PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Religon Debates
     Was Jesus a Liberal?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
David_B_Thompson

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm back!  Sorry I haven't replied for so long!

Fallingup, I'd recommend that you start reading your Bible, specifically the Old Testament.  I informed you of some of God's laws, check them out!  Do they exist?  Yes!  Now for the next question, could Jesus break His own law?  No!  Could He legally order that woman to be stoned?  No!

Also, liberals claim to care more about the poor and unfortunate.  In reality, with bigger government and higher taxes, liberals are actually creating more poor and unfortunate people!  That's not very American!  America is supposed to be the Land of Opportunity!  Conservatives say that if you work for it, it should be yours.  The government has no right to take it away from you!  Sure, you have to be responsible and support the government, but it should be a government devoted to the protection of your rights!

By the way, Fallingup, someone asked earlier in this debate, "Would he dump on homosexuals, or would he fight for their rights as human beings?"

To answer this question, we can easily look back and ask "What did He do?"

You said that you believe in the Divinity of Christ, (I do too) which means that Jesus IS God.  Look back at the Old Testament.  Remember Sodom and Gomorrah?  And God's other judgments?  Would Jesus say that homosexuality (it's called sodomy for a reason) should be legal?

Consider that carefully!


-------
David B. Thompson


God
Bless
America!!!
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 4:03 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Contradictions upon contradictions. Where to begin?

1: Jesus couldn't order the stoning of the women, as it would violate his own law.
If im not mistaken, the new testament was written after the crucifixtion of christ. Up until then, the binding law was the old testament. So Jesus would have been able to stone the women if he wanted to, the law that superseded it hadn't been laid done yet (and Jesus hadn't died yet to negate the first laws anyway).

2: Liberals create more poor people, b/c they create a bigger govt..
Warrent for that unfounded claim? It seems to me that liberal, socialist programs such as min. wage, max work hours, medicaid, and the EITC help the poor, not hurt them. But hey, if you have any EVIDENCE to the contrary, please, let me know.

3: Today, Jesus would kill off homosexuals, b/c that's what he (God) did in sodom and gommorah.
But aren't those laws (or at least punishments) nullified by his crucifixtion, and now we're supposed to be nice and forgiving to them. You are trying to have it both ways, nice, kind, good jesus during the old testament days, and mean, vengful, wrathful jesus during todays new testament days. It doesn't work.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 4:29 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
David_B_Thompson

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1. I'm talking about the Old Testament law  Read my first post on this forum for the details.

2. Liberals want more government control and increases in welfare programs.  This costs the rest of us more money than it would if the government would let us take care of the problem on our own.  (Liberal philosophy tends toward "give a man a fish" rather than "teach a man to fish")

3. I didn't say that Jesus would kill off sodomites.  I said that He killed them back then, so He wouldn't support the legalization of their perversions.  Obviously, they need the Gospel, but we shouldn't allow them to legally engage in their perverted practices.  Whether or not sodomy ever becomes totally illegal, those who practice this perversion will pay for it at the hand of God!  (Unless they turn from their sin and accept the gift of salvation at the hand of Christ)

And NO, those laws and punishments are not nullified by the cross!  They are still very much in effect, what Christ did at the cross was to pay the penalty for breaking those laws.  That is only valid, however, for those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ!  No laws were nullified, payment was offered!  Those who reject Christ will receive the full penalty for their sins- eternal wrath!

If anyone who is reading this doesn't understand something, or isn't saved, or isn't sure that they're saved, please listen!  You can't afford to ignore this!

Go to www.needGod.com

Dsadevil, you said "You are trying to have it both ways, nice, kind, good jesus during the old testament days, and mean, vengful, wrathful jesus during todays new testament days."

No, God is a God of justice!  He cannot tolerate sin!  You say "but God is love".  Absolutely!  He loved us so much that He provided a way of escape!  That's why Jesus came to earth!  Of course He demonstrated love to sinners while He was here as a man!  He never condoned sin, however.  Notice what He said in Matthew "And if thy right eye offend&#65279; thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. &#65279; 30 &#65279;And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.  (Matthew 5:29-30)

This is not to say that one can obtain salvation by cutting off an offending limb!  What He is doing here is showing the seriousness of sin!

Dsadevil, (or anyone else for that matter) if you are still unclear about this critically important concept, please feel free to drop me a line via the personal message board!  I'll be more than happy to try and answer your questions!

Again, drop by www.needGod.com
for more information!

God bless!


-------
David B. Thompson


God
Bless
America!!!
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 5:25 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
Nova

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i like how i talk about this argument being un intelgent and i can't spell at all

any how...

ok we are no longer under the law. it is clearly stated that christ fulfilled the law. Being a christian i have the view that sodomy is wrong, but it is not our governemnts place to out law something of that nature. God wants us to want to worship him not to be forced to do something because your government tells you to. in our form of governemnt the only reson sodomy should be against the law is if the majority finds the need to intrude on peoples lives that way. by living here citizens are subject to the desires of the mob. we are not Jews(excluding DSA)  and we are not in Israel this is not a theocracy it is a socialistic democracy. that is what you have to get over. our nation does not run on the law and neither should christians. christians exist acording to grace and no amount of good deeds can change that.    


-------
One God; One Truth; One Way
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 6:07 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

so david, you think that if Jesus saw a poor person today he would say "well thats your fault" and walk away? thats what you are accusing him of doing.

and david, i do know the bible very well, and it clearly says that Jesus fulfilled the law. it is very interesting to read your arguments. in my main argument, i quote Jesus Christ. in your arguments, you quote the old testament and the letters of paul...you dont even quote Jesus.

the problem with conservative christians is they tend to listen to paul more than they listen to Jesus


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 6:23 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ah ha... a lot of people base Christianity more on Paul than they do on Jesus, do they not?


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 6:52 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

one at a time! First david
to david point1: Old testament law when? Jesus was still under it, therefore he can stone the women. Stoning, after all, was a prescribed old testament punishment
point2: Old school liberalism: give the man a fish, new school (my) liberalism: teach the man to fish, conservatism: ignore the man. Your rebuttal was entirely ineffective, it says we create more people b/c...we have programs that cost money. Spending money doesn't create poor people. Programs such as the EITC and welfare to work stimulate the economy far more than tax cuts to the rich (law of diminishing returns).
point3: Legalization of perversions. Nova just said that the laws have been fulfilled by jesus' cruicifixtion (btw for the record, i am arguing this as a non-christian, so my views/knowledge on christianity are unconventional and personal), so we don't need to follow them. David distinguished his view by saying they were still valid, there just isnt a punishment anymore, that being what christ fulfilled. I dont know about either of those, but regardless both seem to agree that there will be no punishment (either the law is off so their isnt a punishment for a nonexistant law, or the law is their but christ payed our debt/punishment in advance). So if their isnt supposed to a punishment anymore, why are we legally mandating one? My guess on christ is that he would want us to lead a sinfree life by choice, not govt. decree. As a roman legal maxim said "Let the Gods avenge themselves." No one is saying sin isn't serious, the question is whether sin is serious in secular life, and whether jesus would support not allowing the choice to sin if you are not a member of the church. Interestingly, regarding your matthew quote, if we need to make divine law secular law, should we do as matthew suggests and cut off "offending hands"?
Oh and btw, I am not saved, I am quite sure if it, and I am perfectly happy with the situation. To hell I go, singing all the way (nothing like religious civil disobidience).
Falling: I agree with you silly goose! Jesus would be helpful and kind, i agree! and where do I quote paul? if i do i do it inadvertantly, i dont have a clue what he said.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 7:24 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
Nova

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

falling you forget that paul was called bye God to help his people. and paul said not to judge those outside of the faith for doing wrong things. paul also said that God will be thier judge not us thus even according to paul our secular government should not be able to judge those outside of the faith for doing something that they do not believe to be wrong. But we can tell them that it is wrong. But not condem them or restrict them from doing it. I find it very offensive in your generalization that conservative christians fallow more of what paul said than what Jesus said, find a contradiction between the two.


-------
One God; One Truth; One Way
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 8:10 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

dsa, when i said people are quoting paul and the new testament, i meant david and debategirl. sorry about the confusion


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 10:29 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

nova, i'm sorry but it is so true. everytime a very conservative christian tries to support his/her conservative beliefs they almost always quote from the old testament or from paul. liberals on the other hand, quote the words of Jesus Christ. i know that what paul said was important, but i am naturally going to value the words that Jesus spoke more


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 10:33 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Don't be a fool! God was speaking through Paul! If Paul spoke on his own authority, it would have been pointless, and he would have been speaking to have Christians condemned. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instuction in righteousness."  2 Timothy 3:16
To paul,"...to live is Christ and to die is gain."   Philippians 1:21
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 1:07 PM on January 7, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i know that what paul said is very important. but i think that we should also value the words of Christ, something that conservative Christians to often ignore. excuse me for putting value in the words of Christ!!


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 2:44 PM on January 7, 2003 | IP
David_B_Thompson

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nova, our government was designed to be a democratic republic, not a "socialistic democracy".

Our government is here to protect our God-given rights.  Is sodomy one of those rights?

Correct, "We are not under the law, but under grace", but keep in mind that the unsaved are still under the law and will be judged by it.

Fallingup, "so david, you think that if Jesus saw a poor person today he would say "well thats your fault" and walk away? thats what you are accusing him of doing."

What?!!  I never said that!  Where do you get that idea?

Keep in mind a couple of things;
1. Jesus is God, therefore the entire Bible is considered the "words of Jesus".

2. Paul said "10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. 11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."  (Ga 1:10-12)

3. Jesus lived in Old Testament times, not New Testament times.  He preached and acted according to the law.

Furthermore, if you'd care to read my posts, you'll notice that I do quote Jesus!

(By the way, you didn't quote Jesus, you misquoted Him)

Also remember that ALL Scripture is given by the inspiration of God.  That means that anything you read in Paul's letters was actually written by God.  Are you challenging this?

Dsadevil, you said, under point one, "Old testament law when? Jesus was still under it, therefore he can stone the women. Stoning, after all, was a prescribed old testament punishment."

Yes, stoning was the Old Testament punishment for the woman's crime, but Jesus couldn't call for that punishment, because two witnesses refused to come forth.  Why?  Because if they did, they would have had to denounce the man with whom the woman committed adultery, which they didn't want to do, possibly because the man was one of them.  read my first post on this forum for more information, or, better yet, read through the Old Testament law and look at all of the laws that applied to this situation.

Point two: Prove it!  The government's responsibility is not to take care of the poor, but to protect our rights!  It's our responsibility to take care of our fellow man!
Former U.S. Rep. David Crockett, (yes, that Crockett) had something to say about this issue.  Read about it here: http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm

Fair and good tax cuts will save the rich more money than they will save the poor.  Why?  Because the rich pay the most in taxes!!!  Don't worry, if we cut taxes enough, soon the poor will be paying more in taxes- because they will be jumping tax brackets!

Point three: The penalties of the law are still in effect, but those of us who are saved are just that, saved from those penalties by the shed blood of Jesus Christ!  Everyone else will be punished by God for their offences.

No, I'm not saying that we should "cut off offending hands".  I'm saying that Jesus would certainly oppose sodomy and other evil practices.  That, by the way, is a conservative position.

Dsadevil, listen, you said "I am not saved, I am quite sure if it, and I am perfectly happy with the situation. To hell I go, singing all the way".

I'm concerned for you.  Hell is no laughing matter!  Please, consider this seriously!  Again, that link: www.needGod.com

Nova, Paul said "1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. 2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. 3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?" (Ro 2:1-3)

He didn't say not to speak against the sins of unbelievers, he said that, to quote from Jesus, "with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured you again."  In other words, if you condemn someone for lying, and then you lie yourself, you will be condemned by God, because you have broken the law that you acknowledged by judging someone else.  This was directed to unbelievers who thought that they are justified in their actions because "they don't think it's wrong", not to Christians, who are supposed to speak out against evil, just like Jesus did.

Fallingup.  Correction: liberals [i]misquote[i/" rel="nofollow] Jesus' words.

Remember, Jesus' words are not confined to the New Testament.  Since Jesus is God, the entire Bible is His Word!



-------
David B. Thompson


God
Bless
America!!!
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 5:51 PM on January 7, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I didn't quote Paul, I quoted Jesus. When He said (and I quote AGAIN) "Render unto Ceasar the things  that are Ceasars,  and to God the things that are Gods."
Plus, you are always saying that rich people are mostly conservatives. Prove it, you can't.

             GOD, HELP AMERICA.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:25 PM on January 7, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That was me debategirl I don't know why it went as guest.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:27 PM on January 7, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i challenge every conservative person here to back up conservatives with the words of Christ.

david, i think it is the government's responsibility to take care of the poor. again, what would Jesus do? i'm sorry, but i think he would care for the poor as well

what do ya mean david when you say that Jesus did not live in New Testament times??? that is the most wacko thing i have ever heard. what religious sect are you in?

i know that the bible is inspired by God, but at the same time they were still written by man so there is some cultural influence tied in their. with Jesus' words on the other hand, they are a DIRECT quote from God himself

and by the way, who gave you the authority to say that i am misquoting Christ? because if you ask me, i think you are. the verses that i provided are very very straightforward and impossible to misquote


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 12:18 AM on January 8, 2003 | IP
David_B_Thompson

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As far as the govenment's responsibility goes, did you read that article about former Rep. Crockett?  He lays it out pretty well!

Jesus wants us to be good stewards of our money.  "Lay not up for yourselves treasure on earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and thieves break through and steal.  Lay up for yourselves treasures in Heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt..."

When you're forced to pay taxes to support the poor (and the lazy, they both get support from the government) you have no choice, you're not being a good steward!

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God's."

By the way, when you give to the poor, you're giving to God, and when you pay taxes, you're giving to "Caesar".

More money gets to those who need it if you give it to them yourself, or give it to a charity that cares for them, than if you give it to the government and rely on it to take care of them.

If you want to look at the technical side of things, sure, Paul's writings were "secondhand", but who wrote the Gospels?  Did Jesus write out His speeches?  No, the Gospels, including the words of Jesus, were written down later by men who heard them.  There's no difference, except that when God speaks to the spirit, He's clearer than when He speaks as a man.

And Jesus' words were directed to people of a certain culture and time, just like Paul's.  Both are valid today.

Jesus lived in Old Testament times.  I'm not a member of some off the wall religious sect, I'm merely stating a fact.  When did the times change from Old Testament to New Testament?  It was when Jesus died, was buried, and was raised.  Most people don't think about it, but even though the accounts that we call the "Gospels" are found in our "New Testament", when Jesus preached during His life here on earth, He was preaching to people under the Old Testament law.  He Himself kept the law, and taught others to keep it.  The last supper was actually Jesus and His disciples keeping the Passover, as prescribed by the law.  Jesus added new meaning to an old feast, explaining to them the meaning of each of the elements.  It was like no other Passover before, that's for sure!

When Jesus' blood was shed and He died, that sealed the New Covenant, or New Testament.

I understand why you reacted the way you did!  It sounds strange when you haven't thought much about it before, but it's true.  Jesus was ministering under the law.

When I said that you misquoted Christ, I was referring specifically to your second post.  You said ""If you want to be perfect, go and sell everything you have and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."  But when the young man heard this, he went away sadly, for he was very rich."

The primary problem is that you neglected to mention the context.  Jesus had just finished taking the man through some of the commandments, which he had kept, and was now hitting him with the ones that he had not kept.  This rich man worshipped the idol of riches.  Jesus was hitting him with the law, something that liberals condemn.

By the way, if you think that I was misquoting Jesus, you'll have to show me where.  Not only did I take those words directly from the Bible, but I included the context.


By the way, Debategirl, you're right!  God save America!



-------
David B. Thompson


God
Bless
America!!!
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 2:47 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i'm sorry david, but i dont give a hoot what Davy Crockett thought about our government. his opinion does not matter to me one bit.

when the government taxes the rich, many times the money goes straight towards helping the needy. for example, building homeless shelters. do you think Jesus would have any problem with that?

i consider the words of Jesus that were put in the Gospels as "firsthand" because the four Gospels are incredibly similar and all four of them (and many other Gospels not included in the Bible) quote Jesus as saying the same thing. so i consider it firsthand.

i'm not saying to not listen to paul. i am simply warning Christians to be sure not to ignore what Jesus said and only read what paul said. after all, Jesus was the Son of God!!!

i kind of understand what you mean now when you say that Jesus lived in Old Testament times because the new covenant was not fulfilled until He died and rose again. i apologize for accusing you of beloning to some weird religious sect.

do you understand what i mean when i say that many of the "religious right" can be compared to the pharisees? will you admit that many conservative christians can tend to be legalistic?

i disagree when you say that Jesus was "hitting him with the law". because the rich man had kept all the laws!!! but Jesus told him that this did not matter and just because he kept the law did not automatically qualify him a place in heaven



-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 2:59 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Alright, David. First of all. I believe in Judiasm. My religion doesn't decide a man is a God. Nor does it predicate eternal reward on adherance to a certain belief. It is certainly possible that you are right, in which case all non-christians are going to hell. But I hope not, for I feel that living a just life is the standard, rather than enforcing some form of dogmatism. I pose this question in "The mother teresa question." thread, and I won't repeat it here. Suffice to say that I feel that if heaven is a sort of reward for loyalty, than I prefer to be punished for having my principles.

Moving on....

David, your entire analysis on governmental obligation is classic double speak. On the one hand, you attack govt. welfare programs by saying there is no direct constitutional mandate for it (I am not a strict constructionalist, so I don't believe that, but that is your view). Then you attack sodomy rights by stating that govt. is designed to protect our GOD-GIVEN rights. But their isn't any constitutional mandate to that assertion either. There is no warrent to the suggestion that the constitution only protects the rights that God gave us. I doubt God has much to say on our right to bear arms. But your blind constructionalist viewpoint ignores the principles behind the constitution that demand it be interpreted broadly. There is no more "right" to engage in homosexual activity as there is the right to watch obscene movies, or to place interstate bets from a telephone, but the supreme has recognized that people are free to do those things not because there is some express guarenteed right in the constitution, but because their is the underlying principle within the constitution to be let alone when you are not affecting other people (Stanley v. Georgia, Katz v. US respectively, also see JS Mill's "On Liberty"). The constitution is interpreted broadly like this because it is possible to prohibit actions that technically violate no constitutional provision, but in effect make it a dead letter. Not allowing people the right to control their own, private, consensual relationships is one of those actions.
Mr. Crockett's analysis of so-called "govt. charity" is clever but the product of another time. The government has the responsibilty to protect the welfare of the people, and now that we tax people mostly on income rather than tariffs, we can make sure that there is a direct flow from rich to poor. In a capitalist society, "leveling the playing field" so that all have a chance to succeed is essential. The court has rejected your constitutional argument concerning govt. aid to promote public welfare since the new deal.
Meanwhile your analysis on taxes is also off the mark. The rich pay the majority of taxes, true. They also make the majority of the money. The current figures, I believe, are that the top 10% make 60% of the income and pay 70% of the taxes. So the high taxes make up for the high amount of income inequality present in america. The idea that tax cuts to the rich will make the poor rise in brackets is ludicrous. First of all, that type of trickle down economics simply doesn't work. It may make the rich richer at a faster rate, but it doesn't reach down to the poor. The second problem is that the rich are least likely to spend the tax cut money in a manner beneficial to the economy. Its known as the law of diminishing returns, and it applies b/c a) the rich are more likely to save money than spend it (the poor on the other hand, don't have enough to save, they need to spend every dollar they can get) and b) the rich, if they do spend, are going to spend extra cash on the luxury goods segment of the economy which is normally both imported (which makes the money leave america) and a niche segment, so it barely leaves a mark on the economy as a whole.

Now to the religious arguments. You may be right on the "context" of the jesus and stoning women tale. But no one, NO ONE, looks at that story and says "now the moral of the story is: if you are going to stone a women for adultry, make sure you have two witnesses." The moral everyone takes is to forgive people for their sins. Your dismissal of "Cutting off the hands of thieves" is also ill-argued. On the one hand, you argue that the US needs to be under God's law in cases such as sodomy, simply b/c it is God's law and should be our guiding principle. Here you say that we can ignore God's prescribed punishment. It just doesn't flow.

Cheers! Dsa "soon going to see the" Devil

PS: Just on what I said at the very top, consider this quote (I have a taste for it)
"Our religion states that the rightous of all nations are worthy of immortality. There are many mountains, and all of them reach for the stars." -Jewish saying.
That, is my religious philosphy, not forced abidence to any one dogma.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 3:28 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
David_B_Thompson

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, I would recommend that you read it anyway, he lays out the principles, with which you can then either agree or disagree.

Keep in mind, the government doesn't just tax the rich, it also lays heavy taxes on the rest of us, which is what pulls some people down into the "poverty" level.

I'm sorry, "secondhand" was the wrong word!  You're right, the Gospels are first hand accounts.  But so are Paul's letters.  John and the others watched Jesus and listened to Him then wrote it down.  Paul listened to what God had to say, then he wrote it down.  The same level of reporting.  You're right though, "secondhand" was the wrong word.  Sorry!

You're right about not ignoring Jesus too!  This would be a definite mistake!

As far as the Old\New Testament thing goes, don't worry about it, not many people think about it that way.

Yes, I understand what you mean about the "legalistic" stuff, and it's a hard line to draw!  Yes, some conservatives today do behave somewhat like the Pharisees of Jesus' day, but only some.  That's not all of us!  I'd recommend listening to some of Michael Pearl's Bible commentaries.  He has some definite opinions, but I think he explains the whole legalism thing pretty well.  (I think it's his Romans series)  Check it out on the website www.nogreaterjoy.com

Sorry I can't provide a more specific link, but my internet filter hasn't cleared it yet!

The rich  man had not kept all of the laws, this is impossible!  He worshipped his riches, which was his problem.  That was why he went away downcast, because he loved his riches so much.

By the way, check out Ray Comfort's website, especially his message "Hall's Best Kept Secret" for more on the whole "keeping the law" thing.  Here's the link: www.raycomfort.com

God bless!


-------
David B. Thompson


God
Bless
America!!!
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 3:31 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I did read Crockett's analysis. It was extremely clever. But I still disagree, b/c we have different opinions on the governmental obligation to the people, an difference that is even more striking with the rise of modern-era capitalism.

Taxs don't make people poor. Let's be realistic. You don't even pay taxes if you are poor, in fact the EITC (the greatest federal tax program ever) gives the money back to you. Our tax system is specifically designed so that the burden doesn't prevent the poor from climbing out of poverty (or at least it used to). Other problems do, but not that.

Any rebuttal to my constitutional analysis, or does that stand?


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 3:43 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i disagree when you say that Jesus was "hitting him with the law". because the rich man had kept all the laws!!! but Jesus told him that this did not matter and just because he kept the law did not automatically qualify him a place in heaven




Th rich young ruler didn't keep all the Commandments although he said he did. "And He said unto him, 'Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but One, that is God:'"
-Matthew 19:17
To be good you must keep ALL the Commandments.
This "rich young ruler" is one of those that you refer to as "legalistic", so he kept the "letter" of the law, not the "spirit" of the law. That's why when Jesus said, "'If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and fallow me.' But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sarrowful: for he had great possessions."
- Matthew 19:21-22
Jesus said that to prove that he really didn't keep the law, for he had broke the first Commandment.
And on another note: notice that Jesus said "...go and sell what thou hast, and give to the poor..." not "pay your taxes so the money will go to the poor". It's our job, yours and mine, to help the poor and needy.

God bless America!
- FP
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:49 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
Nova

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

falling would you call me the religious right? read my posts were would i fall. I think i am conservative in the sense that i believe what the bible tells me. Christ is the ultimate but Paul was divinely inspired to write the things he wrote. there are no confilicts anywhere. find one ad prove to me any way that paul contradicted God in anyway. Liberal and conservative like i say are seperate time relations no particular ideas are involved in them christ wouldn'y be democratc or republican he wouldn't hate ritch people or poor people he wouldn't be as judgemental as you are being. He loves all entirely and unendingly with out a reason. The is a fundamental idea of what i believe in and something that Paul believes in. All of the law can be summed into one idea...Love your neighbor like yourself. Two people said that Christ then paul. That is Christianity LOVE.


-------
One God; One Truth; One Way
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 11:35 PM on January 9, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i find it sometimes hard to believe that God would agree with some of paul's teachings. for example, when paul said that the woman should not leave the home


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 11:53 PM on January 9, 2003 | IP
Nova

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

where is that? And many of the things that paul said were aplicable only to the place and what the things that people do and what they do in that specific society but not all of society. paul also says a lot of things about the man respecting the woman and how the man was to be the head of the family like christ is the head and he was the leader but the servant in thesame and paul says for the man to be the head and leader like christ thus the servant.


-------
One God; One Truth; One Way
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 12:01 AM on January 10, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

no, i would not say you are part of the religious right. why? because you are not wrapped up in rules and laws. the religious right is very legalistic. and judging from previous posts, you are not that way. not to mention that many religious right believe whole-heartedly that God wants our nation to be capitalistic. liberals think that Jesus would not have liked capitalism because of its greed and money oriented policies. judging from other posts in other forums, you seem to like communism so that would certainly not make you the religious right.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 09:50 AM on January 10, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

everybody check out this site. the author wrote a fantastic essay on why Jesus would support socialism:

http://www.davidchandler.com/writings/BiblicalLiberal.htm


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 11:52 PM on January 11, 2003 | IP
kelvin90703

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fallingupwards84 at 11:52 PM on January 11, 2003 :
everybody check out this site. the author wrote a fantastic essay on why Jesus would support socialism:

http://www.davidchandler.com/writings/BiblicalLiberal.htm



Fallingupwards:

The ideas of free men, democracy, and capitalism were all liberal ideas.  These ideas were first started by liberal philisophers more than 200 years ago.   Two hundrend years of liberalism has brought us the great country of the USA.  Christ teachings could be called liberal for his time.  But these were all a success.  These were all the successful social experiments.

Socialism is just another experiment in the great liberal tradition.  What you don't realize is that liberalism also has had many failed tragic results.  You may not agree with with capitalism or the Constitution.  Socialism may be the next great liberal experiment.

The fact is Socialism is playing with dice.  You don't know if Socialism will produce a tragic result or the next step in a great liberal tradition.  That is why we also need the Second Amendment.  You don't know if Socialism will work or will it crash and burn.

I am betting it will crash and burn.  I'm waiting to see the next great liberal idea.  There has got to be something better than socialism.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 1:07 PM on January 12, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

http://www.davidchandler.com/writings/BiblicalLiberal.htm



-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 01:48 AM on January 16, 2003 | IP
aasha_

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from David_B_Thompson at 08:30 AM on December 28, 2002 :

While Jesus did unquestionably support giving to the poor, He never suggested that the gevernment should step in and make people give!  Jesus did, however, tell the parable of the talents, in which He warns us to be good stewards of what He has given us.  "Giving to the poor" is fine, using the government as a middle man is not!

The average tax payer pays $400 a year towards social programs for the poor... And $1400 a year  for corporate welfare alone...

So why do people act the poor are a terrible tax burden... I think Jesus unlike the average Christian Conservative would dig deeper into the issue... to understand what really going on... and to find out where the money is really going... So Bush is about to cut welfare, medicade and give you $100-300 back.... When he should cut AT&T and United Airline off the Government dole... and give you back $1400 each... how about that?

But now you focus on the poor... they are such a tremendous burden... you are paying too much because of the poor...  when welfare alone is less that 1% of the budget....
Where is the rest of the 99% going....
Genuis...  
And why haven't they cut that and given it back to you... Why hasn't Enron had to pay you back... How about the Airlines that took a government bailout and then  cut thousands of jobs... What use was that?....



But to get back to the question at hand...

I don't believe that Jesus would have been a partisian at all.... Neither Conservative nor Liberal...
Those are our silly distinctions which we use to try to get power...  


And that where the devil comes in... yes that's what I said...
Stay in the word of Christ... Stop listening to Rush L  and Pat Robertson... If we are Christians we shouldn't be dividing ourselves among political lines because Jesus was not a political figure... politics is about power...When a Christian  sounds  divisive .or partisian ... then I know that they are not following the word of Christ...
Intead of trying to gain political power Christian Conservatives need to stay in the word of Christ and live by his laws...
That's why I could never trust them.... Once they become political.... they move away from the word of Christ and become corrupted....
I'm sorry but it's true...


(Edited by aasha_ 1/17/2003 at 2:19 PM).
 


Posts: 29 | Posted: 1:58 PM on January 17, 2003 | IP
aasha_

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Havah at 3:32 PM on December 28, 2002 :
Who is to say that big corperations and multi-billionaires are not interested in giving to the poor, Falling?  Do you know so very many that you can make that assumption, or are you just ignorant, and hope that by making that supposition you'll prove your point with false facts?  Many of the "big corporations and multi-billionaires" are the donators.  Bill Gates donated $200 million to rural libraries, Cheveron gave $25,000 to the War on Youth Initiative, and most celebrities have at least a few organizations that they donate to.  My point is that I hope you are not bent on proving your point on that standard.  Find a real one.  And I wouldn't be so quick to judge people, even the rich.  

A lot of those corporations because of tax loop holes don't pay taxes also.... Lets not forget that...



 


Posts: 29 | Posted: 2:00 PM on January 17, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

here is a cool parable that Jesus told. i think that it shows that he would be in favor of welfare. it can be found in the gospel of luke and is called "the parable of the rich fool":

The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop. He thought to himself, "What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops."
Then he said, "This is what I'll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my good. And I'll say to myself, "You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry."
But God said to him, "You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?"
This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God.


the moral of this parable is ultimatly to not value  money, but to instead value God. Jesus also tells us in the parable that what the rich man did was wrong. the rich man is a capitalist: he makes an extra profit and instead of sharing it with people in need, he keeps it all for himself and becomes lazy. Christ taught continuously throughout the gospels about giving to the needy.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 4:03 PM on January 17, 2003 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i can't believe you are suggesting there is evidence that says Jesus would support welfare. you are totally making wild interpretations. welfare is good, assuming Jesus would have any particular political opinions in the 21st century is absurd.


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 5:11 PM on January 17, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

fallingupwards84:
Christ told EVERYONE to give to the needy. Not just the "rich". I know an adult who went on welfare. When the welfare people found out she was making more money they decreased her support. Therefore, they successfully KEPT her on welfare and she was not able to get anywhere. Welfare does not help anyone. There is a big difference between a hand-up and a handout.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:48 PM on January 17, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how do interpret Christ's parable then? it seems pretty clear cut to me.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 10:13 PM on January 17, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is virtually nothing of Jesus left in the Religious Right.  It is now wholly dedicated to three issues:  denying women the right to choose their own futures in regards to abortion; promoting discrimination, prejudice, bigotry and hatred of homosexuals; and destroying the public school system to replace it with a system of religious indoctrination.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 08:12 AM on January 22, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

exactly exactly exactly. the guest hit it right on the head. the "religious right"  seriously do value the words of paul over Christ.

because if they did then the would note that, Jesus objected to a heterosexual sin called "DIVORCE" far more strenuously than he objected to homosexuality.  so why aren't Christian Conservatives hunting down and rounding up all of the perpetrators of DIVORCE in America these days?  why are they going out of their way to endorse the candidacy of as many divorced conservative republicans as they can find?   divorce practically seems to be a requirement these days for a leadership position in the republican party.  according to Christ's teaching, Senator Strom Thurmond and Congressman Bob Barr, are now living in their THIRD full-time adulterous relationship, since divorcing their first and ONLY TRUE WIVES years ago.  Rush Limbaugh and Representatives Guy Millner and Newt Gingrich are living full-time in their SECOND publicly known ADULTEROUS RELATIONSHIPS.  how and why were Christian Conservatives able to reject the most pious Christian President America ever had, Jimmy Carter, in order to embrace a known adulterer and divorced Hollywood actor, Ronald Reagan, who hardly ever bothered to go to a church, unless it was a political event?   isn't it amazing how "Liberal" Christian Conservatives can be when it comes to Republican Senators and Presidential Candidates like Bob Dole, Liddy Dole and John McCain, who have abandonned their true wives and children and, according to the teaching of Jesus Christ, are now living in sin?  being known adulterers has not caused Republican Congressional leaders Henry Hyde, Bob Livingston, Mike Bowers , Dan Burton, Sue Myrick or Helen Chenoweth to lose the respect or support of the Christian Conservative community.  before it was revealed that she had been far more unfaithful to her spouse than Bill Clinton had, the adulterating Congresswoman Chenoweth -- who has since gone through a divorce and remarriage -- had the gall to join other Republican hypocrites like Hyde, Gingrich, Armey, Barr, Burton and Livingston in attacking President Bill Clinton, who is at least living with his true wife, just as are most other Democratic leaders, like Gore, Dashel, and Gebhardt.



-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 10:19 AM on January 22, 2003 | IP
aasha_

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Guest at 8:48 PM on January 17, 2003 :
fallingupwards84:
Christ told EVERYONE to give to the needy. Not just the "rich". I know an adult who went on welfare. When the welfare people found out she was making more money they decreased her support. Therefore, they successfully KEPT her on welfare and she was not able to get anywhere. Welfare does not help anyone. There is a big difference between a hand-up and a handout.

That doesn't mean that wealfare it'self it wrong that just means that the way it is implemented is wrong..
If you were homeless or if something happened to you suddenly you would want to know that programs such as welfare are there to help....

Improving the education system is the key to ending welfare...



 


Posts: 29 | Posted: 1:43 PM on January 22, 2003 | IP
David_B_Thompson

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dsadevil, sorry about the confusion, I was replying to Fallingup.  I started composing my post before you posted, and I didn't check the forum again before I posted!  Sorry for the confusion!


Here's the deal with government welfare:

It's not the government's place, and it's inefficient compared to giving directly to the poor, or to a charity.

The government taxes pretty much everyone to pay for programs (welfare and otherwise) that are the responsibility of the people, not the government.  These heavy taxes drag those of us who aren't rich down, and those people who are closest to the poverty level will be taxed over the edge!


God-given rights:

Read the Declaration of Independence.  It lays out clearly that the only reason for the existence of government is to protect the God-given rights of the people.


Fallingup, you said "i find it sometimes hard to believe that God would agree with some of paul's teachings. for example, when paul said that the woman should not leave the home."

First of all, you're challenging the divine inspiration of Scripture!

Secondly, you shouldn't find it hard to believe that God would agree with Paul on that particular issue!  God set the whole thing up!  He created man, then He created woman, and He gave them each roles and responsibilities.  The woman belongs, for the most part, in the home!  (He never said that she couldn't get out once in a while, it's when she neglects her role and works outside of the home that she's out of line)

But no more about that, I'm aware of the debate that exists on this topic and on this very site, and I've stayed out of it for a good reason: I don't have time for it!


Aasha, I'm not sure where you get your numbers, but welfare is only one of the many unnecessary drains on the American taxpayer.  The price will continue to rise until we address the problem of government control outside of rightful government boundaries.  (We may have a few good years, but the long-term trend doesn't look good)


You're absolutely right about corporate welfare!  Thank you for bringing that up, I was not aware of those numbers.  Certainly, the government has no right to dish out money to help failing corporations!


Again, welfare is not the only problem, it's just one of many.  I'd give you a list of others, but I'd probably get myself into another set of debates for which I simply do not have the time!


Jesus probably wouldn't have identified Himself as a Republican or Democrat, but His standards would definitely be considered conservative.  As to being divisive, well, here's what Jesus had to say about that: "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: 52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." (Luke 12:51-53)

Sounds pretty divisive to me!

No, we shouldn't hen peck and divide just for the sake of dividing, but when important issues are at stake, such as the lives of thousands of innocent children every day, it is our responsibility to stand up and speak!  (Fallingup, you're pro-life, so I know you'll agree with me on that issue!)


Christians in politics are only too rare nowadays!  If America suppresses Christianity, then how does that affect the spreading of the Gospel?  The bad news is that America, thanks to Christians who haven't cared enough to at least get out and vote, has already started to attack Christianity!


The Founding Fathers reasoned that since nations do not have a spirit, they cannot be punished for their offenses against God in eternity.  Thus, nations will be judged by God in this life.  If we care at all about our nation, then we had better get our act together and start exercising our authority as the people!


Yes, sadly, it's true that many "Christians" get so involved in politics that they lose sight of what's really important.  Not all, but many.  But is that an excuse?  What would you think about the knight who said, "see all those people down there in the battle?  So many of them are spending their time defending themselves instead of advancing the king's cause!  No way am I going in there!"?


If, as a Christian, you don't at least vote, (responsibly, for someone who will uphold the truth) then you're guilty of the blood of the 2.6 million innocent children who will be murdered in the next two years!  (Among other things!)



About the parable of the rich fool: Allow me to quote it with a little more context: "And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me. 14 And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you? 15 And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth. 16 And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: 17 And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? 18 And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. 19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. 20 But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?  21 So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God."  (Luke 12:13-21)

The issue here was not capitalism, but rather, it was greed.  Notice that the man already had barns.  There was no problem with his enjoying the fruits of his labor, what was wrong was his greed.  He was ready to sit back and live in ease, not lifting a finger to help those who needed it.  Note also, that Jesus didn't say "so the government came and took half of his produce and gave it to the poor", rather, He said that it was God who addressed him.  What we do with our money (and everything else) is for us to decide, and we're the ones who will bear the consequences.  Jesus wants us to choose to help those in need, not do it because the government makes us do it!



Guest, you said "There is virtually nothing of Jesus left in the Religious Right.  It is now wholly dedicated to three issues:  denying women the right to choose their own futures in regards to abortion; promoting discrimination, prejudice, bigotry and hatred of homosexuals; and destroying the public school system to replace it with a system of religious indoctrination."


You're mistaken on a couple of points.  I won't speak for the "Religious Right" in general, but I can say that Jesus is an unavoidable part of my life, and I know quite a few other conservatives who would say the same thing.


As to the issues: abortion, morality, and education are three pretty important things that we're working on, though they're not the only ones.  Let me address these three:

Abortion: this isn't a matter of a woman's "right" to control the rest of her life, which could be short enough anyway if she chooses abortion, this is a matter of the child's right to life!  It's one of the God-given unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence!

Morality: "promoting discrimination, prejudice, bigotry and hatred of homosexuals".  You're not far off, except for the overriding tone of hate.  It's the perverse abomination that we hate, not the people.  This is Biblical, and these are God's views.  Doubt me?  Read the Bible through from cover to cover.

Education: Actually, the public school system is "a system of religious indoctrination."  It just happens to promote the religion of humanism rather than the truth.  We prefer the truth.



Adultery and divorce: They're wrong.  I don't care who is involved, they're wrong!

Fallingup, you listed several conservatives who (supposedly) violated the sanctity of marriage.  That may be, but liberals have no room to talk there.  The GOP isn't perfect, in fact, far from it!  It needs reform, big-time reform, but keep in mind that they aren't the only conservatives out there!  They're just the ones who got elected, and I say they're better than what the liberal left wants to give us!


Jimmy Carter: From what I know, he's a man worthy of admiration.  (Hardly the only Christian president we've ever had, but definitely a Christian)  Notice, though, that it was Reagan who improved our economic status!


By the way, Jesus said that divorce and remarriage was the same as adultery, but He also said that looking on a woman to lust after her was adultery.  That one nails pretty much everyone!


Aasha, you said that "Improving the education system is the key to ending welfare".  You're close!  We don't need to improve the modern system of forced schooling, we need to eliminate it!  That will do the job!



We've discussed quite a few issues here, but we're getting off track.  I would ask that anyone who wants to take up any of these other issues go to the appropriate forum.  This might help to keep us on the subject at hand; "Was Jesus a Liberal?"


I've hinted at the fact that I'm short on time. Well, I won't be able to post here any more, (at least for a while) so I'll "sign off".

The modern liberal left is an outspoken opponent to Jesus Christ.  How could Jesus approve of that?  Just look around.  God is being thrown out of this nation, one ruling or bill at a time- by liberals.


Conservative Christianity is based on the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His Word.  That doesn't include all conservatives, nor does it include all professing Christians, but it includes myself and many others I know.


Was Jesus a liberal?  No.  Jesus is conservative!

I'll be praying for all of you!

God bless!!!



-------
David B. Thompson


God
Bless
America!!!
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 10:20 PM on January 23, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Jesus was NOT a conservative. the religious leaders of his day were. the pharisees were conservative. last time i checked, Jesus condemned the pharisees.

you say government welfare is not good because its not the governments place. but who says?

i believe some of Paul's teachings were sexist. God does not discriminate against gender. Paul was a great man, and he was inspired by God, but i think some of his cultural bias was involved in his teachings. back then, sexism was accepted. since Paul lived in this culture, he was more subject to accept it as well.

Jesus addressed divorce many many times. he never addressed homosexuality. yet the supposedly "moral" republicans have more divorced people representing their party than the democrats.

there were many parables where Jesus taught that the rich should share with the poor. doesnt sound like capitalism to me...

yes david, i am pro-life. but i think it is a mistake to say it is impossible to be both a christian and pro-choice at the same time. the bible does not clearly define when life begins.

by the way david, why are you so against education? quite frankly, it offends me that you generalize and say that all teachers are godless liars. i'm one of the strongest christians on this site and i'm gonna be a teacher. so please stop judging me. thanks


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 11:11 PM on January 23, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fallingupwards84 at 11:11 PM on January 23, 2003 :
i'm one of the strongest christians on this site


What makes you think that? Do you believe that the WHOLE Bible is the infoulable inerrant Word of the living God?
-FP


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:05 PM on January 26, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

what makes me think that i am a strong christian? hmmm, well lets see. maybe because i have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. maybe because i believe He was the Son of God and that He rose again on the third day. maybe because i have been forgiven of my sins. maybe because i follow God's word and his commands.

listen buddy, just because i dont take genesis literally does not mean that i am not a Christian.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 3:14 PM on January 26, 2003 | IP
debategirl88

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you know that teach a man to fish thing. I forgot how to word it but yall know what im talking about. All im sayin is that if they stay on welfare the govt. is just giving there money. there not learning anything. I do believe that if we buy them a nice suit get them looking for a job then it will teach them to care for themselves instead of living of the govt. If tey get them a job soon then put them on welfare, until they get a job. If there LAZY and not doing anything for themselves then let them suffer the consequences and take them off welfare.


-------
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
-Thomas Jefferson
 


Posts: 157 | Posted: 3:30 PM on January 26, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the problem is, most people on welfare are not lazy. they just have not been as lucky as some other people.

i believe that we should teach a man how to fish and in the MEANTIME help them out and give them something to tie them over. so debategirl, are you against charities? because charities give poor people money or food or clothes.

capitalism says that we should teach a man how to fish but NOT tie them over with stuff they need while they are being taught. in other words, let them live in poverty.

so does anyone else out there besides FP want to judge me and accuse me of being a bad christian?




-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 4:56 PM on January 26, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Falling, I didn't intend to sound judgemental, and I'm sorry for it sounding that way. I was wondering if you had a "creed of faith" kind of thing. The question was out of curiosity not trying to prove a point. I believe you can be a good Christian and still be wrong on some issues, after all, when you become a Christian you don't become perfect. I was asking two seperate questions, 1: "Why do you say your a Christian (i.e. what is your creed of faith?)", and 2: "Do you believe the WHOLE Bible to be the infoulable inerrant Word of the living God?(emphisis to help you understand the question.)"
Again, I'm sorry for sounding judgemental.
-FP
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:53 PM on January 26, 2003 | IP
debategirl88

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fallingupwards84 at 4:56 PM on January 26, 2003 :
the problem is, most people on welfare are not lazy. they just have not been as lucky as some other people.

i believe that we should teach a man how to fish and in the MEANTIME help them out and give them something to tie them over. so debategirl, are you against charities? because charities give poor people money or food or clothes.

capitalism says that we should teach a man how to fish but NOT tie them over with stuff they need while they are being taught. in other words, let them live in poverty.

so does anyone else out there besides FP want to judge me and accuse me of being a bad christian?




If tey get them a job soon then put them on welfare, until they get a job.

I meant if they don't get a job. I didn't say let them live in poverty, I m just sayihg the ones who use it for drugs and alchohol instead of finding them a job and getting them a place to stay.

I don't know if your a good Christian or not I barely know you.


-------
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
-Thomas Jefferson
 


Posts: 157 | Posted: 4:50 PM on January 27, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i think it's really funny that Christians are arguing over whether welfare is a good idea or not. I know us secularists are usually busy earning the vengeance of terrorists and "homosexualizing" American society, but I think it's interesting how for someone of my degraded moral values, welfare is a no-brainer, but for the followers of Jesus, it's not so obvious.

-Alex
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:42 PM on January 27, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

actually, a true follower of Jesus would be a supporter of welfare. it is very very very clear that Jesus would have supported welfare.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 10:30 PM on January 27, 2003 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I just want to say goodbye. I am not going to post on this website anymore. The comments filling up the gay rights forum especially have made me lose interest. i did however really enjoy arguing with everyone, and i hope i didn't offend anyone too much (really). i valued everyone's opinions, and it was not all in vain. My opinions are not written in stone. for example, i feel less certain about my pro-choice stance (not pro-life though necessarily). and i feel a little less militant about my homosexuality and anti-religion. anyway, good luck everyone. i want to say a special bye to dsadevil and fallingupwards, who i really enjoyed debating with. i think a site like this is good for educating people -- hopefully things like this will lead to there being less people like heteroman and hetero-male in the future. adios.

-Alex


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 5:43 PM on January 28, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

alex, while we did not agree on everything, i really really enjoyed reading your posts on this site. it challenged me to think and even changed my mind on some issues. you were an awesome debater and its too bad you hafta go. i thought it was cool how you were unashamed of your sexuality. i hope you do not face a lot of discrimination in the future. just remember that not all religious people are conservative and jerks. good luck in life man. we'll miss ya


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 11:07 PM on January 28, 2003 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.