Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-06-2010, 11:23 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,868 posts, read 24,392,645 times
Reputation: 8672

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest View Post
Nothing wrong with respecting the establishment of a religion. That is exactly what the Constitution does.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-06-2010, 11:24 AM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,159,646 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
Thanks for being ever so predictable. You didn't even read the links to follow the money trail. Evidence is clearly there dear.
I looked at them. The first link says nothing of value, and refers to the book cited in the second link. The second link -- the book -- is famous as paid, substance-free propaganda and inspired the "sour grapes conspiracy BS" comment. These poeple with common interests all know each other -- big deal! Don't you network? The teapartyhd page about Soros and the NAACP was illiterate gibberish to me, maybe you can explain why it is significant to you. The next says he funds progressive organizations. The next seems to indicate you'd rather drug offenders be jailed than treated. The Michelle Malkin link provides her readers a shorthand image of Soros as the evil Austin powers villain -- that would usually be enough, but I looked onward to see why this was important to you out of everything you could have selected; she complains that Soros and Barack Obama encourage helping the poor through nonprofits. (I know, "conservatives" think individual charity is the way to go, except when it comes to big business.)

Still waiting to read how he's enslaving us.... why not give your real sources that generated your hate and fear of George Soros?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2010, 11:26 AM
 
Location: Columbus
4,877 posts, read 4,508,466 times
Reputation: 1450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Jesus had this to say about the rich:

Luke 18:18-30: Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. You know the commandments: "Do not commit adultery,' "Do not murder,' "Do not steal,' "Do not bear false witness,' "Honor your father and your mother."' And he said, "All these things I have kept from my youth." So when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." But when he heard this, he became very sorrowful, for he was very rich.

And when Jesus saw that he became very sorrowful, He said, "How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God! For 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." And those who heard it said, "Who then can be saved?" But He said, "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God." Then Peter said, "See, we have left all and followed You." So He said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or parents or brothers or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life." (See also Matt. 19:16-30; Mark 10:17-31.)

Some have given this as anti-rich commentary. But first of all, in analyzing this statement by Jesus it needs to be pointed out that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for any person whatsoever to enter the Kingdom of God. But Jesus also said that "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God" (verse 27). It is standard Christian doctrine that it is impossible for anyone to enter the Kingdom of God on their own--that the only way in which anyone enters the Kingdom of God is through the saving grace of Jesus Christ alone (see John 14:6). Thus, the rich are by no means unique in this particular aspect. And so also, from this alone it cannot be claimed that Jesus had it in for rich people per se more than any other group.

Second, when Jesus counseled this particular rich person to sell all that he had and distribute the proceeds to the poor, this was in fact an exceedingly libertarian thing for Jesus to advise this person. For this was not just any kind of rich person--this was a rich person of a particular type: a ruler, i.e., one who has some variety of command over an Earthly, mortal government. And thus, the riches that this particular rich person was in possession of had been obtained through extortion and theft, i.e., by the threat and force of arms and might--this particular ruler's opinion to the contrary (verse 21) not withstanding scrutiny: almost no rulers throughout history have ever regarded their wealth as having been obtained through stealing:

Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, "What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor." (St. Augustine, Book 4, Chapter 4 of The City of God.)

Thus, when Jesus offered this counsel to this particular rich person, He was merely telling this person what any good anarchist would have said in the same situation--particularly a natural-rights anarchist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2010, 11:28 AM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,159,646 times
Reputation: 6195
what's a Rothbardian?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2010, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Columbus
4,877 posts, read 4,508,466 times
Reputation: 1450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
The key words in that are "law" and "Congress".

You are talking about a state judge in Alabama. He did not make no law and Congress was not involved. Therefore, he did nothing wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2010, 11:33 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,868 posts, read 24,392,645 times
Reputation: 8672
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest View Post
Thus, when Jesus offered this counsel to this particular rich person, He was merely telling this person what any good libertarian would have said in the same situation--particularly a natural-rights libertarian such as a Rothbardian.
I'm just going to quote the last paragraph, since the rest of it is largely something I posted already.

I'm as libertarian as any rational person can be. I support a flat tax, because what is good for one, should be good for all (percentage wise). I support personal liberty and freedoms, because I feel its every adults right to do what they want with their own body, as long as it hurts no one else.

I don't like big government programs that "redistribute" wealth, hence, my support for a one percentage flat income tax on all of the population. Drop all of the corporate taxes, but prohibit them from hiding their earnings in off shore accounts, and foreign investments.

What Jesus said was simple. If you are rich, give to the poor. Help your fellow man out. If you don't do that, you can't call yourself a true follower of Jesus, and you won't get into heaven.

The link that you copied (and didn't link), leaves out many of Jesus's other teachings about wealth and poverty. He spoke about personal wealth quite often.

His ultimate teaching is that its easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter heaven.

That statement says it all, and if you are truly a follower of Jesus, you should heed those words.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2010, 11:35 AM
 
Location: Columbus
4,877 posts, read 4,508,466 times
Reputation: 1450
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne View Post
what's a Rothbardian?
Murray Rothbard. I edited it because uneducated progressives don't know who I am talking about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2010, 11:36 AM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,159,646 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest View Post
Nothing wrong with respecting the establishment of a religion. That is exactly what the Constitution does.
Where?!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2010, 11:36 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,868 posts, read 24,392,645 times
Reputation: 8672
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest View Post
The key words in that are "law" and "Congress".

You are talking about a state judge in Alabama. He did not make no law and Congress was not involved. Therefore, he did nothing wrong.
The post which I was quoted as responding to, didn't say "nothing wrong with the state respecting a religion", it said, there was nothing wrong with it period.

I am a big supporter of state rights, but I do not support federal laws being passed or influenced by religious ideology.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2010, 11:37 AM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,159,646 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest View Post
Murray Rothbard. I edited it because uneducated progressives don't know who I am talking about.
Thanks, now Im educated. I thought he sold electronics on TV. Big fan of Malcolm X, I see!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:05 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top