Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 97

Thread: Liberal Economics are Unbiblical

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    That's stupid. Jesus is God. As God, Jesus is the one who gave Moses the Levitical law against gay sexual relations to begin with; and he’s the one who inspires all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), including prohibitions against gay sexual relations in Romans 1:26-27 and I Corinthians 6:9-10, etc.
    First of all, those were letters from paul, not the words of jesus. Second, we have been over this before, and paul was pretty much discussing a specific situation (orgies related to religious observance), it was not necessarily a universal condemnation.

    It’s also worth noting that Jesus didn’t mention wife beating or other sins such as pedophilia either, and there are not many folks who would argue he approved of those behaviors. So Jesus was under no obligation to reiterate the moral laws against homosexual sin that already existed, unless there were clarifications to be made.
    Except that beating your wife as punishment was a pretty common thing back then...the norm. Jesus probably did not object to it at all. However, if you wanted to build a case for Jesus being opposed to spousal abuse, I would start with Matthew:

    Matthew 7:12

    12Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
    Or Luke:

    Luke 6:31

    31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
    Both of those seem pertinent, if you wanted to argue that jesus did not want you smacking your wife around. However, given the time that jesus lived, he probably DID want people smacking their wives around...how else would a husband discipline their wife?? You know, you have to keep those women in line......
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,636
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    First of all, those were letters from paul, not the words of jesus. Second, we have been over this before, and paul was pretty much discussing a specific situation (orgies related to religious observance), it was not necessarily a universal condemnation.
    Sorry, not buying your explanation. Gay sex was a sin way back in Leviticus and it's still a sin today.

    And if you need another example of a specific admonition not given by Jesus try pedophilia. Is that ok with you too?
    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    Sorry, not buying your explanation. Gay sex was a sin way back in Leviticus and it's still a sin today.
    So was eating shellfish.

    Quit trying to change the subject you ignorant spawn of satan.


    And if you need another example of a specific admonition not given by Jesus try pedophilia. Is that ok with you too?
    Of course he did not oppose pedophilia. As has been pointed out MANY times before, the bible is FULL of pedophilia. It was common when Jesus was wondering around for pre pubescent girls to marry and they were expected to carry out their duty as wives...including putting out.

    If you wanted to argue against pedophilia using the bible, even though pretty much the entire book condones it, I would probably use Mathew 18:10:

    Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
    Of course, whoever you are trying to argue this with is probably going to point out that in Numbers 31:1 pedophilia is specifically condoned:

    And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites ... And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males ... And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones ... And Moses was wroth with the officers ... And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves
    This is LITERALLY the Lord your God commanding his followers to bang little girls.


    So...no. You pretty much can not make a realistic bibically based argument against pedophilia. God directly and specifically condones it.

    BUT. That is not the topic here. The topic here is your absolutely retarded take on what constitutes a "biblical" economic system and your complete and utter inability to grasp the words of jesus even when they are absolutely crystal clear.
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    At the end of the day Easy can't get over this one quote: "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God...but with God all things are possible"

    As for redistribution of wealth being "unbiblical"....I see no evidence of this. The Bible seems to indicate that the government should just do it's thing so long as that's in accordance with the Bible's teachings. Killing all the Muslim's is probably not what Jesus had in mind though.

    As an aside Daewoo, your interpretation of Numbers 31 is a bit unfair. They basically killed all the Midianities including the women who were unpure. The remaining were either the ones unmarried and pure which was highly unlikely (probably the ugly ones) and the under 10 year old girls. There is nothing in there that says what they were used for but given the time period it was most likely they were put to work.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    As an aside Daewoo, your interpretation of Numbers 31 is a bit unfair. They basically killed all the Midianities including the women who were unpure. The remaining were either the ones unmarried and pure which was highly unlikely (probably the ugly ones) and the under 10 year old girls. There is nothing in there that says what they were used for but given the time period it was most likely they were put to work.
    So...the male children were unpure??

    If they were looking for labor, they would have kept the boys alive. You are going to have a difficult time convincing people that they kept all the girls because they were just looking for some good housekeepers...especially when you are talking about a time period when keeping slaves as concubines was the norm.

    This is especially true since, at the time, the Israelis were pretty much wandering raiders. They were not settling down, putting in crops and building herds. They were pretty much wandering around the middle east stealing whatever they wanted at sword point. Their need for slave labor would have been pretty limited.
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,117
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    So...the male children were unpure??

    If they were looking for labor, they would have kept the boys alive. You are going to have a difficult time convincing people that they kept all the girls because they were just looking for some good housekeepers...especially when you are talking about a time period when keeping slaves as concubines was the norm.

    This is especially true since, at the time, the Israelis were pretty much wandering raiders. They were not settling down, putting in crops and building herds. They were pretty much wandering around the middle east stealing whatever they wanted at sword point. Their need for slave labor would have been pretty limited.
    The reason they would have kept only the females is because they were just a tribe trying to increase their numbers so that they could take over the land available. God's word back then dealt heavily with increasing numbers. Thisis why homosexuality was considered a sin - purely because it did not produce babies. Murder was considered a sin (within your tribe) but if it was a member of another tribe you could slaughter the lot with god's blessing (keeping the virgin females of course). So, the case for paepdophilia has some merit (though it certainly is not actually mentioned). Girls in those times would have been producing babies in their mid teens (as soon as they came of age), and we would certainly consider this borderline paedophilia nowadays, but rape would have been considered the norm (which is specifically mentioned in the bible). Although rape was not exactly condoned out of wedlock, the female (being a second-class citizen) would be forced to marry her rapist. This would ensure the growth of the tribe, so it was okay by god.
    Religion is the placebo of the masses - House.
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people - House.
    God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance - Neil deGrasse Tyson.
    That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    So...the male children were unpure??
    I can't remember if they were killed or also converted to child labor. I don't really feel like looking up the history on that time period right now.

    If they were looking for labor, they would have kept the boys alive. You are going to have a difficult time convincing people that they kept all the girls because they were just looking for some good housekeepers...especially when you are talking about a time period when keeping slaves as concubines was the norm.

    This is especially true since, at the time, the Israelis were pretty much wandering raiders. They were not settling down, putting in crops and building herds. They were pretty much wandering around the middle east stealing whatever they wanted at sword point. Their need for slave labor would have been pretty limited.
    This was towards the end of the wandering if I remember correctly. I suppose it is possible they were sex slaves but from the culture I remember reading about, this would be out of the norm for the Isralities at that time. I'm not sure the point of the story was to explain what they did with the ones kept alive as all the details are vague. I'm also unaware of any other historical documents that describe the same event (with the taking of the women and children).

    Many people, like Easy, think the Bible is a "Do's and Don'ts" list to follow. If Easy actually read the Bible he'd probably realize that Jesus constantly dismissed this idea. You can certain extrapolate the "Do's and Don'ts" from the text but whatever.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,636
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    So was eating shellfish.
    Quit trying to change the subject you ignorant spawn of satan.
    All foods were declared clean in the New Testament, you Biblically challenged sap. See if you can find at least two places in the NT that addresses that. Plus, God never destroyed any seafood houses that I'm aware of, unless there was one in SODOM AND GOMORRAH.

    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    Of course he did not oppose pedophilia. As has been pointed out MANY times before, the bible is FULL of pedophilia. It was common when Jesus was wondering around for pre pubescent girls to marry and they were expected to carry out their duty as wives...including putting out.

    If you wanted to argue against pedophilia using the bible, even though pretty much the entire book condones it, I would probably use Mathew 18:10:

    Of course, whoever you are trying to argue this with is probably going to point out that in Numbers 31:1 pedophilia is specifically condoned:
    Horse manure. Numbers 31:1 says no such thing. Dunce.

    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    The topic here is your absolutely retarded take on what constitutes a "biblical" economic system and your complete and utter inability to grasp the words of jesus even when they are absolutely crystal clear.
    So far you're full of horse manure. And you're going to try to set people straight on what a good economic system is? Go climb on a parking meter.
    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,636
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    At the end of the day Easy can't get over this one quote: "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God...but with God all things are possible"
    Doesn't bother me one bit. You must be getting a cheap thrill over it though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    As for redistribution of wealth being "unbiblical"....I see no evidence of this. The Bible seems to indicate that the government should just do it's thing so long as that's in accordance with the Bible's teachings.
    Although giving and charity are commanded by the Lord, nowhere in the Bible does it say that giving must first be filtered through a bloated and inefficient government bureaucracy. The Bible says that a man shall reap what he sows, but it doesn’t say we should live off of what other people sow. What’s more, Scripture teaches that if a man does not work, he shall not eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10). Scripture also commands us not to covet what belongs to our neighbor:

    “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Exodus 20:17

    From religion to our founding fathers to our Constitution we are taught that coveting others property is wrong. The Constitution guarantees us an equal opportunity not an equal outcome. We have the right to prosper and keep the fruits of our labors. This was central to the founding father’s vision for this country. We need to get back to that vision.

    A good couple of questions to ask the Obama Redistribution of Wealth crowd are, “Who’s your daddy? Is it God or the government?” If God, he doesn’t need the government to provide for you. It’s not very efficient and the way it’s structured now it’s not even Biblical. What’s more it’s decimating the economy. Redistribution of Wealth is, at its core, a radical left wing economic scheme centered in greed for other people’s money, rather than exercising personal responsibility and earning it one’s self. Obama and Company need to get back to Bible basics and give up on their failed socialistic idol worship. (righterreport.com)
    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,870
    Jesus never stated that the poor were entitled to the rich mans wealth but he did seem to imply that the rich would have problems in getting into eternal paradise. Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven plus the quote about the camel and the eye of the needle is a bit of a clue
    IMO Christ implied that material wealth was an illusion and the materially wealthy were spiritually handicapped but he didnt suggest a socialist society
    Richard Dawkins quote..
    .'I dont think its a very important question whether Jesus existed. Some historians.. MOST historians think he did.
    I dont really care, precisely because its petty. Maybe I've alluded to the possibilty that some historians think Jesus never existed. I take that back Jesus existed........

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,636
    As the Bible says, it the LOVE OF MONEY that is the root of all kinds of evil. Money itself is not a problem as long as it's put in its proper place. Jesus himself had a purser (Judas Iscariot).
    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,636
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    At the end of the day Easy can't get over this one quote: "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God...but with God all things are possible"
    2 Corinthians 9:7 - Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    All foods were declared clean in the New Testament, you Biblically challenged sap. See if you can find at least two places in the NT that addresses that. Plus, God never destroyed any seafood houses that I'm aware of, unless there was one in SODOM AND GOMORRAH.
    No. They were not. I assume you are talking about Mark 7, which many people (mostly ignorant people) believe is jesus declaring all foods clean. That is not the case. First, the topic of that conversation was ritual hand washing...or more to the point, ritual purity. The point he was making that ritual purity and spiritual purity were 2 different things.

    There is absolute proof of this in Acts 10:

    12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
    13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
    14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
    Peter was THERE when Jesus was talking to the pharisees in Mark, spent much of his life with jesus, but here in Acts, AFTER JESUS WAS DEAD, Peter still observes that some foods are UNCLEAN, which pretty much means that if jesus declared all foods clean, Peter somehow missed that little factiod.

    It is interesting that you would bring up Sodom and Gomorrah in this discussion, but since you are spiritually challenged retard I suppose I should not be surprised. What was the sin that God destroyed them for? It had NOTHING to do with homosexuality. God tells us why he destroyed them in Ezekiel:

    Ezekiel 16:48-50

    As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

    So, uh...yea....he destroyed them for failing to maintain what you refer to as an "unbiblical" economy...one where they failed to help the poor and needy.

    Nitwit.


    Horse manure. Numbers 31:1 says no such thing.
    Yes. IT does. Any LITERATE person can just look up there and read it.
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    I can't remember if they were killed or also converted to child labor. I don't really feel like looking up the history on that time period right now.
    According to the bible, the male children were killed.

    This was towards the end of the wandering if I remember correctly. I suppose it is possible they were sex slaves but from the culture I remember reading about, this would be out of the norm for the Isralities at that time. I'm not sure the point of the story was to explain what they did with the ones kept alive as all the details are vague. I'm also unaware of any other historical documents that describe the same event (with the taking of the women and children).
    I think it kind of depends on whether you want to go with the israeli version of themselves...almost all in religious documents...or with others perceptions of them. The israelis, or at least the ones writing the religious oriented views of events, pretty much saw themselves as the chosen ones, carrying out the will of god. Others in the region pretty much saw them as bloodthirsty marauders who ran around raping, looting, and pillaging.

    Personally I tend to look at religiously oriented histories with a skeptical eye. Look at the middle ages. If you look primarily at accounts by the church, most of Europe was full of pious, god fearing people doing their best to live in righteousness and spread the good word of the lord.

    If, on the other hand, you look at accounts that come from outside the church, you find a massively different story...people living in fear of the wrath of the church, women being raped fairly routinely, murder and theft pretty rampant...including by members of the church.

    It is not necessarily that the church was trying to paint an inaccurate picture when they put down their accounts, but they focused on the religious and cultural aspects. Everybody came to church! That was a GREAT thing. The fact that many/most did so because they were afraid that if they did not they would be identified as a witch and killed does not really enter into it.

    It is not much different from today. Today if you ask american what their religion is, about 85% of them will list one. At the same time only about 35% of them practice it regularly.

    You are going to have a hard time convincing me that the average israeli soldier was there fighting for the greater glory of god. They were there for plunder and sex and bloodlust.

    Many people, like Easy, think the Bible is a "Do's and Don'ts" list to follow. If Easy actually read the Bible he'd probably realize that Jesus constantly dismissed this idea. You can certain extrapolate the "Do's and Don'ts" from the text but whatever.
    If easy had a brain in his head, when he brought up the idea that all foods were proclaimed clean in the new testament, he would have recalled the fact that in Acts Paul VERY clearly feels otherwise, and that the entire point of that section of Acts was that god was sending Paul a message that paul should not be running around judging what PEOPLE are clean or unclean, that is gods job.

    It actually makes me a little sad that there are spiritually stunted people out there like easyrider that constantly quote the bible, but its actual meaning has flown right over their heads.
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,636
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    No. They were not. I assume you are talking about Mark 7, which many people (mostly ignorant people) believe is jesus declaring all foods clean. That is not the case.
    Well here it is, verbatim: Mark 7:19 New International Version (NIV)
    19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

    So eat it.

    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    There is absolute proof of this in Acts 10...
    Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
    14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
    15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

    Have another stuffing.

    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    It is interesting that you would bring up Sodom and Gomorrah in this discussion, but since you are spiritually challenged retard I suppose I should not be surprised. What was the sin that God destroyed them for? It had NOTHING to do with homosexuality. God tells us why he destroyed them in Ezekiel:

    So, uh...yea....he destroyed them for failing to maintain what you refer to as an "unbiblical" economy...one where they failed to help the poor and needy.

    Nitwit.
    If you had ever studied the Bible like you think you have you might be an Einstein. But because you're still so Biblically constipated I suppose I'll have to take it upon myself to educate you further.

    From Jude 7:

    In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    Any LITERATE person can just look up there and read it.
    You must not be one of the literate ones then or you wouldn't have made such a mess of things again.

    Have you ever read the entire Bible, preppie?
    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •