rich republicans don't like homeless Jesus

[thebrucebeat]

Did the early church "rob" everyone in it by taking all they had and pooling it for the common good?
Or is their a special dispensation for them having followed that model?

They didn't take anything. Money was freely given. No force was involved.

Do you understand the difference between freely donating your property and having it taken by the use of force?

I notice he didn't answer this question but went on to answer others.....

Sorry. I didn't notice this one in the onslaught of hysteria.
What they freely did was join the church.
They were not free to hold back a penny of their income.

 

[koshergrl]

You are getting very, very defensive and making accusations that are frankly absurd and unknowable by you. Shameful really. You have no idea what I do.
I don't think people "who do charity" are "bad guys". I just know from the data they can't provide for the need.

Again...for the second time..to what *data* are you referring? Please cite and quote.

Americans gave $265 Billion to charity in 2006.
Do you think that would solve the problem?

How disengenuous of you.

Cite and quote. Reference. Link your references.

Where is your *data* that you claimed to have?

 

[thebrucebeat]

Again...for the second time..to what *data* are you referring? Please cite and quote.

Americans gave $265 Billion to charity in 2006.
Do you think that would solve the problem?

How disengenuous of you.

Cite and quote. Reference. Link your references.

Where is your *data* that you claimed to have?

Charitable Giving Statistics | NPTrust

A Nation of Givers ? The American Magazine

Why the Rich Don't Give to Charity - Ken Stern - The Atlantic

I was off about 30 billion. Was working from memory. Hope this helps.
The third is an article you may find interesting.
My, you're so testy!

 

[koshergrl]

No, that isn't the correct info. I asked you to provide data that proved americans couldn't provide for the poor out of their own pockets..
They already DO provide for the poor out of their own pockets, directly and via taxes. Stop that gravy train, and we'll STILL provide for them.

You fail.

 

[thebrucebeat]

You are getting very, very defensive and making accusations that are frankly absurd and unknowable by you. Shameful really. You have no idea what I do.
I don't think people "who do charity" are "bad guys". I just know from the data they can't provide for the need.

Again...for the second time..to what *data* are you referring? Please cite and quote.

Americans gave $265 Billion to charity in 2006.
Do you think that would solve the problem?

Again...for the second time..to what *data* are you referring? Please cite and quote.

Americans gave $265 Billion to charity in 2006.
Do you think that would solve the problem?

How disengenuous of you.

Cite and quote. Reference. Link your references.

Where is your *data* that you claimed to have?

Americans gave $265 Billion to charity in 2006.
Do you think that would solve the problem?

How disengenuous of you.

Cite and quote. Reference. Link your references.

Where is your *data* that you claimed to have?

Charitable Giving Statistics | NPTrust

A Nation of Givers ? The American Magazine

Why the Rich Don't Give to Charity - Ken Stern - The Atlantic

I was off about 30 billion. Was working from memory. Hope this helps.
The third is an article you may find interesting.
My, you're so testy!

No, that isn't the correct info. I asked you to provide data that proved americans couldn't provide for the poor out of their own pockets..
They already DO provide for the poor out of their own pockets, directly and via taxes. Stop that gravy train, and we'll STILL provide for them.

You fail.

Move the goalposts much?
Here is the thread of questions and answers.
Point out where you asked this last question previously.
Why would you be such a transparent fraud?

 

[koshergrl]

I didn't move the goalposts, you did.

You said data proved that we couldn't shoulder the responsibility of the poor ourselves.

I asked you to provide the data.

The data you provided doesn't prove that.

Fail.

 

[MaryL]

Cons don't believe the bible where Jesus says, "The son of man has no place to rest his head" because they don't like the poor and the homeless. One rich bitch called the cops on the church that had a statue of homeless Jesus on a park bench.

Statue of a homeless Jesus startles a wealthy community | 89.3 KPCC

Being that "libs" have the same morals as alley cats, this seems a tad cynical to use Jesus as some kind of moral compass when liberals don't have a clue what morality is. Now, I am a atheist ex-liberal. I voted for Clinton. So, ya'all know were I am coming from. The Homeless Jesus statue, put that in the Vatican and I will take it seriously.

 

[rdean]

This is how right wingers see Jesus. Not in a dirty wizard's robe and certainly not with long hair and sandals.

Oh, and the oh so blue eyes. I'm sure Jesus had blue eyes. Considering where he came from.

 

[thebrucebeat]

I didn't move the goalposts, you did.

You said data proved that we couldn't shoulder the responsibility of the poor ourselves.

I asked you to provide the data.

The data you provided doesn't prove that.

Fail.

I asked you if you thought that would be enough.
I firmly contend it isn't close.
What do you think?
(So testy!)

 

[westwall]

I didn't move the goalposts, you did.

You said data proved that we couldn't shoulder the responsibility of the poor ourselves.

I asked you to provide the data.

The data you provided doesn't prove that.

Fail.

I asked you if you thought that would be enough.
I firmly contend it isn't close.
What do you think?
(So testy!)

If all it took were money life would be so easy wouldn't it? Unfortunately, as we have seen, money is only part of the solution. Public schools spend twice as much money per student as private schools, yet private school children perform significantly better than public school children.

So money clearly isn't the only reason for good performance. LBJ initiated the "war on poverty" and after spending over 5 trillion dollars there are MORE people who are poor than were when the war started. So, once again, money clearly isn't the answer. Now is it...

 

[JakeStarkey]

"there are MORE people who are poor than were when the war started"

sigh there are a 1/4 more people than back then and poverty has fallen almost by half

it has risen in the last five years because of the Great Recession

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jesus, looking at the multitudes who have followed him, knowing they are out of food, tells them, "Listen, you lazy good for nothings, find jobs!"

 

[PostmodernProph]

They didn't take anything. Money was freely given. No force was involved.

Do you understand the difference between freely donating your property and having it taken by the use of force?

I notice he didn't answer this question but went on to answer others.....

Sorry. I didn't notice this one in the onslaught of hysteria.
What they freely did was join the church.
They were not free to hold back a penny of their income.

????....never been a church member I see.....

 

[thebrucebeat]

I notice he didn't answer this question but went on to answer others.....

Sorry. I didn't notice this one in the onslaught of hysteria.
What they freely did was join the church.
They were not free to hold back a penny of their income.

????....never been a church member I see.....

Led one.
Been a member of several.
Have you ever read Acts?

 

[thebrucebeat]

I didn't move the goalposts, you did.

You said data proved that we couldn't shoulder the responsibility of the poor ourselves.

I asked you to provide the data.

The data you provided doesn't prove that.

Fail.

I asked you if you thought that would be enough.
I firmly contend it isn't close.
What do you think?
(So testy!)

If all it took were money life would be so easy wouldn't it? Unfortunately, as we have seen, money is only part of the solution. Public schools spend twice as much money per student as private schools, yet private school children perform significantly better than public school children.

So money clearly isn't the only reason for good performance. LBJ initiated the "war on poverty" and after spending over 5 trillion dollars there are MORE people who are poor than were when the war started. So, once again, money clearly isn't the answer. Now is it...

We aren't talking about "performance"!
We are talking about the care of the least of us.
Just the safety net.
This is simply not going to get it done.

 

[Barb]

And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?"

And they said to Him, "Caesar's."

And Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

I noticed you avoided my question about how many of the homeless you entertain on your property.
Is the answer embarrassing?
This is why public assistance is so necessary.
People talk a great game about their charity, but the amount to do the job can't remotely be raised if left to the conscience of the individual.

Especially when we are talking about the pittance of charitable contributions that come from progressives, who seem to think that paying their taxes and schlepping the problem of the needy off onto bureaucrats means that they care.

bullshit

Poor, Middle Class and Rich: Who Gives and Who Doesn?t? | Fox Business

Who Gives and Who Doesn't? - ABC News

As We Become Richer, Do We Become Stingier? : NPR

Poor, Middle Class and Rich: Who Gives and Who Doesn?t? | Fox Business

Studies try to find why poorer people are more charitable than the wealthy | Deseret News

and, my personal favorite:

Rich people?s idea of charity: Giving to elite schools and operas - Salon.com

Rich people’s idea of charity: Giving to elite schools and operas
The wealthy aren't donating to food shelters. They're giving to Yale and fancy theaters for a tax deduction

America’s wealthy are its largest beneficiaries. According to the Congressional Budget Office, $33 billion of last year’s $39 billion in total charitable deductions went to the richest 20 percent of Americans, of whom the richest 1 percent reaped the lion’s share.

The generosity of the super-rich is sometimes proffered as evidence they’re contributing as much to the nation’s well-being as they did decades ago when they paid a much larger share of their earnings in taxes. Think again.

I’m all in favor of supporting fancy museums and elite schools, but face it: These aren’t really charities as most people understand the term. They’re often investments in the life-styles the wealthy already enjoy and want their children to have as well. Increasingly, being rich in America means not having to come across anyone who’s not. They’re also investments in prestige – especially if they result in the family name engraved on a new wing of an art museum, symphony hall, or ivied dorm.

It’s their business how they donate their money, of course. But not entirely. As with all tax deductions, the government has to match the charitable deduction with additional tax revenues or spending cuts; otherwise, the budget deficit widens.

In economic terms, a tax deduction is exactly the same as government spending. Which means the government will, in effect, hand out $40 billion this year for “charity” that’s going largely to wealthy people who use much of it to enhance their lifestyles.

To put this in perspective, $40 billion is more than the federal government will spend this year on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (what’s left of welfare), school lunches for poor kids, and Head Start, put together.

A while ago, New York’s Lincoln Center held a fund-raising galasupported by the charitable contributions of hedge fund industry leaders, some of whom take home $1 billion a year. I may be missing something but this doesn’t strike me as charity, either. Poor New Yorkers rarely attend concerts at Lincoln Center.

What portion of charitable giving actually goes to the poor? The Washington Post’s Dylan Matthews looked into this, and the best he could come up with was a 2005 analysis by Google and Indiana University’s Center for Philanthropy showing that even under the most generous assumptions only about a third of “charitable” donations were targeted to helping the poor.

At a time in our nation’s history when the number of poor Americans continues to rise, when government doesn’t have the money to do what’s needed, and when America’s very rich are richer than ever, this doesn’t seem right.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Sorry. I didn't notice this one in the onslaught of hysteria.
What they freely did was join the church.
They were not free to hold back a penny of their income.

????....never been a church member I see.....

Led one.
Been a member of several.
Have you ever read Acts?

yes....and Ananias died because he lied, not because he didn't give nine percent.....

4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

did your church kill people who only donated nine percent?......if so, it explains why you're no longer leading it....

 

[thebrucebeat]

????....never been a church member I see.....

Led one.
Been a member of several.
Have you ever read Acts?

yes....and Anias died because he lied, not because he didn't give nine percent.....

4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

did your church kill people who only donated nine percent?......if so, it explains why you're no longer leading it....

I never brought up "Anais"(sic). (It's Ananais. Good to see you corrected your ignorant error.)
In Acts you will learn that everyone was required to pool all their resources. It was a socialist model of communal living. This precedes the story of Ananias and Sapphira.
Yes, my congregation died out as we killed off the greedy bastards one by one.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Led one.
Been a member of several.
Have you ever read Acts?

yes....and Anias died because he lied, not because he didn't give nine percent.....

4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

did your church kill people who only donated nine percent?......if so, it explains why you're no longer leading it....

I never brought up "Anais"(sic). (It's Ananais.)
In Acts you will learn that everyone was required to pool all their resources. It was a socialist model of communal living. This precedes the story of Ananias and Sapphira.
Yes, my congregation died out as we killed off the greedy bastards one by one.

and yet the fact remains that your claim is disproved....you said they were not free to hold back a penny.....the quote I provided says "wasn't the money at your disposal".......two contradictory statements.....

not to mention the story isn't talking about them selling everything they had and living communally....

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement&#8221, 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property.

nowhere does it say that the field of Joseph or the property of Ananias was everything they owned....

 

[thebrucebeat]

yes....and Anias died because he lied, not because he didn't give nine percent.....


did your church kill people who only donated nine percent?......if so, it explains why you're no longer leading it....

I never brought up "Anais"(sic). (It's Ananais.)
In Acts you will learn that everyone was required to pool all their resources. It was a socialist model of communal living. This precedes the story of Ananias and Sapphira.
Yes, my congregation died out as we killed off the greedy bastards one by one.

and yet the fact remains that your claim is disproved....you said they were not free to hold back a penny.....the quote I provided says "wasn't the money at your disposal".......two contradictory statements.....

not to mention the story isn't talking about them selling everything they had and living communally....

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement&#8221, 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property.

nowhere does it say that the field of Joseph or the property of Ananias was everything they owned....

As you can see by the bold part above, your argument sucks.
If you continue with the story you find what the lie they were assassinated over was. They are asked if they held anything back. The clear expectation was that EVERYTHING was to be turned into the general coffers. Nothing was to be held back. If it was cool to wet your own beak a little bit there would be no shame and no reason to lie.