Oh? We should care? He's 1%. He should pay. Jesus wants him to pay.
Anyway, the key word is "taxable." Throw all the deductions back in and he's only paying 20%. Obviously, then, he should be paying even more. Jesus wants him to pay more.
"For me as a Christian, it... coincides with Jesus's teaching that for unto whom much is given, much shall be required," Obama said, quoting the Gospel of Luke.
Posts
301 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 301 of 301Alex:
Never mind. I found the comment where you declare yourself to be atheist. Still, it is interesting to understand where people derive their principles, since they are not taken from the ether. It is also interesting to observe individuals of whatever faith violating their principal principles, whether it is in God, gods, or the natural order. Frankly, I am not certain who has exhibited the greater betrayal. However, I am more concerned with people whose actions are incompatible with what they claim is their objective faith. They clearly derive their principles from axioms which are not observed in nature or our mutual reality.
Jane - the only reason the Soviets destroyed the Orthodox church was to eliminate a competitor, not out of some atheist purity. They simply replaced the old god(Jesus) with the newer version(Marx). But they both symbolize the same thing - that to be wealthy and pursue wealth is evil.
n.n - I'm more in the Carl Sagan camp of believing in what my senses tell me is true.
Alex wrote:
one can easily take multiple quotes of Jesus out of context and weave a pro-Communist narrative.
Agreed. I think that within context, they weave an anti-materialist narrative. One should choose righteousness over wealth, and indeed, righteousness and wealth may be in conflict. I do not believe that the pharisees thought that wealth was an impediment to spirituality, because they believed righteousness was a consequence of following religious law only.
I never understood why gaining wealth by itself is thought to be evil. It's not as though because I get richer, someone else has to get poorer. That is a primitive view on the world.
Alex: Jane - the only reason the Soviets destroyed the Orthodox church was to eliminate a competitor, not out of some atheist purity.
And yet, eliminating competition is a also very captalistic and a Darwinian urge as well.
chickenlittle: We sure could use an accountant on this thread--well, at least I, and I think it's safe to include Lyssa, do (see our comments). Do you happen to know one?
; )
Terry:
I interpret that directive from both a pragmatic and idealistic perspective. I acknowledge that we do not develop equally and yet I seek a reasonable compromise to maintain, if not harmony, then a functional society.
I think the quote which Bender posted is telling:
"Blessed are you who are poor ..."
I would interpret it as the rich carrying a greater burden to prove their conscience by virtue of their greater success in the mortal realm.
It's not that the poor receive a free pass, but that the rich are subject to a judgment which is superset of the former.
Well, good luck to the rich, and let the poor not forget that they also stand in judgment.
Alex:
So, you are in the objective faith camp, which is necessarily constrained to a limited frame of reference?
Well, as with others, I will judge you by the principles your faith engenders.
n.n - I fail to see the point in faith other then I understand it gives mentally weak people some comfort.
Alex: Most societies disparage greed. But greed and ambition are too different things.
Communist societies have a problem motivating people without coersion. Pluralistic religious societies don't have this problem.
That's one area I agree on with Marx - "religion is the opiate of the masses".
@rcommal: only Pete and Troop. I will tweet Pete, but he's been AWOL here for a long time.
So according to "capitalist ethics" as decided on by liberals, ExxonMobil is evil for charging the max profit margin it can, but Apple is ok because their products are just luxuries.
@chickenlittle: I was thinking of Pete, and I know, but I know he tweets (but I don't, so can't contact him that way).
Alex - "Obama obviously has a staffer who's job it is to pull Bible quotes that support his Communist agenda."
THE COMMUNISTS!!!
THE COMMUNISTS!!!
THE COMMUNISTS!!!
RUN...RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!
Good grief...the regulars here get crazier by the day.
Sorry for the clutter, PTB, but I really do think it would be interesting to hear from an accountant on the relevant tax issues (also relevant to this post) in which Lyssa and I expressed interest.
/clutter
Alex:
Yes, the Soviets marginalized Christianity and other religions. However, it did not end there and your reference to competing interests describes their motivation. However, they did not reject wealth and power; but, merely sought to consolidate it under their control. And to that end, there was no better way to achieve their goal, other than through an authoritarian position.
chickenlittle:
It is a human urge, which most people are capable of moderating, and those who fail are, under normal circumstances, kept in check by other competing interests. This is where totalitarian regimes (including communism, socialism, etc) tend to fail, as they need to marginalize and even eviscerate their competing interests.
So, while capitalism is a natural derivative, we still constrain its growth (e.g. monopolies) in order to accommodate another goal: the preservation of individual dignity.
There is a fine balance that must be maintained in order for individuals to enjoy optimal liberty. That compromise is struck between the natural and enlightened orders. Our free society is dynamically stable by virtue of the diversity of individuals who populate it.
More bad news...for YOU.
The Dow Jones industrial average closed Friday at 12,862.23, jumping 156.82 points to its highest close since May 2008, back when Lehman Brothers was still a going concern.
n.n. wrote:
Alex:
So, you are in the objective faith camp, which is necessarily constrained to a limited frame of reference?
Odd thing about materialists. They claim to rely solely on the evidence of the senses, yet they believe in both a past and future reality of material things that cannot be shown to exist by an appeal to the senses.
If materialists were really materialists, I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with them.
Alex:
Everyone has a faith. The faith maintained in a divine God does not preclude an objective faith. In fact, it should strengthen it. This is because a faith like Christianity only serves as a guide to moral behavior during our mortal lives and describes a possibility of the post-mortem. The principles their faith espouses are sound and lend themselves to constructing a functional society. If they are right about our post-mortem... well, then it sucks to be us.
In any case, your reference to "mentally weak" is not relevant and is an unproductive characterization of people who maintain a faith which otherwise engenders principles conducive to establishing and maintaining a society which is capable of preserving individual dignity and the valuation of human life.
Even Bush was smart enough to leave Jesus out of economic speeches. This is extremely dumb of Obama - it will backfire badly on him.
I am not so sure. In a perfect world, Obama's misquoting and misusing the Bible would lose a lot of votes of those who seem to take it and their religion more seriously. But, this is also the guy who talked about clutching guns and religion, or something like that, which would have tanked most other Dems, and any Republican, but didn't seem to affect Obama whatsoever.
bahog20 -
I don't know much bible, so I ask sincerely: how do we know Jesus was a carpenter, and was he any good, successful, self supporting?
I recall reading in one of the tomes excluded from the Bible that Jesus was a member in good standing of Carpenters Local 854 in Nazareth. As the Son of God, my gut tells me he was good at his work.
Terry:
We tend to exaggerate or deny what we know, don't know, and are incapable of knowing. The problem is that we are intrinsically limited in our capability by virtue of being part of the system we desire to characterize; as well as our consciousness, and physical effects, are insignificant outside of a limited sphere of influence.
There are many people who are unwilling to acknowledge their limitations. This may be the historical and global precursor to the rise of individuals with delusion of grandeur, who envision no greater achievement than the control of other sentient beings, especially humans.
Obama will win a second term if the majority of Americans will not reject their dreams of physical, material, and ego instant gratification, principally through redistributive and retributive change, but also through fraudulent or opportunistic exploitation. It is these people and others who purchase indulgences to assuage their real and perceived guilt for various sins that compromise his base.
Americans will either acknowledge their individual dignity and that of others, or our society is destined to decline as a progressive number seek to rule as, or vote for, Caesar.
This isn't the first time Obama has used The Bible for his deceptive manipulation. Obama used to say "I am my brother's keeper" in order to intimidate us into agreeing with him about tax hikes. (as if we are not taxed enough already)
Look up that quote. It's from Genesis 4:9 - And refers to a conversation between God and Cain after Cain murdered his brother. Cain lies to God and says "Am I not my brother’s keeper?” That's the quote. A big fat lie to God.
Fitting that Obama would use that quote for his grand scheme.
No hat boy? I suppose militant hate filled leftwing atheists don't care if their leftwing idols throw around religion and Jesus. Politics trumps hypocrisy.
Ann used the phrase, "He's 1%."
Nothing else was worth reading,...
test. Looks like you have to post a comment to access tha bottom of the list.
Yo, did someone say they need an accountant?
AprilApple:
Unfortunately, many left-wing ideologues or pretenders are selective apostates of the major religions, including America's principal religion, Christianity.
There are a surprising number of self-proclaimed atheists who have managed to identify what I would claim are sound principles. That is principles which are compatible with both the natural and enlightened orders. However, the experiment does not end there. They, and I, have enjoyed a society constructed on principles compatible with the Judeo-Christian faiths. There is no reasonable way to distinguish between cause and effect. Still, it is to their credit that they have accepted their principles.
I would be curious to know upon which axioms they have constructed their principles. For example, the concept of individual dignity, as well as freewill, etc., are axiomatic. They are not, however, natural derivatives, other than an innate desire for self-preservation, and we are incapable of proving their veracity.
Well, maybe enlightenment is too strong a word. Maybe the reality is that we merely respect each other to mitigate risk. I would like to think it is something more, but perhaps it really is that simple and primitive.
Then again, we don't really know, and there is no reason to believe we could ever know. At least not as we wile away our time upon this Earth. This is, presumably, where faith, or axioms, enter the picture.
Hi, Pete!
Wait a sec...
Bagoh, if my memory serves I don't think there is much scripture about Jesus actually being a carpenter. You kind of have to piece it together from other scripture. His earthly father Joseph was a carpenter, so its likely Jesus apprenticed with him. Not much is written about young Jesus; the bulk of it starts when he's around 30 and gaining a following as a prophet and teacher.
Whether he was a good one is unknown. Mentions of Jesus outside the bible are almost non-existent.
n. n.-
Let me get away from explicitly Christian critiques of materialism.
I know that at around the turn of the 20th century, their were philosophers of science who were trying to devise a system of materialism that was modern rather than Victorian.
Victorian materialists believed in the mind as a clear lens, that the evidence of the senses gave us real, true information about the universe. They thought that "redness", for example, as we see it, was a real feature of some object that didn't depend on it being seen by a human to be "red".
This wasn't compatible with certain developments in the late Victorian era, so a new philosophical explanation was needed to justify the idea that our thoughts and perceptions of the world in some way revealed a true picture of the world.
I believe they failed. That is, they were able to show that our conception of the world was a linguistic construct, but they were unable to show that "meaning" given by that linguistic construct had any certain relation to the "meaning" of an external, objective universe that was not a linguistic construct.
Clear as mud, I know, and I haven't explained it well, but I believe that I have explained the problem of materialism without recourse to religion.
Love... adults are speaking.
Likely this guy's been tagged with the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Taxable income could be 0 with preference items but the AMT backs those items out and recalculates the tax. He pays whichever's higher. So his taxable income could be less than his actual tax.
n.n - what you say is very thoughtful and I'll need some time to process it and come with a response.
Pete: For reference, see:
Blogger Lyssa said...
Maybe I misunderstood, but the logic of the fellow in that article seemed circular - his tax rate"on his taxable income was so high because he had a lot of deductions, but he couldn't take a lot of deductions because his income is too high.
It sounded to me like he is removing the amount from his "taxable income" for the purposes of "what's my tax rate", even though those amounts actually were taxed, and therefore, taxable (or at least partially taxable, when you compare state and federal regs).
It's completely possible that I misunderstood, but that was what I got.
2/3/12 3:39 PM
102% ?
That's unpossible!
2/3/12 3:41 PM
Blogger Lyssa said...
To continue on my comment above, if you were to use the same logic that Mr. Ross used in figuring his taxable percentage of 102%, would Romney's still be the same as has been reported? I'm guessing not.
2/3/12 3:44 PM
Additionally, in terms of the Gospel, the term 'poor' generally refers to those poor of 'spirit', not the 'property' the left is so obsessed with redistributing under the guise of 'fairness'.
A tithe is generally understood to be 10% of one's income; however, the Gospel encourages us to be more generous than that, on an INDIVIDUAL basis.
It is LAUGHABLE for this man to try and bludgeon citizens with his utter misunderstanding of the Gospel. That's what this amounts to.
2/3/12 3:53 PM
Blogger Pragmatist said...
Pure nonsense or how to do funny things with words. He needs a good CPA
2/3/12 3:55 PM
Blogger Bill, Republic of Texas said...
Lyssa said,
"Maybe I misunderstood, but the logic of the fellow in that article seemed circular - his tax rate"on his taxable income was so high because he had a lot of deductions, but he couldn't take a lot of deductions because his income is too high. "
I agree. I couldn't follow that at all.
2/3/12 4:02 PM
---to be continued. And Pete, thanks, in advance, for shedding any light you can for those who are interested in this part of the discussion/post
Continued:
Blogger Lyssa said...
The entire time I was reading it, I kept thinking: Surely, a business writer is not trying to convince us that part of this man's income is not taxable for the purpose of Outrage!, but is taxable for the purpose of . . . taxes.
But I can't figure out any other way of reading it. I was really hoping that someone would explain it, but it's not looking good.
2/3/12 4:25 PM
Blogger Bender said...
I'm as anti-tax as they come, but something doesn't smell right with that tax story.
Guy pays over 100 percent of taxable income, but really only 20 percent of his ADJUSTED gross income (which is less than just gross). That sounds like he's deducting 80 percent of his adjusted gross.
80 percent in deductions?? Sounds to me like some fraudulent deductions here, like trying to write off his personal residence and other personals as business deductions, etc.
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he's legit. But this smells as legit as Buffett's secretary (who probably makes a few hundred thousand a year).
2/3/12 5:35 PM
Blogger PaulV said...
Blame the AMT and the tax code written by democrats. Carry on, nothing to see here.
2/3/12 6:04 PM
Blogger rcommal said...
Lyssa, I think it has to do with two things: 1) remember, in order to have itemized deductions you have had to pay out money for something, which means that money's not available to pay taxes and 2) a combination of New York's tax structure--which disallows deductions altogether after a certain point, exceeded by Ross, AND the fact that the Federal Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) disallows deduction of all the local and state taxes (again, the latter of which against which he couldn't take deductions, either).
I'm sure I haven't put it a whole lot better, and God knows I'm not an accountant--where is Pete, or someone, when we need him?--but I think I've pinpointed the two salient areas, the intersection of which makes Ross's situation possible.
Please, someone, correct me if I'm wrong, if anyone knows. I second Lyssa in desiring to be educated on the point.
[snipped P.S. re: prayer breakfast, unrelated to tax issues]
2/3/12 6:42 PM
So, Pete, what do you think? Can you help me understand this/sort it out?
MANY, MANY THANKS! Sorry for not having copied the relevant comments into at text file to begin with...didn't know if you'd show up.
You're quite welcome, rcommal. Please call on me anytime.
We knew about the AMT.
But--theoretically speaking--how likely is it that people end up in this situation? Is this a normal thing (in the sense of not unusual; I don't mean to imply in the sense of an every day occurrence, though if it is, it surely would be good know to know that)? Is this situation a frequent thing, a rare outlier or somewhere in between?
People expressed a number of questions and reservations, and I understand why, especially sharing a couple of them (though not as many, from what I can tell; could be wrong, as always).
I see Obama is of the "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" view.
But in Obama's case he feels Caesar should have it all.
Face it, Obama is just a race baiting, class warfare monger who is just an opportunist using what he can to stay in power.
"Charity for Augustine was thinking the best of somebody rather than the worst, a meaning it still carries but only secondarily, and the only meaning that makes it soul-saving.
Charity as giving money is an invention of charities."
That's it!
@Don't Tread 2012
...not that I disagree with your comment, but...
That's supposed to be a snake, not an Ewok.
"Christianity is the religious basis for Communism ...."
That assertion is both historically and theologically accurate, but in opposition to the import intended by its author.
Communism is an heresy of Christianity. It's basis is Christianity, but its intent and vector deform and oppose Christianity. Communism is a Christian heresy. It is anti-Christian, as it's history demonstrates.
Ann,
Obama also referenced Islamic and Jewish teachings in his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast. The full quote is:
"But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that 'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.' It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who’ve been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others.
Why the focus only on the teachings of Christ?
can't read the over 200 comments unless i post a comment?
Matthew 19:21-23
21 Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, harass the authorities to send the tax collectors to seize your neighbor’s wealth and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, harass that man, send the tax collectors to seize his wealth and give to the poor, and you will break 80 and win great treasure with a long putt on the 7th hole.
New Progressive Translation
Why the focus only on the teachings of Christ?
That's the only one he actually quoted ... and the Jewish line about "moderation" is a throw away. I challenge you to quote from Torah or Talmud where that came from.
Darleen said...
"I challenge you to quote from Torah or Talmud where that came from."
You'll have to direct your challenge to Obama.
I'm just curious as to why Ann only cued in on the reference to Christ when Obama referenced a belief held by Christians, Muslims and Jews.
"Do you people ever actually debate or disagree about anything...or do you just blindly follow the Althouse lead?"
Rhetorical? :D
Another rhetorical question: How pissed off is the Althouse conservative circle jerk gonna be when Obama is easily re-elected president?
>
And Althouse, please inform the confused conservatives how to view past 200 w/out making a post lol.
Indeed, show some empathy for the befuddled.
>
If I had a nickle for every time Jay said hilarious, idiot, you're projecting ...
oh, almost forgot:
"When are ritmo, andy r, shiloh, love, et.al, going to show up
2/3/12 3:57 PM"
Damn Jay, are you really that lonely for some coherent/intelligent discussion? Once again rhetorical. :)
Indeed, Jay truly misses us lol.
btw again, the Bible can be interpreted every which way to Sunday! depending on one's political/social/religious agenda.
Sort of a user manual for everyone. :-P
>
Apologies to rocks!
>
Jay will show up later today w/a reply that includes ... you guessed it ~ hilarious!
So it shall be written, so it shall be done!
hmm, I'm only gonna post when a thread gets over 250. ;)
Althouse lemmings cheer!
Alex:
First, I appreciate our cordial exchange of ideas. Second, it is not my desire to criticize anyone needlessly; but, as you have admitted, there must be some objective "truth" or axioms from which we derive our principles. I have identified the natural (e.g. reproduction) and enlightened (i.e. conscious; from which individual dignity is assumed) orders. It is from this objective foundation that I have taken my principles and my conclusion is that they just happen to be compatible with what the Judeo-Christian faiths entail. Less, of course, the belief in God. However, even there, it is undeniable that there is an underlying order to our universe, which remains as yet unclassified and unknown. It is this knowledge which prevents me from joining either the religious or atheists in good faith. And yet I am capable of recognizing, from my acquired knowledge and personal experience, principles which are conducive to the establishment and development of a functional and, perhaps, even an enlightened society which will realize positive progress and a viable humanity.
Terry:
It is very clear that our perception of reality can and is influenced by both internal (e.g. induction) and external (e.g. linguistic) factors, if only temporarily.
I suppose the best we can hope is that we will not all be tainted simultaneously, and that there will remain individuals who can objectively interpret the results.
As for what is considered normal or objective, that would be established by implicit and explicit statistical samples by the population throughout time. It would help if the samples were continuous, but we have reason to believe that they are not. For example, there is evidence that the speed of light is not a constant, but deteriorates over time. This could simply reflect a reconstitution of space, but it could also reflect other causes. Then there is the matter of "time", which some describe as a dimension, and others as a description ascribed to a perception of motion.
I think the problem stems from our inability to distinguish between origin and expression. Meaning that are we a product of our minds (e.g. a product of complexity) or does our mind reflect what we are (e.g. a soul or spirit).
Anyway, I think we have to assume that our perception is sufficiently objective and make the most of our lives until we learn otherwise. To that end we follow the natural (i.e. objective) order and we pursue an enlightened (i.e. axiomatic) order.
Why is he taking tax deductions, by the way?
If you were a true follower of Willard, you'd know there's a basic philosophy to be applied here. As Willard says:
"I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more. I don't think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes."
Therefore, if our Muslim commie President Obama is entitled to deductions, he should take them.
Please try to pay attention in the future, Jay. Willard has spoken. Thank you!
I hoped for a café.
otallytay off opictay
fire at will
What's Jesus saying in Matthew 20:1-16, the parable of the workers in the vineyard?
Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?
Sounds a lot different than what Obama's quoting.
Chip, it took me a minute to figure that one out! I was thinking Will Wheaton, but that's the kid's real name. I forgot that was Numbah One's name.
I ♥ Willard said...
If you were a true follower of Willard, you'd know there's a basic philosophy to be applied here. As Willard says:
"I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more. I don't think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes."
Therefore, if our Muslim commie President Obama is entitled to deductions, he should take them.
Please try to pay attention in the future, Jay. Willard has spoken. Thank you!
Except Romney isn't the President and going around the country invoking Jesus to tell people to pay more taxes.
Logic much, idiot?
Love said...
More bad news...for YOU.
The Dow Jones industrial average closed Friday at 12,862.23, jumping 156.82 points to its highest close since May 2008,
Hysterical!
Yes, because we all know how much the left supports Wall Street! And here I thought those greedy people on Wall Street were fleecing the rest of us.
Oh, not when a leftist dummy tries to pretend the DOW is a reflection of the economy. Then we get to trumpet the DOW!
PS: people who have been unemployed for longer than six months rose from December to make up 42.9 percent of the unemployed.
PPS: There are now 87.9 million people who are not working. The largest population of non-workers the country has seen since the government started keeping records in 1975.
Thanks for participating.
Not my definition of a truly loving God.
I'm going by memory here so bear with me.
The revelation of Moses(Abraham?) was that g*d is infinitely just. So we should all have reason to fear. The revelation of Christ is that g*d is infinitely merciful. So we all have reason to hope.
charitas-mans love of his fellow man without hope of recognition or reciprosity.
So is it charity to give and then deduct it from your income taxes?
I really hate it when Obama tries to get his Christian on only to reveal that his Muslim is more knowledgeable about the Koran than his Christian knows or understands the Bible.
The Parable of the Bags of Gold
14 “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. 15 To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag, [a] each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16 The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. 17 So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. 18 But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.
19 “After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20 The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.’
21 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
22 “The man with two bags of gold also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.’
23 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
24 “Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’
26 “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.
28 “‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. 29 For 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. 30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
This might be a better application of the verse
"n.n - my point is the New Testament seems to support the philosophy of Communism. Endless scripture quotes that confirm it. Atheist capitalists are the most solid ground. All they need is logic to support the cause of capitalism. No hypocrisy, no self-righteousness."
Alex, you and godZero make the same mistake.
When Jesus speaks about the 'poor', he is talking about the poor of 'spirit'. His words about giving up one's possessions aren't just about material things - in context, possessions also include thoughts, beliefs and actions.
Don't fall for the words of the Gospel co-opted by modern politicians. Talk about taken 'out of context'...and, you can't just lift an understanding that you don't have for the Bible from Wikipedia, either.
It is the 'left' that is completely hung up on the earthly/wordly possessions. Those with a greater faith/understanding of Christ and the Gospel come to know that these things are increasingly temporary. If you come to understand what this really means then you will realize that what you have is not really yours, anyway. This is actually quite liberating. Where do you think the expression 'you can't take it with you' comes from?
So I would challenge you - in order to better understand the New Testament and the Gospel in particular - you would need to engage in study that provides in-depth historical perspective and contextual analysis.
Ipchay
Avobray!!!
Oryay igpay atinlay is eatgray...by the way...
n.n - I do believe in the possibility of some higher power, just not Jesus Christ. I fail to see what is so special about Jesus vs Bhudda/Muhammed/Vishnu/Yawveh. So in the light of that, I prefer to operate via objective reality and more people every year are agreeing with me. If you look at Pew polls, more people become unaffiliated with religion every year. I'm not blaming people for needing the crutch of religion, it's just too bad they can't overcome it. Real life is so much richer without it. Regarding a perceived order to the universe, that is not a total given. There is much we don't know about it and a concept like "dark matter" throws a bit of monkey wrench in things. But aside from that, things are pretty orderely. It seems that ordinary physics just works. Ask the Apollo mission people. All I know is that it wasn't Christianity that got us to the moon or invented the transistor.
It is a sign of humility that much of what we have is by the grace of God and therefore we should give back, which is why Rommey and Obama have contributed far more to Charity than Gengrich, whose ego really seems to push aside any Christian beliefs he may claim. To be reminded of this by anybody in this day and age of materialism is of course offensive.
It is a sign of humility that much of what we have is by the grace of God
Total fucking bullshit.
"It is a sign of humility that much of what we have is by the grace of God
Total fucking bullshit."
Proof that some things are difficult to fix. You need not look any further than the oval orifice.
The founding fathers understood what many call 'bullshit'.
Humility is the one human characteristic that is so rare these days. And look at the results. Everywhere.
Human arrogance is crippling.
I'm just curious as to why Ann only cued in on the reference to Christ when Obama referenced a belief held by Christians, Muslims and Jews.
I'm guessing it's because Althouse is much more comfortable mocking Christians than Jews or Moslems. Plus, she knows that Christians put up a more spirited defense here, driving her traffic.
in this case, there is no relevance to citing Jewish or Muslim beliefs on the matter. America is 90% Christian nation among those who believe in a god. Given that, a focus on the Gospels is not only prudent but a way to not waste time.
"Total fucking bullshit."
Alex, a "no" reply would have sufficed.
"driving her traffic."
Indeed, Althouse's bottom line, which is why back in the day :D there were a lot of mama grizzly threads, now not so much er nobody cares about palin ...
shiloh - the problem with you and other leftists who engage in groupthink is that it renders you incapable of assessing the situation on the ground. If you actually paid attention to the people who regularly comment here, you'd know it's not one monolithic group. But you keep bleating that it is because that's what soothes you or something. It's quite sad actually to see someone so delusional.
"When Jesus speaks about the 'poor', he is talking about the poor of 'spirit'. His words about giving up one's possessions aren't justabout material things"
First sentence wrong, second sentence right (I emphasized the right part).
Jesus very clearly is talking about the actual poor in much of his comments. Making it only about the 'spiritually' poor is very much an attempt for the rich not to deal with the implications of the Gospel. The Rich Young Ruler knew what Jesus was talking about. And the early church, as shown in Acts, clearly had a care for both kinds of poor.
There's simply no getting away from the fact that Jesus taught about economic priorities and helping those in genuine need. However, he taught this was part of our personal response to him, not that we were to petition government to do all that work. That misses the point of why we give to the poor. It both helps them and helps us hold money loosely as part of our identity.
All I know is that it wasn't Christianity that got us to the moon or invented the transistor
You're probably one of those cranks who would have bitched or even file a lawsuit over Apollo 8.
I'm sure, knowledgeable scholar that you are, you know to what I am referring. If not, it literally takes you only minutes on Wikipedia to find what will be looking for. Time to stretch those internet muscles.
Paddy - one thing that seriously offends me about Jesus Christ is the idea that the poor are automatically rich in spirit and the wealthy are poor in spirit. If there was ever an idea promulgated to incite class warfare, man that's a doozy.
Bender - time for the daily meds.
Jesus on the poor
Matthew 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 19:21 Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."
Matthew 19:23 And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Mark10:23 And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!"
Mark10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Wow, just wow. A Communist's wet dream.
Alex, Spocks repartee to Bones summed you up quite well:
Nor have you, Doctor, as your continued predilection for irrelevancy demonstrates ...
shiloh continues to be-clown himself. Adults are speaking.
shiloh - your problem at this point is that you are so heavily invested in your trolling that you can't throw that aside and jump into the conversation people are having. You just can't do it.
"Adults are speaking."
Music is much better now when Beyonce is shaking her cooch in my face.
Indeed Alex, indeed!
shiloh - what can I say. Are you jealous that I can multitask? There is no need for a person to be serious in tone all the time. In fact an ability to show levity is highly prized in our society. But you turn that around and use it to mock people. That isn't nice at all.
hm?
The Teachings of Jesus and Obama: A Reference Chart (Humor, (or not...))
Alex, as per usual, seems to be fixated on my every word and I, of course, am flattered! :)
shiloh - I could just ignore you but it's too much fun pointing out your trolling.
The prosecution rests ...
Except Romney isn't the President and going around the country invoking Jesus to tell people to pay more taxes.
And Muslim commie President Obama isn't telling people to forsake legal deductions as a mechanism for paying more in taxes than the law requires.
It will help make these conversations go more smoothly if you pay attention. With that in mind, try thinking before commenting.
Hope this helps! Have a great day.
Is Alex always such a dullard?
All I know is that it wasn't Christianity that got us to the moon or invented the transistor.
Actually, it kind of was:
We knew that we had created a new means of warfare, and the question as to what nation, to what victorious nation we were willing to entrust this brainchild of ours was a moral decision more than anything else. We wanted to see the world spared another conflict such as Germany had just been through, and we felt that only by surrendering such a weapon to people who are guided by the Bible could such an assurance to the world be best secured.
~ Wernher von Braun, creative thrust behind the Saturn V rocket.
William Shockley is a different story.
Shilho, the persecutor, rusts.
chickenlittle - a lot of great scientists have invoked God & the Bible in the generic sense. Somehow I don't think God was guiding the hand of the rocket scientist as he worked out his complex equations. I know J.S. Bach wrote that he did his compositions solely in praise of God and if that helped him feel inspired, great.
Well Alex, it's your word against von Braun's Word.
@Alex: Plus I think that von Braun was weighing the decision of surrendering to the Americans or to the godless commies. Both sides would have let him live another day to carry on his work, as vindictive as the Soviets were.
Here is the precious, "godly" von Braun:
Wernher von Braun and slave labor
Others claim von Braun engaged in brutal treatment or approved of it. Guy Morand, a French resistance fighter who was a prisoner in Dora, testified in 1995 that after an apparent sabotage attempt:
Without even listening to my explanations, [von Braun] ordered the Meister to have me given 25 strokes...Then, judging that the strokes weren't sufficiently hard, he ordered I be flogged more vigorously...von Braun made me translate that I deserved much more, that in fact I deserved to be hanged...I would say his cruelty, of which I was personally a victim, are, I would say, an eloquent testimony to his Nazi fanaticism.[39]
Robert Cazabonne, another French prisoner, testified that von Braun stood by and watched as prisoners were hung by chains from hoists.[40]
Yeah what a man of God.
Yeah what a man of God.
Alex, you forgot to mention London and Antwerp and the V-2.
My point was, how much worse thing would have been had he surrendered to the the godless commies. It was his decision.
"Without even listening to my explanations, [von Braun] ordered the Meister to have me given 25 strokes...Then, judging that the strokes weren't sufficiently hard, he ordered I be flogged more vigorously"
He was just following the Gallic way of parenting.
Alex, I thought that we had agreed that you would undertake the study of exegesis before you tried to explain what instructions Christ was giving to Christians.
Terry - I am under no obligation to get a degree in Religion to discuss the subject.
Throws around scripture while remaining willfully ignorant about the subject.
Typical atheist.
I ♥ Willard said...
And Muslim commie President Obama isn't telling people to forsake legal deductions as a mechanism for paying more in taxes than the law requires.
Um, he's just calling on them to pay higher taxes while taking deductions himself. In other words, what is the difference?
Oh, nothing.
If Obama or any other Christian feels that they aren’t paying enough taxes, they can visit Pay.gov and send more money to Uncle Sam.
You can stop responding now, clown.
Post a Comment