Posted on 11/04/2001 10:18:19 PM PST by hawaiian
If we have another event even the concept of an internment camp won't be enough. Who will guard it?
Either the muslims answer up now or by the time another attack happens they will all be seen as guilty.
The sadness in this is that all arabs will be targeted and some of them are not muslim. We have to be sure that the hotheads (that is, the first shooters) knock over the nearest mosque for the membership roster before they start imposing citizen justice.
Now I don't advocate violence against any one, but if an attack happens and the muslim community didn't try to warn us about it then they are guilty of it.
God (Yahweh, Jehovah, Jesus) Save America (Please)
This must be from the new anti-American Standard version of the bible. I can't find it in any of the 12 or so versions I have at my fingertips.
(responding now to one of your later posts)
Jesus is a conservative.
Liberals believe in the welfare state. The Word of God says: 2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat
Liberals believe in unions. The Word of God says:(Matthew 20:1-16) that the owners goods are his to deal with. He paid each laborer what He determined to pay them regardless of hours worked or seniority. Definitely anti-union.
Liberals believe in forced usurption of property rights. The word of God says: Matt 20: 1-16 again and Acts 5:1-4 (Ananias and Sapphira and the land they sold).
The liberals believe in multiculturalism and protecting people from being offended by Christian preaching. The Word of God says:Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
If we are to preach everywhere, as a Christian, why would you, as a liberal, not let us preach on the city square (for example)
I can come up with tons more given a little time. (homosexuality, abortion, racial strife etc) But I haven't the time at the moment and I think I've proved my point. Jesus is conservative.
God Save America (Please)
If the government's tape is to be believed, 1 or 2 people in this country knew about the attack before it happened, so I don't see what the problem is.
One problem the Moslem community faces in this country, eveyrbody demanding they denounce this or that, but when in fact they do, everybody then says "they obviously don't mean it", etc. So they are damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Re true life experiences: For all intents and purposes, I know the guy that hit you. I went to a blue collar junior high school shortly after forced busing began. The African-American kids bussed in were outnumbered, angry and aggressive, and they loved to pick on small, bespectacled, straight-A white boys like me. I was insulted, pushed, punched - one guy threw a steel "cake-cutter" comb at me for fun which put a nice gash in my back. In 9th grade, I decided it was time to do something about it, only I didn't take the Conservative path and buy or steal a gun for protection; I learned boxing from a guy at my church. I simply got the hell beat out of me until I learned to punch back. For the next several years, I walked around with a chip on my shoulder, trying to prove to whites, blacks and anyone else how tough I was. Once I stopped being afraid, the confrontations ended very differently. But I also started to look more closely at the African-American assholes who had picked on me earlier, and I realized they were a lot like me - angry and scared, only they lived in the Central district in shacks, and many didn't have fathers around, and most wouldn't have the opportunities I had to grow out of their stupid behavior and grow into success.
Meanwhile, I had my grandfather to inspire me. Born in 1900 as a result of a union between a maid and a member of the family that began IBM (and employed her), he was a brilliant man who was passed from relative to relative. He had no funds and no hope of going to college, but he was strong and personable enough to be chosen as a foreman in a Weyerhaeuser logging camp during the Depression for 25 cents per day (no, that's not a typo). When his men went on strike, he insisted on striking with them. His boss offered him a promotion if he came to work; he turned it down and was fired. When his boss asked him why he did it, he told him, "Because I don't want to have to look down for the rest of my life when I pass a working man on the street." He helped form and then led a lumber union for many years. Back then, he often had to come to work with a baseball bat or rifle (NRA types take note), because corporations routinely hired "strike breakers," small armies of thugs with clubs who enforced the raw capitalism of the day (by the way, Grandpa couldn't stand communists and refused to align his union with anyone who was too far left).
I have a picture of my grandfather, the unwanted, uneducated boy, shaking hands with US senators. Because of his battles and determination, many loggers and others in the building trades have living wages and medical and pension plans where there were none before. It had nothing whatsoever to do with conservative, visionary CEO's who wanted to take care of their workers because competitive wages would keep the workforce more loyal; those CEO's were busy screaming "Commie" at my grandfather and hiring gangs to try to intimidate his men.
And this is where I often have a problem with Conservative thought - it often stops at the theoretical level and ignores the complexities of real life. Since my undergrad degree was economics, I know all about Adam Smith and how "unions are unnecessary because the Free Market will adjust wages to the marginal level at which people are willing to work," yada, yada. And there is much truth in that theoretical model. But it's not enough. Because in the real world, people can and do manipulate the free market conditions, and information is skewed, and economics can give one group an advantage over another, etc. And the recognition of those imperfections and the attempt to balance them is one of the principles of true Liberalism. Change occurred for my grandfather's workers because of something outside of the Conservative, economic model: there was a balance of power between the moneyed management team and the united workers, and the struggles between them created the improved working conditions we see today. There is no "Liberal lie" here, in fact, this is the opposite: it's an attempt to move beyond mere theory and incorporate everyday reality into the picture, the type of reality that hits one in the face, just as that idiot hit you. Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" did not help my grandfater, the Visible Hand did, the one wrapped in a fist around a baseball bat, not to deny Capitalism, but to make it fairer. That's old-fashioned, tough, honest, Liberalism.
The same thing applies to the welfare state; Conservative theory does not always encompass the real world problems. The Conservative says, "I am against Federal Aid to the poor, not because I want the poor to suffer, but because I don't want to foster dependence by allowing people to become lazy by taking advantage of the system." But what if there is a faulty premise? There was a huge study done about 10 years ago (it was either done by the Census Bureau or the Dept of Commerce - I would encourage you to seek it out, because the results were very conclusive) on the habits of welfare recipients. The results were stunning, for many: 60% of all US welfare recipients went off welfare permanently within one year, 80% went off permanently within two years. Conservative theory addresses the chronic abuser, and rightly so, but that group makes up only 20% of the welfare population. And we Liberals are much more concerned about 80% who legitimately need help than 20% who don't.
I volunteer at a school for homeless kids in my city. It is a public program with some private elements, that sends school buses to homeless shelters to bring in the kids there and provide them with an almost normal learning environment (and a few extra meals). Over the years, I have made friends with many of those kids, and brought a few home to play with my kids. In many cases, their parents are screwups and undeserving bums. But those kids had nothing at all to do with the conditions they find themselves in, and if not for Federal and State programs, many would starve to death. Period. Charities are great, but there aren't enough of them, and people (even well-intentioned people like you and I) don't give enough to them to handle more than a fraction of the need there. Without free health care, financed by us taxpayers, many of these kids could not go to the doctor to get treated for the cuts and bruises they earn from the "stepfathers" that their mothers bring into their lives. That's not "The Way Things Ought To Be", that's welfare in the real world, Hugh. Currently there's a kid named Joshua who has been trying to learn from me how to dribble a basketball. There's a problem: he's not only fatherless, and in a shelter, he's also scrawny and somewhat disabled. But he tries very hard for me, and I praise him and try not to cry.
And then I hear quotes from alleged spokesmen on the Right such as, "The poor are the biggest piglets sucking at the Federal teat." And I admit, I start to feel a bit hostile. If that lying, draft-dodging sissy Limbaugh ever wants to repeat his quote in front of me, I'll take a chance on a lawsuit just to shut him up for a moment. For Joshua. You have the right, in this great country of ours, to disagree with my conclusions. But there's nothing dishonest here. I'm seeking the truth, especially the uncomfortable truths that people don't want to see.
If Government is the answer it must have been a really stupid question. (with the constitutional exceptions of defense, foreign relations and regulation of interstate trade of course)
GSA(P)
You don't what you are talking about. First of all, when someone says anything is ALWAYS bad, I know immediately that I'm dealing with someone with a limited intellectual capacity, because he is not thinking, he's simply spouting rhetoric. Did you read my post? Do you have any clue what it was like for people working in the woods or in thousands of other occupations before there were unions? The Private Sector has done fantastic things for our country. Left completely unchecked, it has also done some lousy things for our country (the polluting of the Great Lakes, Acid Rain, Child Labor, segregated lunch counters, etc,etc). Have you ever encountered a strikebreaker, paid by a company owner, swinging a baseball bat at your head? My grandfather did. Many times. If you haven't, it might be wise to limit your comments to something you know about. If, on the other hand, you are implying that unions are unnecessary in 2001, fine, make your case. But recognize that conditions were not always what they are now.
"(They essentially blackmail a company owner into surrendering more of his property then he is willing to (in the form of higher wages/benefits)."
No they don't. They don't and can't force any company owner to give up any property that he is unwilling to give up. If a company owner chooses to accede to a union's demands, he or she is doing so voluntarily, because he or she determines that the potential loss of production and loss of employees is a greater negative than the loss incurred by paying higher wages/benefits. It's very simple; it's pure, free market negotiation in the wage sector. Companies have on their side money and the freedom to hire other workers; Unions have on their side numbers and skilled labor.
"If the workers don't want to work for the offered wages they can work elsewhere."
And if the workers feel they are not being compensated adequately, they can attempt to organize and risk being fired or replaced by less skilled workers who are willing to accept a lower wage. It's all very free, on both sides. Are you trying to limit freedom? That doesn't sound very Conservative.
"There would be plenty of charities available to help the poor if the liberal government do-gooders would stop stealing our money to give to those who won't work."
No. That is a rationalization. For one thing, you get a tax write-off for the dollars and goods you give to charities, so you should be giving lots to your favorite charity, because you know that it reduces the amount you pay to that evil Federal Government. Besides, everyone could give more to charities, with or without our tax system. If we did as Jesus instructed us, we would sell all that we own and give it to charity, and then follow Him, and then we would have no tax problems at all. Here's a quiz for you: In America, which group gives the lowest percentage of annual income to charities, the top 10% of wage earners, the middle 80% or the bottom 10%? You guessed it, the (mostly Conservative) top 10% gives the samllest %. And despite the taxes they pay, they still have the most disposable income left over each month after their bills are paid, don't they? We don't give as much as we should to charities because because we are by nature selfish (see "Original Sin" in the Bible), not because of our tax system.
"Yes I saw the results of your study. So 80% of the welfare users only use it for a year or less. What gives them the right to claim my money as their own?"
I assume from your previous post about the Bible (which I will address when time permits) that you identify yourself as a Christian. The question here is whether in your heart you feel that helping people who really need it and are not long term abusers of the system is a good, moral use of your tax dollars.
"If my taxes were lower I'd give more to charities to help these people (who really need it. THE REST CAN STARVE)." (my capitalization)
What would Jesus do, John? Did He say, "If someone asks for your coat, give him your cloak also", or did He say, "If someone asks for your coat, first determine whether he is a welfare cheat"?
"But since I pay far to much for social entitlement programs there is nothing left for other charities."
There's nothing left for other charities? You mean you, the big-hearted, private-charity-oriented, Christian conservative, give nothing to charity while I, the lying, social-program-supporting, Christian liberal, give money to my Church and over a dozen charities, and volunteer my time at a school for homeless kids, as I detailed in my previous post?
You are correct here. I should have said "in 99% of cases unions are bad" In the last 1% they are only neutral.
No they don't (blackmail owners). They don't and can't force any company owner to give up any property that he is unwilling to give up. If a company owner chooses to accede to a union's demands, he or she is doing so voluntarily, because he or she determines that the potential loss of production and loss of employees is a greater negative than the loss incurred by paying higher wages/benefits.
According to your reasoning kidnapping is totally ethical because the ransom payer is paying it voluntarily. Likewise mugging is totally ethical (when the mugge doesn't resist) because the muggee is handing over his wallet voluntarily.
So the union says "pay us more or we won't let you make anything and we'll block the entries to your plants and we'll attack any replacement workers you bring in". Sounds like blackmail to me. But according to your reasoning blackmail is totally ethical because the one paying the blackmail does it voluntarily.
"If the workers don't want to work for the offered wages they can work elsewhere."
And if the workers feel they are not being compensated adequately, they can attempt to organize and risk being fired
But the then union cries and calls for help from the Government and eventually forces the owner to hire these thugs back again. (I thank God for Ronnie firing PATCO.)
it's all very free, on both sides.
Yeah right. The union forces the owners to accept an agreement that the owners would rather not make and the unions use the Government (is it Fair Labor Relations Board?) to enforce it. The owner is blackmailed. This is not freedom.
"There would be plenty of charities available to help the poor if the liberal government do-gooders would stop stealing our money to give to those who won't work."
No. That is a rationalization. For one thing, you get a tax write-off for the dollars and goods you give to charities, so you should be giving lots to your favorite charity, because you know that it reduces the amount you pay to that evil Federal Government.
I get NOTHING from moneys taken by the government for entitlement programs. The moneys on which I get write offs would be given anyway as God commands these tithes. I'd give more if the government didn't steal it first.
Besides, everyone could give more to charities, with or without our tax system. If we did as Jesus instructed us, we would sell all that we own and give it to charity, and then follow Him, and then we would have no tax problems at all.
Jesus told this to one person (Luke 18:18-23) as an example. Did he tell this to Nicodemus (John chapter 3)? N. was rich. Why didn't Jesus tell him to sell all? Perhaps because the rich man was owned by his things and Nicodemus owned his things? The bible promises us prosperity and blessings. It is not wrong to have many things. It is only wrong when these things come between you and God, as they did for the rich man.
You guessed it, the (mostly Conservative) top 10% gives the samllest %.
And this same top 10% pays, what, 95% of the taxes taken? They've already made their contribution. Unfortunately it's taken from them at the point of a gun.
"If my taxes were lower I'd give more to charities to help these people (who really need it. THE REST CAN STARVE)."
(my capitalization)
2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
(God's Word)
Christian liberal
This is a contradiction in terms. (although the rest of the description might be accurate)
My giving is between me and God but just to maintain my witness I will let you know that we tithe and give offerings (and we tithe on gross not net)
GSA(P)
It is valid, however, to explore whether Leftist principles or Rightist principles are closer to the actual, complete, written word of God. To keep this simple, I’ll go through just a couple of books: Matthew (you seem to like that one) and parts of Acts; but first, I’ll add back in some of the Word that you left out in your attempt to twist the Bible to fit your political position. If you’re trying to win an argument, you’ll find this to be very unpleasant. If you’re seeking the Truth, you’ll enjoy it and learn something.
II Thessalonians 3:6-10. You (no doubt accidentally) missed a few key phrases here on both of the occasions when you quoted it. Let’s see what Paul was really discussing here; hmm… turns out it was not wage labor at all, he was discussing the work of evangelizing, because that is what he did for a living (it didn’t pay well back then). Nevertheless, in 3:9, Paul throws in a socialistic concept about his food: "Not that we did not have the RIGHT TO SUPPORT, but to furnish you ourselves an example which you should follow." Then in verse 10, he describes the charge he gave to his own followers as a voluntary example, even though he had the RIGHT to support: "For while we were with you, we gave you this charge: If anyone does not want to work…"
Now lets look at a section you completely mischaracterized, Matt 20:1-16. Jesus is not really talking about property or labor relations at all, is he John? He’s talking about the Kingdom of Heaven. We know this because verse 1 says so: "For the kingdom resembles an estate owner…" and verse 16 concludes with, "So the last will be first and the first will be last." In other words, Jesus is preparing us for the idea that those who give their lives to Him at the ends of their lives will receive the same gift of salvation as those who have been laboring at it all their lives. The section unions. If a business owner chose to model her payroll after this, she wouldn’t be long in business.
Then you threw in this: Liberals believe in forced usurption (usurpation) of property rights. Ridiculous. We don’t; communists believe that. That’s just like saying, "Conservatives believe in enslaving minorities." Then you brought up Acts 5:1-4. John, thank you for making this easy. Let’s look at the verses just preceding those; they are critically important because they tell us how the early Christians actually lived. Acts 4:32-35 reads: "The host of believers were one in heart and soul; NO ONE CLAIMED HIS BELONGINGS JUST FOR HIMSELF, BUT EVERYTHING WAS THEIRS IN COMMON. And with great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and grace rested liberally on all of them. Not one among them suffered need; for those with who owned fields or houses sold them, brought the proceeds of the sale and deposited the money at the feet of the apostles. THEN IT WAS DISTRIBUTED TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED." Pure, voluntary, socialism based exactly on Christ’s commands. The 12 apostles lived this way, Jesus told the wealthy man to live this way, and the early Christian believers lived this way. And it’s completely antithetical to the conservative version of Capitalism.
Then comes 5:1-4; as you knew before you tried to stretch this into your supporting argument, Ananias and Sapphira sinned by holding back some of the proceeds from the sale of their property and then lying about it ("you did not lie to men but to God" v.4). There was no property-related sin here, as Peter made clear.
Then you address multiculturalism, and you have it exactly backwards: The liberals believe in multiculturalism and protecting people from being offended by Christian preaching. Wrong again. Atheistic Liberals might support that, as would atheistic Conservatives. Christian Liberals believe in multiculturalism because: 1. We recognize that by respecting other cultures, we will render them more open to hearing the Good News; 2. There is no group, no nation, and no individual that is loved by God more than He loves anyone else; and most important, 3. Jesus was the original multiculturalist. I don’t know how conservatives miss this if they actually read the Bible; it permeates the words and behavior of Jesus. The Hebrews of 30 AD were completely opposed to recognition of other cultures, just as are many in your camp. Jesus subjected Himself to ridicule and persecution when he spoke with the foreign woman at the well, when he urged his followers to recognize Roman law ("pay to Caesar what is due to Caesar…"), and especially when He told the story of the Good Samaritan (Samaritans were considered unclean and Jews were forbidden to have contact with them). In fact, the verse you quoted from Matthew, "Go therefore and teach all nations…" was a radical departure for the Jewish followers of Jesus, and in the centuries since, the heroic people who have translated the Bible into hundreds of languages and the missionaries who have adopted the mores of hundreds of cultures in order to bring the Message to the nations represent multiculturalism at its best.
The first three chapters cover His birth. Then in Ch. 4:19-20, He addresses Peter and Andrew: "’Come! Follow me and I will make you fishers of men.’ And at once they abandoned their nets and followed Him." They left their gainful employment and took on a type of work which generates no wages: evangelizing. Are these the type of people who you would let "starve" according to your previous post? They produced no income, yet Paul said in II Thessalonians that they were "entitled to support." Would conservatives agree? Liberals would.
In Ch 5, Jesus delivers the beatitudes. "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." Does that square well with the conservative view of Capitalism? Or how about v. 7: "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." Or v. 9: "Blessed are the peacemakers," which was my point when this enormous thread began, for which I was castigated and branded a liar. Let’s continue with v. 38-39: "You have heard it was said (Ex 21:24), ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, ‘Do not resist injuries, but whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other as well." Is that the "new anti-American Standard version" you referred to, John, or is it the words of your Lord and Savior?
You’ll love v. 40 and 42: "And if anyone asks you for your tunic, let him have you robe as well." And "Give to the one who begs from you and do not refuse the borrower." Nothing about letting lazy people starve. Nothing about welfare cheats. Do you know why? Because of v. 7:1: "Do not pass judgment, that you may not be judged." In other words, it doesn’t matter whether you think they deserve it or not. God commands you to give. Period. It’s up to Him to judge the hearts of the beggars and the character of people on public assistance. The conservative wails, "but I believe in private charity, not public assistance." The Christian Liberal responds, "we need both." I’m honest enough to know that 99% are not willing to give up everything and devote our lives to preaching and helping the less fortunate. So I give to give some of what’s left over from my huge, self-employment income tax bill to charities and vote for the government to use some of those taxes for the needy. Because what we do on our own is not enough, and due to our selfish natures, it probably wouldn’t be enough even if we paid no taxes. I want public AND private money going to those who need it. Because Christ commanded it.
Now back to ch 6, v. 19 and v. 24: "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth" and "You cannot serve God and mammon." V. 25 continues, "Do not worry about your living – what you are to eat or drink…" Right wing capitalism?
Ch 7 is about spiritual health, 8 covers various healings. Then comes 9:13: "I want mercy and not sacrifice." In Ch 10:9-10, he instructs his disciples: :"Provide neither gold, nor silver , nor copper to put your belts, nor a bag for the journey; neither two coasts, nor sandals, nor staff. for the worker deserves his support." Back to what Paul said. And where does that support come from? From us. A bit socialistic for our society, isn’t it?
Ch. 11 gives Jesus’ reaction to John the Baptist. In Ch. 12, He is criticized by the Pharisees for breaking the Sabbath. I said in earlier post that Jesus declared Himself to be the Law. You responded with, This must be from the new anti-American Standard version of the bible. I can't find it in any of the 12 or so versions I have at my fingertips. Jesus here answers by declaring that He can break the Sabbath and be blameless and concludes in v. 8 with: "For the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath."
In ch. 13, there’s a verse you may want to misuse, so let me save you some time. He says in v. 12: "For whoever has will receive will receive superabundantly, but whoever has not will be deprived of whatever he has." He explains this verse in 18-23. As before, he is referring to the "message of the kingdom" and not to wealth. "One who listens and understands the message; he bears fruit and yields…"
Ch 14: WILLINGLY SHARE WHAT YOU HAVE; v. 16, five loaves two fish, everyone shared, a miracle occurred. Are my conservative friends on the same page?
Ch 15 – More from the Pharisees, definitely law-and-order types, attacking Him for violating Old Testament Law. Then seven loaves, a few fish, "He ordered the masses to sit," more sharing, another miracle.
Ch 16 – The end is coming (really the beginning). Another economic message, in v. 26: "For what advantage will a man have if he acquires the whole world and forfeits his own life?"
Ch 17 – v. 27: Jesus instructs Peter to pay the local tax. I won’t comment; that one is too easy.
Ch 18 – TAKE PITY ON THOSE WHO WRONG YOU AND FORGIVE THEM. Conservative or Liberal? Jesus point out that He forgives us for an enormous debt (our sin), therefore each must (v. 35) "heartily forgive his brother."
Ch 19 – Here’s where Right Wing Capitalism really diverges from the Word. V. 20-22: "The young man said to him…’How do I still fall behind?’ Jesus replied, ‘If you want to be complete, go and sell what you have and donate it to the needy, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come and follow Me.’ But the young man, on hearing that, went sadly away, for he had much property." Earlier, John, you discounted this verse by stating that Jesus said this to only one person. Wrong. In the next two verses, he makes the thought universal: "I assure you, it will be difficult for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. I SAY TO YOU AGAIN, IT IS EASIER FOR A CAMEL TO PASS THROUGH A NEEDLE’S EYE THAN FOR A WEALTHY PERSON TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN." That includes Joseph of Arimathea, and every Democrat or Republican, and you and I. Like us, the disciples are "dumbfounded," and ask, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus answers, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." For Christians who like to brag about being part of the wealthiest country on earth, it’s time to sit down, shut up and thank God for saving us despite our focus on wealth.
Ch 20 – Already covered. The estate owner clearly as a metaphor for the kingdom of heaven, not for property relations.
Ch 21 – V.12 – "Jesus entered the temple and expelled all who were buying and selling in its courts….and told them, ‘It is written, my house shall be called a house of prayer…’"
Ch 22 – V. 21 – "Pay Caesar what is due to Caesar, and God what is due to God." Of course, to be fair to the Right, He didn’t say we couldn’t whine before we paid. And in 37-40, Jesus takes precedence over Old Testament Law: "You shall love the Lord your God with your whole soul, and with your whole mind. This is the great and chief commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ON THESE TWO COMMANDMENTS THE WHOLE LAW AND PROPHETS DEPEND."
Ch 23 – How should these verses properly infuse our politics? V.4 – "They (the wealthy Pharisees) tie up heavy loads and place them on the people’s shoulders, but they themselves do not care to move them with their finger." V. 12 –"Whoever elevates himself shall be humbled, and whoever humbles himself shall be elevated." V.14 – "you cheat the widows out of their houses. For this you will receive greater judgment." V. 23 – "Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you tithe mint, dill and cummin, and YOU OMIT THE WEIGHTIER ASPECTS OF THE LAW – JUSTICE, MERCY AND FAITH."
Ch 24 – The End Times.
Ch 25 – The story of the master who entrusted 10 talents to one servant, 4 to another and 2 to a third, and then went away to see what the servants would do with the talents. This, I believe is a warning to our nation, for no nation in history, with the possible exception of Rome, has been given more blessings, more talents, than America. And we must, therefore, hold ourselves to higher standard of behavior, but God will expect more of us. Then comes a stark warning to us as individuals in v.41 – "Then will He say to tho0se at His left, ‘Begone from Me, accursed ones… for I was hungry and you did not feed Me; thirsty and you gave me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not entertain Me; naked and you failed to clothe me; ill in prison and you did not come to see Me.’" They ask God when they saw Him in those circumstances. He answers, in V. 45 – "Insofar as you failed to do it to one of the least of these (brothers of Mine), you failed to do it to Me. " Be careful who you allow to starve, John. For a down-and-out person, you may be the only face of Christ they see today. Or you may be saying no to the face of Jesus when you sneer at a "lazy" beggar, or vote to cut a Federal school lunch program for a hungry child.
Ch 26 – In revenge for capturing Jesus, a companion cuts off the ear of the slave of the High Priest. Jesus admonishes (v. 52), "Return your sword to it’s place, for all who draw the sword shall be destroyed by the sword." Pretty clear.
Ch 27 – Death.
Ch 28 – Resurrection.
Jesus was a conservative? Not hardly. The verses I did not discuss were politically neutral, but if you disagree, feel free to examine them. Or try looking at another Gospel. Where is the weight of the evidence?
There are other issues not discussed, obviously, such as abortion. I personally disagree for the most part with my Liberal brethren on that issue, for spiritual reasons. But where is the weight of the evidence? For me, the answer is clear; you may reach a different conclusion, but you and I must both be sure that we are making our politics subject to our faith, and not the other way around.
Jesus is willing to save even us diehard Left or Right Wing types. Not because we’re on the correct political path, but because His grace is sufficient to overcome our hopefully well-intentioned political mistakes.
Please explain your view on affirmative action.
Should it help those who have been disadvantaged in life, regardless of skin color, or should it be based on skin color?
For example, let's say that two individuals with the same grade point average and test scores are applying to the same law school. One, Jane Doe Gumball, is the daughter of millionaire Bryant Gumball and has been raised without a financial care in the world. Dad paid for her college. The other, Jane Doe Smith, is the white daughter of a waitress. She had to work her own way through college as her mother could offer little financial help on her salary.
The Law School Admissions Committee chooses Jane Doe Gumball because she is Black in the name of Affirmative Action.
Question: Did the Admissions Committee do the right thing?
First lets define 'liberal'. A liberal is for big government (usually welfare/entitlement type programs), for abortion (or as they prefer to say it "right to choose"), for homosexual rights (and most other sexual perversions). A liberal is against school choice, parental rights (takes a village don't you know) and the involvement of the church in any facet of life outside of the church walls (separation of church and anything the state might think about touching some day). While some liberals may go contrary to some items on this list all liberals adhere to at least one of them.
A Christian (briefly) is one who has accepted Jesus as Savior and Lord of their lives and lives there life to the best of their ability according to God's Word. Included in God's Word is the command to go and make disciples of all the world. All Christians are to be preachers every day of their life.
Now, can a liberal be a Christian and are we to judge those who try to masquerade as both?
Matt 7:15 ¶ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
[note that the word prophets in this usage, as modified by the sheeps clothing reference includes anyone who teaches a false doctrine, not just those who claim to be prophets.]
So if someone preaches that abortion is good or that the practice of homosexuality (or any other sex outcide of marriage) is good or that any other thing which the bible is against is good, then that person falls into the false prophet category. Since liberals espouse all these things as good how can they be Christians? Sounds like we are supposed to judge them.
See also 1 Cor 5:9-6:4 We are to judge those who call themselves Christians (by their fruit) and put those out who sin unrepentently. If someone calls themselves a Christian then I have to judge them to see whether I can indeed fellowship with them. At best liberals fail the 1 Cor 5:11 test.
Liberal: Homosexuality is an acceptable alternative lifestyle
God's Word: H. is an abomination and those who practice it will be cast into hell.
Liberal: Abortion is just another way to prevent unwanted pregnancies (or some other hoakum)
God's Word: Thou Shalt not murder.
ETC
You cannot be both Liberal and Christian.
Likewise, declaring that "Jesus is a conservative" – or liberal, ...
True. I should have been more accurate. Let me rephrase. If Jesus was physically alive on the Earth right now He could only be identified as a conservative as all His ideals are embodied in (and are the basis for) conservative thought. Likewise, the liberal ideals are against the majority of things that Jesus is for, including evangelizing everywhere.
II Thessalonians 3:6-10. (tying it to evangelizing vice physical labor)
I did a quick check of 8 to 12 different commentaries as well as the rest of scripture and see no foundation for allowing the idle to eat when they are not willing to work. Jewish teachings of the day repeated this and scripture (Gen 3:19) supports it. It's part of the price we pay for Adam's sin. We have to work in order to eat.
The evangelist having the right to support falls under Matt 10:10 more easily and fittingly.
Matt 20:1-16. (...) He’s talking about the Kingdom of Heaven. We know this because verse 1 says so: "For the kingdom resembles an estate owner…" and verse 16 concludes with, "So the last will be first and the first will be last." In other words, Jesus is preparing us for the idea that those who give their lives to Him at the ends of their lives will receive the same gift of salvation as those who have been laboring at it all their lives.
While this is true it does not exclude the lesson given on wages or on property rights. What you agree to work for is what you work for and it is up to the owner of the property to reach agreement with each worker (see verse 15). Unions steal this perogative from the owner.
Then you threw in this: Liberals believe in forced usurption (usurpation) of property rights. Ridiculous. We don’t; communists believe that.
Do you believe that taxes should be assessed to pay for welfare programs, national endowment for the arts or any other program not specifically authorized in the constitution? (being a Liberal and guessing from your earlier replies, you probably do). Therefore you are forcing the usurption of my property rights. These taxes represent my property which is being stolen by force to support things that I do not want to support. Either you are a communist or liberals support forced usurption of property rights
Acts 5:1-4. I brought this up originally to show that God's Word does not support usurption of property rights. While it is true that the Disciples held all in common and that some sold what they had to provide for others please pay close attention to Verse 4 "Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." They were not commanded to sell it and could have held onto it for their whole lives with no ill will or effect. IT WAS THEIR PROPERTY. Their rights to it were never usurped. (Their sin was in lying and saying they were giving the total price when they didn't. If they had said, "here's half the price" they would have been fine.) Even God tells us here that our property is our property and not others. (He does tell us in other places that all is His and that we are to be good stewards of it)
Then you address multiculturalism, and you have it exactly backwards: The liberals believe in multiculturalism and protecting people from being offended by Christian preaching. Wrong again. Atheistic Liberals might support that, as would atheistic Conservatives.
All Liberals are atheistic, or at least non Christian. How can someone support everything that is anti-christ and call themselves Christian? Most atheistic conservatives are secure enough that they don't worry about preventing other people from speaking freely. Suppression of free speach is more usually a liberal idea.
Christian Liberals (There's that oxymoron again) believe in multiculturalism because: 1. We recognize that by respecting other cultures, we will render them more open to hearing the Good News; 2. There is no group, no nation, and no individual that is loved by God more than He loves anyone else; and most important, 3. Jesus was the original multiculturalist.
In reverse order
#3. Jesus was the original mono-culturalist. Jesus declares that there is no way to heaven but through Him. This is decidedly against the majority of the cultures of the world of His day (on Earth) and regrettably, still against most cultures of the word today. Now Jesus was forgiving and accepting of people from other cultures when they came to Him but this forgiveness is ALWAYS based on them surrendering their culture (or at least any religious aspects of it) and coming to Him.
2. Correct. But as seen in discussion of #3 above, if these people, groups, nations, do not repent and come to Jesus as Savior they will still go to hell. The ONLY way to heaven is through Jesus.
1. (Respecting other cultures). The problem is not the liberals respect of other cultures. the problem is the liberals total disrespect for Christian culture. You can have a kwanza celebration at school but Heaven help you if you want to put up a nativity scene. Liberals seem to greatly prefer anything other than Christian culture. Why is it that the mohammedans can spew their hatred on TV and no one is troubled but let a Christian get up and preach the truth and all the liberals are up in arms?
GSA(P)
I do have to address the following though:
The conservative wails, "but I believe in private charity, not public assistance." The Christian Liberal responds, "we need both." I’m honest enough to know that 99% are not willing to give up everything and devote our lives to preaching and helping the less fortunate. So I give to give some of what’s left over from my huge, self-employment income tax bill to charities and vote for the government to use some of those taxes for the needy. Because what we do on our own is not enough, and due to our selfish natures, it probably wouldn’t be enough even if we paid no taxes. I want public AND private money going to those who need it.
First there is NO public money. (why don't liberals ever understand this?) There is only private money stolen by illegal taxes for unathorized programs. (If it's not authorized in the constitution it's illegal)
Secondly, before the income tax, when all charities were private, we had enough to go around and people gave enough to support those who couldn't work. Life was good in this country because we cared for each other. Even with our selfish natures we took care of everyone who couldn't take care of themselves.
God Save America (Please)
The question is more complicated however, although you bring up a great point. Even if all affirmative action programs were based on a socio-economically disadvantaged status (currently, some are, some aren't), there are still challenges faced by poor blacks that are not faced by poor whites. There are still private organizations that bar African-Americans. There are still pockets of hatred; no one has ever made fun of my Irish heritage, but I've yet to meet any person with dark skin who has not dealt with many racial epithets. And the numbers are clear; blacks make less on average than whites (especially black males) and are underrepresented in corporate boardrooms.
Once these ratios are more balanced, however, I would be in favor of affirmative action based solely on socioeconomic status as opposed to race.
I flagged you to it because there was some information shared back and forth that was relevant to the discussion we were having earlier, namely if the Aryan nutbags are far right or not.
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.