| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
| Date: |
17 Mar 2007 11:57:38 PM |
| Object: |
God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
I know this has become a sore subject due to fanatics on one side and
anti-Christians on the other. Yet, many have been deceived to think
that war and the military are against God, being a form of conflict.
Two thoughts...
1. Christ, Himself, said He came not to bring peace but a sword and
to turn one against their own household.
2. This verse perked my interest in my reading, today...
Ps 144:1
"Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and
my fingers to fight..."
That's gonna cause some theological problems for liberals. The man
after God's own heart thanking God for teaching him how to fight and
war. Hmmm.
Of course, we should seek peace, but the path to peace through a
dictator or a socialist system may very well be war. I don't know.
However, I'm not going to say God was wrong to use war with David.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
| User: "Agki Strodon" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
18 Mar 2007 03:23:41 PM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174193858.810345.260830@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I know this has become a sore subject due to fanatics on one side and
anti-Christians on the other. Yet, many have been deceived to think
that war and the military are against God, being a form of conflict.
Two thoughts...
1. Christ, Himself, said He came not to bring peace but a sword and
to turn one against their own household.
What the ***** does a supernatural entity need with a fucking sword ... or
any weapon?
2. This verse perked my interest in my reading, today...
Ps 144:1
"Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and
my fingers to fight..."
That's gonna cause some theological problems for liberals. The man
after God's own heart thanking God for teaching him how to fight and
war. Hmmm.
What problems? It's just more boogedy-woo.
Of course, we should seek peace, but the path to peace through a
dictator or a socialist system may very well be war.
Why would a socialist system lead to war? Do you know anything at all
about socialism? I didn't think so! Typical hypocrite Christo-fascist.
I don't know.
However, I'm not going to say God was wrong to use war with David.
He didn't. David used God to justify his lusts for sex, blood, and power.
David was an *****. Don't you read your Wholly Babble?
Agki
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
18 Mar 2007 10:34:59 AM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
1. Christ, Himself, said He came not to bring peace but a sword and
to turn one against their own household.
And yet there is no report in the Bible of Him in fact wielding a
sword. So perhaps you are misunderstanding His words.
Since you speak at times of "Christian Family Values" perhaps you are
repelling against the God that supposedly said that He would turn you
against your household.
2. This verse perked my interest in my reading, today...
Ps 144:1
"Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and
my fingers to fight..."
That's gonna cause some theological problems for liberals.
No. Because theological "liberals" don't take the Bible literally,
and the other sort of liberal that you are probably trying to attack
doesn't even take the Bible *seriously*, and hence they have no such
thing as "theological problems".
The man
after God's own heart thanking God for teaching him how to fight and
war.
What man was that? You are perhaps assuming that David wrote that
psalm? The man who had someone's husband murdered in order to make
her "available"?
Hmmm.
Good comment, if indeed you did any real thinking.
Of course, we should seek peace, but the path to peace through a
dictator
Bush may be trying, but he hasn't achieved that yet. And dictators
elsewhere aren't our problem (if they are, then we should be as
concerned with the ones allegedly on our side like the one in Egypt as
the ones opposed to us (like Fidel).
or a socialist system
Nothing unChristian about socialism. Jesus's preaching was much
closer to socialism (give all your wealth to the poor, render unto
Caesar ...) than capitalism (moneychangers in the temple). Certainly
nothing that Jesus would go to war about.
may very well be war. I don't know.
You don't know much of anything, but it doesn't stop you from
blathering.
However, I'm not going to say God was wrong to use war with David.
Whoopie for you.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
18 Mar 2007 07:09:56 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:famqv21didvbqqt1tv7mtt5801st0otgnr@4ax.com...
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
1. Christ, Himself, said He came not to bring peace but a sword and
to turn one against their own household.
And yet there is no report in the Bible of Him in fact wielding a
sword. So perhaps you are misunderstanding His words.
No .. perhaps he was too cowardly to do so? Everytime he was cornered by an
angry crowd he just ran away. The onlytime he didn't he was taken away and
crucified.
He did, however, tell his disciples to buy and carry swords (which they did)
And he did go into a temple and throw out the money-lenders in a fit of
rage.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docky Wocky" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
18 Mar 2007 08:01:16 PM |
|
|
jeckyl sez:
"And he did go into a temple and throw out the money-lenders in a fit of
rage..."
___________________________________
I looked at John, Mark, and Matthew, and I didn't see the word "rage" there
at all - more like a simple matter of fact tossing of the money changers and
animal sellers.
"Rage" seems to be a characteristic of the moslems. But you probably haven't
noticed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
18 Mar 2007 08:12:33 PM |
|
|
"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote in message
news:whlLh.4859$8B1.2149@trnddc04...
jeckyl sez:
"And he did go into a temple and throw out the money-lenders in a fit of
rage..."
I looked at John, Mark, and Matthew, and I didn't see the word "rage"
there at all - more like a simple matter of fact tossing of the money
changers and animal sellers.
hmm .. it doesn't sounds like it was particular polite either
"Jesus entered the temple area and DROVE OUT all who were buying and selling
there. He OVERTUREND THE TABLES of the money changers and the benches of
those selling doves"
"and WOULD NOT ALLOW anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts"
"So he MADE A WHIP OUT OF CORDS , and DROVE ALL from the temple area, both
sheep and cattle; he SCATTERED THE COINS of the money changers and
OVERTURNED THEIR TABLES.
That seems to describe the actions of someone in rage .. certainly angry.
"Rage" seems to be a characteristic of the moslems. But you probably
haven't noticed.
Rage seems common to all people. Jesus included.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docky Wocky" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
18 Mar 2007 08:32:43 PM |
|
|
jeckly sez:
"That seems to describe the actions of someone in rage .. certainly
angry..."
___________________________________
Well, maybe more like determined.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
18 Mar 2007 08:40:25 PM |
|
|
"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote in message
news:%KlLh.5092$8B1.2132@trnddc04...
jeckly sez:
"That seems to describe the actions of someone in rage .. certainly
angry..."
___________________________________
Well, maybe more like determined.
You don't need to use a whip just to show determination.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docky Wocky" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
18 Mar 2007 09:45:03 PM |
|
|
Jekyll sez:
"You don't need to use a whip just to show determination..."
_____________________________
Maybe more like patient perseverance from a individual who could have simply
snapped his fingers and ZAPPED the whole bunch to the face of the Moon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
18 Mar 2007 10:05:17 PM |
|
|
"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote in message
news:POmLh.5271$8B1.1185@trnddc04...
Jekyll sez:
"You don't need to use a whip just to show determination..."
_____________________________
Maybe more like patient perseverance from a individual who could have
simply snapped his fingers and ZAPPED the whole bunch to the face of the
Moon.
It was temper and anger. Just like the childish name-calling he did. Just
like him cursing a poor little fig tree because he got confused about
whether figs were in season.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
18 Mar 2007 03:43:14 PM |
|
|
Of course, we should seek peace, but the path to peace through a
dictator
Bush may be trying, but he hasn't achieved that yet. And dictators
elsewhere aren't our problem (if they are, then we should be as
concerned with the ones allegedly on our side like the one in Egypt as
the ones opposed to us (like Fidel).
or a socialist system
Nothing unChristian about socialism. Jesus's preaching was much
closer to socialism (give all your wealth to the poor, render unto
Caesar ...) than capitalism (moneychangers in the temple). Certainly
nothing that Jesus would go to war about.
I'm going to regret it, but I'm going to humor you again. Socialism
promises equal distribution of wealth...take from the rich and give to
the poor till all are equal. Yet, God promises blessing for the
righteous and curses for the sinner. How, then, is socialism not
taking from God's blessing and giving to those He cursed?
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
19 Mar 2007 11:28:24 AM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Of course, we should seek peace, but the path to peace through a
dictator
Bush may be trying, but he hasn't achieved that yet. And dictators
elsewhere aren't our problem (if they are, then we should be as
concerned with the ones allegedly on our side like the one in Egypt as
the ones opposed to us (like Fidel).
or a socialist system
Nothing unChristian about socialism. Jesus's preaching was much
closer to socialism (give all your wealth to the poor, render unto
Caesar ...) than capitalism (moneychangers in the temple). Certainly
nothing that Jesus would go to war about.
I'm going to regret it, but I'm going to humor you again. Socialism
promises equal distribution of wealth...
It does?
<so·cial·ism (so'sh?-liz'?m)
<n.
<Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the
< means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by
< a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
<The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism
< and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the
< dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully
< achieved.
take from the rich and give to the poor till all are equal.
This is of course your invention, and sounds more like something Jesus
said.
Yet, God promises blessing for the righteous and curses for the sinner.
But of course the rich cannot be righteous. See the words of Jesus
Christ regarding camels and needles eyes.
See also what Jesus said to the moneychangers, and to the powerbrokers
among the Jewish elders.
How, then, is socialism not taking from God's blessing and giving to those He cursed?
Jesus said "Blessed are the poor". So giving to the poor is giving to
those that God has blessed. He said "blessed are the meek" which
omits those who have power, etc.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dion" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
19 Mar 2007 12:35:17 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:dudtv2tt0l64k3i4cc364hcm0e2nnog6l1@4ax.com...
take from the rich and give to the poor till all are equal.
This is of course your invention, and sounds more like something Jesus
said.
In the past I've heard a Marx quote and thought it was Jesus.
Dion
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
29 Mar 2007 08:15:59 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:35:17 -0500, Dion wrote
(in article <-KOdnUsVD7kqJmPYnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@giganews.com>):
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:dudtv2tt0l64k3i4cc364hcm0e2nnog6l1@4ax.com...
take from the rich and give to the poor till all are equal.
This is of course your invention, and sounds more like something Jesus
said.
In the past I've heard a Marx quote and thought it was Jesus.
Dion
And I've heard quotes from "Saint" Paul and thought
they were Stalin or Lenin.
Gray Shockley
---------------------------------------
President George W C Bush's business professor at
Harvard Business School, Professor Yoshi Tsurumi, recalls
our President as "not just as a terrible student but as
spoiled, loutish and a pathological liar".
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
19 Mar 2007 11:51:24 AM |
|
|
On Mar 19, 10:28 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Of course, we should seek peace, but the path to peace through a
dictator
Bush may be trying, but he hasn't achieved that yet. And dictators
elsewhere aren't our problem (if they are, then we should be as
concerned with the ones allegedly on our side like the one in Egypt as
the ones opposed to us (like Fidel).
or a socialist system
Nothing unChristian about socialism. Jesus's preaching was much
closer to socialism (give all your wealth to the poor, render unto
Caesar ...) than capitalism (moneychangers in the temple). Certainly
nothing that Jesus would go to war about.
I'm going to regret it, but I'm going to humor you again. Socialism
promises equal distribution of wealth...
It does?
<so=B7cial=B7ism (so'sh?-liz'?m)
<n.
<Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the
< means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by
< a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
<The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism
< and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the
< dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully
< achieved.
take from the rich and give to the poor till all are equal.
This is of course your invention, and sounds more like something Jesus
said.
Yet, God promises blessing for the righteous and curses for the sinner.
But of course the rich cannot be righteous. See the words of Jesus
Christ regarding camels and needles eyes.
See also what Jesus said to the moneychangers, and to the powerbrokers
among the Jewish elders.
How, then, is socialism not taking from God's blessing and giving to tho=
se He cursed?
Jesus said "Blessed are the poor". So giving to the poor is giving to
those that God has blessed. He said "blessed are the meek" which
omits those who have power, etc.
lojbab
Jesus said the poor would receive. Jesus said those that give will
receive much more. Jesus said that anyone that loses for the Gospel
will get much more in this life (Mark 10:30). Jesus said that the
least "will be" greatest...not will be equal. Finally, read Deut.
28. The righteous are blessed and the sinner is cursed and loses all
they have. Further, the Old Testament has the righteous being told to
"lend but not borrow." Thus, they are always in abundance and never
in lack (as Psalm 23 says as well). So, you must reject BOTH the
words of Christ and the Jehovah He came out from in order to call
opposing the will of God Christian.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
19 Mar 2007 02:48:21 PM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jesus said the poor would receive. Jesus said those that give will
receive much more. Jesus said that anyone that loses for the Gospel
will get much more in this life (Mark 10:30). Jesus said that the
least "will be" greatest...not will be equal. Finally, read Deut.
28. The righteous are blessed and the sinner is cursed and loses all
they have. Further, the Old Testament has the righteous being told to
"lend but not borrow." Thus, they are always in abundance and never
in lack (as Psalm 23 says as well). So, you must reject BOTH the
words of Christ and the Jehovah He came out from in order to call
opposing the will of God Christian.
Convoluted bunch of nonsense there, which seems unresponsive to
anything I wrote except for the occasional use of "poor", "righteous",
and "cursed".
We are all sinners, so therefore we are all cursed.
I will leave the rest of your selective Bible quoting and erroneous
paraphrasia to collapse of its own idiocy.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
20 Mar 2007 12:09:12 AM |
|
|
On Mar 19, 1:48 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jesus said the poor would receive. Jesus said those that give will
receive much more. Jesus said that anyone that loses for the Gospel
will get much more in this life (Mark 10:30). Jesus said that the
least "will be" greatest...not will be equal. Finally, read Deut.
28. The righteous are blessed and the sinner is cursed and loses all
they have. Further, the Old Testament has the righteous being told to
"lend but not borrow." Thus, they are always in abundance and never
in lack (as Psalm 23 says as well). So, you must reject BOTH the
words of Christ and the Jehovah He came out from in order to call
opposing the will of God Christian.
Convoluted bunch of nonsense there, which seems unresponsive to
anything I wrote except for the occasional use of "poor", "righteous",
and "cursed".
We are all sinners, so therefore we are all cursed.
I will leave the rest of your selective Bible quoting and erroneous
paraphrasia to collapse of its own idiocy.
lojbab
Since "Christian" is defined by the Bible which you reject, you have
no authority to say who is and isn't a Christian. How, for example,
do you claim socialism is Christian, when you deny any Scriptures that
show it to not be so. By that logic, you can claim ANYTHING as
Christian and just deny whatever Scriptures get in your way....not
like I doubt you don't already do this.
We've been over all of this before, so we are done here.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
20 Mar 2007 07:19:27 AM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Since "Christian" is defined by the Bible which you reject,
Actually it isn't.
Per the Blue Letter Bible site, the word "Christian" appears three
times in the KJV Bible, and in no case is it defined:
<Act 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And
< it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the
< church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called
< Christians first in Antioch.
<Act 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
<1Pe 4:16 Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian,
<let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
And indeed it appears that the word "Christian" was applied to the
disciples by others, non-Christians.
Of course that wasn't the English word "Christian", because no one in
the Roman Empire spoke English.
you have no authority to say who is and isn't a Christian.
I have as much authority as you do. I am a native speaker of English.
It is an English word, and all English words mean whatever English
speakers use them to mean.
How, for example, do you claim socialism is Christian,
Easily: "I claim socialism is Christian".
when you deny any Scriptures that show it to not be so.
There are no such Scriptures.
By that logic, you can claim ANYTHING as
Christian and just deny whatever Scriptures get in your way.
Of course. But I don't need to.
We've been over all of this before, so we are done here.
We aren't done so long as you keep posting nonsense to the education
newsgroups.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
20 Mar 2007 06:13:48 PM |
|
|
On Mar 20, 6:19 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Since "Christian" is defined by the Bible which you reject,
Actually it isn't.
Per the Blue Letter Bible site, the word "Christian" appears three
times in the KJV Bible, and in no case is it defined:
<Act 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And
< it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the
< church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called
< Christians first in Antioch.
<Act 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
<1Pe 4:16 Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian,
<let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
And indeed it appears that the word "Christian" was applied to the
disciples by others, non-Christians.
Of course that wasn't the English word "Christian", because no one in
the Roman Empire spoke English.
you have no authority to say who is and isn't a Christian.
I have as much authority as you do. I am a native speaker of English.
It is an English word, and all English words mean whatever English
speakers use them to mean.
How, for example, do you claim socialism is Christian,
Easily: "I claim socialism is Christian".
when you deny any Scriptures that show it to not be so.
There are no such Scriptures.
By that logic, you can claim ANYTHING as
Christian and just deny whatever Scriptures get in your way.
Of course. But I don't need to.
Let me make it easy for you, then. Since you want to define Christian
outside the Bible (typical, define something outside its origin), I'll
rephrase. This should clear things up nicely.
Socialism isn't BIBLICAL, since the Bible teaches that God blesses
some and curses some. Thus, to take from those God blesses and give
to those God cursed would make socialism unbiblical (since you don't
like unchristian). This argument doesn't require that you even
believe the Scriptures to be true. Do you deny that what Scripture
teaches (in blessing some and cursing some) is against the socialistic
principle of equal distribution of resources?
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
21 Mar 2007 04:56:37 AM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Let me make it easy for you, then. Since you want to define Christian
outside the Bible
"want to"? There is no choice.
(typical, define something outside its origin),
The word did not originate in the Bible. The Bible itself reports
that it originated with name-calling by non-Christians.
Socialism isn't BIBLICAL,
You haven't a clue.
since the Bible teaches that God blesses some and curses some.
Thus, to take from those God blesses and give
to those God cursed would make socialism unbiblical (since you don't
like unchristian).
Ah, but you are making the assumption that those with worldly goods
are blessed by God, and those without are cursed by God. That is
quite in opposition to what Christ said. He said that the poor are
blessed, and that a rich man shall not enter the kingdom of heaven,
but that the rich man could gain favor with God by giving all of his
wealth to the poor - precisely what you say is unBiblical.
Furthermore, Christ and His disciples were apparently without worldly
goods, and thus by your definitions were cursed by God, which is most
certainly unBiblical.
Furthermore, it would be quite impossible for us to take away the
blessings of those whom the omnipotent God has blessed, or to give to
those that the omnipotent God has cursed. Therefore, we must know
that God's blessings are NOT in the form of worldly wealth.
Still furthermore, your argument would also apply against any sort of
taxation for any purpose, since taxation takes away from people who
have (and cannot take away from people who have not) and who are
therefore by you silly definition "blessed", and by necessity, money
which has been taken must be spent somewhere, thus benefitting someone
who did not have it, and who therefore by your silly definition was
"cursed by God".
Yet Jesus Christ explicitly said that tax-paying was appropriate,
rendering under Caesar that which is of Caesar. In a truly socialist
society, all wealth is "of Caesar" and hence consistent with Jesus's
statement. In a nonsocialist society which you call "socialist"
because people with money are taxed and others benefit, then there is
no question that Jesus's statement applied, since that is precisely
what the situation was in Rome when He said it.
This argument doesn't require that you even
believe the Scriptures to be true. Do you deny that what Scripture
teaches (in blessing some and cursing some) is against the socialistic
principle of equal distribution of resources?
Yes. because distribution of resources has no especial relationship to
God's curse or blessing.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
21 Mar 2007 02:15:02 PM |
|
|
On Mar 21, 3:56 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Let me make it easy for you, then. Since you want to define Christian
outside the Bible
"want to"? There is no choice.
(typical, define something outside its origin),
The word did not originate in the Bible. The Bible itself reports
that it originated with name-calling by non-Christians.
Would there be the word "Christian" without a Christ? Does not, then,
HE define it?
Socialism isn't BIBLICAL,
You haven't a clue.
since the Bible teaches that God blesses some and curses some.
Thus, to take from those God blesses and give
to those God cursed would make socialism unbiblical (since you don't
like unchristian).
Ah, but you are making the assumption that those with worldly goods
are blessed by God, and those without are cursed by God. That is
quite in opposition to what Christ said. He said that the poor are
blessed, and that a rich man shall not enter the kingdom of heaven,
but that the rich man could gain favor with God by giving all of his
wealth to the poor - precisely what you say is unBiblical.
Deut 28 (part of the Torah, which you claim to believe in...and
calling it that gives a clue to your real religious belief)) says that
God blesses the righteous with possessions and that God curses
possessions. Jesus said that if we seek the Kingdom of God, we will
be given possessions. Jesus said that we receive 100 fold what
possessions we lose for Him (Mark 10:30). Scriptures says that the
wealth of the sinner is saved up for the righteous. The OT prophets
say that God will make us fat calves (well fed) in our possessions.
Psalms 23 describes a lamb that is well fed. And, as I said before,
OT (Hebrew) Scripture tells us to lend and NOT borrow. How, then,
shall a Christian borrow from the state? And, how do they have
possessions to lend, if they weren't blessed to begin with.
In fact, this is a further case that illustrates my point. Jesus
tells His followers to give others food, water, clothing, money and
more at various times in Scripture. How is that possible if they were
in lack? It presumes they have MORE than the person in front of them.
Furthermore, Christ and His disciples were apparently without worldly
goods, and thus by your definitions were cursed by God, which is most
certainly unBiblical.
See my last paragraph. Note, also, that Paul wrote to one church NOT
to send him any money..that he would pay for it himself. How is that
possible? He was a tentmaker and had possessions.
Furthermore, it would be quite impossible for us to take away the
blessings of those whom the omnipotent God has blessed, or to give to
those that the omnipotent God has cursed. Therefore, we must know
that God's blessings are NOT in the form of worldly wealth.
Quite the contrary. In the OT prophets, God condemns Israel for
STEALING from Him by not giving him His due tithe out of what He had
given them. This shows God can bless with the blessing taken away
from those He blesses.
Still furthermore, your argument would also apply against any sort of
taxation for any purpose, since taxation takes away from people who
have (and cannot take away from people who have not) and who are
therefore by you silly definition "blessed", and by necessity, money
which has been taken must be spent somewhere, thus benefitting someone
who did not have it, and who therefore by your silly definition was
"cursed by God".
Indeed. When the rich are targeted for extra taxes, they are doing
just that. It is no wonder that EVERY socialist state has faultered
financially (China the most recent example). When you tax the rich,
you teach society that being rich is bad. Therefore, they don't get
rich. Then, with no rich people to tax, the country runs out of money
and goes into a depression. So ends all socialist states.
Yet Jesus Christ explicitly said that tax-paying was appropriate,
rendering under Caesar that which is of Caesar. In a truly socialist
society, all wealth is "of Caesar" and hence consistent with Jesus's
statement. In a nonsocialist society which you call "socialist"
because people with money are taxed and others benefit, then there is
no question that Jesus's statement applied, since that is precisely
what the situation was in Rome when He said it.
The rest of that verse you chopped up is to render to God what belongs
to God. What does the Bible teach belongs to God? EVERYTHING.
That's why the Bible (even the Hebrew part of it) teaches to tithe out
of what God provides to man a tenth back to God. If money belonged to
Caesar, there would be nothing to tithe..right?
This argument doesn't require that you even
believe the Scriptures to be true. Do you deny that what Scripture
teaches (in blessing some and cursing some) is against the socialistic
principle of equal distribution of resources?
Yes. because distribution of resources has no especial relationship to
God's curse or blessing.
lojbab
Your complete lack of Bible knowledge but self-appointed authority is
astounding. You admit they are taking from those that in Duet 28 God
blessed and giving to those He cursed. You ignore Scipture that
teaches this to be false. You claim that the tithe is illegal (since
money belongs to Caesar not God). Yet, you claim this corrupt system
is Biblical and Christian. Read a Bible and get a clue.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dion" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
21 Mar 2007 03:31:26 PM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174504501.973710.317820@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 21, 3:56 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Let me make it easy for you, then. Since you want to define Christian
outside the Bible
"want to"? There is no choice.
(typical, define something outside its origin),
The word did not originate in the Bible. The Bible itself reports
that it originated with name-calling by non-Christians.
Would there be the word "Christian" without a Christ? Does not, then,
HE define it?
Was *HE* called Christ while alive or did that become his name after
*martyrdom*?
Dion
.
|
|
|
| User: "Defendario" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
21 Mar 2007 05:36:37 PM |
|
|
Dion wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174504501.973710.317820@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 21, 3:56 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Let me make it easy for you, then. Since you want to define Christian
outside the Bible
"want to"? There is no choice.
(typical, define something outside its origin),
The word did not originate in the Bible. The Bible itself reports
that it originated with name-calling by non-Christians.
Would there be the word "Christian" without a Christ? Does not, then,
HE define it?
Was *HE* called Christ while alive or did that become his name after
*martyrdom*?
Being called "The Christ" (*Messiah*) was what got Jesus of Nazareth in
trouble. The Romans misunderstood this to mean "King of the jooz"
Dion
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
21 Mar 2007 05:22:56 PM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
The word did not originate in the Bible. The Bible itself reports
that it originated with name-calling by non-Christians.
Would there be the word "Christian" without a Christ?
Probably not, depending on what you mean by "without". (There could
be merely the concept of a Christ, without the actuality, and those
who believed in the concept might be called "Christians")
Does not, then, HE define it?
Nope. The suffix "-ian" can mean the inhabitants of a land, or the
followers of a political movement or a religious movement. Even if
one presumes that the word refers to the Biblical figure, it can mean
one who follows Christ's moral teachings (which is how Thomas
jefferson used the word) as well as the full spectrum of denominations
called Christian, with all their contradictory creeds. And it can
include people who are members of those denominations whether or not
they actually are believers. After all, a 3 month old baby has no
clue what the words of the Bible are, but can still be called a
"Christian" having been baptized (by one of the denominations that
accepts infant baptism).
Socialism isn't BIBLICAL,
You haven't a clue.
since the Bible teaches that God blesses some and curses some.
Thus, to take from those God blesses and give
to those God cursed would make socialism unbiblical (since you don't
like unchristian).
Ah, but you are making the assumption that those with worldly goods
are blessed by God, and those without are cursed by God. That is
quite in opposition to what Christ said. He said that the poor are
blessed, and that a rich man shall not enter the kingdom of heaven,
but that the rich man could gain favor with God by giving all of his
wealth to the poor - precisely what you say is unBiblical.
Deut 28 (part of the Torah, which you claim to believe in.
What do you mean "believe in"? The Bible exists; it would be rather
silly to believe otherwise. That does not mean that one believes that
it was written by God.
and calling it that gives a clue to your real religious belief)
It means that I was using proper terminology for an intellectual
discussion of the Law of the Old Testament. You have made false
assumption after false assumption about what I believe, ignoring the
fact that I have repeatedly said what I believe (not that it is any of
your concern).
says that God blesses the righteous with possessions and that God curses
possessions.
No. Deuteronomy 28 was a promise to the *nation* of Israelites. It
was not a promise to individuals, and it was not a promise to Gentile
Christians who in fact do not feel obligated to keep ALL His
commandments. Are you really incapable of reading?
28:1
<And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the
< voice of the LORD thy God, to observe [and] to do all his
^^^
< commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God
< will set thee on high above all nations of the earth:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Furthermore 28:14 says that if Israel did NOT follow ALL of the
commandments, they would be cursed. And that curse was fulfilled in
the form of the diaspora.
Jesus said that if we seek the Kingdom of God, we will
be given possessions. Jesus said that we receive 100 fold what
possessions we lose for Him (Mark 10:30).
Read it again.
Scriptures says that the wealth of the sinner is saved up for the righteous.
You clearly have no clue what Scripture says.
The OT prophets say that God will make us fat calves (well fed) in our possessions.
Nope. You are just selectively misinterpreting the verses to suit
your argument.
Psalms 23 describes a lamb that is well fed.
Good for it. The psalmist was not Jesus Christ, and you are no lamb.
And, as I said before, OT (Hebrew) Scripture tells us to lend and NOT borrow.
How, then, shall a Christian borrow from the state?
I'd be more concerned about your mortgage if you think that the verse
tells you not to borrow.
Most versions of socialism do not involve "borrowing from the state".
And, how do they have possessions to lend, if they weren't blessed to begin with.
It sounds like you need to reconsider your interpretation, if you can
come up with questions like that.
In fact, this is a further case that illustrates my point.
You have no point.
Jesus tells His followers to give others food, water, clothing, money and
more at various times in Scripture. How is that possible if they were
in lack? It presumes they have MORE than the person in front of them.
They are told to give away all that they have. Obviously they cannot
give any more.
Furthermore, Christ and His disciples were apparently without worldly
goods, and thus by your definitions were cursed by God, which is most
certainly unBiblical.
See my last paragraph.
Note, also, that Paul wrote to one church NOT
to send him any money..that he would pay for it himself. How is that
possible? He was a tentmaker and had possessions.
He was a hypocrite who did not follow the teachings of Christ.
Furthermore, it would be quite impossible for us to take away the
blessings of those whom the omnipotent God has blessed, or to give to
those that the omnipotent God has cursed. Therefore, we must know
that God's blessings are NOT in the form of worldly wealth.
Quite the contrary. In the OT prophets, God condemns Israel for
STEALING from Him by not giving him His due tithe out of what He had
given them.
You obviously do not understand the OT prophets.
This shows God can bless with the blessing taken away from those He blesses.
Try translating that into English sometime. I doubt if it will make
any sense.
Still furthermore, your argument would also apply against any sort of
taxation for any purpose, since taxation takes away from people who
have (and cannot take away from people who have not) and who are
therefore by you silly definition "blessed", and by necessity, money
which has been taken must be spent somewhere, thus benefitting someone
who did not have it, and who therefore by your silly definition was
"cursed by God".
Indeed. When the rich are targeted for extra taxes, they are doing
just that.
"they"???
It is no wonder that EVERY socialist state has faultered
financially (China the most recent example).
You are clueless.
When you tax the rich, you teach society that being rich is bad.
Maybe it is.
*Every* society that has had taxes, which is *all* of them, has taxed
the rich, and in fact has taxed the rich more than the poor.
Therefore, they don't get rich.
I don't see people not getting rich in societies with taxes on the
rich. Do you live in some alternate universe?
Then, with no rich people to tax, the country runs out of money
and goes into a depression. So ends all socialist states.
Alas it hasn't happened that way.
Yet Jesus Christ explicitly said that tax-paying was appropriate,
rendering under Caesar that which is of Caesar. In a truly socialist
society, all wealth is "of Caesar" and hence consistent with Jesus's
statement. In a nonsocialist society which you call "socialist"
because people with money are taxed and others benefit, then there is
no question that Jesus's statement applied, since that is precisely
what the situation was in Rome when He said it.
The rest of that verse you chopped up is to render to God what belongs
to God. What does the Bible teach belongs to God? EVERYTHING.
If you really believed that, and were to render all your possessions
to God, then you don't have them any more. You seem to think that you
can have your cake and eat it too.
That's why the Bible (even the Hebrew part of it) teaches to tithe out
of what God provides to man a tenth back to God. If money belonged to
Caesar, there would be nothing to tithe..right?
In the sense that you can't tithe the money that you have paid in
taxes. But the money that you haven't paid in taxes can be tithed.
Of course in a purely socialist society, you don't own anything to
tithe on. But that just makes it a little tough on the churches - it
doesn't hurt God at all.
This argument doesn't require that you even
believe the Scriptures to be true. Do you deny that what Scripture
teaches (in blessing some and cursing some) is against the socialistic
principle of equal distribution of resources?
Yes. because distribution of resources has no especial relationship to
God's curse or blessing.
Your complete lack of Bible knowledge
You should talk, dodo.
but self-appointed authority is astounding.
You admit they are taking from those that in Duet 28 God
blessed
I admit no such thing, since there isn't anyone these days who keeps
ALL of the commandments (some of them cannot be kept until the Temple
is restored).
and giving to those He cursed.
You have no idea who He has cursed, apparently.
You ignore Scipture that teaches this to be false.
You are doing a pretty good job of trying to ignore Scripture that
doesn't agree with you, and to try to twist other parts of Scripture
to say things that are not in fact in the text. Your theology has
nothing to do with what Jesus Christ actually taught.
You claim that the tithe is illegal
I made no such claim.
(since money belongs to Caesar not God).
I made no such claim. I merely referred you to the words of Jesus
Christ, which you are trying to ignore and/or twist to mean exactly
the opposite of what He clearly said.
Yet, you claim this corrupt system
It is on Earth and therefore it is corrupt, I will agree.
is Biblical
A meaningless adjective.
and Christian.
Apparently also a meaningless adjective.
Read a Bible and get a clue.
Try it yourself. Learn to read first. Then try not twisting the
words to fit your sick perversion of a theology when you do so.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
22 Mar 2007 01:39:26 AM |
|
|
The rest of that verse you chopped up is to render to God what belongs
to God. What does the Bible teach belongs to God? EVERYTHING.
If you really believed that, and were to render all your possessions
to God, then you don't have them any more. You seem to think that you
can have your cake and eat it too.
That's why the Bible (even the Hebrew part of it) teaches to tithe out
of what God provides to man a tenth back to God. If money belonged to
Caesar, there would be nothing to tithe..right?
In the sense that you can't tithe the money that you have paid in
taxes. But the money that you haven't paid in taxes can be tithed.
Of course in a purely socialist society, you don't own anything to
tithe on. But that just makes it a little tough on the churches - it
doesn't hurt God at all.
I was going to rebuke your whole post, but I think this segment
reveals your lie perfectly. Tithing is, in a real sense, the biggest
reason socialists have a problem with Christianity. Whatever money
you tithe, the socialist state cannot have. Thus, the state cannot
control resources if individuals are allowed to tithe their money to
God as He sees fit (and not the state). Further, tithing is premised
on the belief that all money comes from God, which you and the
socialists deny. Thus, a state cannot allow you to tithe your money
(that which you claim belongs to Caesar only), and the Bible demands
believers to tithe and promises a curse on any that would steal from
God by NOT tithing. Thus, socialism denies God His tithe and is
therefore unbiblical. And, God denies the state all resources through
the tithe and becomes the reason why Jewish and Christian religions
are the enemy of almost all socialist states.
How, if you are honest, can individuals in socialist states tithe
legally? How can Christians NOT tithe, since it is commanded of
them? Therefore, how can these systems work together? I await your
attempt to distort and distract, since you cannot answer without
admitting you are wrong.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
22 Mar 2007 06:29:41 AM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
The rest of that verse you chopped up is to render to God what belongs
to God. What does the Bible teach belongs to God? EVERYTHING.
If you really believed that, and were to render all your possessions
to God, then you don't have them any more. You seem to think that you
can have your cake and eat it too.
That's why the Bible (even the Hebrew part of it) teaches to tithe out
of what God provides to man a tenth back to God. If money belonged to
Caesar, there would be nothing to tithe..right?
In the sense that you can't tithe the money that you have paid in
taxes. But the money that you haven't paid in taxes can be tithed.
Of course in a purely socialist society, you don't own anything to
tithe on. But that just makes it a little tough on the churches - it
doesn't hurt God at all.
I was going to rebuke your whole post, but I think this segment
reveals your lie perfectly.
I don't lie.
Tithing is, in a real sense, the biggest reason socialists have a problem with Christianity.
I doubt it. But then I've never discussed it with a socialist.
Whatever money you tithe, the socialist state cannot have.
Nonsense. A "socialist state" could simply tax the church.
Thus, the state cannot
control resources if individuals are allowed to tithe their money to
God as He sees fit (and not the state).
See above. Note that the percentage of people in this country who
actually tithe 10% of their income is rather small.
http://news.adventist.org/data/2003/09/1067364594/index.html.en
<Barna Research Group, Ltd., an independent Christian research firm in
< southern California, says the number of American households who give
< at least 10 percent of their income to their church has dropped by 62
< percent in the past year--from 8 percent in 2001 to just 3 percent of
< adults during 2002.
All of 3%. So there are probably more homosexuals in this country than
tithers.
Further, tithing is premised on the belief that all money comes from God,
That may be YOUR premise in tithing
Others disagree.
http://www.layhands.com/MustChristiansTitheTenPercent.htm
(which in addition his discussion of the issue, whether you agree with
it or not, is useful in having a rather thorough compendium of Old and
New Testament quotes that pertain to money and property)
The whole concept of tithing is a tradition, and one of non-Christian
origin. It is NOT generally premised on the concept that God owns
everything, but that God (or the gods) are to get a tribute of the
"first fruits"
which you and the socialists deny.
I certainly deny it, since money in this country comes from the US
Mint and the Bureau of Printing and Engraving.
But getting past the nonsense of a literal reading of your statement,
I am sure that there are socialists who have no problem with the
concept that all things ultimately belong to God.
Your good buddy Saul of Tarsus claimed that the pagan Romans who
collected taxes were servants of God, and thus paying taxes was not in
the least contradictory to God's ultimate ownership.
Romans 13:6: "This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are
God's servants, who give their full time to governing."
If Paul says taxes are OK, you as a Biblical idol-worshipper are
supposed to shut up and pay.
Thus, a state cannot allow you to tithe your money
Of course it can, since it does in almost every country.
In many countries, the government has collected a tithe as part of
taxation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe
What alternate universe do you live in?
(that which you claim belongs to Caesar only),
I am not Jesus Christ and have never claimed to be. He is the one who
made reference to that idea.
and the Bible demands believers to tithe
No. It demands that Jews tithe, whether they are believers or not.
and promises a curse on any that would steal from God
It is impossible to steal from God.
And as I have pointed out, the curse in Deuteronomy was to be directed
at a NATION that did not follow God's laws, and does not in fact
discuss individuals. That you practice "prosperity theology" doesn't
make it correct, especially since you are such a loser.
by NOT tithing.
Then at least 97% of this country must be cursed. Funny how rather
few of us are experiencing what is described in Deuteronomy as the
curses that God promised. Are you claiming that God is incapable of
fulfilling his threats?
Thus, socialism denies God His tithe and is therefore unbiblical.
You start with a bunch of false statements about what socialists
believe, and then jump by flying leaps of irrelevancy to the
conclusion that you assumed. Thus you are an idiot.
(If the state owned everything, and if the state chose to practice
tithing, then it would have no trouble giving 10% of its resources to
the church. That would be rather more perfect tithing than exists
today).
And, God denies the state all resources through
the tithe and becomes the reason why Jewish and Christian religions
are the enemy of almost all socialist states.
Except of course that they are NOT the enemy of any socialist state.
Remember that in the heydey of Stalinism, the Russian Orthodox church
was in bed with Josef.
Karl Marx did say that religion - ALL religion and not just the
particular varieties you are shilling for - is an opiate to the
masses. But that isn't quite a statement that the church is an
"enemy".
How, if you are honest, can individuals in socialist states tithe
legally?
By paying 1/10 of any money they get. If they get no money, then it
is easy to tithe, since 10% of nothing is nothing.
<Mark 12:41: "Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings
< were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple
< treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts."
<Mark 12:42: "But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper
< coins, worth only a fraction of a penny."
<Mark 12:43: "Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the
< truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the
< others."
<Mark 12:44: "They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her
< poverty, put in everything--all she had to live on.""
How can Christians NOT tithe, since it is commanded of them?
Many Christians do not believe that it is commanded of them:
http://www.layhands.com/MustChristiansTitheTenPercent.htm
Indeed, unless only 3% of this country is Christian, your statement is
clearly silly. How can they not tithe? By simply not tithing.
Therefore, how can these systems work together?
1) by deciding that the Bible does not in fact command what you think
it commands
2) by having the state tithe
3) by allowing or even requiring individuals to tithe, because
socialism refers only to ownership of the means of production, and not
to ownership of all things.
Not that it matters, since we don't live in a socialist society, and
few people are advocating that we should be living in one.
I await your attempt to distort and distract,
I couldn't possibly approach the degree to which you practice these
endeavors.
since you cannot answer without admitting you are wrong.
I can and have. It is easy. All I have to do is admit that YOU are
wrong.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
22 Mar 2007 11:31:35 AM |
|
|
Therefore, how can these systems work together?
1) by deciding that the Bible does not in fact command what you think
it commands
Now you deny the Bible commands tithing? God, in fact, cursed the
nation of Israel more than once for failing to do it....as well as
individual families. Jesus said that the woman that gave all that she
had was more righteous than the rich that gave little. Don't forget
the husband and wife in Acts that were struck dead by God for failing
to tithe correctly.
Yet, I don't doubt your need to redefine the Bible how you like (just
as you did with "christian"). As I said from the start, when you run
into Bible verses you don't like (like the words of Paul), you just
cut them out with your self-appointed authority over the Bible.
2) by having the state tithe
Scripture doesn't ask states to tithe but individuals.
3) by allowing or even requiring individuals to tithe, because
socialism refers only to ownership of the means of production, and not
to ownership of all things.
A blatent lie. Socialism is equal distribution of wealth. Wealth is
income. Ownership is wealth. That is why socialist countries take
possessions, not just income. Either you are ignorant of what
socialism is (likely) or just deceptive here.
I think we are done here, because you are changing truth into lie and
both the Bible and socialism into whatever you want (no objective
standards). There is no winning in a debate with the waves of the
ocean. So, we are done here.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
22 Mar 2007 12:56:08 PM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Therefore, how can these systems work together?
1) by deciding that the Bible does not in fact command what you think
it commands
Now you deny the Bible commands tithing?
I merely provided one of several cites to essays by Christians that
have decided that the Bible does not command that *Christians* tithe.
God, in fact, cursed the
nation of Israel more than once for failing to do it....as well as
individual families.
Do all rich Jews tithe? How would you know?
Yet, I don't doubt your need to redefine the Bible how you like (just
as you did with "christian").
I don't need to "redefine the Bible". I just need to not worship it.
As I said from the start, when you run
into Bible verses you don't like (like the words of Paul), you just
cut them out with your self-appointed authority over the Bible.
That was Thomas Jefferson who did that.
But you yourself seem good at conveniently ignoring some verses while
paying excessive attention to others.
2) by having the state tithe
Scripture doesn't ask states to tithe but individuals.
Actually, the passage in Deuteronomy that you cited specifically
commanded the NATION to tithe. It was not a command to individuals.
And Scripture does not forbid states from tithing on behalf of their
citizenry.
3) by allowing or even requiring individuals to tithe, because
socialism refers only to ownership of the means of production, and not
to ownership of all things.
A blatent lie.
Nope.
Socialism is equal distribution of wealth.
Try a dictionary. It is no such thing. Indeed, in Marxist theory,
socialism necessarily has UNequal distribution of wealth
<Main Entry: so·cial·ism
<Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
<Function: noun
<1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating
< collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means
< of production and distribution of goods
<2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private
< property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of
< production are owned and controlled by the state
<3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between
< capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of
< goods and pay according to work done
Wealth is income.
No.
Double-plus-ungood definition, there.
<Main Entry: wealth
<Pronunciation: 'welth also 'weltth
<Function: noun
<Etymology: Middle English welthe, from wele weal
<1 obsolete : WEAL, WELFARE
<2 : abundance of valuable material possessions or resources
<3 : abundant supply : PROFUSION
<4 a : all property that has a money value or an exchangeable value b :
< all material objects that have economic utility; especially : the
< stock of useful goods having economic value in existence at any one
< time <national wealth>
One can have a large income but be quite poor, if one has large
expenditures or large debt. One can have great wealth and no income
at all, or even a negative income, in which case one's wealth
decreases.
Are you sure that you are a native speaker of English?
Ownership is wealth.
That one is at least approximate.
That is why socialist countries take possessions, not just income.
They do? Only in the version of socialism described in definition 2a
above are there no private possessions.
Either you are ignorant of what socialism is (likely)
I can read a dictionary. You apparently make words up as you go
along.
I think we are done here,
Only if you stop posting.
because you are changing truth into lie
You never get out of the lie stage enough to have any sort of grasp on
truth.
and
both the Bible and socialism into whatever you want (no objective
standards).
There indeed are no objective standards for religion. For word
meanings, we have dictionaries, which are only mildly subjective. But
they aren't much good when you ignore them as you seem to enjoy.
There is no winning in a debate with the waves of the ocean.
And you are certainly no King Cnut.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
23 Mar 2007 07:24:42 PM |
|
|
On Mar 22, 11:56 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Therefore, how can these systems work together?
1) by deciding that the Bible does not in fact command what you think
it commands
Now you deny the Bible commands tithing?
I merely provided one of several cites to essays by Christians that
have decided that the Bible does not command that *Christians* tithe.
God, in fact, cursed the
nation of Israel more than once for failing to do it....as well as
individual families.
Do all rich Jews tithe? How would you know?
Irrelevant to the point. The Bible commands it, and Israel was judged
for it in Scripture. Scripture says, specifically, that tithing lack
was the cause.
Yet, I don't doubt your need to redefine the Bible how you like (just
as you did with "christian").
I don't need to "redefine the Bible". I just need to not worship it.
I worship the author, and His Words are worthy. You trash the
author. So, what does that mean you feel about His worth or
authority?
As I said from the start, when you run
into Bible verses you don't like (like the words of Paul), you just
cut them out with your self-appointed authority over the Bible.
That was Thomas Jefferson who did that.
But you yourself seem good at conveniently ignoring some verses while
paying excessive attention to others.
For the umpteenth time, I accept the WHOLE Bible, while you cut parts
out. Either God is true or He isn't. If one promise of God is a lie,
He is a liar. That invalidates His authority as judge and sacrifice.
2) by having the state tithe
Scripture doesn't ask states to tithe but individuals.
Actually, the passage in Deuteronomy that you cited specifically
commanded the NATION to tithe. It was not a command to individuals.
Actually, that passage in Deut wasn't about tithing. You never even
read it, did you? The tithing passage was from elsewhere.
And Scripture does not forbid states from tithing on behalf of their
citizenry.
A> Tithing was specifically commanded to individuals, when there was
NO nation, as of yet.
B> Socialist countries don't give to God. They give to man.
3) by allowing or even requiring individuals to tithe, because
socialism refers only to ownership of the means of production, and not
to ownership of all things.
A blatent lie.
Nope.
Socialism is equal distribution of wealth.
Try a dictionary. It is no such thing. Indeed, in Marxist theory,
socialism necessarily has UNequal distribution of wealth
<Main Entry: so=B7cial=B7ism
<Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
<Function: noun
<1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating
< collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means
< of production and distribution of goods
<2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private
< property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of
< production are owned and controlled by the state
<3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between
< capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of
< goods and pay according to work done
See above..."no private property"..you can't even read your own
sources.
Wealth is income.
No.
Double-plus-ungood definition, there.
<Main Entry: wealth
<Pronunciation: 'welth also 'weltth
<Function: noun
<Etymology: Middle English welthe, from wele weal
<1 obsolete : WEAL, WELFARE
<2 : abundance of valuable material possessions or resources
<3 : abundant supply : PROFUSION
<4 a : all property that has a money value or an exchangeable value b :
< all material objects that have economic utility; especially : the
< stock of useful goods having economic value in existence at any one
< time <national wealth>
Bring both dictionary definitions together. By your own sources,
socialism allows no private property. Wealth is property. Thus, no
one is allowed wealth. Do you have a reading disorder? Your own
sources contradict you.
One can have a large income but be quite poor, if one has large
expenditures or large debt. One can have great wealth and no income
at all, or even a negative income, in which case one's wealth
decreases.
Are you sure that you are a native speaker of English?
Since you, apparently, cannot read your own dictionary posts that I
CAN read, I'm thinking you should consider your own grasp of the
language.
Ownership is wealth.
That one is at least approximate.
That is why socialist countries take possessions, not just income.
They do? Only in the version of socialism described in definition 2a
above are there no private possessions.
Right. NO private possessions. Or, do you pick and choose dictionary
words to fit your agenda like you do the Bible?
Either you are ignorant of what socialism is (likely)
I can read a dictionary. You apparently make words up as you go
along.
Go back up and read your own sources.
I think we are done here,
Only if you stop posting.
because you are changing truth into lie
You never get out of the lie stage enough to have any sort of grasp on
truth.
and
both the Bible and socialism into whatever you want (no objective
standards).
There indeed are no objective standards for religion. For word
meanings, we have dictionaries, which are only mildly subjective. But
they aren't much good when you ignore them as you seem to enjoy.
No objective standards for religion? There is ONE judge. I'll be
entertained some day to watch you try to convince Him to go along with
YOUR rules.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
23 Mar 2007 10:36:29 PM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
God, in fact, cursed the
nation of Israel more than once for failing to do it....as well as
individual families.
Do all rich Jews tithe? How would you know?
Irrelevant to the point. The Bible commands it, and Israel was judged
for it in Scripture. Scripture says, specifically, that tithing lack
was the cause.
Israel was judged for lots of things. But the bottom line is that
there are Jews who do not tithe and who are not cursed by losing
wealth, thereby showing that you are WRONG to read the text as a
promise to curse individuals who do not tithe, and/or you are WRONG to
consider wealth to necessarily be a blessing and its lack as a curse.
Yet, I don't doubt your need to redefine the Bible how you like (just
as you did with "christian").
I don't need to "redefine the Bible". I just need to not worship it.
I worship the author,
No you don't. You worship the book and ignore the words of Jesus
Christ where they don't suit your politics.
As I said from the start, when you run
into Bible verses you don't like (like the words of Paul), you just
cut them out with your self-appointed authority over the Bible.
That was Thomas Jefferson who did that.
But you yourself seem good at conveniently ignoring some verses while
paying excessive attention to others.
For the umpteenth time, I accept the WHOLE Bible,
*****.
while you cut parts out.
So do you.
If you don't keep kosher and follow all the other Old Testament rules,
then to pay attention to other Old Testament rules is picking and
choosing.
Either God is true or He isn't.
He is. The Bible includes a collection of myths about Him, however.
If one promise of God is a lie, He is a liar.
That invalidates His authority as judge and sacrifice.
Actually not. Omnipotence is hard to argue with. An omnipotent liar
would not be any easier to argue with. Not that it matters, since I
don't consider God to be a liar. Just you.
Socialism is equal distribution of wealth.
Try a dictionary. It is no such thing. Indeed, in Marxist theory,
socialism necessarily has UNequal distribution of wealth
<Main Entry: so·cial·ism
<Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
<Function: noun
<1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating
< collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means
< of production and distribution of goods
<2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private
< property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of
< production are owned and controlled by the state
<3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between
< capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of
< goods and pay according to work done
See above..."no private property"..you can't even read your own
sources.
Alas for you, that that was not the definition that you have been
using; those that you are calling "socialists" do not advocate a
society with no private property.
Wealth is income.
No.
Double-plus-ungood definition, there.
<Main Entry: wealth
<Pronunciation: 'welth also 'weltth
<Function: noun
<Etymology: Middle English welthe, from wele weal
<1 obsolete : WEAL, WELFARE
<2 : abundance of valuable material possessions or resources
<3 : abundant supply : PROFUSION
<4 a : all property that has a money value or an exchangeable value b :
< all material objects that have economic utility; especially : the
< stock of useful goods having economic value in existence at any one
< time <national wealth>
Bring both dictionary definitions together. By your own sources,
socialism allows no private property. Wealth is property. Thus, no
one is allowed wealth.
You were equating wealth to *income*, and you were not doing so
necessarily within a "socialist" framework. Your doubletalk now does
not mention income.
Do you have a reading disorder?
No, but you do.
Ownership is wealth.
That one is at least approximate.
That is why socialist countries take possessions, not just income.
They do? Only in the version of socialism described in definition 2a
above are there no private possessions.
Right. NO private possessions. Or, do you pick and choose dictionary
words to fit your agenda like you do the Bible?
You have not been using definition 2a in calling your political
opponents "socialists".
and
both the Bible and socialism into whatever you want (no objective
standards).
There indeed are no objective standards for religion. For word
meanings, we have dictionaries, which are only mildly subjective. But
they aren't much good when you ignore them as you seem to enjoy.
No objective standards for religion?
Correct.
There is ONE judge.
Only for those who believe in Him.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "richard schumacher" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Soldiers (religion in war) |
24 Mar 2007 09:55:05 AM |
|
|
"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth
to battle -- be Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go
forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O
Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our
shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of
their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the
shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their
humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of
their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out
roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their
desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames
of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with
travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it -- for
our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives,
protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their
way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their
wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source
of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are
sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen."
[Discovering the author is left as an exercise for the reader.]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
