Obama will be the first president to increase taxes solely for the purpose of income redistribution, not for the purpose of funding the essential operations of government. That's a HUGE change.
--Neal Boortz, Oct 23, 2008
Who needs the rule of law when you have greedy incompetent government?
175 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Capital gains tax changes overwhelmingly affect the wealthy, because they own more stocks. So when you reduce them you are moving money from the poor to the rich. When you increase them the scale tips the other way. When you increase the EITC you move money from rich to poor.
Neal Boortz is wrong. Every president that proposes tax changes redistributes wealth.
We can tell the poor to eat cake, if they don't have bread, but that only helps if they have cake, right?
"We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. … The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and … a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."
John McCain's Theodore Roosevelt
Obama plans to confiscate people's 401ks?!! I haven't heard that bit of "information."
Would you mind terribly if I don't believe that slanderous claim unless you provide some data to back it up?
Under Obama:
-- Families with incomes below $250,000 would pay current capital gains rates (a maximum tax of 15% on gains on assets held more than one year). Those earning more than $250,000 would face an increase -- a top rate of 20%.
--- The top dividend tax rate would remain the current 15% for those earning less than $250,000, but would rise to 20% for those earning above that threshold.
--- For single people, the tax increases above would apply to those earning more than $200,000.
McCain has endorsed keeping President Bush’s current tax rates as they are.
How 'bout these:
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."
~Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785
"The collection of taxes... has been as yet only by duties on consumption. As these fall principally on the rich, it is a general desire to make them contribute the whole money we want, if possible. And we have a hope that they will furnish enough for the expenses of government and the interest of our whole public debt, foreign and domestic."
~Thomas Jefferson to Comte de Moustier, 1790
"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. ... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings."
~Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811
"The great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers."
~Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806
And on and on I could go. Apparently, Jefferson also thought the rich paying more taxes was patriotic.
And how many of them are McCain's heroes?
And didn't he praise ACORN just two years ago in person?
What's going on? It's not the Di Vinci code, it's the Trotsky code. Socialist have been involved at the upper levels of leadership in our country since the beginning!
And now they are going to shuffle in "That One." The black Marxist hero to 150 million Marxist-Americans, plus those collaborationists who pay their taxes!
What are seven hundred of us going to do?
This is untrue. When you reduce them, you are not moving money from anyone to someone else, but simply not taking it from the people to whom the money belongs. You act as if the money belongs to the government. It doesn't.
The idea that any tax plan is a form of wealth redistribution is a lame lib ploy to justify what they seek to do. Taxation, particularly federal taxation, is to financially support the federal government in the execution of the duties mandated by the Constitution. This is not socialism. Obama, who wants to spread the wealth around, is a socialist looking to change our system into a more socialist form. Funny thing is, nothing about that represents anything akin to "change" in how a lefty politician wants to do business.
I don't care what past presidents said about taxation. Fairness in taxation means everyone paying the same percentage of their incomes (if we're talking about income taxes). Right now, as has been said over and over ad nauseum, the top 5% pay more than half, and the bottom 30-40% pay nothing. The lefty notion of taxation is all about envy and greed.
On this point, Marshall, unfortunately you are not only disagreeing with Thomas Jefferson, but also the majority of your fellow citizens. We mostly think progressive taxation IS the fairest thing possible.
You're welcome to try to change our minds, but I think most of us will opt to stick with Jefferson on this point. Sorry.
here
here
or
here
Now, I was working off of memory and these surveys I just linked aren't exactly what I'm talking about, but they in general point to the notion that the US is okay with progressive taxation, where those who have benefited the most from our system, pay the most.
Do you think the majority of the US does NOT support progressive taxation? You'd have to show some evidence of that, I don't believe that to be true, but then, I was having trouble finding the sort of polls that I'm recalling reading.
Or is that just a childish demonization of someone with whom you disagree, a slandering of their character, rather than just trying to deal with the content of their argument?
Here in the Chgo area, to support my family alone and have some to put into savings for the future, including college for the kid I invited into the world, as well as to have just a little to plan a humble trip every year, would require an annual salary of 100K.
Well, I'd suggest that most folk around the world and in the US would think that making $250k a year is extremely wealthy. And I'd suggest they'd be right.
I'd further suggest that most folk around the world and in the US would define $100k a year as doing pretty doggone well.
I'd suggest that for most folk around the world (ie, billions of people), having a warm safe house, cars, more clothes than you need, more food than you can eat, the chance to have a vacation every year, health care, clean water, etc, etc, would be wealthy indeed. I certainly consider myself wealthy.
Where do you define wealth?
And, is there some reason we ought to accept your definition of where wealth begins as more salient than ours?
Then you have the absolute gall to insist those with more ambition be required to pay for others like yourself.
Pay for what? What have I insisted that others pay for me?
I do want people who drive to pay a responsible amount to keep the infrastructure up and running and our water and air relatively clean. But that's just being responsible. And I drive sometimes, so that's something I pay in to, as well.
I do pay taxes and my money goes to fund programs, just like your tax money goes to fund programs. I do advocate my paying more than those who make less than me, just as I advocate those who make more pay more than I do. They benefit more from the system in place, so it seems entirely reasonable that they pay more.
Again, you are free to disagree, but I think you're on the losing side of this battle - both from a democratic point of view (ie, you're in a minority on this point), but also from an ethical and Christian point of view.
My opinion, for what it's worth.
But as to having "gall" to ask those WHO MAKE MORE (not who have more ambition - not many folk have more ambition than I do - I hope to live in such a way as to live out a model capable of saving the world and that's pretty ambitious) pay for myself, that's just another slander based on fairy dust.
You can keep all the fairy dust you wish.
Even if it's free, it's overpriced. mom2
He can't take on Teddy R., McCain's hero, and no matter who revives the economy, he will benefit but cry like a punk all the way.
The links are outrageous. They point to a situation I find most disturbing. Where top half of income earners are already paying all but a tiny percentage of taxes, how could anyone justifiably say they don't pay enough? As I said, it's greed and envy, something more prevalent amongst the lower income earners.
I don't slander you at all. I speak based on your own ambiguous descriptions of yourself and your philosophies. You like to paint yourself in the most sanctimonious terms, but if you were serious about helping the world, you'd do more in the way of creating higher income in order to provide for more of your target charity cases. Instead, you pretend your efforts are making a dent. So my comment about you being a lazy bum was in reference to your attitude that "overconsuming" is to be avoided. Fine. Don't overconsume. But to purposely avoid expanding your personal wealth, while insisting those that work to do so spend more on your notions of redistribution, is quite hypocritical. If a wealthy guy paid taxes based on half the tax rate you now pay, he's still paying more in total. How dare you suggest what too much is for someone else when you pretend to be a holy pauper. You're a total fraud. The opportunities in this country are many and to avoid taking advantage due to some corrupted notion of Christianity is pathetic. You've made your choice as to how you want to live. You've got no right to put the arm on those who chosen a different route, and then suppose it's still not enough.
"Pay for what? What have I insisted that others pay for me?"
For all that you are unable to afford due to the choices you've made. You think that the wealthy benefitted more by our system. The fact is that they have worked harder and smarter by taking advantage of the same opportunities that exist for all. FOR ALL!!
You can pay more than those who make less than you. Just send a bigger freakin' check! Don't worry, the Treasury Dept will accept it. But the GALL comes in when you think you have the right to expect others to pay more. Mind your own freakin' business. The money of other people is NOT your business.
Slander my ass.
but if you were serious about helping the world, you'd do more in the way of creating higher income in order to provide for more of your target charity cases.
I fully understand this is what you think. Do you mind terribly if I have another opinion?
umm, I have not asked for anything from the gov't for myself. All that I can't afford, I do without.
So, yes, it is slander to misrepresent one's position in order to suggest they're misbehaving in ways they're not.
And the Bible condemns such behavior in Christians - especially when directed towards other Christians.
Or is that part of the Bible that you have deemed is not necessary to take literally?
Marshall is going dark with the negativity.
Sadly, there seem to be many who go dark with negativity in these trying times. I fear some of our more conservative brethren may simply implode upon themselves in spiteful anger that things aren't going their way.
I mean, after all, they have stated that THIS IS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE, so who are the rest of we, the people to disagree? The nerve of some of us.
We'd do well to keep one another in prayer.
You may not be aware that Jefferson is not talking about any kind of tax on income, since there was none at that point in American history. If anything he was talking about some kind of consumption/sales tax or a tarriff/duty on imported goods. Which is actually an approach that most conservatives would support. Nice try though.
Eyeing Your Pension
Are 401(k)s safe from congressional Democrats?
--by James Taranto
Who knows when the markets will settle? The 1929 Crash was not the final blow to the markets, they continued to crash for years. It took ten years for the dust to clear primarily because of Democrat intervention, but it was a wild ten year ride nonetheless. And a lot of people suffered needlessly.
Ghilarducci is talking about forcing everyone to cash in their 401K's and SEP/Keogh's so the government can take it and "guarantee" every "donor" a $500 monthly stipend at retirement? What's to keep Democrats from doing this very thing? The fact that people are actually TALKING about this kind of government theft is frightening. They're trying to do this very thing in Argentina.
Argentine Peronist lawmakers balk on pension bill
You say it can't happen here? You do realize that many thought the income tax could never come to America, but it did. The income tax was devised to rob an extremely small segment of the American population--EXTREMELY small. And when it was put forth to voters they were told it would never affect them. But it did. And it still does today.
Many thought prayer and bible study could never be removed from the schools? But they were.
Many never thought condoms would never be freely given to school children. But they are.
Many thought their pensions were safe at Enron. But they weren't.
Many thought their pensions today would be safe, but more than a few corporations have scrapped their pension plans.
And so on.
The theft of our personal savings can happen here as well. All it takes is a worsening financial crisis, a period of hyper-inflation, and a democrat-majority in the house and senate, and a president Obama-- who's even more of a Marxist that the lone elected socialist senator Bernie Sanders --who's more than willing to sign it into law.
Why would he do that?
Because Obama wants to spread the "wealth around." Whose wealth? How will Obama pay for his proposed trillion-plus increase in spending? By taxing ONLY the rich? Only those who make more than $250K? You can't possibly be that naive.
The top 50% of taxpayers pay 97% of ALL income taxes. 86.0% of all all federal income taxes are paid by 25% of all income earners.
Obama says he's going to give 95% of Americans a tax cut? Is that 95% of Americans? Or 95% of income earners? Careful how you answer that, because either way Barack Obama has lied to the American people. What he intends to do is raise everyone's taxes and give out free checks to people who don't even pay taxes-- something akin to the bogus "income tax credit" ...folks getting very large checks despite having paid little to nothing in.
Do you really think things can't get any worse than they are now? And knowing what we know about Barack Obama, why on earth would anyone want to vote him into the White House?
You may not be aware that Jefferson is not talking about any kind of tax on income, since there was none at that point in American history.
umm, yeah, I know. That was in what I quoted, as shown below:
The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied...
Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property
So, yes, they did not have income tax, I didn't say there was.
The point was that Jefferson was desirous that the wealthy bear the brunt of taxation to fund governmental programs - "canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone."
The point was that if Obama were to say that, he'd be crucified as a communist who wants to make a utopia by stealing from the rich.
Am I wrong? If Obama said that quote above, would you all NOT say just as I suggest? Obama's not even saying as much as Jefferson did and you're calling him a socialist, so certainly the more extreme quote would be thusly demonized.
Complaint: PHILIP J. BERG v. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
If he is not an American citizen, he cannot hold the office of President. If he is not a legal resident of the United States of America, then he is an illegal immigrant and disqualified from holding the office of Senator of Illinois.
Barack has a lot of questions to answer. And the MSM have no interest in insisting he answer anything at all.
Eleven days out and we STILL do not know all we need to know about Barack Hussein Obama.
The Obama October Surprise
Must viewing, people.
AAAAGGGH.
C'mon Eric, get serious.
ACORN...
Freddie-Fanniegate...
His lack of experience...
His dishonesty...
His naivete...
The fact that he will proudly and earnestly weaken the U.S. Military, redistribute wealth in a decidedly un-American way, the fact that he mounted a campaign to deny medical care to little tiny babies which through some miracle of God Almighty survived a brutal murder attempt by thier own mothers and a physician, the fact that he spent twenty years under the tutilage of a radical racist minister, the fact that his political career was launched in the living room of an admitted and unrepentant domestic terrorist and murderer, the outrageous and un-American opinions and statements of his wife...
Are these things not enough to keep Obama out of the White House?
Do we now have to depend on some activist Judge to deny him the office after the fact based on some discrepancy regarding his citizenship?
I do not believe that a majority of Americans will actually vote for the man, no matter HOW articulate and clean he is.
I don't believe that his birth certificate is an issue.
He is an enemy of America, and it is rapidly coming to light, while he thinks he has a "righteous wind" at his back.
I think it's smoke being blown up his skirt by his psycophantic worshipers.
I think that there are alot of people who's voices have not yet been heard.
November is coming.
You'll still be welcome here, though, when Obama wins. I hope you'll continue to support and pray for your leaders.
You've got mail.
I'm intrigued...
Brotherman, I've been praying for our presidents - whom I've mostly disagreed with - all of my adult life. Should McCain somehow pull a legitimate win out of this, I will support and pray for him as I have our other presidents.
And when he misbehaves or advocates bad policy, I'll pray for change and oppose it. Until he does so, I will support him, of course. McCain's not the enemy, just a fellow citizen with whom I disagree about much.
I sorta don't think he'd be as bad a president as he has been as a candidate, I think he has some integrity and honor - or at least had some at some point - and will try to work to lead our country through these troubled times.
As is true for Obama, the more likely next president, whom I will support and pray for - and oppose if and when he misbehaves and/or advocates bad policy.
I assume from your response that you would agree with getting rid of the income tax and moving to some kind of consumption tax. I doubt you'd get much arguement. If you want to tax people on what they consume (as per your Jefferson quote), I'm all for that. The problem is you're trying to use praise of a consumpption tax to support an income tax.
So are we in agreement, then?
I also agree with Jefferson in thinking that folk below a certain level ought not pay anything.
Do you agree with Jefferson in thinking we ought to have a progressive tax system where the poorest pay nothing in taxes and the wealthiest pay the most?
I'm not opposed to a consumption tax as long as it meets those criteria. As Jefferson suggested in his wisdom long ago.
Perhaps Obama's trip to Hawaii is really about acquiring a "real" or "forged" birth certificate.
Obama really doesn't, but he wants gullible people like Dan to think he does.
Come on Dan, you know there are many wealthy people who are wonderful altruistic people and poor people that are greedy little slimeballs, and vice versa.
People are people. Take everything away from everybody, and then give everybody an equal amount of money and property, and within a year, there would again be wealthy people and poor people. Government cannot change human nature, no matter how noble the intent.
A Government that tries to force everyone to be equal in anything, especially finances, is a Socialist government.
Dan, you and your cohorts, Feodor, and Bent, etc. seem like reasonably intelligent people. Why is it you can't understand that you can't legislate equality?
Helping the poor should always be voluntary. Not govermentally mandated. Provide for the general welfare, yes. But help should be in the form of a hand up, not a hand out, and shouldn't be forcibly taken from those greedy selfish bastards who simply don't want to help people. This is supposed to be America, where each of us is free to pursue our own source of happiness, and if some people out there just don't want to help poor people, unfortunately, that is their right.
Look no further than your own hero, Barack Hussein Obama. I may be off a percentage point or two, but he gave less than 3% of his earnings to charities. He doesn't have to give and he doesn't. Whatever we as individual generous altruistic Americans think of his selfishness, in America, he is still free to make that choice. Like it or not.
This is the point, Dan:
No one, not even the President of the United States of America, has the right to take anyone's money, or property, or anything else, and simply hand it over to anyone else, poor, oppressed, downtrodden, or whatever. That is Socialism, any way you slice it.
I don't know how much clearer I can make that point.
Consider small business, A restaurant what employs a cook, two waitress and operates out of a building will have to make 250K+ per year to stay afloat (remember gross income is taxed, income before salaries, supplies, rent, equipment upkeep etc). Now consider the fact that right now 95% of all small business fail in the first five years. What percent will fail once their tax burden is raised significantly. What we will see is a growth spurt in large chain stores that can afford to pass the extra expense to its customers and employees.
Besides that I have yet to see anyone raise the point that Obama plans to get industry (jobs) back into America by raising taxes on the corporations that own the factories.
But then again this won't affect the middle class right?
Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.
That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.
Over the entire 60-year period, income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus accounting for the widening income gaps over all.
Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.
Now on to your armchair denials from your daybed minds...
Come on Dan, you know there are many wealthy people who are wonderful altruistic people and poor people that are greedy little slimeballs, and vice versa...
No one, not even the President of the United States of America, has the right to take anyone's money...
I have really no idea whatsoever what Mark is talking about.
1. I do not have class envy. I am striving to be downwardly mobile and simplifying my life. I have no desire for the trappings of wealth. I simply don't. I have never said anything to suggest otherwise. Mark is just wrong here.
2. Of course there are "good" wealthy people and "bad" poor people. Never said anything to suggest otherwise. Again, this comment seems to be out of the blue, perhaps based on what Mark is "hearing" me say, even though I haven't said it. No idea what you're talking about, Mark.
3. Of course the president doesn't have the right to take people's money or property. I have not advocated that nor has anyone here, so once again, I have no idea what this is written in response to. It seems a bit out of the blue perhaps based upon what Mark THINKS I'm saying even though I'm not saying it.
4. What I have said or agreed with is that I agree that in a Republic such as ours, we need to gather money to pay for programs that benefit the commonwealth. We the People have chosen to do this through taxation. It is not "stealing" nor Marxism to agree to taxation, it's how we operate.
5. I have agreed with Jefferson in that we ought to have a progressive tax system. Are you saying, Mark, that you disagree with Jefferson and most people that we ought not have progressive taxation? You're free to think that, but I think you're in the minority on that point (and in disagreement with Jefferson) and I don't think you're going to get people to agree with you, but you can try.
1. We could perhaps agree on some kind of consumption tax, although it sounds like you want "progressive" tax rates for your consumption tax. If you would be content with the fact that those who consume more (regardless of income) will pay more taxes, then we are in agreement. The potential problem, from your perspective, is that those low income folks who spend beyond their income will be "disproportionaley" taxed. The best thing about this kind of tax is, in essesence, you can choose how much tax you will pay.
You might agree that presidents can not "take people's money or property", the problem is I don't think BHO agrees with you.
While, you are technically correct that taxation is how we operate. The problems are raised when we are taxed to pay for things that are not eneumerated in the constitution for the federal government. The other problem I see is that we have a de facto system where people can vote themselves money from the public purse.
Finally, Dan, you're not in agreement with Jefferson if you continue trying to apply his views on taxation (tarriffs/consumption tax) to our income based tax system.
If you want to be "downwardly mobile", and have no desire for the trappings of wealth, then that's all fine and good.
You have every right to stay in your own space, and live your own life however you please.
But when you decide that this is the way the whole country should live, and you set out to try to force everyone else to live that way, then you are overstepping your bounds both as a citizen of a "free" country, and as a human being.
And it makes no difference whether you do this out of some sense of righteousness because "the Bible tells you so", or because of hatred and jealousy over the success and material possessions of others who might have achieved more than you.
Punishing the rich does nothing to help the poor, or the middle class.
Live below your means, by all means. It is an admirable personal goal.
But when it comes to your opinion on how anyone else should live, mind your own business.
You're incredibly goofy. The rich are already paying the lion's share of taxes. The way I understand it, there are more people NOT paying income taxes since Bush's tax cuts. This was done to prevent accusations of hurting the less fortunate.
And again, you just stated that you are seeking to be "downwardly mobile" and live a simpler life. Again, that's just peachy. Yet, you insist that others give more of what they have worked for. How dare you. For whatever reason, you avoid wealth and still insist that those who seek a better life spend more on that for which YOU REFUSE to pay. You demand that others care for the poor while you do nothing to provide for them yourself. You're pathetic and a fraud.
The Constitution has provided the framework only for who we are as a society. We stay in the framework to the extent that our political life interprets that framework. And our political life is largely determined by the majority.
Tugboat and Craig think they are arguing for a return to an edenic founding state. But your argument is a nostalgic wish built on myth and you argument is not with idealistic dreamers like Dan and myself.
You are arguing with the history and currency of majoritarian rule which, known or unknown, has long supported leaders who believe progressive taxes are the least evil in forming healthy societies.
Going dark with negativity? First off, I'm shedding light on the situation. There's nothing negative about pointing out the flaws of liberal thinking. And what could be more negative than the liberal description of our country? Get real.
As to your census figures, there's obviously a lot of detail missing that could explain the results you point out. Income inequality is not a result of government activity as much as the result of personal choice. It's easy to blame others for one's misfortunes, but too many in this country do NOT act in a manner that will best provide for their financial security. However, suckers and lazy people will drink heavily from the fountain of liberal KoolAid rather than face their own shortcomings.
How many times has he referenced Jesus' remark , "It's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven"?
And, how many times has it been pointed out to him that having money itself is not evil, but putting money before God that's evil.
He pretends he doesn't get that.
Give it up, Dan. You can't get away with saying you don't envy the rich. Your many previous comments prove the opposite. Don't make me go searching blogs to prove you wrong. I haven't the time.
Just admit the truth.
Yes, you are right. When someone decides that THEY get to decide and force others how to live, they are overstepping their bounds. Unfortunately for your point, that is not me. I have not decided how others should live nor forced them to live more simply.
Do you all have trouble understanding simple words? I have not said ANY of the things that you all are reading into my comments. I'm opposed to the sort of totalitarian, dictatorial behavior you're describing. I've not advocated it anywhere.
What I have done, rather, is quote folk like Jefferson or Jesus (as Mark notes) and let their words speak for themselves.
Jesus DID (does) say, "Woe to you who are rich!" and, "It is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." If you have a problem with that, take it up with Jesus, not me.
Jefferson DID advocate a progressive taxation system where the wealthy pay the bulk of gov't moneys. If you have a problem with that, take it up with him, not me.
Fellas, God bless you - we're ALL concerned about and opposed to totalitarianism, we're on the same side there. We're ALL opposed to envy, we're on the same side there.
But please, quit assuming that you all can reinterpret my words (or Jefferson's or Jesus') to mean something we didn't say. You have repeatedly demonstrated a nearly complete inability to understand what I'm writing. If you have a problem with something I've said, quote what I've said and respond to what I've ACTUALLY said.
Conversation need not be this difficult fellas.
Give it up, Dan. You can't get away with saying you don't envy the rich. Your many previous comments prove the opposite. Don't make me go searching blogs to prove you wrong. I haven't the time.
Mark, you don't have the ability to "prove" something that has never happened.
You agree with Obama and that is exactly his intent. Or don't you understand the phrase, "I think speading the wealth around is good for everybody"?
By prending to disagree with me, you actually agreed with me, to wit:
I said Government should provide for the general welfare as the Constitution mandates. You glossed over that point in your haste to be disagreeable.
The point is, Obama, with his Socialist aganda, wants to take money and use it for programs and expenditures that aren't provided for by the Constitution. That, Dan, in case you forgot, is the point of Eric's post.
By agreeing with and supporting Obama and his Socialist agenda, you and all you other Libtards give tacit approval to Socialism.
It is stealing when the government is taking money to pay for things not mandated by the Constitution, specifically for the purpose of "spreading the wealth" around. There is nothing in the Constuitution that provides for leveling the playing field by taking from the rich and giving to the poor. It calls for taxation to finance the armed forces, among other things, which I know you and Obama don't want to do, but it doesn't in any way give permnission to anyone, not the President, not Congress, not the Courts, not anyone, to take money from the wealthy and turn around and hand it to the poor.
It aint in the Constitution, Dan, and the Constitution, whether you like it or not, is the primary law of the land.
Your obvious class envy clouds your judgment when it comes to taxation and Obama.
Damn, you're dense! How many times do we have to explain to you, being rich doesn't make a man evil! Geeeez, Dan! It's when a man makes the love of money his God! Why is this so hard for you to understand? Do you actually believe a wealthy man can't get into heaven regardless of the staus of his immortal soul? That's what you infer from those verses.
And if that's not what you infer, stop using it to bolster your argument that money should be taken from the rich and handed to the poor so everyone can be equal. It doesn't apply.
I think you are the one who needs to take it up with Jesus. The rest of us understand the passages.
a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report
We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; when we are slandered, we answer kindly. Up to this moment we have become the scum of the earth, the refuse of the world.
I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children.
1 Corinthians 4
Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6
Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.
Ephesians 4
But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.
Colossians 3
Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.
Titus 3
Words to the wise.
Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
How many times have you stated homosexuality is normal and natural?
You are being a stumbling block, which God abhors as well.
You're a fraud, Dan. Give it up.
You most certainly HAVE decided how others should live, and you attempt to force changes in the behavior and lifestyles of others through the political candidates you support, and the agenda that you push, ad nauseum, everywhere you show up.
And thanks for the sermon.
I have a Bible too, I just choose to read it for what it actually says, and not for what I can twist it up and MAKE it say, same as my copy of the Constitution.
And it would be nice if you could grow up a little bit when it comes to this whole slander/false witness kick you resort to whenever you can't refute the claims of whomever you are arguing with.
You remind me of a cousin of mine who, when caught trying to steal a candy bar out of my suitcase at Grandma's house when we were both little children, rolled his lips out and said "You're 'possed to share!"
Stop it.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Pointing out the reality that someone is slandering/misrepresenting another is not something one "resorts" to in a discussion.
Rather, when someone says, "YOU ADVOCATE KICKING PUPPIES??!! How sick!" and then someone says, "Umm, I never advocated kicking puppies. That is not my position."
And then when the first person keeps insisting that the second person is a horrible person because of his habits of kicking puppies and stealing babies and what not, and the second person points out that those are lies, that is an attempt to straighten the record so that an actual conversation can take place and a normal relationship be had, rather than a constant barrage of lies and slander.
If the lies and slander just continue with no acknowledgment of facts in the real world, then it just demonstrates that the first person is unbalanced, or ill, or just an imbecile and it just becomes difficult to have a meaningful conversation or relationship with such a person.
I'm sorry that you all resent it when I point out that you're misrepresenting my position, but what would you have me do? Say, "Yes, you must be right. I didn't THINK I believed all of those horrible things, but if you say I do, then that must be true, because surely Tug and Mark et al must know my beliefs better than I do."
Tug, you and Mark are not gods. You are not omniscient and you have demonstrated a profound lack of comprehension. I'm sorry that this is the case, but it is.
On second thought, no don't.
Y'all really know how to start a week off.
Above all, let your love for one another be intense, because love covers a multitude of sins...
...Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, heartfelt compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, bearing with one another and forgiving one another, if one has a grievance against another; as the Lord has forgiven you, so must you also do.
And over all these put on love, that is, the bond of perfection...
This is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another...
We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers and sisters. Anyone who does not love remains in death...
Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart...
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres...
Can I get an "Amen!"?
Lazarus, brother to Mary and Martha, was not poor. He had enough money that Mary could afford to waste (as Judas put it) a 100 pence jar of sweet smelling ointment on Jesus' feet.
Lazarus had money. Jesus loved Lazarus. Ergo, Jesus didn't have a problem with the man being "rich."
It's the heart of the rich man that keeps him out of heaven, NOT the monies of the rich man.
In Luke 19, Zacchaeus gained salvation. Not because he gave everything away, but because he dealt justly toward those he had once cheated. Jesus approved of him.
Jesus said it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. He didn't say it was impossible. And I dare say he would not have looked kindly on the Pharisees taxing only the rich to give it away to the poor. Theft is theft, no matter who does the stealing.
What you have actually done is take Jeffersons quotes out of context.
Feodor,
I am not argueing for a "return to an edenic founding state". I am "argueing" that Dan should stop trying to apply Jefferson's quotes to a tax system that didn't exist when Jefferson spoke. I am also argueing for government to return to those activies that are constitutionally mandated. That's it.
Perhaps Obama's trip to Hawaii is really about acquiring a "real" or "forged" birth certificate."
I didn't know how best to answer his charge until I found this post on Funny or Die.
Did you know?
* Obama has never publicly stated that he is not a flesh vehicle for a team of tiny aliens
* Obama has fallen asleep to the history channel, What secret Hitler dream messages now rule his subconscious?
* Obama routinely hibernates from July 3rd to July 5th.
* Obama refuses to talk about any instances in which he accidentally defecated in his pants. Are we to believe a human can go their entire lives without an urgent fecal mistake? America deserves the truth.
* Obama does not know how to drive a monster truck.
* Ask your self this, has Obama ever shaken your hand, looked you directly in the eye, and told you he's not a Muslim? Why not? Is he scared you'll know he's lying. If he's done this once, why hasn't he done it twice?
* Obama hasn't taken the time to write any patriotic songs. Obama has written zero patriotic songs. Zero. No ditties either.
* Obama's teeth, being made of enamel, or capable of crushing the windpipe of a smiling child. Yet, he chooses to keep them.
* Obama wouldn't laugh at the jokes you like. They'd make him uncomfortable.
* Obama has never bought Ronald Reagan a drink.
What you have actually done is take Jeffersons quotes out of context.
Okay Craig, then what you would have to do is demonstrate that Jefferson did not mean to say that he favored a progressive taxation system - one in which the wealthiest paid most or even all the taxes ("the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone").
HOW is what I've said out of context? You make the charge, but you back it up with no proof.
And before you repeat the asinine comment that "Jefferson was not talking about an income tax," (that you've made here and on my blog repeatedly) let me save you the trouble - I KNOW THAT JEFFERSON WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT AN INCOME TAX. That is not a point in question.
What I am saying - if you will read the words that I have written - is that Jefferson's quotes clearly demonstrate that he favored a progressive tax system - one in which most (or all??!!) of our tax dollars came from the wealthy.
It's the heart of the rich man that keeps him out of heaven, NOT the monies of the rich man.
Okay. I did not say otherwise. Y'all are arguing against arguments that I have not made. What I did, rather, was to quote Jesus. Period. I quoted Jefferson. Period.
I then went on to suggest with Jefferson's quotes that they indicate that he supported a progressive taxation system.
With Jesus' comments, all I did was quote them without adding commentary beyond, "If you have problems with what Jesus said, you'll have to take it up with him."
I did not say, nor do I believe that the rich man's moneys will keep him out of heaven. I have not stated that. If that's all you all want to argue, then we can stop now, for we all agree.
Of course, we all agree unless Mark wants to correct me and tell me that I actually disagree, even though I am saying I agree and I think I agree. But Mark knows best, so he can make that call.
By the eway, Dan, we are not stupid here. When you quote Jesus to enforce your point you are implying you bel,ieve Jesus was condemning rich people.
But the ointment with which Mary bathes Jesus' feet becomes an issue where Jesus points out that Judas, or in Mark a lot of other disciples, are hypocrites in their concern for the poor. Mary does something extravagant and the disciples say, "hey, that could have been sold and the money given to the poor!" Maybe they are brown-nosing or maybe Judas resents Jesus.
Jesus says, "you have the poor among you always, and you can help them whenever you like; but you will not always have me."
Part of his point is the hypocrisy of not helping the poor until they see something extravagant done to someone else. The poor are all around but where is their concern?
So... Eric makes a point that isn't in the text and missed the one that is.
My point was that Lazarus was not poor. The text shows he wasn't. I didn't allude to the other because it wasn't relevant to the point I WAS making.
The point is your point is not a Biblical one but you want Biblical backing for yours, which you do not have.
Perhaps you would like to read the other mention of a "Lazarus" in the NT. Only time Jesus gave a name to a character in one of his parables.
Pardon me, I misspoke(typed). What you are doing is trying to apply Jefferson's comments about a consumption/tarriff based tax system to an inclome based system. Your comment assumes that jefferson was only concerned with the progressivity of the system, not the type of system, yet you offer no proof. I don't know (and neither do you) what Jefferson would make of our current system. We can make the reasonable conclusion that Jefferson thought that those who consumed the most (in his day the "rich") should pay the tab based on that. I do find it interesting, based on what I have read about Jefferson, that he would ascribe the greatness of America only to the rich. Beyond that why bring it up. You have yet to demonstrate that your quotes have any relevance to our curent system. You are arguing in favor of a system that is in place for the forseeable future. If the point of this post was to do away with the current progressive income tax system, your quotes might make sense. The point is to draw attention to the fact that BHO wants to increase taxes on the "rich" (If he could only define rich. Top 5%, 250,000 plus, 200,000 plus, 153,000 plus), in order to give tax "cuts" to those who pay little or no taxes.
Does this mean we're married now?
What does this latest round of preaching have to do with what we were talking about, Dan?
No, Dan...
What we have demonstrated is a profound unwillingness to buy into your [bovine excrement].
You really are a piece of work.
Dan, in all of your studying up on the Bible, have you ever found a passage in which Jesus helped any poor person with resources taken from an unwilling donor?
Have you ever found a passage in which Jesus fed the same person twice in a row?
Can you find for me a passage in which Jesus helped anyone without ministering to their soul as well?
If you can provide references for these situations , Chapter and Verse, I would appreciate it if you could share them with us.
It would really help to make your case for Government Charity at Taxpayer expense in the name of Jesus.
Thanks!
And don't demand proof that you have. You know you have, and I know you have.
And don't claim that I didn't understand what you said, and don't say that I have misrepresented your point, and don't say that I can't understand you. I didn't, and I haven't, and I can, and do.
Just answer the question.
in all of your studying up on the Bible, have you ever found a passage in which Jesus helped any poor person with resources taken from an unwilling donor?
heavens, no. Jesus would not do that. Nor would I. What's your point?
Have you ever found a passage in which Jesus fed the same person twice in a row?
We don't have that information. It's entirely possible. The early church certainly did.
There's not any teaching in the Bible to suggest we shouldn't. Are you suggesting that it's wrong to feed a hungry person twice?
Can you find for me a passage in which Jesus helped anyone without ministering to their soul as well?
I'd suggest "ministering to" someone IS feeding their soul.
Again, what's your point?
I have not advocated this. I simply have not advocated this. This would be an incorrect summary of my position.
I would be OPPOSED to this, probably - I'd certainly be wary of the gov't doing ANYTHING specifically in the name of Christ. Too many in the gov't who might want to wage wars in the name of Christ or otherwise misrepresent the cause of Christ.
Do I make myself clear? Can you understand the words that are coming out of my typewriter. I am opposed to gov't taking actions in the name of Christ.
What I HAVE said that it is the same thing that you all believe: That taxation is not stealing. That taxation for legitimate and reasonable purposes is legal and a reasonable thing to do.
We all believe this generally. You all may disagree with a specific program that I may support (and vice versa), but that does not make the general rule untrue.
Or, are you arguing for doing away with all taxation because all taxation is wrong?
I don't think so.
The reason I cite Jesus the Christ is because I am a CHRISTian and I believe that we ought heed the words of Jesus.
Do you have a problem with that?
No Dan, it's your outrageous interpretations of His words with which most have a problem.
heavens, no. Jesus would not do that. Nor would I."
You do it every time you support progressive taxation. You do it by supporting the worst excuse for a presidential candidate this nation has ever seen who promotes a socialist style agenda.
Oh yes he does.
"Can you understand the words that are coming out of my typewriter."
Points for Rush Hour reference.
"What I HAVE said that it is the same thing that you all believe: That taxation is not stealing."
Way to misdirect, but it is NOT what you have been saying, nor what we have been arguing against, which is that progressive taxation is unfair and unjust. That you believe, as one who defiantly refuses to expand your own wealth, it is right and proper to demand more from those who have worked to expand their own wealth.
"Where do you define wealth?"
I offer this:
Wealth is time. How far can one live without working and still pay the bills. Money, or rather it's constant flow to my accounts, provides me time. Or, having enough in the coffers that allows me the freedom to live as I choose without the need to answer to anyone else. As an employee, I'm only wealthy enough to exist for about two years before I need to find another job. Not good enough. Another view, is that wealth means having enough money, or the constant incoming flow of it, to weather any catastrophic injury or illness without the economic assistance of anyone else.
but it is NOT what you have been saying, nor what we have been arguing against, which is that progressive taxation is unfair and unjust.
Actually, some have been arguing just that. for instance, Eric said:
And I dare say he would not have looked kindly on the Pharisees taxing only the rich to give it away to the poor. Theft is theft, no matter who does the stealing.
So, then, perhaps we can agree:
1. Taxation is not stealing. Taxation may be excessive or about right, justified or unjustified, but it is not stealing.
Or at least, apparently Marshall and I can agree upon that point. I'd hesitate to speak for anyone else here.
2. Moving from that point of agreement, Marshall, you disagree with Jefferson and myself, it would appear. You are saying that you are opposed to a progressive tax? That is, you don't think those who have more ought to pay more into the system? That the family that makes $20,000 a year ought to pay 10% (for instance) or $2,000 of their $20k, and the family that makes $20,000,000 a year also ought to pay 10%, or $200,000?
Well, you are free to think that. I believe studies show that most people are supportive of a more progressive taxation system. Jefferson certainly favored a progressive taxation system. As do I. You'd have to convince a majority of we the people to disagree with Jefferson to change away from progressive taxation.
For many of us, it's a moral issue (as well as being a practical issue). We learned from our Sunday School teachers that to those whom much has been given, much is expected.
It is a matter of propriety and fairness. We believe that a progressive taxation scheme (which WILL be flawed - all tax schemes are) to be a more just, ethical, moral system. But you are free to try to change our minds.
Good luck with that.
I'd suggest that some are confusing "equality" with "fairness."
In looking at taxation, it would be FULLY equal if everyone paid the same amount. Let's say that the gov't said, "EVERYONE MUST PAY $10,000. THAT WILL BE EQUAL!"
And it would be. If the guy that makes $1 million a year and the gal that makes $10,000 a year both paid $10,000, they would be paying an equal amount. If FULL equality was our goal, that would be the solution.
However, we can all see, I'd hope, that such a system would be patently unfair. It may be equal, but full equality ought not always be our goal, rather, fairness and justice should be our goal.
Similarly, expecting the $10k and $100k households to pay an EQUAL percentage is STILL unfair, even though it is a bit more equal (not as equal as a flat amount, but more equal). But most people can see that, for a household making $10k, to lose $1000/year is a MUCH bigger hit than for the $100k household to lose $10,000 a year.
Equality ought not necessarily be our goal. Justice and fairness should be. What is a just amount for folk to pay?
Thank God for our Judeo-Christian values, I'd suggest that most people recognize the difference and avoid the tyranny of FULL equality when it comes to paying taxes.
"I have not advocated this. I simply have not advocated this."
But you advocate the election of a man who does. And yes, you have advocated such, both here and on your own blog. And because none of us who disagree with you-- excepting Bubba --desires to waste time digging for the evidence, you get to hide behind the assurance that you "have not, simply have not." To say nothing of strawman arguments... like this most recent one.
"And it would be. If the guy that makes $1 million a year and the gal that makes $10,000 a year both paid $10,000, they would be paying an equal amount. If FULL equality was our goal, that would be the solution."
NO ONE advocates this, and you know it. What we would all advocate is equal percentage... everyone pays 10 percent. The man who makes a million dollars a year pays $100,000 in taxes. The man who makes $10,000 a year pays only $1,000. That's fair.
But you disingenuously build up a false argument just so you can tear it down. Great job.
Your point 2 is describing a flat, not progressive, tax. I favor that.
It is not unfair to ask EVERYONE to pay the same tax rate. It is unfair to excuse anyone. This is the reality of the situation. Whether you think it unkind to tax a person only earning 10K is another thing.
But as we can see with what has been presented over and over and over again ad nauseum, the wealthy few already pay more than anyone else, accounting for the extreme bulk of taxes paid. Enough is enough. And again I say that for you, Dan Trabue, to support such increases or progressive taxation at all, after insisting on living a "downwardly mobile" life of non-wealth creation, is hypocritical on a level not typical for even most wealthy hating libs.
Back to fairness, a regressive tax would be more fair than a progressive tax, since at half the tax rate a wealthy man still pays more in total to a poorer man.
And if you want to talk about justice in taxation, one must also include recognizing why a given individual is on the lower end of the wage scale. How many are there through their own laziness as opposed to those there by circumstance beyond their control? Is it just for them to be excused from taxation? That would not be just. The only way we can cover the most bases from the perspective of "justice" is by a flat tax that all must pay regardless of income level. That is the starting point. How we excuse anyone from that starting point forward is another discussion.
On that point, we do agree, right?
But you advocate the election of a man who does. And yes, you have advocated such, both here and on your own blog.
No, no, no. I advocate the election of a man who believes that it makes fiscal and moral sense to advocate programs that assist the needy. Obama is NOT saying (anywhere that I have seen quoted - feel free to show me otherwise) that we should tax the wealthy to provide money for programs for the needy in the name of Jesus.
I have not, nor has Obama, as far as I know. That is not true and I'm telling you, at least on my part, that it is not true.
I HAVE said (and perhaps Obama has, too, I don't know) that there's nothing wrong with Christians (or Jews or Muslims or Atheists) who believe in assisting the poor as a moral and/or fiscally responsible good to vote for a candidate who'd implement such a program. There's a difference between that and suggesting that the gov't ought to do so in the name of Jesus.
It is wrong to put words in my mouth, Eric, and I have not said that. To repeat a lie and then say, "Well, I can't prove it, but we all know it's true," is still to repeat a lie.
I am amazed that you all can condemn those of us who disagree with your interpretation of the Bible by saying, "But the Bible lists 'homosexual offenders' as among those who sin!!" but fail to understand or care that the very next lines includes those who slander and lie.
You say your love of God's Word compels you to argue against "homosexual offenders" -whatever that means - but then you undermine the word of God when you embrace slander and falsehoods.
Eric, I'll go you one further:
A percentage of each adult citizen's net worth. That would eliminate the tax shelters and loopholes that so many of our nation's wealthiest hide behind, including many Democrats.
Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, and John Kerry, etc. immediately come to mind.
See, these Democrat Senators don't mind setting a ridicuously high tax rate, because, due to their tax shelters and loopholes, they don't have to pay taxes themselves. But, if you eliminate the loopholes, they would be the ones shouting loudest and most continually for a (truly) fair tax.
To balance out the potential imbalance of "usually," is the intended function of tax reduction claims.
Closing loopholes is on the list of both McCain and Obama, but the political will is stymied by lobbying interests: K Street. Like, you know, Abramoff, Reed, Norquist, et al. And Democratic ones, too, for sure. They are just not as famous for some reason (i.e. felony).
The Republicans who advocate a "flat tax" use it as a ruse as they know it's going nowhere which is exactl what their contributors want it to do.
The reason I cite Jesus the Christ is because I am a CHRISTian and I believe that we ought heed the words of Jesus.
Do you have a problem with that?
Of course I don't, and you continue to prove to be a passive-aggressive little twirp by suggesting otherwise.
Your answer doesn't actually explain the point you were trying to make in quoting Christ.
I am now, in the middle of this discussion, invoking Matthew 7:6.
"Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you."
It is true that I am a Christian.
It is also true that I believe we ought to heed Jesus' words.
But neither of those really get to the point that I am trying to make by citing that particular passage at this particular time.
The point I'm making invoking that passage is that you are increasingly like the proverbial swine in this passage: it is not only useless to engage in any sort of dialogue with you at length, it is positively counter-productive. You're not responsive to any calls to be more honest and straight-forward about your beliefs, and we don't benefit from talking to you; instead, we become provoked to anger and irritation at your constant refusal to argue in good faith.
If I didn't explain why I'm now citing Mt 7:6, and you asked, and if I responded in the same evasive manner in which you have displayed, I would be guilty of dishonesty -- an act of omission, omitting what I know to be true and what any reasonable adult knows is being elicited.
The entire point of communication is to reveal to others what you experience, what you know, what you believe, and what you think: it is to reveal, not to conceal.
But you play games with language, writing some of what may be technically true in order to avoid admitting those details you'd rather hide, or digging for an obscure dictionary definition to justify your games with semantics, or simply playing dumb when -- in the limited venue of online blog threads -- those with whom you disagree cannot prove with 100% percent certainty that you're being deliberately obtuse.
In Matthew 5:37 and elsewhere, Jesus makes clear that the Christian should speak with sincere and simple honesty.
What you write is a complete mockery of the Christian ethic.
It not only fails to approach conformity to Christ's high ideals, it also fails to conform to the much lower standards of speech that the rest of civil society affirms. If the entire community were as thoroughly and fundamentally dishonest as you, communication would be impossible.
You're a liar, Dan, not only in the sense that you're not always truthful -- none of us are -- but also in the sense that you very rarely truthful. You're not very skillful at lying, not nearly as skillful as you think you are, but you're very much a practiced liar. You bend, shave, and obscure truth almost constantly.
You're a fraud, and I've long since passed the point where I can pretend otherwise.
He quotes from the back half of the Sermon on the Mount and puts himself in the place of one casting pearls before swine and holy things before dogs.
The front half of the sermon, of course, says blessed are the poor in spirit, the merciful, the peacemakers... turn the other cheek... do not judge and you will not be judged.
In other words, the whole sermon really is an ethic on love and demonstrating love.
So when he comes to the dogs and swine, what Jesus means is that it will not do to continue to give demonstrations of love toward those who continue to refuse it.
If, Bubbs, you think what is engaged in here in all these comments, is an exercise in the Christian ethic of love, you may be senile. Or just way off course.
If, however, you really think that you are participating under the guise of a Christian ethic of love and then read scripture the way that you do and say the things you do, this puts you in some jeopardy of judgment. I'm just saying. After all, how can you read the text, the whole text, any other way, and still be in your right mind?
The reason they are not as famous is, the media, who are charged with reporting the news, are in the tank for the Democrats so naturally, they don't report the majority of felonious acts by Democrats.
Out of sight, out of mind.
Now you see why I changed the title of my blog to "Casting Pearls before Swine". Too many commenters like our friend, Dan. It became apparent that casting Pearls was exactly what I was doing.
With friends like these...
Feodor, I'm not sure what you specific complaint is, in part because you seem far more interested in sounding superficially eloquent than you do in actually communicating ideas.
Sigh. Bubba, Feodor did not questioned your faith (not that I can see, anyway). He criticized your thinking and your criticism of others. He did not question whether or not you are saved.
Seriously, brother, you should refrain from writing and trying to guess what people are saying. You just don't have a knack for it. I'd suggest if you have a problem with what someone is saying, you should clarify first.
"Dan, when you say, ABC, did you really mean XYZ? Because that's what it sounds like to me."
"No, Bubba, when I said ABC, I meant ABC. I did not mean XYZ. I don't think XYZ."
"Oh, okay, because it sounded like to me you were saying XYZ."
"Nope. Wasn't saying XYZ. Thanks for asking, though."
Like that. It's much preferable to:
"DAN THINKS XYZ!! HE BELIEVES XYZ - HE JUST SAID SO! CAN YOU BELIEVE IT??!!"
"Hold on there, I didn't say XYZ. I don't believe XYZ..."
And so on...
What's wrong with third grade Sunday School? Is that not where we Christians first learned the basic fundamentals of the Christian faith? It is only after we have "grown up" that we start to question the truths of God, isn't it?
Perhaps it would be best to return to the things of God we learned in third grade Sunday School.
I understood as a child I thought as a child;
but when I became a man I put away childish things."
~1 Corinthians
In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food!
Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
~Hebrews
Mark 10
The itsy bitsy spider does more than go up the water spout.
Its web has been used for wounds and as a study for how to make exceptionally strong material that is still supremely light.
If this is the case with the itsy bitsy spider, how much more will scripture expand one's heart and mind when read with an educated adult's intelligence and devotion.
But you keep singing, and collecting popsicle sticks. Bubbs will need to share the nap mat.
Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 19:14
It's just that many Christians keep thinking and want more of Jesus time than Sunday morning.
"Judge not lest ye be judged" how do you balance that with, "He that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." The difference in the first lies in how Jesus summed up his 'judge not' command... Matthew 7:5 "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye..."
Talking to the hypocrites.
Casting those pearls? Directed to those who have something valuable to pass on... like the Gospel... to those who are unreceptive.
This is true, Feodor, but when you attempt to change the fundamental truths, instead of "expanding" them, the path leads to destruction.
And you, and Dan, and Obama's haughtiness will ultimately lead to a fall.
You see the "pearl" as some dogmatic Truth of the Gospel. Therefore, when we argue, for you it is over the Truth.
I see the "pearl" as a specific of the Gospel truth or, rather, as the whole Gospel, the good news itself: love everyone in the way Christ loves us. So, when we argue, for me it is over how best to love the world.
When you find me wrong, you see me as cast out with the demons.
When I find you wrong, I see you as not loving enough.
So my take on "he that is spiritual," is that the man or woman who is steeped in devotion and worship knows that love (as commanded by Jesus, "my command to you is this," in his farewell in John 14-17; which is not addressed to hypocrites) is the central command. So he or she is a great judge of things in this world. And since there is nothing higher than to love as Jesus loved (not even dogma), he or she cannot be judged by institutional dogma (which often grows into hypocritical religiosity much like the Pharisees... and like I find most of your opinions).
And then put them next to John 15:12 just before Jesus goes to the cross.
Tell me how you come out.
At any rate, I believe you present a dichotomy between love and doctrine that is simply contrary to what the Bible teaches. John, the Apostle who was inarguably the most concerned with the command to love, was likewise concerned with doctrine:
Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist! Be on your guard, so that you do not lose what we have worked for, but may receive a full reward. Everyone who does not abide in the teaching of Christ, but goes beyond it, does not have God; whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. - II John 7-9
I do not think that the passage about "casting pearls" is a reference to acts of love, to the exclusion of teaching doctrine.
I will go further than that, to say that I believe the passage is much more concerned with doctrine than with charity.
Does Christ ever explicitly teach that we are to limit who we are to love? No, we are explicitly told to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us; on the cross, He prayed for the forgiveness of those who aimed to destroy Him.
But, on the other hand, in Matthew 10 and Luke 10, Christ teaches to leave any town that's not receptive to your efforts at evangelism, shaking the dust from your feet.
It is preaching and teaching that Christ limits, not charity.
"those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh"
refers to those Gnostics who coalesced into a group with a doctrine of Docetism which claimed that it as only an illusion that the divine Christ appeared in human flesh and was crucified in pain. They did not believe that a divinity could cohere in actual human flesh but did it with mirrors, in other words.
The reason that such people are deceivers is because such a position terribly reduces the extent to which Christ loved us, or God for that matter (For God so loved the world, God gave his only begotten Son...). This effects the message of the good news: God loves you so much the divine being deigned to come down, be born as a human being, suffer the pain of death, and rise to new life, thereby winning the victory over death for the fleshly creation of human beings (not to speak of redeeming all of creation).
If Christ did not take on human flesh, none of this makes sense. Doctrine must support the message of love. Doctrine serves the revelation of God's love.
So, apparently, your passage brings us back to love.
Why did the early church gather up a bag of the things they felt were undeniables and put them into a creed?
What is the role of doctrine?
To help teach and spread the revelation of God's love in the coming and passion of Jesus Christ.
Anything that weakened this revelation, or added unnecessary burdens to it, or made it selective (we are the only one, true church) would be considered outside the doctrines of the church.
What Paul adds in his letters, in a furious attempt to order and keep his Christian communities calm and safe in a dangerous world, in addition to doctrine serving the revelation of love, are a lot of instructions, most of which the early Church patterned itself after and many still do (presbyters, deacons, giving, etc.) but also some things which, in its development the Church has changes on: women silent in the church; slaves obeying masters.
The issue of Paul's teaching is complicated by what his intentions were and simply the changes of time. He, of course, had a grasp on the gospel like few others. But sometimes he was on about other things.
This has been one of my points for a long time. Interpretation is necessary and not always right.
At any rate, I reject absolutely the point you're trying to make, in tying love to the instruction on "casting pearls:"
So when he comes to the dogs and swine, what Jesus means is that it will not do to continue to give demonstrations of love toward those who continue to refuse it.
This is nonsense. We are told to love our enemies, and Jesus Himself didn't stop praying for His enemies even after He was hanging on the cross.
What we are commanded is not to limit acts of love to those who do not refuse it, but rather to limit teaching the Good News -- which is a Gospel about God's love -- and draw the line at presenting the good news to those who are adamant in rejecting it.
It seems that you view Paul's letters as, well, less than fully authoritative: less authoritative than is viewed by the mainstream of Christianity, and certainly less authoritative than was viewed by Peter (see II Pet 3:15-16).
I do wonder, given this statement...
Anything that weakened this revelation, or added unnecessary burdens to it, or made it selective (we are the only one, true church) would be considered outside the doctrines of the church.
...do you affirm the doctrine of Hell? Are you a universalist who believes that no one faces eternal damnation because such a belief makes salvation "selective"?
As little as is known about you, I think it's already clear that your beliefs are somewhat eccentric. I wonder how unorthodox they really are.
However, I think an approach like Jesus', where unconditional love is the first and constant action, will be a lot more successful in communicating the Gospel than coming at people with what can only sound like my truth and not theirs, before we've even had a chance to get to know each other.
I think "let women be silent in the church," is less authoritative than "replace your hearts of stone with living hearts of flesh written on with Word of God."
I think "slaves obey your masters," is less authoritative than "for God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten Son."
In fact, in the face of "in Christ there is no Jew nor Greek, no slave nor free, no male nor female," I think the above restrictions on women and slaves are now not authoritative at all.
For you, that can only be deeply troubling because it disturbs the foundations of your faith built on Truth. For me, it is a fulfillment of faith built on God's revelation of his love for us in the incarnation. But it is still disturbing.
Are you all disturbed that it could be so simple as "love"? So am I. It seems too easy and way too hard a challenge to me all at the same time. I happen to be a failure at it. Thanks be to God that Christ has come.
As Jesus, Paul, John and Peter and the others wrote, authoritatively: It IS simple, but love is a threat to the powers of the world and the selfishness of our own hearts. That threat is deep, strong, dark, and will live as long as creation does.
As for Hell, I'm content to let God judge.
I believe in God the Creator Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ God's only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.
Beyond that, I believe that I'm a sinner in need of salvation and that I can be saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus. I've asked for forgiveness of sins and have asked Jesus to be Lord of my life.
What further hoops ought I jump through in order to be what Team Bubba would call "orthodox," I wonder?
What ARE your "essentials"?
I am only representing what theologians for 2 millennia have said, building upon each other. The authority of the New Testament has always been reinterpreted by the faith community in the face of what the early church thought and wrote about it and by what contemporary experience was by the larger community.
And as Augustine was one of the principal theologians informing what the Western Church thought about sex, the body, women, leadership, the eucharist, the incarnation, etc., just before him, three theologians proved principal informers for what became the Eastern Church. Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa, Basil's brother. The last one, Nyssa, born in 335, believed that all humankind would be saved. He supposed Hell would be a burning off of the corruption of our sins, like burning off the accretion of rust on nails, until we were bright, shiny beings. He thought this because a permanent consignment of God's creatures to an eternal Hell just did not fit with the God of the Gospel
Nyssa helped define what is orthodox.
Not that I think Cheney is Satan or should have such a nickname. But I wouldn't want his time in the fire. Not for all the patriotism in the world. Give me that brown skinned eastern desert savior, Lord. No white boy for me, please: too little a heart for my sins.
You suggest that the universalism of Gregory of Nyssa is compatible with orthodoxy and even informed what defined orthodoxy, but you don't say whether you personally agree with him.
"As for Hell, I'm content to let God judge," you write, but I think God Incarnate has already made perfectly clear that not everyone will be saved.
You're being evasive.
And, I think you're not very competent at evasion, if you want to suggest to know that Dick Cheney is facing damnation.
What you mean about wanting a brown-skinned Savior -- "No white boy for me, please: too little a heart for my sins." -- I can only guess, but if you're comfortable with the racist and segregationist theology of Trinity UCC, what with Obama being "the kind of Christian who seems to be on [your] side of things," I think you have no room whatsoever to gripe about how others aren't sufficiently concerned about the doctrine of God's universal love.
And, about what God Incarnate said and did, you write this:
However, I think an approach like Jesus', where unconditional love is the first and constant action, will be a lot more successful in communicating the Gospel than coming at people with what can only sound like my truth and not theirs, before we've even had a chance to get to know each other.
The problem is, Christ didn't treat truth as subjective, bringing to the table "his" truth and listening to "theirs."
Christ claimed to be the truth. He spoke with absolute authority.
Diluting what He taught so that it becomes just one truth among many is an act of disobedience to His sovereignty.
What ARE your "essentials"?
My essentials for what? Do you mean to ask, what do I believe are the bare minimum of beliefs that are necessary for salvation? Or what counts as Christian orthodoxy? Those are two very different questions.
If you're being honest in affirming those ancient extra-biblical creeds -- and it is funny that you appeal to extra-biblical creeds, when you find extra-biblical doctrines are to be denounced, when it suits you -- then I would say that your beliefs are broadly orthodox.
But it still seems like you miss the point of Christianity. It seems like you try to bend, warp, and twist Scripture so that Christianity can be a more suitable tool to advance Progressivism, which is much closer to being your true, underlying philosophy.
That you don't distort the Bible so much that you reject the early Christian creeds altogether, isn't the most commendable act imaginable.
But, still, what you write doesn't sit easily with the creed you invoke.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.
You say you believe in the forgiveness of sins, but you wrench out of context Luke 4:18-19, arguing very unpersuasively that the passage cannot be spiritualized, all so you can present Jesus as a political reformer who freed us from oppressive political and economic institutions, rather than as the Lamb of God who saved us from our sins.
You appear to believe that Jesus was killed by the "powers that be" because He was a threat to them, but you ignore His upper-room explanation for His death, that His body and blood were inaugurating a new covenant, that His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sins.
You treat Jesus as a political martyr to be compared to Martin Luther King, rather than as a sacrifice for sin to be compared to the Passover lamb: you even dismiss the New Testament's doctrine of the Atonement as something that only "meant something" to the first-century Jews.
And while you find Christ's teachings about economics to be very interesting, and while your blog demonstrates that you're constantly seeking to find the deeper political implications for those teachings, you just can't be bothered to take seriously what Jesus taught about why God made us male and female.
You're trying to make Jesus, as presented by the Bible, fit what would be most convenient in advancing your political agenda. That you haven't explicitly denied, say, the doctrine of the Trinity in the process may be (just) enough for others to conclude that you're still small-o orthodox, but it's not as if you're actually trying to conform your beliefs to what the Bible teaches.
I know gay and lesbian Christians who represent Jesus in the marketplace and share him at the table as priests.
I know Arab Christians and Arab Muslims and Muslims that are not Arab. Buddhists of inheritance and Buddhists born in Kansas.
All of them sweet, loving, full of the Gospel outright or by my analogy.
Don't know any dead people. Sorry.
I read where Jesus ate with tax collectors, prostitutes, rich men, short men, dead men raised. Now what did he share with them? Let me see.... the truth? No. I think it was fish and a nice local rose sort of wine.
Sometimes he would go on a hilltop and say some damning things about society at large and all of us, but never to anyone in particular.
No, I take that back. Peter. And James and John. Judas? Nope. Seemed to reserve it for within or for the Religiously Sure of his time.
I'm just not seeing Jesus as your great defender of truth in the dock. Liver of truth, yes. In vino veritas sort of thing. Lover of truth. Expander of truth. Truth is a mustard seed or a mountain.
Truth as women be silent? Slaves be decent? Gay man out? No, nope, and no again.
When you put Faith on the Table of Truth, you've joined extreme Islam in their game, or Zionist Judaism, or militant Hinduism, or the Myanmar junta. You are putting The fundamentals before the foundation of the cosmos.
America is an historic thing. I love it, it is great, it has done great things and, like others, I think it will do better still. But it is temporal. I am temporal. Nyssa believed Hell is temporal; after all how can there can be anything eternal except God and God's redeemed creation? Christ's redemption brought us into eternity. This is doctrine is it not? Nyssa asks if Christ's redemption was only partial, for if Hell is eternal, Christ's resurrection is only some percentage of total.
He asks, Eric. Me, I've never met any dead people. You?
We are all not quite taught the whole truth of love. Some are mistaught. A few are abused by corrupted love.
But you've been taught wrong about the Bible, Eric. But not just you. It is a centuries long mistake by frontier American Christianity and all faiths that have made too cushy a home with empire. It's just a blip on the screen and Love will waver on after it.
Jesus Christ is the truth. Our grasp of him should be loving though it is shaky. Humble in certainty, bold in action.
Contra Nyssa, I trust the clear gist of Christ's repeated warnings about Hell: the narrow way and the broad path, the sheep and the goats, the wheat and the weeds.
And if agnosticism on the question of Hell is a part of your supposed humility in the face of doctrinal matters, I wonder how you can be so certain that Jesus didn't share the truth with those prostitutes and tax collectors with whom he dined.
I read where Jesus ate with tax collectors, prostitutes, rich men, short men, dead men raised. Now what did he share with them? Let me see.... the truth? No. I think it was fish and a nice local rose sort of wine.
Really? He drew all sorts of people to Himself because of His wonderful repartee over dinner? What makes you so confident of this?
And what makes you so confident that submission even in unjust circumstances is not part of God's will?
Truth as women be silent? Slaves be decent? Gay man out? No, nope, and no again.
How do you know?
You seem remarkably confident in dismissing Christian orthodoxy when it strikes you as sexist or homophobic, but you hide in the tall weeds of agnosticism and skepticism only when it would be inconvenient for you to answer clearly about your beliefs regarding damnation.
You proclaim truth when it suits you, but then faced with inconvenient truths about the words of Christ Himself, you come quite close to asking that infamous question, what is truth?
Yer man Geoffrey once ran a lengthy list of Bush "lies", none of which were. Yer candidate Barry O has lied repeatedly. Here's a few:
1) Ayers is just a guy in the neighborhood.
2) I never heard Rev. Wright talk like that.
3) I'm gonna cut taxes for 95% of the people.
He's a not even a good liar.
I am being honest and I am broadly orthodox. Or specifically orthodox.
And I appeal to all manner of extra-biblical doctrines when I feel they are in fitting with following Jesus.
How do you account for Gay Christians by the way, when marriage is reserved for one man and one woman, and anything else is fornication? And the bible clearly teaches no fornicator will see eternal life. How do you deal with Jesus as the ONLY way to salvation? According to the Bible no Hindu, Muslim, Shinto, what-have-you, will ever see heaven. Only those saved by God's grace through the shed blood of Jesus Christ, God-incarnate will enter into eternal life. ONLY those.
Were I not between shows, I'd have more to say. News starts in 10, and I hafta split.
About those Jefferson quotes from Dan, I frankly don't trust that they mean what he says they means. An earlier conversation reveals an extremely poor grasp of the writings of the Founding Fathers, on Dan's part.
But even assuming that those quotes are accurate reflections of Jefferson's beliefs, it's worth noting, not only that Jefferson apparently didn't advocate an income tax, he ALSO apparently didn't support a modern welfare state.
It's one thing to suggest that Jefferson supported very progressive taxes to pay for armies and bridges, and quite another to invoke that quote to support a redistributionist system, where progressive taxes are used to fund massive welfare programs.
I disagree with Feodor that "the wealthier an agent (individual or business) is[,] the more benefit from national infrastructure and defense is usually derived."
It seems to me that, from the mansions of Beverly Hills to the more dysfunctional regions of the third world, the rich are largely able to provide for their own infrastructure and defense: they have their own airstrips and their own security details. It is the poor who benefit most from the high-quality, low-cost variety of goods available at the local Wal-Mart, and it is the poor who benefit most from being defended from threats of violence by soldiers, cops, and judges: they benefit most because they couldn't afford other means of recourse.
But, returning to Dan, I see that he supports extremely progressive taxation, in the name of fairness:
I'd suggest that some are confusing "equality" with "fairness."
In looking at taxation, it would be FULLY equal if everyone paid the same amount. Let's say that the gov't said, "EVERYONE MUST PAY $10,000. THAT WILL BE EQUAL!"
And it would be. If the guy that makes $1 million a year and the gal that makes $10,000 a year both paid $10,000, they would be paying an equal amount. If FULL equality was our goal, that would be the solution.
However, we can all see, I'd hope, that such a system would be patently unfair. It may be equal, but full equality ought not always be our goal, rather, fairness and justice should be our goal.
Similarly, expecting the $10k and $100k households to pay an EQUAL percentage is STILL unfair, even though it is a bit more equal (not as equal as a flat amount, but more equal). But most people can see that, for a household making $10k, to lose $1000/year is a MUCH bigger hit than for the $100k household to lose $10,000 a year.
Equality ought not necessarily be our goal. Justice and fairness should be. What is a just amount for folk to pay?
Thank God for our Judeo-Christian values, I'd suggest that most people recognize the difference and avoid the tyranny of FULL equality when it comes to paying taxes. [emphasis mine]
Notice he doesn't answer the question, what is a just amount to pay? He doesn't, in part, because the moment you start formulating fairness this way, you start down a path with NO natural stopping point.
Most fundamentally, if you ask ten people for a definition of fairness, you're going to get at least ten different answers.
What is fair? To soak the rich so that the "hit" they take is equivalent? How do you determine equivalency? Is it numeric or is it subjective, so that the rich guy "feels" the tax hit to the same degree as the poor?
Just as there is only one obvious point where a human life begins (conception), there are only three obvious points where taxation could be considered fair:
1) Equal amounts taxed, in an absolute sense: each person pays X dollars.
2) Equal amounts taxed and equal amounts left, proportionally: each person pays X percent, keeping X percent.
3) Equal amounts left, in an absolute sense: each person keeps X dollars.
(A fourth approach would be to tax according to usage, as in tolls for bridges and roads, but that's somewhat comparable to a private entity charging a fee for its service.)
There is no natural stopping point between #2 and #3: what is to stop Dan from suggesting that the most fair taxation is the one that leaves both the rich man and the poor man with $10,000?
Personally, I think the Old Testament outlines two reasonable principles that could be applied to taxation, one that follows #1 above...
The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the half shekel, when you bring this offering to the Lord to make atonement for your lives. - Ex 30:15
...and the tithe or proportional offering, which aligns with approach #2.
Either way, I believe that Leviticus 19:15 outlines a principle of equality under the law:
You shall not render an unjust judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great: with justice you shall judge your neighbor.
When Dan promotes so-called "fairness" in explicit defiance of the principle of equality, I worry.
At any rate, if the government should take even less than a particular proportion from the poor -- through, say, a tax rebate of X amount, which the sales-tax "Fair Tax" advocates support -- that we could discuss, but we should NOT consider this a matter of fairness or "justice."
It's charity, not justice.
So long as the issue is framed as a matter of charity, it's at least somewhat palatable.
(I will note that here that true charity is voluntary. An NRO reader makes the excellent point, here, that only voluntary charity blesses all involved. "The giver is blessed by God, and by the joy that comes from choosing to help someone. The receiver is blessed by, not just the gift, but the knowledge that it was freely given by someone who cared about them and their situation.")
Progressives frame the issue as a matter of justice, because it's politically expedient, but the moment that social welfare of any kind -- be they tax rebates, social services like health care or housing, or outright checks from the government -- is framed as a matter of fairness or "social justice," the handout becomes treated as a right and an entitlement, and society suffers from the resulting bitterness.
And, what's more, this approach feeds a rather vicious view of Western civilization: the only way a person can actually believe that the poor not only needs social welfare programs but are entitled to them, is to see the poor as victims of institutional oppression.
The attempt to make income, food, and housing a right and entitlement -- rooted, at best, in the good intentions of political expediency -- causes the poor to become ungrateful for the assistance that they receive, and causes people to see society has inherently corrupt for denying them these supposed "rights."
In brief: Needs and deserts are two different things, and confusing the two leads to all sorts of trouble.
OK. I find I don't have to, for Dan has listed them quite succinctly:
I believe in God the Creator Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ God's only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting.
(Sorry Dan, for the edit, but I don't believe in the Catholic Church. It is merely another Christian doctrine which is not completely Biblical, therefore I cannot state categorically, that I believe in the Catholic Church)
I believe that I'm a sinner in need of salvation and that I can be saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus.
Now, if only Dan and Feodor really believed those truths instead of simply mouthing them and then arguing against them...
I qualify that with the word "truly" because there are some unfortunate homosexuals who labor under the delusion that they are Christian, but the two (Christianity and Homsexuality) are mutually exclusive.
I know who you are. I know Marshall, Mom, Bubba, even Dan and ER, but who is Feodor? And what specifically gives his arguments greater weight than your own? All we know of Feodor is what I already outlined here.
Sorry Dan, for the edit, but I don't believe in the Catholic Church. It is merely another Christian doctrine which is not completely Biblical
ummm, Mark, you DO realize that by "catholic church" the term refers to the church universal? Small "c" catholic, not the Roman Catholic Church?
We can learn something new every day.
We do not have the same knowledge about its composition as we do the Nicene Creed (325 AD).
What I find interesting is the amount of agreement the creed seems to generate except for the "church catholic" which I think for most theologians of conservative or liberal stripe is the same as Eric's and Marshall's: namely, not to be identified with any earthly institution but with the whole body of believers where ever they are. The problem is not which church but which ones are really believers.
But the Apostle's Creed is derivative of scripture as all creeds are - probably the point Bubba makes - and therefore has gaps. It was crafted to oppose Gnostics who did not think of Jesus as really human, thus the emphasis on birth and death.
Mark, Eric, and Marshall are comforted by this, as am I.
But it was a creed that Arians could agree to as well and Arians did not think Jesus was really divine or at least not equally so with God.
You'll notice that the divinity of Jesus and of the Holy Spirit is not explicitly stated in the Apostles Creed.
A hundred years or more down the line -- when Arianism presented real problems for the Church hierarchy and how they understood Jesus' divinity -- there was a conference to come up with a better summary, so the Nicene Creed:
"...the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father..."
and
"And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified..."
Then, in the sixth century, the Latin speaking churches of the West added "and the Son" to the description of the Holy Spirit's procession from God the Father. So, we in the West say, "And in the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son..."
The Eastern, Greek-speaking churches counted this as heresy due to the different nuances of verbs in either language.
This remains one of the sticking points between East and West today.
Doubtless, Bubba would say this why we should stick to the Bible only. And maybe Mark, Marshall, and Eric see the errors of their ways in too swiftly following Dan's outline.
My point, of course, is that Christians are always reinterpreting the heart of the Gospel for their times and must risk over-emphasizing or under-emphasizing some things. God is great enough and Christ loving enough to take it and time will correct errors made in love.
Of course, there have been far egregious errors of terror and bloody war. But these were not brought by devotion in the making Christ's love known.
Where I worship, the Nicene Creed is always said, or at baptisms and other select times, the Apostle's Creed,
It is a helpful rooting in the essentials. But it is not comprehensive. The difference between most of you and Christians like me is that the Bible is not sufficient, either.
And I think you guys keep mistaking the Bible for the Christ who is sitting even now at the right hand of the Father.
A little mystic reaching out to him is a lot better for daily life than a verse by verse splitting up the Bible into laws that you guys apply unequally in your way and then call it God's.
By the way, Bubba, Gregory of Nyssa was present at The Second Ecumenical Council, the first held in Constantinople, 381, which finalized the language of the Nicene Creed as a defense against the Arians. So you may want to be doubly suspicious of this work by the early church.
The rise of the powers of the Arian side seem to indicate that the readers of the New Testament did not find there a clear and unequivocal statement of Christ's divinity by Jesus himself as recorded in the Gospels.
Of course, Paul seems convinced, but, again, the books of the New Testament were not weighed as having equivalent authority until after antiquity.
If you guys think you know better than they do, then you agree with me that new times can bring new, deeper understanding. Despite your denials.
However, I tend to agree with the early church in this regard. Women should not be silent. Slaves should resist. Because we do not know when he comes and injustice is blood on the ground crying out. God suffers it and calls us to action.
They support Obama, who is a Marxist. Marxism is necessarily, an athiest society.
How do they reconcile the two? You cannot serve two masters, especially when the two masters are directly juxtaposed with each other. How do they explain this dichotomy?
But I know who I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I've committed unto Him against that day.
Most people don't know this, and now you know something most other people don't.
Obama: "Our God is an awesome God."
Mark: "no;noanogondjnnjdorgngdnf"
Also, I don't know why Feodor discusses Christ's divinity when the Gospels clearly show He considered Himself divine. Many people like to point to the early councils in order to leave that door open for wider interpretations, as if there was some power struggle rather than simply men who came together to codify that which was clearly the proper understandings attacked by those with clearly improper understandings.
What he instead confuses is metaphors that Jesus uses, secret sayings to his disciples, refusing declarative statements in order to let people come to their own confession. If he beats them over the head to faith, it is not faith (message to all you guys who think Truth can be beaten into people).
One example: "I and the Father are One." The statement does not stipulate (Marshall you may need to read this about twenty times, eat dinner, think for an hour and you will see it) what specifically he and the Father are one in.
Arians can say that what he means is The Truth (i.e. not divinity). Of course such a thing is easy to say.
Mark, Marshall, Eric and Bubba say it all the time.
The earth turns and history moves as a never-ending story. None of it changes facts regarding Biblical truths so easy to understand.
--John 1:1-3, 14
"Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father..."
--John 14:9
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."
--John 8:58
How much more clear do you need? Jesus is God manifested in flesh. He claimed to be God.
Metaphor and vague inference is all you get. It was Jesus method for making sure people owned their own faith. He says as much.
I'm not arguing with you about what he means.
I'm just saying that Arians and others got up such a terrific case that the orthodox Bishops of known world met in one place to combat them.
But I don't think I like the word "arian" It sounds too much like Aryan.
From Wikipedia (not exactly the best source but it will do in a pinch):
Arianism is the theological teaching of Arius (c. AD 250-336), who was ruled a heretic by the Christian church at the Council of Nicea.
Arius lived and taught in Alexandria, Egypt in the early 4th century. The most controversial of his teachings dealt with the relationship between God the Father and the person of Jesus, saying that Jesus was not of one substance with the Father and that there had been a time before he existed. This teaching of Arius conflicted with trinitarian christological positions which were held by the Church (and subsequently maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches and most Protestant Churches).
The term "Arianism" is also used to refer to other nontrinitarian theological systems of the fourth century, which regarded the Son of God, the Logos, as a created being (as in Arianism proper and Anomoeanism) or as neither uncreated nor created in the sense other beings are created (as in "Semi-Arianism").
Um, where? Where does Jesus say as much?
Is the evidence that Feodor has that Jesus only wanted to make sure "people owned their own faith" stronger than the passages that he dismisses as metaphor and vague inference?
Or is Feodor talking out of an orifice that was never intended for speech?
Jesus’ use of parables is entirely a strategy of getting people to think without telling them straight out what the story means. Mark’s Gospel develops a whole theme of the “secret,” and, frankly, I don’t see how anyone who has read their Bible can miss it:
Mark
1:25
1:34
1:44
3:12
5:37
5:43
7:17-23
7;24
7:33
8:23
8:26
8:27-30
9:9-13
9:28,29
9:30-32
10:10-12
11:27-33
12:1-12
12:35-37
13:21-27
Also notice throughout Mark how Jesus refers constantly to “the Son of Man,” as if that person is someone else.
The most pointed passage, however, is when Jesus explains what he is doing with parables:
Mark 4, Matthew 13, and Luke 8.
The capstone for me, though, is John 17.
If you can’t see this Bubba, you as blind as the Pharisees.
That everyone admits the Gospels present a Jesus who did not blast the Truth out 24/7?
That so much of Christian faith is post-
Biblical?
That you read the Bible with modern eyes?
That the kingdom of God increases in both understanding and love?
No. Denials will come.
And, "what Eric said, what Mark said" doesn't cut it.
I can deal with the Gospel of Mark just fine. Your poor understanding of it is a totally different matter.
It appears to be God's intention, via the evidence of how the Biblical witness is expanded upon by early Christian history, to reveal biblical as well as spiritual truths in a developmental way. In other words, through time and the deepening deliberations of the faithful, a fuller understanding of the significance of Jesus’ incarnation and passion comes to us continually.
One cannot rest inside the covers of the Bible alone. Jesus hid truths because he is the lord of Time and knew that time would tell. He trusted the passage of time to witness ever more of what he brought to us. He is not a prisoner within words in that leather thing on your lap. He is alive and immeasurably more great.
We are limited and resistant, though, as you would agree. And so Scripture breaks us open to receive him. This is where we agree. But I think he can take us further, to the full truth of eternal love that no longer imprisons slaves, women, or you and me in dead traditionalism.
As one great man said, “tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.”
It is the challenge of faith to continue to wrestle, not to settle. God leaves no one unchallenged, not even his faithful.
But that our understanding can deepen is not in conflict with maintaining certain traditions. Traditions define us as a people and bind us as well. But that is not to say that it binds us from learning and growing. But how we grow and what we learn, as well as how we apply what we learn, must be based on the traditional or drift from the message laid out for us in Scripture. We drift when we learn more about human reproduction and conclude that the new life created can be treated like something other than a new person. We are guided by Biblical tradition when we recognize the inherent value of that new person and treat him/her accordingly.
In this way, the Biblical narrative teaches us some truth about Christ's method and purpose. The early church filled out many things that were implied in the NT. The medieval church, in their turn, filled out things not clear in the Biblical text or developed by the early church.
In the twentieth century, similar things -- very small and very great -- have undergone evaluation in communities of faith drawing on Biblical and Church traditions while honoring their own experience of faith guided by the Holy Spirit.
For this reason, traditions can serve their purpose if kept to a living faith. Wine or grape juice is not a living tradition, though some churches make it an issue of damnation.
Some churches could not support orphanages if it did not belong to a specific church, because then it was a para-congregational institution outside the clear authority of a specific board of elders. This is Biblical interpretation that is dead reasoning.
Women in leadership role in the church is, for many Christians, living tradition stretched by deepening understanding. Many churches make this an issue of damnation.
I think you're projecting. You're overlaying upon the words a meaning that isn't there, except as it pleases you. He had a plan He didn't ant tipped off too early. That's all.
I will agree that through the ages, churches used a variety of means to interpret Scripture. But some did so to diving actual meaning to which they would conform their lives, while others sought to RE-interpret in a manner that reflected the culture. The latter is wrong to do so for they are of the world as opposed to merely in it. The former is looking, as I said for clarification for the benefit of understanding what God was saying in Scripture. The use of new technologies and methods for uncovering a better knowledge of ancient languages and cultures enhances understanding, but it is the human influence, more often with purpose, that alters that meaning to the advantage of a given group. It is also true that the most devoted to truth can be wrong, but that's where matching up with Scripture comes into play, and though it seems a bit circular, I don't think it's so hard to figure out if a "new understanding" is in tune with the body of Scripture or a corruption.