am with the qu'ran, but knowledge of the former has made it clear that the contents of the holy book is a poor predictor of its adherents' behaviour.
DeleteJez,
Deletethe contents of the holy book is a poor predictor of its adherents' behaviour
No dispute there.
However, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not a murderous doctrine.
The Quran, on the other hand (and the most recent passages, too -- in effect, the Quran's new testament) are filled with jihad and kill "the other."
Mohammed himself, called "the perfect man," was a warrior. Jesus was not.
So, if a devout Muslim models his own behavior after that of Mohammed, violence against "the other" ensues. That is not true if Christians model their behavior after that of Jesus Christ.
DeleteMy, my! I wonder what Anonymous meant by that!
ReplyDeleteI don't think the Bernie followers have thought out what socialism really entails. Do they know what a 90% tax rate is? I guess they don't ever plan to work for a living and just rely on the country to pay their way.
ReplyDeleteWhat does a 90% tax rate have to do with Sanders?
DeleteWish I knew who started that inaccurate meme.
Ducky... I think Sanders has said publicly that rates in his plan would not approach the 90% marginal rates we had under Eisenhower. That was the rate on people who then earned more than 200K a year, or in 2016 dollars, 1.7 million.
DeleteWe should keep in mind, the marginal rate is the rate on the last dollar earned in a year, not the first, so no one ever paid that rate on all of their income.
In spite, or maybe as a result of this tax rate, we built the interstate highway system, kept the debt essentially flat and saw the economy grow at a rate of about 2.5%, down a little from the Truman Admin.
Overall, not bad results. And Bernie is not proposing anywhere near a 90% rate.
I think "we" are aware of the mechanics of a graduated tax, Dave.
DeleteI'm not so sure about some Republicans.
There is little doubt that Sanders would support raising the top marginal rates (not that the House would ever initiate the legislation) if he could but at least he would have a pulpit to explain why progressive taxation is not confiscatory and why supply side cuts have failed miserably.
Holly Helena Godwin said
DeleteWhat none of you seems to take into consideration is the difference between God and Mammon.
"Man does not live by bread alone ..."
Cube, the Laffer Curve is WAY too complicated for libtards. Unless it is a free handout or a kitten purring they simply don't have a chance in hell of understanding it.
DeleteKid, did you know that the so called Laffer curve is a very old Muslim idea.
DeleteYou should research it.
The Laffer Curve, so-called, expresses a philosophical notion common to many strains of thought, and though expressed latterly by Reaganites, it belongs to no culture or school.
DeleteEver heard of The Golden Mean?
For those who enjoy inventing history for the purposes of falsely glorifying a murderous anti-intellectual politico-religious orthodoxy, I would direct your attention to Aristotle. If you avail yourself of a historical timeline, you will see he predates the crazed paedophile who founded the Cult of Insanity we now know as islam.
There are historical precedents other than those cited directly by Laffer. An argument along similar lines has also been advocated by Ali ibn Abi Talib, the fourth Caliph, in his letter to the Governor of Egypt, Malik al-Ashtar. A careful reading of the quote below shows that he explicitly says that revenues might rise in time because of this reduction of taxes. He writes:
DeleteIf the tax-payers complain to you of the heavy incidence to taxation, of any accidental calamity, of the vagaries of the monsoons, of the recession of the means of irrigation, of floods, or destruction of their crops on account of excessive rainfall and if their complaints are true, then reduce their taxes. This reduction should be such that it provides them opportunities to improve their conditions and eases them of their troubles.
Decrease in state income due to such reasons should not depress you because the best investment for a ruler is to help his subjects at the time of their difficulties. They are the real wealth of a country and any investment on them even in the form of reduction of taxes, will be returned to the State in the shape of the prosperity of its cities and improvement of the country at large. At the same time you will be in a position to command and secure their love, respect and praises along with the revenues.
— Ali ibn Abi Talib, Nahj al-Balagha, Letter 53
Ali,
DeleteQuite right, but as I've already pointed out, he is a Johnny come lately and most likely got his ideas from earlier Greeks.
Golden Mean? What does taxation have to do with the Fibonacci series, FT?
DeleteI don't know. There was that whole descent into Hades, and freeing imprisoned Titans, and killing that olive tree, and healing just a very few, and trying to not get too involved in this place. Almost like mostly none of this stuff that is really going on has anything to do with the world of Man.
ReplyDeleteI do not know about politics, and any of that stuff. Irrelevant. Funny how the blind, and stuck, and living dead things are just not interested in anything but following That One everyone pretends to know.
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not Love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
ReplyDeleteAnd though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not Love, I am nothing.
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not Love, it profiteth me nothing.
Love suffereth long, and is kind; Love envieth not; Love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; [Love] beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail;
whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. for we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child, but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part;
but then shall I know even as also I am known.
And now abideth Faith, Hope, Love, these three; but the greatest of these is Love.
~ St. Paul - First Corinthians
Chapter 13, verses 1-13
That's Jesus , alright...take from those who've worked hard and give to those who have not. Screw the rich.
ReplyDeleteNo...it's work hard, provide for your family and be generous to those who need help, which is what this country used to do.
DAVE MILLER: What "lack of involvement" would most Christians be labeled for? The Christians I know give BIG time to worthy causes, work themselves building housing for the poor (a little too much in foreign lands for my taste because we have SO much need right here and those countries do not come here to help), they hold Bible studies for those who want it...
??
Z,
DeleteIt's never enough -- according to some people.
**sigh**
But Jesus said, “Leave her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7 For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them. But you will not always have me...." Mark 14:6
ReplyDelete"whenever you want"...If you can, if it touches your heart to help....WHENEVER YOU WANT.
I personally don't think we do enough giving in our country...we should want to help more than 'whenever we want'...but it's clear there is stipulation that it is FROM THE HEART that Jesus advises helping.
That's socialism? hmmmmm
Z,
DeleteClearly, coerced "giving" is not giving FROM THE HEART.
EXACTLY, dear friend..>THAT is the point. Coerced giving IS NOT Biblical..
DeleteBernie has yet to perform any miracles outside of getting rich by doing nothing useful his entire life.
ReplyDeleteKid.
DeleteYep.
I do hope Sue's "freedom with opportunity for all" includes the right to work without coercion to join a union or to pay dues to fat cats who spend my money to counter my interests.
ReplyDeleteI've had more trouble posting here today, so I hope this one makes it.
ReplyDeleteI hope Sue's "freedom with opportunity for all" includes my right to work without union coercion, or paying fat cats to use my money against my interests. Tammy's right - paint roller dynamic.
Jesus was no socialist. He wanted us to take His righteousness and not try to pretend we can make our own. That will drive certain behaviors of love, compassion, patience, kindness, goodness and faithfulness which will manifest themselves in the way we treat others and respond to God. There is no way this can be interpreted as a mandate for a socialist system.
Baysider,
DeleteYou've had trouble posting here? Blogger must be burping. Again!
Love the last paragraph of your above comment. Spot on!
BRAVO, Baysider! You are exactly right.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone have the faintest idea why I posted I Corinthians 13: 1-13, and how it relates to AOW's question as to whether or not Jesus Christ should be categorized as a "socialist?"
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know the difference between "spiritual" and "material?"
Does anyone understand the meaning of "Charity?"
Does anyone know what Jesus meant when he said, "My kingdom is not of this world?"
What does the phrase "Man does not live by bread alone ..." mean to you? How is it germane to this discussion?
Do you know the temporal reason why the Jews abandoned their Messiah and let Him be crucified?
"To fulfill biblical prophecy" is not the answer I am seeking.
What evidence could anyone present that Jesus Christ ought to be classified as a COLLECTIVIST who had a burning ambition to exert temporal Power and Control over the great mass of humanity and DICTATE to them?
"why I posted I Corinthians 13: 1-13"
Delete-- to remind us that biblically, faith takes precedence over works. Also, because you're a little obsessive-compulsive, and this is one of your repertoire of ticks.
"the difference between "spiritual" and "material?""
I echo your question, can anyone do this in a way which doesn't define "spiritual" as "not material"?
"the meaning of "Charity?""
in the context of St Paul, it is translated from the Greek Agape, which is the fraternal kind of love. In usual modern usage, charity is any donation which is made without expecting any return. There are also technical legal definitions.
"[Jesus] said, "My kingdom is not of this world?""
He meant, please don't expect me to lead a revolution against the Romans.
"Man does not live by bread alone" means that I have needs that cannot be met by the acquisition of goods. If we're talking about the merits of socialism, it reminds us that socialism does not solve every type of problem.
"the temporal reason why the Mesiah was abandoned"
-- From memory, was it because the Pharisees wished it? BTW, how widely was Jesus' Messiahood accepted at the time?
We've already agreed that Jesus' politics are not known to us. What I don't accept is that Jesus would prefer our politics to purposefully leave many desperate problems unaddressed in order for preserve targets for individual charity (modern usage). I think a spirit of fraternity is consistent with a certain amount of welfare provision; furthermore I think a certain amount of redistribution is a beneficial economic effect, and I note that Jesus does not forbid this.
Will we get graded on our answers?
DeleteBehold, one of those glib, shallow, condescending modern men who has ready answers to most of the questions, but little or no understanding of their meaning, or how they might relate to the challenges of daily living.
Delete... Philip Carey
Errata: My final paragraph contained at least the following typos:
Delete"...leave many desperate problems unaddressed in order for preserve targets for individual charity..." should be "...leave many desperate problems unaddressed in order to preserve targets for individual charity..."
and
"...a certain amount of redistribution is a beneficial economic effect..." should be "...a certain amount of redistribution has a beneficial economic effect..."
PC: Don't like the quick-fire answers? Ask better (and fewer) questions! "glib, shallow, condescending modern men" -- I wonder what adjectives apply to the antique men who pose patronising lists of questions then complain at the response?
Up vote!
DeleteYou're very kind.
DeleteIt may have got lost above, but I repeated FreeThinke's question about the difference between "spiritual" and "material". I am sincerely curious to read an answer to it which does not resort to defining "spiritual" as "not material".
And the Progressive Queen is still posting about Sarah Palin while her heroin Hillary gets her Ass whipped by Bernie Sanders...LOL
ReplyDeleteHeroin? Hillary's an addict?
DeleteThe Sanders campaign should use that.
Ooooooh! Heroin and ass-spanking! This could get interesting!
DeletePalin works her magic in Wisconsin
ReplyDeleteNo sign of Christie? Did he desert the ship to look for a gig with Jenny Craig?
Pardon Me Mr. Spell Check, if I have Sined..
ReplyDeleteYou sined?
DeletePOLL
ReplyDeleteTo all DemocRATS,Socialists and Libtards: Which one do you support?
1) THE CRIMINAL
2) THE COMMUNIST
which
Well, I'm finding that none of these folks support those presented. Perhaps we are better-off than I thought!
DeleteDon't you love it when the Christian hating left equates their candidate to Jesus? They did the same with Obama. Imagine how they would squeal if Ted Cruz was likened to Christ? Hell, left loons are going berserk at the sight of Donald Trump's name written in chalk on a sidewalk.
ReplyDeleteLiken Cruz to Jesus all you like.
DeleteHe's still going to get done raw in the general election.
I expect the right is going to get a serious surprise down ticket, also.
Who's likening Cruz to Jesus?
DeleteMike proposed the hypothetical.
DeleteDucky, AOW's right..."liken Cruz to Jesus?" even Cruz would take exception at that. What are you thinking? Talk about twisting words
DeleteI didn't read it as an accusation. It makes sense as a reply to Mike.
DeleteJez,
DeleteI think that you missed Mike's point -- which is that comparisons between Jesus Christ and politicians are, at the least, inane.
I got the point, and I agree with it.
DeleteAOW, thanks for your responses...it's very heart warming when some can't respond; then you know what you're saying has made a dent and they have no comebacks...let's hope that's making a difference?
ReplyDeleteBernie Sanders Says Israel “Indiscriminately” Killed “10,000” Palestinians in 2014.
ReplyDelete10,000?
Really?
Really?
Mr. B says "they probably needed it!" But, seriously, we know the so-called 'Palestinians' set up rocket launchers and such by soft targets like schools, hospitals, and hotels in attempts to draw fire and opprobrium on the Israelis. Bernie Sanders is full of his initials.
DeleteBaysider,
DeleteBernie Sanders is full of his initials.
LOL!