liberals

[Kingfish Stevens]

Why is making $7.25 an hour sinful? Do you believe you have a "right" to make a lot of money? Are you entitled to a job? Do employers exist to create jobs for their employees?

 

 

If you cannot make more because of your lack of talents to make yourself more marketable, don't depend on the rest of us to subsidize you. In the parable of the talents, I don't recall that talents were confiscated from the one with ten talents or the one with five talents in order to provide an entitlement to the one with one talent. In fact, the one with one talent was chastized for doing nothing to better his situation. Sounds reasonable and it is biblical.

[Ram]

If you cannot make more because of your lack of talents to make yourself more marketable, don't depend on the rest of us to subsidize you. In the parable of the talents, I don't recall that talents were confiscated from the one with ten talents or the one with five talents in order to provide an entitlement to the one with one talent. In fact, the one with one talent was chastized for doing nothing to better his situation. Sounds reasonable and it is biblical.

 

Add him to the conservative phone list.:thumb:

[ladiesbballcoach]

I just used the religious half of my statements to make the point that these seem to be Christian ideas and that many conservatives call themselves evangelicals but would disagree with these teachings. For 4, 6, and 7 if morality is not attempted to be legislated, there are no problems with those issues and people can act privately and can enter into binding contracts.

 

#8. My tax dollars support people being put to death in prisons, and children dieing (sp) in Iraq, along with our soldiers and Iragi soldiers.

 

#9. Making 5.15 and hour and probably 7.25 keeps you poor, and those kind of wages should be "sinful" in this country.

 

#11. We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

I have bolded where you brought your religious beliefs into the debate on an issue in which you said you wanted government to NOT be bringing religion into a position.l

 

And back to the binding contract. Is Ken Griffey, Jr's contract legal or not in your scenario. Binding contract between two adults that is not an illegal activity but beyond your #9 and a living wage.

 

It seems that as you say conservatives bring their religious view of homosexuality into the debate, you are bringing your religious view of rich people into the debate.

 

 

 

 

Now let me point out for those who are not familiar with my views, I fully believe that Christians who found themselves blessed financially, should be looking for ways that those blessings should be benefitting the kingdom of God and NOT building 30,000 square foot homes with 9 cars, 3 boats, etc, etc, etc.

[ladiesbballcoach]

If you cannot make more because of your lack of talents to make yourself more marketable, don't depend on the rest of us to subsidize you. In the parable of the talents, I don't recall that talents were confiscated from the one with ten talents or the one with five talents in order to provide an entitlement to the one with one talent. In fact, the one with one talent was chastized for doing nothing to better his situation. Sounds reasonable and it is biblical.

 

Add him to the conservative phone list.:thumb:

 

Curious on which phone list you would put me on as I disagree with Kingfish but I am sure you are familiar with my view on things.

 

And Kingfish, read in Acts where the first church SOLD ALL THEIR POSSESSIONS and GAVE them to the first church so that none would do without.

[ladiesbballcoach]

I thougth the same thing with #3 and #11.

Good point as the best argument against the death penalty is a religious one as it is God's position to judge and not ours. A view ace has been very strong in stating in other threads.

[IM4THEHOUNDS]

You contradicted yourself in #5 with #3.

 

#1 is fine

#2 is excellent

#4 whose version of morality?

#6 goes back to my question in #4

#7 goes back to my question in #4 and doesn't this contradict with #9

#8 so my tax dollars should be used for abortions?

#9 please explain more

#10 in theory sounds great, does that mean I can be lazy and you will provide for all my needs?

#11 I wouldn't have a problem with that but can also see Scriptures that indicates that it is acceptable as Jesus accepted the death penalty for the thief he indicated was saved.

Great post. I agree. However, the death penalty should be carried out in certain cases. The old testament law taught it.

[Kingfish Stevens]

Curious on which phone list you would put me on as I disagree with Kingfish but I am sure you are familiar with my view on things.

 

And Kingfish, read in Acts where the first church SOLD ALL THEIR POSSESSIONS and GAVE them to the first church so that none would do without.

 

Of course, in another verse, to paraphrase, it tells us that if you don't work you don't eat and, in another, to be neither a lender nor a borrower.

[Jim Schue]

Great post. I agree. However, the death penalty should be carried out in certain cases. The old testament law taught it.

 

OT law also says you shouldn't eat pork or shellfish. How closely do you follow that?

[02Ram54]

Talents is a parable. It should not be interpreted literally. The meaning is that we should use our gifts, not that we should endeavour to become wealthy and curse the poor. I think that's especially clear in light of every other parable we have in the New Testament, and the stories of Acts.

[IM4THEHOUNDS]

OT law also says you shouldn't eat pork or shellfish. How closely do you follow that?

I am not under the law. But biblical principle is seen in the old testament and is implied in the new. I think the death penalty is needed in certain instances such as aggravated murder, etc.

[Kingfish Stevens]

Talents is a parable. It should not be interpreted literally. The meaning is that we should use our gifts, not that we should endeavour to become wealthy and curse the poor. I think that's especially clear in light of every other parable we have in the New Testament, and the stories of Acts.

 

And the example of selling everything and giving it to the poor dealt wih the rich man who sought to become one of the followers of Christ- in essence, another disciple. Can you imagine what would happen if the "haves" sold everything and gave it to the "have nots"? After the "have nots" squandered it all and/ of were "slicked" out of it, we would be left with a world controlled by those who were cunning enough to fleece the "have nots" out of what they were given.

 

It raises a principal difference between conservatives and liberals. You cannot solve the world's problems by throwing more money at them. Self discipline. self pride, and the willingness to work to attain a better standard must be a part of the equation. Liberal giveaway programs that just throw more money at a problem don't work.

[Jim Schue]

I find it funny how often conservative-types trot out the whole "you can't just throw money at a problem" yet they see no problem with an classic conservative fave: corporate welfare.

[02Ram54]

And the example of selling everything and giving it to the poor dealt wih the rich man who sought to become one of the followers of Christ- in essence, another disciple. Can you imagine what would happen if the "haves" sold everything and gave it to the "have nots"? After the "have nots" squandered it all and/ of were "slicked" out of it, we would be left with a world controlled by those who were cunning enough to fleece the "have nots" out of what they were given.

So you're saying Jesus got that whole give your treasure to the poor thing wrong?

[Ram]

Curious on which phone list you would put me on as I disagree with Kingfish but I am sure you are familiar with my view on things.

 

Your on the conservative phone list, doesn't mean that we have to agree on everything.:thumb:

 

As far as the money and religion. I don't think the answer is simplistic. Should we help the poor? Yes. Should we help people that will not try to help themselves? Yes, but not just with monetary help, teach them to help themselves, if they refuse, possibly tuff love is the best answer.

 

I believe this is what is seen in the parable of the talents.

 

As for being told to sell all your belongings and give the money to help the poor. I think this is an example of giving up something for your religion. These people had a good deal of money and could easily sacrifice money. Other people were not told to sell all their belongings. The widow who gave here widow mite for offering was seen as a hero of faith. She already understood about sacrifice for faith, so there was no need for her to be taught this principal. Christians are to give 10% of our income as an offering to God. This teaches the above lesson. But, do we as Christians not understand this? Sure we do, but this money is also used to help run God's church, help missions, help the poor, and spread the faith. So, are we binging tough to sacrifice for God? Yes. Are we being tought to help the poor? Yes.

 

Now, back to the original question: are we to teach people to care for themselves, or are we to help the poor? I think we are to help the poor, but that does not mean to always provide money only. That is a temporary solution to a continuing problem. We should help them monetarily until they can be tought to provide for them selves. Then when they can provide for themselves, they can pass on the ability to help the poor, and the process continues.

[acemona]

The original question really is, why is someone who believes in these things characterized as evil, or a hypocrite b/c they don't live out to the nth degree all of the ideas.

 

I see nothing inherently bad in any of those positions. They are positions of love and caring for your fellow human and yet . . . but let me paint them in another light:

 

1. Climate change - liars

2. Socialists

3. Attackers of religion

4. Secularists

5. Pacifist, soft on terror wackos

6. Gay

7. Attackers of traditional marriage

8. Pro-Abortion

9. Anti-Business

10. Socialized medicine promoters

11. Soft on crime (which is really a misnomer since the death penalty has been proven NOT to deter crime)