RC Democrat and Jewish Democrat Conspire to Infiltrate & Fracture RC Church

[roo_ster]

Deviled eggs are appropriately named and are an abomination.

The aftereffects can be...sulfurous.

[Perd Hapley]

"Will you not stand still! I need a whipping boy, here, and you are NOT cooperating!"

 

[slugcatcher]

Deviled eggs are appropriately named and are an abomination.

Only when mustard is used in place of mayonnaise.

[makattak]

Only when mustard is used in place of mayonnaise.

Man, I need to make some deviled eggs now. I love the mustard ones.

[KD5NRH]

The aftereffects can be...sulfurous.

Hence the reason they're served at potlucks where everyone won't be crowded into a far-too-small room for an hour or two afterward.  Usually with lots of ranch style beans.

I've driven 90 minutes home from Arlington with the sunroof open in 35 degree weather because of that.

[De Selby]

I've been looking for the part where jesus commanded his followers to surrender their property/money to the government for redistribution...

can anyone help me find it?

It's hard to find a parallel, because Jesus wasn't fixated on property righthta or preventing the poor from getting food without doing a hard days work.  

Something he did do was very clearly say that if you want to go to heaven, you should sell all of that property and give the proceeds to the poor.  Not sure how that squares with the modern American economy at all.

Fistful, the point about Mormons was that if you want Adam Smith economics to fit your religion, you should just write your bible and get your own prophet to make up new rules.  Quit pretending that the 2000 year old bible suits your (modern myths about) British mercantile individualism.

[Marnoot]

Fistful, the point about Mormons was that if you want Adam Smith economics to fit your religion, you should just write your bible and get your own prophet to make up new rules.  Quit pretending that the 2000 year old bible suits your (modern myths about) British mercantile individualism.

Except your point was based on an ignorant and false assumption about Mormon doctrine. Mormon teachings regarding caring for the poor bear no resemblance to Adam Smith economics.

Quit pretending that the 2000 year old bible commands you to sell all that you have and give the money to the government. Nor does the bible command you to even sell all that you have. That was a specific instruction to a specific individual. Jesus himself did not give all he and his disciples had to the poor.

[De Selby]

Except your point was based on an ignorant and false assumption about Mormon doctrine. Mormon teachings regarding caring for the poor bear no resemblance to Adam Smith economics.

Quit pretending that the 2000 year old bible commands you to sell all that you have and give the money to the government. Nor does the bible command you to even sell all that you have. That was a specific instruction to a specific individual. Jesus himself did not give all he and his disciples had to the poor.

Haha, yep - the unsaid qualifiers in that story really make it clear why it was included in the bible, don't they?  I'm sure they're wrote that story down just to illustrate how good wealth building is, and how important stopping the lazy poor from getting it was to Jesus!

This is an example of explaining away the plain lesson to suit your own views.

I'd assumed since the Mormon prophet generally aligns his church with American conservative values, that's as good as scripture to line up the religion with the politics.  Most Chrisitians don't have a prophet who can speak gospel truth, not even Catholics.

[Marnoot]

Haha, yep - the unsaid qualifiers in that story really make it clear why it was included in the bible, don't they?  I'm sure they're wrote that story down just to illustrate how good wealth building is, and how important stopping the lazy poor from getting it was to Jesus!

This is an example of explaining away the plain lesson to suit your own views.

If I sell all I have and give it to the poor, the poor will get a one-time nice payout. Lacking a car, clothes, or means of caring for myself and my children, I will be unable to hold down a job. The poor will get far, far less from me in the long run since I could no longer make repeated donations. Is it your argument that Jesus was, in fact, advocating such a short-sighted approach to caring for the poor?

The alluded-to episode in the bible certainly has points and lessons beyond the bare instruction to the rich man, but "give all your money to the government" is not one of the lessons. Try again. You can biblically criticize Christians that don't do their personal part in helping the poor. You can't biblically criticize Christians that don't want the government to do it for them.

Let's get to the core of it. One reason financial liberals like yourself advocate for government seizure of funds to pay for welfare is that said liberals (ostensibly) want the poor to be cared for but know they're not likely to donate their own money after it's already hit their bank account, so they want mommy government to withhold it for them instead of taking some responsibility for their own morality. It's the same reasons many liberals are anti-gun, they know they don't have the impulse control to be trusted with a gun, so nobody else should be trusted either.

I'd assumed since the Mormon prophet generally aligns his church with American conservative values, that's as good as scripture to line up the religion with the politics.  Most Chrisitians don't have a prophet who can speak gospel truth, not even Catholics.

The prophet does not preach governmental financial conservatism. The rare times the LDS church makes statements on political issues, it is almost always on those of a moral nature; social conservatism. The only financial conservatism preached is personal financial responsibility.

[De Selby]

Haha, dude it takes you pages to "explain" a very simple and direct exchange of two sentences in the bible.  That should be telling enough about the biblical statement and how your personal economics demand you see it.

[Marnoot]

Haha, dude it takes you pages to "explain" a very simple and direct exchange of two sentences in the bible.  That should be telling enough about the biblical statement and how your personal economics demand you see it.

Haha, dude you never directly respond to any of the points made in this thread.

Step 1: Make baseless claims.
Step 2: Ignore responses.
Step 3: Goto Step 1.

[De Selby]

Haha, dude you never directly respond to any of the points made in this thread.

Step 1: Make baseless claims.
Step 2: Ignore responses.
Step 3: Goto Step 1.

No, my argument was that American conservatives tend to do this:

Step 1:  choose an economics that benefits your base
Step 2:  print copious commentaries and sermons explaining how "sell all you have and give it to the poor" really means "oppose taxes on the rich and incentivise the poor to work by denying them any social welfare"
Step 3: profit

And for obvious reasons, that collapses under the thinnest of scrutiny.

The Mormon church has a much more rational approach which is what I recommended to fistful:

Step 1: convince enough people that you have a new prophet who speaks the gospel truth
Step 2:  rewrite scriptures as needed to match whatever your current economic needs might be


Cuts out a whole step, and is infinitely more logical.  You don't have theological and philosophical crises when you can just print the word of god on demand from a prophet.

[Boomhauer]

As usual what a load of *expletive deleted*ing bullshit

[makattak]

Step 2:  print copious commentaries and sermons explaining how "sell all you have and give it to the poor" really means "oppose taxes on the rich and incentivise the poor to work by denying them any social welfare"

I've been attending one of your "conservative" churches my entire life. I can't recall any such sermon.

Can you provide me with just one example with your points by a pastor or theologian? You said "copious", so one ought not to be difficult.

Incidentally, I require that it have more than an explanation of "Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me" as a specific command rather than a general one. You also need the political implications in the sermon as well.

Because I have heard that passage preached on before, but never any political message. In fact, I've never heard a political message in any of the sermons. (Of course, that's probably because I don't attend any of the black and/or liberal churches who have no fear of IRS persecution for turning political.)

[Marnoot]

No, my argument was that American conservatives tend to do this:

Step 1:  choose an economics that benefits your base
Step 2:  print copious commentaries and sermons explaining how "sell all you have and give it to the poor" really means "oppose taxes on the rich and incentivise the poor to work by denying them any social welfare"
Step 3: profit

And for obvious reasons, that collapses under the thinnest of scrutiny.

The Mormon church has a much more rational approach which is what I recommended to fistful:

Step 1: convince enough people that you have a new prophet who speaks the gospel truth
Step 2:  rewrite scriptures as needed to match whatever your current economic needs might be


Cuts out a whole step, and is infinitely more logical.  You don't have theological and philosophical crises when you can just print the word of god on demand from a prophet.

I'll say it a third time to try to get it through your dense, troll head. Mormon scripture doesn't preach any economic theory or politico-financial theory. At all. Pull your head out of your back-end.

Some fine-lookin' straw men you've got there.

[Jocassee]

Deselby, you would do well to read a few old school commentaries on that verse you keep mentioning.

I have never heard that verse interpreted as a command to all believers to eschew all possessions and live on the street. As a one time command to a specific person who was in love with his wealth, it speaks to an overall biblical message to hold possessions and wealth loosely and as gifts from God. The man in the story allowed his wealth to keep him from total pursuit of the knowledge of God. Jesus knew this, and that is why he said what he did.

The rich man in the story of Lazarus was not judged for his wealth. He was judged for his unbelief and lack of compassion to the poor.

It is true that wealth tends to obstruct one's faith in God. Hence Jesus' comments about the camel passing the the narrow gate of Jerusalem (the eye of the needle).

Hope this helps.

[KD5NRH]

As a one time command to a specific person who was in love with his wealth, it speaks to an overall biblical message to hold possessions and wealth loosely and as gifts from God. The man in the story allowed his wealth to keep him from total pursuit of the knowledge of God. Jesus knew this, and that is why he said what he did.

This.  Essentially like telling an alcoholic that in order to recover properly he can't even have a beer with dinner, even though that's fine for others.

[De Selby]

I'll say it a third time to try to get it through your dense, troll head. Mormon scripture doesn't preach any economic theory or politico-financial theory. At all. Pull your head out of your back-end.

Some fine-lookin' straw men you've got there.

http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/home2/53201394-183/mormon-says-lds-church.html.csp

More than a quarter of what Smith said were divine revelations contained in the faith's Doctrine and Covenants relate to economics, says Warner Woodworth, BYU professor of organizational behavior.

In fairness, I don't know whether any new gospel from your prophet has changed that since this article

[De Selby]

Deselby, you would do well to read a few old school commentaries on that verse you keep mentioning.

I have never heard that verse interpreted as a command to all believers to eschew all possessions and live on the street. As a one time command to a specific person who was in love with his wealth, it speaks to an overall biblical message to hold possessions and wealth loosely and as gifts from God. The man in the story allowed his wealth to keep him from total pursuit of the knowledge of God. Jesus knew this, and that is why he said what he did.

The rich man in the story of Lazarus was not judged for his wealth. He was judged for his unbelief and lack of compassion to the poor.

It is true that wealth tends to obstruct one's faith in God. Hence Jesus' comments about the camel passing the the narrow gate of Jerusalem (the eye of the needle).

Hope this helps.

I've read Clement of Alexandria and the genre that followed.  What I find most interesting about it is that it's clearly a debate from early times.  Those pieces were written because there was a doubt as to whether the rich could be saved at all, not because the early Christians were searching for the best form of charity.

[Marnoot]

http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/home2/53201394-183/mormon-says-lds-church.html.csp

In fairness, I don't know whether any new gospel from your prophet has changed that since this article

Quote from the same article:

The [Book of Mormon] is, he says, "unambiguous about our responsibility to the poor."

[De Selby]

Quote from the same article:

So now it is all about economics?  That sort of was the point - in your religion you've got someone who can write a whole new economics straight from god if need be.  Fistful needs that sort of thing to make his economics fit his religion.

[Marnoot]

So now it is all about economics?  That sort of was the point - in your religion you've got someone who can write a whole new economics straight from god if need be.  Fistful needs that sort of thing to make his economics fit his religion.

It's not "unambiguously about our responsibility to the poor". It's "unambiguous about our responsibility to the poor".

[KD5NRH]

In fairness, I don't know whether any new gospel from your prophet has changed that since this article

Erm...darn near anything of any significance relates to economics in some way.

[JN01]

No, my argument was that American conservatives tend to do this:

Step 1:  choose an economics that benefits your base
Step 2:  print copious commentaries and sermons explaining how "sell all you have and give it to the poor" really means "oppose taxes on the rich and incentivise the poor to work by denying them any social welfare"
Step 3: profit

By comparison, the American liberal view-

Step 1: Choose an economics that benefits your base
Step 2: print copious commentaries and sermons explaining how "sell all you have and give it to the poor" really means "vote for the guys who will forcibly take money from some other guy so I don't have to sacrifice a single thing"
Step 3: join the line for free stuff

Helping the less fortunate doesn't require the involvement of government, liberals should put THEIR money where their mouth is.

[Perd Hapley]

Fistful needs that sort of thing to make his economics fit his religion.

I'm glad I understand the Bible better than you do. Makes things easier for me, and my politics.