Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: Rebuilding a Conservative Movement I
Source:
Sultan Knish blog
URL Source: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/201 ... s+The+Stories+Behind+the+News%
Published: Sep 25, 2015
Author: Daniel Greenfield
Post Date: 2015-09-27 19:03:36 by Rufus T Firefly
Keywords: None
Views: 50469
Comments: 199
The trouble with the donor class, by and large, is that it is resistant to change because it doesn't want to change. The Democratic and Republican donor classes donate for their business interests, but the Democratic donor class has a radical edge. Groups like the Democracy Alliance want a fundamental transformation of the country. And they understand how they can make money off that. There are too many Republican single issue donors who are fairly liberal on everything outside that issue. And there are too many big business interests and financial folks who live in major cities and only differ from liberals in their economic policy. The trouble with fiscally conservative and socially liberal is that the left is not a buffet. You don't get to pick a combo identity. Fiscally liberal follows socially liberal as day follows night. All those single people, their babies need assorted government benefits. No amount of lectures on "liberty" will change that. Austrian economics is never going to displace food stamps for the socially insecure. A lot of the Republican donor class would like to have its cake and eat it too. It wants the fun of a liberal society without having to pay the bill. It wants cheap Third World labor without wanting to cover their health care, the school taxes and all the other social welfare goodies. But it doesn't work that way. There's no free ride. Yes, they can move to a township where the property taxes are killer, and dump their pool guy and tree trimmer and maid in some city to live in housing projects at the expense of that city's shrinking middle class and working class. And it can work for a while, until all those cheap laborers get community organized and the organizers take over the city. And then the state. And then there are housing projects in the township, everyone is plugged into the same statewide school tax scheme and the left runs everything and taxes everything. The wealthier members of the donor class can outrun this process longer. Or just live with it while funding groups that promote "Liberty", the way the Koch Brothers do, but the bill always comes due. You can't outrun the political implications of poverty in a democracy. And you can't stop those political trends without addressing the social failures that cause them. A socially liberal society will become politically and economically liberal. Importing Third World labor also imports Third World politics, which veer between Marxism and Fascism all the way to the Islamic Jihad. Everything is connected. You can't choose one without the other. We're not going to have some libertarian utopia in which everyone gets high and lives in communes, but doesn't bother with regulations and taxes. The closest thing you can find to that is Africa. Nor are we going to be able to import tens of millions of people from countries where working class politics is Marxist without mainstreaming Marxism as a political solution in major cities across America. People are not divisible that way. Human society is not a machine you can break down. The left has fundamentally changed America. Much of the donor class hesitates to recognize this or prefers to believe that it can isolate the bad changes from the good changes. It doesn't work that way. Getting the kind of fiscal conservatism that a lot of the donor class wants requires making fundamental changes to the country. You can't just tinker with economic regulations in a country where schoolchildren are taught to demand taxes on plastic bags to save the planet or where a sizable portion of the population is dependent on the government. Those tactics can rack up ALEC victories while losing the war. Fiscal conservatism requires a self-reliant population that believes in the value of honesty and hard work. Those are not compatible with social liberalism or casual Marxism. Individually, yes. It's possible to make money while being a leftist. But spread across a large population with different classes and races, those individual quirks will not be replicated. And you can't create that population with slogans. You have to be able to shape national values, not just economic policy. That's the hard truth. There are no single issue solutions. At best there are single issue stopgaps. But the left is not a single issue organization. It has narrowed down most of its disagreements and combined its deck of agendas. Its coalition supports a large range of programs from across the deck. It's still possible to be a pro-abortion Republican, but the political representation of pro-life Democrats is disappearing. You can be a Republican who supports the Muslim Brotherhood, but a Democrat who says anything too critical about Islam has a limited future in his party at any national level. The same is true across the spectrum. Kim Davis is a Democrat. How much of a future do Democrats opposed to gay marriage have? Meanwhile it's possible to be a pro-gay marriage Republican. The Republican "big tent" is more a symptom of ideological disarray, as we've seen in this primary season, by a party that doesn't really know what it believes, than of tolerance. But the left has taken over the Democratic Party and made its agendas into the only acceptable ones. There are still some national Democrats hedging weakly on gun control and environmentalism, but they're going to be purged. Their party will abandon them and Republicans will squeeze them out. A lot of the donor class is really seeking an accommodation with the left. The election was warped when the Koch brothers decided to find common ground with the ACLU on freeing drug dealers. They dragged some good candidates in with them and down with them destroying their credibility on key issues. You can't have an accommodation with the left. The left isn't seeking a compromise. It wants it all. The left has to be fought all the way or surrendered to all the way. There's no middle ground here regardless of what philosophical objections are introduced, because that is what the left is doing. It's easily observable just in Obama's two terms. The left has defined the terms of battle. And its terms are total control over everything. You can't be pro-life and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-business and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-Israel and pro-Obama. You can't be fiscally conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be socially conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be anything less than full leftist and pro-Obama. The left has to be fought totally or not at all. Single issues can be important and it's good for people to pick one or two things to focus on, but that has to come with the understanding that there can be no accommodation with it in any other area. An organization fighting gun control is doing important work, but its backers should never fall under the illusion that the 2nd amendment can be maintained if the left wins on all the other fronts. As Benjamin Franklin said, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately". The quote is true today in all its implications as it was then. We must have a conservative movement that is united in a common front or we will be dragged down one by one. There will be no conservative issue islands left to stand on if the red tide comes in. The final point is that it is not enough to resist. That's just delaying the inevitable. Even the strongest resistance can be worn away with time. If the left can't win directly, it focuses on the next generation. If cultural barriers are in the way, it goes for population resettlement, as it's doing in parts of this country and Europe. There is no such thing as an impregnable issue island. Winning means pushing forward. Winning means advocating for change, not just fighting to keep what we have. Winning means thinking about the sort of free society that we want. Winning means having a vision to build, not just resist. Winning means advancing forward. To do that, we have to accept that fundamental change is necessary. Right now we're fighting a losing battle. We're trying to keep the tide out, when we must become the tide. Poster Comment: Money quote: You can't be pro-life and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-business and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-Israel and pro-Obama. You can't be fiscally conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be socially conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be anything less than full leftist and pro-Obama. The left has to be fought totally or not at all.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-19) not displayed.
.
.
.
#20. To: sneakypete (#15)
Many will, but not all. Which means that there will be destitute children. So what do we do about them? The problem cannot be evaded by wishing it away.
Then why are there other races of people that are breeding like rabbits that live in countries that don't have massive social welfare programs? And most of them don't even have jobs to speak of... To me, God is clear in Scripture. Go back to Genesis and take a good, perceptive look at the description of lives. This works in Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, and English - it isn't an artifact of language, it's what the text says. It refers to the lives of each of the patriarchs, the lengths of those lives, and then describes the beginning of each life. And the WAY it does, is, e.g.: "Noah begat Ham", or "Enoch begat Methuselah". Begat. The lives are each measured by the FATHERLY principle of reproduction, not birth from the mother, but begetting by the Father. And that only occurs once, at the very beginning, with intercourse and fertilization. The father's begetting is punctiliar - he BEGETS a child when the sperm fertilizes the egg. And every life in Genesis is measured from THEN, not birth. Scripturally, life begins at conception.
It is not so simple. That is why Fathers of the Church who DID consult the Holy Scriptures had differing opinions. But as I said in PRACTICE id do agree with you, so the practical question is moot. One scriptural example: "And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born [miscarried] imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman's husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life" (LXX).
There are three such places: India, Africa and Latin America. In Latin America, there ARE massive social welfare programs, and people do not starve, and most of the poor - are marginally literate. America offers them opportunity, a better life, not life itself. In India their religion opposes social welfare. They pick up cartfulls of the dead off the streets every morning. In Africa, where they don't have social welfare programs either, they just leave them to rot. We already know what happens when there is a large poor population without social welfare. Starvation. And revolution. That's the other piece. Large, desperate populations rebel. And when that happens, the rich and upper middle class start dying at a rapid rate. Bottom line: be cruel to the poor, and you accumulate wealth, which you don't get to keep in the end either way. So it's really a choice: have social welfare and peace. Or ignore the plight of the poor and periodically have the better classes of folks hanging on meathooks. Peace is better.
It is that simple. The Fathers of the Church who saw it in its clear simplicity were the ones who were right on that issue.
You are a lawyer. Could you analyze expertly the Leviticus quote I provided?
Kind of how the Irish, Italian et. al. did it in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Sounds like they have no clue as to what causes them and their children to starve. Maybe "education" would be a better way of dealing with the problem, instead of just throwing money at it which doesn't solve the problem either. BTA if that happened some "self proclaimed highly educated" people would be exposed as the buffoons they really are!!! I guarantee the later is going to happen again, it always does man never learns from his history... Education and jobs is what most people want not handouts!!! You pervert the Bible. The Bible says if you don't work you don't eat. Don already proved it to you but you ignore it. Also there is no pope in the Bible. He is a false leader. A piece of shit. Your left wing ideology is the opposite of what Christ taught.
above
We are at 8.
"For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
From dependency back again to bondage." There's room to quibble, but I'd say we're at "7", entering into "8". I'd say we are way past that point and in the late stages of number 8. We've Crossed The Tipping Point; Most Americans Now Receive Government Benefits ...perhaps 52 percent of U.S. households—more than half—now receive benefits from the government, thanks to President Obama. And Mr. Entitlement is just getting started. If Obamacare is not repealed millions more will join the swelling rolls of those dependent on government handouts. Conservatives have long dreaded the day when the U.S. crossed the halfway mark because of all the implications for individual and fiscal responsibility. As Benjamin Franklin reportedly said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” They learned that from the 2008 election and turned out in big numbers again in 2012. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much You want to apply that to the retirees, including people in nursing homes? How about children? Should they all work too if they want to eat? I'm just curious how broadly you want to apply the work-to-eat principle and where your exemptions begin.
God created the family for a reason. To take care of each other. He created the church for a reason too. Part of that was to help people. The government stealing money indiscriminately and giving it to losers is not the plan laid out in the Bible by the creator God. It is the parents job to take care of their kids. The kids are supposed to help their parents when they get old. When Joseph ruled Egypt he showed that there is a role for government in helping people. We just subsidize losers with money from people who need the noney also.
This is a misread. What it says is this (literally): and-given-that they(masculine)-will-be-struggle man-s and-they-did-smite woman pregnant and-they-did-go-out boys-her and-not he-will-exist harm fine he-will- be-fine like-which he-will-set-down upon-him master the-woman and-he-did-give in-judge-s and-if harm he-will-exist and-you(masculine singular) did-give being under being eye under eye tooth under tooth hand under hand foot under foot singeing under singeing bruise under bruise striped-bruise under striped bruise This is hard to read, but here is what the parts say in English: and-given-that = when man-s = plural man = men, which agrees with the gender and number of the preceding verb "they-will-be-struggle". This verb is an imperfect. In Greek and English verbs are related to time: past, present, future. Not in ancient Hebrew. In ancient Hebrew, an action is either completed or incomplete. Here, a hypothetical is being discussed: "given that men struggle, when they do...", so this is in the imperfect tense, meaning "whenever they do, now or in the future". "and they did smite" is a verb in the perfect tense, because in the instance being considered, the hypothetical future action of a fight, is accompanied by a completed striking, not a hypothetical striking. "You COULD HAVE hurt her" is not the basis of the judgment. An actual striking is required. Who was smitten? "Woman pregnant". A pregnant woman. Now, this is the KEY misinterpretation. It is important to understand. The next two words are a perfect verb "and-they-did-go-out", and a noun "boys- her" (the unborn baby is given in the masculine plural; in ancient Hebrew when referring to people, a masculine or feminine must be used - babies are not an "it" - and when the gender is unknown, the language reverts to the masculine. The misunderstanding lies in translating that verb "veyatsu" - they-went-out - as "miscarriage". It does not mean miscarriage. Miscarriage in English means that an unborn baby DIES. Veyatsu does not mean miscarriage, it means premature birth, whether dead OR ALIVE. To be clear, in English, a premature birth means that the baby is born alive, a stillbirth means that a baby is born dead, and a miscarriage means that a baby dies in the womb. But in ancient Hebrew, "ve'yatsu" means unexpected delivery. It does NOT tell you that the baby that came out is dead or alive - it DOES NOT MEAN "miscarry" or "stillbirth" - it means to unexpectedly (prematurely) give birth. So, with THAT realization firmly in hand, what Exodus 21:22-25 are saying is much more straightforward: "If men struggle, and they hit a pregnant woman, and she delivers her babies (as a result), if there is no harm (to the babies or to her - if the babies are born ok), he will be fined by the husband [provoking a premature birth is itself worthy of a fine], but if the babies or the mother are harmed, then the harmer will give life for life (if the mother or the babies die), eye for eye, etc." That is what it actually says. If you hit a pregnant woman and her baby dies, you are put to death. If you hit her and either she or the baby is injured, you pay in kind. If you hit her and the baby comes out ok and she is not otherwise harmed, you still have to pay a fine, and her husband decides how much. And that fits hand in glove with life beginning at begetting. The Scriptures are not all ambiguous. The translation of Scripture has inserted an ambiguity that is not really there. Hope that clears things up.
The government taking a mandatory 10% tithe annually specifically for poverty relief and for maintenance of the administrators collecting and dispensing the tithe is THE key tax structure God set up for the Kingdom he ruled. God did not simply call upon men for private charity. The specific express purpose of the taxes collected by the Levites was poverty assistance and feeding the Levites doing it. One cannot argue that God did not establish government poverty relief. God established a tax system primarily FOR poverty relief. There was no roadbuilding or military purpose in the tithe. It was to feed the poor, and feed the clergy feeding the poor. The other taxes were smaller, and were to maintain the tabernacle/temple, and to feed the priests.
He created the church for a reason too. Part of that was to help people. The scripture you cited doesn't make those exceptions. It says work-to-eat. Period. Obviously, you want to enforce the work-to-eat principle but only when it suits you.
Don provided one line of Paul, addressed to a leader of a Church in which feeloaders were coming in to join the agape meals, lounging about and not contributing anything, either work or help. That is the very specific and narrow circumstance about which Paul was writing. The commandment of God, repeated a hundred times in his own words, and demonstrated by the actions of Jesus and the Apostles was tithe for poverty relief, poverty relief, alms for poverty relief, care for the poor. I provided you over the weekend an EXHAUSTIVE review of the words rich and poor in the entire Scripture, demonstrating the extent to which God was sympathetic to the poor, EVEN the poor whose fault it was they were in poverty, and critical or outright hostile to the rich. You ignored that, and pretend that Don proved something, with one line of Paul. You are twisting Scripture to your own destruction, my friend. You hate the poor, and that is a sin, and you should discipline your mouth and stop doing that, because you are defying 500 passages of God every time you do that, because of a misinterpretation of one line of Paul. Paul is not God. God is God. And in that PARTICULAR circumstance to which Paul was referring, Paul was right, of course. But you are generalizing it and pretending there is a commandment "If you don't work you don't eat." Not only is that not a commandment, it is a perversion of God's commandments. You are floundering into a death pit, and you should stop it now for your own good. As far as the Pope goes, and the Catholic Church, they are irrelevant to this discussion. The analysis I gave you this weekend - the exhaustive one - EVERY use of rich and poor in the Bible, no room to claim "You took it out of context" or any of the other weasely ways that men in deep error, like you, use to worm out of God's commandments regarding money. YOU and Don are the ones taking words - not even words of God - out of context, to your own destruction. I do not have a Left Wing ideology. I am teaching you what Christ taught, directly, using Christ's and YHWH's own words. I am Christ's agent here, you are speaking for Satan, and you're as belligerent about it as those in error always are. Now go read what I sent you over the weekend, and realize how deeply in error you are, and repent, and stop calling Christ and YHWH a liar. I am not "left wing" unless God and Christ were left wing. POVERTY RELIEF THROUGH TAXATION, AND PERSONAL ALMS, ARE BOTH COMMANDMENTS. You cannot evade them. And you should stop TRYING to evade them. Accept your duty under God's yoke, and figure out how to make things better. Expressing hatred and contempt for the poor are not making things better, and they are heaping coals of fire on your own head, blindly and stupidly. Stop it. For you own good.
What it says is this (literally): Well done. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
I was wrong. And I am sorry.
Here's the entire passage with several commentaries if you guys are interested. "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD . . . " ~Psalm 33:12a
I'm not sure why you're sorry. I was talking about using those particular verses to justify a work-to-eat policy from scripture. As you know, it is an ancient debate and has played out many times around the world over the centuries. An obvious instance of implementing a biblically-based work-to-eat policy was found for a time in colonial America.
I liked Gill's comments. He is one of the few who ever pay attention to the Ethiopic manuscripts since the rest of Christendom simply pretends they don't exist. Actually, Vic is the only person I've ever noticed who even mentions the Ethiopic canon and manuscripts and my own knowledge of it is limited to Gill's remarks. Gill habitually looks at other ancient manuscripts like the Syriac, the ancient church fathers, etc. And he was in particular a notable Hebraicist, fleshing out the general cultural attitude and colloquial sayings and writings of Jewish leaders of the era which I like because, while we should know the sayings of Jesus and the writings of the disciples, we should also have some idea of the mental and cultural baggage of those who first heard Jesus teach or the disciples preach His message. We can't understand precisely the full impact of Jesus' teachings unless we have some idea of prevailing Pharisaic and scribal teachings and how Jesus differed with the major established schools of thought among Jews of His era. Sometimes you don't have as precise an idea of what is being said by Jesus and the disciples unless you know a bit about who they were saying it to and their ideas about religion and the social order.
Not true... the papacy began with the Apostle Peter, the first Bishop of Rome. (Matthew 16:16~19)
I'm sorry because of the thing that I wrote in that message and posted. Then I read what you said again and realized that you were saying just about the polar opposite of what I thought you were saying. So I deleted it and wrote "I'm Sorry", in the event that you had already seen what I wrote. Fortunately, you didn't, because it was not helpful. I'm thinking that in general I need to ratchet everything back five notches and just post the facts, and let partisans of positions fight, because I start to burn with wrath at a certain point - it FEELS righteous, too - but then I noticed that I was breathing fire upon something that was essentially right...and I realized that it isn't necessarily righteous wrath running through my veins at times so much as hot French blood. So, even though you never saw it, I'm sorry for what I wrote anyway. And I'll take instruction from it. And I'm sorry for calling you "Satan" yesterday. That, too, was over the top.
Of course the exceptions are not noted. However, with proper exegesis we know in other parts of the Bible that the widow, orphan and those who are unable to help themselves must be taken care of. Taking care of the elderly falls under honor mother and father. The text referenced was the following: 6 But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you; 8 nor did we eat anyone’s bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, 9 not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us. 10 For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. 11 For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. 12 Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread. 13 But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary in doing good. 14 And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. Which of course as Vic pointed out et al. that Paul is addressing the ekklesia and ekklesia conduct. Notice the caution in not treating such a person in the ekklesia as an enemy but admonish as a brother. The overwhelming evidence in Holy Scriptures is for the ekklesia (both OT and NT) should take care of those who are in need, sick or are not able. Where AKA and Don object (as I have seen in previous posts and threads) is where government or even a church throws money at able bodied people who can work but don't. It seems the number of people who can work but don't or won't is increasing in this nation and the West in general. I believe the Welfare reform Act in the Newt-Bubba era gave States latitude to assign work to those receiving welfare benefits. Apparently, that has been significantly relaxed in the Zero admin. So given the above reference from 2 Thessalonians 3, if someone is capable of working they should work to support themselves. Other areas of Scripture make it clear the head of household supports the family which includes the elderly parents (see Jesus' comments on Corban). It is the family unit and ekklesia structure God has established. We do well to start in our own homes and churches. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
And he was in particular a notable Hebraicist, fleshing out the general cultural attitude and colloquial sayings and writings of Jewish leaders of the era which I like because, while we should know the sayings of Jesus and the writings of the disciples, we should also have some idea of the mental and cultural baggage of those who first heard Jesus teach or the disciples preach His message. We can't understand precisely the full impact of Jesus' teachings unless we have some idea of prevailing Pharisaic and scribal teachings and how Jesus differed with the major established schools of thought among Jews of His era. Sometimes you don't have as precise an idea of what is being said by Jesus and the disciples unless you know a bit about who they were saying it to and their ideas about religion and the social order. I agree with all of this. "All Scripture is God breathed" - Paul said that. But neither Paul nor anybody else in the Scripture delineated exactly what Scripture IS. After all, in Greek, "scripture" is just the word "writing". Obviously everything WRITTEN isn't God-breathed - Paul mean SACRED writings - but there's no list. The lists were drawn up by various Churches. The Jews, for their part, did not have a written list either. They didn't formalize anything until a generation after the Temple came down, and by then there were fierce polemics with the Christians. The Christians, for their part, didn't agree. The Eastern and Western Catholic Churches never fully agreed on an official canon - there are a handful of additional books and parts of books in the Greek Canon that are not in the Catholic Canon (though the difference is less important than it may seem, because neither the Orthodox nor the Catholics are Sola Scripturalists, both think that the traditions of the Church are ALSO inspired by God, and they all agree that all of the writings that some take as canonical are good for reading, holy and orthodox...just not at the level that should be called "necessary" canon. There are differences between the Greek Orthodox Canon and the Russian Orthodox Canon also. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, for its part, is as old as the Apostles, as old as any other Church (see the story of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts), and its canon is the longest, containing several books otherwise lost to history. St. Jude speaks of the Book of Enoch. Well, we only HAVE the book of Enoch because the Ethiopians preserved it and consider it Scripture. Enoch is interesting because Jesus seems to quote it extensively. Also, among the various books that are not in the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant canons but that are nevertheless considered canonical by an ancient Church, Enoch is the only one mentioned BY NAME in the New Testament, and is the only one that really provides insights into things that are not otherwise revealed in the Bible (such as the names and motivations of the angels who fell and took human wives and made Nephilim came from). There are books mentioned in the Old Testament - Jubilees, Jasher, etc. that are also in the Ethiopian Canon. Whether or not the Ethiopian books are really copies of the original, I cannot say. What I CAN say about Enoch in particular is that either Jesus read it extensively, or whoever wrote it did so with the Gospels in hand (except there's so much that is strange and not otherwise in the Scriptures in it), or it contains truth that Jesus knew and spoke independently, which rather strongly vouches for the actual inspiration of at least some of it. I see no basis to reject the books of the Ethiopian Canon. After all, the Greek Orthodox and Latin Catholic canons are not identical, but that never divided the Church and provoked a schism. The extra books in the East add details of history that otherwise are not there. The so-called "Apocrypha", which I definitely consider canonical because Jesus quotes them so often, contain the whole suite of spiritual history from Malachi to Jesus. So, my view is expansive. If it's in any of the Orthodox Canons, I consider it important. And Enoch is particularly important because Jesus said so many of the things in it, and Jude quoted it by name. Peter referred to it very clearly also, though not by name. I suppose if I were a Protestant, Sola Scriptura doctrine and tradition would make me frightened of these books, but I'm a Catholic and the Ethiopian and Catholic Churches were once in unity, and never separated over this then. Enoch is probably at least partially inspired by God, and contains information that cannot be gotten anywhere else, so I read it. But when I discuss things on boards with Protestants, I limit myself to the KJV, because things are already so contentious that adding pre-packaged conflict is...well, that's not what I'm about. I want to find consensus and see Christians form ranks in a common army to face the ENEMY, not each other! (If I were feeling disputatious, I would use the so-called "Apocrypha", because they are translated and printed in the 1611 KJV.
That is the very specific and narrow circumstance about which Paul was writing. I think it is very specific. Specific in the point that Paul did not say he was giving advice but "we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." Then he goes on to say look at his and other's example of working for provision. The inescapable fact here is that Paul is talking about able bodied human beings. Not the elderly, infirm, widow or orphan. He addresses those categories elsewhere and all are in accordance to the Law. The commandment of God, repeated a hundred times in his own words, and demonstrated by the actions of Jesus and the Apostles was tithe for poverty relief, poverty relief, alms for poverty relief, care for the poor. Indeed no argument there. However, it seemed the NT church did not need the 'motivation' of a prescribed tithe or to be reminded of such. Seemed they understood the Love of Christ. We know the diaspora Jews and Gentile Christians came to the aid of the Judean famine (Acts 11) abundantly. God loves a cheerful giver. 9 Now concerning the ministering to the saints, it is superfluous for me to write to you; 2 for I know your willingness, about which I boast of you to the Macedonians, that Achaia was ready a year ago; and your zeal has stirred up the majority. 3 Yet I have sent the brethren, lest our boasting of you should be in vain in this respect, that, as I said, you may be ready; 4 lest if some Macedonians come with me and find you unprepared, we (not to mention you!) should be ashamed of this confident boasting. 5 Therefore I thought it necessary to exhort the brethren to go to you ahead of time, and prepare your generous gift beforehand, which you had previously promised, that it may be ready as a matter of generosity and not as a grudging obligation. 6 But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work. 9 As it is written: “He has dispersed abroad, He has given to the poor; His righteousness endures forever.” 10 Now may He who supplies seed to the sower, and bread for food, supply and multiply the seed you have sown and increase the fruits of your righteousness, 11 while you are enriched in everything for all liberality, which causes thanksgiving through us to God. 12 For the administration of this service not only supplies the needs of the saints, but also is abounding through many thanksgivings to God, 13 while, through the proof of this ministry, they glorify God for the obedience of your confession to the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal sharing with them and all men, 14 and by their prayer for you, who long for you because of the exceeding grace of God in you. 15 Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift! "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Why? It seems that you agree with everything I wrote because I agree with everything you wrote. You said the same things using different words. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Actually the reverse is true. Biologically human life DOES start at conception. You are confusing this scientific fact with religious doctrine of ensoulment - when human living being receives soul. No,that would be you. Life begins when a child takes it's first breath. Prior to that it is a parasite and only a potential life. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Indeed, we MUST start with ourselves, our homes, our families, and then reach out to others in the circle - preferably to our brothers and sisters in the faith. For everybody has needs, and resources of anyone are limited. Therefore we should pay particular attention, once we have done our family duties, to pay attention to the needs of our Christian brothers and sisters, to ease their burdens so that together we can also ease the burdens of others.
They ARE wising up! They have fewer and fewer children. That it why the white population has to be replaced by the less demanding and more fertile Third World immigrants. You have the "theys" mixed up. The "theys" that will wise up if we cut back welfare benefits to the point where only churches and other charities pay the freight,the professional welfare parasites will wise up and stop having so many children. You can bet your bippy the churches and other charities won't be as generous with the benefits or as open-minded about the life-styles and living conditions as Uncle Sugar,who wants their votes,is. The people on welfare that do have children will be taking a sudden interest in them actually getting an education and jobs because they will need their children employed to keep them fed and housed when they are old. The way things are now they don't give a damn because they will continue to drop another baby when their oldest turns 18 for as long as they can to keep the checks coming in,and by the time they get too old to do that they will be on SS disability due to diabetes,too much fat and not enough exercise,alcohol abuse,drug addiction,heart problems,etc,etc,etc. Selfish self-interest works when everything else fails. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Ahhhh,another Holy War! Killin dem heathens for Gawd! I knew you had it in you. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Which means that there will be destitute children. So what do we do about them? Let the churches and other charities deal with them. That's what they get tax-free status for as charities. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
HorseHillary! MOST of the people in India and South and Central America would be willing to work and provide for themselves if there were jobs available. Provide them with jobs where they see they have a future,and they will stop having so many children. The reason people in the 3rd world have so many children is to insure enough survive to reach adulthood so the children can provide for them when they are too old to scrap by doing the odds and ends things they are doing to avoid daily starvation. The people in Africa are mostly a lost cause. They are content to live in their mud huts with their cattle if they are rich enough to have cattle. If not,they will sit right there and starve to death if somebody doesn't feed them. If it wasn't for the western aid still pouring into Africa,they would be right back to the Stone Age,and eating each other again. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
BTW,did you hear that no less than "The Sisters of the Poor" are suing the Obomber Administration over Obomber Care actually reducing their ability to help the poor because of regulations and added expenses? I'm really,REALLY hoping this starts to get some press because nothing would make me happier than to see the "caring people" in the Dim Party take on the Sisters of the Poor in public. Hell,I'd pay money to watch that. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
You want to apply that to the retirees, including people in nursing homes? Who says retired people,through hard work and planning,aren't providing for themselves? Or that people in nursing homes,Pre-Obomber,didn't/don't have insurance to cover their expenses? We are not living in Biblical times now. We have banks,pension plans,and insurance. For example,children don't work,either. Damn few of them starve to death in the western world. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I found this here: www.mcknights.com/news/po...ive-fight/article/441161/ I don't see the issue that you mention above.
Comments (60 - 199) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThere is no chance they will wise up and have fewer children?
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
Which means that pro-life inevitably leads to a permanent expansion of the social welfare state.
#22. To: A Pole (#17)
But in order to avoid possible homicide Orthodox Church assumes the earliest moment of conception, to err on the side of caution.
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#22)
To me, God is clear in Scripture.
#24. To: CZ82 (#21)
Then why are there other races of people that are breeding like rabbits that live in countries that don't have massive social welfare programs? And most of them don't even have jobs to speak of...
#25. To: A Pole (#23)
It is not so simple. That is why Fathers of the Church who DID consult the Holy Scriptures had differing opinions.
#26. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
It is that simple. The Fathers of the Church who saw it in its clear simplicity were the ones who were right on that issue.
#27. To: Rufus T Firefly, Vicomte13, TooConservative, liberator (#0)
Yes, they can move to a township where the property taxes are killer, and dump their pool guy and tree trimmer and maid in some city to live in housing projects at the expense of that city's shrinking middle class and working class. And it can work for a while, until all those cheap laborers get community organized and the organizers take over the city. And then the state.
#28. To: Vicomte13 (#24)
(Edited)
We already know what happens when there is a large poor population without social welfare. Starvation.
#29. To: Vicomte13 (#24)
So it's really a choice: have social welfare and peace. Or ignore the plight of the poor and periodically have the better classes of folks hanging on meathooks.
#30. To: Vicomte13 (#22)
#31. To: Don (#30)
#32. To: Rufus T Firefly (#7)
#33. To: Rufus T Firefly (#7)
8. From apathy to dependency,
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#34. To: A K A Stone (#30)
The Bible says if you don't work you don't eat. Don already proved it to you but you ignore it.
#35. To: TooConservative (#34)
#36. To: A Pole (#23)
"And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born [miscarried] imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman's husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life" (LXX).
#37. To: A K A Stone (#35)
The government stealing money indiscriminately and giving it to losers is not the plan laid out in the Bible by the creator God.
#38. To: A K A Stone (#35)
God created the family for a reason. To take care of each other.
#39. To: A K A Stone (#30)
The Bible says if you don't work you don't eat. Don already proved it to you but you ignore it.
#40. To: Vicomte13, GarySpFc (#36)
This is a misread.
#41. To: TooConservative (#38)
(Edited)
#42. To: TooConservative, A K A Stone (#38)
2 Thessalonians 3:10
#43. To: Vicomte13 (#41)
I was wrong. And I am sorry.
#44. To: Rufus T Firefly, Vicomte13 (#42)
#45. To: A K A Stone (#30)
Also there is no pope in the Bible. He is a false leader. A piece of shit.
#46. To: TooConservative (#43)
I'm not sure why you're sorry.
#47. To: TooConservative, A K A Stone, Vicomte13, GarySpFc, Don, tomder55, CZ82 (#38)
The scripture you cited doesn't make those exceptions. It says work-to-eat. Period.
2 Thessalonians 3:
#48. To: TooConservative (#44)
I liked Gill's comments. He is one of the few who ever pay attention to the Ethiopic manuscripts since the rest of Christendom simply pretends they don't exist. Actually, Vic is the only person I've ever noticed who even mentions the Ethiopic canon and manuscripts and my own knowledge of it is limited to Gill's remarks. Gill habitually looks at other ancient manuscripts like the Syriac, the ancient church fathers, etc.
#49. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone, Don, GarySpFc, TooConservative, liberator (#39)
Don provided one line of Paul, addressed to a leader of a Church in which feeloaders were coming in to join the agape meals, lounging about and not contributing anything, either work or help.
2 Corinthians 9:
#50. To: Rufus T Firefly (#16)
Take a chill pill, 'pete.
#51. To: A Pole (#17)
Nothing but pure religious dogma
#52. To: redleghunter (#47)
It is the family unit and ekklesia structure God has established. We do well to start in our own homes and churches.
#53. To: A Pole (#18)
There is no chance they will wise up and have fewer children?
#54. To: Vicomte13 (#19)
Human life begins at conception, and there is no possible compromise between those who know it, and those who deny it. This issue must be settled by force.
#55. To: Vicomte13 (#20)
Many will, but not all.
#56. To: Vicomte13 (#24)
So it's really a choice: have social welfare and peace.
#57. To: Deckard (#33)
perhaps 52 percent of U.S. households—more than half—now receive benefits from the government, thanks to President Obama. And Mr. Entitlement is just getting started. If Obamacare is not repealed millions more will join the swelling rolls of those dependent on government handouts.
#58. To: TooConservative (#34)
The Bible says if you don't work you don't eat. Don already proved it to you but you ignore it.
#59. To: sneakypete (#57)
Pope Francis made an unscheduled visit to The Little Sisters of the Poor during his trip to Washington D.C. last week. He indicated his support to the nuns in their battle against a federal requirement to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]