Religious and conservative? Well The New Testament is a liberal's paradise

[Rich3077]

The most accurate bible in the English lanquge was the Geneva bible.
It was also the first English bible avialable after the invention of the printing press.


The church did not want this bible out because it contained things that they felt the masses could not handle.
Geneva bibles where burned when found.. and the church with cooperation of
King James produced the King James version. I cant remember offhand who did the actuall
translation.

Anyway.. bible history is pretty intersting stuff.
If you want a downloadable copy of the Geneva bible or pretty much any other
bible check out e-sword.net


Peace
Rich

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
But lets get back to the question. OK, so the bureaucrats are nice and fat in a state that extracts more than what the people want to give. That was not the issue. My question was what is the better condition, a state that extracts wealth and uses it to take care of the poor or a state that doesn't and is full of starvation? Which is better, a state where people gripe about their taxes or a state where people don't eat? I understand you want to weasel out of answering and I realize it's hypothetical, but not so much so as to be out of the realm of possibility. I think the point is that people can draw relative distinctions between various forms of evil. Ultimately extended we can ask if the sane have an obligation to care for the sick who will not care for themselves. What is the difference between somebody who dies not want to give and somebody who has because of what others have given. You can't rob Peter to pay Paul, but can you tax a Peter who has gotten rich from many Pauls to feed some of the less fortunate ones? If Peter is blind to his duty does it mean we all have to be? Let Peter take his wealth and live alone in the desert.

What I think, Moonie, is that if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach him how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime. And what it seems to me you want to do is give that man other people's fish, and not teach him at the same time. I question your motives, Moonie. Do you want to feed the poor? Or just to take from the rich? Because you could feed the poor without being Robin Hood yaknow. There really is enough to go around. We just need to get everyone working on it in a positive fashion, instead of the fighting and bickering and petty jealousies that exist now.

edit: Rob stated my position better than I could.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well at least Rob answered the question, Vic. I see that you won't. Any particular reason for your disingenuousness? But of course Rob didn't really answer as evidenced by his latest response. He avoids those starving kids too, promulgating millions of non extant solutions. There is hunger and poverty and thousands of years on non existent solutions. Where's the beef? If taxing the rich is the simple solution than lets go with that.

Fish spoil and we live in a big world. Not everybody can get down to the beach. We use money as a means of exchange. Tax the haves and use the money to teach self sufficiency, feed the kids and provide public sector jobs. Spread the wealth so the poor can buy at the rich man's store. He'll get richer if he's milked. Give him an incentive to earn. No pain no gain. Taxes make the rich work and work. It's win win for everybody. Jesus was counting on the rich guy walking away still a slave to his Karma, no?

 

[LunarRay]

You feed the starving kids with the excess food posessed by the richer folks. We determine who and how much. A sorta from each according to their ablilty and to each according to their needs except for the middle class who fend for themselves.. and of course the rich who have the greater ability.

 

[Rob9874]

I'm not avoiding the starving kids. I'm saying that taxing the rich doesn't put an end to all starvation. It's not as simple as some would like it to be. Why not give tax incentives to the rich for every job they create? That way, the poor can get more jobs. You have to think win/win. If we tax the hell out of the rich, there will be no incentive to make alot of money, and the wealthy will dissolve their businesses, and we will see fewer jobs. Again, liberals think the only way for the poor to win, is if the rich lose.

Your theory sounds like the ultimate solution would be communism. How well did that work out? They tax a ton in Canada and England. Do they have no poverty problem? Don't you think we could use tax funds we already have, and cut frivilous programs (i.e., National Endowment For The Arts)? There are many problems facing our society today. Wouldn't we would have a cure for AIDS or cancer by now if we just forced the rich to fund research? Unfortunately, socialism is a flawed concept, and we need to be more creative in our solutions than just "make the haves pay for it"

And this is coming from a have-not.

 

[Moonbeam]

The question was, is a state that taxes against the voluntary desires of its wealthy and takes care of the poor a greater or equal evil to a state without coersion and a starving poor. With all that other crap you're just dicking around. I'm all for extra thought, but I want to know where you stand on this. I find it interesting that Vic won't say. What's the problem?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
You feed the starving kids with the excess food posessed by the richer folks. We determine who and how much. A sorta from each according to their ablilty and to each according to their needs except for the middle class who fend for themselves.. and of course the rich who have the greater ability.

Nice idea but the rich buy the law. Higher taxes to strip them of their funds would cure them of that.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The question was, is a state that taxes against the voluntary desires of its wealthy and takes care of the poor a greater or equal evil to a state without coersion and a starving poor. With all that other crap you're just dicking around. I'm all for extra thought, but I want to know where you stand on this. I find it interesting that Vic won't say. What's the problem?

IMHO, the failure of any governmental entity that has the power to raise tax for use in the greater good of all its citizens and fails to do so or ignors the segment that contains the hungry cannot be right and therefore wrong and wrong is a social wrong and social derives its guidelines from its Judeo/Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Morman/Buddist/etc. teachings so it would be evil. Evil is as Evil does.

The little lady who gave a penny was thought to be the greater because she gave all.. should not the richest give their all?

 

[Rob9874]

Let me just type 2 statements that I hold to be true:

1) It is not the government's responsibility to ensure that everyone is fed.
2) I don't believe that what is good for the "greater good" is always morally right.

 

[sandorski]

The premise of this thread is spot on. That being, that the "Christian Right" is a victim of mucked up thinking. For them, Christianity is Guilt Relief a way into "Heaven" without needing to bother with ones' neighbour. They got theirs, the neighbour can Get Theirs too, if they join up, otherwise those neighbours can go to Hell.

For a Right Winger, Jesus was rather radical, suggesting not only to give when asked, but to give more than what was asked for. He didn't exploit Loopholes, He never suggested that the less fortunate deserved their plight, nor did He suggest that the Wealthy deserved theirs' as well. For a Spiritual man, he was rather Humanistic, suggesting that Men(humans) were responsible for their fellow Man. Not once did Jesus espouse Individualism, except when it came to Individual Responsibility. He instructed His followers to Forgive others, He even went as far as saving the lives of those who "deserved" Death according to Jewish Law. He, as the Religious of His day liked to point out, mingled with Prostitutes, Adulterers, Tax Collectors, and other "Sinners". Surely the "Religious Right" of today would Crucify Him again, given the opportunity.

It should be noted, that one reason(the main reason) that the Roman Empire began to systematically eliminate Christians(some 2 centuries AD) was because Christianity had risen to become "dangerously"(to the Ruling Classes of Rome) powerful. This Power was acheived by the Charity work that the Early Church engaged in. Rome had a very large impoverished population, Christians selflessly provided Food, Shelter, Clothing, and other Needs to those. On the flipside, the Ruling Classes of Rome ignored the Impoverished and considered them a nuisance, but in time the Favour the Impoverished had towards Christians threatened the Establishment. For the Establishment the solution was simple, eliminate the Christians. The persecution only resulted in strengthening the Power of Christians, drawing people to Christianity. Finally in a bid to gain the throne, Constantine recognized that by gaining Christians as Allies, he could win the throne and he did. Christianity gained Official Religion status and has never been the same since, except in small pockets.

The problem with "Christians" these days is quite varied, depending on where they are, but since we are Primarily talking about American(Rightwing) Christianity I'll stick to that. "Rightwing Christians" are "Rightwing" first, "Christian" second or less. Jesus said, "You can't serve God and Mammon", "Rightwing Christians" say you can, so I guess it just depends on who is more important.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The question was, is a state that taxes against the voluntary desires of its wealthy and takes care of the poor a greater or equal evil to a state without coersion and a starving poor. With all that other crap you're just dicking around. I'm all for extra thought, but I want to know where you stand on this. I find it interesting that Vic won't say. What's the problem?

Moonie, you need to re-read, I said on the last page. Perhaps I should be more plain or you should try to read what I am telling you between my "dicking around". Yes, it would be a greater evil to forcibly take from rich to give to the poor. Why? Besides the 10,000 reasons I've already given? Because we're dealing with humans, and humans are invariably corrupt, particularly when given power. The Soviet Union tried what you suggested, and they still had a starving poor. So in the end, you will have stolen from one to give to another and yet it will have never made it to the other. And your idealistic dream is never sustainable, every culture that tries it always collapses in fiscal insolvency, so you will have stolen for the ruin of all.
Look at the US budget right now. We can't keep doing what we are already doing, even if we raised taxes to the moon. Starting in 2008, when the first baby boomers reach SSA retirement age, the US will have over 20 trillion dollars in unfunded benefits to pay out and the annual deficit will be near to $10 trillion itself. We are so near to total economic bankruptcy, it's downright scary. And all you and your irresponsible ideological comrades can do is bitch about how government should spend more.
That's why I'm "dicking around", Moonie. Because your ideologies do not comply to reality. Because I think you want to punish the rich for being rich more than you really want to feed to the poor. Would it bother you if the US collapsed? 'Cause that-which-is-Caesar's doesn't grow on trees, not even for Caesar...

 

[Moonbeam]

Nice perspective there sandorski.

Ah for crap sake Vic, why don't you answer the question. Is a government that steals from the rich and feeds the starving worce than a government that lets the starving starve. Quit dicking around with the soviet union.

Rob, the government whose responsibility it isn't to feed everybody isn't a government it's a joke. Nobody can pursue happiness who is hungry and it is the function of the government to provide the conditions in which one can pursue happiness. Read your Declaration.

 

[Vic]

/pulls hair out :Q

Moonie, how many times do you want me to answer?

 

[LunarRay]

Vic,
Moonbeam is gonna come back with... "Once would be sufficient"

I kinda like the tree the money grows on .. The rich trees.. of course.. and us baby boomers (Moonster has eons to wait ) will pick it off bit by bit.. we're hungry..

 

[sandorski]

Just to add to previous post.

Even Mosaic Law had laws pertaining to Social Issues. In it, farmers were only to harvest their crops once. After the initial harvest was completed, the poor were allowed to take whatever was left or late to ripen. The idea to provide for the poor has not always been in the form of Social programs paid for with taxes, but the idea of Responsibility of the Haves for the Have Nots is well established in the Bible. To turn around and state that Charity is Voluntary is just sloppy justification and not Biblically based.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Rob, the government whose responsibility it isn't to feed everybody isn't a government it's a joke. Nobody can pursue happiness who is hungry and it is the function of the government to provide the conditions in which one can pursue happiness. Read your Declaration.

I disagree. The government doesn't guarantee that you won't fail or become homeless. The govt isn't your mommy who will take care of you when you need it. Govt's role is to defend and enforce laws.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic
/pulls hair out :Q

Moonie, how many times do you want me to answer?

Once would be sufficient. The question's answer is a yes or a no. Is a government that feeds the hungry on involuntary taxes less evil than one that lets people starve but doesn't tax the unwilling. Better or worse? yes or no? So somple.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Once would be sufficient. The question's answer is a yes or a no. Is a government that feeds the hungry on involuntary taxes less evil than one that lets people starve but doesn't tax the unwilling. Better or worse? yes or no? So somple.

Heh. I now question whether you even read my posts...

Hint: I edited a previous one to bold out your answer.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The premise of this thread is spot on. That being, that the "Christian Right" is a victim of mucked up thinking. For them, Christianity is Guilt Relief a way into "Heaven" without needing to bother with ones' neighbour. They got theirs, the neighbour can Get Theirs too, if they join up, otherwise those neighbours can go to Hell. For a Right Winger, Jesus was rather radical, suggesting not only to give when asked, but to give more than what was asked for. He didn't exploit Loopholes, He never suggested that the less fortunate deserved their plight, nor did He suggest that the Wealthy deserved theirs' as well. For a Spiritual man, he was rather Humanistic, suggesting that Men(humans) were responsible for their fellow Man. Not once did Jesus espouse Individualism, except when it came to Individual Responsibility. He instructed His followers to Forgive others, He even went as far as saving the lives of those who "deserved" Death according to Jewish Law. He, as the Religious of His day liked to point out, mingled with Prostitutes, Adulterers, Tax Collectors, and other "Sinners". Surely the "Religious Right" of today would Crucify Him again, given the opportunity. It should be noted, that one reason(the main reason) that the Roman Empire began to systematically eliminate Christians(some 2 centuries AD) was because Christianity had risen to become "dangerously"(to the Ruling Classes of Rome) powerful. This Power was acheived by the Charity work that the Early Church engaged in. Rome had a very large impoverished population, Christians selflessly provided Food, Shelter, Clothing, and other Needs to those. On the flipside, the Ruling Classes of Rome ignored the Impoverished and considered them a nuisance, but in time the Favour the Impoverished had towards Christians threatened the Establishment. For the Establishment the solution was simple, eliminate the Christians. The persecution only resulted in strengthening the Power of Christians, drawing people to Christianity. Finally in a bid to gain the throne, Constantine recognized that by gaining Christians as Allies, he could win the throne and he did. Christianity gained Official Religion status and has never been the same since, except in small pockets. The problem with "Christians" these days is quite varied, depending on where they are, but since we are Primarily talking about American(Rightwing) Christianity I'll stick to that. "Rightwing Christians" are "Rightwing" first, "Christian" second or less. Jesus said, "You can't serve God and Mammon", "Rightwing Christians" say you can, so I guess it just depends on who is more important.

I totally agree. Good info too.