Jesus believed in sharing the wealth.

[there4eyeM]

Taxation without representation may be theft. When it is your Congress, there is another word for it; democracy. If voters don't like it, it can be changed.

Democracy is merely the oppression of the majority. Which is why we aren't one, we're a Republic with a Federal government. Republic and Federal are two terms you should look up in your learning the history of our country, which is what you should do before you post again on a topic of which you have zero knowledge. A sad thing to have when we're talking about the government of our own freaking country.

Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term,...

Now will hair splitters please stop with the idiotic insistance on such a fine point (that is, to say it clearly, their bullshit)?

And I expect an appology.

 

[tyroneweaver]

JESUS BELIEVED IN SHARING THE WEALTH.
THE CHRISTIAN’S GOD.

I believe Obama is following the example of Jesus when he said feed the poor, Gleaning in he NT and Tithes. Every society in the human world believe in sharing the wealth. Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor....He fed a multitude with 5 loaves and 2 fish and told them to give the surplus to the poor. He said pay your taxes. If that is not sharing the wealth, what is?
Plus GOD provided manna for the Jews in the wilderness. The Egyptians shared their store house of grain doing 7 lean year famine. The Christian bible teaches sharing the wealth.
As soon as Obama took office, sharing the wealth was communist and socialist and an evil thing as stealing and thief from those that have.
Mormon’s Bishop’s Storehouse it the largest example of sharing the wealth. After the U.S. Government.

PS.
Anytime the Government forces me to have a child that I cannot afford, they damn well be willing to take care of it.

MY dad was a mormon bishop....until they made him the Stake President.

 

[Darkwind]

Thanks for being the one person who did not just scroll over it and ignore it.

There are numerous interpretations that can be made from it. But at face value, one can interpret it that those who do the best they can with what they have can expect to prosper. And those who expect to prosper while doing little or nothing with what they are given will not prosper so much, if at all. And it should at least bring into question any notion that what Jesus preached was sociial welfare rather than individual responsibility.

I think he preached a little of both.

No, I don't think he did. I think he saw charity as the responsibility of each individual, not the collective. There is much in the Old Testament that points to the collective - shared guilt, shared blessings. And in Matthew 5:45, Jesus acknowledged that concept as "the rain falls on the just and the unjust. . . ." meaning that we share in blessings whether we have earned them or not and we share in the consequences of evil whether we participated in that or not. But Jesus was all about steering the minds and hearts of the people to a new way of thinking, a new personal responsibility, the idea that each of us is individually and personally loved by God separate from the collective.

Whatever Jesus was, he was no socialist. And he did not look to government to fix our problems.

 

[Moonglow]

No, Jesus would say it is up to us to help our brethern and to give of what they ask. So are you willing to feed all those hungry on your city block, or suburb, or take on a county in a rural area? At your own costs?

 

[there4eyeM]

No Christians have yet asked Jesus?

While you're at it, ask him his opinion of democracy.

 

[kaz]

No, Jesus would say it is up to us to help our brethern and to give of what they ask

Huh? Can you show the passage where Jesus says the receiver says how much the giver is to give. Making it up as you go, a liberal trademark...

So are you willing to feed all those hungry on your city block, or suburb, or take on a county in a rural area? At your own costs?

Charity should be given in this order:

1) People should take care of themselves
2) People should take care of their family
3) People should take care of their community (through church, food kitchens, ...)

Government charity should be at the local level and as an absolute last resort the State. But the Federal government has no business in it, and it's a direct violation of the 10th Amendment. The Feds were given no such authority by the founders for the right reasons.

 

[there4eyeM]

Where is my appology?

 

[kaz]

Taxation without representation may be theft. When it is your Congress, there is another word for it; democracy. If voters don't like it, it can be changed.

Democracy is merely the oppression of the majority. Which is why we aren't one, we're a Republic with a Federal government. Republic and Federal are two terms you should look up in your learning the history of our country, which is what you should do before you post again on a topic of which you have zero knowledge. A sad thing to have when we're talking about the government of our own freaking country.

Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term,...

Now will hair splitters please stop with the idiotic insistance on such a fine point (that is, to say it clearly, their bullshit)?

And I expect an appology.

I'm sorry you don't know what you're talking about. Sure, there are variations of Democracies and Republics, but the principles are the same. Democracies are when everyone has an equal say in everything, see your own link. There is actually nothing in which everyone votes equally in this country.

Republics are when there are relatively stong independent States, which keep the centeral government in check. Federalism is a clearly Republic structure, you didn't look that one up. A great book on the subject if you're interested in it is Jason Lewis "A Power Divided Is A Power Checked."

 

[there4eyeM]

Democracy is merely the oppression of the majority. Which is why we aren't one, we're a Republic with a Federal government. Republic and Federal are two terms you should look up in your learning the history of our country, which is what you should do before you post again on a topic of which you have zero knowledge. A sad thing to have when we're talking about the government of our own freaking country.

Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term,...

Now will hair splitters please stop with the idiotic insistance on such a fine point (that is, to say it clearly, their bullshit)?

And I expect an appology.

I'm sorry you don't know what you're talking about. Sure, there are variations of Democracies and Republics, but the principles are the same. Democracies are when everyone has an equal say in everything, see your own link. There is actually nothing in which everyone votes equally in this country.

Republics are when there are relatively stong independent States, which keep the centeral government in check. Federalism is a clearly Republic structure, you didn't look that one up. A great book on the subject if you're interested in it is Jason Lewis "A Power Divided Is A Power Checked."

Don't back track. I know every bit as well as you the definition of the terms and the history of the US. Now man up and state clearly that you were way off base with the criticism of my post.

 

[kaz]

Don't back track. I know every bit as well as you the definition of the terms and the history of the US. Now man up and state clearly that you were way off base with the criticism of my post.

Here's what you said.

Taxation without representation may be theft. When it is your Congress, there is another word for it; democracy. If voters don't like it, it can be changed.

What you said is true of a Democracy, but we aren't one and that is why it shouldn't happen.

1) Welfare is not in the Constitution and is therefore a violation of the 10th amendment.
2) If we were a functioning Republic then it would not have happened as Welfare is also a massive redistribution of wealth and power from the States to the Federal government.

FDR blew away our Republic by coercing the Supreme Court, and at that point in time be became neither a Democracy (every voice is not equal) nor a Republic (the central government dominates the States).

Our current government is a criminal violation of the Constitution where the powers ceded by the people were twisted and ignored and the "Federal" government became the one and only government other than those powers which is chooses to allow the States.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Libs loves then some Jesus when they can use him to their agenda.

 

[Londoner]

Many of the folks in charge of Movement Conservatism are, like Reagan, not really religious. Reagan passed the most liberal abortion policy in the country's history while governor of California. He was a divorced man, estranged from his children, and didn't start going to Church regularly until he ran for the presidency. His wife Nancy was a notorious anti-religious astrology buff who supported Obama's stem cell research agenda. The worst kept secret in Washington was that the Reagan's were not religious, despite their necessary partnership with Pat Robertson and the moral majority. This was all part of the Right's strategy to pry the poor away from the Democrats. The only people who don't know this kind of stuff are the ones who listen to talk radio. (This is how most movements gain power - by taking advantage of naive, well meaning people)

So yes, The Right uses religion as a populism to win elections. How do you think they get the votes of the South and Heartland? They use religion to foment white backlash against the secular Left. Religion is how the wealthy took power in America - by fooling the serfs into thinking that they cared about "Values" and God as opposed to money.

Can you imagine Jesus calling the meek Welfare cheats? Reagan didn't give poor people the benefit of the doubt. He taught America not trust them so he could defund the meek in order to make room for lower taxes on the powerful. The intelligencia on the Right had no choice but to pivot from the compassion of the historical Christ to the tough love of the 2nd Testament Why? Because it allowed them to take social programs from the poor and give subsidies and bail outs to the Rich.

Jesus helped the poor in their struggle against power - and he died for it. Today's Right protects those in power - the wealthy corporate elite and their well funded politicians. If Jesus saw how many innocent Iraqi's were killed in the Iraq invasion, he would put the GOP out of business.

 

[JFK_USA]

Jesus was a liberal. There is no question about it. Help the poor, give back to the community and be kind to others. Something the republican party severely lacks.

 

[there4eyeM]

Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term,...

Now will hair splitters please stop with the idiotic insistance on such a fine point (that is, to say it clearly, their bullshit)?

And I expect an appology.

I'm sorry you don't know what you're talking about. Sure, there are variations of Democracies and Republics, but the principles are the same. Democracies are when everyone has an equal say in everything, see your own link. There is actually nothing in which everyone votes equally in this country.

Republics are when there are relatively stong independent States, which keep the centeral government in check. Federalism is a clearly Republic structure, you didn't look that one up. A great book on the subject if you're interested in it is Jason Lewis "A Power Divided Is A Power Checked."

Don't back track. I know every bit as well as you the definition of the terms and the history of the US. Now man up and state clearly that you were way off base with the criticism of my post.

I didn't think you would.

If you don't like what Congress does, vote the occupants out.

 

[there4eyeM]

Any problem with the current federal government is caused by voters, either voting for the wrong representatives or not voting.
Take back the government.
Vote other!

 

[Wiseacre]

Jesus was a liberal. There is no question about it. Help the poor, give back to the community and be kind to others. Something the republican party severely lacks.

You are mistaken, the repubs believe those actions should be voluntary rather than forced on anybody.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Wow, so now the moon bats are channelling Christ?

 

[there4eyeM]

No answers back from those Christians asking Jesus?

 

[IGetItAlready]

JESUS BELIEVED IN SHARING THE WEALTH.
THE CHRISTIAN’S GOD.

I believe Obama is following the example of Jesus when he said feed the poor, Gleaning in he NT and Tithes. Every society in the human world believe in sharing the wealth. Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor....He fed a multitude with 5 loaves and 2 fish and told them to give the surplus to the poor. He said pay your taxes. If that is not sharing the wealth, what is?
Plus GOD provided manna for the Jews in the wilderness. The Egyptians shared their store house of grain doing 7 lean year famine. The Christian bible teaches sharing the wealth.
As soon as Obama took office, sharing the wealth was communist and socialist and an evil thing as stealing and thief from those that have.
Mormon’s Bishop’s Storehouse it the largest example of sharing the wealth. After the U.S. Government.

PS.
Anytime the Government forces me to have a child that I cannot afford, they damn well be willing to take care of it.

Sorry, but you're wrong.
He may have been about caring for the needy but even in the US until the Euro-socialists who seek to destroy this nation with an unsustainable entitlement culture, WE THE PEOPLE handled all that quite well without being forced.

 

[IGetItAlready]

JESUS BELIEVED IN SHARING THE WEALTH.
THE CHRISTIAN’S GOD.

I believe Obama is following the example of Jesus when he said feed the poor, Gleaning in he NT and Tithes. Every society in the human world believe in sharing the wealth. Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor....He fed a multitude with 5 loaves and 2 fish and told them to give the surplus to the poor. He said pay your taxes. If that is not sharing the wealth, what is?
Plus GOD provided manna for the Jews in the wilderness. The Egyptians shared their store house of grain doing 7 lean year famine. The Christian bible teaches sharing the wealth.
As soon as Obama took office, sharing the wealth was communist and socialist and an evil thing as stealing and thief from those that have.
Mormon’s Bishop’s Storehouse it the largest example of sharing the wealth. After the U.S. Government.

PS.
Anytime the Government forces me to have a child that I cannot afford, they damn well be willing to take care of it.

And that's really the difference isn't it.
That's why little old ladies who feed needy children are run out of business by government thugs. The Euro-socialist filth NEED to make the case that THEY are better at life in general than free people.
You all think everyone is dumb and that only your guidance can help mankind.
Read my sig line...it really says it all in regard to this among other issues.