Why wouldn't Jesus...

[hortysir]

In that case, Jesus would be mighty angry at Wall St.

You mean the People of Wall St, I assume.

But, given the proven fact that they give a larger percentage of their income to charity than average, I cannot speak to any single individual's place.

 

[Barb]

Jesus said to help the poor, not enable the lazy, envious and avaricious. Jesus did not tell His followers to help the sinner get better at committing their sin.

So the problem here is who, or what, we see AS "lazy, envious and avaricious."

Or who we've been conditioned to.

Here's a hint, it wasn't the bible who conditioned your thinking, or your preachers thinking, for that matter.
The ad agencies did that.
Who owns them? Who directs them?
Some might say, "the lazy, envious and avaricious."
Oh, NO, you might say.
Well. they're the same entities that made porn, because they know what you like. The same who package products in certain ways because they know what you respond to. The same conglomerates that used psychologists since the 1950's to sell things to you because those sell outs joined them in predicting what most people (the masses) respond to on a mass scale.

Now, I do believe there IS a god, but I can't fathom why mere mortals think they know the divine will. I do believe that humans brought religion to bear in order to order the masses around, and to prevent the poor from murdering the ones who live off their labor, like ticks, in their sleep.

See, THAT is what I see to be "lazy, envious and avaricious."

But hey, that's just me.

 

[Sky Dancer]

In that case, Jesus would be mighty angry at Wall St.

You mean the People of Wall St, I assume.

But, given the proven fact that they give a larger percentage of their income to charity than average, I cannot speak to any single individual's place.

Yeah, that's why all wealth is in the hands of the one percent. They're so darn generous.

The same people who begrudge a single mom or a disabled person an allottment of Food Stamps don't mind handing out tons of corporate welfare.

 

[Barb]

In that case, Jesus would be mighty angry at Wall St.

You mean the People of Wall St, I assume.

But, given the proven fact that they give a larger percentage of their income to charity than average, I cannot speak to any single individual's place.

Why would you "assume" she meant the "people?"

Is it easier to "assume" such, rather than to assume she was speaking about the construct those people work within?

Why is it easier, or more important, to view THINGS as people, and PEOPLE as things?

 

[hortysir]

In that case, Jesus would be mighty angry at Wall St.

You mean the People of Wall St, I assume.

But, given the proven fact that they give a larger percentage of their income to charity than average, I cannot speak to any single individual's place.

Yeah, that's why all wealth is in the hands of the one percent. They're so darn generous.

The same people who begrudge a single mom or a disabled person an allottment of Food Stamps don't mind handing out tons of corporate welfare.

That broad brush must get heavy.

Take a nap.

 

[Sky Dancer]

You mean the People of Wall St, I assume.

But, given the proven fact that they give a larger percentage of their income to charity than average, I cannot speak to any single individual's place.

Yeah, that's why all wealth is in the hands of the one percent. They're so darn generous.

The same people who begrudge a single mom or a disabled person an allottment of Food Stamps don't mind handing out tons of corporate welfare.

That broad brush must get heavy.

Take a nap.

After you.

 

[Barb]

You mean the People of Wall St, I assume.

But, given the proven fact that they give a larger percentage of their income to charity than average, I cannot speak to any single individual's place.

Yeah, that's why all wealth is in the hands of the one percent. They're so darn generous.

The same people who begrudge a single mom or a disabled person an allottment of Food Stamps don't mind handing out tons of corporate welfare.

That broad brush must get heavy.

Take a nap.

Who are you to send someone to bed, bossy britches?

 

[Sky Dancer]

In that case, Jesus would be mighty angry at Wall St.

You mean the People of Wall St, I assume.

But, given the proven fact that they give a larger percentage of their income to charity than average, I cannot speak to any single individual's place.

Why would you "assume" she meant the "people?"

Is it easier to "assume" such, rather than to assume she was speaking about the construct those people work within?

Why is it easier, or more important, to view THINGS as people, and PEOPLE as things?[/QUOTE]
Brilliant. I'd rep ya but I've exceeded my 24 hour of powerjuice.

 

[hortysir]

In that case, Jesus would be mighty angry at Wall St.

You mean the People of Wall St, I assume.

But, given the proven fact that they give a larger percentage of their income to charity than average, I cannot speak to any single individual's place.

Why would you "assume" she meant the "people?"

Is it easier to "assume" such, rather than to assume she was speaking about the construct those people work within?

Why is it easier, or more important, to view THINGS as people, and PEOPLE as things?

It would be ridiculous for Jesus to be angry at a street or a bank.

 

[Sky Dancer]

You mean the People of Wall St, I assume.

But, given the proven fact that they give a larger percentage of their income to charity than average, I cannot speak to any single individual's place.

Why would you "assume" she meant the "people?"

Is it easier to "assume" such, rather than to assume she was speaking about the construct those people work within?

Why is it easier, or more important, to view THINGS as people, and PEOPLE as things?

It would be ridiculous for Jesus to be angry at a street or a bank.

Corrupt systems. Like the moneychangers defiling the temple. Jesus most certainly intended a condemnation of business as usual in the temple. Jesus obviously condemned the commercialization of the sacrificial operation, and the fact that for so many people what was originally intended (in the Law of Moses) as the means by which people get right with God, had become for many simply a job and for the leaders a means to get rich at the expense of the people who come to the temple to offer sacrifices.

 

[hortysir]

Why would you "assume" she meant the "people?"

Is it easier to "assume" such, rather than to assume she was speaking about the construct those people work within?

Why is it easier, or more important, to view THINGS as people, and PEOPLE as things?

It would be ridiculous for Jesus to be angry at a street or a bank.

Corrupt systems. Like the moneychangers defiling the temple. Jesus most certainly intended a condemnation of business as usual in the temple. Jesus obviously condemned the commercialization of the sacrificial operation, and the fact that for so many people what was originally intended (in the Law of Moses) as the means by which people get right with God, had become for many simply a job and for the leaders a means to get rich at the expense of the people who come to the temple to offer sacrifices.

Jesus' teachings say to not be concerned with the ways of the world.
His concern is for PEOPLE.

You can try to make it as impersonal as you wish, but it would be the actions of some of the PEOPLE on Wall St that Jesus would have issue with.

It's our Heart he wants, not our interest rates!

 

[Barb]

You mean the People of Wall St, I assume.

But, given the proven fact that they give a larger percentage of their income to charity than average, I cannot speak to any single individual's place.

Why would you "assume" she meant the "people?"

Is it easier to "assume" such, rather than to assume she was speaking about the construct those people work within?

Why is it easier, or more important, to view THINGS as people, and PEOPLE as things?

It would be ridiculous for Jesus to be angry at a street or a bank.

so, inanimate objects and legal constructs aren't tools for the "lazy, envious and avaricious" to suck the largest amount of money from society, based on what they've determined to be the market share they believe they can corner, and based on that, what they're "due?" How else would they conduct such "business?"
Be careful darling, because the typical retort carries a sharper edge on your side.

 

[Sky Dancer]

What about it's harder for a rich man to enter heaven than to pass a camel through the eye of a needle?

I'd say that's definitely true of the banking establishment and corporate greed. Wealth produces luxury, dissipation, and vice, avarice, covetousness, fraud, and oppression.

Corporations have now achieved the rights of individual citizens. That means corporations now completely control national elections.



If enough people realize how monstrous is the policy of equating fictitious corporate “persons” with real people, then perhaps gradually public opinion will force a change in the Supreme Court’s attitude of the kind we have seen before. After all, there used to be an adage, the Supreme Court follows the election returns.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/corporate-personhood-and-14th-amendment-rights

 

[Barb]

It would be ridiculous for Jesus to be angry at a street or a bank.

Corrupt systems. Like the moneychangers defiling the temple. Jesus most certainly intended a condemnation of business as usual in the temple. Jesus obviously condemned the commercialization of the sacrificial operation, and the fact that for so many people what was originally intended (in the Law of Moses) as the means by which people get right with God, had become for many simply a job and for the leaders a means to get rich at the expense of the people who come to the temple to offer sacrifices.

Jesus' teachings say to not be concerned with the ways of the world.
His concern is for PEOPLE.

You can try to make it as impersonal as you wish, but it would be the actions of some of the PEOPLE on Wall St that Jesus would have issue with.

It's our Heart he wants, not our interest rates!

Really? Would a being like him do what he did with the fishes and the wine be more concerned with local commerce, or that the masses were fed and happy? Was he killed because he performed a few "individual" acts of divine intervention, or because he challenged the status quo? Did he not challenge WHY people were poor? HOW they were cheated and misled? Who cheated and misled them?

Christ challenged the accepted teachings and the values those teachings supported during his time. There was a TON of power threatened by those challenges. THAT is why the power structure wanted him dead.

“It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.”
― Albert Camus

Christ was a thinking person. He paid with his life. The story has been played out every century humans have walked on this earth. Someday, we'll stop killing our best. I hope.

 

[Ravi]

Therefore making it society's responsibility to take up the yoke and help the poor and keep government out of it.

You've avoided answering the question in the OP but thanks for playing!

You don't believe there to be a Christ.
Therefore no answer I give will break through your incorrectly preconceived notions of what HE would teach.

Jesus taught us how to "structure" our hearts and our selves in order to prepare for His Kingdom.
God's "society" is all we should be concerned about.

Helping the poor and down-trodden is each individual's responsibility.
Not "society's".

I'm sorry if these answers don't fit your mold.
Doesn't make them less true, however.

You have your preconceived notions and I see that they are the only things that matter to you.

Oh, well.

 

[mal]

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?

Anyone who uses a religious argument to advocate policy is beyond moronic. We are not a theocracy.

Let me get this straight. It is your believe that Jesus would not want us to structure a society to provide benefits to the poor. Is that correct and if so your reason is because he never said to do so?

I'll go more slowly: Your OP is using religious belief to advocate for policy.

Anyone in the USA who uses religion to advocate for policy is beyond moronic.

That makes you/your argument beyond moronic.

It would be Moronic if she wasn't simply trying to Anger People with Faith by Abusing their Religion and Book...

It's what she is.



peace...

 

[hortysir]

You've avoided answering the question in the OP but thanks for playing!

You don't believe there to be a Christ.
Therefore no answer I give will break through your incorrectly preconceived notions of what HE would teach.

Jesus taught us how to "structure" our hearts and our selves in order to prepare for His Kingdom.
God's "society" is all we should be concerned about.

Helping the poor and down-trodden is each individual's responsibility.
Not "society's".

I'm sorry if these answers don't fit your mold.
Doesn't make them less true, however.

You have your preconceived notions and I see that they are the only things that matter to you.

Oh, well.

No "notions" to it.
It's just what the Bible teaches.

You started this thread with the opposite premise and expect it to stand against the Word.
It's just not going to happen.


I really wish non-believers would learn the Book they try so hard to debunk.
All they manage to do is address sound-bytes of misinformation that is spouted by the fringe of the fringe.

There is such an animal as a secure Christian that doesn't have to resort to attacks to defend their faith.

Rare is the Christian-started thread asking atheists to defend their non-existent book.

 

[Ravi]

You don't believe there to be a Christ.
Therefore no answer I give will break through your incorrectly preconceived notions of what HE would teach.

Jesus taught us how to "structure" our hearts and our selves in order to prepare for His Kingdom.
God's "society" is all we should be concerned about.

Helping the poor and down-trodden is each individual's responsibility.
Not "society's".

I'm sorry if these answers don't fit your mold.
Doesn't make them less true, however.

You have your preconceived notions and I see that they are the only things that matter to you.

Oh, well.

No "notions" to it.
It's just what the Bible teaches.

You started this thread with the opposite premise and expect it to stand against the Word.
It's just not going to happen.


I really wish non-believers would learn the Book they try so hard to debunk.
All they manage to do is address sound-bytes of misinformation that is spouted by the fringe of the fringe.

There is such an animal as a secure Christian that doesn't have to resort to attacks to defend their faith.

Rare is the Christian-started thread asking atheists to defend their non-existent book.

Your "notion" is that I'm an unbeliever.

Nothing in my OP is "standing against the Word."

Try reading for comprehension.

 

[hortysir]

You have your preconceived notions and I see that they are the only things that matter to you.

Oh, well.

No "notions" to it.
It's just what the Bible teaches.

You started this thread with the opposite premise and expect it to stand against the Word.
It's just not going to happen.


I really wish non-believers would learn the Book they try so hard to debunk.
All they manage to do is address sound-bytes of misinformation that is spouted by the fringe of the fringe.

There is such an animal as a secure Christian that doesn't have to resort to attacks to defend their faith.

Rare is the Christian-started thread asking atheists to defend their non-existent book.

Your "notion" is that I'm an unbeliever.

Nothing in my OP is "standing against the Word."

Try reading for comprehension.

The basis of your OP presumes that the Messiah concerns Himself with the "structure of society".
He cares about the individual's heart.

Unless you can find a red-lettered quote in the Bible where He addresses societal issues.

 

[mal]

No "notions" to it.
It's just what the Bible teaches.

You started this thread with the opposite premise and expect it to stand against the Word.
It's just not going to happen.


I really wish non-believers would learn the Book they try so hard to debunk.
All they manage to do is address sound-bytes of misinformation that is spouted by the fringe of the fringe.

There is such an animal as a secure Christian that doesn't have to resort to attacks to defend their faith.

Rare is the Christian-started thread asking atheists to defend their non-existent book.

Your "notion" is that I'm an unbeliever.

Nothing in my OP is "standing against the Word."

Try reading for comprehension.

The basis of your OP presumes that the Messiah concerns Himself with the "structure of society".
He cares about the individual's heart.

Unless you can find a red-lettered quote in the Bible where He addresses societal issues.

If Jesus wasn't Specific then Ravir just makes shit up about what Jesus stood for...



peace...