Gasp! Jesus even had capitalists as friends
In answer to letter writer Pamela Blome (“CCU students misled,” Aug. 27), I think she knows very little of the history of Christianity.
I would like to know where these Christian communes she alludes to were located. It is true that they gathered, as did the Jews and those of other faiths, in conclaves of their own kind. But a “communist-style” way of life? Persecuted as they were for many years by the Romans and, later, Muslims and others, they tended to keep a low profile. Communes would have been, as they are today, rather high-profile and watched carefully by their neighbors.
And Christ certainly had a lot of rich, influential friends — like Zacchaeus and Joseph of Arimathea — and made use of their money and hospitality. Had he disapproved of wealth held from capitalism, he would not have made use of capitalists. Gasp!
Margaret Fox, Sedalia
Perhaps the so-called believers in Christ (who manage to pick & choose what verses in the Bible to force down others' throats, while ignoring ones that pertain to them) should read Matthew, Chapter 19:
16
Now someone approached him and said, "Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?"
17
He answered him, "Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. 13 If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."
18
He asked him, "Which ones?" And Jesus replied, " 'You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness;
19
honor your father and your mother'; and 'you shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"
20
The young man said to him, "All of these I have observed. What do I still lack?"
21
Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to (the) poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
22
When the young man heard this statement, he went away sad, for he had many possessions.
23
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Amen, I say to you, it will be hard for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24
Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."
Herein lies the danger of fundamentalist reading of the Bible. For instance,
The eye of the needle is the name for the small door where a person could enter the city after the large gate had been closed. It was large enough to walk through, but a loaded down camel could not make it through.
In order for a camel to get through, it would be necessary to unload all the baggage and have the camel crawl through on it's knees.
There is a similar passage in the Koran although not spoken by Jesus.
You cannot read the Bible as you would the manual that comes with your computer because it is written in an allegorical style.
It is instructive that fundamentalist interpretations are most often presented by people who wish to discredit the teachings (usually to promote socialism).
Genuine relgious communities seriously debate the question of how heaven and hell are populated.
Is Judas in heaven or hell? It is an interesting question.
The Bible is there for all to read - make of it what you will.
The early brothers and sisters did indeed share much with each other. On the first day of the week, they got together, each bringing what food they had, and broke bread together and studied the word. But I find nowhere in the Bible, and I read extensively, where Christ told Peter to give his fishing boat to the Romans for the good of the Empire.
Jesus is not capitalist or communist, republican or democrat. He is the Absolute Monarch, if you want to put a political label on Him.
The lessons are not against gaining wealth, they are against loving wealth. The camel parable means that one must be willing, if asked, to renounce all worldly goods.
The wealthy young man in the parable obviously loves his wealth more than he loves God; therefore to truly be perfect he must be willing to rid himself of his possesions. Throwing them in the sea would be wasteful, so he was instructed to give them to the poor.
This parable is not an instruction of redistribution of wealth, it is an instruction on how not to serve two Masters.
Perhaps the "so-called" atheists like Mary could be less condescending. Or perhaps incivility is part of your belief system. Good job picking a verse to force....
Posted by Tom on August 31, 2007 07:16 AMJames Jones; "It is instructive that fundamentalist interpretations are most often presented by people who wish to discredit the teachings (usually to promote socialism)."
Boy, this guy Jones will say anything to suit his agenda, no matter how ludicrous it is. So most fundamentalists are now socialists. What an amazingly ignorant statement!!!
Posted by Truth on August 31, 2007 07:55 AMJones: "Genuine relgious communities seriously debate the question of how heaven and hell are populated."
BS. Genuinely religious people don't waste their time wondering who is up and who is down. They spend their time practicing the the Great Commandment. Religion would not gall so many people if there were not so many people engaged in such arrogant practices, as though they can read the mind of God.
Posted by Truth on August 31, 2007 07:59 AMJones: "The Bible is there for all to read - make of it what you will."
Jones is sure right about this one. Make of it what you will. It is the very nature of allegory that it lends itself to different interpretations. You can easily bend it to your own way of thinking.
Posted by Truth on August 31, 2007 08:02 AMTom: "the "so-called" atheists like Mary"
Mary said nothing to justify Tom's asinine remark. Mary rightly referred to those "who manage to pick & choose what verses in the Bible to force down others' throats, while ignoring ones that pertain to them" as "so-called Christians". I suspect that Tom's problem may be that he is one of them, one of those arrogant asses who meet Mary's criteria.
Posted by Truth on August 31, 2007 08:08 AMSo if man is supposed to give all his possesions to the poor?
How come the thousands of religious ,pastors,preachers,or what ever you call them live im 6 million dollar mansions and milk every last dime from their parishoners?
The big churches even have ATM's in the lobby!
Who falls for this crap?
If you listen to the sermons , the churches leaders want at least 10% of your income.They are worse than the IRS?
I figured out at age 9, you cannot buy your way into heaven and organized religion is crooked and wrong.
I also learned God does not speak to these church leaders and tell them to raise money for multi-million dollar churches.I also figured out at an early age since all different religions say they are the right one,they all must be wrong.
Just some observations when I was 9.
I think there may be a higher being, but I can't be sure until I get there and see heaven or hell.
So until then I will live a decent life,raise my children ,love my family,and be the best person I can be.If I go to heaven ,fine.
If I go to hell, there are a lot of people I will speak very highly of.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on August 31, 2007 08:09 AMkevin: "This parable is not an instruction of redistribution of wealth, it is an instruction on how not to serve two Masters."
Given enough time, kevin may get around to reading what Jesus had to say about giving the shirt off one's back to someone lacking a shirt. Talk about redistribution of wealth!
Posted by Truth on August 31, 2007 08:11 AMTruth,
There is no charitable action involved in using the tax code to redistribute wealth.
The pastor will tell wealthy Peter to share his wealth with poor Paul. It is another thing entirely to sic the IRS on wealthy Peter.
The Good Samaritan spent his own money.
Posted by James Jones on August 31, 2007 08:19 AMJJ admitted:
"Genuine relgious communities seriously debate the question of how heaven and hell are populated."
Heheh. Says it all about Jim J. He and his "genuine religious community" spend their time rating people's chances of gaining entrance to a fictional (and by most descriptions, excruciatingly boring) place that only exists in their addled minds.
I guess it imitates his propensity for masturbatory and ultimately superfluous orations on this page about anything his mind can conjure from whole cloth.
Posted by Charles B on August 31, 2007 08:20 AMBoy, this guy Truth will say anything to suit his agenda, no matter how ludicrous it is.
He claims to know what are "Genuinely religious people" yet he says he has no religion" (his 7:59 posting) How is that possible?
I guess it imitates his propensity for masturbatory and ultimately superfluous orations on this page about anything his mind can conjure from whole cloth.
AF
JJ said:
"You cannot read the Bible as you would the manual that comes with your computer because it is written in an allegorical style.
It is instructive that fundamentalist interpretations are most often presented by people who wish to discredit the teachings (usually to promote socialism)."
i think you're confused about fundamentalists & the Bible, JJ. Fundamentalists are the ones who are always telling us that the bible is "the literal word of God." They wouldn't know allegory if it bit them in the behind.
Your comment that funadamentalist interpretations are usually given by those "who wish to promote socialism" is about the most obtuse comment I've seen you make. What are you actually trying to say?
Posted by drew on August 31, 2007 08:40 AMI've always said that Jonesy had all the qualifications for a pulpit of his own. He's certainly no less qualified that any preacher in any of today's Je$u$ Bu$ine$$ franchises. And while - so far anyway - he hasn't shown himself to be interested in special relationships with Altar Boys, he's surely as bright as any local Roman as well.
So, here's a new place for all you "genuine religious" folks to go and learn all about how "heaven and hell are populated". Just join Jimmy Jonesism and learn all about it.
Uh . . . Er . . . Uh! Wasn't there a "Jim Jones" somewhere back there before? Seems to me I sort of remember a cult like that. Ran off to someplace South of the Border, and "populated" the after-life wholesale, as I recall. Really "genuine religious" right up to the end.
Is History repeating itself again?
Well, this one certainly does rely on his imagination for most everything he posts on the blog, on every subject. And he certainly expects others to do the same. Hey! Maybe there's something to this re-incarnation shtick after all. Or would that be more like "chanelling", or "possession"? With or without a Ouija Board?
Well, all you "genuine religious" folks can just follow Jimmy; and he'll reveal it as he goes along. Don't know where you might wind up in the end; but it sure ought to be entertaining of a Sunday morning along the way.
Just watch out for that after sermon social hour. And stay clear of the Kool Aid.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 31, 2007 08:41 AMFunny, I don't recall Jesus talking much about the virtues of the trickle-down theory, or telling the poor that it's all their fault. But I do recall that the overwhelming majority of the things he said had to do with helping those who are less fortunate. Let's admit the obvious. Jesus was one of the greatest bleeding-heart liberals of all time.
Posted by Romulus on August 31, 2007 08:44 AMdrew,
My observaion that a literal reading of scripture is povided more often by skeptics than fundamentalists is based on my personal experience.
That may be due to the fact that I converse more with skeptics than fundamentalists. Or it may mean that fundamentalists aren't as driven by literal interpretations as skeptics alledge (which is what I suspect).
Your experience may be different from mine. Do you spend much time exchanging views with fundamentalists? I don't so I may have the wrong impression.
Obtuse -me? My point is that people of a socialist mind-set tend to be seculartists who view religion as an "opiate for the masses." One of the tactics used to to discredit the Bible by offering up literal interpretations of allegorical writings.
In this context I note that there are a good many Catholics, Jews and Protestants that are essentially socialist in their economic views.
Posted by James Jones on August 31, 2007 09:00 AMA pox on anyone who tries to claim Jesus is a member of any political group! You just don't get it.
The Good Samaritan helped the injured man directly. He did not give money to Caesar, and then demand Caesar provide services.Jesus teaches that we provide DIRECTLY to those in need.
He is not political, He is Absolute Monarch.
He says nothing about trickle down theory (conservatism).
And He certainly does NOT say: "I say unto you, kill your babies in the womb because that is your Right." (liberalism)
I don't care who you are, you do NOT get to claim Jesus for your political party. Not yours, George Bush, and not yours, Jesse Jackson.
That camel eye of the needle architectural dodge is one of the finest I've ever seen. I have seen it before, but as in this case, without any indication of the source of such information. Does that definition appear somewhere in the bible, or perhaps somewhere in writings contemporary to the composition of the bible?I'm given to suspect that like the "rapture" it's a creation of apologists seeking one more justification for their greed and unwillingness to follow the teachings of the man for whom the religion is named or perhaps it's just one more decision of the council of Nicaea which decided on the inclusions and exclusions of the holy bible and on the divinity, or lack thereof, of the man for whom the religion is named.One has to wonder about a belief system that has an entire subsystem of study called apologetics.
Posted by davis X. Machina on August 31, 2007 09:08 AMdXM: You know just enough to be dangerous. The Council of Nicea said nothing about Rapture; that idea is a much more modern construct, and the exact meaning is still debated.
I don't make postings about Hinduism, because I don't know enough about it.
Perhaps those who don't know what they are talking about should not try to deconstruct the Bible.
To try and put Jesus in a political category, just goes to show how many people really do not know or understand for that matter how much Jesus superceded all that.
Jesus is not a republican, democrat or an independent, he is KINGDOM minded. Now all of you who claim to have "studied" this, should go back and study again, how much did Jesus mention the kingdom of God? And if it wasn't so important how come he mentioned it so much?
Posted by Heather on August 31, 2007 09:21 AMHeather:
Amen.
The term “fundamentalist” has been twisted throughout the years. In the classical sense of the term, it refers to one who believes the following fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith:
1. The Trinity: God is one "What" and three "Whos" with each "Who" possessing all the attributes of Deity and personality.
2. The Person of Jesus Christ: Jesus is 100% God and 100% man for all eternity.
3. The Second Coming: Jesus Christ is coming bodily to earth to rule and judge.
4. Salvation: It is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
5. The Scripture: It is entirely inerrant and sufficient for all Christian life.
It is ironic that those who challenge Christians not to judge are themselves judging Christians based on heuristic biases. It appears to be much easier to throw stones of ignorance in the guise of Truth than to actually look at the facts.
The fact is most Christians are just normal everyday people who have struggles and issues like everyone else. The difference is they have a belief system based on Scripture. They are practicing their right to freedom of religion as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
Perhaps, they wouldn’t want to go get a beer with you but they might just want to get a cup of coffee. Maybe you should give them a chance. I am sure they would not try to “shove the Bible down your throat” any more than you would shove your beliefs down theirs.
But there is a risk. You might even like them if you were given the chance to get to know them.
There is a gross misunderstanding of capitalism here. Why does capitalism have to conflict with the teachings of Jesus?
In order to give to the poor, one must first have something to give. Capitalism is the mechanism for allowing the most amount of people to acquire wealth through their own efforts. Capitalism does not require one to hold onto every last penny and share with no one. Once wealth is acquired, it is up to the individual to decide how much (if any at all) to give away.
Many Christians donate a lot of money to charitable causes. Most charities that cater to the poor are Christian charities. These charities are able to collect donations because capitalism has allowed many people to succeed.
Furthermore, being poor is a relative situation. Because we are a free and capitalistic society, there will always be some people who have acquired more than others. There will always be people who have less money than others. But, would you rather be poor 100 years ago or poor today? Today's middle-class have access to far more than the wealthy did a 100 years ago.
Posted by John II on August 31, 2007 09:53 AMKingdom makes one think of royalty, of a crown, of peasants eating stale bread, of a castle inhabited only by the financially elite and sycophants.
That hardly matches the Jesus of the bible. He likened his kingdom to children who at that time were accorded little attention in society. He invited the poor and the outcasts.
People often use the word kingdom without any indication of what they mean by it.
Posted by Truth on August 31, 2007 09:59 AMThe term “fundamentalist” has been twisted throughout the years. In the classical sense of the term, it refers to one who believes the following fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith:
1. The Trinity: God is one "What" and three "Whos" with each "Who" possessing all the attributes of Deity and personality.
2. The Person of Jesus Christ: Jesus is 100% God and 100% man for all eternity.
3. The Second Coming: Jesus Christ is coming bodily to earth to rule and judge.
4. Salvation: It is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
5. The Scripture: It is entirely inerrant and sufficient for all Christian life.
It is ironic that those who challenge Christians not to judge are themselves judging Christians based on heuristic biases. It appears to be much easier to throw stones of ignorance in the guise of Truth than to actually look at the facts.
The fact is most Christians are just normal everyday people who have struggles and issues like everyone else. The difference is they have a belief system based on Scripture. They are practicing their right to freedom of religion as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
Perhaps, they wouldn’t want to go get a beer with you but they might just want to get a cup of coffee. Maybe you should give them a chance. I am sure they would not try to “shove the Bible down your throat” any more than you would shove your beliefs down theirs.
But there is a risk. You might even like them if you were given the chance to get to know them.
The Jew from the "loins of David" did not have any friends; he had a fan club that reduced to print what he said decades after he said it. Muhammad is the same: His fan club reduced to print what he said 21 years after his death.
Be well advised and accept as a fiction the double-crossing Jew who was sent to save the Jews from damnation and like Mother Teresa gave him the birdie so Paul (Paulianity) saved the "dog" Gentiles.
I'll send you six pages on Mother Teresa's letters where she dumped the Jew fifty years before her death. Mouthpieces for Jesus are at the pulpit raving about his divinity; however, they don’t believe it, but they need the job, so contend Holy Genocide for unbelievers so the credulous $tithe.
Deicide Corner: “Men are given to worshipping malevolent gods, and that which is not cruel seems to them not worth their adoration.” -- Anatole France
Posted by Richard Grimes r22037@yahoo.com Deicide: Slayer of Gods. on August 31, 2007 10:04 AMTruth,
You were debating yourself in that last post (9:59). You start off by outlining what the word kingdom connotes to you and then you immediately explain what Jesus' idea of a kingdom was. So, where's the confusion? Obviously, since the topic is Jesus, we're talking about Jesus' version and not your Shrek inspired version.
Posted by John II on August 31, 2007 10:06 AMTo Kevin:
Matthew 10:22All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 23When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another.
Posted by Gail K on August 31, 2007 10:09 AMTruth
your conotation of kingdom reflects a truly negative nature. In Webster under kingom:
1 archaic : KINGSHIP
2 : a politically organized community or major territorial unit having a monarchical form of government headed by a king or queen
3 often capitalized a : the eternal kingship of God b : the realm in which God's will is fulfilled.
"People often use the word kingdom without any indication of what they mean by it."
AF
You only got the royalty right.
4 a : a realm or region in which something is dominant b : an area or sphere in which one holds a preeminent position
5 a : one of the three primary divisions into which natural objects are commonly classified -- compare ANIMAL KINGDOM, MINERAL KINGDOM, PLANT KINGDOM b : a major category (as Plantae or Protista) in biological taxonomy that ranks above the phylum and below the domain.
Truth just because that is the earthly model of kingdom, does not make it God's model, do not put human attributes on God's kingdom, you are right about the kingdom of heaven belonging to such as these, but God's kingdom is for ALL PEOPLE, but there's one thing you have to do in order to become a part of His kingdom, become His child. Very simple, yet very difficult to grasp.
Posted by Heather on August 31, 2007 10:12 AMJones: "There is no charitable action involved in using the tax code to redistribute wealth."
Not surprisingly, Jones has no understanding of the difference between the individual and the community. The community most often acts through its government. If the community believes in what Jesus said, it will act through its government to do what Jesus asked. That happens to be the kind of community the United States is, and hopefully always will be, despite the desperate efforts of pseudo-Christians like Jones to take the philosophy of Jesus out of the picture. The inalienable rights of which the Declaration of Independence speaks, and the general welfare of the people of which the Constitution speaks are not empty and meaningless phrases, despite the anxiety which people like Jones experience at the thought of a caring and compassionate government.
Individuals and private organizations are to be highly commended for what they do, but what rubbish to expect them to be able to take care of the hugh masses of the poor and the disadvantaged. People like Jones and John II know very well that this has never come anywhere close to happening. That seems to be the way they like it. It's the old "tough sh*t" attitude, which is pretty much the opposite of what Jesus was about.
Christians? Not a chance.
Posted by Truth on August 31, 2007 10:14 AMR Grimes:
Whatever turned you into such a bitter, hateful, racist,
lying fool? And why don't you crawl back under that rock?
Truth,
Have you taken your medication today? Your posts have become more bizarre than usual. I get the impression that your rapid-fire, machine-gun style idiocy is employed here in hopes that we will forget about previous moronic statements. Yet, you've got that trigger squeezed tight and you're not letting go; each round firing farther and farther off target.
Release the trigger, take a breath, reload, aim, aim harder, and then squeeze the trigger.
Posted by John II on August 31, 2007 10:46 AMCan I get an Amen....Totally agree with your post. We are known as agnostics. We are one of the reasons God invented the middle finger!
Bwahahaha....
Posted by A on August 31, 2007 11:17 AMCpthydro, is that captain water? Your screen name?
On your list is number 5. That is the area where fundamentalists come from. The idea that everything in both the OT and NT are literally correct.
Adam and Eve really lived in that garden and sinned, which in time made it necessary for Jesus to die. The OT justifies everything in the NT, and not one word can be challenged.
Fundamentalists believe in Noah and his overloaded ark, they believe that Moses spoke to God often. They fight science and evolution and the enlightenment of man every day. They are just relentless.
People inside Christianity make fundamentalist quotes of the Bible, so do those outside. The outsiders can`t understand how the insiders can ignore the ones they don`t like and cling to the ones they love. And how they howl when outsiders quote Scripture to point out their errors.
A commune would have been high profile? Watched by the Romans?
If the commune didn`t teach revolt against Rome it would have been completely ignored.
Rome crucified many a man for preaching revolt, for thinking he was the Messiah or having people say he was.
John II. Bizarre posting? What do you think that last gem from you was?
The odd thing is that Jesus knew exactly what caused poverty back then. The uneven distribution of resources. People born into poverty stayed there. There were very few ways out.
If you couldn`t fish, farm or produce something, you begged on the street.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 31, 2007 11:39 AMMargaret Fox alludes to history of Christianity; America's Founder says it best:
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.” James Madison
While Einstein speaks of "feeble souls":
“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature.” Albert Einstein
"The eye of the needle is the name for the small door where a person could enter the city after the large gate had been closed. It was large enough to walk through, but a loaded down camel could not make it through.
In order for a camel to get through, it would be necessary to unload all the baggage and have the camel crawl through on it's knees."
So somehow this invalidates what Jesus said? It simply means that the feat was possible, but only under certain circumstances.
You know the reasons that atheists will debate using Scripture? Because it's very easy to debunk Scripture with Scripture. The Bible is so easy to twist on itself because it's a mismash of different writings from different eras. It's such a bad mismash that an entire scholarship has sprung up trying to make sense of the entire thing. But since most regular people consider theologians as ivory-tower as any scientist, they simply go by the literal word. And if you don't believe me on the turning-on-itself? Remember that both sides of the slavery debate used the Bible to justify their positions.
Posted by Roger on August 31, 2007 12:03 PMTruth makes a very interesting point.
Ours is supposed to be a government of, by, and for the people. How we govern should reflect our values. That's why the fundachristocons are always trying to get their biblical values encoded into law (where it suits their agenda.)
People like Jimmy J are always trying to tell us that we couldn't be free, and non-christians couldn't have the liberties they do if this weren't a christian nation.
So if this is a christian nation (or based on "judeo-christian values) why can't government wealth re-distribution be considered christian?
Posted by James Jones is a glow in the dark bitch on August 31, 2007 12:11 PM"Ours is supposed to be a government of, by, and for the people. How we govern should reflect our values."
I am an American by birth and a Christian by choice.
If I am part of "the people", should not my gorvernment reflect or at least consider my Christian values?
It is interesting that in the conversations concerning diversity and accepting people for who they are, Christians are often seen as second class citizens.
In today's culture, tolerance is only acceptable if you can bash Christians in the process.
Tsk, tsk, tsk! You are only tolerant if people lay down and agree with your views.
Posted by CptHydro on August 31, 2007 12:40 PM"So if this is a christian nation (or based on "judeo-christian values) why can't government wealth re-distribution be considered christian?"
First, explain why you think wealth redistribution can be considered Christian. What is Christian about it? I already redistribute my wealth voluntarily. I do not need to be forced by others nor do I force others to do as I do.
Also, wealth redistribution for the wrong reasons is also a big problem. Truth bragged that he commanded $250 an hour yet he now collects retirement welfare checks funded by money deducted from our paychecks. Is that appropriate? The money that gets deducted from my paycheck could have been used to donate to charities that help the truly poor, sick and homeless.
Posted by John II on August 31, 2007 12:51 PM"Ours is supposed to be a government of, by, and for the people. How we govern should reflect our values."
I am an American by birth and a Christian by choice.
If I am part of "the people", should not my gorvernment reflect or at least consider my Christian values?
It is interesting that in the conversations concerning diversity and accepting people for who they are, Christians are often seen as second class citizens.
In today's culture, tolerance is only acceptable if you can bash Christians in the process.
Tsk, tsk, tsk! You are only tolerant if people lay down and agree with your views.
Posted by CptHydro on August 31, 2007 12:53 PMJesus had a self-directed 401k and an IRA; his investment horizon was primarily long-term . Jesus did his own stock picking, he didn't buy passive index funds. He did very well, generating superior returns, and always managed to buy lows and sell high. He was a growth investor who made a lot of money in service, insurance and health care stocks and was not afraid to take a quick profit; he had an uncanny sense of timing.
On the other hand, Moses was a value investor with a particular fondness for retail and financial stocks. He never traded very much and he never generated a lot of commissions. He was no day-trader. People othen forget that Moses also did very well in certain commodities like gold and he totally owns the real estate market in Miami and the upper West-Side of Manhattan which have some great Central Park views. His speciality has always been uncanny asset allocation.
Two smart guys, two different approaches, both enjoyed great success.
Posted by Hank on August 31, 2007 12:59 PMFirst, explain why you think wealth redistribution can be considered Christian. What is Christian about it?
Posted by John II on August 31, 2007 12:51 PM
Numerous bible passages wherein he tells us to give away our earthly posessions to the poor, and being rich is bad.
IF ours is a chritian nation, then government is doing jesus' work by redistributing wealth. Or do you deny we are a christian nation? Can't have it both ways.
Posted by James Jones is a glow in the dark bitch on August 31, 2007 01:13 PMHank: "Two smart guys, two different approaches, both enjoyed great success."
Apparently, Hank doesn't read the papers and thus doesn't know what is going on in this world that a supposedly all loving and all powerful God created.
We will never be able to explain how God can be both all loving and all powerful and yet allow all the suffering that is going on. That is because God is ineffable, beyond our understanding. The Catholic Church teaches that, and then goes on at great length to "explain" the unexplainable. Same with many other "Christians". It's the same problem that is attributed to Adam and Eve: an uncontrollable pride and arrogance.
Posted by Truth on August 31, 2007 01:23 PMRichard D Grimes Deophobe:
Do you have anything to contribute to the topic at hand, or you just gotta spew venom?
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt"
John II, sometimes your lack of rationality is cute. About the redistribution of wealth, you'll have to ask Jesus why He told us to give the shirt off our backs, the ultimate in redistribution of wealth. I understand that you're not against private redistribution of wealth because that doesn't cost you anything; what I understand you're against is a caring and compassionate government; you'd much rather have an uncaring government which has no compassion. Good luck with that one.
Posted by Truth on August 31, 2007 01:29 PMHank: "Two smart guys, two different approaches, both enjoyed great success."
Apparently, Hank doesn't read the papers and thus doesn't know what is going on in this world that a supposedly all loving and all powerful God created.
We will never be able to explain how God can be both all loving and all powerful and yet allow all the suffering that is going on. That is because God is ineffable, beyond our understanding. The Catholic Church teaches that, and then goes on at great length to "explain" the unexplainable. Same with many other "Christians". It's the same problem that is attributed to Adam and Eve: an uncontrollable pride and arrogance.
Posted by Truth on August 31, 2007 01:32 PMI am not a fundamentalist, so I would have no way of knowing what fundamentalists think. I can observe the action of some fundamentalists, but just as I would not stereotype all socialists by my observation of Truth, or all Democrats by my observation of Sharon B, I would hope that they would also not do the same. For those that would proclaim to speak for the fundamentalist, all they are doing is demonstrating their bigotry.
My reading of the bible and understanding of Christ's teachings would lead me to conclude that Jesus was not a capitalist. He was a Hebrew teacher and philosopher. His teachings are written in fables (stories that profess a moral).
Based on my study, as well as my own personal bias (because I believe in Jesus Christ), Jesus also would not condemn those that were capitalists. An example is in Mark 2:13-17
"Once again Jesus went out beside the lake. A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them. 14 As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.
15 While Jesus was having dinner at Levi's house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?"
17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
and
"And early in the morning He came again into the Temple [see "My Father's House"], and all the people came unto Him; and He sat down, and taught them." [see Rabbi]
"And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto Him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto Him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the Law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest Thou?"
"This they said, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him."
"But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground, as though He heard them not. So when they continued asking Him, He lifted up Himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again He stooped down, and wrote on the ground."
"And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst."
"When Jesus had lifted up Himself, and saw none but the woman, He said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?"
"She said, No man, Lord."
"And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." (John 8:2-11 KJV)
Personally, I take those messages and try (and fail sometimes, but continue to try), to live by them. I try not to judge. I try to keep an open mind. What is wrong with that? Those that prefer to sit in judgment of others, and make fun for beliefs, are also free to do that. I will not. At least, I will try very hard not to.
"Numerous bible passages wherein he tells us to give away our earthly posessions to the poor, and being rich is bad."
I still don't understand how that justifies the government forcibly taking from one person to give to another. Jesus didn't forcibly take the man's possessions and give them to the poor. He left it to the wealthy man to decide what to do.
Posted by John II on August 31, 2007 01:33 PM
Thanks, Roger, for your post about the "eye of the needle" scripture. However a person chooses to interpret the story, if the person is honest he will conclude that Jesus was against the accumulation of material wealth. It's amazing, and very telling, that pseudo-Christians go to such lengths to deny the very essence of the teachings of Jesus.
Truth:
Right now the government is taking wealth, and redistributing it to Halliburton. Your viewpoint is admirable, however, there is too much wealth out there for the government NOT to get greedy with it.
See the parable of the rich young man.Now, if Jesus was ruling on this Earth, instead of sinful Man, I would give all my possessions to the government. Alas, this world is ruled by man, and we can not trust man to do what is right. That is indisputable, no matter your faith or lack of.
Tax collectors were capitalists? I thought the money went to Rome.
But then when Jesus wanted food, fish and bread, he just made it out of thin air. And he made wine out of water, so how would he understand being poor? He never was.
The Moses, Jesus analogy was great. Apparently most missed the point. It was humor guys.
Jesus saves, Moses invests. That canard has been around years.
Please feel free to judge all Democrats by my behavior. As I judge all fundamentalists by the ones I have know, read about, or listened to on tv.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 31, 2007 01:59 PMMy impression of Dishonest Dan is that he is much happier lying than telling the truth.
For example: "I would not stereotype all socialists by my observation of Truth"
I have made clear that I do not favor socialism, that is, government ownership of the means of production. Dan 2 knows this, but he is so addicted to lying that he can't help himself.
I'll try to help you, Dan2, by reposting my thoughts about socialism and capitalism. But you'll have to go to your priest to gain forgiveness for your lies. While God has endowed me with great wisdom, He has yet to grant me the power to forgive sins. And anyhow even if He did, I expect I would charge too much (it's the capitalist in me).
I particularly direct your attention to this last paragraph and compare it to you lie about me:
"It should be no surprise that neither unfettered capitalism nor too fettered socialism has worked very well, and that what works is a middle course. It has ever been thus."
MY WIDELY ACCLAIMED DISSERTATION ON CAPITALISM AND SOCIALISM.
[For free copies, just send me twenty-five dollars to handle postage and shipping. (It's the capitalist in me.)]
People correctly say we have capitalism in the United States. But having capitalism is something like having religion. It can cover a multitude of saints and sinners. What kind of capitalism do we have?
We started out with largely unregulated capitalism. However, we found that largely unregulated capitalism didn’t work because it begot such evils as child labor, unsafe working conditions, exploitation of the poor through long working hours and poverty level wages, unsafe food and drugs, exploitation of natural resources and the environment, deception of consumers, dishonest and fraudulent business practices, etc. It became clear that in order for capitalism to work in a fair and balanced way, it had to be socialized, that is, made fit to live among the people without exploiting them. That is why there have been laws and regulations to rein in raw, unregulated capitalism.
It is still capitalism, but it bears little resemblance to the predatory capitalism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These various laws and regulations may be said to have the purpose of socializing predatory capitalism so as to make it fit for the general population in the same sense that we socialize children and animals so that they can fit comfortably into society without hurting society too much.
The genius of capitalism is that it gives people freedom to do as they want, so that their instincts for improving their own personal lot can result in improving the lot of society as a whole. In effect, it puts man’s greed to work for the benefit of all. But greed is not inherently concerned with the rights of others, so, left untended, greed will find a way to exploit rather than benefit. It is like a campfire that initially warms people but, left untended, reaches out to devour the forest, or like a wild horse that can be of great service to man but only if it is socialized, that is, only if reins are put on it to control it.
So, laws and regulations are put in place are to rein in man’s greed, to socialize capitalism so that it can benefit society without exploiting it. Socialize in a sense similar to the way owners socialize dogs, prisons attempt to socialize criminals, and juvenile detention facilities attempt to socialize delinquents so that society can benefit from their presence without being victimized. Domesticate, civilize and tame might also be used to describe the process.
Because of this socialization of capitalism, we now have child labor laws, wage and hour laws, industrial safety laws, food and drug laws, business regulation laws, securities regulation laws, environmental protection laws, usury laws, deceptive advertising laws, consumer protection laws, etc.
Capitalism has proved its worth. It has catapulted the US into first place in world economies. But it is not the predatory capitalism of the past but the present socialized capitalism that has given the United States its greatness. Keeping capitalism socialized is, however, an never-ending process. Greed cannot be eliminated, only controlled and channeled. So greed will continue to look for ways to exploit, and we must continue to look for ways to regulate. The examples of this are legend: Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Tyco, Imclone, Adelphia, Halliburton, to name some of the more publicized cases which have cost taxpayers billions of dollars and have cost thousands of employees their jobs and their life savings.
It should be no surprise that neither unfettered capitalism nor too fettered socialism has worked very well, and that what works is a middle course. It has ever been thus.
Posted by Truth on August 31, 2007 02:02 PMTruth,
I would agree that Jesus taught against the accumulation of wealth. He also taught that it is a "sin" to not use your talents to the best of your ability.
There is a big difference between the "Scrooge" version of wealthy, and the Bill Gates version of wealthy. Mr. Gates employs 71,000 people, and he has given away over $2 billion in philanthropic donations. He has been rewarded in compensation for his amazing talents, but has not hoarded that money.
Now, I have no idea how Jesus would judge Mr. Gates (based on the story of the prostitute, my guess would be he would not judge him at all), but I do know that I have no business judging him either.
Religion works for some people. It is an excuse to be corrupt for others. It doesn't have any place for even others. But, it is that personal choice we all get to make. There is a big difference between making people aware of a philosophy, and demanding they convert. From saying "your way is stupid," to saying, "I don't understand your way, nor do I wish to."
Posted by Dan2 on August 31, 2007 02:08 PMJohn 2, You're missing the point.
We are the government. Our government reflects our values. If we elect a government that choses wealth redistribution, we have chosen a government that reflects christian values. If we elect a government that prefers rugged individualism, we don't have a christian government.
Posted by James Jones is a glow in the dark bitch on August 31, 2007 02:08 PMDishonest Dan: "Based on my study, as well as my own personal bias (because I believe in Jesus Christ), Jesus also would not condemn those that were capitalists. An example is in Mark 2:13-17"
Dishonest Dan: "When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?"
17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
Dan 2 apparently fails to realize the obvious. Jesus considered the tax collectors to be in the same class as sinners. And he clearly said they all need healing.
That is an approval of capitalists?
I certainly don't think that Jesus would condemn capitalists for being capitalists. It would depend entirely on what kind of lives they lived. Unlike people like Dishonest Dan, who likes to condemn whole groups such as socialists and perhaps Muslims and illegal immigrants, along with unions, Jesus looked at individuals, not at group affliation.
But the scripture quoted by Dishonest Dan gives the opposite message from what he thought it did.
Posted by Truth on August 31, 2007 02:11 PMtruth:
Great dissertation.
Of course, I only think you did a good job because I agree with you, in essence if not on every jot and tittle.
Feel free to sit in judgment of me Truth.
I describe you as a socialist, because I once asked you point blank what your political philosophy was, and you responded that you are a "social liberal" Your posts describe your belief in redistribution of wealth. I am concluding that while you may not want the United States to convert to political socialism, you hold the belief of a Utopian version of socialism very dear to you.
Also for your benefit, I, unlike you, do not wish to purposefully mislead anyone. My correction to your post yesterday from "Pound foolish, Penny Wise" is as follows:
Truth,
I used this source: http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
Which stated exactly: "The annual premium that a health insurer charges an employer for a health plan covering a family of four averaged $11,500 in 2006. Workers contributed nearly $3,000, or 10 percent more than they did in 2005 (3).The annual premiums for family coverage significantly eclipsed the gross earnings for a full-time, minimum-wage worker ($10,712). "
See, I don't lie in my posts. You tend to cut and paste what serves your interest. Judge away though.
There you go again Truth. You call me dishonest. Hmmmm...
Demonstrate exactly where I wrote "Jesus approves of capitalists." Where did I even IMPLY that?
What I DID write was:
"My reading of the bible and understanding of Christ's teachings would lead me to conclude that Jesus was not a capitalist. He was a Hebrew teacher and philosopher. His teachings are written in fables (stories that profess a moral).
Based on my study, as well as my own personal bias (because I believe in Jesus Christ), Jesus also would not condemn those that were capitalists."
and
"I would agree that Jesus taught against the accumulation of wealth. "
And YOU call ME dishonest? WOW! Talk about totally taking my words and distorting them.
Posted by Dan2 on August 31, 2007 02:23 PMKevin,
Which Council of Nicea are you speaking about. Niceas 1 had no collection of manuscritps designated as "Canon of Scripture"; and it was concerned with the Arian heresy, not with codification of the multitude of texts then in use in the Communities of Faithful during Leiturgos.
Well, we sure do have a bunch of "genuine(ly) religious" people here, all sitting around telling each other just who is going to "populate" heaven, hell, or whatever be the name for their fantasy of what happens after death.
I think it was Shakespeare who called it: "That undiscovered bourne from whence no traveller has yet returned". But, that doesn't matter to the "genuine religious". They have Jonesy's fertile imagination for inspirition, and his fatuous flatulence for their tour guide. I knew that, if he just put a little effort in, he'd make a success at something. It ain't even Sunday yet; and the crowd is over-flowing.
Fellow by name of Omar - Kahyam, sometimes called Omar the Tentmaker - wrote a bit of poetry that might liven up the day:
"I sent my soul through the invisible,
Some letter of that after life to spell.
And by and by, my soul returned to me, and answered,
I my self am heaven and hell."
Interesting thought there - if anyone of the "genuine religious" we got here can think, that is.
As to the Book. I've read it a few times, in a few languages, over the years. I seem to remember a little story that tells us about a couple of the Disciples of Jesus. Seems as if they were asking him about which one of them was going to sit down at his right hand, and which at his left, when this world came to and end, and all the "population" questions of who goes where were answered.
The story tells us that Jesus replied - in modern language, more or less: "That's none of your business. Your business is to go out and be such examples for others that THEY will be in the Kingdom of Heaven."
Too bad, in some ways, that the "genuine(ly) religious" don't seem to have ever heard - or read - that one. But, then again, they have Jimmy Jones to lead the discussion - about where OTHER PEOPLE are going to wind up - and that makes it THEIR business, whatever Jesus might have said about it.
A new Pope in Littleton? Competing with the one out in Kansas, and the one up in Minnesota? Infallibility must be contageous.
And, then we have John 2 - Chief Minister of Finance, maybe? The genuine proponent of unfettered free enterprise capitalism for the "genuine(ly) religious" Right-wingnuts.
Oh, for the old days of the borscht circuit! Or the good old Revival Tent! Hit the sawdust trail to "genuine religiosity"! And learn how to "populate" heaven and hell with Preacher Jones!
Posted by Old Grouch on August 31, 2007 02:24 PMTruth,
Your habit of calling people liars has gotten really old. I don't always agree with Dan2, but he's no liar. Neither am I. If you want to disagree with someone, go ahead. But, enough with the accusations of being a liar.
As to your humorous disquisition on the meaning of socialism and capitalism, you have once again displayed gross ignorance when it comes to economics and capitalism.
Your concept of the "socialization of capitalism" is laughable. You are a socialist. You want more, not less, government control and regulation of private industry. In fact, you want the government to take over health care in this country. That is socialism.
Your examples of failed companies favors capitalism, not socialism. Capitalism is the mechanism that punishes deceptive and poorly managed companies. The real truth is, Truth, that capitalism employs 95.5% of this country. It does not cost people jobs, it provides people with jobs.
Posted by John II on August 31, 2007 02:24 PMSome of the first things the Communists did to get thier power was to ban the people ,that they wanted to oppress ,from owning firearms and take away the belief in God.Does this sound like any party we have in the US? The Democrats.
Posted by An American on August 31, 2007 02:26 PMAnother example of Truth's "honesty"
Truth -
"Unlike people like Dishonest Dan, who likes to condemn whole groups such as socialists and perhaps Muslims and illegal immigrants, along with unions, Jesus looked at individuals, not at group affliation."
I have NEVER condemned any group, or even any individual. I don't like you Truth, from your attacks at me, and your incredible accusations. I will freely admit I do not like YOU at all. But your ignorance is mind boggling sometimes. I call you what you are. I don't judge you because you are a socialist. I think you are an idiot, because you post non-sense. I would feel the same about you if you were a capitalist, Republican, Christian, Jew, Atheist, Democrat, Libertarian, CEO, school teacher or anything else.
Since you enjoy throwing out these asinine accusations at others, how about a specific example of me "judging a group of people?" Just one. I would LOVE to read it.
Posted by Dan2 on August 31, 2007 02:31 PM"We are the government. Our government reflects our values. If we elect a government that choses wealth redistribution, we have chosen a government that reflects christian values. If we elect a government that prefers rugged individualism, we don't have a christian government."
I'm not sure what point I'm missing. Again, Jesus did not force the wealthy man to give up his possessions. He left it to the wealthy man to decide what was the right thing to do. In other words, it's a Christian value to let each man (and woman) decide on what to do with their own possessions, not anyone else's possessions.
I'm not sure why you keep insisting we have a "christian government". I never said we did. The first amendment to our Constitiion clearly states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."Posted by John II on August 31, 2007 02:35 PM
Thanks John II. I will let other posters, and those that read, should they wish, judge if I am a liar and dishonest. I try very hard to be factual with my supporting evidence. I will admit bias does interfere from time to time. My opinions are usually very clearly stated, and I support my opinions with researched facts and information.
That is about all I can say on this topic. Those that wish to judge, shall be free to do so. As far as observing lies though, I think we ALL know who the TRUE deceiver is on this board.
Posted by Dan2 on August 31, 2007 02:40 PMMain Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
Date: 1598
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
Posted by CptHydro on August 31, 2007 02:43 PMMain Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
Date: 1598
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
Posted by CptHydro on August 31, 2007 02:47 PMDan2 said:
"I think we ALL know who the TRUE deceiver is on this board."
(best church lady voice) Satan?
Posted by Charles B on August 31, 2007 02:57 PMYes, isn't it ironic that the true deceiver is a man that is so aware of his own dishonesty that he actually has the nerve to call himself Truth. This is similar to a rich man (Mr. Edwards) claiming he took a job that pays hundreds of thousands of dollars a year because he wanted to learn about being poor.
But, as we all know, you do not need to call yourself truth in order represent truth. All one needs to is speak the truth. Similarly, you do not need to say you support the poor, just support the poor.
Posted by John II on August 31, 2007 03:01 PMJohn 2,
Ever tried doing either? Might make your postings slightly more . . . shall we say . . . believable, perhaps?
Posted by Old Grouch on August 31, 2007 04:35 PMDan 2, I just want you to know that I like you too.
In your last post you say: "because you are a socialist."
You just can't stop lying, can you, Dishonest Dan? Could it be something in the water?
Posted by Truth on August 31, 2007 04:36 PMTruth
To Dan 2.."You just can't stop lying, can you, Dishonest Dan? Could it be something in the water?"
Next time why don't you use the standard old play ground taunt of; "I know you are, but what am I?". Says about the same thing and is just about as effectual; plus you'll save a little typing effort.
Posted by on August 31, 2007 04:41 PMFrom John II: "Truth, Your habit of calling people liars has gotten really old. I don't always agree with Dan2, but he's no liar. Neither am I. If you want to disagree with someone, go ahead. But, enough with the accusations of being a liar."
When you or Dan 2 calls me a socialist, they are lying. Get used to it. You seem not to realize it, but lying is saying something that is not true, knowing that it is not true. I have made clear that I do not support socialism. Yet, you and Dishonest Dan continue to call me one. I can understand your support of Dishonest Dan on this issue since you often have indulged in the same lie.
Posted by Truth on August 31, 2007 04:41 PMTruth,
Do you or do you not support a nationalized health care system?
Posted by John II on August 31, 2007 04:46 PMTruth
I don't know if John II and Dan2 are so much guilty of fabricating a lie when they refer to you as a socialist, as much as they are just interpreting many of your posts which lead them to that assumption. Many times I've read some of your posts of positions with supportive argument and believed they were written from an almost pure socialist view point.
While I take your word when you say that you're essentially not a card carrying advocate of socialism, you to make some strong arguments based on a socialist perspective.
Posted by darfor on August 31, 2007 04:49 PMdarfor,
Truth promotes socialist concepts under the guise of "socialistic capitalism". In other words, he supports the introduction of socialism into a capitalistic society.
He justifies this position by arguing that "socialistic capitalism" offers the best of both worlds. He says socialism is bad, but socialism mixed with capitalism is good. That's like saying fire won't burn your hands if your feet are in the water.
I'm not sure if he's lying when he says he's not a socialist or he's just a moron. Or, perhaps, he's just a moronic liar.
Posted by John II on August 31, 2007 05:00 PMJohn 2,
So, for you, "socialism" consists of ANY support whatsoever for ANY idea of Government regulation, Government assistance, Government participation in the General Welfare - except, perhaps, for building and maintaining roads and bridges, since those words were chizeled in stone by the Founding Fathers - and/or ANY advocacy of a program in which the Government did anything. So, anyone who supports ANY one or more of the positions that allow Government participation, is, for YOU, a "socialist".
And, as you have pointed out, time and again, a "nationalized form of health care system" is, for YOU anway, always "socialism"., as well.
You're very free with your epithets. But very short on either knowledge or good sense there as well. I hesitate to bring up the matter of "moron", or "moronic liar", as you describe some else; but then again . . . !
And you constantly use a total non sequitur as one of your pet illustrations.
Just how much actual knowledge and experience have you had with a country that lives and works under what you deride as "socialistic capitalism" - say Sweden, for instance? And just how much actual knowlege and experience have you had with any form of nationalized health care system?
You constantly decry the ideas; and tell everyone how "wrong", "unworkable", etc., etc., they are. BUT, you obviously have nothing in the way of knowledge or experience with which to back up your negative statements.
Ah! But, somewhere back a ways, you did say something about being an "economics" maven. Wonderful use of the imagination, without even a trifling investment of facts.
Old Grouch,
"So, for you, "socialism" consists of ANY support whatsoever for ANY idea of Government regulation, Government assistance..."
John II has said nothing even remotely like that. Your hyperbolic accusations reflect the judgement of a child.
A cursory reading of his posts would instruct you that John II objects to using the tax code to redistribute wealth. So do I and everyone else who understands that Marxism results in poverty and slavery.
The command, control approach has wrecked every country that has employed it. Capitalism and free markets have made the US prosperous and is the path that the European nations, includig Sweden, are on today.
If you understood Marxism, socialism or capitalism you would not make such foolish statements. But you don't.
In fact, you remain an ignoramus of spectacular proportions.
Repugnant,
"So if this is a christian nation (or based on "judeo-christian values) why can't government wealth re-distribution be considered christian?"
Posted by James Jones is a glow in the dark bitch on August 31, 2007 12:11 PM
I'm glad you asked because I really like answering this question.
The initial requirement is in understanding the nature of Christian thought.
Christians believe that each individual is created in the image of God and had the free will to make determinations in the course of life. Christianity teaches, but it is up to the individual to move toward, or away from God of his own volition.
In this setting, faith cannot be coerced. It must be freely embraced or it is meaningless.
Charity is a central virtue in Christian thought that instructs the human will to cherish man for the sake of God. But clearly, this will cannot be coerced and retain meaning.
Now let's apply that precpet to using the tax code to redistribute wealth.
Taxes are paid under the threat of police power of the state. This condition precludes charity as an action of the taxpayer.
You vote to authorize the government to take you neighbor's wealth and apply it to your political nostrums. This is known as cheap grace. That is, the attempt to gain grace without any personal sacrifice. I understand that your political positions make you feel good about being you but that is merely vanity.
The poor is obviously not charitable in accepting his neighbor's property to which he has no right and in fact should not covet. He ignores the right, and the obligation, to pursue happiness based on his own merits.
So you see Repugnants there is no freedom, and hence no Christianity, in any component of the social transaction you advocate.
Posted by James Jones on August 31, 2007 08:58 PMJames Jones
Just a minor question for clarification, if you don't mind.
I thought that Christianity held that grace, or salvation, came through the acceptance of Jesus Christ as one's personal Saviour. How does "...gain[ing] grace without any personal sacrifice" fit into the salvation equation?
Thanks ahead of time for your answer.
Posted by mongoose on August 31, 2007 09:30 PMMongoose,
My understanding of Christianity teaching is that no one can merit initial grace but that faith is both a grace and a human act. Disingenuous compassion then is a graceless act.
How's that?
Posted by James Jones on August 31, 2007 09:52 PMMathew 13: 12- "Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. " Does that sound like communism or capitalism? Well, to be honest, this passage isn't about worldly goods and wealth, but rather about understanding "the secrets of the kingdom of heaven." As is amply demonstrated in several of the comments I've read here.
Regarding communism in the New Testament: Paul said, in 2 Thessalonians 3:9-10- "We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: 'If a man will not work, he shall not eat.'" He went on to address the fact that there were "some who are idle," saying, "Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. "
The principle is clear: No one has the RIGHT to the largess or charity of others, but someone who is working diligently should be taken care of, not allowed to starve. This is a far cry from socialism, communism, or any other coercive means of providing for all from the product of others. Other passages are clear that people such as widows and orphans should likewise be cared for, since it appears that they were unlikely to be able to produce enough to feed and clothe themselves. There is no directive to appropriate the funds of others to care for these; rather, each of us is to follow the directive to care for those who need our help out of our "abundance." The parable Jesus told in Matthew 20:1-15 is clearly relating a capitalism-based lesson, showing that we are not owed fairness and equal outcomes, but that we each make our own deal for our labor. And we are also told that "The laborer's appetite works for him; his hunger drives him on." (Proverbs 16:26) In Proverbs 31, an ideal wife is described as one who keeps herself busy and, among other things, saves up a bit of money to buy a (probably small) vineyard, which she then works for the benefit of the family- the assumption presumably being that her husband is engaged in earning a living otherwise. That sounds like capitalism to me. With such hard work and production going on, there is likely to be an abundance from which charity can be given without hurting the family back at home. Incidentally, someone said earlier that we "started" as unbridled capitalists here. That's not quite true. The first Pilgrims in America actually started their settlement as a commune, in all likelyhood as a result of the same error exhibited here, thinking that Christ taught socialism/communism, and that the early church functioned this way. The result was they starved, many of them to death. After the first governor died in a hungry winter, the next governor privatized the commune, instituting capitalism- which led to the first "Thanksgiving" feast, from the abundance that was produced under capitalism. In fact, when previously they were starving, under capitalism they had sufficient food to have the feast and invite their Native American neighbors to the feast as well.
James Jones
So you're saying mere faith: full and unconditional belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God; and, accepting that only through belief in Him can man receive salvation from sin and acceptance as a clean lamb offering to the open arms of God is not sufficient to receive salvation?
Posted by mongoose on August 31, 2007 10:16 PMNoggindog
The text of Mathew sounds like communism -not in theory but in practice. But I take your point.
I don't think there is any argument about the virtue of charity among the religious or even among principled atheists.
The question becomes what is the nature of Charity. If Charity is the fruit of loving one's neighbor as oneself, then how exactly does one love oneself?
We do not perpetually pat ourselves on the back and look for the easy way out. We give ourselves a kick in the backside once in a while and plunge into to disagreeable tasks to earn a larger reward - we call that work.
It seems to me that commitment is the key to Charity and freedom is the key to prosperity.
Posted by James Jones on August 31, 2007 10:26 PMOld Grouch:
I was answering davis x. Machina, I assume he was referring to the 1st council.
At any rate, as you know but others (davis) may be curious to learn,the term "Rapture" appears nowhere in the Bible, and the idea did not really take hold, as it were, until the 1830s.
My point was that it's not a good idea to argue theology unless you've studied it. I would not pretend to argue geology in a public forum, as I can't tell schist from serpentinite.
James Jones
In practice, the text of the parable in Mathew would be communism if each laborer was paid according to the number of children he had to support, instead of being paid according to what the person who hired them negotiated to pay them. When he needed more workers, the employer effectively raised the price of the labor by paying the same amount for less work, until he had sufficient crew to get the job done, thus demonstrating a market approach, not a communist approach.
Your question, "then how exactly does one love oneself?" is a good one, especially in light of the comment that in the end times, "men will be lovers of themselves," which is obviously not desirable. I don't think the practice, though, is as difficult to figure out as the definition might be, wouldn't you agree?
Noggindog
Communism is the human construct overlaid on the reality that is the free market. It is inevitable that the tactics of the free market will be employed within the confines of communism. That is no cause for confusion about the nature of communism.
It is not difficult to figure out the definitions if you discount human error. Since we have free will and an active intellect, it seems to me a dangerous proposition to discount human error - rather like the high wire act operating without a net.
Posted by James Jones on September 1, 2007 06:41 AMmongoose,
I don't know if you saw this earlier post:
"Genuine relgious communities seriously debate the question of how heaven and hell are populated.
Is Judas in heaven or hell? It is an interesting question."
Posted by James Jones on August 31, 2007 05:34 AM
The Great Moral Thinkers that inhabit this page are always tickled by that type of formulation which they take to mean that religious people spend time rendering judgement on the likes of Paris Hilton and her prospects for salvation.
In my experience, genuinely relgious people prefer to leave that sort of judgementalism to Oprah's audience.
You, on the other hand, get to the truth of the matter and for that I am grateful.
Christianity is often attributed to me by the GMT's on this page but you should understand that is only a manifestation of their prejudices. In truth, I don't discuss my religion or if in fact I am religious. Having said that, I do enjoy discussing theology.
So lets assume I am a Christian. I believe that there is one God who created the universe with me in it. God has created me in his image and given me free will. Being only an image of course means that God's thoughts cannot be my thoughts.
So my first question is, Why Jesus?
Surely God, the creator of the universe, can pardon me of my sins if that is His wish. Why then send your only Son to earth to suffer, die and be buried? And also consider that the passion has a second part - resurrection.
I think that Christians generally concur that initial grace is truly gratuitous but that the human will remains free under the influence of this grace.
So what happens if Hitler, moments before killing himself, confesses full and unconditional belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God? Is Hitler received in Heaven in the same manner as Mother Theresa.
The truth is - we don't know. I understand the parable about the farmer paying the same wage to laborers who had worked varying hours. But even within that context the prospect of Hitler and Mother Theresa being received in the same manner is not intellectually satisfying.
And what about Judas? Jesus said to him - Goand do what you must do. Did Judas then act out of free will?
It would seem to me that within the context of Christianity, we are asked to cooperate in our own slavation.
What do you think?
I wish I hadn't called Dan 2 and John II liars for calling me a socialist.
It's clear that I do not support socialism, that is, government ownership of the means of production and distribution. And I think that both Dan 2 and John II are intellectually aware that such ownership is the essence of socialism and that I have not supported it. So intellectually they know that it is untrue to call me a socialist.
However, in my opinion they were not using the term "socialist" in its intellectual sense but instead were using it in a emotional sense as though it is a pejorative. They were simply ignoring what socialism is and pretending that it is something else, although they never say what that something else is. I think that is because pejoratives don't really have definitions. For example, when John II calls me a moron, as he frequently does, he intellectually knows I am not a moron, but the real meaning of words don't matter when they are used as pejoratives.
Certain fringe extremists on the forum often use the word "socialist" and "socialism" as though they are pejoratives. Of course, they are not. There are hundreds of millions of good and valuable people who prefer some degree of socialism. (Of course, socialism is not black or white; there can be any number of varying degrees of socialism, that is, varying degrees of government ownership).
In fact, the motives of those who advocate a socialist approach are in general of a higher moral caliber than the motives of those who advocate the approach of predatory capitalism.
But there is a difference between recognizing that the words "socialist" and "socialism" are not pejoratives, which I do, and endorsing that mode of government, which I do not. It's a difference that some petty minded people ignore.
Posted by Truth on September 1, 2007 10:04 AMdarfor, for your post to be at all meaningful, you would have to shed some light on what you consider to be a socialist perspective.
Ownership of the means of production and distribution are the essence of socialism. Since I have not advocated that, it seems clear that you have some kind of personal definition of socialism that you do not reveal.
You shed no light on what I have said or advocated that you consider has a social perspective. That is a common tactic of some people. It is quite easy to say a person has a socialist perspective. Explaining why you think that is not so easy; it requires some intellectual input. You provided none.
Posted by Truth on September 1, 2007 10:06 AMBeing good so that you won't go to hell is certainly better than being bad. But it doesn't hold a candle to being good because you love people and give little or no thought to heaven or hell. Too often, people who are infused with the desire for heaven but not the with love of their fellow man figure out ways to get to heaven without having to be all that good.
I recall that when I was getting my Catholic education, I was instilled with the fear of hell. As a result, I tried my best, unsuccessfully, to avoid masturbating. But when I did nice things for my Mom, or someone else, it wasn't because I feared hell but because of love. Fortunately, it's been a long, long time since I did things or refrained from doing things because of the fear of hell. Fear of hell is a selfish motivation; thus, it is the opposite of love.
Posted by Truth on September 1, 2007 10:25 AMThere are those who think that it is wrong for a government to be caring and compassionate. Fortunately, they are a fringe extremist group. They are the flat earth people of politics. They are against the most cherished ideals of the American people.
Posted by Truth on September 1, 2007 10:45 AMTruth, I understood what you meant about socializing capitalism.
It is a bit like taking a puppy to classes to meet other, older dogs, this socializes him.
I think the discrepancy between what you advocate and socialism needs a new word. Steven Corbet might call your system "Societism" or "Communityism".
Taking money from A to benefit B and others is not Christian, it is human.
Public libraries, transportation, schools etc, do not represent the type of socialism where the means of production are owned by the state and here is the place for my new word.
If Jesus had been stuck here till he was 60 of so he might have advocated a bit of community charity. But since he was leaving shortly, he left that to us.
What do you think of the new proposed words? If we can get a new definition of American capitalism with social programs, that might help.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 1, 2007 11:04 AMTruth,
Are you in favor of a government-managed health care system?
Are you in favor of government-managed retirement system such as Social Security?
Are you in favor of government-managed wage control?
Are you in favor of government-managed egalitarianism by means of taxing the "rich" at a higher rate and giving it the "poor"?
Do you favor a "workers unite!" labor union mentality to "force the employers hand"?
Do you support taking more profits from private industry such as big oil companies?
Posted by John II on September 1, 2007 11:11 AMSharon B. said:
"Public libraries, transportation, schools etc, do not represent the type of socialism where the means of production are owned by the state and here is the place for my new word."
Uh, if the government doesn't own the means of production in those examples, who does?
Thanks for reminding me of another question for Truth:
Do you support a government-managed school system?
Posted by John II on September 1, 2007 11:19 AMTruth,
He's off on his old shtick of rhetorical questions, designed to get answers that conflict with his already established "one-note" fossilized "ideas". So he can go on criticizing that which he has neither the ability to comprehend nor the capacity to assimilate; thereby proving himself to be the Pluperfect Pundit on a subject he knows little or nothing about, and refuses to learn more.
You're just wasting time answering.
Sharon gave an example, using the word, "production". He responds as if that word were synonymous with "distribution" , ignoring completely the very real difference in definition. Just as with Jones, it's a matter of ignoring "semantics" - and facts, truth, or anything else that interferes with his presentation of his own worn out "theme song".
Some can't learn. Others just won't. Maybe, considering the age level, it's a bit of both in Johnny's case. But, as the old saying has it: "The only difference between a rut and the grave is the length"
Posted by Old Grouch on September 1, 2007 11:51 AMAnd there you have it, folks! James Jones has just revealed the basic formula for making a $ucce$$ of a career in the Je$u$ Bu$ine$$;
1. Never tell anyone what your own beliefs really are. (Just let them assume your're "Christian".)
2. Know nothing about Theology; but always be a Pundit on/in Theology. (Of course, that works well, since there is really no "Theology" anywhere in the Je$u$ Bu$ine$$ to begin with.)
3. When debating Theology - the subject about which you know nothing in the first place - always be ready to throw trick questions out as if they were actually answers. (Since you really have none of your own - and need none to be in the Bu$ine$$ - the answers serve as new spring-boards for further questions; thereby relieving you of any necessity to ever expose your underlying and essential ignorance of the topic itself.)
4. If pressed - WHEN pressed - for a real definition, or personal stand, fall back on Number 1, immediately; and trust to luck!
5. Follow these instructions, round and round, round and round, round and . . . ! And, you too will be a $ucce$$ in the Je$u$ Bu$ine$$ - and most probably in Romanism as well, at least as long as you keep your hands off your Altar Boys.
Jimmy boy, I always said you should be in the pulpit. And once again, you're right out there proving my point.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 1, 2007 12:29 PMThey were not rhetorical questions, Old Grouch. I was hoping Truth would answer them directly.
You said:
"Sharon gave an example, using the word, "production". He responds as if that word were synonymous with "distribution" , ignoring completely the very real difference in definition."
I was hoping you could educate me on the semantics. Of course, the words are not synonyms. But, are you saying the government does not produce and distribute a product and/or service regarding the examples Sharon B. mentioned? For example, the government surely owns and manages the productive means required to distribute education, does it not? In fact, in all of our examples, we can see that the government owns the means of production and ensures it's distribution. What would be the point of producing something if it was not also meant to be distributed?
You have a knack, Old Grouch, for sounding highly intellectual. I think you impress your liberal lady friends a great deal on this forum. Bully for you! But, your fatal flaw is that when your words are examined closely, as I always do for everyone's words, they yield very little intellectual sustenance for your hungry readers.
Sure, I suppose the difference between a rut and a grave is merely the length, but how does that help our confused comrade, Truth, answer direct questions about socialism?
Posted by John II on September 1, 2007 02:31 PMOld Grouch
"History certainly appears to be a subject that has been left out of your curriculum."
One is compelled to wonder why you find it necessary to begin and end discourse with dismissive insult. One is also compelled to wonder if you learned your history of the interaction between early settlers and the American Indians at the feet of Ward Churchill. You are mistaken, sir.
The only surviving first-hand account of the Pilgrims in America is the journal of William Bedford, who was the second governor of the settlement established in December of 1620. His journal is published and available today at Amazon.com. I recommend it to you. Bedford acknowledges the contribution of the Native Americans, observing that they were at first "more prone to fill our sides with arrows," than to "offer succor." Nevertheless, Indians who had learned English from previous sailors and from the man Squanto, who had been kidnapped and taken to England, did indeed help the settlers, most notably Squanto (spelled Sguanto by Bedford) who stayed with the settlement, showing them how to plant corn, where to fish, etc. The group which Squanto arrived with entered into an agreement with the settlers including a military alliance against "unjust aggression" which either people might suffer. Bedford wrote that Squanto lived with the settlers until his death many years later, and that the agreement with that original band of Indians "has endured until today," some 24 years later.
The first seed corn and beans were indeed provided by American Indians, but not out of generosity. That first batch was found in an abandoned village and stolen. It seems to have appeared to Bedford that the people of that village "had fled," perhaps just ahead of the arrival of the settlers. Bedford writes that with out the stolen goods the settlers would have starved, and that their intention was to give "full satisfaction" if they ever came across the owners of the corn and beans. He also appeared to indicate that he thought this had been accomplished later, though it is not entirely clear. After those who survived the winter planted in the spring of 1621, the settlement had a small harvest in the fall of 1621, which, combined with game and fish in the area caused the settlers to write home that they had plenty. However, by 1623 fully half of the settlers had died of diseases and hunger. Bedford, elected governor after the first governor died during the early spring planting of 1621, discussed with the settlers how to increase the harvest of corn being planted in the spring of 1623. It was decided to "give each man a portion unto himself" of the seed corn- that is, switch the farming from communal to private ownership. Bedford notes how women would go into the fields to work their own crops, taking children and infants with them, whereas before they were saying they couldn't do the work, due to infirmity or inability. The increase in harvest was so dramatic that over the next few years everything else was privatized, including live stock, cleared land, housing, and even household chores such as laundry, which when done communally was a source of much carping and shirking. Thus the transformation of communal living to free enterprise, the bedrock of capitalism.
By the way, the Pilgrims were not "thrown out" of a "tolerant" Holland for interfering with Calvinists. Bedford makes clear that the Pilgrims stayed out of the Calvinist/Armenian debate, until the local head pastor and theologian (who also taught at the local university in the city of Leyden, where the Pilgrims had moved to) prevailed upon the highest Pilgrim scholar, another professor at the university, named Robbinson, to debate the Armenian advocate, Epsicopius (that name might not be quite right- I'm working from memory here.) The Pilgrim scholar entered the debate against the Armenian position- a debate that gives dubious value to your position that the Dutch were models of tolerance. They were said to be causing trouble throughout the country over the debate between Calvinism and Armenianism. Bedford writes this in direct answer to the accusation that the Pilgrims were driven out of Holland over Calvinism. He also notes that the Pilgrims left Leyden because it was hard to make a living there, and the young people of the community were choosing professions that took them out of the community, such as the Army or becoming sailors because it was an easier life. They left Holland for America to prevent the extinction of their community through attrition.
Old Grouch, it is one thing to be confident of your knowledge. It is another thing entirely to be merely arrogant. Please take a moment to research this history before you type your next screed on this.
Posted by Noggindog on September 1, 2007 03:00 PMJames Jones
“It would seem to me that within the context of Christianity, we are asked to cooperate in our own salvation (sic).”
Thank you for your response. However, it did seem to raise a contradiction to what I find when reviewing teachings from the Bible. Keeping in mind that references to “the law” are discussing Old Testament Biblical Law, not secular based human laws, I find that works are actually shunned as a means to salvation and entering the good graces of God.
Receiving the gift of eternal salvation from God the Father is simply done through faith and belief in accepting Jesus Christ as one’s personal Lord and Savior. Here are the verses:
1. "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." (Ephesians 2:8)
2. "... knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ ... for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified." (Galatians 2:16)
3. "Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin ... for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:20,23)
The Bible specifically states in that last verse that all men and all women have sinned and have fallen way short of the glory of God. The Bible says that there are none that are righteous before the eyes of God the Father.
As a result, none of our fleshly works, no matter how good we think they may be, will ever be good enough to get us into heaven or back into the good graces of God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“So what happens if Hitler, moments before killing himself, confesses full and unconditional belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God? Is Hitler received in Heaven in the same manner as Mother Theresa.
The truth is - we don't know. I understand the parable about the farmer paying the same wage to laborers who had worked varying hours. But even within that context the prospect of Hitler and Mother Theresa being received in the same manner is not intellectually satisfying.”
According to the above Biblical instructions it would appear that Hitler would indeed be as welcome in Heaven as Mother Teresa. Whether it be “intellectually satisfying” or not, is there latitude for picking and choosing which tenants do or do not apply. If one were to accept the Bible as instructions for mankind, presented as the Word of God in both direct and allegorical instruction on faith, is it permissible for man to judge, to pick and choose so to speak, who can or cannot accept unconditional salvation as instructed? In your example, should Hitler be "discouraged" from seeking salvation?
And, does man have the latitude or right to judge the actions of another in determining whether they fit into the context of a self professed believer?
I return your question; what do you think?
Posted by mongoose on September 1, 2007 03:35 PMOld Grouch,
In re
There was nothing of "capitalism" or "socialism" involved.
Actually there was quite a bit in that the Pilgrims practiced communism initially.
Their colony, Plymouth Plantation, was a form of communism. There was neither private property nor division of labor. Food was grown for the town and distributed equally amongst all. The women who washed clothes and dressed meat did so for everyone and not just for their own families. This sounds like the perfect agrarian utopia envisioned by Marx and Lenin. What happened to it? To find the answer to that question, one must turn to Of Plymouth Plantation by William Bradford. Bradford served as Governor of Plymouth Colony from 1620 to 1647 and chronicled in great detail everything that happened in the colony.
By 1623, it was obvious the colony was barely producing enough corn to keep everyone alive. Fresh supplies from England were few and far between. Without some major change, the colony would face famine again. In his chronicle, Bradford described what was going wrong and how it was solved (pardon the King James English):
All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advise of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of the number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.
With weak crops and little hope of supply, the Pilgrims divided the parcels among the families and told them to grow their own food. They found that those who would pretend they couldn’t work due to infirmity, weakness or inability (sound familiar?) gladly went to work in the fields. Corn production increased dramatically and famine was averted because communism was eliminated.
Here's th link if you would like to learn more:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1285981/posts
mongoose,
"As a result, none of our fleshly works, no matter how good we think they may be, will ever be good enough to get us into heaven or back into the good graces of God."
Is it therefore your opinion that all of us, or none of are saved?
"is there latitude for picking and choosing which tenants (sic) do or do not apply. (sic)"
The trick is understanding, not selecting, the tenent. Research into that question is ongoing and has been in the Christian Church for around 2,000 years and longer than that in Judaism for longer. Surely you are aware of the ongoing study?
"If one were to accept the Bible as instructions for mankind, presented as the Word of God in both direct and allegorical instruction on faith, is it permissible for man to judge, to pick and choose so to speak, who can or cannot accept unconditional salvation as instructed?"
I'm not sure what you mean by direct and allegorical instructions but it is not for any of us to pick candidates for salvation. The Christian view is that we are all candidates. I'm pretty sure I explained that earlier.
"In your example, should Hitler be "discouraged" from seeking salvation?"
Of couse not, why do you ask?
"And, does man have the latitude or right to judge the actions of another in determining whether they fit into the context of a self professed believer? "
You're going to have to give me more detail on that one.
I can tell you that society writes moral code into the law based on the prevailing values. That's how we "judge the actions of another" but has nothing to do with salvation.
You asked a good question at first.
Posted by James Jones on September 1, 2007 04:09 PMSharon, I agree that a new terminology would be helpful because even rational people often have a prejudiced idea about the word "socialism" which can carry over to the word I use, "socialize". "Societism" or "Communityism" sound like good replacements, except that I want an adjective, a modifier of capitalism.
Sharon, while I think you make a good point, my problem is that I want a terminology that I think reflects what has happened on the ground, and I think that what has happened is that we have take steps to tame predatory capitalism. So I want a word which describes the fact that what we have done is to keep the good of capitalism and rejected the bad by civilizing it, or, as say, socializing it.
While the word "socialize" causes a knee-jerk reaction in people like Dan 2 and John II, I dislike the idea of abandoning it for that reason because I think it does an excellent job of describing the process that has taken place.
But I want to keep you suggestions in mind and I thank you for them.
Posted by Truth on September 1, 2007 04:53 PMJohn II, the means of production: shoes, bridge girders, shampoo etc. Not library fines, students etc.
Socialism or communism that owns the means of production vs. capitalism with social programs. Socialized capitalism. Socialized as in how to play nicely with others, not little communists all over the place.
Please pretend you understand this, I need a nap.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 1, 2007 04:54 PMSharon B.,
Maybe you should have taken a nap before posting your last comment. It is nonsensical.
The means of production are not limited to physical tangible products such as your shoes and shampoo examples. It applies to the service industry as well.
Our government owns the means of production for a variety of services that could have been provided by private industry. Social Security is easily replaceable by private financial companies. The same goes for education, transportation, the postal service and even libraries.
Posted by John II on September 1, 2007 05:04 PMJohn II
I can help Truth think of a word. He's having a hard time because he doen't actually undersatnd what he thinks. Or maybe he doesn't actually think what he understands? Doesn't matter, I can lay it out for him - it's all about being nice.
It's nice to be nice. On the other hand, it's not nice to be, will, not nice. I don't see how you can dispute that. So let's call it
Niceism.
Posted by James Jones on September 1, 2007 05:06 PMTruth,
Are you going to answer my questions to you?
Posted by John II on September 1, 2007 05:06 PMI gather from reading some of John II's writings that he considers that the United States has a socialist government and has had for going on a century or so, and that the government has been getting progressively more socialistic with time. Thus, he thinks that the only solution may be a revolution. It certainly seems true that his ilk constitute a pathetically small minority. But it's nice for him to have a place like this to get things off his chest. It's the American way. Everyone stand up who wants to join John II in a revolution.
Posted by Truth on September 1, 2007 05:07 PMJames Jones
I mangled the quote pretty badly on sharing corn out among the settlers, didn't I? Your version is correct- should teach me to look up references before I put in quote marks...
Your discussion with Mongoose re: grace and salvation is not a new one. The Roman Catholic teaching is that grace initiates salvation, but the saved then contribute to their own salvation through works, having become sanctified. The Protestant position is usually (though not universally) that salvation is by grace alone. A slightly different question but still debated hotly among some mainstream protestants is whether salvation necessarily changes the observable works of the individual, and whether a person who shows no "good works" can actually be a saved person (the "Lordship salvation" debate.") Your position that all are candidates for salvation is also not universally held within Protestantism. Calvinists assert that the "elect" are irresistibly called, others are not able to respond. The Armenians, though, hold that each person chooses by free will whether to seek salvation or not. Since both positions are supported by various passages, it is an arcane discussion that cannot be resolved with surety. The best one can do is to determine that one or the other position is somewhat more convincing. Interesting coincidence that these questions come up in the same thread as the discussion of the Pilgrims being run out of Holland for Calvinism, or not, though. My own suspicion is that Calvinism describes God's perspective, while Armenianism describes our human perspective of the same events- however, that's merely my own understanding and I do not intend to argue it as God's position on the issue.
There are only a few things that can be espoused as "the Christian view," and those things are controverted by groups that call themselves Christian, but which many or most mainstream Christian groups would say are not actually Christian, ie: Mormans, Jehova's Witness, etc. Some woudl even say Church of Christ doctrine is not truely Christian, if only becasue they deny that salvation is permanant, though in other areas they are much more consistent with mainstream doctrine. It is a difficult path you are navigating when you argue doctrine as "Christian belief."
James Jones
"Is it therefore your opinion that all of us, or none of are saved?"
I am saying that according to Biblical instruction nothing above or beyond believing in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the only path for salvation to God is in sharp contrast of "your works theory" as being as an additional, or expected criteria. Everyone is eligible for salvation if they desire to accept it based on God's path.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"In your example, should Hitler be "discouraged" from seeking salvation?"
Of couse (sic) not, why do you ask?
"And, does man have the latitude or right to judge the actions of another in determining whether they fit into the context of a self professed believer? "
You're the one who found Hitler's potential salvation as not "intellectually satisfying.” Where you excluding him from the provisions for general mankind because he was a psychotic killer. Why, wasn't he a creation and/or subject of God?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I can tell you that society writes moral code into the law based on the prevailing values. That's how we "judge the actions of another" but has nothing to do with salvation."
That's the first thing you're postulated that I've totally agreed with.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"You asked a good question at first."
You implicitly tied salvation with works in your effort to refute government's social programs being derived from, and equated to, some sort of Christian charity. While I agreed with you on the division of secular and Christian charity, I took exception to your theological position given on salvation.
And, let me return the left handed compliment; your explanations drifted from somewhat scripturally based logic, to confusion in interpretation. But, I do thank you for the exchange in a non confrontational manner.
Have a good weekend.
Posted by on September 1, 2007 05:29 PMTruth, if we really want to coin a new word or phrase, and I actually do, we need to leave out "social" or any of its family. Civil, humane, even James`s nice is a good start.
To pick this nit down to sub atomic particles, you will need a - . Hyphen somewhere.
John II it has been months, well maybe only weeks since I insulted you. Or insulted your dreary, overblown, pompous, preachy postings that leave us all glassy eyed and numb and .......well you get the picture.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 1, 2007 06:12 PMNoggindog
I wouldn't characterize the quote as mangeled. I just wanted to make the Pilgrims's rejection of socialism and adoption of the free market approach clear to the likes of the Grouch. He will never admit it but he learned a thing or two in this thread due in large part to your good work.
The distinctions between Catholicism and Protestanism, and divisions within protestant sects are a difficult path for a serious theologian - but not for me. My only aim is to explode the popular leftist myths as relate to religion.
For instance it is instructive in this thread that it is the leftist, not the conservative, that invoke Christianity in the pursuit of their goal - in this case the use of the tax code to redistribute wealth. Debunking that notion is a work that does not require a theologian or biblical historian. I hope you will understand that I use terms like "the Christian view" to make a point to ignoramuses of spectacular proportions. I try to dance around the, as you describe it, arcane questions and get to the basics.
I am a man of simple beliefs who speaks plainly so I can useful in the discussion at this level. I have been described as a work in progress which is apt.
I have enjoyed our exchange and value your insights. I will look into your remarks on Calvanism and Armenianism as I know little of either.
mongoose ?
You are becoming an enigma. I like that.
Some of your remarks are unfair. My intellectual dissatisfaction has to do with the comparison of Hitller to Theresa. I do not pretend to know that Hilter's evil has put him beyond redemption. I am curious about Hitler but more curious about Judas.
I think you ducked my question on all of us, or none of us being saved. If you rule out acts as a part of salvation then it seems to me that one or the other must be the case.
It seems to me that faith is in part a human act. We have free will which makes our decisions subject to moral judgement. Some acts are evil: others are good.
All that considered, I do not understand the concept of acts having no bearing on slavation. I acknowledge that many Protestant scholars maintian exactly that. The problem for me, again, is that the position is not intellectually satisfying. Consequently I distrust it.
As for your distrust in my theological soundness - it is justified. Please see my remarks above.
I hope you also enjoy your weekend. One thing you can rely on is my non-confrontational nature. I like to poke fun at times but always strive to charity.
Posted by James Jones on September 1, 2007 09:13 PMI'm happy to answer the questions that John II poses, even if they weren't directed to me:
Are you in favor of a government-managed health care system? More than I am in favor of our current, privatized & for-profit system. Since government is elected for the people, by the people, the same can be said about government-managed healthcare. Despite what the privateers would have most people believe, Medicaid is actually a proven example that single payer healthcare WORKS in this country, and far more efficiently in some ways, to boot.
Are you in favor of government-managed retirement system such as Social Security? Yes, it's a small safety net for America's senior citizens and disabled, but one that is needed nevertheless.
Are you in favor of government-managed wage control? I have no idea what you're talking about here. I suspect it's some twisted way of describing unions.
Are you in favor of government-managed egalitarianism by means of taxing the "rich" at a higher rate and giving it the "poor"? Put down the Ayn Rand,. John II. Your parroting of her idealogy is getting tedious. Logically rephrase this question and I'll answer it.
Do you favor a "workers unite!" labor union mentality to "force the employers hand"? Absolutely. And I have a question for you in return, inspired by a recent letter on this forum that compared the collective bargaining power of unions with trade associations: do you support Big Business influencing government officials with their cash-rich trade associations and lobbyists?
Do you support taking more profits from private industry such as big oil companies? I don't think certain of our public's natural resources, like oil, should be owned by private industry in the first place. Question: why do you?
So, are you ready to call a Senator's hearing and have me pilloried and lynched as a pinko commie, John II?
Posted by mytwosense on September 1, 2007 10:16 PMJames Jones
"The distinctions between Catholicism and Protestanism, and divisions within protestant sects are a difficult path for a serious theologian - but not for me. "
LOL is an overused cliche on the Web, but in this case, I did.
Posted by Noggindog on September 1, 2007 10:21 PMmytwosense
"So, are you ready to call a Senator's hearing and have me pilloried and lynched as a pinko commie..."
Yes.
Sincerely yours,
Senator Joseph McCarthy
Posted by on September 1, 2007 10:30 PMWow, how can I type in black like that? That beats caps by a mile.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 1, 2007 11:09 PMSharon ---
Hit your keyboard harder. It's like yelling -- more force behind you words...trust me....
Posted by mongoose on September 2, 2007 12:08 AMThanks for answering, mytwosense. Should I give up on, Truth?
As for this question: Are you in favor of government-managed wage control?
That refers to a government mandated minimum wage.
As for this one: Are you in favor of government-managed egalitarianism by means of taxing the "rich" at a higher rate and giving it the "poor"?
I think it's self-explanatory.
Posted by John II on September 2, 2007 08:31 AMHi Sharon,
If you are using a machine that has Microsoft Word, or another from of word processing, software, you go there first. These are, usually, equipped with bold-face, italic, underline, and other forms of type face modification. Type your material there first; and then by way of whatever cut and paste method your machine uses, bring it over to the "Your comments" box and put it in.. And, it is possible that some editions of the Internet access software - Explorer, Netscape, etc., - have these modifications available as well. Check your "Tools" for that.
Where next?
Well, to begin with, "socialism" and "capitalism" are essentially modern terms for economic theories/practices. Which is why I have indicated that they are not relevant to the era of the Pilgrims, and their early efforts. Debating historical events by way of later codifications, identifications, and experiences is fallacious; in that it projects current conditions backwards onto the scene, as if these current conditions were the "norm" then. And, this twists history into something that is expected to "validate" modern argument, rather than letting history speak for itself, and show the development of whatever "sides", or "points", are being made in modern terms.
Also, "socialism" and "capitalism", as economic, political, and social terms lie competely outside the are of Christianity as a religion, and/or Theology as such. And while it may be great fun creating an imaginary, and artificial, world in which one "debates", or otherwise plays with, the "Theology of economics/politics/social-issues", the exercise remains imaginary and artificial.
There is a vast difference between philosophy - in which area the matters of economics, etc., properly belongs - and Theology, which concerns the matter of what translates as, "God" - Theos > God, Logos > word, or "word(s)" concerning God".
Debates in philosophy are much more pertinent, sensible, and instructive; as well as much more enjoyable as debates, when there is the presence of the foundation stone of Philosophy, Logic.
Theology, as such, is an exposition of a belief-system. Belief-systems, as such, are not necessarily founded upon, nor possessed of, Logic. Thus, as such, belief-systems are not debatable.
Belief-systems may be accepted; i.e., believed. Conversely, belief-systems may be rejected; i.e., disbelieved, or refused belief.
And, while they may be questioned - in whole or in part - argued over - in whole or in part, and discussed as to INDIVIDUAL response of belief or disbelief - in whole or in part - no one of these actions affects the belief-system as such, in any way whatsoever. And, no one, or all, these actions can be denominated "right" or "wrong"; nor does any one of, nor all, the actions "validate" or "invalidate" the belief-system.
So, I shall refer you to what I posted @ 12:29 PM yesterday; and sit back and enjoy the comedy club routines.
John2,
When do you propose to answer the pertinent questions "mongoose" asked of you?
Posted by Old Grouch on September 2, 2007 09:20 AMI would love to answer mongoose's questions. Where are they? I must have missed that post.
Posted by John II on September 2, 2007 09:27 AMJohn 2,
"Mongoose's" posting of 10:16 PM, September 1st, black letter (bold type), right along with his answers to yours. They're right there on my machine. They are the parts with a question mark after them; that little, "?" symbol, that is, in case you have - as you tell me you so often do with essentials - "forgotten" what it signifies.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 2, 2007 09:59 AMAh, 10:16 is mytwosense not mongoose.
I could answer her questions if you like but they weren't particularly interesting. I'll follow up...
Posted by John II on September 2, 2007 10:03 AMmytwosense asked:
"And I have a question for you in return, inspired by a recent letter on this forum that compared the collective bargaining power of unions with trade associations: do you support Big Business influencing government officials with their cash-rich trade associations and lobbyists?"
Yes.
mytwosense said:
"I don't think certain of our public's natural resources, like oil, should be owned by private industry in the first place. Question: why do you?"
Because I believe capitalism is the best system of economics we know of.
Posted by John II on September 2, 2007 10:11 AMJohn 2,
You are correct. They were from "mytwosense"; and I mis-entered the name both times. A problem with typeface and bifocals, compounded by this screen, where the red type is even more unreadable. I had just moved over from a line on which "mongoose" had posted; and mis-read the blur. My apologies, sir.
But, please do answer. Especially the last one.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 2, 2007 10:14 AMNoggindog
Luck has nothing to do with it.
When the question put forward is:
"IF ours is a chritian nation, then government is doing jesus' work by redistributing wealth. Or do you deny we are a christian nation? Can't have it both ways."
Posted by James Jones is a glow in the dark bitch on August 31, 2007 01:13 PM
Then
"By faith alone"
is hardly an appropriate response. My response is simply to point out that Christianity reqquires free will and cannot be based in coercion. I ignore doctrinal distintions between Cathlolicism and Protestantism because the groundwork for that discussion has not been established.
As you can see from reading the posts on this page, the utopian dreams of communism live on despite not only the failures in Plymouth centuries ago but also the relatively recent implosion of Bolshevism.
What fascinates (is an enigma to) me is the individual who remains silent when Jesus is put forth as a communist philospher but questions my credentials on doctrine when I suggest that acts are related to salavtion.
What's your opinion of that irony?
Mytwosense,
I copied and pasted but somehow your formatting did not come along. I intend to edit without changing your meaning. let me know if I missed something.
More than I am in favor of our current, privatized & for-profit system.
We do not currently have a private system. Half of the money spent in the US is spent by the Government. Ths insurance companies have been regulated to the status of a governmental agency that has abandoned the insurance business (spreading risk) in favor of socialism (spreading payment).
Health care reform must be based on free market initiatives.
Yes, it's a small safety net for America's senior citizens and disabled, but one that is needed nevertheless.
The Social Security System is a Ponzi scheme that no one would buy into given a choice.
The government takes money your to be used for your retirement. Then they spend it. But that's ok becaue they will get your money back from someone else whe you need it.
That shell game worked more more people paying in then taking out but, the demographics are changing. We will reach a point in an aging population where the demand for money exceeds the supply. We keep kicking that can down the road and the problem will eventually fall on our children.
It's a net, but this net is a trap
I have no idea what you're talking about here. I suspect it's some twisted way of describing unions.
The question is about minimum wage. Wages are directly realted to prices because price are determined in large part by wages. That is especially true in service industries (schools and fast foor) where the payroll costs are typically more than 70% of the cost of doing business.
Wage and price controls as practiced in soicalist nations lead inevitably to high prices, scarce goods and services and general proverty. Market mechanisms on the other hand lead to prosperity.
That phenomenon has been endlessly repeated over the last century in every corner of the globe.
Put down the Ayn Rand,. John II. Your parroting of her idealogy is getting tedious. Logically rephrase this question and I'll answer it.
Using the tax code to redistribute wealth is immoral and inefficient. When you tax the prosperous to reward the poor, you create less prosperity and more poverty. No society can tax it's way into prosperity.
There are exceptions but the problems of the poor, especially chronic poverty, will not be solved by throwing money at it. Johnson's War on Poverty proved that.
Absolutely. And I have a question for you in return, inspired by a recent letter on this forum that compared the collective bargaining power of unions with trade associations: do you support Big Business influencing government officials with their cash-rich trade associations and lobbyists?
Unions are a relic of a by-gone age and exist today only as a manifestation of socialism. Were it not for public employee sector, unions would not be discussed.
I want to get the government out of the economy to the fullest extent practicable for both the rich and the poor. When that happens, the lobbyists and trade associations can turn their attention to more productive pursuits.
I don't think certain of our public's natural resources, like oil, should be owned by private industry in the first place. Question: why do you?
Natural resources must be considered private property if they are to be utilized effectively. The political class must be kept out of production and distribution to the fullest extent possible.
It's bad enough to have Hillary telling drug makers how to conduct their business. It would be a disaster to have Hillary actually run a pharmeceutical company.
If the government actually gets into the oil business -we will all (except Al of course) be riding bycycles to work soon
So, are you ready to call a Senator's hearing and have me pilloried and lynched as a pinko commie, John II?
McCarthyism is alive and well in the US. But it comes from the left, not the right.
All you had to do was ask.
Posted by James Jones on September 2, 2007 11:58 AMJones: "Unions are a relic of a by-gone age and exist today only as a manifestation of socialism. Were it not for public employee sector, unions would not be discussed."
I presume Jones considers these to be other manifestations of socialism:
food and drug laws
child labor laws
industrial safety laws
consumer protection laws
product safety laws
deceptive advertising laws
security fraud laws
corporate fraud laws
environmental laws
usury laws
Katrina recovery laws
workmen's comp laws
medicare laws
medicaid laws
gun control law
antitrust laws
Fortunately, people with Jones' attitude are few and far between. To hear their voices, one must go to forums such as this because there is no one of national prominence who supports them and theirs is such a lost cause that few people are interested in their pathetic outcries.
Ironically, Jones states: "Unions are a relic of a by-gone age."
Guess who is really a relic of a by-gone age. If you don't believe me, read about the kind of government he wants and then a look at the kind of government we have had for many years. If that doesn't convince you, take a look at pathetically small group of fringe extremists who support Jones' philosophy. And try to find someone, anyone, of national stature who supports it.
Yes, indeed, a relic of a bygone age. Just as with the flat earth theory, the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are gone for good. They brought too much suffering and misery for any rational person to want them back.
James Jones
"Luck has nothing to do with it."
I'm not sure what you are responding to in that comment- perhaps you attributed something to me which was written by someone else? When I said I laughed at the line in the previous post, I meant only that you presented your observation that theology is not so difficult for you because you are not a serious theologian in a clever and funny way.
The comment you reference by "glow in the dark" demonstrates that he has, at best, a rudimentary and simplistic view of the messages in the Bible. One example: Jesus did not, in fact, say that wealth is "bad." He did say that it can be a problem for wealthy people to avoid loving their wealth too much, and that wealth may prevent someone from following Him. Recall that in the example given earlier in this thread, where Jesus said "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," (Mathew 19) the disciples then asked, "Who then can be saved?" (quotes may not be exactly verbatim- working form memory again...) Jesus then said, "With God, all things are possible." He told this particular young man that he should sell his goods and donate the money because He knew that this is exactly what this particular young man would never do. And because he loved his wealth more than he loved God, he would never enter the kingdom.
Your "fascination" with the "enigma" is an apt observation. It is exactly what Jesus was speaking to in the quote I made in my first post: Mathew 13: 12- "Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him." Jesus said he spoke in parables to that those who seek only to hear what they want to hear will be confused and miss the message, but those who seek to know God will understand (an interesting aside, I think, is the observation that Milton Ericson (sp?), the father of modern hypnotherapy, said that metaphor in psychotherapy does exactly the same thing: the client who is ready to hear the truth will hear it, the client who is too defensive to hear the truth will not. But he may figure it out later, when his defenses are lower. Fascinating to me when modern "science"- I use the term loosely in the case of psychology- manages to figure out something we were all told 2000 years ago, don't you agree?) Non-believers and those who nominally believe but do not seek the wisdom in the Bible will present convoluted, erroneous and even fallacious ideas that they say the Bible supports. Guys like Richard Grimes are not ABLE to understand why ancient Jews were not allowed to eat shrimp, but modern Christians are (hi, Richard- I expect we'll hear from you again today, yes?) And if he could understand it, he would not care, since his agenda is to discredit Christianity. To a guy like that, it is not SUPPOSED to make sense!
Now, I'm curios- did I give you anything you didn't already know? You seem to have a pretty solid background in these things, but perhaps have not taken the time yet to pursue all you know. Of course, who among us has taken THAT much time?
Posted by Noggindog on September 2, 2007 12:22 PMJames, has your barber described any good movies to you lately?
Posted by Sharon B. on September 2, 2007 12:26 PMThis morning one public radio's classical music station they played a lovely classical piece based on the scriptural commandment to love God with your whole heart and being.
That struck me. A commandment to love. As though love can be commanded. It is like ordering some to be happy.
"If you don't love me, then I'll condemn you to hell for eternity". I am reminded of how medieval "Christians" commanded people to say they believe, or get their heads cut off.
Just another example of how a person needs to read the bible from a pragmatic and common sense viewpoint. I mean, what were those people thinking about? What in the world kind of God did they believe in?
Posted by Truth on September 2, 2007 12:29 PMTruth,
Your last comments border on plain gratuitous rudeness. There's a difference between having a theological debate and simply putting down someone's religion.
Having said that, I am proud of the acceptance of criticism that my religion displays. Not all religions tolerate such direct questioning. For example, I believe it was about four years ago that someone who insulted Islam on a message board like this one was eventually murdered for his comments. Luckily, you face no such threat by attempting to insult Christians. I assume you're aware of this. That's probably the reason why you don't take the time to bash Islam.
I am not going to waste my time explaining the nuances of my religion to you. Especially, when you show such resistance to more tangible concepts like economics.
As for the music, I'm curious what you listened to. Right now, I am playing Mozart's beautiful rendition of Ave verum Corpus. Perhaps, that is the reason why I choose not to tear you a new one in regards to your penultimate post.
Posted by John II on September 2, 2007 12:54 PMOld Grouch
Your position of 9:05 is simply untenable. If you concede a creating God who has any purpose for humanity other than the purpose a grade school boy has for an ant farm, then it only follows logically that it is our human responsibility to ferret out His intention for us. If God has no intention for us, then this whole conversation is meaningless- not because theology does not belong in the public debate, but because theology simply does not exist.
Granting, then, a creating God who has intentions for us, since that is the only basis for this conversation, it is folly to suggest that He has not made available to us the means by which to come to this knowledge of what He wants of us.
Thus enters "theology" into a discussion of public policy. Your only argument against this is either "There is no God, or if there is, He has no interest in us," or, "What God wants of us is unknowable." I think it is clear from other posts you have made that your position would be the second, not the first, if you want theology left out of public decision making, yes? If you remain an Orthodox Christian, as I believe you have previously said, then the first position cannot apply. So, the contention between you and I is limited to what we each believe can be known of God, and where that information comes from. That does not mean theology must be left out. It means we disagree.
Theology is not debatable, as you say, UNLESS there is an agreement on the source and authority of knowledge to be debated. And THIS discussion is sparked from the premise that Colorado Christian University made, saying, essentially, "We believe the Bible supports free enterprise and capitalism," and someone who answered them in a previous letter to the editor, saying, "I think the Bible, Jesus, and the early church all support a communal model of society." The letter which started this thread is an answer to the previous letter. So, if you feel that history has no lessons for modern living, and there is no reliable source for understanding what God wants of us economically as individuals and a society, and that modern terminology cannot apply to past situations, then I have to ask:
WHAT ARE YOU DOING IN THIS THREAD?
Truth, I will take a moment to address your comment directly:
Study your Greek and Hebrew, and look at the context of the message. The command to love is not a command to feel that "butterflies in the tummy" adolescent love. It is a command to treat others as if they are more important than yourself. Thus is love revealed as a verb, an action, a decision on how to interact with others, not an adverb modifying the verb "feel." You would be follwoing this commandment if you felt distaste for someone even as you performed a charitable act on their behalf (assuming you act for their real benifit, not to make yourself look good or to get brownie points.) Here's an exercise to make my point: Try giving some Conservative Republicans the benifit of the doubt regarding the idea that, even though you disagree, they are not intentionally lying for the purpose of stealing all good things from other people. Speak to them as though you respect their intentions, even though you disagree with their positions and ideas. Thus, even as you feel your gorge rising while you interact with them, you will be following the commandment under discussion. Sound like fun? You should find this much easier than the "no masturbating" command that so troubled you earlier. (yes, Truth, that was a joke, based on your previous comment- please don't take it personally. I just couldn't resist.)
Noggindog
There was a mix-up. I intended my remark to be humerous and thought you missed the comedy.
You and I are in agreement on the important issues. I have learned from each post from Calvinism to the close relationship between science and religion.
I especially like your posts to Truth and Grouch. Your patience is admirable and I hope you get through.
Posted by James Jones on September 2, 2007 02:21 PM
Thanks for that note, James Jones. I know I am prone to be a bit dry in my comments- and therefore, easily misunderstood. Nice to know we have straightened it out.
Posted by Noggindog on September 2, 2007 02:36 PMJames, quite candidly I find that dialogue with you is somewhat frustrating because all you do is assert, and never explain. I believe I've expressed this frustration to you before on other threads, so I don't know why you think I'm going to be influenced by anything you have to say when you haven't changed your communication style in the slightest bit.
It's easy to make sound-bite statements like, "Natural resources must be considered private property if they are to be utilized effectively" and "The political class must be kept out of production and distribution to the fullest extent possible."
But it's a cop out to then not go on to explain why.
I realize there isn't an immediate answer to every single question, but you rarely provide any at all. You just give blanket statements. I also realize there is a certain segment of society where that's all they need to be told. They don't engage in critical thinking. But if you have any interest in getting through to others beyond that demographic, I would suggest you stretch yourself a bit and actually give some supporting details and information from time to time.
Of course, I am not so sure this is your purpose on the RMN forums. It very well could be to give those blanket statements that suffice so well for those that want to be told what to think.
Truth,
That's quite a grab bag of gifts you think a benevolent government has bestowed on a backward, recalcitrant populace. Some of those laws are beneficial. Some are essentially menaingless. Others have created human suffering. But there is a larger point.
The political class is not the fountain from which all goodness flows. Slavery or child labor did not end in the US because we finally elected a wise government who freed segments of the population from bondage.
The Founders did not constitute a government based on We the Leaders because they knew where the just power was located - in ordinary people. The history of humanity is what Regean described as an ongoing ascent upward from the swamps inclining toward the stars.
It is the people, not the political class, that is the engine of social justice. That is why many politicians spend millions of dollars annually the voters polling. They are just trying to figure out what we are thinking and hope to stay ahead of the curve.
I know that the politicians promise you a happy life. But I will borrow from Noggindog's message and tell you that you are looking for love in all the wrong places.
I can't resist either. You turn to sexual self-gratification when frightened?
Fear is a common human emotion. The brave man stands and fights. The coward runs away. I have never heard of anyone reacting as you describe. I'm hoping you didn't serve in the military.
Point is Truth: Stop making things up. Just tell us what you think and why you think it and you'll be ok.
Posted by James Jones on September 2, 2007 02:47 PMmytwosense
I spend too much time posting here as it is. You asked a good many questions and I answered each as possible and the post was still about twice as long as I would prefer.
If you have some objection to something I asserted then make it. If you would like more information of some point I made then ask for it.
Sharon B,
He has descirbed a good many. The last one that interested me was entitled "Queen."
mytwosense
put "concisely as" between "as" and "possible"
I don't mean to be abrupt but am a bit pushed for time.
Posted by James Jones on September 2, 2007 03:13 PMI'm not sure, but I think Sharon B. may have been hinting that my posts are too long-winded, and about as interesting as a conversation with someone who insist on describing to you the plot of the last movie they watched, scene by scene.
Interesting that I get criticized for explaining too much, and you, James Jones, get criticized for explaining not enough. Who was it who said, "you can't please everyone, so you might as well please yourself,"?
With that, I will happily admit my posts are long, and invite anyone who reads slowly to simply pass them by...
I'm not sure, but I think Sharon B. may have been hinting that my posts are too long-winded, and about as interesting as a conversation with someone who insist on describing to you the plot of the last movie they watched, scene by scene.
Interesting that I get criticized for explaining too much, and you, James Jones, get criticized for explaining not enough. Who was it who said, "you can't please everyone, so you might as well please yourself,"?
With that, I will happily admit my posts are long, and invite anyone who reads slowly to simply pass them by...
Noggindog,
You begin from a statement that is itself a belief;, i.e., either a "creating God who has a purpose" or "theology simply does not exist", if someone sees a "God" as "having no intention for us." One must accept this dichotomy, or one - in the end - does not belong on the thread.
Your second set of assertions are equally a matter of belief; i.e., that politics, etc., are tied to the dichotomy. Either one must begin from the presumptions - and assertions - or one isn't allowed a position at all.
Then you go on to speak of Orthodox Christian. Well and good. Just where in Orthodox Christian THEOLOGY - not in Customs and Usages, or Canons (Guidelines) of discipline, but in THEOLOGY - do you find the propositions that politics, economics, and social questions are Theological?
Please cite your sources.
A fundamental of Orthodox Theology is: The actions of the created cannot, and do not, affect the Creator. It is also an Orthodox Christian axiom that: As Orthodox Christians,we know nothing ABOUT God. We know God."
All Western "Theology" is built on the premise of "knowing ABOUT God". - indeed, at times expanded to a hubris of knowing ALL ABOUT God.
The Orthodox Christian premise is, simply: "That which is Prayed is that which is believed". And the Symboiion is the expression, in all Leiturgos, of belief. NOWHERE in Orthodox Christianity can one find political, economic, or social statements, belief in which is "necessary to salvation", as are found in the Western groups claiming Christianity - especially Rome.
Indeed, the Councils expressly condemned Origen, and ALL his followers; i.e., anyone who taught that human expressions actually defined, limited, or otherwise affected God. Augustine of Hippo - who, in addition to being an unreconstructed Manichean, was also an avowed follower of Origen - "DEFINED" the Mysteries - beginning with the Stragis as identifying the "Priest Forever" that is present in Romanism even today.
Augustinian "Theology" - as well as all its descendents, right down through Thomas Aquinas, Suarez, and Anselm, is based upon the ability to "define, delimit, and set actual and final knowledge, understanding, and definitions ABOUT God by way of human means".
In the process, all human activity becomes related to the Divine "purpose(s)", defined as being "known ABOUT God". And, thus, Western Theology is false, fraudulent, and heretical. (And only by a long stretch of courtesy to be called "Christian".)
Sources:
John Meyendorf, "Byzantine Theology".
Alexander Schemann: The entire Catechetical Series
Photios of Constantinople, "The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit".
Bartholmew of Santa Fe, The entire series of Theological Tapes on "What is Orthodoxy".
These just for starters - are the ones I long ago posted, which no one has ever bothered to read.
Now, THIS TOO IS A BELIEF SYSTEM. And, as with all belief systems, it, too cannot be debated. It is sufficient unto itself. And, it can be believed, or disbelieved, etc., etc. But it is not open to debate. The Symbolion, and the 2 principal questions - or statements - of the 3 given before the Consecration of a Bishop form the fundamental body of Orthodox Christian Theology.
I think I've already answered your great all caps question? I'm on the website, have a great time watching the comics on stage, making much ado about nothing.
Now, as to your answer to "Truth", the passage calls for one to: "Love your neighbor as YOURSELF." That's the kind of lifetime project that may be looked upon as being a part of "God's purpose for us", if you will. The effort here begins with a complete rejection of the Western ideas of Atonement, original sin, and transmitted guilt for Adam's sin. Or, if you will, a complete acceptance of an entirely new and different belief system.
Since you have a fixed idea - belief system in miniature - of the purpose of this particular set of comments. I'll leave it right there.
And, thank you for your observations and opinions.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 2, 2007 03:32 PMWho was it who said, "you can't please everyone, so you might as well please yourself,"?
Truth.
OK I'll stop now. I promise
Posted by James Jones on September 2, 2007 03:41 PMNoggindog,
You begin from a statement that is itself a belief;, i.e., either a "creating God who has a purpose" or "theology simply does not exist", if someone sees a "God" as "having no intention for us." One must accept this dichotomy, or one - in the end - does not belong on the thread.
Your second set of assertions are equally a matter of belief; i.e., that politics, etc., are tied to the dichotomy. Either one must begin from the presumptions - and assertions - or one isn't allowed a position at all.
Then you go on to speak of Orthodox Christian. Well and good. Just where in Orthodox Christian THEOLOGY - not in Customs and Usages, or Canons (Guidelines) of discipline, but in THEOLOGY - do you find the propositions that politics, economics, and social questions are Theological?
Please cite your sources.
A fundamental of Orthodox Theology is: The actions of the created cannot, and do not, affect the Creator. It is also an Orthodox Christian axiom that: As Orthodox Christians,we know nothing ABOUT God. We know God."
All Western "Theology" is built on the premise of "knowing ABOUT God". - indeed, at times expanded to a hubris of knowing ALL ABOUT God, including "God's purposes(es) in economics, politics, etc., etc."
The Orthodox Christian premise is, simply: "That which is Prayed is that which is believed". And the Symboiion is the expression, in all Leiturgos, of belief. NOWHERE in Orthodox Christianity can one find political, economic, or social statements, belief in which is "necessary to salvation", as are found in the Western groups claiming Christianity - especially Rome.
Indeed, the Councils expressly condemned Origen, and ALL his followers; i.e., anyone who taught that human expressions actually defined, limited, or otherwise affected God. Augustine of Hippo - who, in addition to being an unreconstructed Manichean, was also an avowed follower of Origen - "DEFINED" the Mysteries - beginning with the Stragis as identifying the "Priest Forever" that is present in Romanism even today.
Augustinian "Theology" - as well as all its descendents, right down through Thomas Aquinas, Suarez, and Anselm, is based upon the ability to "define, delimit, and set actual and final knowledge, understanding, and definitions ABOUT God by way of human means".
In the process, all human activity becomes related to the Divine "purpose(s)", defined as being "known ABOUT God". And, thus, Western Theology is false, fraudulent, and heretical. (And only by a verrrrrrry long stretch of courtesy to be called "Christian".)
Sources:
John Meyendorf, "Byzantine Theology".
Alexander Schemann: The entire Catechetical Series
Photios of Constantinople, "The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit".
Bartholmew of Santa Fe, The entire series of Theological Tapes on "What is Orthodoxy".
These - just for starters - are the ones I long ago posted, which no one has ever bothered to read.
Now, THIS TOO IS A BELIEF SYSTEM. And, as with all belief systems, it, too cannot be debated. It is sufficient unto itself. And, it can be believed, or disbelieved, etc., etc. But it is not open to debate. The Symbolion, and the 2 principal questions - or statements - of the 3 given before the Consecration of a Bishop form the fundamental body of Orthodox Christian Theology.
I think I've already answered your great all caps question? I'm on the website, having a great time watching the comics on stage, making much ado about nothing.
Now, as to your answer to "Truth", the passage calls for one to: "Love your neighbor as YOURSELF." That's the kind of lifetime project that may be looked upon as being a part of "God's purpose for us", if you will. The effort here begins with a complete rejection of the Western ideas of Atonement, original sin, and transmitted guilt for Adam's sin. Or, if you will, a complete acceptance of an entirely new and different belief system.
Since you have a fixed idea - belief system in miniature - of the purpose of this particular set of comments. I'll leave it right there.
And, thank you for your observations and opinions.
I respect your RIGHT to your belief system, and the concomitant RIGHT to any expression of it. But, I think you really ought to at least read one of the sourcees cited, before calling it "Orthodox Christian".
Posted by Old Grouch on September 2, 2007 03:47 PMMy apologies to all for the double posting. I was interrupted by a phone call; and in fishing around for paper and pen, I hit the mouse, which must have been on "Post" instead of "Preview". I went back to "Preview" to proof read, and then keyed "Post" intentionally. Sorry.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 2, 2007 03:53 PMNoggindog, that was a private remark to James. Not intended to you.
James stopped going to movies in the 50`s and I don`t know how he can stand it.
Movies are fun.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 2, 2007 03:53 PMsharon b
Ahhh... the error of narcissism- thinking everything is about me. Thank you for correcting me.
sharon b
Ahhh... the error of narcissism- thinking everything is about me. Thank you for correcting me.
James Jones
This time I will say it plainly-
THAT made me laugh out loud.
Now stop cracking me up; I have to whip up a good response to Grouch.
BTW, I don't know why I am getting double posts, but I am starting to think it might be an issue between the server and my connection. I even changed computers after the previous double to try and avoid it. Hopefully this one will not double-enter.
Posted by on September 2, 2007 04:06 PMIt is a shame that people like Jones and John II are so frightened and narrow minded that they turn to invective to respond to my quite reasonable comment about the "Love God with all your heart" scriptural passage. But when you can't respond to the message intelligently, what do you do?
People like Jones and John II who are unable to look at the bible critically are people of little faith. They are like frightened little children who are afraid of losing their security blankets.
Jones to me: "I can't resist either. You turn to sexual self-gratification when frightened?"
I was just listening to a book review on CSPAN. The book is a biography of Aaron Burr. While the whole thing was quite enlightening and arresting, one aspect was the author's revealing how politics back then was even more dirty than it is now. A common tactic was to try to frame an attack around sex. Jones takes well to that tactic. It's certainly a good way to expose how infantile one is. It's also good evidence that you have caught him in a quandary, trying to figure out an intelligent reply but coming up empty.
My impression is that what Jones may have meant was:
"Do you also turn to sexual self-gratification when frightened?".
No, Jones, I used to but that was when I was in grade school. You may need counseling about that. But don't believe your fellow religious fanatics when they say you'll go to hell for doing that; there just isn't enough room down there for that many people. But you might want to start checking your hands for warts.
And I say unto you:
"People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness. (NIV, 1 Timothy 6:9-11)"
Would someone please give me a list of the various ways to circumvent the above? The only one I have thought of so far is to just ignore it, but I am sure that many good "Christians" of the Jones and John II vintage have figured out more sophisticated ways.
Posted by Truth on September 2, 2007 05:02 PMGrouch
Such a rousing rejoinder! Nice to know you're up and around!
First of all, I know you are a teacher (50th or 60th anniversary of your teaching career this month, yes? Happy anniversary, sincerely!) but I will decline your instruction to cite sources, unless I rely on someone else's authority. Feel free to mark down my work for that failure. When I mentioned you are Orthodox, it was only by way of disposing with the atheistic argument and the "disinterested God" argument- surely neither of those applies to Orthodoxy, since a disinterested God would not have provided for salvation of any form, or provide guidance for any church, whether by tradition or by written means, or through a prophet or other authority- fair enough?
To say that in the absence of an interested God theology does not exist, I refer to theology as it stands today- not merely "words about God," but rather, an attempt to discern what can be known of God- His character, His identity, His intention, His values. If course, "His ways are higher than [our] ways" and therefore He cannot be known in entirety, but some things can be known. Otherwise, one could not say even as much as "We can only know God, we cannot know ABOUT God." That in itself is a statement about God.
It follows, then, that once we acknowledge there is a God who in some way participates in our reality, and to whom we each will someday answer, it seems obvious that with each question that comes up about how we live and what we do, the question presents itself: "Does God have anything to say on this topic that we need to take into consideration?" And if we ask that question 1000 times, and 1000 times we discover that we can find nothing from God on that question, then still, it must be asked again on question number 1001. Because if, indeed, God grants us NO knowledge, and NO direction, then He is no more interested in us then we are in the ant farm I mentioned earlier, and there is no reason to think He cares ANYTHING about what we do.
All of this merely sets the stage to say theology is a legitimate pursuit- I make no claims about what is right and true or erroneous and untrue about Orthodox theology, since I have only a passing familiarity with the Orthodox church (except that they cross themselves backwards as compared to the Romans, of course- but then isn't that what the term "Orthodox" was originally derived from? An Orthodox theologian with an MA acquired in Bulgaria told me that- "Orthodox" means "right crossing," or crossing oneself right-to-left instead of left-to-right...)
In fact, Grouch, I pointed out that you and I cannot agree on how such a discussion of theology should even take place, since we disagree on the "authority" from which such questions must be answered (though, of course, as a good Protestant, I stipulate with you that the actions, beliefs, etc., of the believer do not create the reality of God). Therefore, your comment, "NOWHERE in Orthodox Christianity can one find political, economic, or social statements, belief in which is "necessary to salvation", as are found in the Western groups claiming Christianity - especially Rome," is not relevant to the question of whether we, as a society and as individuals, should ask questions such as, "What does God have to say on the topic of property law?" or "What can we derive form God's revelation to us regarding abortion rights?" Indeed, even if one knows that God exists and still chooses not to follow Him, that one would still be wise to ask what God thinks on a given topic, just because it would be wise to understand the principles which God put into place at creation. In fact, the very topic that brought all this up was my comment that the Pilgrims THOUGHT they were following God's will when they started a commune. Your argument that they shouldn't have thought that because they were illegitimate theologians does not bear on what they THOUGHT they were doing, the observation that they soon changed their minds notwithstanding.
Incidentally, I disagree with your premise that Western theology is all about "final knowledge" about God. It is my experience that doctrinal theology is always open for debate (though obviously, not all theologians are). If some one person comes up with a better understanding of this or that, that person writes an inductive study on the topic, and away we go. It is my opinion that only fools say, "God is this," or "God is that," as if they have final knowledge, except on a very few basic things, i.e.: resurrection, divinity of Christ, etc.. One risks a special judgement reserved for those who presume to teach when stepping out that far. Which is why, in my earlier note to James Jones I said, "That's just my understanding- I'm not saying that's God's point of view."
A final note: The passage Truth referred to was actually probably Mathew 22:36-38: "Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind,' or one of the repetitions from Mark or Luke. But in the example you give, I find no reason one must do away with Original sin, Atonement, etc. I presume your point is that to love oneself, one must have good self-esteem, doing away with "worm theology" that makes us feel like we are mere dirt in God's eyes. While I also support a higher view of man than "worm theology," I stand on my previous premise, that love is how you treat someone, not how you feel about them. In that light, it is assumed that one feeds and clothes oneself, and tries to ease hurts, get well from illness, etc. It is demonstrated in the parable of the Good Samaritan, and it is not an advisement that we love ourselves too little. It is rather an exhortation to love others more, because it is our nature to love ourselves by caring for our own needs. But of course, that is only my own understanding...
Posted by Noggindog on September 2, 2007 05:03 PMNow Truth let's be fair.
I recall that when I was getting my Catholic education, I was instilled with the fear of hell. As a result, I tried my best, unsuccessfully, to avoid masturbating.
Posted by Truth on September 1, 2007 10:25 AM
I didn't make anything up. I was just having a bit of fun.
How big is Hell by the way? I mean, could you take a speed boat?
Posted by James Jones on September 2, 2007 05:04 PMTruth
I feel neglected, you didn't even mention me in your last...
But I have to give you what I gave James Jones. I laughed at the "warts" comment.
Regarding 1 Timothy 6:9-11, I think you are saying you want a way to chase money without the evil consequences, perhaps as a swipe against the self-promoting televangelists that are getting rich by perverting scripture, and other such types?
How fortunate that you asked (even rhetorically), since it bears directly on the previous question of love. The key here is "the love of money." If one serves money at the expense of humanity, evil abounds. If one serves humanity at the expense of money, it does not mean that one cannot get rich, it means only that those riches will not cause evil results. Again, "love" is not a feeling, it is the course of action and the order of priority one puts on things. Similarly, if one serves oneself at the expense of others, evil abounds. But if one serves others at the expense of oneself, evil is not promoted. But don't take my word for it. Grab a concordance and look at all the uses of the word "love" in the Bible (don't neglect to note the variations of the 7 different words translated as "love" from the Greek. You must, of course, compare the same word from verse to verse).
mytwosense said of Mr. Jones:
"It's easy to make sound-bite statements like, "Natural resources must be considered private property if they are to be utilized effectively" and "The political class must be kept out of production and distribution to the fullest extent possible."
But it's a cop out to then not go on to explain why. "
Mr. Jones does a great job clarifying his positions, mytwosense.
Yet, quite candidly, I will tell you that it's not his duty to explain basic economics and capitalism to you.
The concept of private property ownership is the cornerstone to capitalism and our national ideology. If you're unsure about the concept, research it and then come back with specific questions.
I highly recommend two books on the subject:
Basic Economics: A Civilians Guide by Thomas Sowell
Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman
I'm a big fan of both of those authors, especially Mr. Sowell. You can read his blog at Thomas Sowell's blog
Noggindog
I see you have had some exchange with Grimes as have I. He is, as is the always the case, a mixed blessing.
He pretends to atheism while insisting on a rational universe. But as you know, you can't simultaneously acknowedge a design and deny the designer.
I would be interested in learning how you regard providence.
Posted by James Jones on September 2, 2007 06:09 PMNoggindog,
The point is, simply, that Orthodox Christianity DOES NOT engage in any attemto to "discern what can be known of God". That has never been, and is not now, a part of Orthodox Theology.
Now, as to what anyone was, or is, doing today. I said, quite clearly, that to acccept Orthodox Theology means the "complete acceptance of a NEW AND DIFFERENT BELIEF SYSTEM" (emphasis added.)
All that is being done in the "Theology" here is a bit of rummaging around in what this one, or that one, said about this or that, starting from the premise that Western forms of "Theology" have all the answers; and all one needs to do is hunt through whatever Western writer - or writers - said something about a particular question or issue; and there they are.
Which of course, is the perfect right of anyone on this website, or anywhee else one wants to play at "Theology".
The "necessity" lies in the sufficiency of the belief system itslef. I have outlined that system; and I have cited sources for further elaboration, since the website is not really a catechism class - or at least I don't see it to be.
It doesn't matter what one's ideas, opinions, likes, or dislikes are about "abandoning" the ideas of Atonement, etc. To BELIEVE as an Orthodox Christian Believes, is, simply, to know that those ideas ARE NOT THERE in the first place. The "authority" is conained in the matter of the profession of belief.
I know this might be offensive; but I cannot state it more emphatically. Western "Theologizing" - as done here - is nothing more than an exercise in a form of mutual mental masturbation.
Now, all that may be enjoyable, and good fun. But, in the end, all that is produced is just another set of thisa and thata, pieces and parts, that merely continues the existence of the whole of Romanism and the Je$u$ Bu$ine$$, Western "christinaity", with its already fixed heresies, fixed opinions about social, economic, political, and all other secular and civil matters, and fixed responses to human issues and problems.
O.K. Alexander Pope was not, of course, an Orthodox Christian. But, as a poet, he did hit some striking chords of understanding about the underlying reality.
"Presume not God to scan.
"The proper study of mankind is man."
The question: "What does God hve to say on the topic of propeerty law?', would never even be possible in Orthodoxy. It's on the same plane as the "Is God a Republican?" level.
The assumption that God deals with man on a micro-management basis is not Orthodox.
But, again, it is a completely different belief system.
I would contine; but I have a dinner engagement to get ready for.
Just take a look at Meyendorf, for instance. I think you will be surprised.
Perhaps we'll be able to meet again later.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 2, 2007 06:40 PMJames Jones
"Providence" may mean one of at least 3 different things in theology. It can refer to the "provision" God makes for us, it can reference the sovereignty of God, or it is sometimes used to indicate the "natural order of things," such as how physics works. In this context, I presume you refer to the sovereignty of God, since I said earlier that I land squarely in neither the Calvinist nor Armenian camp, and Calvinists typically view providence as the unalterable, inescapable will of God (predestination).
I suspect that predestination, or providence, is how God sees things. However, we do not have that point of view. Our experience is free will. Think of it as a timeline which you are standing on, facing backwards, at the part of the timeline you have already walked on (the past). You can only see the point you stand on, and some small distance behind you. You do not know what is ahead of you on the timeline until you arrive there, and it becomes the point you are standing on. Now think of God as existing somewhere above the time line. He is able to see where we stand, what is behind us, and also what we have not yet reached. He sees this all simultaneously. It helps to understand that God created time, and therefore exists "outside of time," (not such a big deal when you consider that time is actually a function of motion. Stop all motion, of all things, and you have stopped time. At creation, there was no matter or energy to BE in motion, so there could be no "time.") To God, all points on the time-line might be available to Him "right now." Therefore, He sees where we are headed at the same time as where we stand, and where we have already been. There might be no difference between what we see as now and what we see as past and what we can't see- the future - to God. In that way, predestination is really pre-knowing, the way we see it, but much more than that from God's perspective. We still have the freedom to choose our path, but God sees our future choices at the same time that he sees our past and out ancestors past, etc. ad infinitum.
And here's my standard disclaimer: This is MY idea, I don't pretend that God has reveled this to me or that I can adequately support it from scripture. It's just the best I can do to be consistent with all I have seen in scripture on the topic. Now, I will also say real Calvinists are offended by this point of view. That's okay. I'm not going for Miss Congeniality. My experience is most theological debates about this sort of thing are more to do with the vanity of the theologians involved and what they think is important than anything to do with how we live our lives. For some, God's sovereignty is most important. For others, our decision to seek God is most important. I think both happen, and both matter, and both are real, and we are responsible to consider both.
There's my view of providence. I hope that answers your question. I'm going to feel pretty silly if you were asking about, like, in Rhode Island...
Um, Grouch, ahhhh, actually... God IS a Republican.
okay, just kidding. Enjoy your dinner engagement : )
Posted by Noggindog on September 2, 2007 07:14 PMJones: " I was just having a bit of fun. How big is Hell by the way? I mean, could you take a speed boat?"
Do they have speed boats now that can navigate on fire as well as water? I really don't know how big hell is, but I'm sure that you can find out by going to Google maps.
Interesting that you find it fun to wonder if people masturbate. What are some of the other strange things that entertain you?
Posted by Truth on September 2, 2007 07:36 PMNoggindog ,
You should never feel silly. You are correct - time is the bugaboo. Einstein never came to comprehend it and so it is unlikely that I will have any luck. I accept that I am stuck in the human frame of reference.
Your remarks lead me to believe that you see God as omniscient but not omnipotent. So if, as scripture tells us, we poor, pathetic humans have dominion over The Earth, then how exactly are we to proceed?
Science has no meaning if the scientist cannot rely on the constancy of nature. If God is constantly interfering, then what is the point in taking measurements?
But if we are more than an ant farm (and it seems to me given all the fuss we must be) then what causes God to intervene?
For instance, I think the US is the great hope of humanity. We have become Israel.
We are free and we are prosperous. We are a good and decent society given the fact we are peopled by sinners. If that is true, then to what extent will God intervene to help this best, but flawed hope?
Would God, for instance, intervene in Florida to ensure that Gore was not in the White House when 9/11 occured?
What do you think?
Posted by James Jones on September 2, 2007 08:16 PMTruth,
You told me that Hell was not big enough to hold the World's masturbators so you cannot now come back and tell me you don't know how big it is. Is there room for my speed boat or not?
All sorts of things interest me. For instance, I wonder if odd little boys inevitably grow up to be odd little men.
Noggindog, how thoughtless of me not to mention your name. I'll change that right now. Hi, Noggindog.
(For the uneducated, this is a take off on the famous story about the rich man who died and said in his will, "So-and-so, I promised that I would mention you in my will. So, hi, so-and-so".
To the extent that a person serves humanity at the expense of money, he isn't getting rich because to that extent he no longer has the money. It's the money that he has that doesn't serve humanity that can be a problem.
There is also the problem of trying to quantify charity (a/k/a love). Is Gates more charitable by giving away many billions of dollars and still remain the second richest man in the world, or is the poor man who gives of his substance the more charitable? For me, it is the latter, despite the fact that Gates' money will do a lot more good. The amount of good that one does is different than the amount of love he shows. If there hasn't been a saying like "give of your substance, not of your surplus", then there is now.
I think it is great that Gates has done the good that he has, and will continue to. If he were to keep only a paltry ten billion dollars and give away the rest, I would admire him even more, and he would hardly suffer for lack of wealth. The rich man has a greater opportunity, and thus in my mind moral obligation, to do good than does the poor man, although the poor man likely has the greater opportunity, and thus moral obligation, to do good for individuals in need since he lives among them.
Posted by Truth on September 2, 2007 08:34 PM
Oops, I thought I'd heard that before. I ran "give of your substance, not your surplus" through Google and found this:
"It will take the Church a while to digest the personalist philosophy espoused in John Paul’s writings. My favorite oneliners from this apostle of hope include:“give not of your surplus but of your substance”
And this from a Bishop's Appeal brochure:
"Jesus gave us one guideline: “Share from your substance, not just your surplus.”
Posted by Truth on September 2, 2007 08:46 PMSo, Jones, you were just funning around about the masturbate bit, but you are really serious about finding out how big hell is, right? Why is that? Surely you don't plan to have your family join you. And I'm really sorry but I have the impression that you'll have to leave your speed boat behind. You might want to sneak in a water bottle though.
Posted by Truth on September 2, 2007 08:51 PMJones: "Einstein never came to comprehend it and so it is unlikely that I will have any luck."
Unlikely. I really admire hour modesty, Jones.
Posted by Truth on September 2, 2007 08:55 PMJones: "Your remarks lead me to believe that you see God as omniscient but not omnipotent. "
I don't think anyone will ever be able to explain how God could be both all loving, all knowing and all powerful and still allow all the suffering the world has seen, although I am sure there are people out there who will expound at length on how that can be. There is nothing these people can't explain, which is another way of saying that these people can explain nothing.
Posted by Truth on September 2, 2007 08:59 PMTruth,
Time to release the trigger on your machine-gun idiocy and take some time to reload and aim again. Actually, switch to semi-auto idiocy instead: one squeeze of the trigger, one round of idiocy at a time.
Posted by John II on September 2, 2007 09:26 PMJames Jones
God is omnipotent. The question is not "can God intervene?" or even "does God sometimes intervene?" but rather, "why does God restrain Himself?"
Dominion over the Earth essentially means the Earth is here to serve us, not us here to serve the Earth. Also, dominion means we have influence over the Earth, which we must now work exercise in order to survive, eat, etc. We could not survive without dominion.
We take measurements, etc. in order to increase our understanding and ability. Recall that one meaning of "providence" is that God has created an orderly universe that we can count on for human purposes. However, God has always intervened at times of His choosing, i.e. parting the Red Sea, raising a couple people from the dead, even letting prophets know something of the future. The fact that God sometimes acts in miraculous ways does not excuse us from the work that we must do to survive, and if we are diligent, things get easier over time, due to technology, etc. as a result of some of that work.
Where are told clearly that God selects kings and rulers, and therefore it is quite likely that He selected Bush over Gore. It is also true that He selected Clinton. It may be that God sometimes chooses a leader as He chose David, according to His design. Other times he might let us have our own way for a time, as when Israel asked for a king instead of a government by committee, and wound up with Saul as a king (of course, Saul was also chosen by God, but God was not recommending a monarchy at that time. When the people asked for a king, He gave them one.)
Truth
One does not have to pursue money at the expense of all else to get rich, and one need not take advantage of others to get rich. Some get rich WHILE serving others. A manufacturer of medical equipment used in plastic surgery, for example, might get rich of those who can afford the plastic surgery while still making the products available for people disfigured in an accident. There is no automatic mutual exclusion between wealth and service. Further, a rich man might very well live well and give away much to others- while keeping enough to continue to do well and generate more from which he will give away some and live well, into the future.
“Share from your substance, not just your surplus.” is not a passage I am familiar with. While my knowledge of the Bible is not exhaustive, I think I would know if that was in it (please refrain from the obvious joke about my writing being more "exhausting," than "exhaustive," thank you.) That phrase may be apocryphal, and therefore not in my Protestant Bible, or it may be something pronounced by some infallible pope or canonized figure, in which case Roman Catholics would regard it as a guideline from God, but we simple Protestants would not, though the principle is clear, and seems commendable. Your example of Bill Gates vis-à-vis a poorer man is well taken, and in fact it is exactly as related in the story of "The Widow's Mite." A widow dropped her last mite or two mites (a copper coin, like a penny) into the charity box, and Jesus said she had given more than the rich Pharisees who gave large amounts of money (I know, you thought it would be about a really strong, old woman, but such it is not...)
And, Truth, I'm not sure Jones could get a water bottle into hell. After all, they won't even let you take fluids onto an airplane any more for fear of flammables getting on board. How much bigger a problem is that likely to be in hell?
We have now come to the point of discussing the meaning of the word "Love".
While arguing what this word means, you are also arguing on whether it is an action or a feeling.
And you may have noticed that nearly all the women have left the thread.
I am surprised there are not more than 2 or 3 thousand religions on this planet.
How about this one: God is the life force in the matter and energy of the Universe. It is the boy and the ant farm. God wanted to exist beyond the "Word" so it became physical with physical laws that it does not break.
Whatever we do, God does. Same for all life.
Go eat a good steak dinner, hug your dog, watch the stars, so God can have a nice evening.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 2, 2007 09:44 PMNoggindog,
If God is omnipotent and even routinely chooses among presidential candidates, then free will is pointless
If our destiny is pre-determined then what is the point of evanagelizing? Why tell us to spread the Good News if all is already written?
Your response is profoundly unsatisfactory. Surely we live for some greater purpose and the consequence of our lives is not meaningless.
I told you earlier that I am curious about Judas. Do you think that God created this man only to be doomed? That notion is contrary to everything I see in universe and everything I believe about redemption.
Posted by James Jones on September 2, 2007 10:31 PMJames Jones
To take them in order:
1. Whether God intervenes or not, our experience is still free will, and therefore we have to walk that way regardless of God's experience. A different view would be, "If God NEVER intervenes, then life is pointless, because it is all just random."
2. Evangelism- this question is a good one, and it has been asked often by many. My answer is, we evangelize because we are commanded to; it is not our problem or our prerogative to understand all that God asks of us.
3. I'm not absolutely sure, but I believe Jesus said of Judas, "It would be better if he had never been born." Forgive me for not taking a moment to look it up right now. If I am right, the ONLY way it could be better never to be born is if, in the end, he is condemned. Was he destined for that, or did Jesus merely foresee it? My position is that both are possible, simultaneously. Contrast this with the fate of those who "lead little ones astray" of whom it is said, "Better that a millstone be tied around their neck and they are cast into the sea." These folks are "better off dead," but there is nothing here that says they cannot be saved, only that they will be miserable in this life.
James, there are myriad examples of God telling us that it is not our place to decide who God should be, or what He should do. We are also told that we don't have the privilege of understandings everything He does. If, in fact, God predestines us (and there is PLENTY of support for that argument,) then it is the HIGHT of hubris to think we know right, and God does not. Rather, if something is antithetical to your thinking, but it is God's design, then you must change your thinking. A (very foolish, in my opinion) man once told me that if God is not what this man thought God should be, then he wants no part of that God. Do not fall into that error. I suspect God may grant this man's wish.
Have a look at the Book of Job; his error was what you hint at. He thought God was not behaving in a rational, just manner. He changed his mind in the end. God's answer to him was, "Hey, where were you when I was laying the foundation of the Earth? Don't tell me how to run the things I created." (paraphrased, of course.)
Sharon B.
Actually, we were discussing the meaning of the Greek words translated as "love" in the New Testament. Personally, I don't care much if women are in the thread, or if men are in the thread, so long as thinking people are in the thread. Do you mean to imply that "love" is the exclusive domain of women? Is Greek also, then, the domain of women?
Regardless of how many religions there are in the world, the potential still exists that one of them is right. For that reason, it is foolish to think one can simply "decide" what God is or is not. If you feel you have had a "revelation" from a pantheistic god, more power to you. Start a church or write a book. But if you simply think these things cannot be known, excuse me if I disagree and seek to know whatever can be known of God.
How odd that you would be disturbed by talk of God and the Bible in a thread that STARTED with talk of God and the Bible...
Loves means many things. Women have babies, men make religions. None of you have a clue about God but you all go on and on and back to the Byzantium, quoting and paraphrasing as you go.
My how much you read into my little post. And how much that tells me about you.
Also arguing about the meaning of wealth, salvation, deeds, what kind of giving is okay, what is not.
The potential also exists that no human religion is right.
The God idea I postulated is not "pantheistic" but more from the realm of physics. Something along the line of Einsteins`s God.
God can be known from nature, but what you all are talking about is God from myth, stories and personal revelations from people 2 thousand years or, possibly misquoted or even made up years later.
What you call "knowing" is belief.
I love talking about God/Goddess and the Bible, but what a group of pontificating, pompous, posters here.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 3, 2007 12:07 AMNoggindog,
First of all, I missed you water bottle comment to Truth initialy. Let me say this. I have boarded overseas ariline flights and have formed the opinion that it must be much easier to get into Hell then on the UA flight to London. So, I'm not prepared to give up on my speed boat that easily.
Omniscent - Yes. Good, loving and caring - Yes. Intervening im my daily life is the bit I struggle with. I asked someone earlier, and will ask you to consider, Why Jesus?
God made me rational and intends me for salvation because He loves me as he loves all of His Creation. I think it is up to me to say Yes to God just as Mary had to say Yes to Gabriel.
I do understand that my thoughts cannot be God's thoughts. Don't mistake my curiosity for arrogance. I am prepared to accept the mystery of God. Einstein was right, we can see that God does not play dice with universe. That much He shows us.
Having said that, I cannot but be curious about Judas. But not only Judas. What about the two thieves crucified with Jesus. Was one pre-ordainded for salvation and the other condemned?
I do see the force of your remarks. I acknowledge that God is truth and beauty and that may be all we will ever know this side of the veil.
But I must tell you that while I don't have all the answers, I remain unconvinced that God is omnipotent. I think God meant it when He gave us dominion.
Maybe God knew before Eden that Jesus was required for our redemption - maybe not.
Posted by James Jones on September 3, 2007 06:40 AMNoggindog: "And, Truth, I'm not sure Jones could get a water bottle into hell. After all, they won't even let you take fluids onto an airplane any more for fear of flammables getting on board. How much bigger a problem is that likely to be in hell?"
But there is a difference. They don't worry too much about flammables in hell. And anyhow Jones could design a water bottle that looks like a bible; I expect there are a lot of those in hell.
Posted by Truth on September 3, 2007 07:12 AMNoggindog, let me summarize the widow's mite story:
Give of your substance, not your surplus.
Posted by Truth on September 3, 2007 07:15 AMDamn it, why didn't this forum let me finish my post?
I take it that the Bishop's Appeal brochure and John Paul II (not John II) were both paraphrasing the widow's mite story rather than quoting from the bible. Pretty accurate paraphrase, no?
Posted by Truth on September 3, 2007 07:20 AMTruth,
"Damn it, why didn't this forum let me finish my post?"
Providence?
But don't be frightened. Whatever you do remember JP II's signature line - Be not afraid.
Posted by James Jones on September 3, 2007 07:32 AMNoggindog, my post echoes what you also said, that is, that rich people can serve. But they are not good candidates for the widow's mite award. After all, as the story goes, the rich folks gave much to charity. Yet, Jesus seems not to think much of them.
No, I am not advocating that people should be poor. What I am doing is applying the bible to the issue. You got a problem with that? There is a tendency among the Jones' and Johns of the world to try to spiritually lionize wealth. You really can't stretch Jesus that far.
(I'm reminded of someone saying that since Texas has gotten a lot of mileage out of "Don't Mess With Texas", New York should have such a motto. "I'm from New York; you got a problem with that?" was suggested.)
Posted by Truth on September 3, 2007 07:35 AMJames Jones
Revelation 13:06 references "the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world." This is commonly held to indicate that God planned from the beginning to provide salvation for us through the sacrifice of the Christ (I say commonly held because I think one must be very careful when dealing with eschatological literature.)
Mary did not say "yes" to Gabriel as if Gabriel asked her a question. Gabriel said, "Hey, Mary, this is what is going to happen," not, "Hey Mary, want to apply for a job as being 'Mother of God'?" Mary, to her credit, did say (I believe,) something along the lines of "Let it be as you have said," or some such similar thing. But God clearly knew Mary was going to go along with it all before he sent Gabriel. Does that mean Mary was "predestined?" I would say God knew before Mary was born what she would be like, and what she would do. Could she have chosen something different? Well perhaps, but then God would have known what that different thing was that she was going to choose. In the end, the real question is "How could Mary (or anyone) have a free choice if God already knows what will happen?" And, again, I think the answer to that is, as humans, we really don't understand God's perception of "time." We choose our actions in the "present." God knows in the present, past, future, all in the moment that we think of as "now." "I think our "now" is not the only "now" that God experiences. I think free choice is very real to us. I think God gave us choice, knowing full well exactly what we would choose in every situation we come to,because He already sees it. I think we don't have the frame of reference to understand what it is to be "outside of time." Quantum physics shows us that what we see as "time" is very subjective. who knows how God works with it or around it?
James, if our "dominion" makes God not omnipotent, then why doesn't it make US omnipotent? God put a set of rules into play. He is able to suspend them at His will- but that doesn't mean he DOES suspend them. For example, a bunch of scientists a few years ago studying weather patters in the Middle East came to the conclusion that in the right year, with the right weather conditions and proper wind and water levels, there might be a place in the Red Sea shallow enough to walk across. So, did He suspend the rules for Moses and part the Red Sea? Or, did he send Moses to the right spot, at the right time, and let Moses take advantage of normal weather patterns? WHO KNOWS? What difference does it make? In the end, the Hebrews got free of Egypt, as God intended. I figure we will know the answers to many of these questions when we see God. Until then, we are not privileged to understand. Bear in mind that God, for whatever reason, appears to prefer that we seek Him from faith. He could easily appear to all of us, work a few miracles, toss out a few plagues to thin out the unbelievers, and suddenly have 100% of the population following Him. He chooses not to. God knows why (literally.)
Why Jesus? Are you asking why Jesus had to die, or why do I believe Jesus is the living incarnation of God as man?
Truth
yes, I agree with your post(s) on this topic. The applicable passage I know of says "give out of your abundance," but the corollary postulate is that "abundance" is not material, but spiritual. Therefore, it might often mean, "give out of your abundant love" rather than "give out of your abundant funds." Of the two, the first could be said to be giving of your substance, while the second could not. I was merely noting that the phrase, "give of your substance, nor your surplus" does not carry the weight of scripture, however sensible and consistent with Christian ideals it appears to be. I have not seen James Jones or John II lionize wealth as the mark of righteousness. I sincerely doubt that either of them intends that. I do think that appropriating the wealth of others on behalf of the poor demeans the act of giving to the poor, leaving the wealthy less opportunity to give, and robbing the poor of any reason for gratitude. I favor voluntary altruism, and I think we tend to do okay with it, as opposed to social programs enacted in law. But perhaps I have more faith in the individuals that make up society than you do, or less faith in the ability of humanity to manage government effectively over time.
Truth:--
"...the rich folks gave much to charity. Yet, Jesus seems not to think much of them."
Jesus was telling that the rich can't buy their way into heaven by flaunting, or sharing their wealth to gain God's favor. The way to heaven is through faith, not works. True faith will not only gain admittance to the house of God, it will generate the good works, rather monetarily based or by charitable acts and deeds that come from the admonition to love others as yourself.
Posted by on September 3, 2007 12:54 PM12:54PM says that "the rich can't buy their way into heaven by *** sharing their wealth to gain God's favor".
Of course, the passage says nothing at all about the motives of the rich who gave, whether it was to gain God's favor or to help the poor, so 12:54 is assuming something that isn't a part of the scripture.
While it is great that people like Bill Gates give billions to charity, the passage seems to say that from Jesus' perspective they'd have to give an awfully lot more to bring themselves up to the moral or spiritual level of the widow. We should be thankful to them for sharing of their wealth but we shouldn't act as though they have met Jesus' test for real charity.
For some unexplained reason, Noggindog is resistant to considering the phrase "give of your substance, not your surplus" as having scriptural backing. But it is quite obvious that ""they all put in out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty" and that phrase send the identical message. One bible translation reads: "For they gave a tiny part of their surplus, but she, poor as she is, has given everything she has." It would be no surprise if there are not among the numerous translations one that reads "They put in out of the surplus, but she out of her substance".
Noggindog says: "I do think that appropriating the wealth of others on behalf of the poor demeans the act of giving to the poor, leaving the wealthy less opportunity to give, and robbing the poor of any reason for gratitude."
We all pay taxes into a common fund. It is not my money or your money, it is "our money', meaning also that it is not "the wealth of others". We, by democratic means, vote to have a caring and compassionate government and to spend some of that money for the poor and disadvantaged, knowing full well that private charity will not come close to taking care of the problem. Without a caring and compassionate government, many people would live in starvation or close to it. Many children would children go hungry or without medical care or education. Some people favor an uncaring and uncompassionate government. It think it is fortunate that they are a small minority. It is one thing to want to reduce the amount of money going to the social welfare programs as many conservatives want, but quite another to want to eliminate them entirely. Hopefully, the vast majority of Americans will continue to argue with each other on the middle, moderate ground, and the extremists will continue to be a yelling at us only from the fringes.
Noggindog: "perhaps I have more faith in the individuals that make up society than you do".
Social welfare laws were not imposed on the individuals making up the United States; we individuals chose them. Perhaps I have more faith in us than you do.
Posted by Truth on September 3, 2007 03:25 PMTruth is drooling is socialist spiel of the inherent goodness in the collective...shhheeesh!
Posted by on September 3, 2007 04:33 PMTruth-
The idea that there may be some paraphrased translation that might read "give of your substance" does not change the reality that a literal translation does not say exactly that. You may feel it means exactly the same thing, but you also do not read the Bible with the same literal standards that I do. That is why I resist saying your interpretation is same as what the Bible actually says. I have no objection to your words, I merely point out that they are not a literal translation.
"the passage says nothing at all about the motives of the rich who gave"
Mathew 6:1 appears to cover that issue handily: " "Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them." One presumes this would include charitable giving.
I do not know of a popular vote for any welfare program, but that does not mean it has never happened. Certainly, it would be quite a job to see what senators and congressmen were elected by clear majorities and how they voted over the years, as opposed to those who were elected by pluralities. In the end, though, I am happy to grant that you, perhaps, have more faith in individuals. You certainly have more faith that your views are the popular views. I would estimate that on average, 40% or less actually favor the bulk of our social programs as they stand today- although many more would favor a few of the current programs, or most of the programs with some reform. Probably a similar number would favor major eliminations of some programs, and dramatic reform of the remaining programs (no, I don't have a study- this is just my impression.) I deal with indigent people on a daily basis (though, admittedly, not the chronically indigent, i.e. indigent for say, 2 years running) but I have yet to hear anyone say, "My children are hungry." Most of the assistance they get in the short run is charitable, as it takes government programs a little while to kick in and process paperwork. This is not to say charity covers all the basis. On the other hand, it used ot be easier to feed a family and provide BASIC needs. There was a time when a man could pump gas for a living, buy a house, feed 4 kids, and maybe even own a car. That's because while he was in the lowest paid job around, his total tax burden was about 10% of his income. Now, with a tax burden of about 50%, the entry-level jobs don't support even a bachelor trying to live by himself. I'm not sure it was a good trade, over all, though I know you have no doubts.
Noggindog ,
You are correct about Gabriel and Mary. I looked up the text in Luke and see that Gabriel was more instructive then inquisitive. Thank you for correcting my misperception.
You make the case convincingly and yet I must tell you that I remain unconvinced that there is no relationship between our acts and salvation.
God made us rational and endowed us with free will. Consequently we are moral creatures capable of good and evil acts. It seems to me there must be some reason for that beyond playing out the script.
I do not discount providence. I think it entirely probable that Moses was aided by providence and I think God's will may have been active in Florida during the dispute over the election.
However, I do not accept that God intervenes routinely down to the level of selecting political leaders. I can understand God picking Reagan: but Clinton? (Sit down Truth that was a joke)
Likewise, I cannot get my mind around the idea that a loving God created the criminal who denied Jesus only to be doomed from birth.
However, you make a good case and I will continue to study, contemplate andpray over the question.
Our discourse has been, for me, elevating and I am grateful for you posts.
Posted by James Jones on September 3, 2007 07:10 PMDifferent ones of the myriad of bible translations use different words in their interpretation of that scripture. You'd like to think that by golly you happened on the only one that is correct. You have that prerogative.
I don't think any fair minded person, who is not hampered by a particular theological outlook, would see any difference in the meaning of the different interpretations, or in the phraseology that I used. They all convey the same message, that a person who gives of his substance, of what he uses to live on, is doing more that a person who gives of his surplus, of what he can well do without.
[Which reminds me of an interesting definition of wealth by, I think, Emerson: "a person is wealthy in proportion to the number of things he can do without". Which, for some strange reason having nothing to do, I am sure, with your and Jones' posts: "Sedulously eschew hyper verbosity, prolixity, and big words". No extra charge for these quotes; they are just part of the service.]
I say "the passage says nothing at all about the motives of the rich who gave" and for some odd reason you quote a completely different biblical passage which I wasn't talking about. That is too irrational for me. And I certainly have no interest in your various speculations and in the poll results you provide without having conducted any poll. That is too arrogant for my blood. I leave it to you and Jones to continue your long-winded sermons. I gave at the office, which is to say that I've done my time daydreaming through those; not all bad times as I occasionally came up with some pretty good ideas.
Posted by Truth on September 3, 2007 07:53 PMTruth, does commune overseer know that you are using the internet? You have to share equally the bandwidth -- practice the socialism you preach.
Posted by on September 3, 2007 08:44 PMWhat a hilarious thread!
Talk about chasing tails!
Posted by Charles B on September 3, 2007 09:41 PMThis fun thread, which has run longer then many Broadway plays, has not shed any light on the burning question: Was Jesus a capitalist or a communist. A question so spectacular in its dumbness that I can not believe the comments it generated.
Tomorrow the same group will discuss "How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin".
Posted by Sharon B. on September 3, 2007 10:09 PMJohn II
You'll have to wait a moment to change the subject; I have one more salvo to fire. I hope the audience will remain in their seats for the final act...
James Jones-
Thanks, that's a nice compliment. I enjoyed our exchange.
Truth-
I said twice I have no issue with the words you use, but you have to fuss because I point out that I find a literal translation to be useful, and I won't endorse your understanding as fully equal to what Jesus was saying? You truly can't take any smidgen of disagreement?
Fine. Have a bite of this:
The Greek word used in Mark's account and translated as "poverty" in the NIV and "want" in the King James is husteresis. It translates literally as "want" or "lack." The word from Luke's Gospel is related, husterema. It has a slightly broader sense, including the above, but also "deficit,' or "that which is behind." However, the English word, "substance" would generally be taken to mean 1. essence, or 2. material, or 3. meaning, or 4. property. I'm sure you can look it up and find other synonyms or definitions, but clearly the Greek refers to that which is NOT there, and "substance" refers to that which IS there.
Does this change the meaning? Perhaps. The quote you gave is not only not Biblical, it probably does not carry the implication that one should give every last bit that one has. Among other things, it would be irresponsible for a person with a family to give to such an extent that the family could not be fed, unless specifically called at that time to do so for reasons of faith or another direct purpose of God at the time. Catholics, in particular, stress the responsibility of family. A widow, however, is not responsible to anyone other than God, and not responsible for anyone but herself, assuming no fatherless children at home (a young woman in Biblical times would likely have been re-married, or taken into the home of her late husband's brother, or back to her parent's home. An older widow, who's children are grown and who is past child-bearing age might live alone, or might live with one of her grown children. In this case, because she was making the decision of what to give for herself, it is unlikely that there was a man in the household at all, and if there was an adult daughter, one presumes the adult daughter would have some income, so "giving all that she had to live on" would be not only all she had, but all her daughter had as well. This widow almost certainly lived alone.)
So what, then, DOES it mean to "give from your substance"? A casual perusal of Roman Catholic literature (on-line, so look it up) suggests that John Paul was referring to the concept that the poor need not only physical sustenance, but also social justice. Therefore, in the view of Catholic authorities who addressed the subject, "give of your substance" means to give yourself over to the cause of social justice and raising the poor out of poverty. Make it a significant priority in your life. It is to make a commitment of yourself and your life to righting the inequities that create poverty, etc. Wow, what do you know... my earlier suggestion that "give of your substance" might work as a translation of "giving of your spiritual abundance" turns out to be pretty darn close to what John Paul had in mind- but not too close to what Jesus was saying in the passage regarding the widow's mite. And while John Paul said it, and then I said it, God did not say it- at least not here. Therefore, while I might agree that what John Paul said is a good thing, even a nice thing, and I might even agree that what you meant by it is a good thing, I'm not going to blithely go along with your idea that it's what Jesus meant. There is a reason serious students of the Bible do not casually go about putting their own spin on things and calling it "God's Word." You, Truth, are a bright guy, and decent debater, but you are not a serious student of the Bible. I suppose to you that means you are not "hampered" by a particular outlook. Most of us call that "hampering outlook" by a different label. We call it "education." One presumes you have some "hampering outlooks" of your own, but perhaps I am taking that on faith...?
BTW, the earlier write who said Jesus was commenting on rich folks who were trying to make a good impression by giving large donations was correct. It is NORMAL , and good practice, to look at the whole of scripture when considering such things. What Jesus said in one place must be reconcilable to what He said in another. It is standard practice in hermeneutics to consider other similar topics addressed by any speaker in the Bible to understand any passage in question. It is not "irrational" by any standard of translation or interpretation.
Posted by Noggindog on September 3, 2007 11:06 PMMs Fox, Number one, how can you qoute history? Something like the U.S.A. can have a history because if exists! Theology is just that-theory/unproven/ based on someone's writing. That person may have been striving fo the first novel.
Posted by on September 4, 2007 05:17 AMScripture is hilarious, but not as funny as the poor fools discussing it as though it matters...
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 07:00 AMYou can criticize this thread all you want, but I think it is a prime candidate for the prestigious Alice in Wonderland award.
Posted by Truth on September 4, 2007 07:18 AM2 Peter 3:3
"First of all, here is what you must understand. In the last days people will make fun of the truth. They will laugh at it. They will follow their own evil longings."
Noggindog,
Just a couple of fottnotes.
Ortho > Right. Doxos > Glorifying/Praising (see Doxology > words of praise) by extension in English > Worshiping. The particulars of the Sign of the Cross are matters of Customs and Usages, rather than Worship as such.
An Orthodox axiom: "Whatever we say He (God) is, He is not." (In re: Statements concerning the matter of knowing ABOUT God.)
Another very busy day, with complications of trying to straighten out a computer glitch - maybe caused by a sudden power outage last night.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 4, 2007 11:17 AMTruth
"We all pay taxes into a common fund. It is not my money or your money, it is "our money', meaning also that it is not "the wealth of others". "
Our money meaning it is for our use. Tax revenues used to build bridges or buy bombs is our money in the sense that the taxpayers benefit, more or less, equally. You are propose a radical change.
You propose to take money away from one group, the taxpayers, and give it to another, people who don't pay taxes.
The redistribution of wealth changes the tax code from a system designed to promote the commonweal to an instrument of communism.
There is no moral basis for taking money from Bill Gates and giving it to his gardener. Noggindog has explained the morality. There is also a social component. When you take from the taxpayer to give to the non-taxpayer you institutionalize a class system based on income. With that social construct you sew the seeds for resentment and social disharmony.
Gates does not benefit from the government more than his gardener. Therefore, Gates should not be taxed at a higher rate.
With the current tax code approximately one-half of the populace pays no income tax at all. That is a huge mistake. We should all be regarded as free citizens with an equal stake in good government. When the government becomes the source of our prosperity then the interests of the community become subservient to partisan battles over who wins the greater benefits.
"Without a caring and compassionate government, many people would live in starvation or close to it. Many children would children go hungry or without medical care or education. "
The principle determinant of whether a child will grow up in pverty is the marital status of the mother. If you are concerned about the well-being of children, then you should work to strenghthen the social construct of the family and not relying on enhancing the power of governement and reducing the freedom of the individual.
It is the family, not the village (sorry Hillary), that is best-able to look after the welfare of a child.
The communistic approach to charity works no better than the communistic approach to the distribution of good and services. Communism always fails because of a systemic flaw - it fails to take ito account the reality that human beings are endowed with liberty from the point of creation right through to the grave.
Alice in Wonderland?
Tell you what Alice, remember when as a teenager you learned about mortality and worked yourself into a panic?
You misunderstood your parents advice when they told you to get a grip on yourself.
Posted by James Jones on September 4, 2007 11:32 AMCharles B,
There is no way your lips are strong enough to get you all the reading in this thread.
Don't be putting on airs.
Posted by James Jones on September 4, 2007 11:40 AMSharon B,
Careful - judge not lest ye be judged
Posted by James Jones on September 4, 2007 11:43 AMCharles B likes to poke fun at religion. Scoffs at embracing "myths and superstitions" as he believes that he found "the truth", he has the intellectual capacity to see through such crutches or nonsense. After interjecting himself, usually in a very antagonistic or demeaning manner such as at 07:00 AM, he waits to see if anyone will nibble at his bait. If they do fall for the bait he attacks demanding that they prove their myths and superstitions.
All the while he cannot "prove" his belief system anymore than one of faith can "prove" their God. Both sides use logic, analogies and references which cannot stand independently on their own without vulnerabilities and fragilities. Both embrace the arguments which support their own closely held and prized belief system as if absolutes.
Quite a conundrum we have between those of faith in a deity and those that reject such beliefs for whatever reason.
But, draw some comfort with the fact that this debate has been ongoing for thousands of years and will most likely be still going strong at the end of times -- regardless of which scenario you want to envision the end as being.
One thing that is certain in life is that we will all eventually have the proof either validating or denying our personal beliefs when we succumb to our own personal death.
Posted by mongoose on September 4, 2007 11:46 AMJohn II,
Once in a while I go shopping at the mall with my wife. Whe we return I alwasy make the same remark,
"We are doomed as a people."
However, I aslo remember how Americans reacted following the attack of 9/11. We took to the streets in signs of support and defiance, we held prayer vigils in communities across the country, we sent blood to New York in such quantities that the officials had to ask us to stop.
The hat-on-sideways crowd seemed to simply evaporate. Keep the faith.
And avoid free events in Denver.
Noggindog
You bring the essence of Christianity to this page as I have never seen before.
Well done.
Posted by James Jones on September 4, 2007 11:53 AMI expect death to be like going under anaesthesia. Nothing.
The idea that all we do and see and love just stops is what keeps religion alive. Best to find an antidote to this way of thinking. Einsteins timid souls approach.
We can not store up memories for an afterlife any more then an alzheimer's patient can retain their personality and mental awareness.
Death is a condition, not a place. Souls are a human invention as is Heaven, Hell, Purgatory or any other "places for the remains of the dead."
If not, see you in Hell Charles, and we will wave up to all of you in Heaven watching us below.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 4, 2007 11:57 AMSharon:--
"We can not store up memories for an afterlife any more then an alzheimer's patient can retain their personality and mental awareness."
Prove it.
Posted by on September 4, 2007 12:15 PMSharon B.
I have no idea where you, Charles or the others you reference in your comment wll be spending "eternity." I'm certain, however, that I won't be watching anyone below, for my brand new eyes, in fact all of my senses, will be focused on the Sovereign Lord. All that was here on earth will be mere shadows. What lies ahead has far more splendor.
Posted by Gail K on September 4, 2007 12:22 PMOld Grouch-
"Ortho > Right. Doxos > Glorifying/Praising "
Thank you for that clarification. I suppose, then, that the Orthodox theologian I spoke with was using the example, "we cross ourselves the 'right' way" not "we cross ourselves from the right side." His native language is Bulgarian, so I see how misunderstood.
James Jones-
"When you take from the taxpayer to give to the non-taxpayer you institutionalize a class system based on income"
Excellent point. Theoretically an argument socialists and communists would have to acknowledge to be consistent with their dogma.
Mongoose
"this debate has been ongoing for thousands of years and will most likely be still going strong at the end of times"
True, but that does not excuse us from Paul's injunction to "always be ready to give the reason for your hope in Jesus Christ." Our problem is what we say. What they hear is their problem.
Mongoose said:
"All the while he cannot "prove" his belief system anymore than one of faith can "prove" their God."
I am not asserting that something exists. You are. Therefore, the onus of "proof" is on you.
"Charles B likes to poke fun at religion. Scoffs at embracing "myths and superstitions" as he believes that he found "the truth""
Yep. The "truth" that I embrace is that I cannot know what is unknowable.
The "truth" that you've embraced is a bit of utterly unprovable fantasy and superstition that mankind invented to replace the reality that I embrace. It's called "ignorance".
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 12:52 PMGail K.,
"I'm certain, however, that I won't be watching anyone below, for my brand new eyes, in fact all of my senses, will be focused on the Sovereign Lord. All that was here on earth will be mere shadows. What lies ahead has far more splendor."
Your life must suck for you to long for another one in such a pathetic way.
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 12:56 PMMy impression is that for Noggindog a "literal translation" is one which conforms to his views.
When he acquires fluency in Aramic, Hebrew and Greek, and access to a number of ancient documents, then he can talk about what is a literal translation and what is not, but only in his opinion since even among scholars that differs. Actually, "literal translation" is an erroneous term since there often is no English literal translation of different foreign language words. Translation is not just a mechanical process; it also involves choosing among different alternatives. Translators are by no means mechanics; they are more like artisans. That is one reason why there are so many different translations of the bible, each coming up with different English words than the others.
Noggindog says he has a different standard than do I. Of course, that is a totally meaningless statement without his saying what he considers his standard to be and what he speculates is my standard. But to do that would require more than just empty rhetoric. What he really wants to convey with that statement is that he has a more sophisticated or accurate standard than I do, but he doesn't want to explain how he arrives at that self-serving conclusion.
Posted by Truth on September 4, 2007 01:00 PMMongoose tried out Pascal's wager:
"One thing that is certain in life is that we will all eventually have the proof either validating or denying our personal beliefs when we succumb to our own personal death."
Think of all the time you'll have wasted...Too late!
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 01:01 PMCharles B
Doesn't actually "suck," but when you believe the promise, and have had a glimpse of it, well, all I can say to those who don't is, ya have to have been there.
Best wishes to you in this life, which indeed would be your best life, even if it doesn't suck.
Jones: "Our money meaning it is for our use. Tax revenues used to build bridges or buy bombs is our money in the sense that the taxpayers benefit, more or less, equally. You are propose a radical change."
What world does Jones live in? Here is a guy who wants to go back to the predatory capitalism that America rejected a long time ago, who is part of the crowd that sometimes accuses us of having a government with a socialist orientation, who opposes the kind of regulated capitalism which we have had for many years, who wants to do away with all of the government programs except those for building bombs and bridges, who wants an uncaring and uncompassionate rather than the one we have had for many years, and he thinks I am the one calling for a radical change.
Posted by Truth on September 4, 2007 01:15 PMProverbs 8:17
I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.
Gail K has visions:
"...when you believe the promise (of an afterlife), and have had a glimpse of it..."
Care to elaborate on your delusions so I can have a good laugh at your expense?
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 01:21 PMCharles B
I haven't embraced or advocated either position. I haven't stated whether I embrace or deny deity. I just pointed out the futility of either side "proving as absolute" something which cannot be proven.
You can attack me by claiming that I am a defender of deity all you want to defend your own position. But once again, you are jousting with windmills in order to defend your beliefs -- mine have never been presented nor defended by me.
Observing the vociferous defense of your beliefs that you threw up in attacking me in multiple posts, one could almost speculated that you are struggling with yours.
I have nothing to defend as I haven't attempted to foist my beliefs onto others, nor ridiculed them for the beliefs they do hold. I've questioned and speculated with people from both sides of the issue. You're the only one to attack rather than explain in defense of their position.
If you find comfort in building and attacking a straw man issue by projecting a belief system onto me for you to attack, feel free.
Posted by mongoose on September 4, 2007 01:22 PMMy impression is that when Truth says only a "few people on the fringe" support right-wing ideology, he thinks that is profound. But when I say, "My impression is that about 40% of people are [strong left] and about the same [strong right]," then that is "too arrogant for [his] blood," And he "has no interest" in my opinions. Thanks for that insight, Truth.
My impression is that when Truth doesn't like what I say, he says I am "hampered by a particular ideological viewpoint." By that logic, though I am by no means poorly educated in theology, if I am "hampered," Old Grouch is positively handicapped, since his education and breadth of knowledge in Orthodox theology dwarfs mine of Protestant theology. How odd that Truth does not take issue then with his political compatriot, Old Grouch. Or perhaps it is a logic of convenience?
My impression is that Truth thinks I have to give specifics before I can mention generalities, such as saying, "I have a more literal standard of translation of the Bible," even though his own words about the Bible were, "It is the very nature of allegory that it lends itself to different interpretations. You can easily bend it to your own way of thinking." One might think that since I do not believe the Bible is written as allegory, it would be obvious that I hold to a more literal standard than he. I suppose if I were to say, "I am taller than my mother," he would not believe me unless I document an independent study of my mother's height and my own, and give the specific figures. Even then, he would say, "Until Noggindog shows me his degree in engineering and survey, I don't have to consider that HE MIGHT JUST BE RGHT!"
My impression is that, since Truth can no longer pretend to any understanding of hermeneutics, his premise regarding one passage having been thoroughly trashed by proper application of sound principles, he chooses instead to say, "Well, but Noggindog is a right-wing bad guy, and, and... and he's a MEANY! and he's DUMB! and, and... I DON"T LIKE HIM! (sniffle)."
Fine, Truth. I suggest you take your remaining marbles and go home. You don't belong in this game until you do some graduate work around the basics of hermeneutics. And I'm tired of trying to bring you along to some sensible understanding politely.
I don't believe it's wise to throw pearls before swine.
Posted by Gail K on September 4, 2007 01:47 PMNoggindog:---
"...I'm tired of trying to bring you along to some sensible understanding politely."
Welcome to the club. Many of us have grown exhausted attempting to explain anything to Truth. Quite often he speaks with implied authority on a topic where it's quite obvious he has no knowledge beyond an emotional grasp to support his socialist vision of Nirvana on earth.
Whether he tries to spin the scriptures, or fabricates new concepts - like socialistic capitalism - it's all to "support" his agenda of advocating a socialistic run society where there is neither excessive glee nor repressive glum -- all are in harmony.
Posted by on September 4, 2007 01:49 PMGail:--
Sometimes it may be the only way for the blinded to become seeing. Perhaps, the glimmer cast from the pearls will catch an eye and encourage further exploration of the source.
Posted by on September 4, 2007 01:54 PMGail-
"I don't believe it's wise to throw pearls before swine."
Of course you are right. Do you suppose it would be more worthwhile to load the pearls in a sling-shot and fire them at his ass?
Just a thought...
Posted by Noggindog on September 4, 2007 02:03 PMTruth
"who wants to do away with all of the government programs except those for building bombs and bridges, who wants an uncaring and uncompassionate rather than the one we have had for many years, and he thinks I am the one calling for a radical change."
Bridges and bombs are offered not as a comprehensive list but as examples of items that advance the commonweal.
Your proposal is radically different in that you would to use the tax code to the detriment of some for the benefit others. That is a completely different concept of the purpose of taxation.
You should be clear about the intent and efffect of your proposals.
...their is merit in that thought. Unfortunately the execution is problematic given the nature of the forum.
Posted by James Jones on September 4, 2007 02:10 PMJames Jones
Well, every plan has a weakness, I suppose.
"...load the pearls in a sling-shot and fire them at his ass..."
Onward Christian Soldiers!
Posted by on September 4, 2007 02:14 PM"Casting pearls before swine"...
Not being Wesleyan, I still would like to quote what he had to say in regards to Matthew 7:6.
John Wesley:
"Here is another instance of that transposition, where of the two things proposed, the latter is first treated of. Give not — to dogs - lest turning they rend you: Cast not - to swine - lest they trample them under foot. Yet even then, when the beam is cast out of thine own eye, Give not - That is, talk not of the deep things of God to those whom you know to be wallowing in sin. neither declare the great things God hath done for your soul to the profane, furious, persecuting wretches. Talk not of perfection, for instance, to the former; not of your experience to the latter. But our Lord does in nowise forbid us to reprove, as occasion is, both the one and the other."
John II tells me: "Mr. Jones does a great job clarifying his positions, mytwosense.
Yet, quite candidly, I will tell you that it's not his duty to explain basic economics and capitalism to you.
The concept of private property ownership is the cornerstone to capitalism and our national ideology. If you're unsure about the concept, research it and then come back with specific questions."
John II, are you saying that capitalism is our national ideology? Or private property ownership? In any case, I would disagree with either premise, just as I would disagree with a premise that states because we have public education, transportation, and Social Security makes us a socialist nation. This country has a long history of both private and collective efforts, private and government-funded initiatives, and so on.
If you're interested in a thoughtful exchange of ideas about, say, the merits and cons of nationalizing a valuable resource like oil, I'm all for it. But not if the discussion is already framed under a false premise along the lines of (and I realize I'm paraphrasing, but assume this is what you mean) "We should privatize our public resources because private ownership is the cornerstone of our nation's ideology."
That assumption is erroneous and blatantly ignores several key facts about our nation's earliest history. Just a few of which you can read about in the article: "Myth: Early Americans Built This Land On Rugged Individualism."
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-west.htm
However, I doubt you will...just as I'm not particularly inclined to study up on Milton "Let's Outsource to India!" Friedman...so here is the final excerpt of the article that best sums it up anyway:
The West has a rich tradition of dependency on government. As historian Stephanie Coontz says: "It would be hard to find a Western family today or at any time in the past whose land rights, transportation options, economic existence, and even access to water were not dependent on federal funds." Paradoxically, however, the West has also enjoyed a long tradition of anti-government sentiments. When John Wayne punched out "Mr. Government Bureaucrat" in a Hollywood Western, he was acting out the misplaced rage of many Western Americans.
In closing, the story of the Montana Freemen is especially revealing. This is the radical anti-government militia that kept the FBI at bay in an armed stand-off that lasted for months. It turns out that they had stalled foreclosure on their farms for ten years by accepting $676,082 in government farming subsidies and loans.
Apparently, government assistance makes one ungrateful.
Posted by mytwosense on September 4, 2007 02:18 PMNoggindog
"Our problem is what we say. What they hear is their problem."
That's what makes it so frustrating, fascinating and worthwhile; and, why it will never change. Man can never on his own, or collectively, truly comprehend his complete environment. A truly objective and open person will welcome the sharing of ideas and beliefs as doing so can either provide more justification of one's own belief system, or lead to enlightenment which can improve that same system.
Posted by mongoose on September 4, 2007 02:33 PMJust returned from Judea 30 A.D. Couldn`t find any communists, capitalists or socialists there. Mostly just people in the employ of Rome, running things for other people, and a lot of folks living hand to mouth.
Some made things, furniture, weapons, etc, with the help of their family, servants and of course, slaves.
Kind of hard to have slaves and a truly capitalist society, but there were some wealthy Jews and others who made money how ever they could.
If I remember right, the cost of making something, say a table, deducted from the expected selling price is capital. Not profit.
When slave labor is used the cost goes way down and maybe this is a capitalists dream, it was in the U.S. during slavery days, but I don`t think this kind of system has an exact correlation to anything we have now.
Now if I remembered capitalism wrong, boy do I expect to hear about it.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 4, 2007 03:22 PMSharon B-
"Just returned from Judea 30 A.D. "
Look out, Charles B is about to start mocking you for having delusions...
Posted by Noggindog on September 4, 2007 03:28 PMThanks to mytwosense for the article "Myth: Early Americans Built This Land On Rugged Individualism."
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-west.htm
An awful lot of "history" is really about self-aggrandizment, just as is the case with the posts by Jones and Noggindog.
The ego-laden hypocrisy of Jones and Noggindog is wondrous to behold, pseudo-Christians who reject the Christian message. As is often the case, they think that religion is about preaching, not practicing. I'm reminded of St. Francis view of preaching: "Preach the gospel at all times, use words only if necessary". While I certainly have better things to do than to read all of the rhetoric they have posted here, I get the impression that little of it is about love and service, which are the guts of any worthwhile religion. They prefer to spend their time dancing on the head of a pin.
Posted by Truth on September 4, 2007 03:28 PMSharon:--
That's Truth's definition of predatory capitalism; or at least part of it. Lock the doors until the government has more control to the point of it being a non-profit organization.
Posted by on September 4, 2007 03:29 PMReally, Truth, please.
Do you not realize that the curtain has fallen on this particular production? Do stop, you're embarrassing me with your nonsense. Here, since you seem to have spent too much time in the men's room to follow the play, let me re-cap the highlights of the plot.
The play opens in a small hamlet along the Information Super Highway. A few villagers are standing around having a polite debate. On the one side, reasonable people presenting their ideas. On the other, an elder philosopher (played admirably well by Old Grouch,) and his henchman, who claims that whatever he says is the "Truth!"
By the time the curtain rises on the second act, the old philosopher has retired. His place is held by the evil henchman who always says, "Its the Truth!" but who, in fact, is obviously making up everything he says as he goes along. He attacks our hero, issuing an ultimatum: "Join me, or I will SAY MEAN THINGS ABOUT YOU!" and then he throws out a weak argument couched in the question, "A pretty good paraphrase, no?" But he really does not want an answer; he simply wants to subvert the hero. And then it is revealed that the villain has a secret power: He spews bile all around him! Our protagonist, though, is not easily intimidated. He tries to resist combat, but he won't give in to the villain regardless of the bile and bad smells abounding around the village from his foe's evilness. In time it becomes clear, after many insults and much specious reasoning by the bad guy, combat can no longer be avoided, and the mighty struggle in undertaken. At the end, the curtain prepares to fall on the final act with the villainous henchman helpless on the ground. The hero is poised for the death-stroke, but of course, in the manner of all classic heroes, he has mercy, and leaves the villain weak and wounded, bleeding and blustering, but alive. In the last moments of the fading stage lights, the villain murmurs, "I'll be back, and then we'll see just how good you are, Mr. Smarty-pants," thus setting the stage for a sequel.
Too bad you seem to have missed all that.
Now, the applause you hear is my public, calling me back for a curtain call, so if you will excuse me... this play really is over. Please move to the exit in an orderly fashion. And do wipe those tears off your face. The play had a happy ending for all "Right" thinking people...
Truth:--
"...little of it is about love and service, which are the guts of any worthwhile religion..."
How about belief, faith? Or, do you just preempt portions of a lot of religions and spin them to fit you self-aggrandizement in putting forth the correct interpretations to justify the fulfillment of universal socialism?
Spin, baby, spin; don't let the actual truth get in your way...
Posted by on September 4, 2007 03:34 PM"...Charles B is about to start mocking..."
No, not to worry. Charlie only attacks when sees an opportunity to stick a knife through the target he has painted on someone's back. If he can't build up the scenario he can't show his arrogance in knocking it down.
Posted by on September 4, 2007 03:41 PMTruth, likewise, thanks for the St. Francis quote. That's beautiful. I hadn't heard it before.
Posted by mytwosense on September 4, 2007 03:45 PMMongoose, you said:
"I haven't embraced or advocated either position. I haven't stated whether I embrace or deny deity. I just pointed out the futility of either side "proving as absolute" something which cannot be proven."
I have not asserted any absolute. I ridicule those who believe in God because they have zero evidence of any kind that gives credence to their belief system.
Since my belief system isn't based on something that is unprovable, I don't have to defend it.
"I haven't stated whether I embrace or deny deity."
So what? You shouldn't be forced to make a false choice.
"Observing the vociferous defense of your beliefs that you threw up in attacking me in multiple posts, one could almost speculated that you are struggling with yours."
...but all it would be is speculation, just like the masturbatory drivel that makes up the large portion of this thread.
"have nothing to defend as I haven't attempted to foist my beliefs onto others..."
Actually, you have foisted your belief that my position depends upon proving and "absolute".
It does not.
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 03:51 PMGail K said when pressed to give details of her encounter with the after-life.
"I don't believe it's wise to throw pearls before swine."
Fine. You're embarrassed...
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 03:54 PMSo there you are with all your senses trained on Glory, your new eyes drinking in the Sovereign Lord, when your new butt starts to get tired and your new brain realizes that eternity has no end. Like the Muslims who believe that Heaven will be a place of a never ending orgasm, even good things become too much very quickly.
Nothing to do, no place to go, nothing to produce or eat or wear, no kids to have and everyone is about 16, looking like prom night with wings.
And I hope I wasn`t one of the swine mentioned earlier, because as a member of the Pigs Lodge, you should cut down the insults on my brothers and sisters.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 4, 2007 04:06 PM
Mongoose percieves me as being dogmatic in my views, yet my view is the rejection of dogma.
"That's what makes it so frustrating, fascinating and worthwhile; and, why it will never change. Man can never on his own, or collectively, truly comprehend his complete environment. A truly objective and open person will welcome the sharing of ideas and beliefs as doing so can either provide more justification of one's own belief system, or lead to enlightenment which can improve that same system."
I don't question peoples beliefs for the mere thrill of it. I believe that religion based on belief in the supernatural is going to lead to the extermination of human-kind unless it is checked.
I am here to check it as best I can.
If you or anyone tells me you believe in ghosts, I'm gonna ridicule you.
If Gail K tells me she's seen the afterlife, I'm going to ask for details, because I know they won't be forthcoming, or if they are, they're likely to be easily debunked.
If you try to act as an apologist for irrational thinking, I'm going to state clearly that I understand what you are doing- offering false choices and pretending the contemplation of improbable hypotheticals premised on unprovable mythologies inspired by ignorance is worthwhile.
It isn't.
I do reserve the right to change my mind based on new evidence
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 04:11 PMCharles B
"Actually, you have foisted your belief that my position depends upon proving and "absolute...It does not."
The point I was making, contrary to your intellectual fear of disagreement, is that no belief system, by definition, can be proven or demonstrated as absolute. You do assume more ethical liability in your attacking the belief constructs of others and asserting that yours are superior with nothing but your own cognizant beliefs as substantiation.
Open disagreement and debate requires no ethical foundation reinforcement, only comfort and belief in your position. Whereas ridicule and attacking others from an assumed superior moral and intellectual stance comes across as either fear or childish in the absence of factual substantiation.
An example would be your offhand retort to Gail K -- "Care to elaborate on your delusions so I can have a good laugh at your expense?" Not exactly a definitive, factual response proving or denying anything -- but, you do feel superior in putting her and her faith in "it's rightful place." Such "debating" tactics are usually more effective in driving people away from, rather than to your position.
But, as with anything else, your debating strategies and the veracity you desire to achieve, is for you to decide -- not for someone else to determine for you.
Posted by mongoose on September 4, 2007 04:22 PMSharon B
Butts won't get tired, and people won't cry. Neither will there be any boredom. The alternative is what should be loathed more. Hmmmm.... what's worse? Eternal praise and glory to the Lamb, or, well, you've heard it all before.
The swine comment was a reference to a quote. I don't expect those who are untrained in Scripture to recognize it.
Posted by Gail K on September 4, 2007 04:22 PMThree cheers for Mongoose's impressive efforts to remain civil on this forum! It's sure not easy to do...but then, the hardest way to do things generally ends up being the most effective, even if it takes some time to see the results.
Anyway Mongoose, you inspire me to rekindle my efforts to stay respectful, no matter how rude others on this forum can be. I've slipped a time or two, that's for sure.
Charles B
"...offering false choices and pretending the contemplation of improbable hypotheticals premised..."
However, what you offer is no more provable nor morally and intellectually superior.
"I believe that religion based on belief in the supernatural is going to lead to the extermination of human-kind unless it is checked."
In contrast to those who hold a moral and philosophical code based on religion believe that the only hope for humanity to both survive and proper.
Posted by mongoose on September 4, 2007 04:35 PMGail K said:
"The alternative (to "heaven") is what should be loathed more. Hmmmm.... what's worse? Eternal praise and glory to the Lamb, or, well, you've heard it all before."
Ah yes, Pascal's wager is your only recourse when cornered by the circle that cannot be squared..
Still can't wait to hear about your flirtation with ghosts and magic! Hope it's as good as Harry Potter!
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 04:39 PMOh Lordy, Gail I know all the scriptural references to pigs. Poor pigs got blamed for everything.
I guess that worshiping and singing will keep you all busy for ever, but it sounds boring to me.
Why does God need so much positive reinforcesment?
Read your last line to me. Priceless.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 4, 2007 04:42 PMHealthy debate is good; but taking the bait is foolish.
You may quote me!
Posted by Gail K on September 4, 2007 04:44 PMSharon B
"Read your last line to me. Priceless."
Thanks!
Re your other remarks, does this help?
1 Corinthians 13:12
"Now we see only a dim likeness of things. It is as if we were seeing them in a mirror. But someday we will see clearly. We will see face to face. What I know now is not complete. But someday I will know completely, just as God knows me completely."
Mongoose said of what he termed my "beliefs":
"However, what you offer is no more provable nor morally and intellectually superior."
Please tell me what I offer Mongoose, so we're on the same page.
I'll tell you what I don't offer.
I don't offer answers to questions that cannot yet be known in order to fill the void of human understanding.
I don't offer respect to ideas that deserve none, given that they are grounded in thin air and manufactured by men from whole cloth.
You keep telling me the same thing over and over: That I should "respect" others beliefs.
I believe respect is earned. I will offer it when some sound logic or compelling evidence convinces me to.
Of what you term my "beliefs" you say they are:
"In contrast to those who hold a moral and philosophical code based on religion believe that the only hope for humanity to both survive and proper."
Based on the verifiable historical results, this is clearly bunk. Don Quixote would be proud..
The only way an otherwise rational person straps a bomb on and murders themselves and others is by holding this irrational belief in an "afterlife".
Christianity is co-dependent on Islam is co-dependent on Judaism etc. It's all the same premise: Belief in ghosts and magic.
I don't respect it, and can't find a shred of credibility in it.
I don't rule out being convinced however, but it won't happen if you keep repeating the same thing over and over..
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 04:56 PMCharels B,
In a recent thread you told me that you did not think society should prohibit marriage by family members, specifically - society should allow a father to marry his daughter. In this thread you make it clear you have no tolerance for people with Christian religious views.
So you have more tolerance for people engaging in incest then people expressing religious views.
What do you see as the distinction that makes incest more tolerable to you than religion?
Posted by James Jones on September 4, 2007 05:05 PMIncest doesn`t get a tax break. JJ, that was about the weirdest comparison you have ever made.
It is so much better than the classic "Have you stopped beating your wife" Line.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 4, 2007 05:16 PMCharles B
I'm not asking you to do or believe anything. in fact, I'm not even asking you to be open to anything other than your own beliefs.
But, while you're talking about those purveyors of death in the name of religion, please don't leave out those on your side of the argument who slaughtered people to support their position. You can start with Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao. A few thousand more could be added if you did a little research. Strictly as a speculation, I would submit that the totals killed in the name of religion would rival the number killed by the anti-religion believers.
Believe what you want. You are on a self proclaimed crusade to cleanse the world of myths, ghosts and superstition for the sake of humanity. By insulting and ridiculing you are probably more effective in getting them to tighten their protective hold on their faith than you are at providing any enlightenment to break that hold.
As I stated before; if you want to project a belief on me to have a straw man to joust with, feel free.
Posted by mongoose on September 4, 2007 05:21 PMBackyard, Redneck Dictionary
Incest = rolling your own
Posted by on September 4, 2007 05:26 PMmongoose:--
why do you even pay attention to that ass charles b? he doesn't discuss or debate but just tries to humiliate others to make himself feel superior at there expense. he must have some deep seated psych problems he's trying to hide by attacking everybody the way he does. what a pompous putz.
CA
Posted by on September 4, 2007 05:55 PMGail, if you have a butt that can`t get tired, it is not a real butt, it is a faux butt. Why do you need one?
All you need in Heaven are vocal cords and lips so you can praise god. Don`t even need lungs because there won`t be any oxygen.
If I get to Heaven I will certainly give Goddess a rousing round of applause for Her work. Especially for sunsets and cold water. But all that will be just a memory there.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 4, 2007 06:11 PMDang, Mongoose knows how to spank hard, ouuch…
Posted by Uno on September 4, 2007 06:27 PMTruth,
"The ego-laden hypocrisy of Jones and Noggindog is wondrous to behold, pseudo-Christians who reject the Christian message. "
Ok - so using the tax code to redisribte wealth in actually a religious belief. Pseudo-Christians like me, John II and Noggindog, argue for the free market principles which, must actually be atheism.
I'm not going to ask why you you would to leave the predatory capitalists in the equation at all when it would be so much simlpler just to have the government take cover production and distribution and remove the middle man. I'm sure that will occur to you soon enough.
I am curious about this. Doesn't the establishment of your religious belief as the law of the land violate the principle of Church/State separation.
It sounds to me as though you're trying to overturn the constitution and establish a theocracy.
But I'm sure you've thought this through and have the principles important to you well in hand.
Posted by James Jones on September 4, 2007 06:50 PMJJ:
"In a recent thread you told me that you did not think society should prohibit marriage by family members, specifically - society should allow a father to marry his daughter. In this thread you make it clear you have no tolerance for people with Christian religious views."
I reject your premise.
I tolerate religious views, I just don't respect them.
"So you have more tolerance for people engaging in incest then people expressing religious views."
Haha! That's all you got JJ?
Pretty sad you great intellect you...
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 07:17 PMGail K continued to filibluster:
"Healthy debate is good; but taking the bait is foolish."
Ahh yes, can't be bothered to support her contention that she has seen the afterlife.
Then I suggest not making the assertion in the first place... (resigns self to reality that Gail K. will never answer with specifics.)
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 07:29 PMCharle B,
No I have a bit more.
I asked you for the difference between incest and religion in your view. Your response is that you tolerate but don't respect religous views.
So the difference must be that you both tolerate and respect incest.
Or do you not see any difference at all and just didn't have the wit to say so?
Posted by James Jones on September 4, 2007 07:34 PM"One note" Mongoose said:
"As I stated before; if you want to project a belief on me to have a straw man to joust with, feel free."
Well, since you aren't willing to go on record stating what you believe, I will continue to assume your vociferous defense of the idiocy of blind faith is born of religiosity. Correct me if I'm wrong.
"I'm not asking you to do or believe anything. in fact, I'm not even asking you to be open to anything other than your own beliefs."
So what exactly is the usefulness of us conversing at all? So you can tut-tut me for being abrasive?
No thanks.
I'd still like to hear what you think the "absolutes" that make up my "beliefs" are...
My only contention regarding your responses to me is that hypothesizing about improbable circumstances (example: How does one get into Heaven? What's it like?) is a waste of time. How about discussing issues that arise from what is known, rather than what is not?
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 07:40 PMJJ said stupidly:
"I asked you for the difference between incest and religion in your view. "
No you didn't...
"Your response is that you tolerate but don't respect religous views."So the difference must be that you both tolerate and respect incest."
Two points for the first person to point out the logical fallacy employed here by Jimmy Jay.
Have you ever taken a course or investigated the basics of logic and reason JJ?
From the looks of it, no...
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 07:44 PMUno said:
"Dang, Mongoose knows how to spank hard, ouuch…"
Is he with you now?
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 07:48 PMCA chimed in hypocritically:
"mongoose:--why do you even pay attention to that ass charles b? he doesn't discuss or debate but just tries to humiliate others to make himself feel superior at there expense. he must have some deep seated psych problems he's trying to hide by attacking everybody the way he does. what a pompous putz.
CA"
So let's have it CA. What logical premise do you have that supports your contention? Let's debate it. I won't even call you names...
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 07:51 PMNoggindog, calm down before you have a heart attack. And you're allowed only one temper tantrum a day. Maybe you should go back to writing those long-winded sermons that you and your mirror image like to swap back and forth.
By the way, I really enjoyed seeing you pretend you are a Greek scholar. Great sport. Did you know I speak fluent Spanish? And I can prove it: ¿habla usted el español?. And my French isn't bad: parlez vous le français?. I guess we are both expert linguists.
Now, if you could just learn to write English concisely. Is there a Greek equivalent for the word "turgid"?
Posted by Truth on September 4, 2007 07:55 PMCharles, you’re the one with the red butt.
Posted by Uno on September 4, 2007 08:02 PMCharles B
"I will continue to assume your vociferous defense of the idiocy of blind faith is born of religiosity."
You know what they say about those who are frail enough to fall into the self made trap of having to ASS U ME...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I'd still like to hear what you think the "absolutes" that make up my "beliefs" are..."
Two hits in the straw chest. Still plenty of target available before we have to re-stuff the straw man. Let me know when you need a bigger target for your lance -- no, on second thought, just project the target you want to hit.
I've been trying to get out the office for an hour now, so I'll catch you (or your lance) another day.
Posted by on September 4, 2007 08:29 PMI apologize; I moved to my assistant's computer when I replied to Charles B at 08:29PM and didn't have my handle in place. Didn't mean to be anonymous.
Posted by mongoose on September 4, 2007 08:36 PMPosted anon. September 4, 2007 05:26 PM
"Redneck Dictionary
Incest = rolling your own"
Add to it:
Charlie Boy's picture is next to the definition showing what comes from such a relationship.
Posted by on September 4, 2007 08:41 PMShould be fun...you convincing me that people who believe in ghosts and magic deserve intellectual respect...
"You know what they say about those who are frail enough to fall into the self made trap of having to ASS U ME..."
Until you make it clear that my assumptions aren't correct, it's my best guess...
I think you're disingenuous.
Otherwise, why tap-dance?
So you can wax on with an air of moral superiority without risking anything?
Like I said, that would be a waste of time.
Truth:--
Here are some phonetically written Farsi for you to add to your "vast" language skills --
anie neek pa
Posted by on September 4, 2007 08:50 PMMongoose, one more thing regarding this:
"But, while you're talking about those purveyors of death in the name of religion, please don't leave out those on your side of the argument who slaughtered people to support their position."
What is "my side of the argument" in the above fallacy of guilt by association?
You keep claiming I'm attacking a straw man by asking you, yet you make it clear elsewhere that you have a theory as to what my beliefs and my "positions" are...
Or are you in a bind because you don't know f*ck-all about my beliefs or my "arguments" beyond your superficial knowledge?
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 08:56 PMCharles B,
I took too much for granted. I'll go slowly this time.
The question is on the difference in your view between religion and incest.
You are tolerant of religion
You do not respect religous views
You are tolerant of incest
You a) do or b) do not respect incestuous views.
Take your time.
Posted by James Jones on September 4, 2007 08:58 PM"Truth:--
Here are some phonetically written Farsi for you to add to your "vast" language skills --
anie neek pa
Posted by on September 4, 2007 08:50 PM"
This is really a surprise. Frankly, I didn't know you cared. But since you insist on sending me money, I don't accept anything less than a Ben Franklin.
Posted by Truth on September 4, 2007 09:12 PMCharles B
As I turn off my computer to leave, a response to your last rant:
I believe you have clearly positioned yourself as a self appointed champion of not just the atheist position, but as a crusader who feels that you have to crush any belief in a deity or supernatural being as such beliefs are at the root of all strife and conflict in humanity. Furthermore, you feel that the very survival of human existence is hanging on the successful elimination of beliefs in myths, ghosts and superstition.
You choose to insult, chastise and ridicule as your chosen tactics to dissuade people of their false beliefs, rather than utilizing finesse and tact in attempting to bring about enlightenment to seek change. While I believe such tactics are generally counter productive, you feel them the wisest course to pursue.
A few of your posts, limited to just this thread, in support of that analysis:
“I ridicule those who believe in God because they have zero evidence of any kind that gives credence to their belief system.”
“I believe that religion based on belief in the supernatural is going to lead to the extermination of human-kind unless it is checked.”
“The only way an otherwise rational person straps a bomb on and murders themselves and others is by holding this irrational belief in an "afterlife".
“Christianity is co-dependent on Islam is co-dependent on Judaism etc. It's all the same premise: Belief in ghosts and magic.”
“I don't respect it, and can't find a shred of credibility in it”.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I trust that I have responded adequately to your questions and rant presented below.
“You keep claiming I'm attacking a straw man by asking you, yet you make it clear elsewhere that you have a theory as to what my beliefs and my "positions" are...”
“Or are you in a bind because you don't know f*ck-all about my beliefs or my "arguments" beyond your superficial knowledge?”
The computer is now going to be switched off and I'm heading home. If, for some reason you want to keep this thread/joust/futile mental masturbation/rant going, post your thoughts and I'll try to get back to them in the next couple of days.
Truth:-- "I don't accept anything less than a Ben Franklin"
Typical welfare socialistic view -- send the entitlements and skip the reality. You and 40acres have alot in common...
Posted by on September 4, 2007 09:33 PMCharlie Boy, orthodox Judaism rejects the concept of Hell and the afterlife. What blows their skirts up?
Posted by on September 4, 2007 09:37 PMJJ:
When you get to "heaven", you can ask your question of Lot and his daughters...
http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/the_seduction_of_lot/gn19_30.html
Meanwhile, I need more information to answer your stupendous question: What exactly are "incestuous views"??
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 09:41 PM"Charlie Boy, orthodox Judaism rejects the concept of Hell and the afterlife. What blows their skirts up?"
It is duly noted that you specified "orthodox".
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 09:45 PMCharlie Boy; "It is duly noted that you specified "orthodox"." So that must mean that you believe in the God of Judaism.
Posted by on September 4, 2007 09:55 PM"So let's have it CA. What logical premise do you have that supports your contention?"
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 07:51 PM
Your such a bitter name caller and vile intent person you can't see it through your own blind arrogance and self held high esteem. You just hurt others to hide your own inadequacies or secret fears so they don't show through. CA was polite in calling you a putz.
Your not hot shit, just cold turds warmed over
Posted by on September 4, 2007 10:15 PMcharles I forgot to ask at 10:15PM why do you fear God so much? Did He hurt you and you can't forgive. You can run from Him but you can't hide.
Posted by on September 4, 2007 10:19 PMCharlie Boy, interesting source that you get your kooky beliefs from.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/the_seduction_of_lot/gn19_30.html
Aren't you getting a little long in the tooth to still be playing with toy soldiers and dolls?
As Paul said, eventually it's time to put away childish things and grow up.
Posted by on September 4, 2007 10:45 PMWell, did Lots daughters get offered to the crowd or not?
Did the angels who came to visit Lot even object to his offer?
Posted by Sharon B. on September 5, 2007 12:28 AMMeanwhile, I need more information to answer your stupendous question: What exactly are "incestuous views"??
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 09:41 PM
Don't play dumb with me:
"Religious views" are the views of people who practice religion.
"Incestuous views" are the views of people who practice incest.
You seem to be having a lot of trouble here. I will make it plainer yet.
Incest is illegal and is rarely praciticed. Relgion is legal and commonly practiced.
You have argued for a legalization of incest which would increase the incidence. You tell me you are tolerant of religion, despite the fact you display zero tolerance, by which you must mean that while you may not think religion should be illegal, you certainly want to discourage the practice.
Your values then, as expressed by you on this page, are society would be improved by an increase in the practice of incest and a decrease in the practice of religion.
Since these are your values (and you are obvioulsy a thoughful man with a keen intellect) I am asking you about the logic that is the foundation for your values.
What is the reasoning that leads you to loath religion and accept incest?
Posted by James Jones on September 5, 2007 05:55 AMThe Christian view as seen by 10:15PM:
"Your not hot shit, just cold turds warmed over"
I have the impression that there are parts of the bible that 10:15PM hasn't gotten to yet.
Posted by Truth on September 5, 2007 07:40 AMTruth,
"I have the impression that there are parts of the bible that 10:15PM hasn't gotten to yet."
It's all a matter of how you choose to interpret the bible. You choose to interpret it as a socialist outline to stealing from the productive to give to the non productive leeches. CA sees a different view.
Talking about books, I bet one of your all time faves is Robin Hood
Posted by on September 5, 2007 08:09 AMJJ
Written to Charlie Boy
"you are obvioulsy a thoughful man with a keen intellect"
You have obviously been reading too much of Charlie Boy's PR releases. He's the only source of the spin that he's capable of thought beyond that of a spoiled little boy who's not allowed to play with big boy toys yet.
"keen intellect"...PUHLEEZE!
"thoughtful"...as an assassin with a back shot
Watch him throw a tantrum a few times a days; harass , not debate or discuss, people who hold ideas other than his childish fantasies and you will see that you can't expect careful or mature thought from the little boy.
But we are are forced to tolerate his rash crudeness and vile repertoire of childish vindictiveness while he pursues his demeaning of others for his own much needed self aggrandizement and self confirmation of worth as censorship is the only alternative -- and that's not an acceptable option in a free public forum.
Just grin and bear it, JJ; and view the rants of illogical arguments as humor from the little boy trying to be a man.
Posted by on September 5, 2007 08:27 AMMongoose:
So you don't agree with my methods of persuasion.
Fair enough.
Do you agree with underlying premise?
Posted by Charles B on September 5, 2007 08:55 AMJJ,
The more you attribute positions that I've not taken to me, the less likely I am to respond. Example:
"You have argued for a legalization of incest which would increase the incidence."
No, I haven't.
Posted by Charles B on September 5, 2007 09:11 AM5 DAYS, and this slapstick is still running!
Even old "Puke & Snot", down at the Renaissance Festival can't match that.
Yep! Jonesy, you surely have proved your full qualifications for a Pulpit. I knew all along you could make the grade.
And you folks there in Second Billing ain't all that bad yourselves.
But, I still doubt it would have made it to the old Orpheum circuit. Even the Scopes Trial was an all round better organized act; and few, if any, here come all that close to old William Jennings Bryan and his performance.
Ah, well! 'Taint for me to give it the hook.
Thanks for the good belly laughs all the way. Makes getting up in the morning real fun.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 5, 2007 09:52 AM5 DAYS, and this slapstick is still running!
Even old "Puke & Snot", down at the Renaissance Festival can't match that.
(And, to my way of thinking anyway, they're a whole lot funnier; and usualy a whole lot more in touch with sensible reality as well.)
Ah, well! 'Taint for me to give it the hook.
But, it still wouldn't have made it to the old Orpheum circuit. Even the Scopes Trial was an all round better act; and no one here comes even close to old William Jennings Bryan and his performance.
But, thanks for the good belly laughs all the way. Makes getting up in the morning real fun.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 5, 2007 09:54 AMSorry, that second posting came off whatever was on before editing with the "Preview" option.
Computer still glitching somewhere, I guess. Backed up from "Preview" to the listing of Letters, without showing the posting; and when I came back into the line, they had both wound up on the page.
My apologies. The first one was what was intended.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 5, 2007 10:03 AMCharles b, said: "holding this irrational belief in an "afterlife"
What's irrational about faith? Just because you can't touch it doesn't mean that it's not there. Can you touch the love for you emanating from your child or do you rely on belief, indications and signs that the love is there?
Posted by on September 5, 2007 10:10 AMIf I may provide the denouement for this 300+ thread...
We have determined that Jesus Christ was indeed a capitalist and not a socialist. It was also determined that Jesus Christ was a Republican and is now a big supporter of Mitt Romney.
We have two new characters on the forum in NogginDog and Mongoose.
Truth still continues to make a fool of himself. I've been tutoring him for eight months now but it seems he still has a long way to go. Truth is also a socialist who hates to be called a socialist and is currently in the process of thinking of a friendlier term to describe his socialist ideology.
Mytwosense is an unabashed socialist.
Charles B. is a bitter middle-aged man.
Old Grouch is a bitter old man.
James Jones and NogginDog are good Christians. How did Truth describe them? Socialistic-Predatory-Capitalistic Pseudo-Christians?
Sharon B. is still nutty.
Posted by John II on September 5, 2007 10:13 AMJohn 2,
You and Jonesy are good.
But in the end, "Puke & Snot" really takes the prize; and stands out as THE Class Act.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 5, 2007 10:26 AMJohn II, considering where some of those tattoos are located, how does your wife feel about you checking them all out?
People believe in U.F.O`s, little people, the pyramids as ancient space stations, etc.
Those who do not hold these beliefs are not required to defend their opinions, but the believers are.
Many people think, not believe, that there is something we would call God if we understood it. This God idea is not found in 4 thousand year old myths from sheep and goat herders who lived in the wilds while other civilizations had real cities and genuine social systems.
To take today's socio-economic systems and try to fit it to a person who was both God and man, to some, is a fun idea, but not possible.
Jesus as man was probably a communal person, as God, who knows.
By the way, while I was in the "way back machine' in Judea, I ran into a bunch of people looking for a Messiah who would come with a sword of fire and free them from the hated Roman rule.
Kind of a modern version of Moses, freeing the slaves from Egypt. They wanted to see Roman blood run in the streets.
I refrained from telling them not to get their hopes up, I kept the ending of the story to myself.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 5, 2007 11:36 AMSharon B
"I kept the ending of the story to myself"
I cannot fathom why you would not share the hope and glory of God-as-man rising victoriously death.
Posted by Noggindog on September 5, 2007 12:32 PMCharles B
You wrote
JJ,
The more you attribute positions that I've not taken to me, the less likely I am to respond. Example:
"You have argued for a legalization of incest which would increase the incidence."
No, I haven't.
Posted by Charles B on September 5, 2007 09:11 AM
I do not make false attributions. I leave that to people who are better at it, i.e,. you.
Previously you wrote
JJ, RE:
"Should family members (Father and daughter) also be able to marry?"
What part of "consenting adults" don't you understand?
Posted by Charles B on August 25, 2007 08:02 AM
Here's the link
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/letters/2007/08/aclu_1.html#comments
So Charles B. what are we to make of this?
Perhaps you meant that you do no object to a father wedding his daughter providing they agree not to engage is sexual activity.
Is that it?
Posted by James Jones on September 5, 2007 12:48 PMWell, that is your ending of the story. I was referring to the Roman blood running in the street ending. Didn`t happen. That is written history, they really wanted that to happen.
No one wanted a kinder, gentler Messiah back then. Why do you think they were so eager to kill him?
To the Romans he was a trouble maker and political problem, to the Jews a great disappointment.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 5, 2007 12:50 PM08:27 AM
You must be unfamiliar with my work here.
Stay tuned and you will find less need to fire up the jets.
Posted by James Jones on September 5, 2007 01:14 PMSharon B
"Why do you think they were so eager to kill him?"
Is that an honest question? I'll assume so; feel free to ignore this if it is not.
The "they" that were so eager to kill him were the Pharisees whom He regularly indicted for their hypocrisy and evil. Later, when examined by Pontius Pilot, the crowd roared for Jesus to be crucified. I think this is pretty typical human behavior. Jesus was a celebrity, with a nominal following of thousands. His arrest was a scandal. The "mob," as the English used to call the common population, is want to lay low whoever climbs above them. Popularity turns to hatred readily, as fickle human nature is exercised. What sort of people go to see criminals condemned to death, anyway? It wasn't soccer moms in that crowd making the noise.
You are correct, many, including Peter, wanted a king that would lead a revolution, and expected the Messiah to be such. But generally speaking, prophesy does not exist so that we may know what is going to happen (disclaimer: This is only MY view.) Prophesy exists so that after it happens, God's hand can be seen. Anyone who decides that they know exactly how and when God will work is asking to wind up missing exactly what they have been watching for so studiously. Thus did the religious authorities miss the Messiah.
That some "wanted Roman blood to run in the streets" is a bit colorful, but not far enough from the mark to warrant argument. That is history. Have some fun, Sharon B. Go look at the historical indicators that Jesus did, in fact, rise from the dead. Include in your consideration that Peter and 8 other apostles went to their own deaths willingly rather than deny that they had seen a risen Jesus with their own eyes. It is a compelling historical case that something unexplainable in human terms happened. For that matter, note that Jesus was not a big political trouble-maker for the Romans until after He was crucified and his body went missing. Even just a plot for "The X-Files" it makes an interesting read, never mind that so many of His comtemporaries so obviously truely believed it.
Posted by Noggindog on September 5, 2007 01:20 PMSharon B.,
You should take Benadryl more often. Your post at 11:04 on the thread that Mr. Jones just posted to cracked me up. Here's some highlights (they were all in the same post):
"As for family members, marring your immediate family was a big part of Egyptian and Mayan society."
...
"Christians used to wash each others feet, let them start doing it again and everyone can use the foot bath. Of course wiping someones feet with your long hair might to be prudent."
...
"I despise NAMBLA but I also hate the Klan. Still, the Klan has some rights under our constitution."
...
"Can`t we ever stick to one issue and not drag the ghosts of old threads around like leg chains.?"
Are you sure that's Benadryl you're taking, Sharon B.?
Posted by John II on September 5, 2007 01:25 PMJohn II,,
Truth is also a socialist who hates to be called a socialist and is currently in the process of thinking of a friendlier term to describe his socialist ideology.
I have learned on this thread that Truth is actually a religious fanatic bent on imposing a Theocratic government in the US. His doctrine equates Christ with Marx (or maybe the other way around) and Christianity with Communism.
He see the likes of me, you and Noggindog as heretic corrupters of the true faith of Communochristianity, a.k.a. Niceism which a handier term.
Which reminds me, we have also learned in this thread that Truth is pretty handy in certain areas.
Posted by James Jones on September 5, 2007 02:21 PMJohn II:--
"Sharon B. is still nutty" = don't pick on Sharon B; I don't always agree with her, but I do enjoy her contributions as she is always upbeat and positive in her own way>
"We have two new characters on the forum in NogginDog and Mongoose" = you described all new on the thread (forgot me, but I'm not hurt -- much) but didn't describe mongoose. Since he confuses me what' your view on this guy>
CA
Posted by on September 5, 2007 02:33 PMJJ
"...have also learned in this thread that Truth is pretty handy in certain areas."
Can you puhleeze explain what value or clear thinking this clown offers? It's always the same bleeding heart socialistic drivel, whining about how cruel the heartless capitalists are.
Posted by on September 5, 2007 02:41 PMCA said:
""Sharon B. is still nutty" = don't pick on Sharon B; I don't always agree with her, but I do enjoy her contributions as she is always upbeat and positive in her own way>"
Yeah, positively nutty. Sharon B. knows I'm just kidding. She gives as good as she gets.
""We have two new characters on the forum in NogginDog and Mongoose" = you described all new on the thread (forgot me, but I'm not hurt -- much) but didn't describe mongoose. Since he confuses me what' your view on this guy>"
I meant to say we have two great new characters. Sorry for forgetting you but you should include your name so it's easier to see who is posting.
Posted by John II on September 5, 2007 02:59 PMJohn II:--
Point taken. Is this better?
Posted by CA on September 5, 2007 03:04 PMGald you asked
It came from an early post:
"I recall that when I was getting my Catholic education, I was instilled with the fear of hell. As a result, I tried my best, unsuccessfully, to avoid masturbating."
Posted by Truth on September 1, 2007 10:25 AM
I've had an awful lot of fun with that one.
"You turn to sexual self-gratification when frightened?
Fear is a common human emotion. The brave man stands and fights. The coward runs away. I have never heard of anyone reacting as you describe. I'm hoping you didn't serve in the military."
Posted by James Jones on September 2, 2007 02:47 PM
Then Noggindon asked - "Who was it who said, "you can't please everyone, so you might as well please yourself,"? "
My response,
"Truth.
OK I'll stop now. I promise"
Posted by James Jones on September 2, 2007 03:41 PM
I didn't though.
Truth,
"You told me that Hell was not big enough to hold the World's masturbators so you cannot now come back and tell me you don't know how big it is. Is there room for my speed boat or not?
All sorts of things interest me. For instance, I wonder if odd little boys inevitably grow up to be odd little men."
Posted by James Jones on September 2, 2007 08:24 PM
"Alice in Wonderland?
Tell you what Alice, remember when as a teenager you learned about mortality and worked yourself into a panic?
You misunderstood your parents advice when they told you to get a grip on yourself."
Posted by James Jones on September 4, 2007 11:32 AM
"It sounds to me as though you're trying to overturn the constitution and establish a theocracy.
But I'm sure you've thought this through and have the principles important to you well in hand."
Posted by James Jones on September 4, 2007 06:50 PM
That's about it for now. I'm glad I was able to get all those in one post. It will help Repugnants with her "Best of James Jones" blog she's working on.
Posted by James Jones on September 5, 2007 03:13 PMWell folks, this thread is about to slip over the event horizon into the black hole of the archives.
Dog, now you speak for the mind of a crowd of people 2 thousand years ago.
Is there historical proof that all those people were executed? Not just church writing.?
The Jews are still waiting, go tell them about their Messiah and how you all hijacked him.
John II, I stand by my post. Nothing in there is opinion it is fact. Egyptian and Mayan rulers ( I forgot to add) married family.
Christians washed each others feet and lacking towels, used hair. Very famous story.
Hate NAMBLA, hate the Klan, you do too.
That last quote of mine still makes me laugh.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 5, 2007 03:47 PMSharon B
The historical evidence for Jesus' execution is overwhelming. He is a historical figure, and both his execution and his "missing body" are denied only by the most theophobic writers (including Christopher Hitchens (sp?) more is the pity for him- he is so sensible on other topics).
I would like to say that I know what the outside sources for the executions of the apostles is, but I have to admit, off the top of my head I do not recall. I THINK there are outside sources at least for Peter, and his wife, both of whom were crucified (Peter upside-down, since he said he was not "fit" to die the same way as Jesus was executed. He had to watch his wife be crucified before his own execution, but neither of them recanted.) I am sure there is a Roman source for the execution of "James" but that may be Jesus' brother, not the apostle. I simply do not recall at this time. It's good question, but I probably cannot answer it before this thread expires.
Posted by Noggindog on September 5, 2007 04:11 PMJones is anxious for someone to publish the Best of Jones' Posts. So I've spent most of the last several days, taking out time only to eat and go to the bathroom, looking over his posts and I was able to pick out his really good ones.
Here they are:
Did I overlook any?
Posted by Truth on September 5, 2007 04:51 PMIn closing, all religions should be about love and service. The "religion" that Jones, John II and Noggindog practice is not about either. It is about law and rules. Jesus was clear about the final destination of such people. They are pimps who prostitute religion to serve their own selfish purposes.
P.S. I still think that Noggindog can sneak a water bottle in if he disguises it as a bible.
Posted by Truth on September 5, 2007 04:58 PMTruth,
"...taking out time only to eat and go to the bathroom, looking over his posts ...
Did I overlook any?"
Probably. You spend, what?, 6-8 hours a day in the bathroom?
But don't worry about it - Repugnants is on the job.
Posted by James Jones on September 5, 2007 05:04 PM"Truth" says:
"all religions should be about love and service."
Gee, I might think a RELIGION should be about GOD. Maybe GOD has something to say about it...
What's that you say, James...?
Oh, I see, Truth thinks he IS god.... NOW I understand...
I guess I'll just stay Protestant.
Noggindong, John II
Truth reckons we're doomed. I dunno - It might not look too good for us. After all, Truth's been loving and servicing himself for a long time now. (I got a million of'em)
Whoever gets to St. Peter first should be sure to put in a good word for the other two.
If that doesn't work - there's always my speed boat.
Truth's god is the federal government: He prays to it through his postings and receives it's blessings each month in the form of Social Security checks.
Speaking of jackasses, has anyone heard Chuck Schumer's remark about the success of our reinforcements in Iraq?
" Let me be clear. The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al-Qaeda said to these tribes, "We have to fight al-Qaeda ourselves."
It wasn't that the surge brought peace here, it was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here and that was because there was no one else there protecting. (Emphasis in original.)"
So, this is the new spin the Dems are going to put on recent successes in Iraq. They already admitted that improvements in the Iraq situation would hurt their party. His comment should disgust any rational American.
Posted by John II on September 5, 2007 05:27 PMMay you all be in Heaven an hour before the Devil knows you are dead.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 5, 2007 05:46 PMJohn II,
Iraqi politicians, and their families, are subject daily to being kidnapped, maimed and murdered.
It is fair to wonder how Sen. Schumer, Whiner-in-Chief, would respond under those circumstances.
Decent people everwhere will support the Iraqi's and their struggle for liberty right through to the end.
Posted by James Jones on September 5, 2007 06:12 PMSharon B,
I thought you didn't believe in an after-life.
At some point you have to decide.
Posted by James Jones on September 5, 2007 06:15 PMHello folks
Just dropped in for a couple of minutes while I have satellite time. Interesting discussion you folks have going. Sorry I'm not still around to be a regular.
Senator Schumer (according to the quote above) is failing to accurately describe what's going on here. Not only is the surge working well here in Ramadi, it's almost scary quiet.
I'm staying for the next week with a local sheik until my quarters are finished. Except for the use of Farsi it's almost like living in the metro area. I'm really encouraged with what I'm finding now that I'm back
Say hi to Old Grouch, Charles B, Sharon B and the others who might remember me.. Tell them I'll try to get back on periodically, but with the time difference I may be making after hour strikes. I'll look for threads re Iraq and try to provide some honest views of what I'm seeing and experiencing.
Trinity Posted from al Anbar, Al Ramadi , Iraq
Posted by Trinity on September 5, 2007 06:55 PMCharlie Boy, this one's for you....
It’s not exactly the most common way to fix a commercial airliner, but officials from Nepal’s state-run airline sacrificed two goats on Sunday in effort to do just that, according to Reuters.
Faced with technical problems on an aging Boeing 757 aircraft, Nepal Airlines' representatives told local media the sacrifices were made to appease Akash Bhairab, the Hindu sky god.
“The snag in the plane has now been fixed and the aircraft has resumed its flights,” said Raju K.C., a senior airline official, without explaining what the problem had been.
Sacrificing goats may seem unusual, at least to Americans, one airline veteran said it's not outlandish in some cultures.
“It’s not that unusual to see a sacrifice going on,” said Capt. Robert Norris, a former United Airlines pilot of 30 years who has gone climbing in Nepal.
“We may say a small prayer ourselves when we take off. It’s just a part of their culture,” he said.
Ariel Glucklich, a professor of theology at Georgetown University, said that animal sacrifices go back to the beginnings of Hinduism.
“The idea of sacrifice is you offer something valuable as a way of placating the god,” said Glucklich. Still he said that kind of animal sacrifice by airline officials wouldn’t be likely in India, another predominantly Hindu nation.
“The separation between religion and the state is a lot fuzzier in Nepal,” said Glucklich. “I’m really stunned that airline officials would subscribe to that.”
Posted by on September 5, 2007 07:46 PMCan somebody fill me in on who "Trinity" is? I think I remember him from a Musim link, but...
Is he actually in Iraq?
Posted by on September 5, 2007 07:51 PMTrinity
I don't know you, but taking your post at face value, I just want to say "thanks."
I believe Trinity was a common poster here. He left for Iraq last week (or two weeks ago).
It's good to hear about Iraq from someone who is actually there. Keep up the good work, Trinity.
Posted by John II on September 5, 2007 08:09 PMRe Trinity --
He's a civilian construction manager in Iraq working for a company out of the UAE. He lives here in the Denver area.
He just went back to Iraq for a second time early last week. He had been home for a couple years recovering from injuries received the first time over there.
He's got an interesting background in structural construction, with a formal education in philosophy. He presented some intriguing arguments in general, and was very informative in discussions about Islam vs the radical Islamic factions, and personal observations of what's going on. He lived with the common Iraq population while in Anbar Province.
Hopefully we can get him on line for some exchanges in the next few months. He promised he'd try, and from above it looks like he's trying to follow through.
Ken G
Posted by on September 5, 2007 08:14 PMFor you religious folks, here's a link to the archives with discussions about muslims that Trinity had based on his living with them. If your interested
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/letters/2007/08/islam_and_muslims.html#more
Posted by on September 5, 2007 08:25 PMTrinity, thank you for remembering me. Please be careful and write when you can.
James Jones: No I don`t have to decide. Before I was born I didn`t have to decide if I believed in Earth.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 5, 2007 08:42 PMSharo n B,
You're supposed to more active intellectually after you're born.
Posted by James Jones on September 5, 2007 10:24 PMJJ thought he had a smoking gun:
So Charles B. what are we to make of this (your supposed evidence that you made no false attribution)?
You attributed to me:
""You have argued for a legalization of incest which would increase the incidence." No, I haven't."
And claimed it squares with this:
""Should family members (Father and daughter) also be able to marry?"What part of "consenting adults" don't you understand?"
I stand by what I actually said, so why don't you just use my own words?
You can hardly talk about a piss you took without embellishing...
Posted by Charles B on September 5, 2007 10:42 PM"What's irrational about faith?"
Faith is fine. Faith that something has happened or will happen without evidence is irrational.
Do you have evidence of the afterlife?
Posted by Charles B on September 5, 2007 10:50 PMJJ, this subject is now at : Number of the Beast /2. Yes, 333 posts.
The realm of religion is not that of the intellect .
I can not believe John II sends you my old posts after he roots around in the dusty archives and finds them.
Don`t you guys make sport of me, remember my spells and curses.
I will make John II`s Jeep melt and your speed boat will list to the starboard no matter what you do.
Have to leave now, thunder storm in my area. Thor is angry.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 6, 2007 12:40 AMAuthentic religion is about compassion.
The pseudo-religion of Jones, John II and Noggindog is about condemnation.
Authentic religion is about service. The pseudo-religion is about saving oneself.
Jones' real religion seems to be about masturbation. Talk about an obsession.
Posted by Truth on September 6, 2007 06:34 AMCharles B
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1
Posted by Gail K on September 6, 2007 09:08 AMTruth,
Jesus taught service, but He also taught about condemnation and saving oneself.
Luke 9:24
"For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it."
Gail, I hope for 6 husbands in Heaven and I get to pick. Call it a himmen as apposed to a harem.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 6, 2007 04:31 PMSharon B.,
Do the 6 himmen have to be virgins or just know how to fix stuff.
Posted by John II on September 6, 2007 05:27 PM