That crazy fundy VP nominee is at it again

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: lupi
Yall need to slow down your posting, the hypocrisy bus is starting to get pretty packed.
The hypocrisy is you calling someone a hypocrite. Your thread is a joke and is being responded to as such.
I'm sorry troll boy, I must have misremembered the countless dozens of Palin thread and the religion "discussions" which normally got tossed in by the likes of Headupmyass Dawn.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,119
4,849
126
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: lupi
Yall need to slow down your posting, the hypocrisy bus is starting to get pretty packed.
The hypocrisy is you calling someone a hypocrite. Your thread is a joke and is being responded to as such.
I'm sorry troll boy, I must have misremembered the countless dozens of Palin thread and the religion "discussions" which normally got tossed in by the likes of Headupmyass Dawn.
Well it's easy to see where Red went wrong. You're the spitting image of lugi.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: lupi

I'm sorry troll boy, I must have misremembered the countless dozens of Palin thread and the religion "discussions" which normally got tossed in by the likes of Headupmyass Dawn.
Sorry. Red couldn't possibly have his head up YOUR ass when it's already blocked by your own. :laugh:
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,229
11,077
136
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: JS80
Granted, it tends to be about wealth redistribution and helping the poor, but at least that's what Jesus actually preached about.
say what?
How much chapter and verse would you like me to quote for you?

I'll start off with Matthew 19:16-24
Uhhh hello? WTF does that have to do with taxes and redistribution - or even the government?
Have you actually read the Gospels, CAD?
Yes, and Matthew 19:16-24 has NOTHING to do with taxation and/or government redistribution. To suggest it does is to bastardize the teaching.
No, you're applying modern values and out of context. Religion and govt were the same thing in Jesus' time.
The teaching in that passage, CAD, is more or less the same as modern cult leaders who require that their initiates sacrifice all their possessions if they wish to join the following.
Religious leaders were political leaders in that time. The law was the Torah. The lawyers and judges were the Jewish scholars and scribes. The Sadducee and Pharisees were as much like political parties as religious leaders. If a religious leader of the time, like Jesus, tells his followers they have to give to the poor or go to hell, then that was law to his followers.

Of course, if you want a passage directly related to taxation, there's always Mark 12:13-17.

Originally posted by: lupi
Like how Mccain has given over 7 figures to charity over the last couple years, while bho just manages to break 6 figures and biden gave a pack of gum and a donut during that same time.
And Mark 12:41-44.

I'm not saying that I actually agree with this or not, I'm just saying that this kind of teaching, and not the OMG gays and OMG abortion, is what Jesus actually taught.
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,812
144
106
By strictest interpretations, a Catholic should be a fundamentalist by nature. However, the fundamentalist movement is a Protestant movement if you didn't get the memo. :)

Jesus asked for 5% to the poor in the KJV. If the richest 1% gave 5% to the poor and didn't expect something in return it would be a miracle. Biden is credited with giving $1000 basically to charity this past year. That doesn't mean it is all he gave, only what he claimed. If you are Catholic then you morally should not be giving and demanding credit for it. Your rewards are in heaven.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,229
11,077
136
Originally posted by: MadRat
By strictest interpretations, a Catholic should be a fundamentalist by nature. However, the fundamentalist movement is a Protestant movement if you didn't get the memo. :)

Jesus asked for 5% to the poor in the KJV. If the richest 1% gave 5% to the poor and didn't expect something in return it would be a miracle. Biden is credited with giving $1000 basically to charity this past year. That doesn't mean it is all he gave, only what he claimed. If you are Catholic then you morally should not be giving and demanding credit for it. Your rewards are in heaven.
Actually, tithes are traditionally 10%.

You are correct though that a truly devout Christian would not claim his charitable contributions on his tax returns, and would not even think of taking the deduction. Matthew 6:1-4
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
182
106
Originally posted by: lupi
It just happens to be the dude (again) and not the dame. I guess the pushback they're getting on the patriotic taxes is going to cause them to spend time defending the position. At least he also includes a lie about the "bush taxcut" in his spin.


?Catholic social doctrine as I was taught it is, you take care of people who need the help the most,? Mr. Biden said to an audience of union members in Akron, Ohio on Thursday. ?Now it?d be different if you could make the case to me that by giving this tax cut to the very wealthy, everybody else was going to be better off. We saw what happened the last eight years when we gave that tax cut.?
OOHH! I feel so sorry for Mr. Biden, God talks to the GOP and all he gets is second-hand doctrine.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
Those who opt for a "political God" demand that the political and secular world's random and social results be the direct work of the Almighty.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: JS80
Granted, it tends to be about wealth redistribution and helping the poor, but at least that's what Jesus actually preached about.
say what?
How much chapter and verse would you like me to quote for you?

I'll start off with Matthew 19:16-24
Uhhh hello? WTF does that have to do with taxes and redistribution - or even the government?
Have you actually read the Gospels, CAD?
Yes, and Matthew 19:16-24 has NOTHING to do with taxation and/or government redistribution. To suggest it does is to bastardize the teaching.
No, you're applying modern values and out of context. Religion and govt were the same thing in Jesus' time.
The teaching in that passage, CAD, is more or less the same as modern cult leaders who require that their initiates sacrifice all their possessions if they wish to join the following.
Religious leaders were political leaders in that time. The law was the Torah. The lawyers and judges were the Jewish scholars and scribes. The Sadducee and Pharisees were as much like political parties as religious leaders. If a religious leader of the time, like Jesus, tells his followers they have to give to the poor or go to hell, then that was law to his followers.

Of course, if you want a passage directly related to taxation, there's always Mark 12:13-17.

Originally posted by: lupi
Like how Mccain has given over 7 figures to charity over the last couple years, while bho just manages to break 6 figures and biden gave a pack of gum and a donut during that same time.
And Mark 12:41-44.

I'm not saying that I actually agree with this or not, I'm just saying that this kind of teaching, and not the OMG gays and OMG abortion, is what Jesus actually taught.

Ah yes, the same old tired "render unto ceasar" BS. Yes, it's about taxation - HOWEVER that does NOT suggest that Jesus said to pay the gov't to help those less fortunate. You are taking two totally different teachings and trying to say they are part of one topic... so you can fit it into your bastardized view of the Gospels.
Taxes - yess
Helping the poor - yes

taxing rich to help poor? Uhh... no doctrine to support this mingling of the two teachings.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Ah yes, the same old tired "render unto ceasar" BS. Yes, it's about taxation - HOWEVER that does NOT suggest that Jesus said to pay the gov't to help those less fortunate.
If it doesn't it's just one of the many shortcomings of your religion, or at least, your personal misunderstanding of what passes for a religion.

If your Jesus preached helping others less fortunate than you, and our allegedly representative government is "of, by and for the people," it's not a great leap to apply the real world spirit and meaning of Jesus' teachings to governmental action.

Accepting that does not require believing in christianity or any other religion. The same teachings are not unique to christiantity. They are common to almost all religions. All that is required is a true sense of the best of what human beings can be and the best humanity has to offer to itself.

It's also good social engineering. Caring for each other is a far more efficient and effective way to run a society than being self centered assholes and combatting each other.

The only ones who fight that understanding are the spritually corrupt, cold hearted assholes who prefer not to care about their fellow human beings. They fight hard because they fight alone, and they can't even trust one another to do anything but prey on them at the first opportunity.

That is what your Traitor In Chief and his corrupt gang of thieves have been doing for almost eight years. That is what John McCain and Sarah Palin want to continue.

Pa-FUCKING-thetic!
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,229
11,077
136
Because you're out of context yet again, CAD.

Judea was conquered and occupied territory in Jesus' time. Caesar's taxes went directly to Rome, never to return. That is BTW the thing about Mark 12:13-17, and why the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus and why they were so amazed, etc. If Jesus had said not to pay the Roman tribute, then he would have been a traitor to the Roman occupation. If Jesus had said directly that the Jewish people should pay it, then he would been considered a Roman apologist and a traitor to the Jewish people. So what he did say it that it is a merely a physical thing, and irrelevant to the higher spiritual ideals to which people should concern themselves. In fact, the entire "render unto Caesar that which is Caesars" comment is to signify that the people have trapped themselves into their very predicament by accepting and valuing that which is Caesars in the first place.
While the contributions to the poor that Jesus advocated were collected as tithes that would go directly to religious authorities (who also functioned as the local govt) for redistribution.

These tax rates BTW are well-known. The Roman tribute was 15% and the religious tithe was 10%. Of total assets annually. So quite a bit more than just on one's income.

Pal, this isn't my 'bastardized view of the Gospels.' This is what Jesus actually said. If this is your religion, how do you not know this?

How about another, Matthew 6:24 -- "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."
While you're at it, read that whole chapter, and then come back with some kind of intelligent, scripture-based response instead of just your ad hom crap that I'm bastardizing the Gospels.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,229
11,077
136
Alright, I hate these topics, because the political confusion and reversals of the modern age sometimes has me arguing issues I don't necessarily agree with because so many people today have no sense of historical context.

The most important factor to remember here is the context. For thousands of years, in Jesus' time, and right up until the liberal enlightenment of the 1700s, religion and government were completely intertwined. It wasn't just about having a state religion, the king and his government were divinely appointed by the church. The church said the king ruled with the authority of God. In return, religious tithes were considered mandatory and were collected by the government to be given to the church. Even devotion to the state religion would be enforced by the state (i.e. the Inquisitions, burning of witches and heretics, Salem witch trials, etc etc). So when Jesus said that his followers were to pay their tithes and that the tithes were to be redistributed to the poor, or go to Hell, he was speaking with political authority (such as he had in his own day) just as much as he was speaking with religious authority. To his followers, Jesus' words were law.
He was a political leader just as much as he was a religious leader, because the ancient Jews made no distinction between those. And he would have academic credentials comparable (of that time) to a modern-day lawyer. Luke 2 tells us that Jesus could recite the Torah by age 12 and converse with the religious teachers at the temple with great understanding. Luke 19 tells us that 20 years later, he was teaching daily at the temple, something which only recognized religious leaders and scholars were allowed to do. In short, Jesus was a rabbi.

Now, in modern times, we wisely have separation of church and state, but this has created confusion as to the roles of each. Especially on this contentious issue of wealth distribution and charity to the poor, etc etc which the churches used to provide.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,229
11,077
136
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Guys, Catholics are fundies. Biden is spouting radical religious doctrine here. hehe
Catholics aren't fundies.
Yes they are.
No, they're not. That's ridiculous. First, modern fundamentalists are Protestants. Second, the faith and beliefs of modern fundamentalism closely resembles an ancient form of Christian heresy known as Montanism.


edit: some confusion of terms here it seems. When a Catholic adheres strictly to traditional or conservative beliefs of Catholicism, he is known as orthodox. This is different than fundamentalist.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Guys, Catholics are fundies. Biden is spouting radical religious doctrine here. hehe
Catholics aren't fundies.
Yes they are.
Some are. Many are not. Just like Christians.
Catholics are Christians but from my experience they aren't annoying assholes like the Evangelicals.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Vic
Because you're out of context yet again, CAD.

Judea was conquered and occupied territory in Jesus' time. Caesar's taxes went directly to Rome, never to return. That is BTW the thing about Mark 12:13-17, and why the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus and why they were so amazed, etc. If Jesus had said not to pay the Roman tribute, then he would have been a traitor to the Roman occupation. If Jesus had said directly that the Jewish people should pay it, then he would been considered a Roman apologist and a traitor to the Jewish people. So what he did say it that it is a merely a physical thing, and irrelevant to the higher spiritual ideals to which people should concern themselves. In fact, the entire "render unto Caesar that which is Caesars" comment is to signify that the people have trapped themselves into their very predicament by accepting and valuing that which is Caesars in the first place.
While the contributions to the poor that Jesus advocated were collected as tithes that would go directly to religious authorities (who also functioned as the local govt) for redistribution.

These tax rates BTW are well-known. The Roman tribute was 15% and the religious tithe was 10%. Of total assets annually. So quite a bit more than just on one's income.

Pal, this isn't my 'bastardized view of the Gospels.' This is what Jesus actually said. If this is your religion, how do you not know this?

How about another, Matthew 6:24 -- "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."
While you're at it, read that whole chapter, and then come back with some kind of intelligent, scripture-based response instead of just your ad hom crap that I'm bastardizing the Gospels.
Pufugginleeze. You have ZERO clue if you continue to cling to this idea that these two teachings were meant to suggest that the gov't should redistribute to the poor. The commandment was for people to give freely of themselves - not that a gov't should forcefully take and thus redistribute. The teachings/commandments were to people - not governments. I'll repeat - there is ZERO doctrine that supports what you and others keep trying to claim. I've spend many hours chasing things like this down and have talked with many people who are very intimate with the actual doctrine involved with these teachings and none suggest that it is as you say.

This isn't about taxes or no taxes or whether it's "ok" from a Christian point of view to pay them. It's this bastardized view that paying taxes is "giving freely" and thus charitable which supposedly constitutes helping the least among us. Again, the teachings you are trying to join do not support the idea that taxes that help the poor are commanded by Christ.

And yes, I am a Christian but follow no "religion". I look to the actual teachings and meanings - not some man made rules or organization.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Guys, Catholics are fundies. Biden is spouting radical religious doctrine here. hehe
Catholics aren't fundies.
Yes they are.
Some are. Many are not. Just like Christians.
Catholics are Christians but from my experience they aren't annoying assholes like the Evangelicals.
My experience is quite the opposite. :) Not near as annoying as JWs or some others who are in your face. However, I suppose this depends on what your definition of "Evangelicals" is.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,229
11,077
136
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Vic
Because you're out of context yet again, CAD.

Judea was conquered and occupied territory in Jesus' time. Caesar's taxes went directly to Rome, never to return. That is BTW the thing about Mark 12:13-17, and why the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus and why they were so amazed, etc. If Jesus had said not to pay the Roman tribute, then he would have been a traitor to the Roman occupation. If Jesus had said directly that the Jewish people should pay it, then he would been considered a Roman apologist and a traitor to the Jewish people. So what he did say it that it is a merely a physical thing, and irrelevant to the higher spiritual ideals to which people should concern themselves. In fact, the entire "render unto Caesar that which is Caesars" comment is to signify that the people have trapped themselves into their very predicament by accepting and valuing that which is Caesars in the first place.
While the contributions to the poor that Jesus advocated were collected as tithes that would go directly to religious authorities (who also functioned as the local govt) for redistribution.

These tax rates BTW are well-known. The Roman tribute was 15% and the religious tithe was 10%. Of total assets annually. So quite a bit more than just on one's income.

Pal, this isn't my 'bastardized view of the Gospels.' This is what Jesus actually said. If this is your religion, how do you not know this?

How about another, Matthew 6:24 -- "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."
While you're at it, read that whole chapter, and then come back with some kind of intelligent, scripture-based response instead of just your ad hom crap that I'm bastardizing the Gospels.
Pufugginleeze. You have ZERO clue if you continue to cling to this idea that these two teachings were meant to suggest that the gov't should redistribute to the poor. The commandment was for people to give freely of themselves - not that a gov't should forcefully take and thus redistribute. The teachings/commandments were to people - not governments. I'll repeat - there is ZERO doctrine that supports what you and others keep trying to claim. I've spend many hours chasing things like this down and have talked with many people who are very intimate with the actual doctrine involved with these teachings and none suggest that it is as you say.

This isn't about taxes or no taxes or whether it's "ok" from a Christian point of view to pay them. It's this bastardized view that paying taxes is "giving freely" and thus charitable which supposedly constitutes helping the least among us. Again, the teachings you are trying to join do not support the idea that taxes that help the poor are commanded by Christ.

And yes, I am a Christian but follow no "religion". I look to the actual teachings and meanings - not some man made rules or organization.
Thanks for not responding with anything intelligent, like I asked. :roll:


 

smashp

Platinum Member
Aug 30, 2003
2,443
0
0
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: Vic

Uh... Jesus was pretty clear that the more prosperous have to give to the poor or else burn in hellfire for all eternity. It doesn't get much more forceful than that.

Like how Mccain has given over 7 figures to charity over the last couple years, while bho just manages to break 6 figures and biden gave a pack of gum and a donut during that same time.
Not Everyone can Marry into Money
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Vic
Thanks for not responding with anything intelligent, like I asked. :roll:
You have not replied with anything that shows that the two seperate teachings are combined to make it so the gov't is charged with helping the poor. The reason is - is because it just doesn't exist. There is ZERO doctrine that states that.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Guys, Catholics are fundies. Biden is spouting radical religious doctrine here. hehe
Catholics aren't fundies.
Yes they are.
Some are. Many are not. Just like Christians.
Catholics are Christians but from my experience they aren't annoying assholes like the Evangelicals.
My experience is quite the opposite. :) Not near as annoying as JWs or some others who are in your face. However, I suppose this depends on what your definition of "Evangelicals" is.
Those who always bring up their religion in any conversation you have with them.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY