Who's Your Historical Hero?

[Lifesaver]

Jesus never turned the poor away. Jesus never thought the poor were seeking government handouts and called them lazy. Jesus sought wealth redistribution. Jesus was anti-nationalist. Jesus told people to pay their taxes, because money is of little importance in comparison to eternal salvation.

First of all, what is called the poor in Scriptures is not what we call poor. They were people starving and dying of diseases.
Second, Jesus never once, in the entire Bible, says the people should be supported by the government. On the contrary, in one of his epistles, St. Paul says that those who do not work should not eat!
Never once did Jesus say that free trade should be prohibitted in order to save some jobs (a distinctively liberal practice which creates poverty).

What Jesus did and exhorted people to do was personal charity and alms-giving.

He is also, unlike liberals, very intolerant of other beliefs than the true ones, condemned most sexual practices liberals have always sympathized with and told parables involving wars and even interest charging, things which liberals have elected as inherently immoral and always sinful.

 

[Russebby]

First of all, what is called the poor in Scriptures is not what we call poor. They were people starving and dying of diseases.

There are people starving and dying of diseases all over the world. As Christians, we have a duty to see to it that they all are fed, not just the ones in America. ALL of them, not just the ones who are legally bound to a particuloar country. There is a big world outside our borders. We are ALL God's children. There is no American heaven.

Second, Jesus never once, in the entire Bible, says the people should be supported by the government.

Au contraire. I site Matthew 25 to show that the nations of the world have an inherent duty to feed and clothe the poor. The scripture:

[31] When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
[32] And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
[33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
[34] Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
[35] For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
[36] Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
[37] Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
[38] When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
[39] Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
[40] And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
[41] Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
[42] For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
[43] I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
[44] Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
[45] Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
[46] And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. [MATTHEW 25:31-46]

Jesus in this passage is speaking of entire nations taking it upon themselves to feed and clothe the poor, and He is adamant in his preference of nations that heed to this. He is going to look upon persons and peoples and countries and judge them based on this obligation.

So yes, Jesus is saying government in a way is responsible for the needs of its people. Especially a government of, by, and for the people, as the US gov't alleges itself to be.

On the contrary, in one of his epistles, St. Paul says that those who do not work should not eat!

When did I say anything about Paul? I am not talking about Paul. I am talking about Jesus, what He actually said and did. Paul is whatever he is. To me, Paul was an evangelist who tried to push the teachings of Jesus onto peoples with many reservations, and he had to make due with what he had. Paul is important. But even Paul would tell you that for all his work, it all must take a back seat to the actual teachings of Jesus.

So don't take Paul's words as equal to those of Jesus. Jesus is the one who died for our sins. Jesus is God. I would think His words hold a little more weight, wouldn't you?

Never once did Jesus say that free trade should be prohibitted in order to save some jobs (a distinctively liberal practice which creates poverty).

Over and over again, though, Jesus is encouraging people to drop whatever they were doing in their businesses to follow Him. Peter dropped his fishing business to follow Him. Matthew ceased collecting taxes. There are things in this world higher than merely making a buck. Jesus says over and over again that you cannot have two masters, and that you cannot serve both God and money [Matt. 6:24].

Jesus did talk about certain limits of free trade. He had a cow when He came to the temple and saw all the peddlers and the moneychangers, and he was appalled, considering a house of prayer being turned into a den of thieves. He said that looking upon a woman in lust was tantamount to adultery--consider the plethera of American marketing based on sex, and tell me that Jesus would condone any of it.

As I warned you previously, don't get caught up in the minutia of specific liberal or conservative causes. You cannot just take one hot-button issue and call that one point proof of a leaning. You have to take the entirely of His teachings. You cannot assume things, you cannot take the entire Bible as the word of Jesus, because Jesus said pretty specific things.

What Jesus did and exhorted people to do was personal charity and alms-giving.

Yes he did. He also called on nations and peoples to combat poverty. See Matthew 25 above. Consider Verse 40:

40] And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

At the end of the day, Jesus is going to return, and He is going to look at us as individuals and as a people, and He is going to know if we really did do this. How are we as individuals and nations going to answer this one? When there are children starving in Africa and Asia and here in the Americas, when genocide and war still is waged throughout the world, how are we as Christians treating the "least of these my brethren"? Sure, we can condemn Sudan and its current genocidal campaigns, but the Christian Serbians waged genocide just five years ago. We can talk about how the Ethiopian government lets food rot on the docks while its children starve, but if the West backs corrupt governments around the world that neglect their peoples, the West is just as culpable.

Consider Verse 35:

35] For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

Think about you as an individual first as Jesus sits you on His lap and you reflect on this. How many times did you call the poor lazy? How many times did you cross the street to avoid giving a homeless person a buck? How many times did you vote down taxes that could have been used to better schools or health care? How many times did you think to yourself it's not your fault Mexicans die in the Arizona desert, or refugees flee a warzone, for the sake of finding a better life for themselves? Jesus was in all these people you avoided. [I am not talking about you per se, I am sure you are a fine upstanding gentleman or lady, but I hope you get the point I am trying to make] I am not saying I am better than anyone else, but I do know Jesus is going to look us in the eye, and He will demand straight answers to how we deal with the poor.

Think about you as part of a nation and a people second. As America, yes, we have done wonders in not only bettering the people of this country, but throughout the world. The entire planet is a better place because of American charity. But the job is hardly done. Still, a third of the planet will go to bed hungry tonight. America upholds corrupt governments that we know commit atrocities against their own peoples. American taxes have bettered the lives of people around the world when it comes to charity--that is the essence of socialism. American taxes have also gone to wage war and prop up corrupt leaders--that is the essence of arrogance. As a people, America is certainly doing the work of Jesus. But reflect on this--how much do you as an American whine about how much foreign aid we send? If we are such a charitable country, and if we are doing God's work, why do so many Americans cry about how much foreign aid we send out? Many of these people claim to be God-fearing Christians--why are they complaining about the government doing God's work?

We are all God's children, not just those of us sandwiched between Canada and Mexico. There is not much nationalism [a decidedly conservative tenet] in Jesus's message.

He is also, unlike liberals, very intolerant of other beliefs than the true ones, condemned most sexual practices liberals have always sympathized with and told parables involving wars and even interest charging, things which liberals have elected as inherently immoral and always sinful.

I said above that Jesus would have a big problem with modern marketing being based on sex, so you are talking to the wrong cat concerning the contemporary expressiveness of sexuality. I have problems with various tenets of sexuality as well. I also know that Jesus did not condemn, as Neo-cons are so quick to do. Consider the case of John 8--the whole CAST THE FIRST STONE episode. Jesus had every right to uphold the law and let the prostitute get stoned. But he installed something that apparently superceded justice. He installed mercy. Justice means payment based on the law. Mercy transcends the law. The woman was certainly guilty (as was whatever man she was found with--taking the woman's side in domestic squabbles and leniency toward one's misfortunes has always been another liberal hallmark), and according to justice she should have been stoned. Jesus found a way out for her.

At the end, Jesus commanded her to go and sin no more. And that was that. He did not check up on her after the fact. He let her off with a declaration. As he lets people off time and again and again and again for out misgivings. That is the basis for grace.

Do I think homosexuality--which is what you were getting at when you talked about "most sexual practices"--is a sin? Yes, it's right there in the Bible, and Jesus did not say anything on the subject one way or another. But He did talk about how we should deal with the sinner. I am of the opinion that you cannot be both gay and Christian at the same time--once Jesus tells you to go and sin no more, you are under an obligation to follow. Jesus will not condemn you or let the world bludgeon you, but in your heart of hearts, if you know Jesus saved you through His grace, you have a responsibility to knock off your shenanigans.

In the broad sense, Jesus was against most sexual deviance. But in terms of how we deal with such sinners, He advocated kindness and mercy. If He is willing to do such, who are we as humans to act otherwise. He is God, and if He doesn't condemn, who are we to?

And by the by, general Christian belief dictates that the only purpose of sex is for procreation. So I don't know you, but I ask you as a person to sit in judgment on yourself before you try to condemn others. Have you ever had premarital sex? Have you divorced and remarried? Have you ever been pleasured in ways that would not contribute to procreation? If you say yes, then you are equally as guilty of deviance as any homosexual or prostitute, according to scripture. If you condone Britney Spears' 55-hour marriage earlier this year, or WHO WANTS TO MARRY A MILLIONAIRE, or Dennis Rodman and Carmen Electra waking up from a drunken stupor to find they were wedded, that is just as bad as condoning homosexuality.

See what I am getting at? We all are guilty of such deviant behavior, just some of it gets headlines and some doesn't. It's all bad, and you shouldn't pick and choose the parts of it that fit your agenda.

I was a Christian long before I was a liberal.

 

[wb3]

I feel bad. Nobody said a word about Chenggis Khan. He was only like the best military genius to ever live. He would make Tommy Franks look like a pansy (no offense to Gen. Franks, a very good man). What do y'all think about Chenggis Khan.

 

[Lifesaver]

There are people starving and dying of diseases all over the world. As Christians, we have a duty to see to it that they all are fed, not just the ones in America. ALL of them, not just the ones who are legally bound to a particuloar country. There is a big world outside our borders. We are ALL God's children. There is no American heaven.

I know, but tell that to liberals.
For them, anyone who has a trailler to live and food to eat is poor and needs our financial support; forced financial support.

Second, Jesus never once, in the entire Bible, says the people should be supported by the government.

Au contraire. I site Matthew 25 to show that the nations of the world have an inherent duty to feed and clothe the poor. The scripture:

Au contraire say I!
When God judges a nation, He takes into account the actions of the individuals of that nation.

And when He speaks of "taking the stranger in", He means actual personal help to someone else. Not State-given health-care and pensions.
Jesus in this passage is speaking of entire nations taking it upon themselves to feed and clothe the poor, and He is adamant in his preference of nations that heed to this. He is going to look upon persons and peoples and countries and judge them based on this obligation.

And what constitutes a nation, if not its individuals?
You are ascribing to Jesus a view of the government He never once exposed.

So yes, Jesus is saying government in a way is responsible for the needs of its people. Especially a government of, by, and for the people, as the US gov't alleges itself to be.

On the contrary, He is exhorting people to be good to one another.

When did I say anything about Paul? I am not talking about Paul. I am talking about Jesus, what He actually said and did. Paul is whatever he is. To me, Paul was an evangelist who tried to push the teachings of Jesus onto peoples with many reservations, and he had to make due with what he had. Paul is important. But even Paul would tell you that for all his work, it all must take a back seat to the actual teachings of Jesus.

I'm sorry. I thought you believed the Bible to be the word of God, and therefore inerrant. But if you believe a Biblical writer can have taught wrong things in their books or letters, then one could easily say an evangelist misquoted Jesus as well.

So don't take Paul's words as equal to those of Jesus. Jesus is the one who died for our sins. Jesus is God. I would think His words hold a little more weight, wouldn't you?

I wasn't aware Jesus wrote any books...

Over and over again, though, Jesus is encouraging people to drop whatever they were doing in their businesses to follow Him. Peter dropped his fishing business to follow Him. Matthew ceased collecting taxes. There are things in this world higher than merely making a buck. Jesus says over and over again that you cannot have two masters, and that you cannot serve both God and money

Way to completely change the subject.
I agree, material comfort comes second to spiritual life.
Therefore, it can be said the Welfare State is almost devilish for being completely materialist, and setting as its supreme priority to fill the bellies of its citizens.

Still, it generates unemployment, poverty and leaves the population apathic and workless.

Jesus did talk about certain limits of free trade. He had a cow when He came to the temple and saw all the peddlers and the moneychangers, and he was appalled, considering a house of prayer being turned into a den of thieves. He said that looking upon a woman in lust was tantamount to adultery--consider the plethera of American marketing based on sex, and tell me that Jesus would condone any of it.

.... this is getting ridiculous!
You are replying to what you wish I had said.
Free trade = no trade barriers between countries; no subsidies to help one company over another.

And blame sex-based marketting on the liberals, there was nothing like it back in the "good old days".

Yes he did. He also called on nations and peoples to combat poverty. See Matthew 25 above. Consider Verse 40:
40] And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

And what policies the government can do to help the least of the people?
Free trade, free initiative, little taxes, no trade barriers, no subsidies, not many nationalized services, not many labour laws.

How are we as individuals and nations going to answer this one? When there are children starving in Africa and Asia and here in the Americas, when genocide and war still is waged throughout the world, how are we as Christians treating the "least of these my brethren"?

You have thrown away Christian morality for some kind of socialistic moral code.
It is not our personal fault that people are dying. Sure, we must try to help them, but to say that we sin for not helping them is borderline blasphemous.
People in the Bible are called righteous and just. In Biblical times (both NT and OT) there were people starving, dying, etc.
The people called just were not solving the hunger in Africa; therefore, it is not a sin not to do it.

How many times did you call the poor lazy?

Is it impossible that there are lazy poor people?
The Bible tell us to judge justly. If those called lazy are indeed lazy, nothing wrong was done.

How many times did you cross the street to avoid giving a homeless person a buck?

Do you think it is a good thing to give money on the street, even when you know the person will put it to no good use (are you culpable if the guy buys drugs?)?
And are you helping him improve his situation by giving him that "buck"?

How many times did you vote down taxes that could have been used to better schools or health care?

Less taxes equals more production, lower prices and lower unemployment. Of course I will vote taxes down, to help the population!

How many times did you think to yourself it's not your fault Mexicans die in the Arizona desert, or refugees flee a warzone, for the sake of finding a better life for themselves?

It is not my personal fault, no.
I try to vote and defend measures publicly that will make the whole world a better place to live. That's not enough to save anyone's life, but in the end, it will make a change.
For example, I defend the opening up of borders, for both trade and people. That's what helps Mexicans; not another labour law which will only get them unemployed.

I am not saying I am better than anyone else, but I do know Jesus is going to look us in the eye, and He will demand straight answers to how we deal with the poor.

And so far you have loudly defended practices which increase poverty (higher taxes, high state intervetion, trade barriers, etc). It's not a sin if you've voted for them, but you still took a part in increasing poverty in your country and the world for defending them.

But reflect on this--how much do you as an American whine about how much foreign aid we send?

Very little, since I'm not an American.

We are all God's children, not just those of us sandwiched between Canada and Mexico. There is not much nationalism [a decidedly conservative tenet] in Jesus's message.

I need no further proof that you have not only not read my post attentively, but that you are choosing the things you want me to say.
I am not American and I have not expressed any nationalism, much less nationalism for USA!

I also know that Jesus did not condemn

Of course God condemns.
Have you ever heard of Hell?

And what about Jesus calling the pharisees "brood of vipers"? And kicking out the sellers in the temple?

At the end, Jesus commanded her to go and sin no more. And that was that. He did not check up on her after the fact. He let her off with a declaration. As he lets people off time and again and again and again for out misgivings. That is the basis for grace.

Are you confusing spiritual charity with temporal charity?
Christians are obliged to wish for and pray for everyone's eternal salvation. We're not obliged to want everyone's temporal good.

In the broad sense, Jesus was against most sexual deviance. But in terms of how we deal with such sinners, He advocated kindness and mercy. If He is willing to do such, who are we as humans to act otherwise. He is God, and if He doesn't condemn, who are we to?

Do you think God doesn't condemn sinners?

And by the by, general Christian belief dictates that the only purpose of sex is for procreation.

As defined by the Church ("general Christian belief"- if you don't mean Catholic doctrine, I never heard of it) sex has two purposes: procreative and unitive. Any extra-marital sex, including masturbation and indulging in sexual thoughts is sinful.

I was a Christian long before I was a liberal.

Were you...?

 

[Russebby]

I thank you for your responding, I really do.

A few things:

And what constitutes a nation, if not its individuals?
You are ascribing to Jesus a view of the government He never once exposed.

Matthew 25 talks about NATIONS. Now, I went into how Jesus would judge us both in terms of individuals and countries. So I covered both angles. The point is, Jesus gave us collectively and individually a commandment to take care of the poor.

I'm sorry. I thought you believed the Bible to be the word of God, and therefore inerrant. But if you believe a Biblical writer can have taught wrong things in their books or letters, then one could easily say an evangelist misquoted Jesus as well.
I never said I believed the entire Bible was the unerrant word of God. I believe it was written by men, and as a result there are glaring contradictions. If one believes it to be 100% unerrant, there are no explanations for contradictions. For instance, many people in this world still hold the EYE FOR AN EYE standard of justice, when Jesus Himself taked about TURNING THE OTHER CHEEK. If every book in the Bible were equal, this would be a contradiction. But I am a Christian--I follow the teachings of Jesus first, not of Moses, not the prophets, but Jesus. And Jesus said to turn the other cheek. If we are to follow Christ, then what He teaches us must take lead over the rest of the Bible. You cannot tell me that the words of the prophet Malachi hold as much weight as the teachings of Jesus in the book of Matthew. You cannot tell me an epistle written by Timothy is equal to the teachings of Jesus Himself. I don't remember David or Moses being crucified specifically to atone for the sins of mankind, but Jesus did, and if for no other reason, His death deserves to make His teachings just a tad more important than the rest.

I wasn't aware Jesus wrote any books.
Just wanting to make sure you aren't trying to minimize the importance of the Gospels here with smarmy comments like this.

I agree, material comfort comes second to spiritual life.
Therefore, it can be said the Welfare State is almost devilish for being completely materialist, and setting as its supreme priority to fill the bellies of its citizens.
It's plain to me that capitalism--the hoarding of resources to the highest bidders, the hoarding of wealth for its own sake, the grossly materislistic nature of American society--is hardly something Jesus would condone as the Gospels tell us. Only a Neitschzean with a ubermensche mentality would think feeding the poor as a priority of society is somehow devilish.

Not surprisingly, I disagree. I use America 1890 as an example of capitalism with no regulation. You had gross abuses of child labor, and children were often employed before adults because they commanded a lesser wage. You had fatal work conditions in factories. Sweatshops in America. Police and fire departments were privatized and came to help only if pay was possible--hence, rampant corruption. Corporations were on the verge of creating an oligarchy in America, and the government was virtually in its pocket, even more so than today. Entire industries were monopolized. THANK GOD FOR THE LIBERALS! Without them, there would have been no child labor laws. No unions guaranteeing fair wages and benefits. No health and safety standards. No small business whatsoever. Thanks to antitrust legislation and the rise of unions, the American worker emerged from a level of virtual slavery.

Now, if you are pining away for the "good old days" when boys were hired before grown men because they commanded lower wages, when working in a mine or factory meant death was merely an occupational hazard, when the wealth of the country was being ever concentrated in a smaller and smaller set of hands, let me know. Without the liberal legislation and the rise of unions in the 1910's, America would have become a corporate oligarchy long ago.

And blame sex-based marketting on the liberals, there was nothing like it back in the "good old days".
Please tell me when these halcyon days were. Tell me when this perfect society ever existed. Don't just pine away for a time that never happened. The truth is, gays and abortion have been with us since the dawn of time, and it's only been in the last 40 years that we have honestly started to talk about it.



It is not our personal fault that people are dying. Sure, we must try to help them, but to say that we sin for not helping them is borderline blasphemous.
What I am saying is if you vote against social programs that can and do help the poor, you are contributing to their demise. I am not saying anything about sin--I leave that to the Gospels. But if you are in a position to help, and you call yourself a Christian, you have the duty to do so. John 13:34 is my favorite verse in scripture: LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS I HAVE LOVED YOU. If you read the Gospels through the prism of that verse, your point of view will change. The verse means we have to look after each other in the way Jesus did--relentlessly, compassionately, unwavering, with everything we have. We are mortal and will come short, true, but we have no excuse for ever giving up.

So yes, apathy is a sin in my book. Apathy is the opposite of love. It took a great deal of apathy for events like the Holocaust to occur--it took a lot of decent people to turn a blind eye for it to happen.

Think of the Good Samaritan:
[25] And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
[26] He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
[27] And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
[28] And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
[29] But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
[30] And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
[31] And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
[32] And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
[33] But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
[34] And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
[35] And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
[36] Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
[37] And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise. [LUKE 10:25-37]
A man is robbed and beaten and is basically ignored until a Samaritan comes along. If you read the Gospels, you find that at that time, Samaria was a rival to Judea, maybe not so much an enemy, but certainly not friendly. John 8:48 has Jews equating Samaritans with being demon-possessed. People in Judea went out of their way to stay away from Samaria. But in this parable a Samaritan, an alleged demon according to the Judeans, helped this man. It is this charitable nature that ought to define neighbor, as Jesus puts it. At the end, Jesus tells the man to go do the same. Pay no regard to nationality.

The want to drop borders and help people around the world is a decidedly liberal tenet. Liberals know, as Jesus knew, that national pride is an obstacle for truly universal charity. When you vote for leaders who want to end social programs or foreign aid, you are undercutting the work of Jesus. So yes, you as an individual in a democratic society play a small role. Some blood is on your hands as well.



Is it impossible that there are lazy poor people?
When you walk down the street, and you see someone holding out their hand, how do you know in that instant anything about him except that he needs help? For all you know, he could have worked his tail off for ten hours. You don't know his story at all. I am not saying lazy people do not exist. I am saying, however, to consider John 13:34. Whether they were lazy or not was not the point. Jesus helped them all. If we are Christians, and hence following in His example, who are we to think we somehow know something about the human condition Jesus didn't? As far as I am concerned, Jesus probably helped out a few lazy people because He did not ask. Having a job was not a prerequisite for His aid.

The Bible tell us to judge justly. If those called lazy are indeed lazy, nothing wrong was done.
Actually, Jesus Himself said to judge not, lest ye be judged. I will pick Jesus, if you don't mind. It's best to just not play the judgment game at all.

Do you think it is a good thing to give money on the street, even when you know the person will put it to no good use (are you culpable if the guy buys drugs?)?
And are you helping him improve his situation by giving him that "buck"?
How do you know for a fact? You are making assumptions. And as I said, Jesus Himself told us to judge not. I realize it's an easy thing to believe everyone outside your bubble is out to get you. There is nothing at all comfortable in what Jesus tells us to do. Jesus hung out with prostitutes. He aided the poor and infirmed, the people tossed away by society in His day. Jesus was one better than the rest of us--I would think He would lay His hands on a junkie and free him of his addictions. We don't have that ability. What we can do is drive him to a clinic. Take him into our homes and help him get over withdrawal. Give him a set of good clothes so he can go to a job interview and not look like a slob. Give him your couch for a night or two so he can get some sleep for the first time in weeks.

And yes, I do this in my own neighborhood. Give a buck. Give a couch. Give a drive to a rehab clinic. Give something.


For example, I defend the opening up of borders, for both trade and people. That's what helps Mexicans; not another labour law which will only get them unemployed.
I thought you weren't American, what are you doing talking about opening the US-Mexico border?

As a liberal in Arizona, I am in a distinct minority in that I have no problem with keeping the border open. It is not labor laws that threaten Mexicans in Arizona. Mexican labor plays a vital role in Arizona's economy. I personally have no problem with Mexicans. But I am a minority. In Arizona we have a vast majority of conservatives waving their flags, fearing Mexicans taking jobs from Americans, fearing American dollars going back to Mexico, fearing rise of crime and blaming it on the immigrants. No new labor laws are being discussed. The conservatives talk about closing the border for the sake of jobs being taken by illegals.

There are Christians who set out water stations in the desert for Mexicans to locate so they don't die. Every year dozens die crossing the border. A prime example of Matthew 25 in action--I was thirsty, and you gave me water, and what you do to the least of my brethren, so you do unto me. Another liberal act in the face of conservatism.


And so far you have loudly defended practices which increase poverty (higher taxes, high state intervetion, trade barriers, etc). It's not a sin if you've voted for them, but you still took a part in increasing poverty in your country and the world for defending them.
I beg to differ. And until you do more than just want in vague cliches and give me some hard evidence, I will go on believing what I believe.

Of course God condemns.
Have you ever heard of Hell?
And what about Jesus calling the pharisees "brood of vipers"? And kicking out the sellers in the temple?
That condemnation is in the realm of God alone. Throughout the Gospels He talks about eternal punishment. But that is His realm. Not ours. All we can do is follow the personal examples and teachings of Jesus, and leave the rest to God. Right in front of us, Jesus saved the prostitute from the condemnation of the mob. That is the example we follow.

Are you confusing spiritual charity with temporal charity?
We're not obliged to want everyone's temporal good.
Yet again, you give a tired cliche, a very general notion. I offer you actual scripture--Matthew 25--to show that we have an obligation to take care of the physical needs of the poor and hungry. It's right there, Jesus said to feed the poor. And you still talk in generalities?

As defined by the Church sex has two purposes: procreative and unitive. Any extra-marital sex, including masturbation and indulging in sexual thoughts is sinful.
As do I. Agreement, I appreciate it. As such, you have to take the next step nd disavow any act that leads to the deviant acts you just mentioned. As such, you inherently have to have a problem with pornography and advertisements of sexual nature. You have to have a problem with the rising divorce rate. Let God determine condemnation. But we as human beings certainly can change the sexual culture we have created. Whatever homosexuality is, that is between God and him. I can't tell someone to stop being gay. I can offer him to seek Christ and leave him to his own spiritual awakenings.

Yes, believe it or not, I was a Christian long before I was aware there were liberals and conservatives. Once the Christian Right emerged, I started to doubt whether or not I really was Christian. I believed in Jesus, but the Jesus in the Gospels was not matching the Jesus the right seemed to talk about. Over time, I found the best way to follow Jesus was to stop worrying about religion and what others had to say, and I started reading the Gospels for myself. And once you actually sit down and read them, and you consider the definition of Christian and you think about yourself as a student of the teachings of Jesus, you start to pull Jesus from the entanglement of two millenia of dogma, from St. Paul to John Paul II. If I thought Jesus was a conservative, I would say so. More and more I come to the conclusion that the Jesus in the Gospels was a liberal and a socialist, and that much of conservative thought goes against the Gospels.

Give me some scripture to back up your beliefs. I always do.

 

[Paladin Dave]

Amen Russeby! I commend you for your superior logical reasoning over the "cliches" of uh, that other guy,(I forgot to look up his name, hahaha). He was wasting his and your time by proceeding to make ad hominem attacks against you than to present logical points so as to defend and advocate his point. Best of all, you stood your ground and kept your cool, and I applaud you for it. However, what the heck is going on?! this is supposed to be a hero thread!!!(jk )

 

[Paladin Dave]

Ya, Ghengis was alright. I don't think I'd want to meet him personally, but he was a great military leader. I'm surprised the arabic guys didn't declare jihad on him and his decendants, because Ghengis killed a TON of muslims and sacked a ton of muslim villages and cities. I mean, Ghengis' raids were possibly worse than the Crusades in the way of Islamic death toll.

 

[Paladin Dave]

Paladin, what he did say was:

Err, cartridge, Che was a murderous terrorist responsible in great part for the sorrowful state of Cuba today (where people flee the island swimming!).
He was responsible for countless executions at the paredón, and helped many other revolutionaries factions and taught them guerrilla tactics.
The socialism he fought for killed more people than nazism and forces people into a life of misery, lack of freedom and godlessness.

You obviously did not get the point. And that is fine. The point I was making, which was apparently a little over your head, is before you start condemning an entire ideology for the ills of the world, know something about it. Hitler was as socialist as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The socialism of Latin America is not the socialism of Sweden, Germany, France, Britain, and dare I say it, the United States! It is inappropriate to compare Marxist guerrillas in Latin America to the democracies of Europe in this was. According to this logic, it is equally as fair to call all capitalist countries pernicious based on Pinochet's rule in Chile or the Saudi Family's rule in Arabia.

Honestly, if socialism is evil as the poster believes, then America is evil.

And the other point is, before we start condemning the rest of the world for its evils, there are plenty right here in America to talk about. Think of Jesus talking about the splinter in your brother's eye taken to an international level--as much as we want to condemn the rest of the world, there is plenty in American history suitable for condemnation. Worry about the historical board in your own eye than the splinters in Latin America, I say.

Wait a sec, I wasnt quoting the thing about Che, I was simply making a statement on how (uh, there I go forgeting the names again, this is not my day), was talking about American presidents being bad when someone started ragging on his communist heroes like Lenin and Stalin. If I quoted something else, I am very sorry. But please, the whole "over your head" thing is a bit much, wouldn't you say? Nothing went over my head. I may have clicked and pasted the wrong thing(and absent mindedly forgot to proofread my post) but nothing has gone "over my head" yet. I wasn't trying to condemn anyone, I was just saying, nobody used Jackson, Reagan, uh, all those other presidents who had there "criminal records" so to speak pulled up, nobody used them as a hero. The person who made that quote was trying to defend his communist tyrant heroes by bringing up every bad thing a few american presidents did, none of which were chosen as heroes. I was simply pointing out that he was trying to avert the spotlight of shame from Stalin and Castro to somebody else, or atleast thats how it came across to me. So unless it was you who made the president list, or I quoted the worng thing, you really shouldn't be starting off about me condemning people and then going and going on and on about hilter and bush and stuff.

After posting this, I went bakc and made sure I knew who I was talking to, and it WAS you after all who made the president list, my bad. But MY point wasn't that they were evil, it's that whoever thought that Castro, Stalin, Che, etc were heroes, had better start thinking of better reasons that they were heroes and better ways to defend their heroes' position and reputation in a way. So I understood the point you were making, I was simply trying to point out that you were averting attention. I realize I am 20 years younger than you Russeby, but in a setting like this, in which case I really knew what I was talking about whenever I said something(not saying I'm an authority on it, but just that I actually know a thing or two about these people) I would prefer not to be talked down to and/or disregarded. Now, if the "over your head" remark wasn't because of my age, then I ask your forgiveness, but please don't act like I don't know what I'm saying because of my age. I have been keeping up with this whole thread, found it very interesting and a bit enlightening, but NOTHING so far has gone "over my head." In my previous comment, I commended you for not making personal attacks against(i think it was lifesaver?), but that was until I saw the thing you posted about me(I dont look at or answer to things in order, sorry ). So above all, I must request that you and anyone else for the record, would not treat me or anoyne else who is younger than you any differently than someone who is older than me or that you dont even know the age of. In fact, I have just as much an oppurtunity to make remakrs about you misenterprating my statement, but that would be doing something I aksed you not to do and it would be a logical fallacy in this discussion, so I will refrain. Once again, if it wasnt an age based comment, then I am very sorry, but I just felt like I should say this anyway, just for the record.

 

[Beau]

well, I actually have two heroes.

1) Jesus Christ

2) Prince William of Orange; He lived during the reigns of Queen Elizabeth I of England, and Prince Phillip of Spain, He worked himself to death(literally) to unite the Netherlands and free them from Catholic Spain's Tyranical leadership and Alva's Blood Council.

 

[Russebby]

I know my tone sometimes gets carried away, and for that I do apologize to you and possibly to Lifesaver.

However, I never apologize for content.

I have a very deep problem with the general notion, primarily a Neo-conservative notion, that socialism was a failure and evil, that the fall of the USSR is proof of this, that socialism is inherently anti-democratic, and that the likes of Stalin and Castro define socialism.

So when I read a post bagging on Che Guevara for championing a brand of socialism that breeds misery, I have to respond.

Socialism thrives in one significant form or another in virtually every democratic nation on earth. Western Europe and the United States both witnessed the near cataclysmic fall of capitalism during the Gilded Age and the Great Depression. Socialism as put forth by the likes of the Roosevelts is the dedication of a country to one's people, to put the wealth created to better serve all its citizens. Capitalism is a fine system for wealth CREATION, but after it is accumulated, what then? With no plan, greed and corruption necessarily take over. It becomes a glorified pyramid scheme, where wealth accumulates in fewer and fewer hands. It is not hyperbole to say that 10% of the world's population owns 90% of the wealth in the world--flipping that over, that means the vast majority of humanity must scrounge for the table scraps.

Socialism is an attempt to counterbalance this. Real socialism is wealth redistribution. No socialist in his right mind advocates communism, where the state owns the means of industry. In a democratic world, in a Christian world, we have a responsibility to look after one another. Socialism helps us reach this end.

Now, I am all for the abolition of social programs, provided that good decent people pick up the slack through charity. But human history has shown that this has never been the case. Capitalism is based on man's more base instincts--greed, self-interest, and lack of concern for our fellow man. There is nothing Christian in these.

I believe in my heart of hearts that Jesus was a socialist.

Now, I am trying to be nice. You can take or leave these arguments. But I strongly urge you and yours to do a little research on socialism before giving the knee-jerk Neo-con responses to it. It is no surprise that the strongest economies of the world, the countries that have solved the problems of poverty the best, are the countries with a hybrid system employing both capitalism for wealth accumulation and socialism for wealth redistribution. Both are entirely necessary for a stable and equitable society.

You know my position, and I hope you can respect me for it. I bag on you for the Che remark because you are comparing socialism with the Nazis, as a harbinger of misery, when a quick glance at the world's democracies clearly show otherwise.

 

[Paladin Dave]

Look man, once again, I was NOT "bagging" on Che, I was trying to point out a logical fallacy. In fact, I AGREE with you on the socialism thing. I don't consider socialism or communism to be evil, I am just sayign that the men that one of those guys was regarding as heroes were truly evil for the most part. THAT is what I was getting at. With all due respect, you are over analyzing the WRONG part of my quotes. I already said that it wasn't about socialism. I really don't care to sit here and argue with people about it. When I posted that I really didn't expect to be preached at about how wonderful socialism is. Mainly because I already know, but I know that it couldn't possibly work out to its true ideas, so all the so called marxists out there need to do as he teaches and wait until ALL of society is ready for communism/socialism/whatever! I mean for real, thats why Brimshack asked Koba the Dread to leave! I NEVER once said that socialism was evil or a failure or whaever else you may think I said. Unless you actually think of CHe, Stalin, Castro and all the other guys out there are the representations of socialism and communism, and anyone who challenges them MUST think the same way about all communists and socailists! I mean for real Russeby, I am not that narrow minded, and I would hope that most people on this forum aren't. Yes, I know and believe Jesus was socialist, yes, I know it isn't a failure, but I still believe that it can't reach it's full potential in this world at this time in any place because of the human factor, one that Marx realized and included, but many including Lenin have failed to realize. By the way, do I sound neo-conservative anymore? I do not prefer to give myself any such brand, I don't really fit the ideals of any one political party, but more so a little bit of all of them in different areas. I call it Davism, but I will not be writing any doctrines or political or philosophical manuscripts, sorry . I think what I am trying to say is that you need not preach to me something I already know and believe for the most part. Think of it this way, you don't go and try to evangelise someone who goes to the same church you do, because they already know Jesus and they don't need to hear the same sermon from you that they heard from the pastor the previous morning. I am very sorry if you have found this offensive, but I dislike inneficiency in general. I do not enjoy repeating myself, and I do not enjoy listening to the same stuff about socialism over and over and over again. You said stuff in the message you just wrote to me that you said in the first message of mine you replied to, the FIRST time you misenterprated my point, and got an attack on socialism out of a remark to stay on subject. People like you and I who believe in the good side of socialism should not be trying to fight and argue with eachother, so I would appreciate it if you would not tell me any more about socialism, as I have probably already heard it or believe it. I don't expect you to apalogize(not that I think you incapable of it, I'm sure you are quite an upright fellow), I just don't want to hear anymore, and I want you to acknowledge that you understand what I was saying, that it wasn't an attack on anyone, or any concept. I told you in my last post what my point was, but I must not have been clear enough. So go on ahead and read it again, because I said it before, in fact, go read my first message. Although, I still havent quite figured out how you got the idea that I was neo-conservative or anit socialist, out of me asking you not to shift the subject. Pass the blame is not a fun game when you are in a logical arguement, or if you are a logical arguer, so lets not do it. That is all I ask. I know I have been a bit harsh, but it's the way I feel, and I hope we can still be friends and learn from eachother, as you still seem like an interesting person. Remeber the bible verse, uh, I cant remember the number, but it was that a harsh word form a true friend is better than a hundred kisses from your enemy. And look, I know we arent really friends(yet), but I hope you see the point. I mean you no ill intent or feelings, I just don't like red herrings or being preached to, and I made this post so you would stop. My, for making that remark about repeating myself, I seem to have done it alot with the whole preaching thing eh? I wish you well and hope we can get together and talk on better terms later. No hard feelings?

 

[Russebby]

Look man, once again, I was NOT "bagging" on Che, I was trying to point out a logical fallacy. In fact, I AGREE with you on the socialism thing. I don't consider socialism or communism to be evil, I am just sayign that the men that one of those guys was regarding as heroes were truly evil for the most part. THAT is what I was getting at. With all due respect, you are over analyzing the WRONG part of my quotes. I already said that it wasn't about socialism. I really don't care to sit here and argue with people about it. When I posted that I really didn't expect to be preached at about how wonderful socialism is. Mainly because I already know, but I know that it couldn't possibly work out to its true ideas, so all the so called marxists out there need to do as he teaches and wait until ALL of society is ready for communism/socialism/whatever! I mean for real, thats why Brimshack asked Koba the Dread to leave! I NEVER once said that socialism was evil or a failure or whaever else you may think I said. Unless you actually think of CHe, Stalin, Castro and all the other guys out there are the representations of socialism and communism, and anyone who challenges them MUST think the same way about all communists and socailists! I mean for real Russeby, I am not that narrow minded, and I would hope that most people on this forum aren't. Yes, I know and believe Jesus was socialist, yes, I know it isn't a failure, but I still believe that it can't reach it's full potential in this world at this time in any place because of the human factor, one that Marx realized and included, but many including Lenin have failed to realize. By the way, do I sound neo-conservative anymore? I do not prefer to give myself any such brand, I don't really fit the ideals of any one political party, but more so a little bit of all of them in different areas. I call it Davism, but I will not be writing any doctrines or political or philosophical manuscripts, sorry . I think what I am trying to say is that you need not preach to me something I already know and believe for the most part. Think of it this way, you don't go and try to evangelise someone who goes to the same church you do, because they already know Jesus and they don't need to hear the same sermon from you that they heard from the pastor the previous morning. I am very sorry if you have found this offensive, but I dislike inneficiency in general. I do not enjoy repeating myself, and I do not enjoy listening to the same stuff about socialism over and over and over again. You said stuff in the message you just wrote to me that you said in the first message of mine you replied to, the FIRST time you misenterprated my point, and got an attack on socialism out of a remark to stay on subject. People like you and I who believe in the good side of socialism should not be trying to fight and argue with eachother, so I would appreciate it if you would not tell me any more about socialism, as I have probably already heard it or believe it. I don't expect you to apalogize(not that I think you incapable of it, I'm sure you are quite an upright fellow), I just don't want to hear anymore, and I want you to acknowledge that you understand what I was saying, that it wasn't an attack on anyone, or any concept. I told you in my last post what my point was, but I must not have been clear enough. So go on ahead and read it again, because I said it before, in fact, go read my first message. Although, I still havent quite figured out how you got the idea that I was neo-conservative or anit socialist, out of me asking you not to shift the subject. Pass the blame is not a fun game when you are in a logical arguement, or if you are a logical arguer, so lets not do it. That is all I ask. I know I have been a bit harsh, but it's the way I feel, and I hope we can still be friends and learn from eachother, as you still seem like an interesting person. Remeber the bible verse, uh, I cant remember the number, but it was that a harsh word form a true friend is better than a hundred kisses from your enemy. And look, I know we arent really friends(yet), but I hope you see the point. I mean you no ill intent or feelings, I just don't like red herrings or being preached to, and I made this post so you would stop. My, for making that remark about repeating myself, I seem to have done it alot with the whole preaching thing eh? I wish you well and hope we can get together and talk on better terms later. No hard feelings?

If you, Paladin, write this:

Err, cartridge, Che was a murderous terrorist responsible in great part for the sorrowful state of Cuba today (where people flee the island swimming!).
He was responsible for countless executions at the paredón, and helped many other revolutionaries factions and taught them guerrilla tactics.
The socialism he fought for killed more people than nazism and forces people into a life of misery, lack of freedom and godlessness.

then please tell me how you weren't bagging on Guevara. I would think calling a revolutionary leader adored by many in Latin America a murderous terrorist bagging on him. I am not saying he is squeaky clean, but man, you called someone's hero a murderer and a terrorist. Tell me how that is not bagging.

Now that you explained yourself, I see that you are implying there are those in the socialist world who would use the wants of the people to their advantage. Of this, I realize there are people of all ideologies that would usurp their basic philosophies for the sake of power. I get this, that tyrants betrayed socialism in the past, and that the successes of modern socialism are in no way indicative of the madmen conservatives want to tab as the real socialist world.

I am glad that you and I agree on much of this. I really am. And maybe we both [probably more me than you] are splitting hairs. Personally, I am not a fan of Che Guevara, but I can see why others would be. Calling a man someone else on the board called a hero a terrorist, in my book, is bagging.

It appears we agree on much. Don't let the potential for a worthwhile friendship go by the boards because I called you out on something you said about Che. Even I agree that he was no Ralph Nader. The only difference between you and me on this is I apparently just don't have the nad to tell someone his hero was a murderer. Even if someone said Hitler was his hero, I would not have the gumption to bag on him.

That's just me, the ugly bleedinghearted liberal.

 

[Paladin Dave]

Whoa, I swear i didnt write that quote, hold on, lemme find mine.

 

[Paladin Dave]

Yeah, but did he use any of these guys as heros? No, he didn't. When someone makes a comment at your hero, it is more logical to defend it instead of trying to make other people look worse.

That was my first statement. I am real sorry, I didn't know which wuote you were looking at. Well, this sure explains a lot.

 

[Russebby]

The very first post on this thread has the author admiring Guevara.

There's a miscommunication here somewhere, somehow we're not connecting for some reason.

I am willing to act like none of this ever happened. Seeing as how we generally agree on most everything else we've been talking about, maybe we should blow off this one snag. How about it?

 

[Paladin Dave]

Forget what happened?

 

[Russebby]

Forget what happened?

You know, it's things like this that get people like you on my Friends List.

 

[HiredGoon]

I don't think I could call anyone my hero, but there are historical figures I admire for various reasons.

George Washington, I know this looks like a cliché answer, but I really have studied him and his accomplishments, and found much to admire. Plus 18th century America is my favorite period in history.

Jonathan Edwards, one of the greatest minds in American history, or even the history of the Church.

Teddy Roosevelt, for his conservation legacy, and he was just plain cool.

 

[kleptobismol]

Jesus of course!

 

[Paladin for Christ]

Here are some:

Jesus
St. Peter
David
El Cid
Shigeru Miyamoto
Abraham Lincoln
Simon Bolivar