Bible pick an choose

[KarlMarx]

This one is good against all the screw the poor, pro-capitalist types.

Hey kid.... why don't you put your money where your big mouth is, take a large percentage of your money and give it to charity like many of us conservatives do instead of acting like you're a candidate for sainthood?

For your information, I give a larger percentage of my income to charity than Al Gore (10%). I'll wager that a lot of others on this board give quite a bit, too. That's above and beyond what I'm required to pay in taxes, child support, college tuition for my kid, Social Security and so forth

So, shut the pie hole, kid, unless you're doing the same!

There is nothing in the Bible that tells people to remain poor... one of the Beatitudes is "Blessed are the poor in spirit (meaning humble)..."

Nowhere is there any mention made that Christians should support a coercive form of taxation that fund ineffective government programs that create phony baloney government jobs rather than helping the people they are intended to help. Instead, we are called as individuals to give to churches and charities (which is hard to do if the government has all the dough).

The best way to eliminate poverty is to make conditions that create wealth, not through charity.... charity is for those individuals who are down and out and can't make ends meet, or are unable to take care of themselves. It is not meant to be a permanent condition!

We are to give to the poor, not make damn sure they remain that way so they can remain dependent on our charity....

[JohnDoe]

Grabbing,
I had to read thru a lot of boring parts to get those quotes. Not like I just grabbed them off a site all nice and cut out for me.

You're doing GREAT!

one thing i would suggest that you do, is figure out who the writer is talking to and learn as much as you can about them, before you read the chapter, this will help you, and it is ''missing'' in your analysis of what you like and don't like.

Where I differ is that you really should not ''pick and choose'' the way you do.

All Scripture is justified by other scripture...

Where you think it contradicts itself, you probably are not searching deep enough in to its true meaning.

Also, before you begin reading, say a prayer asking God to please humble you enough and guide you to the ''true meaning'' of His Word that you are about to read....

I fully understand that this may seem silly to non believers, but I find this as a great tool.

-------------------------------------------------

As an example, your example from Jude that you hate.... read the whole chapter, he's talking about men that have infiltrated their church that are greedy and sexually immoral, that have joined their ranks....it could even imply positions of the Church with authority... and one could see it similar to our recent situation with Catholic Priest pedophiles and with Ted Haggard's infidelity with a Gay prostitute or with the Episcopol Church electing a Bishop to lead their congregation that is a homosexual....living with another man...

These corrupt people, in one manner or another, were trying to disrupt their church and the Word of God....that is not to be taken lightly!

This is also in the same chapter of Jude:

22Be merciful to those who doubt; 23snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.

How do you feel about this verse?

I have to get off and do some yardwork soon, so I may not answer until later!

JD

[JohnDoe]

Hey kid.... why don't you put your money where your big mouth is, take a large percentage of your money and give it to charity like many of us conservatives do instead of acting like you're a candidate for sainthood?

For your information, I give a larger percentage of my income to charity than Al Gore (10%). I'll wager that a lot of others on this board give quite a bit, too. That's above and beyond what I'm required to pay in taxes, child support, college tuition for my kid, Social Security and so forth

So, shut the pie hole, kid, unless you're doing the same!

There is nothing in the Bible that tells people to remain poor... one of the Beatitudes is "Blessed are the poor in spirit (meaning humble)..."

Nowhere is there any mention made that Christians should support a coercive form of taxation that fund ineffective government programs that create phony baloney government jobs rather than helping the people they are intended to help. Instead, we are called as individuals to give to churches and charities (which is hard to do if the government has all the dough).

The best way to eliminate poverty is to make conditions that create wealth, not through charity.... charity is for those individuals who are down and out and can't make ends meet, or are unable to take care of themselves. It is not meant to be a permanent condition!

We are to give to the poor, not make damn sure they remain that way so they can remain dependent on our charity....

SO, I take it you DO NOT support our government taking money from us via taxation, to GIVE to these private, religious charities?

Are you AGAINST Faith based Initiatives that is obviously another form of forced taxation, taking from us, giving to the Religious Institutions to take care of the poor, sick, needy, and strangers?

[glockmail]

SO, I take it you DO NOT support our government taking money from us via taxation, to GIVE to these private, religious charities?

Are you AGAINST Faith based Initiatives that is obviously another form of forced taxation, taking from us, giving to the Religious Institutions to take care of the poor, sick, needy, and strangers?

I myself are against government giving to charities. But the initiatives you speak about are government funding for specific causes that the goverment, through legislation, wishes to support. These faith-based institutions then have to compete against other private institutions that want to provide the same service. Its no different than Waste Management competing with BFI to haul off trash, of Lockeed competing with Boeing to build fighter planes.

[Abbey Marie]

LN, keep in mind that there is truth in this saying: "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing".

The fact that from the start, you picked Bible verses to make political staments, shows me that your heart is not yet in the right place. And if it is not, they are just words on a page. IMO, some of the least spiritual and most confused people on earth are those who study religious texts to teach "theology"

I do hope that your reading turns from looking for words to justify your views, to actually reading them with an open heart. God will bless you for it!

P.S. It really helps if you read a study Bible. The accompanying explanations help you understand context, odd wording, etc. I am sure several people on here can recommend a good one to you. Nelson's, for one.

[-Cp]

LN, keep in mind that there is truth in this saying: "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing".

The fact that from the start, you picked Bible verses to make political staments, shows me that your heart is not yet in the right place. And if it is not, they are just words on a page. IMO, some of the least spiritual and most confused people on earth are those who study religious texts to teach "theology"

I do hope that your reading turns from looking for words to justify your views, to actually reading them with an open heart. God will bless you for it!

P.S. It really helps if you read a study Bible. The accompanying explanations help you understand context, odd wording, etc. I am sure several people on here can recommend a good one to you. Nelson's, for one.

Additionally - I'd encourage her to not take every passage literally...

[5stringJeff]

So been reading it a little bit and here are some of the things I like and agree with and some of the things I don't and will disregard just like what every christian church in our country does. Oh and those I'm gona save to use as ammunition in political debate

LN, I'm glad to see that you're reading the Bible. I'd encourage you to read it holistically - i.e., read the whole thing to understand the main points. Then, when you come across more difficult passages, you'll understand the context in which they are written.

[LiberalNation]

Hey kid.... why don't you put your money where your big mouth is, take a large percentage of your money and give it to charity like many of us conservatives do instead of acting like you're a candidate for sainthood?

For your information, I give a larger percentage of my income to charity than Al Gore (10%). I'll wager that a lot of others on this board give quite a bit, too. That's above and beyond what I'm required to pay in taxes, child support, college tuition for my kid, Social Security and so forth

So, shut the pie hole, kid, unless you're doing the same

Hmmm, where'd you get off ont he sainthood candicacy thing. Why would I shut up if I do less for the poor than you. I don't claim to fly under a Christian banner myself and the poor don't worry me too much. Either way it says plenty in that book about submitting to the government and paying taxes. Private charities could nto come close to filling the gap the government programs provide. Many elderly live off their SS checks, not to mention the disabled who can't work. Workers comp and all those other programs.

[JohnDoe]

I myself are against government giving to charities. But the initiatives you speak about are government funding for specific causes that the goverment, through legislation, wishes to support. These faith-based institutions then have to compete against other private institutions that want to provide the same service. Its no different than Waste Management competing with BFI to haul off trash, of Lockeed competing with Boeing to build fighter planes.

My issue is not that the government takes from us to give to religious institutions or other charities.

The point I was trying to make was in response to his rant regarding the government taking from us for escentially welfare for the poor. If he is SOOOOOO against it...the government forcing charity to the poor then he should be against the Faith Based Initiatives of the Republicans, because in reality, it is precisely what he is complaining about, taking via taxation to help the needy...at least that was my thought, when reading his post and in my response.

And I don't have a problem with the government helping the poor, I do have a problem with our government being the numero uno donor to the Faith based charities, Churches should not be involved with our government or trust our government imo, they will come to regret it... when they become so dependent on the gvts money to help those in need, and the gvt someday starts telling them that they can't follow their own Church Doctrine anymore if they want to continue getting the gvt's money.... The Churches may succomb, just for the money or "The love of Money" that they were accustomed to getting without having to please with a good sermon or two or witnessing to one person in their own congregation to do such....without the one on one of giving.... it takes away from giving from one's heart...precisely what I THOUGHT was the Republican's complaint about "forced gvt providing" for the needy in the first place?

Am I off base on this...?

[glockmail]

My issue is not that the government takes from us to give to religious institutions or other charities.

The point I was trying to make was in response to his rant regarding the government taking from us for escentially welfare for the poor. If he is SOOOOOO against it...the government forcing charity to the poor then he should be against the Faith Based Initiatives of the Republicans, because in reality, it is precisely what he is complaining about, taking via taxation to help the needy...at least that was my thought, when reading his post and in my response.

And I don't have a problem with the government helping the poor, I do have a problem with our government being the numero uno donor to the Faith based charities, Churches should not be involved with our government or trust our government imo, they will come to regret it... when they become so dependent on the gvts money to help those in need, and the gvt someday starts telling them that they can't follow their own Church Doctrine anymore if they want to continue getting the gvt's money.... The Churches may succomb, just for the money or "The love of Money" that they were accustomed to getting without having to please with a good sermon or two or witnessing to one person in their own congregation to do such....without the one on one of giving.... it takes away from giving from one's heart...precisely what I THOUGHT was the Republican's complaint about "forced gvt providing" for the needy in the first place?

Am I off base on this...?

As a conservative republican, I don't have a problem helping the poor, and I don't know anyone else onmy side of the aisle who does. What we don't like is the government involvement in the process, because like nearly everything else, GovCo ends up screwing it up. And they consistently have on this issue.

[KarlMarx]

I object to the attitude by some of you liberals that, because I'm a conservative, that I have a "screw the poor" attitude.

You people have a pre-conceived notion that, just because I'm pro-free market and limited government that I don't care about my fellow man.

Who died and made you the judge of me and others like me?

I wouldn't be surprised if many of the same liberals who criticize us are themselves guilty of being stingy with their charitable giving.

[JohnDoe]

I object to the attitude by some of you liberals that, because I'm a conservative, that I have a "screw the poor" attitude.

You people have a pre-conceived notion that, just because I'm pro-free market and limited government that I don't care about my fellow man.

Who died and made you the judge of me and others like me?

I wouldn't be surprised if many of the same liberals who criticize us are themselves guilty of being stingy with their charitable giving.

Karl, YOur post implied and accused Democrats or Liberals or the Left or "the other side" on WANTING and INTENTIONALLY KEEPING the poor in poverty.

Wouldn't you say that it was YOU who is being "judgemental" on this subject?

Or at least as EQUALLY GUILTY of being "judgemental" of the other side?

----------------------------------------------

Personally, I believe that the "people" in America want to help those that have less do better. And that includes people that vote Democratic and who vote Republican and people who don't vote at all etc.

I believe as a country, we are only as good as the least among us.

Republicans in OFFICE in general come "off" as they don't give a poop about those that are the least among us and appear to only care for the "wealthiest" among us.

You may say that is bullcrap, but THIS IS HOW they appear to "the other side", especially with all of their legislation that ONLY focuses on corporations or the wealthiest, continually giving them legislation to help them and corporate welfare to help them while IGNORING the rest of the entire country, the "people" within the country.

I know Republicans believe that focusing their tax cuts and their tax loop hole legislation for the wealthiest and for Big Business, will in turn "trickle down" to those that have much less.

In general, this sounds like a good idea....but it hasn't worked this time around and the worker and the poor in general have only lost and NOT benefited this time around.

Something needs to be done about it.... and this does not mean handouts.

It means legislation that focuses on the issue, just like all the legislation that focused on the wealthiest the past 6 years.... like capital gains and dividend tax cuts, tax cuts benefitting the wealthiest the most, new Bankruptcy rules and regs to benefit them over the needy, like no bid contracts given to the big gun friends of theirs, ect etc etc....

So now, it is time to look out for the average guy for a bit, don't you think?

I don't want handouts given to the poor to hold them down.

There isn't a Democratic person out there that wants such.

But the RIGHT continually lies and says this about Democrats? And it sounds like you believe it and others on this board believes it too?

I guess what I am trying to say is that this is an issue that our politicians have used to pit us against one another.

The Republicans hate the poor and think they are just lazy bums that chose to be the way they are....

and

Democrats hate the wealthy and hate big business out of jealousy, and they LOVE of redristributing wealth.

Well, the truth is probably far from either of these things, but it is hard to see through all the smoke and mirrors and hate that we have been groomed to have against one another.

[glockmail]

.....Well, the truth is probably far from either of these things, but it is hard to see through all the smoke and mirrors and hate that we have been groomed to have against one another.

I look at results, not stated intentions. Democrat policies have consistently been loser ones for the poor, while Republicans ones have generally been winners.

Of course it's perfectly reasonable to look at pure selfish motives when deciding who may be the good guys are and the bad. Democrats benefit from having more poor, Republicans benefit from less.

[KarlMarx]

Karl, YOur post implied and accused Democrats or Liberals or the Left or "the other side" on WANTING and INTENTIONALLY KEEPING the poor in poverty.

Wouldn't you say that it was YOU who is being "judgemental" on this subject?

Or at least as EQUALLY GUILTY of being "judgemental" of the other side?

----------------------------------------------

Personally, I believe that the "people" in America want to help those that have less do better. And that includes people that vote Democratic and who vote Republican and people who don't vote at all etc.

I believe as a country, we are only as good as the least among us.

Republicans in OFFICE in general come "off" as they don't give a poop about those that are the least among us and appear to only care for the "wealthiest" among us.

You may say that is bullcrap, but THIS IS HOW they appear to "the other side", especially with all of their legislation that ONLY focuses on corporations or the wealthiest, continually giving them legislation to help them and corporate welfare to help them while IGNORING the rest of the entire country, the "people" within the country.

I know Republicans believe that focusing their tax cuts and their tax loop hole legislation for the wealthiest and for Big Business, will in turn "trickle down" to those that have much less.

In general, this sounds like a good idea....but it hasn't worked this time around and the worker and the poor in general have only lost and NOT benefited this time around.

Something needs to be done about it.... and this does not mean handouts.

It means legislation that focuses on the issue, just like all the legislation that focused on the wealthiest the past 6 years.... like capital gains and dividend tax cuts, tax cuts benefitting the wealthiest the most, new Bankruptcy rules and regs to benefit them over the needy, like no bid contracts given to the big gun friends of theirs, ect etc etc....

So now, it is time to look out for the average guy for a bit, don't you think?

I don't want handouts given to the poor to hold them down.

There isn't a Democratic person out there that wants such.

But the RIGHT continually lies and says this about Democrats? And it sounds like you believe it and others on this board believes it too?

I guess what I am trying to say is that this is an issue that our politicians have used to pit us against one another.

The Republicans hate the poor and think they are just lazy bums that chose to be the way they are....

and

Democrats hate the wealthy and hate big business out of jealousy, and they LOVE of redristributing wealth.

Well, the truth is probably far from either of these things, but it is hard to see through all the smoke and mirrors and hate that we have been groomed to have against one another.

Actually... that is exactly what the Democrat big wigs want to do. Government programs create government jobs, which increase union membership, which are big Democrat campaign contributors.

The political posturing of Democrats with regard to the poor is nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig. They don't actually care about the poor, they care about being in power and the way they get the power is to prostitute themselves to interests of their campaign contributors. Furthermore, they spend our money to "give" to the poor, when in fact, it's our money.

It's very easy to be generous with other people's money, isn't it? But many conservatives actually dig into their own pockets and help others. Then we get the line from the liberals about how we're all have an attitude of "f--- the poor". I'd like to tell some liberals were they can put put that self righteous attitude of theirs to cure hemorrhoids, too.

Then we have Mr Al Gore, who gave a whopping $35 to charity for a whole year, and blue states have lower per capita charitable giving than red states.

So, tell me, am I being judgemental or am I simply telling the truth?

[darin]

Government programs create government jobs, which increase union membership, which are big Democrat campaign contributors.

FWIW - I'm in a 'union' - but we don't pay dues...it's the best way to have a union, IMO. I'm unsure of any other gubbern-ment workers on the board, so dunno; maybe none of us pay any dues, etc?