Liberals: Post Bible Verses of Jesus' word promoting liberalism.

[Ringo84]

My point exactly, you can't read.

Tulc, I'll get to your thing tomorrow.

Oh, I can read all right. My problem simply lies in the fact that I can't follow non-sensical arguments too well. Hence my entire problem understanding the point of this thread in the first place.
Ringo

 

[Suomipoika]

So threatening someone with death is worse then rape? If so, its time to lock up some Muslims on PalTalk... Did I say that Paul had a spotless path... no.

Saul of Tarsus didn't merely threaten "someone" with death, he actually was part of the "persecuting league" that factually caused the death of a number of Christians. Didn't you read at all? Have you ever read at all? He also went around Judea, Galilee and to many further places imprisoning Christians and forcing them to blashpheme. So, he was not only threatening people, he was extremely serious with his threats, to the extent of causing actual deaths, and thus fills exactly the modern definition of "terrorist". And look at what God decided to make out of him?

"GodGunsAndGlory", what would you do if you met a group of, say, 50 "ex-rapists" who have given their lives to Christ and now serve him in the truth, love and the spirit of the Lord? If you were equipped with a Bible and a gun, and if given a chance, would you rather fellowship with theses Christians, sinners forgiven by Christ just like you, or would you rather "deliver them justice", shoot them all dead in the name of "God, guns and glory"?

 

[Suomipoika]

Perhaps the clearest and the most concrete passage in the New Testament that points out that the punishment system of the Mosaic Covenant is DEFINETILY, ABSOLUTELY NOT VALID after 33 AD is


1 Cor 6:9-11 (KJV):

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.



Clearly, unrepentant sinful lifestyle is condemned by Paul here, but the fact that some of the members of the Church of Corinth used to be practioners of these abominations in their earlier lives - practicing homosexuals, worshippers of false gods, fornicators, thieves, drunkards etc., many things that called for the death sentence in the Levitical laws - and that Paul's intentions for them don't quite seem to include stoning to death, should end the quoting of "punishment passages" from Leviticus here. The death of Jesus Christ on the cross for the sins of the whole world had this tremendous effect.

 

[chaz345]

Loving your enemy, caring for the sick, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, are all things conservatives in this country actively try to keep from happening.

Nope not at all. Conservatives just believe that those things aren't primarily a government function. That they do care about doing those things is proven by the fact that they give to charities at a noticeably higher rate than liberals.

 

[Gremlins]

Nope not at all. Conservatives just believe that those things aren't primarily a government function. That they do care about doing those things is proven by the fact that they give to charities at a noticeably higher rate than liberals.

So Conservatives are fine about enforcing their morality when it comes to sodomy laws and the like, but not when it comes to the poor? Right...

 

[chaz345]

So Conservatives are fine about enforcing their morality when it comes to sodomy laws and the like, but not when it comes to the poor? Right...

That has nothing to do with what has been said. The point(totally false point) was that conservatives actively seek to prevent the poor from being cared for. There is a huge difference between opposing government taking that role and not caring for the poor.

Let's look at another topic where exactly the same thing is done, only this time by conservatives. Many times we here conservatives saying that when a liberal supports a woman's right to choose they are supporting abortion or saying that abortion is good. This is wrong to do, just as it is wrong to say that opposition to increased government aid to the poor means that one doesn't care about the poor.

 

[TheReasoner]

That has nothing to do with what has been said. The point(totally false point) was that conservatives actively seek to prevent the poor from being cared for. There is a huge difference between opposing government taking that role and not caring for the poor.

Is it? How is that a false statement? As a "conservative" you don't want the state to care for the poor, even though it has been shown to be the best way for public assistance together with private charity.
You oppose raising the minimum wage, which is a blow to the poor. You oppose government restrictions on companies and corporations, which again is a blow to the poor. And you oppose unions and activism, which again is a blow to the poor. Need I really go on?
Doing all of this, opposing these things you actively prevent the poor from getting out of their poverty. Mind you I don't think they should be 'cared for' so much as I think they should be helped out of poverty. And this is best accomplished by public and private working together. Not by either one doing it alone.

Let's look at another topic where exactly the same thing is done, only this time by conservatives. Many times we here conservatives saying that when a liberal supports a woman's right to choose they are supporting abortion or saying that abortion is good. This is wrong to do, just as it is wrong to say that opposition to increased government aid to the poor means that one doesn't care about the poor.

It does, however, mean that you aren't willing to help them efficiently because that would mean you'd have to pay more taxes.

 

[JohnElias]

Is it? How is that a false statement? As a "conservative" you don't want the state to care for the poor, even though it has been shown to be the best way for public assistance together with private charity.
You oppose raising the minimum wage, which is a blow to the poor. You oppose government restrictions on companies and corporations, which again is a blow to the poor. And you oppose unions and activism, which again is a blow to the poor. Need I really go on?
Doing all of this, opposing these things you actively prevent the poor from getting out of their poverty. Mind you I don't think they should be 'cared for' so much as I think they should be helped out of poverty. And this is best accomplished by public and private working together. Not by either one doing it alone.



It does, however, mean that you aren't willing to help them efficiently because that would mean you'd have to pay more taxes.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to faith guardian again.

 

[chaz345]

Is it? How is that a false statement? As a "conservative" you don't want the state to care for the poor, even though it has been shown to be the best way for public assistance together with private charity.
You oppose raising the minimum wage, which is a blow to the poor. You oppose government restrictions on companies and corporations, which again is a blow to the poor. And you oppose unions and activism, which again is a blow to the poor. Need I really go on?
Doing all of this, opposing these things you actively prevent the poor from getting out of their poverty. Mind you I don't think they should be 'cared for' so much as I think they should be helped out of poverty. And this is best accomplished by public and private working together. Not by either one doing it alone.



It does, however, mean that you aren't willing to help them efficiently because that would mean you'd have to pay more taxes.

Ah excuse me but can you show me anywhere that I said that government aid to the poor should be eliminated? Ditto for regulation of industry? I think you'd be hard pressed to find many conservatives that are really for the complete elimination of either. Nearly every real conservative position on the issue(by real I mean not an exaggerated one spouted on the radio for the purpose of increased ratings) simply opposes INCREASING such things especially in cases where contrary to your assertion that they ar emost efficient, they have accomplished little other than generational dependence on such aid.

As for more taxes, as it is now, every dollar I earn between Jan 1 and April 23 is what it takes to cover my tax burden, and that's just federal. By the time other levels of government are added in I don't get any benefit at all from pretty near half of what I earn.

 

[TheReasoner]

Ah excuse me but can you show me anywhere that I said that government aid to the poor should be eliminated? Ditto for regulation of industry? I think you'd be hard pressed to find many conservatives that are really for the complete elimination of either

But you do want to cut it down, right? Even if your levels are the lowest in the west!? If you want to maim a person that's still wrong even if it doesn't kill him. So even if you harm the poor less than you would by abolishing the governmental aid you're still harming them by reducing it even further in a nation where there's so little of it in the first place.

Nearly every real conservative position on the issue(by real I mean not an exaggerated one spouted on the radio for the purpose of increased ratings) simply opposes INCREASING such things especially in cases where contrary to your assertion that they ar emost efficient, they have accomplished little other than generational dependence on such aid.

Maybe in the states. Norway is where it is (On the top) because of it. Same with the rest of Scandinavia. Decreasing government, decreasing taxation... It's all good for one thing - empowering the powerful. Which will also weaken the weak of course.
Now I agree that your government is in need of a major fixer-upper, but I do think you would benefit a lot from studying other nations' choices and the consequences of them. Rather than trying to amputate the bruised finger, help it heal.

As for more taxes, as it is now, every dollar I earn between Jan 1 and April 23 is what it takes to cover my tax burden, and that's just federal. By the time other levels of government are added in I don't get any benefit at all from pretty near half of what I earn.

Your taxes are seemingly not spent as well as ours. I have free education to show for it. And I'll get a lot more free education too, as I am going back to university now to change my career. My sister is alive today because of governmental aid. It works, I know so from personal experience. Granted it is far from perfect, but given the alternative (which is no or very little help at all) it is Xanadu.
Now I understand why Americans are displeased with your government. I'm just saying cutting it down all the time is just going to make things worse, because that which will fill the resulting power gap is exactly that which you dislike.

 

[chaz345]

But you do want to cut it down, right? Even if your levels are the lowest in the west!?

Levels of what, aid or tax? Because while we may have some of the lowest aid levels, we've got some of the highest tax levels. I was quite disturbed to find that the tax level, according to a resident, in one of the most socialistic countries in Europe was in the 35% range.

Now I don't know if that includes all layers of taxes but I do know there here when all layers are counted, anyone making over around $40k per year sees almost half of their income go to taxes of one form or another.

 

[TheReasoner]

Levels of what, aid or tax? Because while we may have some of the lowest aid levels, we've got some of the highest tax levels. I was quite disturbed to find that the tax level, according to a resident, in one of the most socialistic countries in Europe was in the 35% range.

How high is it over there? I pay about 32% taxes. After I go back to and finish university I'll probably pay about 50%. If I get a good salary. And then for purchases there's a 25% sales tax. Imports? 30%.
How much do you pay?

Now I don't know if that includes all layers of taxes but I do know there here when all layers are counted, anyone making over around $40k per year sees almost half of their income go to taxes of one form or another.

That's 200 000 NOK (roughly). I make about 320 000. Which isn't much by Norwegian standards. Oh well, work for a missions agency...
Anyway, I asked my wife - a Texan, and I thought you pay about 8% or so in taxes. Not much at all. My sister in law makes much less money than I do a year - before taxes - but after she makes about the same.

Of course, we don't have to worry about insurance and the like... That's what we pay for with our taxes. Medical insurance covering us all over the EU and EEA, education is covered. Infrastructure, law enforcement... We get a lot for our money I think

 

[reverend B]

How high is it over there? I pay about 32% taxes. After I go back to and finish university I'll probably pay about 50%. If I get a good salary. And then for purchases there's a 25% sales tax. Imports? 30%.
How much do you pay?



That's 200 000 NOK (roughly). I make about 320 000. Which isn't much by Norwegian standards. Oh well, work for a missions agency...
Anyway, I asked my wife - a Texan, and I thought you pay about 8% or so in taxes. Not much at all. My sister in law makes much less money than I do a year - before taxes - but after she makes about the same.

Of course, we don't have to worry about insurance and the like... That's what we pay for with our taxes. Medical insurance covering us all over the EU and EEA, education is covered. Infrastructure, law enforcement... We get a lot for our money I think

of course, then again you don't have to finance the selective policing of the entire planet, as we are burdened with. lol.

 

[chaz345]

How high is it over there? I pay about 32% taxes. After I go back to and finish university I'll probably pay about 50%. If I get a good salary. And then for purchases there's a 25% sales tax. Imports? 30%.
How much do you pay?



That's 200 000 NOK (roughly). I make about 320 000. Which isn't much by Norwegian standards. Oh well, work for a missions agency...
Anyway, I asked my wife - a Texan, and I thought you pay about 8% or so in taxes. Not much at all. My sister in law makes much less money than I do a year - before taxes - but after she makes about the same.

Of course, we don't have to worry about insurance and the like... That's what we pay for with our taxes. Medical insurance covering us all over the EU and EEA, education is covered. Infrastructure, law enforcement... We get a lot for our money I think

That 8% number was either a local or state sales tax or a local or state income tax. That would be in addition to the 25 to 40% federal income tax. Like I said when it is all put together, someone in the middle of middle class will probably be putting roughly half of their total income into taxes of one form or another. It is a little more confusing than over there where you've got, unless I'm mistaken pretty much just the national taxes on income and a national sales tax(or VAT if you prefer that term).
Here we've got income tax both federal and state. Property tax both state and local. Most states and many localities have a sales tax. And we haven't even started on specialized taxes like rooms and meals taxes on hotels and restraunts, taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, the tax on not being able to do math(lottery),that last was a joke of sorts, and the list goes on.

I get what you are saying about fixing the problem rather than amputating, the problem is as long as the government has the money and the associated power, nothing will change.

 

[chaz345]

of course, then again you don't have to finance the selective policing of the entire planet, as we are burdened with. lol.

Which raises an excellent point. Of all of the countries that have better government services and lower taxes than the US, you couldn't put together a credible military capability to deal with someone like Saadam(the first time) if you put them all together. If the US doesn't do it, who will? With today's destructive technology, the world can't wait and debate for a few years until agreeing that something must be done l like happened with Hitler. By the time agreement was reached it would already be over.

 

[reverend B]

maybe that means no one would have a knee-jerk reaction to start a conflict with no exit strategy, no definition of victory, no clue.
that would be nice.

 

[GodGunsAndGlory]

Saul of Tarsus didn't merely threaten "someone" with death, he actually was part of the "persecuting league" that factually caused the death of a number of Christians. Didn't you read at all? Have you ever read at all? He also went around Judea, Galilee and to many further places imprisoning Christians and forcing them to blashpheme. So, he was not only threatening people, he was extremely serious with his threats, to the extent of causing actual deaths, and thus fills exactly the modern definition of "terrorist". And look at what God decided to make out of him?

"GodGunsAndGlory", what would you do if you met a group of, say, 50 "ex-rapists" who have given their lives to Christ and now serve him in the truth, love and the spirit of the Lord? If you were equipped with a Bible and a gun, and if given a chance, would you rather fellowship with theses Christians, sinners forgiven by Christ just like you, or would you rather "deliver them justice", shoot them all dead in the name of "God, guns and glory"?

Do you have any proof for what you have just said?

Being a Christian doesn't exempt your from the law. People who have truly became Christians in prison that are on death row are people so they deserve to die, the others just want someone to fall for their deception and to support them being exempted from the law.

Perhaps the clearest and the most concrete passage in the New Testament that points out that the punishment system of the Mosaic Covenant is DEFINETILY, ABSOLUTELY NOT VALID after 33 AD is


1 Cor 6:9-11 (KJV):

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.



Clearly, unrepentant sinful lifestyle is condemned by Paul here, but the fact that some of the members of the Church of Corinth used to be practioners of these abominations in their earlier lives - practicing homosexuals, worshippers of false gods, fornicators, thieves, drunkards etc., many things that called for the death sentence in the Levitical laws - and that Paul's intentions for them don't quite seem to include stoning to death, should end the quoting of "punishment passages" from Leviticus here. The death of Jesus Christ on the cross for the sins of the whole world had this tremendous effect.

For one your quote has to do with LAWSUITS which are LIBERALS favorite form of WELFARE.

Therefore, it is already a total defeat for you that you have lawsuits against one another. Why not rather put up with injustice? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you act unjustly and cheat—and this to brothers!

So where does it say anything about Mosaic law?

Have you not read Romans 1:32, he does say homosexuals deserve to die. Just because God said "You will not be murderers" doesn't mean that they shouldn't be punished for their crime. What do you expect him to do this:

Do not be deceived: no sexually immoral people(death), idolaters(death), adulterers(death), male prostitutes(death), homosexuals(death), thieves(can't remember lol).....

Do you expect him to write that they should be up to death after he makes any mention of them?

 

[reverend B]

pray for the lost and those that have not met the loving living Christ.

 

[jgarden]

Which raises an excellent point. Of all of the countries that have better government services and lower taxes than the US, you couldn't put together a credible military capability to deal with someone like Saadam(the first time) if you put them all together. If the US doesn't do it, who will? With today's destructive technology, the world can't wait and debate for a few years until agreeing that something must be done l like happened with Hitler. By the time agreement was reached it would already be over.

*****************************************

Document 52: Department of State Cable from George P. Shultz to the United States Embassy in Lebanon [et al.]. "Department Press Briefing, March 30, 1984," March 31, 1984.

The State Department announces it has imposed foreign policy controls on Iran and Iraq for exports of chemical weapons precursors. It responds to questions from the press about U.S. policy regarding the Iran-Iraq war, and a department spokesperson says Iraq's chemical weapons use will not change U.S. interest in pursuing closer U.S.-Iraq relations.

Source: Declassified under the Freedom of Information Act

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/#docs

The Bush Administration expects the public to put their collective brains in "storage," and accept a 180 degree turn from the Reagan policy

By 1984, the Reagan Administration was well aware that Sadaam was making extensive use of WMD against the Iranians and even his own people - the Kurds.

It also should noted that in 1984, GWB's father was the sitting Vice President and Rumsfeld, the Administration's chief negotiator.

It is also widely accepted that the current Iraqi War has created more problems than it has solved, including a significant weakening of America's "credible military capability."

 

[TheReasoner]

That 8% number was either a local or state sales tax or a local or state income tax. That would be in addition to the 25 to 40% federal income tax. Like I said when it is all put together, someone in the middle of middle class will probably be putting roughly half of their total income into taxes of one form or another. It is a little more confusing than over there where you've got, unless I'm mistaken pretty much just the national taxes on income and a national sales tax(or VAT if you prefer that term).
Here we've got income tax both federal and state. Property tax both state and local. Most states and many localities have a sales tax. And we haven't even started on specialized taxes like rooms and meals taxes on hotels and restraunts, taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, the tax on not being able to do math(lottery),that last was a joke of sorts, and the list goes on.

I get what you are saying about fixing the problem rather than amputating, the problem is as long as the government has the money and the associated power, nothing will change.

I get what you're saying. And I think I agree. But if you take the power away from this government without giving it to a new one - then things will likely only get worse as the vacuum is filled with corporations with no interest in anything but their own profit. Not a huge change, I agree. But how do you get away from that when you no longer have any control over what the governing power does?!