Posted on 04/09/2017 10:27:49 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I could not read the article, but did make it through the first paragraph. I have other things I have to do this morning. I have 6 baby ducks that need stomping and I have 4 kittens that I have to drown. I’ll get back to you later.
Oh, I also need to let my lawn mower idle in the back yard for a few hours.
““...to what degree are you allowed to keep it...?” [your property aka money]”
The author’s proposal presents an interesting philisophical question in that giving away ones wealth is completely voluntary. Its not taken by the govt as taxes or required by regulation. The only inducement is public and self opinion of the rich guy. I have no doubt that if such a system caught on it would soon morph into coercion and confiscation. Its always funny to see leftists talking about morality since they know nothing about it. The question that’s missing in this proposal is what is the obligation of the recipient? I could argue (indisputably) that it is immoral for a person NOT to adequately support themselves or their family. It is a drain on society to be a parasite on hard working citizens because you have no skills that would be of use to your fellow man. Or maybe you are just too lazy to get out of bed. There is a moral code that says “If you don’t work you don’t eat”. I remember when it was a social stigma to be on welfare, until the RAT party banned shame, thereby increasing it’s voter base. Finally, if the author really believes his proposal is a good one he should lead by example and give whatever money he makes or saved for retirement to the poor. Then he can report back on how its working out for him.
Do it. Drop those names, and make your case against each one. Put up or shut up.
This is dogma, not principle.
Or perhaps dogma droppings.
“Indisputably because of slavery”? Something that ended in the US 150 years ago?
Yet, we have how many immigrants who have come here penniless and/or uneducated from, oh, just say, Ireland, India, Jamaica, the Holocaust, etc.? They have done just fine, thank you.
Dumbest thing I’ve heard said on FR so far this year...
Careful, there, Brother. That’s not a scripture condemning wealth. If so, Solomon, David, Abraham, and many other giants of the faith stand condemned.
That, in context, is a scripture about not having a false god. If you read the surrounding verses, Jesus quotes many of the commandments but the first one, and this rich young ruler claims he keeps all the laws, so he should know them.
Jesus left the false god commandment(s) out so the young man could realize, after he pondered the answer, what his wealth was to him.
And - the next verses talk about how ALL things are possible with God, even a rich man entering Heaven.
So, what is the MINIMUM moral income? Kinda looks like to me that the poor who choose not to work might be “stealing” others’ wealth if they take a charity check.
How much should you be forced to work for before you can take charity? (Did you know food stamps used to actually be pieces of paper, and not an EBT card? Did you also know that the poor used to have skin in the game because they had to PAY a few dollars to GET food stamps? And they had to GO and WAIT in line to get them?)
Can’t work? I don’t mind giving you a hand. Won’t work? Don’t expect my sympathy.
Exactly. You’ve hit the nail on the head. I can’t think of an argument or war, for that matter, that’s not based on:
1) Where is the line drawn? (maybe a political/geographical line, or in this case, how much is “rich”)
2) Who gets to draw it? (government? dictator? me? you?)
Those are really the questions for EVERY conflict. There are just a million different flavors of them.
Don’t forget to strip the wings off the lady bugs and butterflies....
Like the story of the woman caught in adultery, which ends with "Now you go, and sin no more," at least half of the lesson is (deliberately, in many cases) omitted simply by quoting the first part. "Judge not, lest you be judged," is a fine lesson; but omitting the conclusion denies the message that there is someone (Christ) with the authority to judge and the authority to forgive, and that true repentance is a requirement of the gift.
Well then, we'll just have to let the All-Knowing and All-Wise Arbiters of Morality - aka the Federal Government - make case-by-case decisions based on political utility, is that it?
Being wealthy is not stealing, nor is acquiring wealth. Stealing is stealing, and earning is earning. Confusing the two is what leads the author of this article (and people such as yourself) to make morally idiotic statements.
Neither is stealing by a poor man more justified than stealing by a rich one: stealing is stealing, and the mitigating circumstances for the crime (or the sin) are moral and not material and may, or may not, depend on one's wealth.
Which would, but the story is not about wealth; and it is not about giving up wealth in order to get into heaven, per se.
What verse follows the story?
When the disciples heard this they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
Not everyone is wealthy, so why would they ask this question? The answer: the story is about those things which cause us to deny God. Wealth is only one of those things. The story might have been about "The fat young man" who was told he could only be saved by giving his food to the poor, and ceasing to be a glutton.
False gods. Not money.
I wonder how much money this clown has? Have you ever noticed that the ones who scream the loudest about this subject are those that are already rolling in dough.
Actually, Mr A[dam] Q. Smith is probably an author for The Onion. The piece reads like it is written by a three year old.
Well, nobody does. They just temporarily hold it until they die. Everyone dies someday.
All the sillier when you consider that he thinks you can live a life of “luxury” on $100K/year.
Well, considering that I live on 23,000 a year...
that would make a considerable difference.
However, as a Buddhist I try and keep this simple
motto in the forefront...
“To know contentment, is to be rich.”
Something the author does not begin to understand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.