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.
Boy, the conservative responses to this have been weak.
Any group of people will have some law breaking scoundrels. I mean how do we know that Jesus' crowds picked up after themselves?
But, certainly he would not be fighting for a system that enriches a few, aggregated religious and economic power,etc. The early Christian church, at least in the Book of Acts seemed to be focused on equality and mission, not the gospel of Ayn Rand.
There were few in the OWS so-called "movement" that were respectful of private property, who didn't leave trash all over the place etc. These were just plain angry mobs.
But this discussion obfuscates the real reason Jesus was sent: He didn't come to be a political leader. He came to be "the perfect sacrifice" for sin. He came to save. To provide a way for man to be reconciled to God.
Neither was Jesus a socialist, as many like to claim. He did not teach "wealth redistribution" (taking what belongs to one and giving it to another). He respected private property, and the right of ownership.
Neither did he condemn wealth or the wealthy. But he taught charity; giving from a "pure heart", not in view of the public, but in secret, so that "no one may boast."
There were few in the OWS so-called "movement" that were respectful of private property, who didn't leave trash all over the place etc. These were just plain angry mobs.
But this discussion obfuscates the real reason Jesus was sent: He didn't come to be a political leader. He came to be "the perfect sacrifice" for sin. He came to save. To provide a way for man to be reconciled to God.
Neither was Jesus a socialist, as many like to claim. He did not teach "wealth redistribution" (taking what belongs to one and giving it to another). He respected private property, and the right of ownership.
Neither did he condemn wealth or the wealthy. But he taught charity; giving from a "pure heart", not in view of the public, but in secret, so that "no one may boast."
Hey man, whatever it takes to convince yourself you're following the message of Christ. Must be nice to have a religion where you can pick and choose your morality. You must be very self-satisfied. I ain't mad at cha.
Jesus wouldn't Occupy, he'd whip some wall st. ass with a cat of 9 tails just like he did to the temple money changers.
The "money changers" (they had to exchange currency for people) were disrespecting the Temple Court, which was to be a place of prayer, not a market. The Jewish leaders had allowed them into a place they shouldn't have been. That is why they were driven out.
There were few in the OWS so-called "movement" that were respectful of private property, who didn't leave trash all over the place etc. These were just plain angry mobs.
But this discussion obfuscates the real reason Jesus was sent: He didn't come to be a political leader. He came to be "the perfect sacrifice" for sin. He came to save. To provide a way for man to be reconciled to God.
Neither was Jesus a socialist, as many like to claim. He did not teach "wealth redistribution" (taking what belongs to one and giving it to another). He respected private property, and the right of ownership.
Neither did he condemn wealth or the wealthy. But he taught charity; giving from a "pure heart", not in view of the public, but in secret, so that "no one may boast."
Well, he did mention something about a rich man, a camel, and the eye of a needle. So, I think he made his views of excessive personal wealth, and the hubris and power-mongerinng that goes with it, pretty clear.
Another thing that is interesting is his view on violence. His "turn the other cheek" advice sure seems to be lost on American conservatives, with all their macho, pistol-packing attitudes.
He would have walked in --- and looked around and been patient..knowing...These guys are going to destroy themselves anyway...just have to wait...The more energy you put into complaining about "banksters"---- the more power you give them...These billionaires want to be noticed and actually feel more important when viewed as bad ass guys....They also like it when you fear them and their treachery...I say ignore them.
While this seems noble to say, ignoring the people who spend every waking moment figuring out how to fleece their fellow citizens and aggregate powerr is a big mistake. Their occult workings are what led to the housing bubble (no one knew what the hell they were cooking up with their quants on Wall Street). We need sunshine in government and in the financial sector. In fact, one of the biggest justifications for a strong government (which in theory is an arm of the people) is to balance the ever growing power of corporations and the super wealthy. Without that balance, we have the monopolies of the 19th century or the rampant corruption and relatively weak government of places like Mexico. For all their fear of government, conservatives would probably like organized crime even less. Point is, keeping tabs on the rich and making sure that all the capital does flow from the many to the few, is an essential element of a great, free country. Make no mistake about it.
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.
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.
