Why wouldn't Jesus...

[Lonestar_logic]

Simply because mankind has not yet proven the existence of God does not mean that God does not exist. We could not prove 200 years ago that atoms exist because we didn't have the technological means to do so. But that did not mean atoms did not exist.

Truth does not always have to come from OBSERVED empirical evidences...there are certain things that are true because they are SELF EVIDENT. For instance, it is true the Universe had a beginning. How do we know this? Because Physical Science which can be observed examples the expansion of the universe and confirms the Physical Fact that the Universe will one day Die...thus, even though we did not observe the beginning or the birth of the universe we know there was a beginning because if something is observed dying by degree....we know such cannot be eternal. Thus we can say by the Prima Facie evidence that is observed....we believe beyond a REASON of a DOUBT there was a beginning....and such is said to be TRUE because no one can offer any evidence to the contrary to ESTABLISH DOUBT.

By Such prima facie evidence The Christian can KNOW beyond the reason of a DOUBT that God does exist via exampling the Objective evidence that support that existence. For example, the words revealed in the Holy Scriptures that are self professed to be inspired by God. If they were indeed inspired by God those words would be infallible and incapable of being debunked as truth. And as of this date...there is no evidence offered by PHYSICAL SCIENCE or History Actual that can debunk any professed truth in the Holy Scriptures. Thus, by this example of PRIMA FACIE evidence....I can have Faith BEYOND THE REASON of a DOUBT.......God inspired those words.

Another example of FAITH that can be stated as TRUTH is the fact of convicting a criminal of a certain CHARGE. The Jury must have FAITH in the testimony of the witnesses that present condemning testimony because NONE of the 12 Jurors actually witnessed any crime. Thus they have FAITH in the testimony as being TRUE beyond the REASON of a DOUBT. It would be up to the defense counsel to present Empirically Observed Evidence that would DEBUNK that testimony and CAUSE DOUBT....if not, that witness stands as TRUTH. If it is not truth.....just how many people have been unjustly charged throughout history?

Actually, in Genesis, God created the world in six days. Science contradicts this. The earth was created over a billion years.

You to have a predetermined idea of what the word “day” may mean. Peter wrote that "with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" meaning God's day is not what we perveice a day to be but it could be thousands of years or more.

 

[Intense]

Is it a mystery why you are so stupid? Let's look at a recent case where ignorant assertions get thrown out of court. Recently an idiot refused to deploy because she asserted in court that Obama was not an american or should prove it in her court case. She lost based on lack of evidense and her and her lawyer were literally thrown out of court with a warning to the lawyer to never file another frivouless lawsuit or face jail.

Show me a case where there is no factual evidence of somethings existance being allowed as evidence in court moron.

Sounds like the Emperor has no Clothes, and the Court wants to Support Him. Kadaffi wants to be His God Father too. Kenya Claims Him. Huggy claims Him too.

Ya moron...supporting a sitting president is a real crime. I supported Bush until he actually commited REAL crimes against our country. So far I have seen zero proof that Obama has commited a crime. His winning has put the neo cons in a hole which benefits me also seeing as how they stole my party... Just wait till he passes health care with a public option. You think the vile neo cons are ass out now? You haven't seen anything yet. I look forward to a republican party that is not over run by traitors like Grassly and Bachmann.

We might not want You in Huggy. You're too Animated! Seems like you lose it if the peas touch the mashed potatoes on your dinner plate. Lighten up, enjoy yourself a little.

 

[Againsheila]

want us to structure our society to help the poor?

Jesus preached that we should help the poor...that is indisputable.

I often see self-described Christians arguing against social welfare, claiming that Jesus meant that we should help the poor individually.

This makes no sense to me. If we have the power, as individuals, to collectively help the poor then IMO this is what Jesus would want us to do.

Any thoughts?

I know lots of Christians that are doing whatever they can to help the poor....myself included. The "self -described" Christians you are talking about are, for the most part, politicians and don't give a crap about anyone but themselves. There will be a day when they pay for their deeds and misdeeds.

 

[Intense]

Truth does not always have to come from OBSERVED empirical evidences...there are certain things that are true because they are SELF EVIDENT. For instance, it is true the Universe had a beginning. How do we know this? Because Physical Science which can be observed examples the expansion of the universe and confirms the Physical Fact that the Universe will one day Die...thus, even though we did not observe the beginning or the birth of the universe we know there was a beginning because if something is observed dying by degree....we know such cannot be eternal. Thus we can say by the Prima Facie evidence that is observed....we believe beyond a REASON of a DOUBT there was a beginning....and such is said to be TRUE because no one can offer any evidence to the contrary to ESTABLISH DOUBT.

By Such prima facie evidence The Christian can KNOW beyond the reason of a DOUBT that God does exist via exampling the Objective evidence that support that existence. For example, the words revealed in the Holy Scriptures that are self professed to be inspired by God. If they were indeed inspired by God those words would be infallible and incapable of being debunked as truth. And as of this date...there is no evidence offered by PHYSICAL SCIENCE or History Actual that can debunk any professed truth in the Holy Scriptures. Thus, by this example of PRIMA FACIE evidence....I can have Faith BEYOND THE REASON of a DOUBT.......God inspired those words.

Another example of FAITH that can be stated as TRUTH is the fact of convicting a criminal of a certain CHARGE. The Jury must have FAITH in the testimony of the witnesses that present condemning testimony because NONE of the 12 Jurors actually witnessed any crime. Thus they have FAITH in the testimony as being TRUE beyond the REASON of a DOUBT. It would be up to the defense counsel to present Empirically Observed Evidence that would DEBUNK that testimony and CAUSE DOUBT....if not, that witness stands as TRUTH. If it is not truth.....just how many people have been unjustly charged throughout history?

Actually, in Genesis, God created the world in six days. Science contradicts this. The earth was created over a billion years.

You to have a predetermined idea of what the word “day” may mean. Peter wrote that "with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" meaning God's day is not what we perveice a day to be but it could be thousands of years or more.

Like God was communicating with Einstein and not Adam? How big to you think even the Study of Quantum Physics went back in the day? We are talking campfire stories here. Mouth to mouth, generation to generation. Think out of the box just a little here.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Actually, in Genesis, God created the world in six days. Science contradicts this. The earth was created over a billion years.

You to have a predetermined idea of what the word “day” may mean. Peter wrote that "with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" meaning God's day is not what we perveice a day to be but it could be thousands of years or more.

Like God was communicating with Einstein and not Adam? How big to you think even the Study of Quantum Physics went back in the day? We are talking campfire stories here. Mouth to mouth, generation to generation. Think out of the box just a little here.

I doubt quantum physics was even a thought in those days much less studied. I do believe that God applied it , but not in a way that I could understand. I'm not real sure what you're asking here. I simply responded about the 6 days versus millions of years in the creation story and gave what I think is a plausible explanation.

 

[Intense]

You to have a predetermined idea of what the word “day” may mean. Peter wrote that "with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" meaning God's day is not what we perveice a day to be but it could be thousands of years or more.

Like God was communicating with Einstein and not Adam? How big to you think even the Study of Quantum Physics went back in the day? We are talking campfire stories here. Mouth to mouth, generation to generation. Think out of the box just a little here.

I doubt quantum physics was even a thought in those days much less studied. I do believe that God applied it , but not in a way that I could understand. I'm not real sure what you're asking here. I simply responded about the 6 days versus millions of years in the creation story and gave what I think is a plausible explanation.

I understood the how long was a day theory, the reply was meant to expand the reasoning precess of those that see such verses as the complete unabridged version of creation. The problem with Literal Fundamentalism, is that it is a trap, used by the non believers. They feel that to find the appearance of a contradiction in Scripture, negates all Justification and truth in the Bible. Rather than Reason, They claim Foul.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Like God was communicating with Einstein and not Adam? How big to you think even the Study of Quantum Physics went back in the day? We are talking campfire stories here. Mouth to mouth, generation to generation. Think out of the box just a little here.

I doubt quantum physics was even a thought in those days much less studied. I do believe that God applied it , but not in a way that I could understand. I'm not real sure what you're asking here. I simply responded about the 6 days versus millions of years in the creation story and gave what I think is a plausible explanation.

I understood the how long was a day theory, the reply was meant to expand the reasoning precess of those that see such verses as the complete unabridged version of creation. The problem with Literal Fundamentalism, is that it is a trap, used by the non believers. They feel that to find the appearance of a contradiction in Scripture, negates all Justification and truth in the Bible. Rather than Reason, They claim Foul.

I would agree with that assessment of non-believers. The fact that the Bible is scientifically accurate and I'm not aware of any science that offers a contradiction. There are statements in the Bible that are consistant with paleontology, astronomy, meteorology, biology, anthropology, hydrology, geology and physics all written hundreds or even thousands of years before being recorded elsewhere. I mean how many people knew what hydrothermal vents were 30 years ago? Yet in both Genesis 7:11 and Job 38:16 these events are decribed.

 

[amrchaos]

want us to structure our society to help the poor?

Jesus preached that we should help the poor...that is indisputable.

I often see self-described Christians arguing against social welfare, claiming that Jesus meant that we should help the poor individually.

This makes no sense to me. If we have the power, as individuals, to collectively help the poor then IMO this is what Jesus would want us to do.

Any thoughts?

First--I am a non-believer, but do not let that bother you.

Second --The idea of "help" is suppose to go beyond just the poor. The general concept is to aid your fellow man whenever he is in need. Let us say a man is rich, but is starving at your doorsteps, are you going to send him away because he is rich, or give the man food regardless? Other moral questions can be phrased like this( A killer needing medical attention, a prostitute seeking help to deliver a child, so on and on.)

Third--the type of help provided does depend on a situation. The saying you and KK are using to justify your point should be said as follows.

"Give a man a fish so he can survive the day.
Teach a man to fish so he can survive on his own."

Both methods are help, one is of an immediate for of help to address a need. The other is an instructional form of help so that the individual could help himself. In society, both are necessary and should be stressed. Not just one(then you are constantly giving aid while the person possess capacity to learn how to survive.) nor the just the other(it is possible for some one to "fall" from a position of self-sufficiency. Learning a new method to survive can take time, so what is the individual to do until he is properly trained)

Either methods are still considered aid. The usage of the type of aid should be well thought out and not just simply endorsed based on rash generalizations.

 

[logical4u]

would Christ want you to be forced to pay for an unnecessary war? How about bailing out the money changers by force? or did God put in power our leaders and gvts?

who are your representatives in congress mal....?

peace....

This thread is about the poor and you want to switch to war? Here is a question for you. Do you think Yeshua would have wanted Saddam's sons from feeding bound people into meat grinders while they watched? Another question: do you think Yeshua would have wanted Saddam's gassing Kurds stopped?

you tell me? nice drama queen act! what bull have you been sucking in?

Christ would have wanted us to stop the atrocities WHEN THEY WERE HAPPENING and not turn a blind eye to it, or give a hand shake and a wink for it....as we did at the time.

going in 10-20 years after the fact was wrong, stopping the genocide when IT WAS HAPPENING would have been moral....but still not necessarily OUR JOB here in the usa to do, but the iraqi's themselves....with our funding perhaps....

I believe it is unconstitutional for us to be the world's police....btw. YOU have no right to send our military men and women to die in war, unless it is for an imminent threat of war/harm against us, or a war declared on us. [/B]

I believe it is unconstitutional for us to be society's babysitter (keep them warm, feed them, change them, put them to bed and tell them when it is time to wake up). You have no right to punish taxpayers for the failure of others to provide for themselves.

Our congress VOTED with our president to stop the terrorism in this country. Iraq supported that terrorism monetarily and by giving them a safe place to train and hide. Our gov sent our military to protect the citizens of this country from another attack by terrorists. Agree or disagree, we went. Our military does not act on its own. It cannot go into other nations whenever atrocities are being committed. It must wait for .....funding....and the commander and chief (I hope that addresses your point on being years too late). You want to point out all the things Yeshua would be against to advance your socialist agenda and then want to condemn me when I use it the same way.

This is a real difficult concept, are you ready? If you don't have NATIONAL SECURITY, you don't have rights (of any sort), you don't have ANY security (unless you can provide your own), and you have NO PROPERTY (unless you can physically hold it).
That is why our Constitution grants the gov the powers to protect this country. If you read the Constitution, there is nothing, NOTHING about taking care of the poor. There is nothing about providing health care. The founders cared more about freedom for the individual than being part of a commune.

the constitution gave powers to congress for MORE than JUST the military. A STANDING ARMY as we have, giving congress liberty to send them on any given notice all over the world IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL....maybe it is you my dear, who should be reading the CONSTITUTION. Our founding father's BIGGEST FEAR was a big military and the military industrial complex that could come from it, and did!

I agree, giving congress liberty to send them on any given notice all over the world is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Why do YOU want to enforce the Constitutiion when it comes to the military, but ignore it when it comes to your agendas?

WE CAN keep us safe with one quarter the military/defense spending/taxation by FORCE as you all call it....there is so much corruption and waste and quid pro quo with the military industrial complex and our congress it is more than flabbergasting! we have 140,000 nukes....world wide because of this useless arms race we got in....WHAT THE HELL DID WE SPEND THAT MONEY ON THEM FOR? WASTEFULNESS IS ABOUND!!!! And this is tax payers money, taken out of our hands and the free market and just giving it to someone else, their buddies.

Again, I agree, there is massive amounts of waste in the military industrial complex. Why don't we work on getting that "squared" away before we MAKE ANOTHER CORRUPT AND WASTEFUL COMPLEX TO SUPPORT THE "POOR" AND SUPPLY "HEALTH CARE (what is the gov definition of this, have you seen it in writing?)?

so, please SPARE ME on the tripe on what Christ would have supported in your opinion...I don't buy it.

I used the same process of logic as you did. Why do you have a problem with that?

feeding the poor is NOT the job of the Church....

feeding the poor is NOT the job of the Government....

though our tax dollars are being taken from us and GIVEN TO THEM through faith based initiatives to help take care of the needy....SHOULD THESE MONIES be withdrawn from these faith based initiatives since it is not the gvt's job as you say?

This is part of that new CORRUPT AND WASTEFUL COMPLEX TO SUPPORT THE "POOR" AND SUPPLY "HEALTH CARE that the libs want. Conservatives want a smaller gov, not a bigger one (no matter who it claims it is helping, it mainly helps the politicians).

is this stealing from us as your lot keeps shouting?

Why....yes.

The people that are willing to "force" others to act ______ (fill in the blank), by passing laws are giving the gov, everybody's freedoms, mostly, without realizing what they are doing. They believe some politician that tells them it will help _____(fill in the blank), without considering their actions will limit their own freedoms in the future and the freedoms of all their future generations. That is selfish. That is being done with the "bailouts" and other proposed bills, now. That would not be wanted by Yeshua either.

cut me a break.....where have you been with the money our gvt wastes on killing people, on the money changers, on the oil companies, the halliburtons and blackwaters, the military industrial complex, on the insurance industry, on throwing cash out by the millions if not billions to the iraqis without accounting for it? YET you have the balls to sit and say jesus would not support a society that wanted to provide for the neediest as best as they could with their tax monies?

I was arguing with the libs and contacting my congressional representatives about limiting the size of gov and not wasting money. And yes I say that Yeshua would not support a society where the gov collected money for the neediest (remember this same gov put the monies for social security in a "lockbox" and when they opened it, it was empty), and then, inadvertently, didn't get "most" of those same "monies" to the neediest. Yeshua was about the individual, not the "legion". He taught us to improve ourselves. By doing that, our communities would become a better place, our regions would become a better place, our country would become a better place and eventually, the world (kind of like the United States did before the libs took over). In short, He was about free will: you decide your own actions. After all, you will be held accountable for your actions.

I don't know who you worship, but it is not my God or Christ.

Can you give me any stories (if you can't do chapter and verse) from the Bible or your "God" where it was taught that the society should be taxes to pay for the "neediest"?

and, i am sorry if i was harsh, but you guys...are not as Holier than thou, as you think you come off....

I am not holier than thou. I am a sinner and cannot make it thru one day without crying for help from the Lord. I need His grace and strength to make responsible decisions and to try to do the right thing. I am not deceived (much any more) by those that would twist sympathetic positions to introduce evil (control over others).

 

[Ravi]

want us to structure our society to help the poor?

Jesus preached that we should help the poor...that is indisputable.

I often see self-described Christians arguing against social welfare, claiming that Jesus meant that we should help the poor individually.

This makes no sense to me. If we have the power, as individuals, to collectively help the poor then IMO this is what Jesus would want us to do.

Any thoughts?

First--I am a non-believer, but do not let that bother you.

Second --The idea of "help" is suppose to go beyond just the poor. The general concept is to aid your fellow man whenever he is in need. Let us say a man is rich, but is starving at your doorsteps, are you going to send him away because he is rich, or give the man food regardless? Other moral questions can be phrased like this( A killer needing medical attention, a prostitute seeking help to deliver a child, so on and on.)

Third--the type of help provided does depend on a situation. The saying you and KK are using to justify your point should be said as follows.

"Give a man a fish so he can survive the day.
Teach a man to fish so he can survive on his own."

Both methods are help, one is of an immediate for of help to address a need. The other is an instructional form of help so that the individual could help himself. In society, both are necessary and should be stressed. Not just one(then you are constantly giving aid while the person possess capacity to learn how to survive.) nor the just the other(it is possible for some one to "fall" from a position of self-sufficiency. Learning a new method to survive can take time, so what is the individual to do until he is properly trained)

Either methods are still considered aid. The usage of the type of aid should be well thought out and not just simply endorsed based on rash generalizations.

Um...not that I'm disagreeing with you but you didn't answer my question.

 

[logical4u]

Here is a different view: warning long

This is so perfect for today's political situation...









I am always in awe of our patriots of yesteryear. What a refreshing example of a man with integrity serving the citizenry of the United States . Perhaps America 's citizens will arise and take back our country from the threat of socialistic agendas that will destroy us.

I read this piece several times, to absorb as much as I could of all the constitutional truths that are expounded upon by Col. Davy Crockett.

Please give this historical portrayal, of the awakening of Davy Crockett,

as a true defender of the Constitution, your full consideration! You will

more fully understand your love for "Life, Liberty , and the pursuit of Happiness." The Constitution of The United States of America defined!

Not Yours To Give

Col. David Crockett
US Representative from Tennessee

Originally published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett,"
by Edward Sylvester Ellis.


One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown . It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and---'


"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."

"This was a sockdolager...I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
" 'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.
.But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'

" 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.' " 'No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown . Is that true?'

" 'Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'

" 'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. 'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown , neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.' "The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington , no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'

" 'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

" 'Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'

"He laughingly replied; 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'

" 'If I don't', said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'

" 'No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.'

" 'Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.'

" 'My name is Bunce.'

" 'Not Horatio Bunce?'

" 'Yes.'

" 'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'

"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.

"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

" 'Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.'"

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

" 'And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

" 'It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'

"He came upon the stand and said:

" 'Fellow-citizens - It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'

"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.'

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.'

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday.

"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

 

[jodylee]

because he never exsited!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

because he never exsited!

Prove it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

because he never exsited!

Prove it.

Prove Jesus existed why don't you?

Ever heard of a book called the Bible? If you read the New Testament, specifically the four gospels, you could read Jesus' biography.

Ancient historical record provides examples of writers, philosophers and historians who lived during or not long after the time Jesus is believed to have lived and who testify to the fact that he was a real person. Look at what some of these people have said.

Cornelius Tacitus
Tacitus lived from A.D. 55 to A.D. 120. He was a Roman historian and has been described as the greatest historian of Rome, noted for his integrity and moral uprightness. His most famous works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals relate the historical narrative from Augustus’ death in A.D.14 to Nero’s death in A.D. 68. The Histories begin their narrative after Nero’s death and finish with Domitian’s death in A.D. 96. In his section describing Nero’s decision to blame the fire of Rome on the Christians, Tacitus affirms that the founder of Christianity, a man he calls Chrestus (a common misspelling of Christ, which was Jesus’ surname), was executed by Pilate, the procurator of Judea during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberias. Tacitus was hostile to Christianity because in the same paragraph he describes Christus’ or Christ’s death, he describes Christianity as a pernicious superstition. It would have therefore been in his interests to declare that Jesus had never existed, but he did not, and perhaps he did not because he could not without betraying the historical record.

Lucian of Samosata
Lucian was a Greek satirist of the latter half of the second century. He therefore lived within two hundred years of Jesus. Lucian was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it. He particularly objected to the fact that Christians worshipped a man. He does not mention Jesus’ name, but the reference to the man Christians worship is a reference to Jesus.

Suetonius
Suetonius was a Roman historian and a court official in Emperor Hadrian’s government. In his Life of Claudius he refers to Claudius expelling Jews from Rome on account of their activities on behalf of a man Suetonius calls Chrestus [another misspelling of Christus or Christ].

Pliny the Younger
Pliny was the Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor (AD. 112). He was responsible for executing Christians for not worshipping or bowing down to a statue of the emperor Trajan. In a letter to the emperor Trajan, he describes how the people on trial for being Christians would describe how they sang songs to Christ because he was a god.

Thallus and Phlegon
Both were ancient historians and both confirmed the fact that the land went dark when Jesus was crucified. This parallels what the Bible said happened when Jesus died.

Mara Bar-Serapion
Some time after 70 A.D., Mara Bar-Sarapion, who was probably a Stoic philosopher, wrote a letter to his son in which he describes how the Jews executed their King. Claiming to be a king was one of the charges the religious authorities used to scare Pontius Pilate into agreeing to execute Jesus.

Josephus
Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born in either 37 or 38 AD and died some time after 100 AD. He wrote the Jewish Antiquites and in one famous passage described Jesus as a wise man, a doer of wonderful works and calls him the Christ. He also affirmed that Jesus was executed by Pilate and actually rose from the dead!

The four Gospels
The four Gospels are the four accounts of Jesus’ life, which are contained in the New Testament part of the Bible. Historians will tell you that the closer an historical document is written to the time of the events it describes, the generally more reliable it is as a source of information about those events. Matthew’s Gospel account of Jesus’ life is now reckoned to have been written sometime between AD 70 and AD 80. Mark’s Gospel is dated between AD. 50 and AD. 65. Luke’s Gospel is dated in the early AD 60s and John’s Gospel sometime between AD 80 and 100. If Jesus died sometime in the AD 30s, it is clear that Mark, Luke and Matthew wrote their Gospels within living memory of Jesus’ death. John’s Gospel comes later and probably outside of living memory for most as John lived to an unusually old age for the ancient period, but the accuracy of his Gospel was verified no doubt by those who read the earlier Gospels.

Another feature of the Gospels is that they were written by men who either knew Jesus personally, or who knew people who themselves knew Jesus personally. Matthew was a former tax collector who became a disciple of Jesus. Mark was a close associate of Simon Peter, who is regarded as being Jesus’ most prominent disciple whilst Jesus was on the earth. Luke was a close associate of Paul who is the most famous of Christian missionaries and who wrote the largest contribution to the New Testament. Paul, in turn, was a close colleague of Simon Peter. John was the former fisherman who became the closest disciple of Jesus. The accounts of such men need to be considered at least seriously!

 

[Avatar4321]

Prove Jesus existed why don't you?

Why dont you just talk with Him? He is more than willing to reveal Himself to those that seek Him and speak with those who listen.

 

[manifold]

want us to structure our society to help the poor?

Jesus preached that we should help the poor...that is indisputable.

I often see self-described Christians arguing against social welfare, claiming that Jesus meant that we should help the poor individually.

This makes no sense to me. If we have the power, as individuals, to collectively help the poor then IMO this is what Jesus would want us to do.

Any thoughts?

Are you suggesting a society of laws based on Christianity?

I guess you're not a fan of the whole separation of church and state concept. That surprises me.

 

[Ravi]

want us to structure our society to help the poor?

Jesus preached that we should help the poor...that is indisputable.

I often see self-described Christians arguing against social welfare, claiming that Jesus meant that we should help the poor individually.

This makes no sense to me. If we have the power, as individuals, to collectively help the poor then IMO this is what Jesus would want us to do.

Any thoughts?

Are you suggesting a society of laws based on Christianity?

I guess you're not a fan of the whole separation of church and state concept. That surprises me.

 

[Intense]

want us to structure our society to help the poor?

Jesus preached that we should help the poor...that is indisputable.

I often see self-described Christians arguing against social welfare, claiming that Jesus meant that we should help the poor individually.

This makes no sense to me. If we have the power, as individuals, to collectively help the poor then IMO this is what Jesus would want us to do.

Any thoughts?

Are you suggesting a society of laws based on Christianity?

I guess you're not a fan of the whole separation of church and state concept. That surprises me.

Check-Mate!

 

[manifold]

Are you suggesting a society of laws based on Christianity?

I guess you're not a fan of the whole separation of church and state concept. That surprises me.

Check-Mate!

And then some.

 

[Ravi]

Check-Mate!

And then some.

Except...that's not what I said, and you know it. Which is why I laughed. Truth be told, you probably understand my point of view, even if it pains you.