From the OP link:

Those who receive charity are taught the virtue of gratitude. When given everything by the state, however, through redistribution of wealth, recipients are taught not gratitude but a sense of entitlement. Imbibing a sense of entitlement negates and corrupts the virtue of work that God himself announces as something good for man: “Six Days Shall Ye Work”. But the leftist egalitarian is unwilling to accept a notion that there are benefactors and recipients, since it seems so “unequal.”

That the Bible never called for redistribution of wealth is obvious when considering that it required from its citizens only a tithing, a 10% giving. It mandated another 5% or so toward functionaries in the temple as a compensation for work they did in behalf of the citizenry, like civil servants. And while government certainly has a safety-net role, the state should eschew policies that enlarge dependency and certainly not manufacture conditions, as is the Obama Administration, that make redistribution of wealth inevitable.

Luke 12

16 And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest. 17 He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’

18 “Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain. 19 And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’

20 “But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’

21 “This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God.”

You are an idiot

Originally Posted by daewoo

Luke 12



You are an idiot

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Maybe he'll be inspired enough to make it his siganture. I mean; God said so . . .

Originally Posted by daewoo

Luke 12
You are an idiot

No, you're the hammer head. It's ok to have wealth as long as it isn't an idol and you put God first. That's the lesson you and Jet-turkey couldn't figure out.

Another zinger from the link for the liberal meatheads:

The Rev. Wallis is correct that Wall Street exhibits “greed,” yet finds nothing wrong with the work-rules and “Cadillac provisions” of unions that are rooted in greed. Nor does he castigate the greediness of millions who, out of a sense of entitlement, do not work or pay but demand to be subsidized from the take-home pay of other people’s labors. Evidently, it is not greed but achievement born of capitalism that bothers Wallis.

Liberalism sucks. And so does socialism.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

No, you're the hammer head. It's ok to have wealth as long as it isn't an idol and you put God first. That's the lesson you and Jet-turkey couldn't figure out.

Lawrence O'Donnell puts it much better than I could.

If you really believe your drivel then you are truly an ignorant hack.

Originally Posted by smiley

Lawrence O'Donnell puts it much better than I could.

If you really believe your drivel then you are truly an ignorant hack.

If you believe the drivel that you just belched out then you're more ignorant than that. Lawrence O'Donnell is stupid as well. When have rich liberal "Christians" like Al Gore or Obama or Pelosi, etc., ever given all they have to the poor?

Jesus never said anything about first filtering everything you have through a bloated and inefficient bureaucracy. And the reason he told the rich man to go sell everything he had was because money was his idol. If it's not an idol and you put God first then it's no problem. Did he not shower Solomon with great wealth? Did he not bless Abraham and even double Job's original wealth? O'Donnell conveniently forgot to mention all that.

It's the liberals/Obama's redistribution of wealth scheme (a concept centered in greed for other people's money, rather than earning it one's self) that doesn't work. To be more precise, it only works for a very short period of time until the rich move to another state (they're bailing out of big-tax areas NY and California left and right), or until they pass the increased taxes down to the little guy in the form of increased costs for goods and services; or until they move offshore - at which time the government loses whatever taxes they were previously able to get; or until the rich, now without as much money, quit investing in new businesses and products - the result being fewer new jobs for the little guy.

I remember when the liberals went to place a 10% luxury tax on yacht sales ("get the rich"). What happened was the rich quit buying yachts so the yacht manufactures lost all kinds of money and the little guy who helped build the yachts got laid off. So it wasn't "get the rich," it was the liberals screwing the little guy, again.

Now the liberals are increasing the taxes on cigarettes. C-Store (convenience store) operators all of a sudden have to spend more capital to stock their stores, since the cost of smokes is now higher. Which means that the C-Store guys are going to incur additional interest costs from their banks to finance the inventory. Which means they make less money and have less to invest and/or they pass the increased costs down to Joe XXXX who doesn't smoke, or to laborer Manuel who does, and once again the little guy takes it up the rear end. It's almost always the people the libs try to help that wind up taking it in the rear end. Like the welfare state slugs who lost interest in making something of themselves, deciding instead to live off the state as much as they can.

The problem with liberals is they have no vision. Another prime example: The do-gooders in San Francisco decided to give $400 stipends to homeless people. Help the poor, right? Well, next thing you know every bum in America (criminals too) are showing up in San Fran for a free ride. Crime goes up, bums are everywhere hitting on regular folks for money, etc., and the police tell the libs they have to stop the madness, which they eventually did. A real cluster****.

Liberals are real generous WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.

But the gist of it all that you money-hungry liberals have missed is this, and it's one of the Ten Commandments: Thou shalt not covet! Get a job. Make your own money. But don't look across the pike and covet what other people have so your slimy liberal politicians that you have in your pocket can go get other people's money for you. Slackers. Parasites.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

No, you're the hammer head. It's ok to have wealth as long as it isn't an idol and you put God first. That's the lesson you and Jet-turkey couldn't figure out.

But if you were putting god first you would have used all that wealth taking care of the poor and the sick as god commanded, ergo you would no longer be rich.

You really, truly are an idiot, easyrider. Seriously. The bible covers this pretty extensively. It is amazing that in the entire life of jesus he never mentions gay people even one time, and yet you have come to the conclusion that he disliked them and they are sinners, and yet multiple times he warned against holding wealth, but you figure that is OK. Exactly what religion do you practice, easy, because it sure as hell isn't christianity.

"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"

Jesus knew fully well that rich people tend to be pricks who only value more at the harm of those beneath them; In a sense making the poor the slave or the rich. We've found this to be all too true the last few years.

The problem with redistribution of wealth is NOT what Easy makes it out to be which is basically saying the recipient is in the wrong. The problem is that redistribution basically insures a master slave relationship between the rich and the poor. This is exactly why a progressive tax structure and a government that only "governs" is necessary.

In short, it's not smart to own wealth in the eyes of God because of what you will become...entitled.

Originally Posted by daewoo

But if you were putting god first you would have used all that wealth taking care of the poor and the sick as god commanded, ergo you would no longer be rich.

The Tithe rate is 10, maybe 15%, so you're wrong again.

Originally Posted by daewoo

You really, truly are an idiot, easyrider. Seriously. The bible covers this pretty extensively. It is amazing that in the entire life of jesus he never mentions gay people even one time...

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.

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.

So, are you ok with wife beating since Jesus never mentioned that either? Nitwit.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

The Tithe rate is 10, maybe 15%, so you're wrong again.

Originally Posted by The Bible According to Easy

21 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.”

22 At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”

Cut out the red text and replace with "go give 10%".

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Cut out the red text and replace with "go give 10%".

He was talking to a rich man who's idol was his money. Nice try.

You might also consider this from Luke 19: Zacchaeus said to the Lord, “Look, Lord, I give half of my goods to the poor; and if I have taken anything from anyone by false accusation, I restore fourfold.” And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham” (Luke 19:8-9).

As for liberals who seek more and more money:

“The (liberal) leech has two daughters--give and Give!” (Proverbs 30:15).

Originally Posted by Easyrider

He was talking to a rich man who's idol was his money. Nice try.

It, it wasn't. That entire story is a man who knows God and did everything in his life right. He wasn't willing to give up everything for God. This is kinda the point Jesus makes a lot. 10% is not good enough. 100% is. It is said that if you had the faith of a mustard seed you could move a mountain. The point there and the point with the rich person is very few people are willing to give it all up. For the poor, it is easy because they have no where else to go.

Being rich is not the sin but it's true that "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".

I haven't seen many camel's go through the eye of a needle and I haven't seen many people move a mountain. Since that is the case, the Rich have some soul searching to do.

Frankly, if you are an American you are rich so we're all screwed.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

It, it wasn't. That entire story is a man who knows God and did everything in his life right. He wasn't willing to give up everything for God.

He didn't do everything in his life right. He disobeyed one of the Ten Commandments - Thou shalt have no other gods before me.... Money was his god.

Like the Bible says, it's the LOVE OF MONEY (not having money per se) that is the root of all kinds of evil.