rawstory.com— Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) is offended that President Barack Obama quoted scripture to make the case for a fairer tax policy.
Feb 3, 2012View in Crawl 4
"Obama thinks he's Fox In Sox!"
"President implies he is 4th greatest after Cat In Hat, Thing1 and Thing2!"
"Obama guts Pentagon of Butter-Battle Funds!"
"Obama appoints Lorax to Secretary of Interior during Senate Recess"
"Obama rides boat with MSM goat; snubs Fox in box"
I know, right? The bible-thumping Hatch, who had no problem with Dubya saying "God wants us to win", and generally quoting the bible 24/7 to try to give credence to his bulls**t insanity... All of a sudden now, Hatch has his panties in a wad because President Obama is quoting his precious book.... SHUT YOUR ASS Hatch, you hypocrite!
He says he's a Christian, it is above my pay grade to judge. But I don't like Conservatives, Republicans or Democrats who use scripture to run the country or to gain support for a cause. You think it is ok?
I say let something rise or fall according to it's merits and don't drag religion into it.
Good question, stevanoski. Sorry you're being dugg down.
I give the national prayer breakfast a pass. Each president gets up and quotes scripture in a political fashion, people eat some pancakes, and life moves on. It's like "in God we trust" on our money; I don't think it's a meaningful infringement on the separation of church vs. state.
Presidents like to push their message whenever they can, and at the NPB, they do it using scripture. Next week he'll be -- if you'll pardon the term -- pandering to some other crowd, using a different set of terms.
There's a thin line between a leader's moral and ethical code being influenced, in part, by their religious upbringing, and making a policy decision Because The Bible Says So. I agree with you -- the latter can be downright scary. I think his comments at the NPB were just tailoring his speech to the crowd, rather than the latter.
I think you're absolutely right, but imagine the first president who DOESN'T attend the prayer breakfast and talk about how God influences his decisions. I'm not saying this SHOULD be how presidents act, but it's how the American people are demanding that they act.
Maybe. I don't remember him doing it but would not have approved if he did. I wonder if there are any cites to show he did? I will look them up.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Here is what we know for sure, so far. Journalist Arnon Regular wrote, in the June 26 edition of Ha'aretz (Israel's most reputable newspaper), that he has minutes of a meeting among top-level Palestinian leaders, including Prime Minister Mahmoud Abas. The minutes are apparently quite detailed, because Regular wrote a long article recounting very specific conversations. The last paragraph of the article reads:
"According to Abbas, Bush said: 'God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.'"Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Actually... stevenoski may be correct. Like him, I did some googling and read some of Bush's NPB addresses. I didn't read them all, so it wasn't an exhaustive search, but I didn't see any examples of Bush directly addressing policy in his addresses.
So -- at first glance -- Obama may have set a precedent; if not, his remarks were a bit unusual.
People who took issue with his address fall into two camps:
- the folks who said "hey, dude, bad form there, injecting policy into your speech. Just keep it about faith, ok?" -- and in those cases, I can see their point of view.
- the folks whose dislike of the president is so strong, or the folks who've been fed a constant stream of stories about how he's a Muslim, that hearing him speak of his faith or quote scripture makes their heads utterly explode. These are the folks who need to be pointed in the direction of reality and given a hard shove.
a fox? Did you drop acid today? Do animals talk to you frequently or just when you are stressed. Just breath deeply, this is just a political web site, no one is trying to harm you. Do you have any med.s you perhaps, might may take.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
You're an avid poster - apparently one with a short memory, especially about Bush.
Bush ran as a compassionate conservative. A compassionate conservative that sought to cut Social Security safety net and drove us into two wars. He leaned more to the right in his re-election purely because he had to to win again.
Personally, I found him crafty considering the gay rights issue in his second term re-election effectively divided the vote at a time if voters were focused more on his handling of the wars would have saw him get the boot.
Honestly, if we all put our money in a hat to get a neighbor some health car that's a christian thing to do, same as paying a little more into the system to help others that can less afford to.
It's not obama media, he's just on the right side of the argument, simple as that. what's so hard to understand about it?
Republicans have painted themselves in a corner without compromising for America.
I used to think I knew what "liberal" meant. These days, the way that word is used, I understand it to mean "non-Muslim people whom Christians hate." Obama is a unique crossover for those who believe his is (ironically) both Muslim and liberal.
99% of the people feel a strong connection with a thing called Love. Love comes in many forms and is interpreted entirely uniquely within 99% of the individuals.
As long as you remember that 99% of the people out in the world are capable of feeling and giving Love, they are automatically Christian for believing in Love. A Child of God, just as you.
Liberals are equally capable of Love as any Conservatives and vice versa...
...unless they don't know what Love is.
I do hope that you can find some within you, Jessica, for it's not too late!
I think Orrin is angry that Obama pointed out his (Orrin's) religious hypocrisy on the issue of wealth and religion. Since Orrin can't attack Jesus for his position on wealth disparity, he attacks the messenger instead. In this case, it happened to be our President, Barack Obama, who Conservatives disingenuously accuse of being a Muslim.
Unfortunately for Orrin and the rest of the Conservative movement, Muslims quote the Quran NOT the Bible/Jesus.
Thats cause there are a whole host of Obama's going around, one for every occasion..This isn't a partisan issue, democrats have different versions as well.
There is one real Obama out there, and he truly is the President of the United States....but he is just a human and rather boring.
Republicans have a different Bible from the rest of the world. In the republican bible in Matthew 19:21, Jesus tells the rich kid to take everything he can with from the poor. To build up his riches on earth. . . .
You're thinking of the Quran that's supposed to be the word of God. The New Testament, however is a collection of Gospels from Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, Epistles from various apostles and so on.
More than one Christian Bible? They are various translations, but there is only one New Testament and that has been retranslated so many times, I doubt anyone actually know what is says.
Whether the Bible reflects the word of God or not, or whether it contains the right books or not, can be debated. But aside from a few minor books that Protestants don't include but Catholics do, there is only one Bible. Certainly only one set of "orthodox" Gospels.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The only way for there to be conflicting denominations is for there to be different texts? They can't have conflicting interpretations, or styles of worship, or more basic, non-theological disagreements?
sure they can, if they're just making it up as they go a long.
they all claim the be the one true version of christianity and that all the others are wrong. One would think that if it were real, there wouldnt be conflicting versions and interpretations of it.
Either one of them is right, or none of them is right, or their disagreements aren't as important to God as they are to the conflicting denominations. What's your point?
One would think that if it were real, there wouldnt be conflicting versions and interpretations of it.
it's pretty convenient to just say "it's god's will!" for any sort of inconsistency or to use god as a means to justify how they all think they're right and everyone else is wrong.
if they cant even get that part right, why should anything else they say be any more reliable or 'true'?
How should I know? I wasn't making any claims for the "correct" interpretation or how right any particular sect is. All I said is that there's only one Christian Bible.
Though in fairness, there are plenty of historical documents about which there are multiple interpretations as to what actually happened (what is actually described, whether the author was giving an accurate portrayal, etc.), and of course only one event actually occurred. So I don't think "there are multiple interpretations, therefore it can't be real" is a very good argument.
Repukes get pissy anytime a liberal mentions the bible. You can tell them something like:
"Jesus was a socialist...he brought food to the masses, cured diseases, brought back the dead, and even pardoned a murderer without asking for a penny back. He loved all regardless of their 'contributions' to society."
and they just f**king lose their minds. It's fun to do and fun to watch a Repuke start stuttering or just plain ol' bulls**tting that Jesus was somehow capitalist. Religion is just an excuse for Repukes to start wars and to hate on others. Whether they are homosexual or of another religion they're just allowed to hate.
Didn't you know: Jesus was a gun toting, tax cuts and health care only for the rich having republican.
Only if you prescribe to the revised Christo-Fascist Jesus of Pat Robertson and his ilk.
What if Jesus had a profound and intellectually deep understanding of warfare in all its forms, having studied the fine arts in Egypt like it describes in the Bible. One must assume that he was well aware of the will of Man in all its facets. All of the well-lit avenues of Love and the darkened chasms of Fear, as well as the fine threads that stitch the two.
Imagine if he was the one fashioning the crosses upon which his Brothers would be hung. Being a carpenter in a place with little wood, building crosses was rather carpenter-ly kind of thing to do. Consider, for a period of time in history, a very ugly time in history, much of the available wood was used building crosses.
WE ALL NEED TO WAKE THE f**k UP!
Wood should be used for making drums and not for crosses.
He also said it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven (or whatever) however i don't see them harassing any rich people to give up tha cash!
Orrin Hatch thinks he is one of the anointed ones, the man is talking utter nonsense again. Tell the truth Orrin its the fact that he is the POTUS and you allude to BS, you should've just closed the front door and talk about something we are interested in: JOBS.
Obama is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. If he wouldn't have quoted scripture, they would have attacked him because of that - if he does, they attack him for that. Personally, I find it funny that the right is complaining about scripture - I guess they only like it when they have a chance to pick and choose what sections to read in order to push their own personal political agenda.
It's apparent that both you and Obama equally misunderstand the parable that Jesus spoke. Obama is actually using a verse to promote a tax increase on the wealthy while the verse has absolutely nothing to do with the financially wealth or money.
What does that tell you about mtown's or Obama's understanding of Christian scripture or Jesus?
mtown, I suggest , if you are interested in truth, you actually read the parable and Jesus' comment after the parable and should you desire, read commentaries about that verse that Obama uses.
Apparently the political left wants to stick to the pretzel interpretation of New testament scripture so I will give you and Obama another one you can twist and spin.
Matthew 13:12
Jesus said, "Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them."
:
Interpretation for the political left:
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. (indubitably because of the 1%, Koch brothers and Republican policies)
That passage has nothing to do with wealth, and the "will be given" part is referring to what someone will receive in the afterlife and you know it.
Ok, yes or no question time: Do you think Jesus would be supportive of programs like welfare and food stamps and universal healthcare, even if it meant that people with wealth might have to give more to make them work? Yes or no.
I will state again, again and again. As Jesus said, Let him who has ears, let him hear."
I did say that the verse that Obama used had nothing to do with financial wealth or money. The, "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded;" has nothing to do with wealth yet Obama uses it in that context and is in error of scripture. He is using it as a political tool to support higher taxes.
Jesus could have cared less about human governance. I don't know why people constantly attempt to place Jesus into a political camp.
No, I do not think that Jesus would support the government's taking away monies from some and redistributing those monies as righteous because when the people give through force, what righteous value is created? This saying is well known in Christian circles; "It's the heart stupid" and when the heart is not in the action, what have you? Nothing!
Jesus would be happy if we ALL gave from the heart with gladness. but we don't and forcing to give is, as I said, worthless in God's eyes. It isn't even as good as making a huge display in public about what you give for you receive your reward then and there. With forced giving there is no reward at all. Forcing people to give to what you feel is the right government program is hardly going to make the culture righteous. The people's hearts are not changed at all.
You are obsessed with scripture. Why can't you just grow a set and admit your side is the opposite of what christ would be like if he lived today. You know it's true. Why is is so wrong to just admit it?
I think he's Christian and American-born, but I believe it was inappropriate to use the prayer breakfast to make a case for his liberal political position.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
From your own link... And yes I've trimmed the quote to avoid posting a short novel...
Rev. Jim Wallis, founder and president of the Christian social change group Sojourners and a regular attendee of the National Prayer Breakfast, said ...
So when it can raise up issues that we ought to be accountable to, whether we are religious or not, I think that's when it's probably at its best."[15]
Well, since it is supposed to be a prayer day to the magical bearded man in the sky, and since that bearded man in the sky doesn't really exist, I don't mind. The president may as well get some real work done while catering to the bearded man worshipers.
It's completely normal for the President to get up and talk about his religion's influence on his politics at the National Prayer breakfast. It happens every year! How on earth is it not an appropriate venue?!
I don't decry your use of "libtards" or anything similar...just personal insults. Plus it's quicker to type Repuke than Republicans, but I have been to known to use either.
How about Jesus's liberal political position? Things like feed the poor and heal the sick really don't fit into the Conservative / Republican promise to veto the affordable care act or eliminate food stamps regardless of how pious those Conservatives claim to be.
mlw, in case you think you've gone crazy because you can't fathom how anyone could possibly fail to understand your question, let me verify: it's aadyss, not you.
I've addressed this was aass-h**e before, but far from charging for miracles, the one and only time Jesus himself became violent was when the bankers (money changers) were set up in the temple.
Also, about all he talked about was poverty and the poor. He also specifically said it was almost impossible for a rich man get go to heaven (... eye of a needle...)
If Jesus were alive today he would probably get annoyed at democrats... for getting along too well with republicans.. Who he would certainly attack on sight. And he would be right to do so.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"Ah, there's that twisting scripture into a pretzel I previously mentioned."
Serious question. Haw can you interpret it any other way? The republican party stands for everything Jesus hated. Show me ANYTHING Jesus said that is even remotely "cut funding for the poor', 'export "the brown people' (news flash, Jesus was brown. He was Mediterranean), and feed the rich, and support the current false religious sect (Pharisees).
Oh, Jesus was brown...AND... Mediterranean? I certainly didn't know that and the Pharisees were a false religious sect? I suppose the Sadducees would also be included in that false sect. Just throwing out suppositions here.
So much knowledge and wisdom in such a small space. I'll bet you are a superstar in your Sunday School and Bible study group. As I'm going to church and Sunday School today, I will mention your good works and supreme knowledge of the scriptures and personal knowledge of Jesus. The leadership will no doubt want to meet you and present you with the 'Gnostic award of the Year 2012' award.
You can explain to them the following verses. “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.
“Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you."
Ya, I guess that kind of pride ain't so good. Since your Jesus, the brown guy, was the head of the Roman Empire's tax department, I would guess that He and Matthew - the disciple and former tax collector having experience in such matters - went about taxing the rich and giving to the Roman Emperor and Jewish religious leadership's governmental social programs that He found it difficult to find the time for preaching. I'll bet He collected a ton of money from Herod Antipas for widows and orphans
What is it now, the gnostic beatitude..."Blessed are the rich who are taxed and begrudgingly forfeit their money to the government for social justice and social programs for they shall be known as the 1%." Righteous..not so much.
Straighten me out if I am spreading heresy here Rogue - the genius gnostic theologian. I certainly do not want to cross the Democratic Moral Superiority Judgement Committee co-chaired by Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders. (DMS-'JC') That would be very dangerous and reports of burnings alive have been coming in from various parts of the country, particularly in the Bible Belt.
Ah, sarcasm. And again, no real response other than "Rogue is bad." Pathetic.
But if you read your own quote -- and I mean REALLY read it. You may see where you and your religion (yes, those smug fools you'll sit beside today) have gone so horribly wrong and diverged so far from your own scriptures. Allow me to re-post:
"Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you."
Read what that really says. Then look around you today. Then quietly pay your taxes and humbly respect the far greater care that is doing for the needy -- the needy YOU won't even personally meet -- and be happy. THAT is what that is really saying. If you would just step back from your southern protestant foolishness and actually read the words.
Where did I say you were "bad"? I have do such feeling about you or how you run your life. That's up to you and I have and want no influence in that whatsoever.
What I do see is your acceptance of mandatory giving versus giving with gladness of heart as being the same therefore the , "It's the heart stupid." I'm not calling you stupid. We Christians call ourselves stupid if any of us don't understand the difference between the two.
We all pay our taxes and rarely does anyone pay them without some sort of grumbling (not much gladness of heart there) but with that being said, let me ask you a couple of questions.
1.) If paying federal and state income taxes were optional and giving to the churches policy remained as it currently is, which do you think would gather more money for the poor? Really, how much money do you think the government would collect if taxes need not ever to be paid?
2.) Why don't Bill Gates and Warren Buffet give their money to the government instead of the The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation? If I were to believe your statement, "Then quietly pay your taxes and humbly respect the far greater care that is doing for the needy -," I would think that all great philanthropists and others would offer their wealth to the government due to their great efficiency and good that they do but that doesn't seem to occur very often. ???
I will meet the needy every week working with a program supported by the church called I-Help but that is no one's concern, certainly not yours.
I know a Christian who just yesterday bought gasoline for a couple who had run out of gasoline on a major street for they had no money on them. The Christian just pulled up the stalled vehicle and asked them if they needed help and they did so the Christian went to a gasoline station, purchased a fairly expensive gasoline container, filled it up and delivered it to the couple at their automobile. He also gave them the new gasoline container he had just purchased. See, the government had not a hand in that. Obviously unbeknownst to you that type of charity occurs quite often. (not just by Christians by the way) Wouldn't it have been sad if he had asked them if they were liberal and had the answer been in the affirmative he would have told them to call the U.S. Government for help?
I have never had called for the government to stop providing safety nets for the people. I have no problem with raising taxes in a better economy but this economy won't turn for another year or two.
It Amazes me how many Republican Christians deny the Gospels – you know, the red words that Jesus actually said (versus Paul's angry letters, which they usually run to):
Jesus tells us to pay our taxes, that earthly wealth is not ours:
"Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."
– Matthew 22:17-21 KJV
Jesus tells us that leaders only exist by God's will, and that we must therefore subject ourselves to them:
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."
– Romans 13:2-7 KJV
Jesus tells us that our obligation is to feed, clothe, and care for the poor, sick, and imprisoned; and that those who refuse will burn in eternal fires:
"Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
– Matthew 25:34-46 KJV
"He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise."
– Luke 3:11 KJV
And this one is for you, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), ignorer of Gospels:
"Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the c**k crow, thou shalt deny me thrice."
– Matthew 26:34 KJV
The only scriptural excerpt which even REMOTELY relates to taxation or the idea that the calls for good works and charity are meant to be anything other than private is the "render unto Caesar" passage, and Jeffrey Barr (and countless other theologians over the years) illustrates with extensive detail how completely and utterly fallacious that notion is:
"Over the centuries, theologians, scholars, laymen, and potentates have interpreted the Tribute Episode incorrectly as Jesus’ support for the payment of taxes. First, this interpretation does not square with the political climate of the times. The Tribute Episode is set in the middle of a decades-old tax-revolt against Caesar’s tribute. Second, the rhetorical structure of the Tribute Episode, itself, contradicts any interpretation that Jesus supported paying taxes. Third, the Gospels contain episode after episode of subtle sedition.
The Tribute Episode is just another of these subtly seditious scenes. When seen in the context of subtle sedition, the phrase "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s," means that the emperor is owed nothing. Finally, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the authoritative interpreter of Sacred Scripture, does not construe the Tribute Episode to support the proposition that it is morally obligatory to pay one’s taxes. Indeed, it interprets the Tribute Episode to mean the exact opposite – that Christians are obliged to disobey Caesar when Caesar’s dictates violate God’s law.
In sum, the pro-tax position of the Tribute Episode is not supportable historically, rhetorically, contextually, or within the confines of the Church’s own understanding.
Isn't relevant? What about the part where Jesus said that those who have wealth are obligated to help the poor, yet Republicans are trying to do away with welfare and unemployment benefits and all that other crap?
Pshhh, you are just dancing around the issue. If Jesus was alive today you know full well that he would be very supportive of social programs like welfare and social security. He would not say, "oh, those are bad because people should only donate what they want through charity".
Charities exist today yet there are still poor and hungry people in this country. You think Jesus would say, "oh well, sorry poor people!" ?
"Charities exist today yet there are still poor and hungry people in this country."
Since Johnson's Great Society programs started in the early 60's the nation has spent about 10 trillion on poverty-related programs with no appreciable drop in the poverty level.
Further, one could argue that because these governmental programs decrease charitable giving (people feel less inclined to give when they reason that government is helping these folks for them) we might well have fewer poor people did these programs not exist at all.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
You can't argue with stupid and Republicans are about as stupid as you're able to get.
You can show them where their OWN beliefs say "care for the poor" and they'll twist it into some capitalistic idea that it should be about people getting richer.
Jesus's words were a command saying "If you have plenty then you shall spare some to those who do not." It doesn't say anything about "personal" responsibility and everything about "If you have more than you need then you shall share or you'll go to hell."
So all of these 1%er bankers who are "such hard workers" (who f**ked up America's economy) and have tons of money that they stole from the American taxpayer can either start forking it over or go to hell. The way I see it, increasing taxes is just the government caring about these people's souls.
You Republicans want us to be a Christian nation...well heavily taxing the rich folks to give money to the unrich is JUST the government's way of helping to get more 1%ers into heaven. That's very Christian.
"Sharing" in terms of helping the poor means giving to people in need, not supporting wasteful, corrupt governments' attempts to extract an even larger share of peoples' property.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Jesus supported charity for the sick and the poor. Which in today's economy translates to social security disability, which is a significant portion of our tax burden.
More importantly, anyone who makes 100 million dollars in a year should, by Christian standards, be donating 75-80 percent of it to charity. I don't see that happening.
That's because we're capitalists. Left to our own devices people will horde wealth and pass it to their greedier more self entitled offspring. Again, if millionaires contributed a majority portion of their UNNECESSARY wealth to charities, we wouldn't need welfare.
Everyone complains that the government is wasteful, but the blame is placed on the poor. When in fact, everyone knows that it's rich people who are allowed to influence policy decisions. Those policies help rig the "game" to favor those who already have more than they need.
Of course republicans are against taxation on the wealthy, of course they are for cutting social services. Because those positions benefit THEM. Jesus wants you to think about other people who are less fortunate.
It's not up to you to decide what portions of other peoples' property you have no claim to are "unnecessary".
And I really don't think that most people, regardless of their political philosophies, are not in favor of public programs for those TRULY in need; the question is which ones are really in need and what's the best way to meet those needs. A bloated, inefficient and I daresay corrupt federal distribution system is hardly ideal.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
f**k off, it's up to me to decide what I think is unnecessary. You don't have to agree, but you don't get to tell me that I can't make the distinction.
As far as I can tell, your arguments are that since charity is supposed to be non-compulsory we shouldn't require anyone to pay back into the system they exploited to become wealthy in the first place. And that rich people should be allowed to define for themselves what constitutes "fair".
You don't even understand human nature at all do you?
Romney gave more to charity than Obama the past two years. Obama gave a measly one percent of his wealth to charity. Romney up to 18%.
Does that mean he's a better person by your logic? Of course not. You don't have political opinions. You just blindly worship politicians themselves.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Nobody cares about the ransom demands of a rambling internet maniac.
LOL
I'm in medical school and I will be in the top "one percent" of incomes some day. Doctors make up the largest portion of the "one percent". You want to punish me for being more intelligent, educated and useful to society than you? I should give you my "extra money" because you "want it"? Why don't you get off of your ass and do something useful -- wealth will follow.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
No, no, NO novantii, those numbers Fox gave were bulls**t, they compared Romney the last couple years to Obama a few years ago. They gave the same percentage!
@novantii - You do realize that you misquoted me and changed the context of what I was saying right? Then you cited Faux News lies in order to support your position. If you had called Obama a socialist, you would have completed the Republican hat trick.
Hmm, should I believe the words of Jesus, the Gospels and the numerous Biblical scholars who have translated the various versions from the original texts, or should I believe a Libertarian attorney named Jeffrey F. Barr who writes for lewrockwell.com?
Here are most if not all the scholarly interpretations. How many times do you see scholars translating Jesus' word literally as "tax":
Additionally, you clearly did not read the original Scripture posted if your argument is "The only scriptural excerpt which even REMOTELY relates to taxation" Go back an read it. I'll sum it up here though:
Matthew 22:17-21: Jesus tells us to pay our taxes, that our reward lies in heaven. Self explanatory.
Romans 13:2-7: Jesus tells us to obey our government, as our leaders are put in place by God. If the government taxes you into poverty, it is God's will and do not argue the point.
Matthew 25:34-46, Luke 3:11: Jesus tells us to care for the poor, sick hungry, imprisoned, and that if you have two coats, give one to someone who has none, or suffer the consequences for your selfishness.
Matthew 26:34: Many who claim allegiance to Christ will deny him when it comes to their own self-interests. As do many right-wing Christians.
If you need helping piecing these together:
• Pay your taxes.
• If think taxes are unfair, it doesn't matter, God put your government in power. Do as He wants and obey.
• If through the government that God put in place, you are in turn do Christ's will by helping the poor, you have even less to complain. Conversely, to fight them denies the poor, denies God's authority, and denies Christ's word.
If you or anyone has a problem with this, then your complaint is not with me but with the Bible.
Interesting interpretations. One thing you may not understand is that taking care of the poor was an individual choice not dictated by the government. Hope I helped in your study of the scripture.
Yes, I have. Did you read the very first sentence of my very first post? I'll paste it here:
"It Amazes me how many Republican Christians deny the Gospels – you know, the red words that Jesus actually said (versus Paul's angry letters, which they usually run to):"
Thessalonians was written by Paul. I'm quoting the words of Jesus Christ. Paul never met Jesus, but rather was converted after a vision on the road to Damascus. There's are many contradictions in the Bible. When faced with such, the Words of Christ trump the words of others.
"Wow you are 2000 years old and have studied the Bible 500 years?....Anyone who thinks that red ink disguishes Jesus words from the rest of the Bible has only perused the Bible, not studied it."
Thank you for illustrating my point. Your argument is not with me, but with 2000 years of Christian scholarship that state certain passages are attributed directly to Christ, while others are attributed to evangelists traveling in His name. I suggest you take it up with those who translated the original texts.
Again, I apologize if I have in anyway interfered with your study of the Scripture as you peruse your salvation. May God be with you in every way and bless you and your family in every way during this journey.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"Hmm, should I believe the words of Jesus, the Gospels and the numerous Biblical scholars who have translated the various versions from the original texts..."
First of all, the Gospels ARE the words of Jesus according to the faithful, so that's redundant. But secondly and more importantly, the words themselves are purposefully allegorical; were that not the case we wouldn't have countless different Christian sects and offshoots, all quite certain that theirs is the correct set of interpretations.
In terms of discounting "a Libertarian attorney named Jeffrey F. Barr", does it really matter what his political or professional affiliation is? Does that have any bearing whatsoever on the validity of the exhausting and thoughtful analysis he's given here, which vastly eclipses the unfounded and unexamined leaps in logic you've made here? I think not.
But as you've decided to attack the messenger (since you can't logically refute what he's written), here's another interpretation from William T. Cavanaugh,
Migrations of the Holy: God, State, and the Political Meaning of the Church (Grand Rapids & Cam-bridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011); PaulW. Kahn, Political Theology: Four New Chapters on the Con-cept of Sovereignty (New York: Columbia University Press,2011); Michael Parenti,The Face of Imperialism (Boulder & London: Paradigm Publishing, 2011)."
So I trust you'll find these credentials, if not more acceptable, at least a bit more undeniable :)
"To even begin to comprehend what is on Jesus’ mind when he says: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” one must first under-stand the context. In contrast to what St, Augustine described as the split-ting of the civitas terrena and the civitas dei
, the City of Man and the City ofGod, the Romans had created an imperial order, an empire that encompassed the entire “civilized” world that absorbed the sacred into an omnipotent and omnipresent state of order called
Pax Romana....
YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of the Jews, had absolutely no providential power in the mindset of the sovereign god of Rome. Why the Pharisees and Herodians were “amazed” was what Jesusuttered, in public mind you, was no less than what would have been considered at the time the most outrageous and treasonous truth claim: that thegod of Rome was not the real sovereign, that the real, true sovereign was YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Essentially, Jesus was challenging the Roman thought police to lock him up or more likely to “cast him into to the outer darkness” which was into the “uncivilized world” beyond the borders of the Roman Empire. By speaking out loud the Scriptural under-standing of the sovereignty and providence of the God of the Torah, Jesus was directly challenging the sovereignty of the Roman occupiers. Jesus crossed the
boundary of allowable opinion."
So in essence, (and as Barr so eloquently pointed out), Jesus was hardly extolling the virtues of taxation in that passage. As to your other summations, they're simply your opinion and as such, not worth a whole lot.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"In terms of discounting 'a Libertarian attorney named Jeffrey F. Barr', does it really matter what his political or professional affiliation is?"
Area of expertise matters. Is Barr a Biblical Scholar fluent in Aramaic? Personal beliefs matters. Are Barr's views anti-tax by nature, and as such, is he prone to look for ways to justify his positions?
The same goes for Cavanaugh. I am quoting Jesus directly. You are arguing against His words with a contemporary interpretation. Furthermore, at no point does the quote you posted does Cavanaugh refute Jesus' command to pay taxes, he merely tries to discount it by putting it into a political/historical context. In its true historical context, Jesus would have been arrested for saying "pay no taxes" as the Herodians supported the Roman state. The Pharisees knew this, and though they despised the Herodians and the state, they also despised Jesus, and, as such, enlisted the Herodians in an effort to trap Him. Jesus in turn replied with the perfect answer, that left both the Herodians and the Pharisees without any legal course of action against Him: What's Caesar's is Caesar's and what's God's is God's, which, incidentally, also pushed back at the Pharisees for their idolatry of Caesar's image, for their idolatry of money.
So the argument comes down to: Did Jesus say what He said because He believed it? Or did He say it out of self-preservation. One need only look at the cross to see that Jesus beliefs were more important than self-preservation to Jesus. Ergo, His words are to be taken at face-value; not interpreted for political, personal or financial gain.
The argument comes down to interpretation, whether it's a "direct quote" from Christ or not, just like it always does.
I must say though, Mr. Barr's interpretation (and, obviously Cavanaugh's) employs sound and corollary logic in reaching it's conclusions. Yours? Simply emphatic insistence, devoid of sound reasoning, on what you wish to be true.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Different people have different interpretations. It seems like the people who promote your interpretation are all people who are already heavily anti-government
Most interpretations is that it's just jesus not answering the question,
Oh and I think you're forgetting
‘let every person be subject to the governing authorities. He who resists the authorities was this what God has appointed.Roman's 13:1
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. Romans 13:6-7
It specifically says taxes in there and to pay them. learn the bible before you comment on it.
"Most interpretations is that it's just jesus not answering the question"
Than that hardly makes the "Jesus is for more taxes" case.
"‘let every person be subject to the governing authorities."
Even if I agreed with you that this is a command to blindly pay taxes, do you really think that's sound logic? Do you think Jesus would have regarded Stalin or Hitler as "God's servants", and implore his flock to help support their genocide?
And the tea party is a gaggle of stubborn liars. Even when caught red handed, they lie their way out of lying. Because the Republicans and the Tea Party got us into this mess, lying is only beginning to backfire. The MAJORITY of Americans hate these ridiculous lies in a big way and the backlash is coming.
I'm all for being upset at those two but the TPers had nothing to do with the mess we are in. They think that their government should be smaller much like their ideas and solution. Let's put the blame at the feet of those who lit the fuse of the s**t bomb the political parties started (thank you lobbyists) the banking industry.
It was in 2010, when Obama visited Wall Street
to drum up support for Elizabeth Warren's nomination
to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
In the lobby of the Bank of America Tower was a table display
by Bane Capital; showing gold coins stamped with the faces of diferent
celebrated American capitalists: Fitch; Morgan, Gould, Lay, Trump, Romney, etc
On the reverse side of each coin was the prayer, "Divers weights, and divers measures, both alike are abomination to the Lord".
Obama tipped the table over with a kick of his rhetoric,
and pronounced the fatal words "Let's turn this den of thieves
over to an even playing field".
That very night, the GOP gathered together and consulted
among them, how they should be rid of this man.
That is so hilarious coming from a super elite Mormon...hypocrisy at its finest....! Bet you money he would not say that about fellow cult member Mitt if he did the same....
Ha! The moment a DEM wants to put a wear a little Jesus on his sleeve (for the good of the poor as Jesus really did), the modern day pharisees claim that he portends to be JC himself. HOW IRONIC!
I think it is very silly to refer to fictional characters when talking about the economy. However, their geezer is the last person who should be complaining.
When one side quotes the scripture to make hateful laws its good. When the other side quotes the scripture to help the poor its bad. God it.
Instead of quoting a book full of hateful, bigoted, racist, bastards we should look at our own situation and make rules based on how our lives are going and not how a magic book written by frauds and thieves says do to things.
It's because he's the anti-christ. Technically any demoncrat who believes in REAL christian values like charity and forgiveness (let's not forget St. Francis) is in fact the devil incarnate masquerading as Jesus.
Personally I believe religion has NO place in politics, be it from the left or right, but for right wing zealots to get peeved because somebody on the left quotes scripture too is just plain pathetic.
Have you ever noticed that the a-holes that "preach" the word of "god" incessantly are usually the most two faced, abusive, selfish, greedy, corrupt and un-godly mother bitches on the planet?
Man oh man, this is rich coming from this sanctimonious, self-congratulatory ass hat. President Obama simply cannot win - when he was first elected, the right wingnuts and their "obviously-in-need-of-psychotropic-drugs followers" wrapped themselves in Scripture, making references to Obama as being the "anti-Christ." At one point, if you Google'd the issue, you would have received something in the neighborhood of about 6 million hits - all of which were streaming from right wing sources. Now, Obama quotes some Bible passages, and this goof damns him for thinking he's Jesus Christ?!?! I worked for U.S. Sen. Paul Simon years ago in the late 1980s, and this guy was full of crap back then. Sit down and stop embarrassing yourself, Hatch.
This is a perfect example of the "Obama can do nothing right" mentality of these people, which I referred to in my comments. Thanks for pointing this out.
There's no way Obama is Jesus. Jesus couldn't have lowered unemployment the way Obama's policies have... all he did is feed the hungry, heal the sick, and die for our sins. Obama actually put them back to work.
I always thought that Orrin Hatch had an attitude that he was almighty. He is instrumental in legislation passing that always favors the top 1%. He sure is grumpy to be almighty!
Vote smarter, Vote Better Chris Herrod 2012. A strong, principled Conservative with a focus on states rights. The only man running that chose to handicap his campaign by keeping his promise to WE THE PEOPLE, and finishing his term. Want to know more? www.herrod2012.com
scottmbeggsFeb 3, 2012
Can't wait to see what the allegation is when Obama quotes Dr. Seuss at a graduation ceremony.
crymtyphonFeb 3, 2012
"Obama thinks he's Fox In Sox!"
"President implies he is 4th greatest after Cat In Hat, Thing1 and Thing2!"
"Obama guts Pentagon of Butter-Battle Funds!"
"Obama appoints Lorax to Secretary of Interior during Senate Recess"
"Obama rides boat with MSM goat; snubs Fox in box"
Why aren't there jobs to write this stuff?
mtownFeb 4, 2012
There are at The Onion!
cyndicalhounfineartFeb 4, 2012
"Obama didn't like his green eggs and ham!"
"Oh, the places Obama will go!"
skews13Feb 3, 2012
Orin Hatch is offended that the President quoted scripture. I'm just going to sit here and digest that for a moment.
magicmarker44Feb 3, 2012
I know, right? The bible-thumping Hatch, who had no problem with Dubya saying "God wants us to win", and generally quoting the bible 24/7 to try to give credence to his bulls**t insanity... All of a sudden now, Hatch has his panties in a wad because President Obama is quoting his precious book.... SHUT YOUR ASS Hatch, you hypocrite!
shark72Feb 3, 2012
...and at the national prayer breakfast, no less.
That's the thing about Obama: when he's not a Muslim, he either goes to the wrong Christian church, or he's *too* Christian.
Which is it, guys?
stevanoskiFeb 3, 2012
He says he's a Christian, it is above my pay grade to judge. But I don't like Conservatives, Republicans or Democrats who use scripture to run the country or to gain support for a cause. You think it is ok?
I say let something rise or fall according to it's merits and don't drag religion into it.
Tell me where you disagree.
shark72Feb 4, 2012
Good question, stevanoski. Sorry you're being dugg down.
I give the national prayer breakfast a pass. Each president gets up and quotes scripture in a political fashion, people eat some pancakes, and life moves on. It's like "in God we trust" on our money; I don't think it's a meaningful infringement on the separation of church vs. state.
Presidents like to push their message whenever they can, and at the NPB, they do it using scripture. Next week he'll be -- if you'll pardon the term -- pandering to some other crowd, using a different set of terms.
There's a thin line between a leader's moral and ethical code being influenced, in part, by their religious upbringing, and making a policy decision Because The Bible Says So. I agree with you -- the latter can be downright scary. I think his comments at the NPB were just tailoring his speech to the crowd, rather than the latter.
stevanoskiFeb 4, 2012
Thank you for your well thought out answer.
salbatrossFeb 4, 2012
I think you're absolutely right, but imagine the first president who DOESN'T attend the prayer breakfast and talk about how God influences his decisions. I'm not saying this SHOULD be how presidents act, but it's how the American people are demanding that they act.
particleman420Feb 3, 2012
he's whatever is most convenient to attack him with at the time in order to oppose everything about him ever.
stevanoskiFeb 3, 2012
yawn, Hey, I thought you were always yawking, "speration of state and church ad naseum.
Oh, Bam does it then it's ok. It's not really a principle of yours. Completely understand.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Feb 3, 2012
where did i say it was okay? all i said was that he's whatever he needs to be for douchenozzles like yourself to attack him with.
stevanoskiFeb 3, 2012
I like you. You remind me of myself when I was young and stupid.
particleman420Feb 3, 2012
does that mean i get to grow up to be old and stupid like you too?
stevanoskiFeb 3, 2012
lol, if you are lucky.
bluenose2Feb 3, 2012
And now yer just stupid ! lol
leonard2Feb 4, 2012
@particlebrain. I don't know if you've grown old but you have already grown stupid. :D
bluenose2Feb 3, 2012
yep, but , your pal George W. was doing the same thing.
stevanoskiFeb 3, 2012
Maybe. I don't remember him doing it but would not have approved if he did. I wonder if there are any cites to show he did? I will look them up.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stevanoskiFeb 3, 2012
been searching for an hour, even went on an atheist site, no evidence GW used scripture to try and pass any programs, oh well
miklkitFeb 4, 2012
Dumbya invaded Iraq because god told him to.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-6262644.html
Ouzel7Feb 4, 2012
There's no record of that but Abbas saying it:
Here is what we know for sure, so far. Journalist Arnon Regular wrote, in the June 26 edition of Ha'aretz (Israel's most reputable newspaper), that he has minutes of a meeting among top-level Palestinian leaders, including Prime Minister Mahmoud Abas. The minutes are apparently quite detailed, because Regular wrote a long article recounting very specific conversations. The last paragraph of the article reads:
"According to Abbas, Bush said: 'God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.'"Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shark72Feb 4, 2012
Actually... stevenoski may be correct. Like him, I did some googling and read some of Bush's NPB addresses. I didn't read them all, so it wasn't an exhaustive search, but I didn't see any examples of Bush directly addressing policy in his addresses.
So -- at first glance -- Obama may have set a precedent; if not, his remarks were a bit unusual.
People who took issue with his address fall into two camps:
- the folks who said "hey, dude, bad form there, injecting policy into your speech. Just keep it about faith, ok?" -- and in those cases, I can see their point of view.
- the folks whose dislike of the president is so strong, or the folks who've been fed a constant stream of stories about how he's a Muslim, that hearing him speak of his faith or quote scripture makes their heads utterly explode. These are the folks who need to be pointed in the direction of reality and given a hard shove.
bluenose2Feb 4, 2012
You are probably correct Steve. I'd say you were right but ya know...
Closed AccountFeb 3, 2012
They don't deal well with spikes in President Obama's approval ratings.
stevanoskiFeb 3, 2012
Not when it's manufactured by the ObamaMedia.
publiclurkerFeb 3, 2012
Keep telling yourself that, since I doubt even fox would stoop that low just to make you feel good.
stevanoskiFeb 3, 2012
a fox? Did you drop acid today? Do animals talk to you frequently or just when you are stressed. Just breath deeply, this is just a political web site, no one is trying to harm you. Do you have any med.s you perhaps, might may take.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mtownFeb 4, 2012
I don't know, FOX can stoop pretty darn low...
aces2mexicoFeb 3, 2012
You're an avid poster - apparently one with a short memory, especially about Bush.
Bush ran as a compassionate conservative. A compassionate conservative that sought to cut Social Security safety net and drove us into two wars. He leaned more to the right in his re-election purely because he had to to win again.
Personally, I found him crafty considering the gay rights issue in his second term re-election effectively divided the vote at a time if voters were focused more on his handling of the wars would have saw him get the boot.
Honestly, if we all put our money in a hat to get a neighbor some health car that's a christian thing to do, same as paying a little more into the system to help others that can less afford to.
It's not obama media, he's just on the right side of the argument, simple as that. what's so hard to understand about it?
Republicans have painted themselves in a corner without compromising for America.
Closed AccountFeb 4, 2012
The media manufactured Bureau of Labor Statistics data?
slang4catFeb 4, 2012
Considering the level of contempt Liberals level at Christians, I find it ironic that he's offended and your not.
soporifikxFeb 4, 2012
You know, there are plenty of Christians who are also Liberals. Conservatives don't have a lock on religion, even though they believe they do.
valourFeb 4, 2012
I used to think I knew what "liberal" meant. These days, the way that word is used, I understand it to mean "non-Muslim people whom Christians hate." Obama is a unique crossover for those who believe his is (ironically) both Muslim and liberal.
tehravenFeb 5, 2012
It's all bulls**t and it's bad for ya.
drumcyborgFeb 5, 2012
99% of the people feel a strong connection with a thing called Love. Love comes in many forms and is interpreted entirely uniquely within 99% of the individuals.
As long as you remember that 99% of the people out in the world are capable of feeling and giving Love, they are automatically Christian for believing in Love. A Child of God, just as you.
Liberals are equally capable of Love as any Conservatives and vice versa...
...unless they don't know what Love is.
I do hope that you can find some within you, Jessica, for it's not too late!
eraptorFeb 4, 2012
I think Orrin is angry that Obama pointed out his (Orrin's) religious hypocrisy on the issue of wealth and religion. Since Orrin can't attack Jesus for his position on wealth disparity, he attacks the messenger instead. In this case, it happened to be our President, Barack Obama, who Conservatives disingenuously accuse of being a Muslim.
Unfortunately for Orrin and the rest of the Conservative movement, Muslims quote the Quran NOT the Bible/Jesus.
downinit369Feb 3, 2012
Come on GOP, first he was the anti-Christ, then he is Muslim, now he is Christ?
bluenose2Feb 3, 2012
They probably already have the two by fours and spikes ready for Obama's crucifixion.
letherialFeb 4, 2012
Thats cause there are a whole host of Obama's going around, one for every occasion..This isn't a partisan issue, democrats have different versions as well.
There is one real Obama out there, and he truly is the President of the United States....but he is just a human and rather boring.
Mark_LincolnFeb 3, 2012
Republicans have a different Bible from the rest of the world. In the republican bible in Matthew 19:21, Jesus tells the rich kid to take everything he can with from the poor. To build up his riches on earth. . . .
norman619Feb 3, 2012
You do know there's more than one Christian bible right?
inajeepFeb 3, 2012
Yep, more fan fiction.
particleman420Feb 3, 2012
how is that possible if it is supposedly the "Word of God"?
i know, because religion is bulls**t.
lurchermanFeb 4, 2012
You're thinking of the Quran that's supposed to be the word of God. The New Testament, however is a collection of Gospels from Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, Epistles from various apostles and so on.
savetheseaFeb 3, 2012
More than one Christian Bible? They are various translations, but there is only one New Testament and that has been retranslated so many times, I doubt anyone actually know what is says.
aces2mexicoFeb 3, 2012
In the Hatch and Romney case, there is a Mormon book that actually makes other Christian right folks uncomfortable. So funny...
It's all in politics and jest. Romeny got glittered recently due to his bigotry positions ... that was funny.
particleman420Feb 3, 2012
>>the "Infallible Word of God"
>>various versions of it
miklkitFeb 4, 2012
Look into the "Council of Nicea".
salbatrossFeb 4, 2012
Whether the Bible reflects the word of God or not, or whether it contains the right books or not, can be debated. But aside from a few minor books that Protestants don't include but Catholics do, there is only one Bible. Certainly only one set of "orthodox" Gospels.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Feb 4, 2012
and thats why there are so many different and conflicting versions of christianity?
salbatrossFeb 4, 2012
The only way for there to be conflicting denominations is for there to be different texts? They can't have conflicting interpretations, or styles of worship, or more basic, non-theological disagreements?
particleman420Feb 4, 2012
sure they can, if they're just making it up as they go a long.
they all claim the be the one true version of christianity and that all the others are wrong. One would think that if it were real, there wouldnt be conflicting versions and interpretations of it.
salbatrossFeb 4, 2012
Either one of them is right, or none of them is right, or their disagreements aren't as important to God as they are to the conflicting denominations. What's your point?
particleman420Feb 4, 2012
One would think that if it were real, there wouldnt be conflicting versions and interpretations of it.
it's pretty convenient to just say "it's god's will!" for any sort of inconsistency or to use god as a means to justify how they all think they're right and everyone else is wrong.
if they cant even get that part right, why should anything else they say be any more reliable or 'true'?
salbatrossFeb 4, 2012
How should I know? I wasn't making any claims for the "correct" interpretation or how right any particular sect is. All I said is that there's only one Christian Bible.
salbatrossFeb 4, 2012
Though in fairness, there are plenty of historical documents about which there are multiple interpretations as to what actually happened (what is actually described, whether the author was giving an accurate portrayal, etc.), and of course only one event actually occurred. So I don't think "there are multiple interpretations, therefore it can't be real" is a very good argument.
mlw4428Feb 3, 2012
Repukes get pissy anytime a liberal mentions the bible. You can tell them something like:
"Jesus was a socialist...he brought food to the masses, cured diseases, brought back the dead, and even pardoned a murderer without asking for a penny back. He loved all regardless of their 'contributions' to society."
and they just f**king lose their minds. It's fun to do and fun to watch a Repuke start stuttering or just plain ol' bulls**tting that Jesus was somehow capitalist. Religion is just an excuse for Repukes to start wars and to hate on others. Whether they are homosexual or of another religion they're just allowed to hate.
gaia242Feb 3, 2012
Didn't you know: Jesus was a gun toting, tax cuts and health care only for the rich having republican.
Only if you prescribe to the revised Christo-Fascist Jesus of Pat Robertson and his ilk.
mlw4428Feb 3, 2012
"Didn't you know: Jesus was a gun toting, tax cuts and health care only for the rich having republican. "
You should've phrased that as "Jesus was a gun toting, tax cutting, health care to the rich Republican...dontchaknow."
gaia242Feb 4, 2012
Ya i like your wording better too:-)
drumcyborgFeb 5, 2012
What if Jesus had a profound and intellectually deep understanding of warfare in all its forms, having studied the fine arts in Egypt like it describes in the Bible. One must assume that he was well aware of the will of Man in all its facets. All of the well-lit avenues of Love and the darkened chasms of Fear, as well as the fine threads that stitch the two.
Imagine if he was the one fashioning the crosses upon which his Brothers would be hung. Being a carpenter in a place with little wood, building crosses was rather carpenter-ly kind of thing to do. Consider, for a period of time in history, a very ugly time in history, much of the available wood was used building crosses.
WE ALL NEED TO WAKE THE f**k UP!
Wood should be used for making drums and not for crosses.
MAKE DRUMS NOT CROSSES!
Jesus died for this.
drumcyborgFeb 5, 2012
When warring factions stopped having drummers lead their battlefields, all Hell broke loose.
\m/ ROCK IT! \m/
valourFeb 4, 2012
You want to *really* piss them off? Tell them Jesus was a Jew. A southern yokel once threatened to kill me because I said that.
tehravenFeb 5, 2012
He also said it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven (or whatever) however i don't see them harassing any rich people to give up tha cash!
woodsjransomFeb 4, 2012
Orrin Hatch thinks he is one of the anointed ones, the man is talking utter nonsense again. Tell the truth Orrin its the fact that he is the POTUS and you allude to BS, you should've just closed the front door and talk about something we are interested in: JOBS.
morgansherrFeb 3, 2012
They're offended because Obama has proven his Christianity incontrovertibly. Shame on them.
austinjameshereFeb 3, 2012
Obama is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. If he wouldn't have quoted scripture, they would have attacked him because of that - if he does, they attack him for that. Personally, I find it funny that the right is complaining about scripture - I guess they only like it when they have a chance to pick and choose what sections to read in order to push their own personal political agenda.
snafflepaffleFeb 3, 2012
It's kind of like they don't even believe their own religious bulls**t.
bluenose2Feb 3, 2012
Not kind of. They don't believe anything.It is all political.If Obama was able to walk on water , the right wing would complain he couldn't swim.
tehravenFeb 5, 2012
Shoulda quoted the Koran and sent the whole country into a frenzy.
ohnoeeeFeb 3, 2012
I may hate Obama... but I'm pretty sure he doesn't think that...
hediggmeFeb 3, 2012
I consider this an improvement. Normally they'd say he thinks he's Muhammad.
anomaly100Feb 3, 2012
Well he is the Usurper, born in Kenya.
mlw4428Feb 3, 2012
Did you guys hear? Obama shoots fire out of his mouth, truly he is evil!
aadyssFeb 4, 2012
Well shucks, the left has been turning scripture into pretzels in order to fit the agenda for years. That is nothing new.
mtownFeb 4, 2012
Oops! You somehow accidentally spelled "right" as "left". What a typo!
aadyssFeb 4, 2012
It's apparent that both you and Obama equally misunderstand the parable that Jesus spoke. Obama is actually using a verse to promote a tax increase on the wealthy while the verse has absolutely nothing to do with the financially wealth or money.
What does that tell you about mtown's or Obama's understanding of Christian scripture or Jesus?
mtown, I suggest , if you are interested in truth, you actually read the parable and Jesus' comment after the parable and should you desire, read commentaries about that verse that Obama uses.
Luke 12: 35-48Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aadyssFeb 4, 2012
Apparently the political left wants to stick to the pretzel interpretation of New testament scripture so I will give you and Obama another one you can twist and spin.
Matthew 13:12
Jesus said, "Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them."
:
Interpretation for the political left:
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. (indubitably because of the 1%, Koch brothers and Republican policies)
You may thank me later.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mtownFeb 4, 2012
That passage has nothing to do with wealth, and the "will be given" part is referring to what someone will receive in the afterlife and you know it.
Ok, yes or no question time: Do you think Jesus would be supportive of programs like welfare and food stamps and universal healthcare, even if it meant that people with wealth might have to give more to make them work? Yes or no.
aadyssFeb 4, 2012
I will state again, again and again. As Jesus said, Let him who has ears, let him hear."
I did say that the verse that Obama used had nothing to do with financial wealth or money. The, "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded;" has nothing to do with wealth yet Obama uses it in that context and is in error of scripture. He is using it as a political tool to support higher taxes.
Jesus could have cared less about human governance. I don't know why people constantly attempt to place Jesus into a political camp.
No, I do not think that Jesus would support the government's taking away monies from some and redistributing those monies as righteous because when the people give through force, what righteous value is created? This saying is well known in Christian circles; "It's the heart stupid" and when the heart is not in the action, what have you? Nothing!
Jesus would be happy if we ALL gave from the heart with gladness. but we don't and forcing to give is, as I said, worthless in God's eyes. It isn't even as good as making a huge display in public about what you give for you receive your reward then and there. With forced giving there is no reward at all. Forcing people to give to what you feel is the right government program is hardly going to make the culture righteous. The people's hearts are not changed at all.
roguegeniusFeb 5, 2012
"As Jesus said, Let him who has ears, let him hear."
Well, since Jesus is dead, and we can't HEAR him speak, I think it would behoove you to start "Letting him who can READ, let him READ.
No question, you are wrong and you can't back it up. That's why you won't and you rely on unseemly weasel responses like "let him who have ears..."
roguegeniusFeb 4, 2012
You are obsessed with scripture. Why can't you just grow a set and admit your side is the opposite of what christ would be like if he lived today. You know it's true. Why is is so wrong to just admit it?
aadyssFeb 5, 2012
Advice from the "grow a set" guy. I'm impressed. Really, quite impressive.
Ouzel7Feb 3, 2012
I think he's Christian and American-born, but I believe it was inappropriate to use the prayer breakfast to make a case for his liberal political position.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakFeb 3, 2012
Why was it inappropriate?
hediggmeFeb 3, 2012
Because prayer breakfasts are only for conservative politics. Duh.
stevanoskiFeb 3, 2012
tsk, dissappointed in that I thought you were more independent, say it ain't so.
tehravenFeb 5, 2012
independent != cant form opinion about blatant stupidity.
particleman420Feb 3, 2012
because he's not republican.
Ouzel7Feb 3, 2012
Because the prayer breakfast is not supposed to be political.
ageofmasteryFeb 4, 2012
If you don't want it to be political...Don't invite politicians.
Ouzel7Feb 4, 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Prayer_Breakfast
ageofmasteryFeb 4, 2012
From your own link... And yes I've trimmed the quote to avoid posting a short novel...
Rev. Jim Wallis, founder and president of the Christian social change group Sojourners and a regular attendee of the National Prayer Breakfast, said ...
So when it can raise up issues that we ought to be accountable to, whether we are religious or not, I think that's when it's probably at its best."[15]
elimgarakFeb 4, 2012
Well, since it is supposed to be a prayer day to the magical bearded man in the sky, and since that bearded man in the sky doesn't really exist, I don't mind. The president may as well get some real work done while catering to the bearded man worshipers.
tehravenFeb 5, 2012
Huh? Chuck Norris? I'm there.
salbatrossFeb 4, 2012
Did you see the guest list? It is political by its very nature.
apokalyps2547Feb 3, 2012
It's completely normal for the President to get up and talk about his religion's influence on his politics at the National Prayer breakfast. It happens every year! How on earth is it not an appropriate venue?!
mlw4428Feb 3, 2012
Why? Repukes are always using religion as a basis for their conservative America-destruction positions.
stevanoskiFeb 3, 2012
You decry me using malware as your moniker but you use the juvenile "repukes?"
MusicManGPFeb 3, 2012
@mlw4428 Seriously, you're making me upvote stevanoski here.
stevanoskiFeb 3, 2012
sorry.
asfinktersezwutFeb 3, 2012
Ditto.
mlw4428Feb 3, 2012
I don't decry your use of "libtards" or anything similar...just personal insults. Plus it's quicker to type Repuke than Republicans, but I have been to known to use either.
stevanoskiFeb 5, 2012
whatever
sbbitrcFeb 3, 2012
How about Jesus's liberal political position? Things like feed the poor and heal the sick really don't fit into the Conservative / Republican promise to veto the affordable care act or eliminate food stamps regardless of how pious those Conservatives claim to be.
aadyssFeb 4, 2012
Ah, there's that twisting scripture into a pretzel I previously mentioned.
mlw4428Feb 4, 2012
Show me where Jesus ever charged for any of his miracles. I'll be listening for the pop which will be the sound of your head coming out of your ass.
aadyssFeb 4, 2012
If I understood what you were talking about I would respond. If I were your college professor, I would be compelled to flunk you.
"Show me where Jesus ever charged for any of his miracles." Did that come from drugs or booze?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mlw4428Feb 4, 2012
I really don't know how to simplify that sentence any further. Lemme try using Cookie Monster Language for you...
"YOU SHOW WERE JESUS ASKED FOR MONEY. ME NOT THINK IT IS IN THE BIBLE."
I'm sorry basic English is outside of your grasp. I can fix many things, but I can't fix stupid and I can't fix you.
salbatrossFeb 4, 2012
mlw, in case you think you've gone crazy because you can't fathom how anyone could possibly fail to understand your question, let me verify: it's aadyss, not you.
roguegeniusFeb 4, 2012
I've addressed this was aass-h**e before, but far from charging for miracles, the one and only time Jesus himself became violent was when the bankers (money changers) were set up in the temple.
Also, about all he talked about was poverty and the poor. He also specifically said it was almost impossible for a rich man get go to heaven (... eye of a needle...)
If Jesus were alive today he would probably get annoyed at democrats... for getting along too well with republicans.. Who he would certainly attack on sight. And he would be right to do so.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tehravenFeb 5, 2012
aadyss, i think what they're trying to say is . . . you have no real retort . . . move on . . . just move on . . .
roguegeniusFeb 5, 2012
"Ah, there's that twisting scripture into a pretzel I previously mentioned."
Serious question. Haw can you interpret it any other way? The republican party stands for everything Jesus hated. Show me ANYTHING Jesus said that is even remotely "cut funding for the poor', 'export "the brown people' (news flash, Jesus was brown. He was Mediterranean), and feed the rich, and support the current false religious sect (Pharisees).
How could you know what you know, believe what you believe, and be a republican? It just doesn't follow.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tehravenFeb 5, 2012
It works perfectly fine when you're an idiot. C'mon now.
roguegeniusFeb 5, 2012
Good point. But still, the man can type. I can only assume he can read. He just doesn't.
aadyssFeb 5, 2012
Oh, Jesus was brown...AND... Mediterranean? I certainly didn't know that and the Pharisees were a false religious sect? I suppose the Sadducees would also be included in that false sect. Just throwing out suppositions here.
So much knowledge and wisdom in such a small space. I'll bet you are a superstar in your Sunday School and Bible study group. As I'm going to church and Sunday School today, I will mention your good works and supreme knowledge of the scriptures and personal knowledge of Jesus. The leadership will no doubt want to meet you and present you with the 'Gnostic award of the Year 2012' award.
You can explain to them the following verses. “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.
“Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you."
Ya, I guess that kind of pride ain't so good. Since your Jesus, the brown guy, was the head of the Roman Empire's tax department, I would guess that He and Matthew - the disciple and former tax collector having experience in such matters - went about taxing the rich and giving to the Roman Emperor and Jewish religious leadership's governmental social programs that He found it difficult to find the time for preaching. I'll bet He collected a ton of money from Herod Antipas for widows and orphans
What is it now, the gnostic beatitude..."Blessed are the rich who are taxed and begrudgingly forfeit their money to the government for social justice and social programs for they shall be known as the 1%." Righteous..not so much.
Straighten me out if I am spreading heresy here Rogue - the genius gnostic theologian. I certainly do not want to cross the Democratic Moral Superiority Judgement Committee co-chaired by Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders. (DMS-'JC') That would be very dangerous and reports of burnings alive have been coming in from various parts of the country, particularly in the Bible Belt.
ΙΧΘΥΣ
roguegeniusFeb 5, 2012
Ah, sarcasm. And again, no real response other than "Rogue is bad." Pathetic.
But if you read your own quote -- and I mean REALLY read it. You may see where you and your religion (yes, those smug fools you'll sit beside today) have gone so horribly wrong and diverged so far from your own scriptures. Allow me to re-post:
"Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you."
Read what that really says. Then look around you today. Then quietly pay your taxes and humbly respect the far greater care that is doing for the needy -- the needy YOU won't even personally meet -- and be happy. THAT is what that is really saying. If you would just step back from your southern protestant foolishness and actually read the words.
I wonder if you will? Probably not.
aadyssFeb 5, 2012
Where did I say you were "bad"? I have do such feeling about you or how you run your life. That's up to you and I have and want no influence in that whatsoever.
What I do see is your acceptance of mandatory giving versus giving with gladness of heart as being the same therefore the , "It's the heart stupid." I'm not calling you stupid. We Christians call ourselves stupid if any of us don't understand the difference between the two.
We all pay our taxes and rarely does anyone pay them without some sort of grumbling (not much gladness of heart there) but with that being said, let me ask you a couple of questions.
1.) If paying federal and state income taxes were optional and giving to the churches policy remained as it currently is, which do you think would gather more money for the poor? Really, how much money do you think the government would collect if taxes need not ever to be paid?
2.) Why don't Bill Gates and Warren Buffet give their money to the government instead of the The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation? If I were to believe your statement, "Then quietly pay your taxes and humbly respect the far greater care that is doing for the needy -," I would think that all great philanthropists and others would offer their wealth to the government due to their great efficiency and good that they do but that doesn't seem to occur very often. ???
I will meet the needy every week working with a program supported by the church called I-Help but that is no one's concern, certainly not yours.
I know a Christian who just yesterday bought gasoline for a couple who had run out of gasoline on a major street for they had no money on them. The Christian just pulled up the stalled vehicle and asked them if they needed help and they did so the Christian went to a gasoline station, purchased a fairly expensive gasoline container, filled it up and delivered it to the couple at their automobile. He also gave them the new gasoline container he had just purchased. See, the government had not a hand in that. Obviously unbeknownst to you that type of charity occurs quite often. (not just by Christians by the way) Wouldn't it have been sad if he had asked them if they were liberal and had the answer been in the affirmative he would have told them to call the U.S. Government for help?
I have never had called for the government to stop providing safety nets for the people. I have no problem with raising taxes in a better economy but this economy won't turn for another year or two.
inajeepFeb 3, 2012
I suppose you fail to see the irony of what you just typed. LMFAO. Thanks for the friday laughs.
Ouzel7Feb 3, 2012
You're welcome?
usarugulaFeb 3, 2012
It Amazes me how many Republican Christians deny the Gospels – you know, the red words that Jesus actually said (versus Paul's angry letters, which they usually run to):
Jesus tells us to pay our taxes, that earthly wealth is not ours:
"Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."
– Matthew 22:17-21 KJV
Jesus tells us that leaders only exist by God's will, and that we must therefore subject ourselves to them:
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."
– Romans 13:2-7 KJV
Jesus tells us that our obligation is to feed, clothe, and care for the poor, sick, and imprisoned; and that those who refuse will burn in eternal fires:
"Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
– Matthew 25:34-46 KJV
"He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise."
– Luke 3:11 KJV
And this one is for you, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), ignorer of Gospels:
"Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the c**k crow, thou shalt deny me thrice."
– Matthew 26:34 KJV
atomheartmotherFeb 3, 2012
The only scriptural excerpt which even REMOTELY relates to taxation or the idea that the calls for good works and charity are meant to be anything other than private is the "render unto Caesar" passage, and Jeffrey Barr (and countless other theologians over the years) illustrates with extensive detail how completely and utterly fallacious that notion is:
"Over the centuries, theologians, scholars, laymen, and potentates have interpreted the Tribute Episode incorrectly as Jesus’ support for the payment of taxes. First, this interpretation does not square with the political climate of the times. The Tribute Episode is set in the middle of a decades-old tax-revolt against Caesar’s tribute. Second, the rhetorical structure of the Tribute Episode, itself, contradicts any interpretation that Jesus supported paying taxes. Third, the Gospels contain episode after episode of subtle sedition.
The Tribute Episode is just another of these subtly seditious scenes. When seen in the context of subtle sedition, the phrase "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s," means that the emperor is owed nothing. Finally, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the authoritative interpreter of Sacred Scripture, does not construe the Tribute Episode to support the proposition that it is morally obligatory to pay one’s taxes. Indeed, it interprets the Tribute Episode to mean the exact opposite – that Christians are obliged to disobey Caesar when Caesar’s dictates violate God’s law.
In sum, the pro-tax position of the Tribute Episode is not supportable historically, rhetorically, contextually, or within the confines of the Church’s own understanding.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/barr-j1.1.1.htmlComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kaegroFeb 3, 2012
And all that other stuff usarugula said.
atomheartmotherFeb 3, 2012
You mean the "stuff" which wasn't relevant?
mtownFeb 3, 2012
Isn't relevant? What about the part where Jesus said that those who have wealth are obligated to help the poor, yet Republicans are trying to do away with welfare and unemployment benefits and all that other crap?
atomheartmotherFeb 3, 2012
Help the poor through charitable giving, not having their property seized.
stevanoskiFeb 3, 2012
Obligated personally they can't give over their need to take care of the needy to the Government.
mtownFeb 3, 2012
Pshhh, you are just dancing around the issue. If Jesus was alive today you know full well that he would be very supportive of social programs like welfare and social security. He would not say, "oh, those are bad because people should only donate what they want through charity".
Charities exist today yet there are still poor and hungry people in this country. You think Jesus would say, "oh well, sorry poor people!" ?
stevanoskiFeb 3, 2012
I think not, it takes away from personal responsibility but you take the last word.
atomheartmotherFeb 3, 2012
"Charities exist today yet there are still poor and hungry people in this country."
Since Johnson's Great Society programs started in the early 60's the nation has spent about 10 trillion on poverty-related programs with no appreciable drop in the poverty level.
Further, one could argue that because these governmental programs decrease charitable giving (people feel less inclined to give when they reason that government is helping these folks for them) we might well have fewer poor people did these programs not exist at all.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mlw4428Feb 4, 2012
You can't argue with stupid and Republicans are about as stupid as you're able to get.
You can show them where their OWN beliefs say "care for the poor" and they'll twist it into some capitalistic idea that it should be about people getting richer.
Jesus's words were a command saying "If you have plenty then you shall spare some to those who do not." It doesn't say anything about "personal" responsibility and everything about "If you have more than you need then you shall share or you'll go to hell."
So all of these 1%er bankers who are "such hard workers" (who f**ked up America's economy) and have tons of money that they stole from the American taxpayer can either start forking it over or go to hell. The way I see it, increasing taxes is just the government caring about these people's souls.
You Republicans want us to be a Christian nation...well heavily taxing the rich folks to give money to the unrich is JUST the government's way of helping to get more 1%ers into heaven. That's very Christian.
atomheartmotherFeb 4, 2012
"Sharing" in terms of helping the poor means giving to people in need, not supporting wasteful, corrupt governments' attempts to extract an even larger share of peoples' property.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mjm6783Feb 3, 2012
Jesus supported charity for the sick and the poor. Which in today's economy translates to social security disability, which is a significant portion of our tax burden.
More importantly, anyone who makes 100 million dollars in a year should, by Christian standards, be donating 75-80 percent of it to charity. I don't see that happening.
atomheartmotherFeb 3, 2012
Charity, by definition, is something given of one's own free will and volition. Compulsory taxation and redistribution hardy equates.
mjm6783Feb 3, 2012
That's because we're capitalists. Left to our own devices people will horde wealth and pass it to their greedier more self entitled offspring. Again, if millionaires contributed a majority portion of their UNNECESSARY wealth to charities, we wouldn't need welfare.
Everyone complains that the government is wasteful, but the blame is placed on the poor. When in fact, everyone knows that it's rich people who are allowed to influence policy decisions. Those policies help rig the "game" to favor those who already have more than they need.
Of course republicans are against taxation on the wealthy, of course they are for cutting social services. Because those positions benefit THEM. Jesus wants you to think about other people who are less fortunate.
atomheartmotherFeb 3, 2012
It's not up to you to decide what portions of other peoples' property you have no claim to are "unnecessary".
And I really don't think that most people, regardless of their political philosophies, are not in favor of public programs for those TRULY in need; the question is which ones are really in need and what's the best way to meet those needs. A bloated, inefficient and I daresay corrupt federal distribution system is hardly ideal.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mjm6783Feb 3, 2012
f**k off, it's up to me to decide what I think is unnecessary. You don't have to agree, but you don't get to tell me that I can't make the distinction.
As far as I can tell, your arguments are that since charity is supposed to be non-compulsory we shouldn't require anyone to pay back into the system they exploited to become wealthy in the first place. And that rich people should be allowed to define for themselves what constitutes "fair".
You don't even understand human nature at all do you?
atomheartmotherFeb 3, 2012
But you didn't that you "think" it's unnecessary, you stated it as if it's fact.
So go f**k yourself, and the entitled horse you rode in on.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mjm6783Feb 3, 2012
This is what I said:
"if millionaires contributed a majority portion of their UNNECESSARY wealth to charities, we wouldn't need welfare."
Unless you're claiming that there is no such thing as unnecessary wealth for millionaires, you are flat wrong in your interpretation of what I said.
novantiiFeb 3, 2012
Romney gave more to charity than Obama the past two years. Obama gave a measly one percent of his wealth to charity. Romney up to 18%.
Does that mean he's a better person by your logic? Of course not. You don't have political opinions. You just blindly worship politicians themselves.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novantiiFeb 3, 2012
"It's up to me to decide what's unnecessary"?
Are you clinically insane? It's not up to you.
Nobody cares about the ransom demands of a rambling internet maniac.
LOL
I'm in medical school and I will be in the top "one percent" of incomes some day. Doctors make up the largest portion of the "one percent". You want to punish me for being more intelligent, educated and useful to society than you? I should give you my "extra money" because you "want it"? Why don't you get off of your ass and do something useful -- wealth will follow.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tehravenFeb 5, 2012
No, no, NO novantii, those numbers Fox gave were bulls**t, they compared Romney the last couple years to Obama a few years ago. They gave the same percentage!
http://money.cnn.com/pf/taxes/storysupplement/candidates-tax-returns/?hpt=hp_t1
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/24/us/politics/the-candidates-tax-returns.html
BAD NOVANTII BAD! Don't spread bulls**t. If you're gonna be a doctor learn to find true information. PLEASE!
mjm6783Feb 6, 2012
@novantii - You do realize that you misquoted me and changed the context of what I was saying right? Then you cited Faux News lies in order to support your position. If you had called Obama a socialist, you would have completed the Republican hat trick.
usarugulaFeb 3, 2012
Hmm, should I believe the words of Jesus, the Gospels and the numerous Biblical scholars who have translated the various versions from the original texts, or should I believe a Libertarian attorney named Jeffrey F. Barr who writes for lewrockwell.com?
Here are most if not all the scholarly interpretations. How many times do you see scholars translating Jesus' word literally as "tax":
New International Version (©1984)
Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius,
New Living Translation (©2007)
Here, show me the coin used for the tax." When they handed him a Roman coin,
English Standard Version (©2001)
Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax." And they brought Him a denarius.
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
International Standard Version (©2008)
Show me the coin used for the tax." They brought him a denarius.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
“Show me a denarius of the head tax money”, and they brought a denarius to him.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Show me a coin used to pay taxes." They brought him a coin.
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Show me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
American King James Version
Show me the tribute money. And they brought to him a penny.
American Standard Version
Show me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a denarius.
Douay-Rheims Bible
Shew me the coin of the tribute. And they offered him a penny.
Darby Bible Translation
Shew me the money of the tribute. And they presented to him a denarius.
English Revised Version
Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
Webster's Bible Translation
Show me the tribute-money. And they brought to him a penny.
Weymouth New Testament
Show me the tribute coin." And they brought Him a shilling.
World English Bible
Show me the tax money." They brought to him a denarius.
Young's Literal Translation
show me the tribute-coin?' and they brought to him a denary;
Source: http://bible.cc/matthew/22-19.htm
Additionally, you clearly did not read the original Scripture posted if your argument is "The only scriptural excerpt which even REMOTELY relates to taxation" Go back an read it. I'll sum it up here though:
Matthew 22:17-21: Jesus tells us to pay our taxes, that our reward lies in heaven. Self explanatory.
Romans 13:2-7: Jesus tells us to obey our government, as our leaders are put in place by God. If the government taxes you into poverty, it is God's will and do not argue the point.
Matthew 25:34-46, Luke 3:11: Jesus tells us to care for the poor, sick hungry, imprisoned, and that if you have two coats, give one to someone who has none, or suffer the consequences for your selfishness.
Matthew 26:34: Many who claim allegiance to Christ will deny him when it comes to their own self-interests. As do many right-wing Christians.
If you need helping piecing these together:
• Pay your taxes.
• If think taxes are unfair, it doesn't matter, God put your government in power. Do as He wants and obey.
• If through the government that God put in place, you are in turn do Christ's will by helping the poor, you have even less to complain. Conversely, to fight them denies the poor, denies God's authority, and denies Christ's word.
If you or anyone has a problem with this, then your complaint is not with me but with the Bible.
stevanoskiFeb 3, 2012
Interesting interpretations. One thing you may not understand is that taking care of the poor was an individual choice not dictated by the government. Hope I helped in your study of the scripture.
Hey, have you ever seen this one?
He who does not work, neither shall he eat
2Thes. 3:10Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
usarugulaFeb 3, 2012
Yes, I have. Did you read the very first sentence of my very first post? I'll paste it here:
"It Amazes me how many Republican Christians deny the Gospels – you know, the red words that Jesus actually said (versus Paul's angry letters, which they usually run to):"
Thessalonians was written by Paul. I'm quoting the words of Jesus Christ. Paul never met Jesus, but rather was converted after a vision on the road to Damascus. There's are many contradictions in the Bible. When faced with such, the Words of Christ trump the words of others.
stevanoskiFeb 3, 2012
LOL, you think if it is in red then Jesus must have spoke those words? LOL, still laughing.
Paul is the same thing as Jesus speaking (except it's not in red LOL)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
usarugulaFeb 3, 2012
stevanoski: 2000 years of Biblical study, 500 since the King James alone, disagree with you.
stevanoskiFeb 3, 2012
Wow you are 2000 years old and have studied the Bible 500 years?
I say not. Anyone who thinks that red ink disguishes Jesus words from the rest of the Bible has only perused the Bible, not studied it.
Oh, well, you have the last word and I hope I have not discouraged you as you search the Scriptures.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
usarugulaFeb 3, 2012
"Wow you are 2000 years old and have studied the Bible 500 years?....Anyone who thinks that red ink disguishes Jesus words from the rest of the Bible has only perused the Bible, not studied it."
Thank you for illustrating my point. Your argument is not with me, but with 2000 years of Christian scholarship that state certain passages are attributed directly to Christ, while others are attributed to evangelists traveling in His name. I suggest you take it up with those who translated the original texts.
stevanoskiFeb 3, 2012
Again, I apologize if I have in anyway interfered with your study of the Scripture as you peruse your salvation. May God be with you in every way and bless you and your family in every way during this journey.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
daronicusFeb 4, 2012
Wasn't Romans written by Paul as well? Letters from St Paul to the Romans? Just saying you might want to be consistent there.
tehravenFeb 5, 2012
rofl, love how stevanoski is giving blessings just to be a dick. I bet he says he isn't.
atomheartmotherFeb 3, 2012
"Hmm, should I believe the words of Jesus, the Gospels and the numerous Biblical scholars who have translated the various versions from the original texts..."
First of all, the Gospels ARE the words of Jesus according to the faithful, so that's redundant. But secondly and more importantly, the words themselves are purposefully allegorical; were that not the case we wouldn't have countless different Christian sects and offshoots, all quite certain that theirs is the correct set of interpretations.
In terms of discounting "a Libertarian attorney named Jeffrey F. Barr", does it really matter what his political or professional affiliation is? Does that have any bearing whatsoever on the validity of the exhausting and thoughtful analysis he's given here, which vastly eclipses the unfounded and unexamined leaps in logic you've made here? I think not.
But as you've decided to attack the messenger (since you can't logically refute what he's written), here's another interpretation from William T. Cavanaugh,
Migrations of the Holy: God, State, and the Political Meaning of the Church (Grand Rapids & Cam-bridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011); PaulW. Kahn, Political Theology: Four New Chapters on the Con-cept of Sovereignty (New York: Columbia University Press,2011); Michael Parenti,The Face of Imperialism (Boulder & London: Paradigm Publishing, 2011)."
So I trust you'll find these credentials, if not more acceptable, at least a bit more undeniable :)
"To even begin to comprehend what is on Jesus’ mind when he says: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” one must first under-stand the context. In contrast to what St, Augustine described as the split-ting of the civitas terrena and the civitas dei
, the City of Man and the City ofGod, the Romans had created an imperial order, an empire that encompassed the entire “civilized” world that absorbed the sacred into an omnipotent and omnipresent state of order called
Pax Romana....
YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of the Jews, had absolutely no providential power in the mindset of the sovereign god of Rome. Why the Pharisees and Herodians were “amazed” was what Jesusuttered, in public mind you, was no less than what would have been considered at the time the most outrageous and treasonous truth claim: that thegod of Rome was not the real sovereign, that the real, true sovereign was YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Essentially, Jesus was challenging the Roman thought police to lock him up or more likely to “cast him into to the outer darkness” which was into the “uncivilized world” beyond the borders of the Roman Empire. By speaking out loud the Scriptural under-standing of the sovereignty and providence of the God of the Torah, Jesus was directly challenging the sovereignty of the Roman occupiers. Jesus crossed the
boundary of allowable opinion."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/68575003/Excursions-in-Political-Theology-Render-Unto-Caesar
So in essence, (and as Barr so eloquently pointed out), Jesus was hardly extolling the virtues of taxation in that passage. As to your other summations, they're simply your opinion and as such, not worth a whole lot.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stevanoskiFeb 3, 2012
Very, very well said.
usarugulaFeb 3, 2012
"In terms of discounting 'a Libertarian attorney named Jeffrey F. Barr', does it really matter what his political or professional affiliation is?"
Area of expertise matters. Is Barr a Biblical Scholar fluent in Aramaic? Personal beliefs matters. Are Barr's views anti-tax by nature, and as such, is he prone to look for ways to justify his positions?
The same goes for Cavanaugh. I am quoting Jesus directly. You are arguing against His words with a contemporary interpretation. Furthermore, at no point does the quote you posted does Cavanaugh refute Jesus' command to pay taxes, he merely tries to discount it by putting it into a political/historical context. In its true historical context, Jesus would have been arrested for saying "pay no taxes" as the Herodians supported the Roman state. The Pharisees knew this, and though they despised the Herodians and the state, they also despised Jesus, and, as such, enlisted the Herodians in an effort to trap Him. Jesus in turn replied with the perfect answer, that left both the Herodians and the Pharisees without any legal course of action against Him: What's Caesar's is Caesar's and what's God's is God's, which, incidentally, also pushed back at the Pharisees for their idolatry of Caesar's image, for their idolatry of money.
So the argument comes down to: Did Jesus say what He said because He believed it? Or did He say it out of self-preservation. One need only look at the cross to see that Jesus beliefs were more important than self-preservation to Jesus. Ergo, His words are to be taken at face-value; not interpreted for political, personal or financial gain.
atomheartmotherFeb 4, 2012
"So the argument comes down to"
The argument comes down to interpretation, whether it's a "direct quote" from Christ or not, just like it always does.
I must say though, Mr. Barr's interpretation (and, obviously Cavanaugh's) employs sound and corollary logic in reaching it's conclusions. Yours? Simply emphatic insistence, devoid of sound reasoning, on what you wish to be true.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tehravenFeb 5, 2012
Man, if some dude showed up and started talking to me all the time in riddles, I'd think he was the biggest assh**e of all time.
atomheartmotherFeb 5, 2012
Yeah...hurts your head, man.
bobbi21Feb 4, 2012
Different people have different interpretations. It seems like the people who promote your interpretation are all people who are already heavily anti-government
Most interpretations is that it's just jesus not answering the question,
Oh and I think you're forgetting
‘let every person be subject to the governing authorities. He who resists the authorities was this what God has appointed.Roman's 13:1
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. Romans 13:6-7
It specifically says taxes in there and to pay them. learn the bible before you comment on it.
atomheartmotherFeb 4, 2012
"Most interpretations is that it's just jesus not answering the question"
Than that hardly makes the "Jesus is for more taxes" case.
"‘let every person be subject to the governing authorities."
Even if I agreed with you that this is a command to blindly pay taxes, do you really think that's sound logic? Do you think Jesus would have regarded Stalin or Hitler as "God's servants", and implore his flock to help support their genocide?
You're really not thinking clearly here.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
zumaliciousFeb 3, 2012
And the tea party is a gaggle of stubborn liars. Even when caught red handed, they lie their way out of lying. Because the Republicans and the Tea Party got us into this mess, lying is only beginning to backfire. The MAJORITY of Americans hate these ridiculous lies in a big way and the backlash is coming.
inajeepFeb 3, 2012
I'm all for being upset at those two but the TPers had nothing to do with the mess we are in. They think that their government should be smaller much like their ideas and solution. Let's put the blame at the feet of those who lit the fuse of the s**t bomb the political parties started (thank you lobbyists) the banking industry.
letherialFeb 4, 2012
He is mistaking the pawns for the masters....
crymtyphonFeb 3, 2012
Well, it would explain the calls to crucify him.
norman619Feb 3, 2012
Links please?
particleman420Feb 3, 2012
here you go, it's a good place to start:
http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/search?q=obama&submit=Search
crymtyphonFeb 3, 2012
It was in 2010, when Obama visited Wall Street
to drum up support for Elizabeth Warren's nomination
to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
In the lobby of the Bank of America Tower was a table display
by Bane Capital; showing gold coins stamped with the faces of diferent
celebrated American capitalists: Fitch; Morgan, Gould, Lay, Trump, Romney, etc
On the reverse side of each coin was the prayer, "Divers weights, and divers measures, both alike are abomination to the Lord".
Obama tipped the table over with a kick of his rhetoric,
and pronounced the fatal words "Let's turn this den of thieves
over to an even playing field".
That very night, the GOP gathered together and consulted
among them, how they should be rid of this man.
apokalyps2547Feb 3, 2012
Republicans really, really hate it when people point out that they don't have a monopoly on Christian thought. Not even close.
inajeepFeb 3, 2012
Which is why religion should be out of politics. These prayer breakfasts are a tradition that should stop.
mysticdaveFeb 4, 2012
That is so hilarious coming from a super elite Mormon...hypocrisy at its finest....! Bet you money he would not say that about fellow cult member Mitt if he did the same....
pdpgtiFeb 3, 2012
Repulicans:
"How dare Obama use christianity to get his laws passed!
Also, I GAYS CAN'T MARRY CUZ THE BIBLE SAYS SO"
floepieFeb 3, 2012
Ha! The moment a DEM wants to put a wear a little Jesus on his sleeve (for the good of the poor as Jesus really did), the modern day pharisees claim that he portends to be JC himself. HOW IRONIC!
rincon62Feb 3, 2012
Hatch is a member of a cult.
craig1958Feb 3, 2012
I think it is very silly to refer to fictional characters when talking about the economy. However, their geezer is the last person who should be complaining.
laurahoustonFeb 3, 2012
why's Hatch offended by a man "living on the earth in faith"? Mormans always say, Jesus endows us to find joy and to become more like him.
There could be a reason, a religious sign?, Mr. Hatch sees Jesus in the President.
lestat1723Feb 4, 2012
I am from Utah and trust me this guy is a full on ass hat! It really is embarrassing.
talynoneFeb 4, 2012
Orrin Hatch always get upset when the negro gets uppity.
xs650Feb 3, 2012
Is that good or bad in Hatch's cult?
kingpFeb 3, 2012
If only we could kick out Romney, Hatch, and Reid...
FrankLuskaFeb 3, 2012
Please don't stop there
brsox2445Feb 3, 2012
When one side quotes the scripture to make hateful laws its good. When the other side quotes the scripture to help the poor its bad. God it.
Instead of quoting a book full of hateful, bigoted, racist, bastards we should look at our own situation and make rules based on how our lives are going and not how a magic book written by frauds and thieves says do to things.
kaegroFeb 3, 2012
Pffft, there's no way Obama is Jesus because I'm Jesus.
leonard2Feb 4, 2012
Tell The ObamaMessiah that.
kaegroFeb 4, 2012
I did.
woodsjransomFeb 4, 2012
He gets 4 more years and you will be whining about what?
leonard2Feb 4, 2012
He gets four more years and the entire US population will be whining
theswashbucklerFeb 4, 2012
How do you spell hypocrite?
O-R-R-I-N H-A-T-C-H
gumphlumphFeb 4, 2012
It's because he's the anti-christ. Technically any demoncrat who believes in REAL christian values like charity and forgiveness (let's not forget St. Francis) is in fact the devil incarnate masquerading as Jesus.
Personally I believe religion has NO place in politics, be it from the left or right, but for right wing zealots to get peeved because somebody on the left quotes scripture too is just plain pathetic.
Have you ever noticed that the a-holes that "preach" the word of "god" incessantly are usually the most two faced, abusive, selfish, greedy, corrupt and un-godly mother bitches on the planet?
ericgyoungFeb 4, 2012
Man oh man, this is rich coming from this sanctimonious, self-congratulatory ass hat. President Obama simply cannot win - when he was first elected, the right wingnuts and their "obviously-in-need-of-psychotropic-drugs followers" wrapped themselves in Scripture, making references to Obama as being the "anti-Christ." At one point, if you Google'd the issue, you would have received something in the neighborhood of about 6 million hits - all of which were streaming from right wing sources. Now, Obama quotes some Bible passages, and this goof damns him for thinking he's Jesus Christ?!?! I worked for U.S. Sen. Paul Simon years ago in the late 1980s, and this guy was full of crap back then. Sit down and stop embarrassing yourself, Hatch.
woj1sFeb 4, 2012
Hypocrites. You know, it was just last week that Republicans were complaining that Obama was on a war against Christianity (http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/08/obamas-unholy-war-against-chri) or that Obama is on a war against religion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA).
NOW they are complaining that he is using religion in politics. You cant win with Republicans. They have no logic or reason....
woj1sFeb 4, 2012
Oh yeah, and then there is Fox complaining about no "Christmas" in Obama's Christmas card: http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/no-christmas-in-white-house-holiday-card.html
ericgyoungFeb 4, 2012
This is a perfect example of the "Obama can do nothing right" mentality of these people, which I referred to in my comments. Thanks for pointing this out.
gaia242Feb 3, 2012
Poor ol Orrin! He's just peeved he cant legally practice "celestial marriage". Most of us know it as polygamy.
medic427Feb 5, 2012
WHY is all of a sudden Obama getting Religious? He was never like this?
rogue100Feb 3, 2012
"I think most Americans would agree that the Gospels are concerned with weightier matters than homosexuality.”
fixed
mjm6783Feb 3, 2012
"Someone ought to remind the president that only one person walked on water, and he didn't occupy the Oval Office"
Ya, his name is Criss Angel.
go4runmikeFeb 4, 2012
Obama is the type of guy that would invite you to a party, give you all the beer you can drink, and then tax you to use the restroom.
stevanoskiFeb 5, 2012
lol
kalvinbFeb 4, 2012
What is Caesar's?
The real problem in that Obama thinks everything we have is Caesar's.
ericgyoungFeb 4, 2012
Do you have even the remotest idea of what you are talking about?
stevanoskiFeb 5, 2012
Excellent point kalvin
oneseekerFeb 4, 2012
This... this is a real thing? It's not an onion news story?
My god, the irony is overwhelming.
veganpaFeb 4, 2012
Republicans are lying pieces of s**te, and the media help them.
TGRHvWGAFFeb 3, 2012
There's no way Obama is Jesus. Jesus couldn't have lowered unemployment the way Obama's policies have... all he did is feed the hungry, heal the sick, and die for our sins. Obama actually put them back to work.
ferretmanFeb 3, 2012
To be fair, Orrin, he only *quoted* Jesus Christ and claimed that JC would support his actions.
Let's not exaggerate.
gbreedFeb 4, 2012
Orrin should know. He was there hanging with Christ back in the day. If Obama took a dump in the wrong way these the Republicans would be offended.
englishbrendaFeb 4, 2012
I always thought that Orrin Hatch had an attitude that he was almighty. He is instrumental in legislation passing that always favors the top 1%. He sure is grumpy to be almighty!
dlallaFeb 4, 2012
Oren hatch can fornicate himself. GOP aholes pontificate then screw the least of our brothers. Not very family values or Christian if them now is it?
anglosaxongalFeb 4, 2012
Rich corrupt men and women think they are 'gods' when they use the wicked ETs to gain power....they are flipping a finger at GOD.
adamgaleldsFeb 8, 2012
Vote smarter, Vote Better Chris Herrod 2012. A strong, principled Conservative with a focus on states rights. The only man running that chose to handicap his campaign by keeping his promise to WE THE PEOPLE, and finishing his term. Want to know more? www.herrod2012.com
sofyanmFeb 4, 2012
http://bshokler.blogspot.com yep, but , your pal George W. was doing the same thing.