Gene Frenkle Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 Not every one that said to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven. 31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' 37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 40 "The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.' 41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' 44 "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' 45 "He will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' 46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Oh, the irony for the Christian Right! Socialism!
Rob's House Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 Oh, the irony for the Christian Right! Socialism! There is a significant distinction. The above passage refers to giving voluntarily. Socialism is forfeiting that which is demanded or face incarceration. Put in the proper context of the time the distinction is even greater.
ieatcrayonz Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 There is a significant distinction. The above passage refers to giving voluntarily. Socialism is forfeiting that which is demanded or face incarceration. Put in the proper context of the time the distinction is even greater. Gene just wants to take someone else's hair.
Gene Frenkle Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 There is a significant distinction. The above passage refers to giving voluntarily. Socialism is forfeiting that which is demanded or face incarceration. Put in the proper context of the time the distinction is even greater. It also says you're !@#$ed if you DON'T give voluntarily. So is it really voluntary? Gene just wants to take someone else's hair. Bad-ass, bald and beautiful!
Magox Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 I guess that explains this: -- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227). -- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood. -- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush. -- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average. -- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent. -- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition. Thanks for reminding me of this again Gene
Magox Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 I love posting that study. Usually shuts them up real quick
Gene Frenkle Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 I love posting that study. Usually shuts them up real quick I can tell. If charity is sufficient, why are there poor, starving and homeless people? Nice stats and all, but what does it prove really?
DC Tom Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 If government is sufficient, why are there poor, starving and homeless people? Works both ways. Reality is there will always be poor, starving, and homeless people. Anyone who pretends otherwise is selling something.
Magox Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 (edited) I can tell. If charity is sufficient, why are there poor, starving and homeless people? Nice stats and all, but what does it prove really? Your first question is rather easy to answer, people have to learn how to swim, of course I'm not talking about all cases, but in most cases people are homeless because they have no internal drive to succeed and are accustomed to handouts or they become drug addicts. Sorry Gene, if you think that MOST people are homeless because there isnt enough handouts, then honestly and i say this with all seriousness, your line of thinking is part of the problem. (Notice how I use the word MOST) In regards to what does it prove. I'm not sure I'm understanding your question. I guess it proves that conservatives are much more compassionate than liberals and much more than what you give them credit for, doesn't it? Think about it for a second, even though conservatives voluntarily give much more than liberals do to the needy, the liberals would rather legislate and force people to give more out of their incomes, even though they themsevles voluntarily give much less to the needy than conservatives. How nice Edited July 26, 2011 by Magox
Joe Miner Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 A better person, more morally-pure, more deserving of a favorable "final reward". Could also have been phrased: "Is it better to be..." That's so completely foreign to what I believe and what I think Christianity is and professes, that the answer to that is longer than the question implies. If you'd like me to pm you an answer, let me know. But I've probably already helped derail this thread enough.
Peace Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 (edited) That's so completely foreign to what I believe and what I think Christianity is and professes, that the answer to that is longer than the question implies. If you'd like me to pm you an answer, let me know. But I've probably already helped derail this thread enough. His point is that it's better to be Christ-like...kind, charitable, moral etc. than to just believe in Christ. Christlike acting should be cause for more reward than Christ believing. Ben Franklin expressed this line of thought too, I believe. Edited July 26, 2011 by Peace
....lybob Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 There is a significant distinction. The above passage refers to giving voluntarily. Socialism is forfeiting that which is demanded or face incarceration. Put in the proper context of the time the distinction is even greater. It's voluntary if you are a non-believer, if you are a believer the stakes are Heaven and eternal torment.
3rdnlng Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 I can tell. If charity is sufficient, why are there poor, starving and homeless people? Nice stats and all, but what does it prove really? That liberals aren't doing their "fair share"?
UConn James Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 Police officers in Norway carry no weapon When a man dressed in a police uniform began slaughtering young people at a Norwegian summer camp last week, one of the first to be killed was a real police officer named Trond Berntsen, who for years had worked in security at the camp. Whether Berntsen tried to stop the gunman is still being debated. But facing a man carrying multiple guns and ample ammunition, there was little he could do. Like most other police officers here, he had no weapon.
....lybob Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 -- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227). -- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood. -- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush. -- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average. -- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent. -- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition. Maybe it's true but I'd like to see the numbers run sans giving to your own place of worship and sans giving to televangelists - neither of which I consider charitable.
Gene Frenkle Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 That's so completely foreign to what I believe and what I think Christianity is and professes, that the answer to that is longer than the question implies. If you'd like me to pm you an answer, let me know. But I've probably already helped derail this thread enough. Sorry, didn't realize you were above all that. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren't just trying to weasel out of answering the question. Maybe it's true but I'd like to see the numbers run sans giving to your own place of worship and sans giving to televangelists - neither of which I consider charitable. Hadn't thought of that. Excellent point.
ieatcrayonz Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 Sorry, didn't realize you were above all that. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren't just trying to weasel out of answering the question. Hadn't thought of that. Excellent point. Is it a great point because bald people and liberals are the deciders on what constitutes charitable?
Booster4324 Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 Link Norway's newest jail may hold rapists and murderers, but Halden Prison -- the country's second largest and most secure facility -- looks more like a posh sleepaway camp. In fact, architects say they purposely tried to avoid an "institutional feel." When it opened in 2010, some news accounts called it the "most humane" prison in the world. What, no computer?
Joe Miner Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 Sorry, didn't realize you were above all that. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren't just trying to weasel out of answering the question. If you and Peace were on the same page in your thoughts about the idea of being a poor Christian versus being a good person, I disagree with the premise of the argument. Specifically that the reward/salvation/heaven/eternal life, or however you wish to refer to it is based on any type of earned/deserved merit from a person whether they're Christian or not. So a simple answer doesn't suffice in my opinion. Again, I'll leave that alone unless you want a more in-depth response. Political topics on a message board are bad enough, but religious topics usually turn out even worse (IMO). So I'm much more willing to discuss politics in a forum venue than I am religious beliefs. I may come across as harsh and rude to you when you talk about religion. But it has little to do with the fact that you aren't religious and don't believe in a god, but more to do with the disdain that you show for anyone that does.
Gene Frenkle Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 If you and Peace were on the same page in your thoughts about the idea of being a poor Christian versus being a good person, I disagree with the premise of the argument. Specifically that the reward/salvation/heaven/eternal life, or however you wish to refer to it is based on any type of earned/deserved merit from a person whether they're Christian or not. So a simple answer doesn't suffice in my opinion. Again, I'll leave that alone unless you want a more in-depth response. Political topics on a message board are bad enough, but religious topics usually turn out even worse (IMO). So I'm much more willing to discuss politics in a forum venue than I am religious beliefs. I may come across as harsh and rude to you when you talk about religion. But it has little to do with the fact that you aren't religious and don't believe in a god, but more to do with the disdain that you show for anyone that does. Yes, I really need to sop being such an !@#$ to you. Nobody's forcing you to participate in the discussion.
Recommended Posts