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.
पोस्ट्स
३०१ टिप्पण्या:
301 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»>>"coincides with Jesus's teaching that for unto whom much is given, much shall be required"<<
By the government?
""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."
GodZero, a usurper in more way than one.
I would love to be an angel in clouds when Teh Won meets his maker. Won't be pretty, methinks.
Even the angels in heaven are against Obama.
The key word in there is "given." But that's just nit-picking. The same way that the Bible's call for charity is just the same as making your neighbor give money to the poor.
And Obama says that he doesn't preach class warfare!
His résumé is studded with elite institutions: Yale, Columbia Law School and stints at the law firms Cravath, Swaine & Moore in New York and Holland & Hart in Denver.
Do you all admit that you are not as smart as this guy?
Is it okay for Obama to talk this way because nobody really believes he falls to his knees?
He is right about the tax code(s) not making any sense, but it was also his party that devised this hodge-podge, and he is just asking for some more complications to ease his burden and shift it onto others. He is not asking for the swamp to be drained.
Further to the idiocy of Ann's post about how unreasonable WI's requirement that people getting a concealed carry warrant attend a training course, I suggest reading this article:
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/138626059.html
Here's the high-impact line:
He said he knew from his recent training that you need a clear head, breathe right and "commit to a decision."
Obama's speech is really offensive.
There is no evidence that this guy believes in anything whatever beyond his own awesomeness.
His own awesomeness IS his religion, Hagar.
Show me where Jesus said anything about forcing your neighbor to take care of the poor. His message is much more personal than Obama sees it. YOU should take care of the less fortunate. Not, you should force your neighbor to take care of the less fortunate.
I am so sick of Obama. November just can't come soon enough.
Yes, let's make a habit of sarcastically picking on politicians every time they bring God and/or Jesus into political rhetoric. I'm sure that won't backfire on you EVER.
The poor of Jesus day were truly poor. The poor of America today are the rich Jesus warned you about.
Calling AndyR. Please pick up the white courtesy blog.
Jesus wants you to give more, but only if it's the law.
Freeman Hunt said...
"Do you all admit that you are not as smart as this guy?"
heh heh.
prairie wind nailed it, Jesus wasn't referring to giving Caesar what belongs to Caesar.
All Hail Caesar Obamus!
(and render unto Caesar, that which is geezer's!)
The Biblical phrase Obama wanted to use was 'render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar ... ' Well? I'm Caesar so get to rendering, Bitches. But his remarkably acute political sense informed him that wouldn't sound very good to segments of the population.
""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."
Except he isn't really quoting the "Gospel of Luke"
He is displaying an ignorance of the Bible that is rather breathtaking. But it is funny how easy it is to fool the even more ignorant reporter.
Urkel is at it again. Using scripture as a blunt instrument to justify his marxist wealth redistribution model via government. His faux humility speech at the national prayer breakfast outlined that we need to make sacrifices for the poor. Really Mr. Urkel, we need to do that? I am the determiner of who I give my money too outside of the confiscatory obligatory taxes I have to hand over to you, you stupid uneducated motherfucker. This cocksucker went to university right? So you would think he had some critical thinking skills right? Fuck him and fuck anyone who thinks like him. I wish you would all just drop the fuck dead.
Maybe the President did sleep through 20 years of sermons by the right Rev. Wright?
Recasting himself from the Messiah to Caesar is pretty audacious, you have to admit.
I'm sure future historians will discover an Obama Bible, similar to the Jefferson Bible, but with a different set of revisions: "Go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first rich man you catch, open his wallet, and you will find money. Take it and use it to pay our taxes."
If the Bible can guide our federal tax policy, can it also guide a Federal Marriage Amendment and a national abortion policy?
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.
Obama is right..He has been GIVEN much cause he sure has not earned it.
This guy is the argument for tax reform. Lower the rates, get rid of itemizations and exemption, give a standard deduction of 10,000 and let everyone pay.
102% ?
That's unpossible!
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.
Any tax I have to pay is unfair; You guys should pay them all.
"Do you all admit that you are not as smart as this guy?"
He seems to believe that the problem is someone else needs to pay higher taxes but his own tax rate is OK.
This leads me to conclude he is not as smart as Obama. Since most of the Althouse commenters are smarter than Obama, the writer is not smarter than us.
NO EVIDENCE in the Bible that says that GOVERNMENT is Christian. Quite the opposite.
It would really be interesting if they made munis taxable.
They choose to live in high tax states and I'm supposed to cry?
I'm not "given" my income.
I wonder what his Muslim faith tells him.
Chicago is rated the 6th worse city in the country to live. I have to stop clicking on those lists.
Institute a National Muslim Day of Prayer or Breakfast and attend?
If he was Warren Buffet's secretary he'd be paying 200%. They'd figure out a way.
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.
Pure nonsense or how to do funny things with words. He needs a good CPA
Obama: taxes... coincide with Jesus's teaching that for unto whom much is given, much shall be required
If you've ever wondered why Socialism is so very hostile to Christianity, its because they are competing for the same thing. Worship a God or worship The State.
unto whom much is given, much shall be required
BTW, Obama has been given the best that America can offer anyone. Much was required of him. But the most we can hope for is that Incompetence trumps Corruption. And that after this election, there will be something left of America worth saving.
I'm shocked, shocked I say, that a politician would try use religious sentitments to advance his agenda.
Seriously, this is nothing new so don't everyone get the vapors.
Politicians have been using religious teachings and sayings since time began in the effort to legitimize policies to religious masses.
And religious partisans have no problem when their favored politicians use religion to advance the political goals they share. Of course, when the opposition uses religion to do the same, well, that's just wrong.
The Republicans have been preaching class warfare for decades, they are just upset that the other side decided to fight back.
unto whom much is given, much shall be required
Zero was given the job of president. How's he doing on the requirements?
When are ritmo, andy r, shiloh, love, et.al, going to show up and tell us how the Democratic party is trying to turn the US into a theocracy?
Raised this one a couple of times, but glad to see it's being reiterated.
I was thinking what Chip was. I don't recall anywhere in the Gospel, Christ saying God should tell Caesar what his tax rates should look like.
Since GodZero is selling out the Jews to the Iranians and trying to make the Catholics renounce one of their most deeply held tenets, I'm wondering when God (y'know, the Real One) is going to come down and tell Our Little Messiah Who is really in charge.
And I hope we all have a free seat.
"His message is much more personal than Obama sees it. YOU should take care of the less fortunate. Not, you should force your neighbor to pay some stranger to take care of the less fortunate."
/emph added
Pragmatist said...
The Republicans have been preaching class warfare for decades, they are just upset that the other side decided to fight back
Um, no they haven't.
And if this is "fighting back" then please, by all means, let it continue. Obama being a spokesperson for the Bible or economic policy is a real political winner, champ.
Really. It is.
By the way, I bet you're one of those silly leftist who tells themselves you're for the separation of church and state.
It's pretty bizarre that when Mr. Ross and the other high-taxpayers featured in the article (such as the reporter himself) realize how badly they're getting screwed by New York State and New York City, their response is to whine about Mitt Romney.
Is Pragmatist going to tell us at what comedy club he's appearing this weekend?
coincides with Jesus's teaching that for unto whom much is given, much shall be required"
Yeah, because Jesus was like so in favor of me sending more money to the government so some bureaucrat on IPAB can decide if my grandmother gets a kidney transplant.
It is in the gospel!
PragSockPuppet: The Republicans have been preaching class warfare for decades, they are just upset that the other side decided to fight back.
Yes! Damn those Northern Abolitionsists and their preposturous notions about race!
[facepalm]
And as usual, Ann's logic is illogical.
Is there ANYTHING Althouse and her cohort Meade do not complain about relating to President Obama?
ANYTHING??
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.
Love said...
And as usual, Ann's logic is illogical.
As usual, you can't bring yourself to offer the slightest criticism of Obama.
You're all for using the Bible to set national policies, right love?
Love: "Is there ANYTHING Althouse and her cohort Meade do not complain about relating to President Obama? ANYTHING??" she purred as she prostrated herself before GodKing Obama.
Unknown pundit
Too bad your boy GodZero doesn't know the Gospel from shinola.
He wasn't even close.
Proof that you, and your ilk, rely on a dumbed-down, ignorant lot to do your 'work'.
Idiot.
"And as usual, Ann's logic is illogical.
Is there ANYTHING Althouse and her cohort Meade do not complain about relating to President Obama?
ANYTHING??"
Yeah, you and shiloh. Both nincompoops of the first order.
This, your formula used to engage other commenters, amounts to 'why do you hate our leftist icon'?
BHO.
Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm.
Love said...
And as usual, Ann's logic is illogical.
Is there ANYTHING Althouse and her cohort Meade do not complain about relating to President Obama?
ANYTHING??
You have to admit there is a lot to complain about. he pretty much steps on his dick every day.
BenLaden!!!
unto whom much is given, much shall be required
Maybe that is why Romney feels required to become president.
With great power comes great responsibility
After which Obama cam become a webslinging crime fighter.
Yeah, the way Ross is figuring his effective tax rate is silly-- but you'd think Stewart could have found room to mention that it's exactly the way Warren Buffett has been figuring his secretary's effective tax rate. Except that Buffett further exaggerated that rate by piling her payroll tax on top of it.
So all of a sudden the wingers here are completely up in arms over President Obama injecting something of a religious nature into a speech...at a prayer breakfast no less?
This, after listening to the GOP injecting religion into everything from a woman's right to choose, who can and cannot be married, contraception, faith based initiatives or their big time favorite...our divine mission to spread Christianity across the Middle East?
And then you've got this silly little squirrel Jay...intimating that this is somehow related to the Democrats doing what they can to create a theocracy?
A theocracy??
This comment from President Obama relating to people who have the most to paying their fair share is the door opener to God suddenly being recognized as America's leader?
Between Ann running inane blaring headlines to stir up her right wing minions and people like Jay (and too many others to mention) spouting his standard infantile garbage...it's difficult to believe any of you have an ounce of sense.
Oh, and as for the "class warfare" claims...would this also be considered an effort to invoke such warfare?
“I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, 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.” Matthew 19 23 24
Obama misuses that part of the Gospel of Luke for his own political reasons.
Let's look the meaning of that passage as described in Clarke's Commentary on The Bible.
From this and the preceding verse we find that it is a crime to be ignorant of God's will; because to every one God has given less or more of the means of instruction.
Those who have had much light, or the opportunity of receiving much, and have not improved it to their own salvation, and the good of others, shall have punishment proportioned to the light they have abused. On the other hand, those who have had little light, and few means of improvement, shall have few stripes, shall be punished only for the abuse of the knowledge they possessed.
Luke 12:48 is not about money; it is about acquiring the knowledge of God's will with the abilities one has been given, and the punishment (stripes) given for abuse of that knowledge.
Obama is a secularist who believes that a speechwriter's clever reference to a Biblical passage can be useful in his justification of expropriating that which belongs to others.
Of if he is truly a believer, then perhaps he should meditate on "suffer not the little children" and then reverse his position on abortion.
Not likely.
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.
Much of what Jesus taught had no real political value, then or now. That doesn't mean that there isn't any political events or messages to be gleaned from Jesus' story. In truth, Jesus was a radical for his day, politically speaking.
The groups that became Jesus' enemies, the Pharisees and Sadducees, held political power in that day. He critized them for making too many laws that were unjust and hard on the masses. Jesus condemned the overly legalistic thinking originating from the powers that be. Naturally, this made Jesus popular with the oppressed masses, not so much so with their oppressors. One just doesn't tell God's local leadership that they are doing things wrong and get away with it.
Sadly, Jesus message didn't sink in very well with his modern day followers in the USA, as they've created perhaps the most legalistic society in history. In some ways, modern Christians have more in common with the Pharisees than they do with Jesus. I take no pleasure in thinking or saying that.
Yes, let's make a habit of sarcastically picking on politicians every time they bring God and/or Jesus into political rhetoric. I'm sure that won't backfire on you EVER.
Man, that horse left the barn so long ago that it died of old age in the last millenium.
wv: mulconat, the brand of glue that the horse was rendered into.
This has to be one of the most hypocritical groups of people I have ever encounted on a blog site.
Suddenly...religion is off limits.
Except for things like this?
In the book by journalist Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack, based on taped conversations with the President, Bush describes himself as a "messenger" of God who is doing "the Lord's will."
From David Frum, in his book, The Right Man:
"The news that this was a White House where attendance at Bible study was, if not compulsory, not quite uncompulsory either, was disconcerting to a non-Christian like me."
From the Observer, November 2, 2003:
"President George W. Bush stood before a cheering crowd at a Dallas Christian youth center last week, and told them about being 'born again' as a Christian. Behind Bush were two banners. 'King of Kings', proclaimed one. 'Lord of Lords', said the other. The symbolism of how fervent Christianity has become deeply entwined with the most powerful man on the planet could not have been stronger."
@Love
What we see here is Obama's Christianist mask slipping. This also explains his hatred for the gays.
Love,
The President chose scripture completely unsuited to his argument. His choice was either cynical or ignorant. As you know, the Parables are intended to explain the Kingdom of God, not of Caesar.
I'm not sure how your rich man verse relates to this thread. Perhaps, you want to tax the rich into penury in order to save their immortal souls?
it's exactly the way Warren Buffett has been figuring his secretary's effective tax rate
Small correction: Buffett didn't include state taxes. But still.
Don't Tread 2012:
Too bad your boy GodZero doesn't know the Gospel from shinola.
I never claimed he knew the Gospel from shinola or anything else.
And he's not my boy.
Do you have any reading comprehension skills at all? Apparently not.
Idiot.
Love said...
So all of a sudden the wingers here are completely up in arms over President Obama injecting something of a religious nature into a speech...at a prayer breakfast no less?
As long as I am paying one dollar more than you I am overpaying my fair share.
Where was the uproar, the anger, the screaming and complaining...when George W. Bush injected religion into politics?
"I believe that God wants me to be president."
"We need common-sense judges who understand our rights were derived from God."
"Religion is an important part. That's manifested in public policy through the faith-based initiative where we've unleashed the armies of compassion to help heal people who hurt." (Oh-Oh...helping those people who hurt. WHo does this guy think he is...God?)
"I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words 'under God'' in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process, as opposed to strict interpretation of the Constitution." (Seems a tad pushy considering the Supreme Court rulings.)
"I believe mothers and fathers want to raise their children in a free and peaceful world. I believe all these things, because freedom is not America's gift to the world, freedom is the almighty God's gift to each man and woman in this world."
"I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom. And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again."
"The cause we serve is right, because it is the cause of all mankind. The momentum of freedom in our world is unmistakable--and it is not carried forward by our power alone. We can trust in that greater power who guides the unfolding of the years. And in all that is to come, we can know that His purposes are just and true."
cuban - "As long as I am paying one dollar more than you I am overpaying my fair share."
That's very Christian of you.
It is interesting; the phony 'righteous indignation' of leftists when their icon is called out for his misuse of the Gospel for political purposes.
They, arguably more Godless than most.
They, the supporters of infanticide and legislated theft. And that's just the foreword.
Breathtaking, really.
And please - save the Bible citations, its just the same sad misuse that your god Zero engaged in.
I predicted in 2009 that come re-election time Obama would utter some variation of "Jesus made me do it."
My success rate on predictions remains untarnished.
When politicians get on their knees and pray we had President McKinley going to war with Spain, and Richard Nixon praying with Henry Kissinger for heaven knows what.
One of my neighbors is a mechanic so I'm going to go command him in the name of 'Obama' that he will now have to change my oil and work on my car for free. After all, he has been given something more than me. I'm really good at breaking stuff so I'm sure we'll find some happy medium.
Old Dad said..."The President chose scripture completely unsuited to his argument."
Oh, so now the argument is that he just didn't use the right scripture?
But if he had?
Than all would be well?
Bullshit.
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.
Henry said...
It's pretty bizarre that when Mr. Ross and the other high-taxpayers featured in the article (such as the reporter himself) realize how badly they're getting screwed by New York State and New York City, their response is to whine about Mitt Romney.
2/3/12 4:00 PM
It's amazing how people can be brilliant in some areas yet be politically stupid. If he had any sense he would take his accountant's advise and close up shop and move to Florida.
The passage in Luke has absolutely zero to do with paying taxes to the government. Jesus was telling a parable about being ready spiritually for Jesus' return, since the persons put in charge had been given spiritual gifts to be put to good use.
(WHO does Barack Hussein Obama think he is, anyway? Jesus said to give to God's Kingdom, not to the U.S. Government).
If Mr. Obama himself wished to follow Jesus, perhaps a better public policy would be simply to tack on the extra 15% in the form of direct charity payments. Just provide a receipt to the government. But he wouldn't do that, would he?
In God's economy in the Old Testament, everyone gave the same percentage, sometimes even the same amount such as in Exodus 30: "The rich are not to give more than a half shekel and the poor are not to give less when you make the offering to the Lord to atone for your lives."
Also, in the New Testament, the Lord looked with pleasure on the widow who gave up her "mite." She considered it her spiritual duty to give something back to God.
I don't think Barack Obama has any Biblical ground whatsoever here for demanding more taxes from the rich as punishment. I think God might consider a 30% government penalty as usurious. Jesus talks about the laborer being worthy of his hire, talks about respecting private property, and also encourages good stewardship of resources in order to further God's kingdom.
Anyway, Jesus wants the rich to give away their money only because he wants them to realize that their eternal souls and HIS kingdom is more important than temporal wealth. He said "the poor will always be with you." He didn't instruct anyone to set up a communist kingdom on earth.
...his modern day followers in the USA,...they've created perhaps the most legalistic society in history.
What is the best approximate breakdown of American Bar Association, by political affliation? Is it bipartisan?
Don't Tread 2012 said..."It is interesting; the phony 'righteous indignation' of leftists when their icon is called out for his misuse of the Gospel for political purposes."
That's only YOUR interpretation...and as you well know, there are all kinds of different interpretations of the scriptures.
Correct.
Love,
It should be clear to pretty much any sentient being that no one is objecting to the President's reference to religion (save for some wry references to the Left's fits of outrage when a conservative does so), but his clear failure to understand the scripture on which he relies.
Where was the uproar, the anger, the screaming and complaining...when George W. Bush injected religion into politics?
coming from your piehole I'd guess.
Love wrote:
Oh, and as for the "class warfare" claims...would this also be considered an effort to invoke such warfare?
“I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, 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.” Matthew 19 23 24
Uh, that was said by Jesus Christ, Mr. Love.
Believe it or not, When God says a thing it is said with a very different context and authority than when even the same thing is said by a Chicago machine politician.
Love,
"Oh, so now the argument is that he just didn't use the right scripture?
But if he had?
Than all would be well?
Bullshit."
That's lame. I never made that argument. So I guess, you're right. Your point is bullshit.
And then you've got this silly little squirrel Jay...intimating that this is somehow related to the Democrats doing what they can to create a theocracy?
A theocracy??
Your inability to recognize the incoherence spewed by your side of the political spectrum is hysterical, love.
"That's only YOUR interpretation...and as you well know, there are all kinds of different interpretations of the scriptures."
No. While you may feel fine SAYING their are many 'interpretations', all of them are wrong except for one.
Your leftist god didn't get it right. And all your caterwauling about GWB and whatever else you want to dredge up and 'interpret' through your leftists prism is bullshit no matter how you slice it.
Love said...
So all of a sudden the wingers here are completely up in arms over President Obama injecting something of a religious nature into a speech...at a prayer breakfast no less?
Um, actually, I'm wondering where the separation of church and state left wingers are?
Where did they go?
Love said...
This has to be one of the most hypocritical groups of people I have ever encounted on a blog site.
Suddenly...religion is off limits.
Only if a Republican or Conservative uses it, right?
PS Bell & Howell, you have a customer on aisle 1.
Love -- "Where was the uproar, the anger, the screaming and complaining...when George W. Bush injected religion into politics?"
It would have been coming from the left-side of the aisle, which makes BHO all the more hypocritical in suddenly using religion for more taxes.
GetReal:
Do you have a problem with minority people carrying guns? Maybe that guy should have let the clerk get shot. Would that have made you happy?
Love said...
Where was the uproar, the anger, the screaming and complaining...when George W. Bush injected religion into politics?
Um, it all came from the left.
Where are they now?
Obama's error is like Reagan misquoting Marx. People should laugh and forgive him his trespasses.
Except in The Fall™
The President's reference to the Gospel of Luke is off base.
The passage in question has nothing to do with money. It has to do with duty. Jesus tells a parable about servants (or "slaves") who are left in charge of the house while the master is away. When the master returns, he will reward those who took good care of his house and punish those who did not.
Specifically: "But if that slave . . . begins to beat the other slaves, men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful. . . . From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded." Luke 12:45-48.
The President is one to whom much has been entrusted, and thus even more will be demanded of him.
This is a passage that President Obama ought to think deeply about, but I think it's unwise for him to cite it to his constituents.
Another interpratation:
Undoubtedly someone will say that Obama quoted that verse out of context. In that section of Luke, Chapter 12, King James Version, Jesus is speaking of the punishment of those who call themselves believers and who know and understand his teaching but do not follow it. He is saying that people who do not do the right thing because they don't know any better won't receive a harsh punishment like those who knew better but did not do better.
Can this concept of equitable consequences be applied to taxation? I think so. In essence, Jesus is saying people who have more of a good thing should do more and they will be expected to have done so—the privileged are held to a higher standard. Put another way, according to the Gospel of Luke, Jesus said God judges us and determines our consequences based on a sliding scale; have more, owe more. Given his comment at the prayer breakfast, President Obama seems to know that this concept applies to him as well. And we know people hold presidents to higher standards in everything than they do other Americans. (Nordette Adams)
Love said...
Another interpratation:
Actually, that was an idiotic interpretation.
Your whole worldview is predicated on the idea that government = helping.
But you're an idiot.
PS, if Obama "seems to know that this concept applies to him as well" why do he and his wife give so little to charity?
Obama thinks he's Jesus, but with a gun.
Matthew 7:15-16
When Obama quotes scripture, I think of that old line from the Robert Young (Marcus Welby) commercial: "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on television."
@Love
You're completely missing the point. God does expect those who have more to do more. This can be in no way twisted to mean, that if you don't see fit to part with your bounty yourself, it is within the purview of the government to take it from you. My charity is between God and myself, and Obama cannot justify the blasphemy of inserting himself in that relationship.
Hypocrites, one and all.
Bush and others inject religion into their daily comments, speeches, etc. and none of you said a word.
This is just a continuation of the "we hate-Obama" movement via the party of no and their mindless followers.
And even with all of the negativity and endless complaining...
*Get used to it...because he's going to be President for another four years and nine months plus.
Love said...
And as usual, Ann's logic is illogical.
Is there ANYTHING Althouse and her cohort Meade do not complain about relating to President Obama?
ANYTHING??
2/3/12 4:02 PM
Considering just about everything he touches turns to shit is there anything not to complain about?
Love said...
cuban - "As long as I am paying one dollar more than you I am overpaying my fair share."
That's very Christian of you.
2/3/12 4:43 PM
And that's mighty Moocher-Marxist of you. As long as I have only one vote, same as you, paying a dollar more than you is overpaying.
In essence, Jesus is saying people who have more of a good thing should do more and they will be expected to have done so—the privileged are held to a higher standard.
Noblesse oblige?
Love said...
Hypocrites, one and all.
Bush and others inject religion into their daily comments, speeches, etc. and none of you said a word.
Hilarious.
You're projecting.
By the way, I bet you're one of those silly leftist who tells themselves you're for the separation of church and state.
Love why edo you hate the gays?
Love,
Put another way, according to the Gospel of Luke, Jesus said God judges us and determines our consequences based on a sliding scale; have more, owe more.
To God. Soli Deo Gloria.
Instead of the extra 15% to the USA, do you like my idea of cutting a check to the Christian charity of one's choice, and sending Uncle Sam the reciept?
chickenlittle-
What is the best approximate breakdown of American Bar Association, by political affliation? Is it bipartisan?
Of course, it leans left. So what?
My point is that, IMO, many Christians, regardless of political affiliation, fail to understand and implement Jesus' admonishment to not be legalistic. And this is not a new phenomenom.
From what I can tell, most Christians think that Jesus' anti-legalisitic thinking applies in church teachings and religious practices only. However, in Jesus day, the local religious leaders were the political authority. My reading of these events, given that Jesus was doing battle with the political authorities of the day, was that avoiding being legalistic applied to earthbound law just as much as it would to religious law, as they were one in the same in that day.
It seems to me if Christians looked at those teachings as I've described it, we would have developed a much less legalisitic culture and have a healthier body politic than we do.
My $0.02.
Even more appalling:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those years released today by his campaign.
The Obamas increased the amount they gave to charity when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a bestselling book. The $137,622 they gave over those two years amounted to more than 5 percent of their $2.6 million income
Cheer the hypocrite on Love!!!
Love: "Hypocrites, one and all."
As an atheist, "Love", I think I can spot a fellow atheist. Obama isn't a religious man.
He belonged to the Goddamn Amerikkka Church of Christ in Chicago out of political expediency. And his recent pieties are exactly what you deplore -- the soaring heights of hypocrisy.
Jay said..."...if Obama "seems to know that this concept applies to him as well" why do he and his wife give so little to charity?"
You're dumber than dirt:
The Obamas donated 14.2 percent of their income before tax deductions and exemptions to charity.
In fact, the Obamas spent a larger percentage of their income on taxes and charity in 2010 than the Romneys did in either 2010 or in 2011.
The president and his wife, Michelle Obama, on Monday reported an adjusted gross income of $1,728,096 for 2010.
The Obamas paid $453,770 in federal taxes, for an effective tax rate of just over 26 percent; the top individual tax rate is 35 percent.
The Obamas donated $245,075 — 14.2 percent of their income before tax deductions and exemptions — to 36 charities.
Pastafarian - President Obama is a Christian and you're a moronic fool.
Jay - You're using income from years ago.
You can't possibly be this stupid.
Well, then again...
Jane - "Instead of the extra 15% to the USA, do you like my idea of cutting a check to the Christian charity of one's choice, and sending Uncle Sam the reciept?"
Why does it have to be Christian?
Let me attempt to channel Instapundit:
They told me if I voted for John McCain, we would have a president cynically misquoting Scripture.
BTW, anyone else noticed that with the elections approaching Obama quit golfing and it making public demonstrations of attending church? I wonder what their internal polling is saying...
Bill, Republic of Texas said..."Love why edo you hate the gays?"
Wello, thato iso a tougho questiono to answero.
It doesn't make any sense considering the topic at hand, but I'll answer it anyway.
I'm a liberal and don't "hate" (an overused term to say the least) anybody.
I do think many here are rather hateful of our President, but everybody already knows that.
Well, I see that the usual well rounded discussion is alive and well here today.
ME debating/arguing with everybody else.
Do you people ever actually debate or disagree about anything...or do you just blindly follow the Althhouse lead?
Love: "Pastafarian - ...you're a moronic fool."
Wow, Love, you can tell a lot from a couple of lines.
And I love you too, buddy. You might want to think about changing that screen name, though, if you're going to hurl accusations of hypocrisy.
Maybe "Disdain" or "Contempt". Or "Petulant", that has a nice ring to it.
So which one of the trolls is Love? I'm having trouble keeping up.
You're wrong, Love. It's really all about ME, not you. Don't worry, though; I see people making that mistake often.
Love wrote: Bush and others inject religion into their daily comments, speeches, etc. and none of you said a word.
First, I wouldn't say "inject" --I would say "infuse" or even "throw in"..."inject" is way to clinical-sounding--like something in a vial to be dosed.
Second, it's not religion per se. Bush resonated with many because his was the same religion (or close enough). The Establishment Clause does not guarantee freedom from religion--rather freedom of religion. Obama's religion--which is closer to liberation theology--is not a popular religion.
Shit, Bob, I also thought these comments just consisted of ME and everyone else.
Nope, we're just part of everyone else. It's Love's world and we're just using up air in it.
So, Obama is in the business of selling indulgences. Well, as long as it is voluntary exploitation. I suppose that's all right.
On the other hand, where are the people who advocate for separation of cult and state? Their voices have grown faint.
Love,
I suggested a Christian charity because Mr. Obama was using the words of Jesus as a rationale.
And Jesus' Great Commission, right before he ascended into heaven, was not to instruct us to feed the Muslim poor, or to contribute to Buddhists, but to say:
"Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
Pasta, it really is a common misconception. Everywhere I go, I see and read people talking about stuff, apparently blissfully unaware that it's all about ME. Someone should research this phenomenon, but I don't have the time.
Also, since it's all about ME, I wrote all of Love's posts above. And I wrote yours as well. And I am Professor Althouse. And Meade is all the man I need, almost more than I can handle.
Well Love we all know that Christians hate the gays. You are on here supporting a politicians who is talking about getting on his knees and praying and using Bible for political purposes. Plus Obama does not believe the gays should marry.
So I ask again. Why do you hate the gays?
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).
On the issue of Obama's new theocracy that he wants to impose, and his notion about much being demanded of the wealthy who have been so "blessed" --
The word “Beatitudes,” is derived from “beati,” as used in the Latin Bible. This Latin word “beati” has been translated as “blessed,” but it also is sometimes translated as “happy.”
Hence, in the Beatitudes listed in Matthew 5:3-10, we read "Blessed are . . ." The Gospel according to Luke (6:20-26) lists certain Beatitudes as well, but it also includes various "woes," e.g. "who to you who are . . ."
Aside from the Beatitudes, in everyday usage, we might say that this person is blessed with this or because of that. And in recent days, we have heard prominent wealthy people (like Obama) suggest that, with respect to their wealth, they have been "blessed" to have so much, that their riches are a blessing. These prominent people have also gone on to suggest that because their wealth has been "given" to them, that because much has been given to them, much is demanded of them, such as paying more in taxes to the secular government. In this context of blessing and wealth having been "given" to them, the implication clearly is that it was given to them by God.
That is a rather curious theology for someone to say. (Even more curious since these very same people, while implying that wealth is a blessing that has been given to them by God, then go on to demonize the wealthy.) Indeed, this is quite the opposite of what the Lord Himself says. He does NOT say, "Blessed are the rich." To the contrary, He says, "Blessed are you who are poor" (Luke 6:20)("Blessed are the poor in spirit" in Mt. 5:3), and this is followed by the very explicit words, "woe to you who are rich" (Luke 6:24).
In other words, worldly riches are NOT a blessing or gift from God. In fact, being rich in material things often leads to one being "rich in spirit"; such worldly wealth puts one at risk, it creates the danger and temptation for the person to think that, since he has so much already, that he does not need God. To be placed in a position of believing that you do not need God is not a blessing. Rather, the truly blessed is the one who is "poor in spirit," who understands that he DOES need God, that he is dependent upon God, that only with God can he receive what is truly good.
God does ask quite a bit of those who are materially wealthy, but not because He's the one who gave them all their money and possessions. Rather, He asks this as a matter of love; He asks them, and all of us, to love one another -- to make the free and voluntary choice to make a gift of self to others. And He certainly does not demand that those individuals who are rich give over their money to an entity that is infinitely more wealthier than they are. Instead, Jesus says for the rich to give their wealth to those who are poorer, to utilize their estates in such a fashion to help the poor themselves, rather than impersonally shifting the burden of helping the poor onto government.
It is only in such personal charity, from the Latin "caritas," it is only in such personal love and gift of self that one can be converted from a "woe" to a "blessed." Jesus did not say to the tax collector, "keep up the good work Matthew," but "follow me." (Mt. 9:9) It is only in the personal act of love that one can be poor in spirit, meek, merciful, pure of heart, and a peacemaker.
Bob: "And Meade is all the man I need, almost more than I can handle."
That is a string of words that I can honestly say I could never have imagined being typed by someone with the screen name Bob Ellison.
But wait a minute -- aren't we both just faceless characters in a shadow-play in Love's mind? Don't we wink out of existence the instant Love focuses his attention on that chili cheese dog he brought home from Sonic and stops thinking about us?
I'm afraid, Bob. I'm hanging by a thread over a great gaping black chasm of nonexistence.
@Bender:
".....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..."
Yep! a close reading of the story will confirm the high deductions that he must be taking. Alarm bells should be going off at the IRS.
Ann, I wondered when/if you would pick up on this one.
Obama: Jesus would back my tax-the-rich policy
So why is it OK for Obama to invoke Jesus for pro-Communist policies, but when Dubya invoked Jesus it was EVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL? Any librul idiot care to answer that one? I have no personal stake in it since I'm an atheist, but I Hate hate hate hypocrisy.
For someone who had to always forgive tax collectors, Jesus sure seems to be put in the position of their cheerleader.
What all this proves is that the liberals were never scared of theocracy, just the right-wing version of it. Left-wing Christian theocracy is perfectly A-OK, even to liberal atheists.
Pasta, your points are good, and they shake me. Perhaps we-- even I-- are but whims of the greater existence that is Love.
Perhaps Meade will delete all of this pursuant to the no-hijacking rule.
Notice how the liberals hardly ever have a word to say about the theocracies in Iran, Saudi Arabia either.
Pasta - who are you to judge Obama's religious feeling? His is just as valid as yours.
Does Jesus still want me to pay higher taxes if Obama will use the money to kill people with drones?
BTW, anyone else noticed that with the elections approaching Obama quit golfing
For many golfers, golf is a fair weather sport. In case you haven't noticed, it's winter in the United States.
Obama is theologically illiterate - that, or he really does think he's God.
Jesus wasn't speaking about the "Citizen/Government" relationship (obviously). He wasn't talking about government, especially in his day & age - "government" didn't have welfare, unemployment insurance, aid for families with dependent children, blah blah blah. Back in Jesus' day, caring for those unable to care for themselves was the job of church & family and God was the source of "much is given."
Bender, nicely put.
"Suddenly...religion is off limits."
Of course religion isn't off limits. That seems to be the point of this thread. We can subject people's religious sentiments to criticism. Can and indeed should.
Only the most shallow thinking or intentionally misreading would see this as hypocritical.
Bender, nicely put.
Ditto. Very well said.
Christian Communism pre-Marx
There is a long and proud tradition of citing the Gospels to justify forcible communal living way before Obama uttered his drivel. Do any of you right-wing Christians want to deny it?
Alex wrote:
but when Dubya invoked Jesus it was EVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL?
I don't recall Bush ever invoking the name of Jesus to urge anyone to do anything.
Love said...
Jay - You're using income from years ago.
You can't possibly be this stupid.
Hysterical.
Um, so giving 1% of your income in "earlier years" is ok because you gave 14% later?
Hint: the dumb one is you.
I'm sure Dubya invoked Jesus in a speech.
What people are slowly realizing is Christianity is the religious basis for Communism and Obama & the liberals are simply taking ownership. Maybe this will cause more people to turn away from organized religion. Religion is anti-ethical to modern capitalism.
Love said...
You're dumber than dirt:
The Obamas donated 14.2 percent of their income before tax deductions and exemptions to charity.
Um, 14%?
I thought much was expected of rich people like Obama?
Why is he taking tax deductions, by the way?
In fact, the Obamas spent a larger percentage of their income on taxes and charity in 2010 than the Romneys did in either 2010 or in 2011.
Um, that would be a lie.
The Romneys donated about 16.4 percent of their adjusted gross income you silly little liar.
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?
Paddy O said...
For someone who had to always forgive tax collectors, Jesus sure seems to be put in the position of their cheerleader.
-------------------------
After all, Jesus did call Matthew.
Matthew's pre-Jesus career was taxes.
I'm not so sure, Alex. I'm not an expert on the topic but I don't recall any speech where Bush quoted the NT or used the name of Jesus. Even his White House Christmas cards were ecumenical or secular.
Poll: Americans See Clash Between Christianity, Capitalism
Capitalism vs Christianity? I think most Americans will choose their iPod over giving away their wealth to deadbeats.
In a free market, absent collusion, you can only make yourself better off by making other people better off.
Previous ways or organizing societies were mostly then hit the guy in the head and take his stuff. That's Obama's plan, as endorsed by Jesus.
Even Bush was smart enough to leave Jesus out of economic speeches. This is extremely dumb of Obama - it will backfire badly on him.
For those interested, Romney leads the way.
The Os only gave about half as much.
Evangelical Counsels
The Catholic Encyclopedia article ends with the following summary:
“ To sum up: it is possible to be rich, and married, and held in honour by all men, and yet keep the Commandments and to enter heaven. Christ's advice is, if we would make sure of everlasting life and desire to conform ourselves perfectly to the Divine will, that we should sell our possessions and give the proceeds to others who are in need, that we should live a life of chastity for the Gospel's sake, and, finally, should not seek honours or commands, but place ourselves under obedience. These are the Evangelical Counsels, and the things which are counselled are not set forward so much as good in themselves, as in the light of means to an end and as the surest and quickest way of obtaining everlasting life.
Here's a transcript of Bush's last National Prayer Breakfast speech:
http://catchthefire.com.au/2008/02/president-bush-delivers-his-last-white-house-prayer-breakfast-speech/
No mention of Jesus, no scripture quote.
You know why Republicans tend to not quote scripture? It's because the whole damn thing is a Communist Manifesto!
Alex: "Pasta - who are you to judge Obama's religious feeling?"
I'm saying that he professes to religion, but I suspect that he's a closet atheist. I'm not judging his beliefs; I'm judging the truth of his statements, the same way I'd call someone a damned liar if he claimed to be a devout Muslim while using a page from the Koran to mop the bacon grease from his chin.
You remember when Obama talked about those poor stupid yokels in Pennsylvania, who clung to their religion? I don't think he meant that to be a compliment to religion, since he lumped it in with guns and "antipathy to people who are different from them."
There have been other subtle clues. His father, who Obama worshiped enough to write a book about, was a hard-leftist, and an atheist. Obama's life has been one big attempt to win his way back into his deserting father's heart.
His mother who raised him was an atheist. He runs in a hard-left intellectual crowd where 95% of them are atheists; and the other 5% hope to run for public office some day.
Do you suppose that Obama really is religious, Alex? That seems uncharacteristically trusting and innocent of you.
"This has to be one of the most hypocritical groups of people I have ever encounted on a blog site."
First time on the web?
Blame the AMT and the tax code written by democrats. Carry on, nothing to see here.
Bob Ellison said,
"And Meade is all the man I need, almost more than I can handle."
That's probably true. I've heard the local media is reporting that Meade is hung like a porn star.
Pasta - I do not claim to know what is in Obama's heart. I take what he says at face value. If he is quoting the Gospel of Luke, then I assume he believes it.
In Brideshead Revisited, Lady Marchmain was certain that the bit about it being hard to enter Heaven if you were rich only applied to non-Catholics.
"After all, Jesus did call Matthew.
Matthew's pre-Jesus career was taxes."
Jesus didn't have a problem with associating with tax collectors. They were lumped in with the rest of the sinners.
That's why Jesus didn't call Matthew to keep tax collecting. There was a different mission at hand.
Hahaha from the link edutcher provided:
The Bidens, however, gave 1.4 percent of their adjusted gross income to charity in 2010.
He's been in federal government for over 30 years!
The hits just keep on coming:
Jesus and the rich young man
In the Gospel of Matthew, a rich young man asks Jesus what actions bring eternal life. First Jesus advises the man to obey the commandments. When the man responds that he already observes them, Jesus adds:
If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.[3]
This seems to be pretty unambiguous. If you want to be in heaven with Jesus, you should sell off your possessions and be a homeless person living on the alms of others.
Chip Ahoy:
The accurate statement would be: render unto Caesar that which Caesar would otherwise take by force. Its use was likely intended to maintain an ambivalent harmony between the ruling class and its subjects.
Unfortunately, people have neither learned nor accepted their proper role in society nor the limitations of reality which impose that temporal constraint. No, they have progressed so far as to dream the dream of Caesar and they instant gratification it would impart. That is a recipe for a dysfunctional society.
Anyway, the rich have to know their proper role, as do the middle class, as do the lower class in a society. All have to contribute equally in order to promote the general Welfare. That is the only way we can possibly avoid progressive corruption of individuals and society.
It would also help if people would determine a compatible compromise between the natural and enlightened (i.e. conscious) orders. It should not escape our notice that the quality of evolution is ambiguous.
If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor
But of course according to the secular left this means give to the government who will pay a bunch of bureaucrats to decide who is poor.
Giving to charity is wonderful, but it pales in comparison to the positive effects of building prosperity and wealth, where a dollar grows and spreads out of control, creating infinitely more good, from which all charity is then possible. Giving is the cream, but opportunity is the real nourishment.
bagoh - that's very nice, but show scripture that promotes building of wealth. It seems all of it is concerned with demonizing rich people.
Christian Communist vs Christan anti-Communists
Additionally, anti-communist Christians sometimes argue that private property rights are a natural extension of Imago Dei. These arguments are structured around the Genesis account of creation and Old Testament moral law. They argue that individual sovereignty prohibits any forced or coerced sharing of property. David Gernhard of Liberty Advocates argues that "By creating man in His image, God gave every person control over their own faculties, and since individuals are not superior or inferior to one another, property rights independent of others are part of the order of creation."[18] While Gernhard and others reject the idea of forced communism, their beliefs do not seem to contradict voluntary cooperation.
Christian Communists object that the modern doctrine of "private property rights" as an extension of "Imago Dei"; appears to contradict Jesus Christ; as he is on record describing temple money changers as "thieves" while taking action to chase them out of the Temple in Jerusalem, with complete disregard for the money changers "property rights" over the gold coins that Jesus spilled on the ground after he acted to overturn the tables. As described in Matthew 21:12-14:
12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, 13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. 14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.
So the bottom line is Old Testament support private property rights and Jesus doesn't.
Alex: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."
wv: smors!
Alex:
So, how do we decide who enjoys the beachfront property in Hawaii or some other paradise on Earth? There must be some qualifying statement in addition to the excerpt you posted.
In any case, it was my understand that the Judeo-Christian faiths were premised on the judgment of individual conscience, which can only be achieved through voluntary compliance. If people want a revolution, then that is certainly their choice, but they must accept full responsibility for their actions. And then we can begin the cycle anew.
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.
"bagoh - that's very nice, but show scripture that promotes building of wealth."
I'm not a Christian and don't do scripture, I only ask about it, but I think the truth is still there for people like me to see.
If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.
Alex equates selling off one's possessions with rendering unto Caesar.
bagoh - I am not a Bible scholar, but it literally took me only minutes on Wikipedia to find what I was looking for. Time to stretch those internet muscles.
"What must I do to have eternal life?"
Well, apparently there is some guy here who thinks that you get eternal life by having gobs of cold hard cash. I suppose that he thinks that you can buy your way into heaven. Or perhaps he thinks that when you have lots of money, that God will be so impressed that the gates to heaven will just swing open when the rich get up there.
What a fool. All those riches -- like we see quite plainly with America's wealth -- is meaningless. It will all one day be nothing but dust.
The key part of that exchange is Jesus saying "Follow me."
If you are following the Lord God Himself, Creator of the Universe, what the hell do you need a big bankroll for? He's all the riches you need.
Alex: in fact many of this country's greatest capitalists are (and were) its greatest philanthropists.
Obama is a secularist who believes that a speechwriter's clever reference to a Biblical passage can be useful in his justification of expropriating that which belongs to others.
BINGO!
Alex:
It seems more correct to conclude that Christ circumstantially rejected certain forms of exploitation. Among these would likely be included opportunistic exploitation.
When you recognize your individual dignity and that of others, then one must logically conclude that to preserve both, it would be necessary for individuals to exhibit mutual respect. That would necessarily reject the notion of involuntary exploitation other than for interests of general Welfare.
n.n.-
I've heard (I can't remember from whom) that to properly understand the "give unto Caesar" lesson, you must consider that Christ first pointed out that Caesar's image was on the coin. This implied that those made in God's image belonged to God.
The exegesis implied that this would have been obvious to the people Christ was speaking to (hostile pharisees).
Alex said: I am not a Bible scholar
Yeah, we already knew that. It was superfluous of you to say it. But thanks for putting it on the record.
Alex equates selling off one's possessions with rendering unto Caesar.
I respect the notion that Jesus was not for the government forcing confiscation of wealth, but that doesn't change the fact that Jesus said if you want to be in eternal heaven with him you had to give up all your wealth. So he's using fear of eternal nothingness as a lever. Not my definition of a truly loving God.
Here is the thing about taxes. We all know some are needed to support a society, but we also all know that we could use the money better ourselves after a few basics like security and defense are paid for. After that, a citizen's satisfaction with taxation is inversely proportional to their imagination and true desire to help their fellow man personally and take responsibility for it.
Alex, it is apparent that you are no Biblical scholar.
I don't see anything in scripture that says it is to be used to beat other people over the head with. Yourself? Yes. Others? No.
Terry - it's irrelevant what my academic credentials are. Now with the internet, anyone can research the Bible. I can find scripture quotes and analyze them using logic. You can either choose to engage in argumentum ad verecundiam or debate me on the merits.
I respect the notion that Jesus was not for the government forcing confiscation of wealth, but that doesn't change the fact that Jesus said if you want to be in eternal heaven with him you had to give up all your wealth.
Alex! He was having a pointed conversation with someone about many spiritual things.
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/rich-young-ruler/
Jane - I don't have to read the entire conversation to make a judgement based on that quote. Or are you saying that quote is taken so out of context that it doesn't mean what it means? Obama sure doesn't make any attempt to provide context when he quotes scripture.
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.
P.S. I don't care about what Obama said at the prayer breakfast, much--but then, truth be told, I'm ALWAYS a little bit uncomfortable with ANY and EVERY president being featured at the annual National Prayer Breakfast. I honestly wish they'd all skip it, and that the people who hold the breakfast wouldn't expect any president to attend. Just my opinion.
Alex: "I am not a Bible scholar, but it literally took me only minutes on Wikipedia to find what I was looking for."
Dude, I didn't say I can't do scripture, I said: "I don't".
Since I don't know , I'll ask: Did Jesus ever mention "copy and paste"?
Alex:
Communism describes a political structure which consolidates power and wealth in an elite class, maintained by promises of redistributive and retributive change to its supporters. It is those elite who largely, but not exclusively (even in totalitarian regimes the market rules), determine the distribution of limited resources and the status of an individual in society.
I would venture to say that the means by which that philosophy ensures an "egalitarian" society is antithetical to the concept of individual dignity. That it, in fact, challenges its preservation, and is a principal cause of progressive corruption.
I do not share your faith. However, if you disagree that it demands voluntary compliance, and that your purpose on Earth is for something other than judgment of individual conscience, then it would follow that the concept of freewill is rather archaic. That would seem to contradict the need to name things, including individual humans.
You are Christian, right? Or is your perspective of reality colored by another brush?
Alex, I am merely suggesting that you do more than look things up on the internet.
For instance, you wrote
"but that doesn't change the fact that Jesus said if you want to be in eternal heaven with him you had to give up all your wealth. So he's using fear of eternal nothingness as a lever."
The people most likely to yank biblical quotes out of context to condemn people are A) religious fundamentalists or B) atheists.
The synoptic Gospels are usually considered to be late variations on a single, earlier text. The book of John seems to have a different origin. The letters of Paul are considered to be earlier than all of the Gospels and to have actually been written by Paul (unlike the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke).
bagoh - ever heard of "changing the subject"? I am not just copy & pasting, I'm giving my sober analysis of what I believe the quotes mean.
Alex,
Any quote of the rich young ruler to justify getting to heaven by simply giving up wealth is taking it out of context, indeed!
Jesus was speaking to someone about his personal idolatry. The guy wanted to know from Jesus (he said, "hey, you good guy") what he had to do to get to Heaven.
Jesus KNEW the guy didn't have the smallest desire to follow Him. So he told him to do a bunch of stuff. Then the guy felt pretty good. Then Jesus told him the zinger - something the guy knew he could not do. For you, it might be something else.
I truly wonder about your "Christianity leads to Communism" ideas. I think they're baloney, based on the evidence that the two largest Communist experiments (The Soviet Union and China) forbade the worship of God and persecuted Christians.
Terry - one can easily take multiple quotes of Jesus out of context and weave a pro-Communist narrative. Don't act as though I were the first in history to do that. Obama obviously has a staffer who's job it is to pull Bible quotes that support his Communist agenda.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा