|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 16, 2017 13:39:20 GMT
tpfkar Easter funnies! However, this word is no big deal. It took me forever to find it after being chastised for using the h-word.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 17, 2017 13:21:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sublime92 on Apr 17, 2017 20:54:20 GMT
Jesus never said for able-bodied people in first-world countries to sit on their asses all day collecting taxpayer money. I can't find one interpretation or implication of such a thing.
I have zero sympathy for people on generational welfare in the good old sanctuary city of Newark, New Jersey(R.I.P. 1693-1967)
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Apr 17, 2017 22:20:28 GMT
Steal from them? How so? Unless you consider taxes stealing, but Jesus was all for paying taxes. Render unto Cæsar that which is Cæsar's. Paying taxes is not a political stance. No, but taxes themselves are political. And Jesus certainly did not see anything wrong with taxation, no matter how punitive. So why do you think Jesus would have opposed state institutionalised poor aid? That's right, it is incorrect to imply such a thing. But it is correct to point out the hypocrisy in their stance. After all, why do they bother donating to charitable causes when they actively oppose more effective ways of supporting those causes? It's like patting someone on the back while kneeing them in the groin.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Apr 17, 2017 22:23:09 GMT
Jesus never said for able-bodied people in first-world countries to sit on their asses all day collecting taxpayer money. I can't find one interpretation or implication of such a thing. If you're collecting taxes, you are hardly "sitting on your ass all day". Besides, as Jesus not only did not condemn tax collectors, but openly consorted with them showing his acceptance of them for the world to see, I'd say you are quite wrong. You have zero empathy as well, by the looks of it.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 17, 2017 22:47:31 GMT
Karl Aksel I would disagree. Taxes are the law and Christians are commanded to follow the law as long as it does not prohibit their beliefs. It's silly to equate the notion of being a good citizen with any political stance. The point is being missed. There is nothing to indicate Jesus would concern himself one way or the other with it because he provided aid regardless of the rule people were under. If everyone gave the way Jesus did, you would never need government aid. If the government provides it, then fine, but the stance of the government is in no way tied to the beliefs of Christianity. Polticians may be hypocrites over a lot of things but it is not hypocrisy to have a religious belief about something and a separate political one. Heck, why would a non-religious person even want that? Do politicians on either side of the aisle typically say that no one should be giving or charitable unless the government is in the middle of it?
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Apr 18, 2017 6:23:59 GMT
Karl Aksel I would disagree. Taxes are the law and Christians are commanded to follow the law as long as it does not prohibit their beliefs. It's silly to equate the notion of being a good citizen with any political stance. You're right, except this was Jesus talking - the person in the prime position to dictate religious tenets. And he did violate the law when it went against his beliefs (such as tearing down the stalls and chasing the money lenders out of the temple - he had no legal right to do this). And he did not even voice objection to taxes. You know just as well as I that that's a pretty big "if", certainly in a capitalist society where riches yield prestige and poverty stigma. The donations of the rich are always going to be a drop in the bucket, because they sure didn't get rich through altruism. Indeed, Jesus chastised the rich for their donations when the old widow donated two measly coppers, and said she had given more than all the others. This is technically true because Paul says that any national leader is in his position but for the grace of God. Yet, if a government mandated human sacrifice Mayan style, you would be hard pressed to defend that as not un-Christian. It is hypocritical, because if you truly believe that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven, then it goes without saying that you do not spend your life amassing wealth - unless you're a hypocrite. But this is human nature, anyway. And our instincts drive us to provide for ourselves in life, and we have no instincts to prepare for the afterlife. I do not see how this addresses anything I said. The Christian position would logically be to donate, and if in position of power, work their religious philosophy into government.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 8:04:31 GMT
If conservative Christians had the "inner disposition" that was preached by Jesus, then they would not be decrying all efforts to provide the less fortunate with any kind of economic security (whether that be a higher minimum wage, unemployment benefits, or the right to access healthcare without bankrupting themselves). So the point is academic, because the actions of conservatives betray that they are not comfortable with any form of improving the circumstances of the poor. And if you watch those pious Christian pundits on Fox News, you will see that the poor are condemned as shirkers and spongers, even if the economy is in recession and the unemployment rate is high. Any person with compassion and sense knows that a safety net is required in a system which is built upon the fact that there will almost always be fewer employment opportunities than there are those who are earnestly seeking employment. Capitalism needs a certain level of unemployment in order to function in the way that it currently does. And requiring people to pay back into the system from which they have benefitted and from which they continue to benefit is hardly "stealing". Can you show where Jesus said to take from one to give to another? I don't believe that Jesus existed and am not a Bible scholar; but I think that there's a fairly clear message that he would not have condoned those with excessive wealth refusing to support the less well off. And I think that it is also clear that the character would have disapproved of predatory capitalism of the variety fetishized by conservatives in the US. In which case, if those wealthy people (or even middle class people) consider themselves Christians then they should not object to a mechanism which ensures that the least fortunate are provided for. It certainly doesn't seem like Jesus would come down on the side of conservative self-professed Christians who want to abdicate any and all responsibility towards their fellow man.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 8:07:24 GMT
Jesus never said for able-bodied people in first-world countries to sit on their asses all day collecting taxpayer money. I can't find one interpretation or implication of such a thing. I have zero sympathy for people on generational welfare in the good old sanctuary city of Newark, New Jersey(R.I.P. 1693-1967) And via what economic model do you arrive at the conclusion that all recipients of unemployment benefits are refusing to work, and that there are, in fact, more jobs available than those able to take them? Like most Christian conservatives, you would likely refuse to accept any economical (or even mathematical evidence) to disprove your prejudices, in order to find some kind of a loophole which excuses your psychopathic lack of empathy for the wellbeing of others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 12:47:12 GMT
No it isn't. Many people - particularly politicians - use their religion to dictate their political ideologies. That has nothing to do with Jesus, Christians, or Christianity. Jesus wasn't political so there's no way to warp his teachings into some kind of retarded poltical ideology. All classes and creeds of people benefit from the teaching It does in the US www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_money.htm
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 18, 2017 12:55:35 GMT
That has nothing to do with Jesus, Christians, or Christianity. Jesus wasn't political so there's no way to warp his teachings into some kind of retarded poltical ideology. All classes and creeds of people benefit from the teaching It does in the US www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_money.htmDoesn't change a thing about what I said.
You can find a fringe group that believes anything and that still would never represent the whole or change one iota the teachings of Jesus which aren't in any way political.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 13:00:00 GMT
Doesn't change a thing about what I said.
You can find a fringe group that believes anything and that still would never represent the whole or change one iota the teachings of Jesus which aren't in any way political.
Yeah but the teachings are a part of Christians and will manifest in everything they do which includes political policies in government.
|
|
dawglf
Freshman
@dawglf
Posts: 63
Likes: 4
|
Post by dawglf on Apr 18, 2017 14:37:27 GMT
Can you show where Jesus said to take from one to give to another? I don't believe that Jesus existed and am not a Bible scholar; but I think that there's a fairly clear message that he would not have condoned those with excessive wealth refusing to support the less well off. And I think that it is also clear that the character would have disapproved of predatory capitalism of the variety fetishized by conservatives in the US. In which case, if those wealthy people (or even middle class people) consider themselves Christians then they should not object to a mechanism which ensures that the least fortunate are provided for. It certainly doesn't seem like Jesus would come down on the side of conservative self-professed Christians who want to abdicate any and all responsibility towards their fellow man. Well the one thing you said that was correct is that you aren't a Biblical scholar. Fact is, Jesus wouldn't want the wealthy to hoard their money and ignore the poor. But he also wasn't for forcing the wealthy to help the poor. Which is what you are abdicating.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Apr 18, 2017 14:51:22 GMT
I don't believe that Jesus existed and am not a Bible scholar; but I think that there's a fairly clear message that he would not have condoned those with excessive wealth refusing to support the less well off. And I think that it is also clear that the character would have disapproved of predatory capitalism of the variety fetishized by conservatives in the US. In which case, if those wealthy people (or even middle class people) consider themselves Christians then they should not object to a mechanism which ensures that the least fortunate are provided for. It certainly doesn't seem like Jesus would come down on the side of conservative self-professed Christians who want to abdicate any and all responsibility towards their fellow man. Well the one thing you said that was correct is that you aren't a Biblical scholar. Fact is, Jesus wouldn't want the wealthy to hoard their money and ignore the poor. But he also wasn't for forcing the wealthy to help the poor. Which is what you are abdicating. If He didn't exist how did people make up a story about a preacher who taught out in the open in the same times and places those in the decades after His Crucifixion who heard the tales would have been? Why would they have been willing to die for it?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 18, 2017 14:53:39 GMT
Well the one thing you said that was correct is that you aren't a Biblical scholar. Fact is, Jesus wouldn't want the wealthy to hoard their money and ignore the poor. But he also wasn't for forcing the wealthy to help the poor. Which is what you are abdicating. If He didn't exist how did people make up a story about a preacher who taught out in the open in the same times and places those in the decades after His Crucifixion who heard the tales would have been? Why would they have been willing to die for it? It's the great Christian conspiracy that continues down to this day.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Apr 18, 2017 14:56:52 GMT
If He didn't exist how did people make up a story about a preacher who taught out in the open in the same times and places those in the decades after His Crucifixion who heard the tales would have been? Why would they have been willing to die for it? It's the great Christian conspiracy that continues down to this day. To this day is a whole other story. I'm talking about folks from the decades after His lifetime after the movement spread. How would they be fooled into believing they heard Him preach when they never did?
To argue a conspiracy to make people believe someone was the Son of God is one thing. But if you're going to claim a preacher was that he would need to have been familiar to the people who would have seen Him (if it was the truth).
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 18, 2017 15:13:38 GMT
It's the great Christian conspiracy that continues down to this day. To this day is a whole other story. I'm talking about folks from the decades after His lifetime after the movement spread. How would they be fooled into believing they heard Him preach when they never did?
To argue a conspiracy to make people believe someone was the Son of God is one thing. But if you're going to claim a preacher was that he would need to have been familiar to the people who would have seen Him (if it was the truth).
They weren't fooled. They were in on it.
It's relatively easy to get people to corroborate lies in regards to their meeting Jesus, getting healed by him, following him.
It lead to great wealth and influence for all Christians that continues down to this day
|
|