Pope Francis ain't messing around

[Dante]

Compared to the last 4 popes this new one is a real downgrade dumb ass . Where the hell did they get this guy up? Someone or some organization must have some nasty info on the Vatican for them to force this guy. He doesn't even fit.

 

https://www.aei.org/publication/what-the-four-previous-popes-had-to-say-about-socialism/

Edited September 30, 2015 by Dante

[IDBillzFan]

you like this one better from a Catholic bible?

³⁵ For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you made me welcome,

³⁶ lacking clothes and you clothed me, sick and you visited me, in prison and you came to see me."

³⁷ Then the upright will say to him in reply, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?

³⁸ When did we see you a stranger and make you welcome, lacking clothes and clothe you?

³⁹ When did we find you sick or in prison and go to see you?"

⁴⁰ And the King will answer, "In truth I tell you, in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me."

 

to you literalists I guess a few stylistic words make all the difference. I assume you know what it goes on to say.

 

to your other point, perhaps charitable on their own terms. to be fair, we should look at total taxes paid by liberals versus conservatives and the amounts going to the needy. I won't concede even the notion that voluntary giving as a percentage or absolute number among cons is higher as this is nearly impossible to measure unless the irs opens the book on deductions. even then, when the poor give its generally not deductible since they don't make enough. you do remember that story of the widow's mite, don't you?

 

finally, you once again change a question with another options into an either/or question. it's not only a question of giving a fish or teaching to fish. one can do both and should.

 

 

It's not a question of being a literalist/legalist, but the most basic understanding that the call is for individuals to help individuals. Period. The topic of taxes should not be brought into the discussion because this is NOT about government taking money from individuals so they can be the arbiter of who does and does not get help. We're not talking about laundering schemes like the Clinton Foundation, or any of the fake Haiti fundraisers.

 

It's people helping their fellow man. Helping feed them, clothe them, support them, as each one can. Period.

 

Stop confusing love, compassion and selflessness with social justice as if the Pope is running around telling everyone God screwed up and we need government to even the score so everyone is equal. If you believe we were each made in the image of God, it still falls upon US to choose to walk with God. Forcing someone to help their fellow man because of selfish interpretation of a Pope's message is just ridiculous.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

It's not a question of being a literalist/legalist, but the most basic understanding that the call is for individuals to help individuals. Period. The topic of taxes should not be brought into the discussion because this is NOT about government taking money from individuals so they can be the arbiter of who does and does not get help. We're not talking about laundering schemes like the Clinton Foundation, or any of the fake Haiti fundraisers.

 

It's people helping their fellow man. Helping feed them, clothe them, support them, as each one can. Period.

 

Stop confusing love, compassion and selflessness with social justice as if the Pope is running around telling everyone God screwed up and we need government to even the score so everyone is equal. If you believe we were each made in the image of God, it still falls upon US to choose to walk with God. Forcing someone to help their fellow man because of selfish interpretation of a Pope's message is just ridiculous.

It's also advocating for theocracy.

[DC Tom]

you like this one better from a Catholic bible?

³⁵ For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you made me welcome,

³⁶ lacking clothes and you clothed me, sick and you visited me, in prison and you came to see me."

³⁷ Then the upright will say to him in reply, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?

³⁸ When did we see you a stranger and make you welcome, lacking clothes and clothe you?

³⁹ When did we find you sick or in prison and go to see you?"

⁴⁰ And the King will answer, "In truth I tell you, in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me."

 

to you literalists I guess a few stylistic words make all the difference. I assume you know what it goes on to say.

 

to your other point, perhaps charitable on their own terms. to be fair, we should look at total taxes paid by liberals versus conservatives and the amounts going to the needy. I won't concede even the notion that voluntary giving as a percentage or absolute number among cons is higher as this is nearly impossible to measure unless the irs opens the book on deductions. even then, when the poor give its generally not deductible since they don't make enough. you do remember that story of the widow's mite, don't you?

 

finally, you once again change a question with another options into an either/or question. it's not only a question of giving a fish or teaching to fish. one can do both and should.

Taxes are charity?

[birdog1960]

Compared to the last 4 popes this new one is a real downgrade dumb ass . Where the hell did they did this guy up? Someone or some organization must have some nasty info on the Vatican for them to force this guy. He doesn't even fit.

 

https://www.aei.org/publication/what-the-four-previous-popes-had-to-say-about-socialism/

wow. author is economics prof at u of m at flint. didn't even know it existed.

Taxes are charity?

never used the word charity. we were discussing feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, shelter etc. is doing it through taxes somehow less beneficial to the recipient? do you judge it less virtuous if it's done open handedly? does God? Do you pretend to know?

Edited September 29, 2015 by birdog1960

[TakeYouToTasker]

never used the word charity. we were discussing feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, shelter etc. is doing it through taxes somehow less beneficial to the recipient? do you judge it less virtuous if it's done open handedly? does God? Do you pretend to know?

Yes it is less beneficial, because those entitlements tend not to benefit their recipients in the long term. As I said before, the way to lift people up is not through giving them money, but through taking a personal stake in them that impacts their lives in a personal and lasting way. The government in incapable of doing this.

[4merper4mer]

wow. author is economics prof at u of m at flint. didn't even know it existed.

never used the word charity. we were discussing feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, shelter etc.

 

1. is doing it through taxes somehow less beneficial to the recipient?

 

2. do you judge it less virtuous if it's done open handedly?

 

3. does God?

 

4. Do you pretend to know?

 

1. Yes. Because 72% goes to overhead.

2. What I judge as virtuous or what you do, means absolutely nothing. You are starting to sound like one of the guilty pot smokers trying to justify your own guilt by harassing others.

3. I don't know but if you have a specific question get it to me and I can do a GvG and let you know the answer

4. I don't know now but after the GvG I might. Sometimes he answers very specifically.

[birdog1960]

 

1. Yes. Because 72% goes to overhead.

2. What I judge as virtuous or what you do, means absolutely nothing. You are starting to sound like one of the guilty pot smokers trying to justify your own guilt by harassing others.

3. I don't know but if you have a specific question get it to me and I can do a GvG and let you know the answer

4. I don't know now but after the GvG I might. Sometimes he answers very specifically.

no idea where you get the overhead figure but even that number is lower than many ngo's.

[IDBillzFan]

is doing it through taxes somehow less beneficial to the recipient? do you judge it less virtuous if it's done open handedly? does God? Do you pretend to know?

 

And there you have it. As predictable as stink on schitt.

[4merper4mer]

no idea where you get the overhead figure but even that number is lower than many ngo's.

 

 

Are you even interested in the GvG offer?

 

And the 72% was just meant as a shot that government is inefficient. It doesn't even go into the fact that before anyone gets any money they have to abide by certain criteria set forth by their masters the government. It isn't a good way to run anything.

[Rob's House]

This is a prime illustration of what liberalism is all about: Feeling virtuous about advocating for someone else to address society's ills while you live a self-serving life.

[birdog1960]

This is a prime illustration of what liberalism is all about: Feeling virtuous about advocating for someone else to address society's ills while you live a self-serving life.

really? is it self serving to advocate for and support candidates within a democracy whose policies would cost one a large percentage of their income (e.g. bernie sanders)? many liberals do exactly that.

[TakeYouToTasker]

really? is it self serving to advocate for and support candidates within a democracy whose policies would cost one a large percentage of their income (e.g. bernie sanders)? many liberals do exactly that.

Democracy is nothing more than legalized theft, in which to take money from some people to give it to others.

 

God doesn't ask us to do this. In fact, he expressly forbids it in Exodus 20:15. God asks us to give of ourselves. He doesn't ask us to give of others.

[Nanker]

wow. author is economics prof at u of m at flint. didn't even know it existed.

 

never used the word charity. we were discussing feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, shelter etc. is doing it through taxes somehow less beneficial to the recipient? do you judge it less virtuous if it's done open handedly? does God? Do you pretend to know?

This from the piker who mocked Romney's gifts to his church's charity as being unworthy of being a tax deduction.

[Chef Jim]

really? is it self serving to advocate for and support candidates within a democracy whose policies would cost one a large percentage of their income (e.g. bernie sanders)? many liberals do exactly that.

 

Self serving? No. Lazy? Yes. Well on second thought that is kind of self serving.

[IDBillzFan]

God doesn't ask us to do this. In fact, he expressly forbids it in Exodus 20:15. God asks us to give of ourselves. He doesn't ask us to give of others.

 

Well, you obviously don't have a piece of paper from the Catholic Church confirming that you're fit to be a godfather, because birdog's Bible has God telling everyone that they must be taxed so social justice can be carried out to fix God's error of not making everyone equal.

 

By the way, if you get a chance to watch the Jim Gaffigan show, look online for the episode where he has to pick up a Bible his church gifted to his wife for her service. Some of the funniest stuff you'll see on TV.

 

How many 'Hail Marys' do I have to say for not saying my 'Hail Marys?'

[Rob's House]

really? is it self serving to advocate for and support candidates within a democracy whose policies would cost one a large percentage of their income (e.g. bernie sanders)? many liberals do exactly that.

It's rare that individual liberals advocate for added taxes that will burden themselves significantly.

 

Plus, they support taxing income, not wealth, so once they're established their false altruism serves to help insulate them from others over whom they enjoy a comparative advantage.

 

I seriously doubt you or many of your feel good liberal friends would support any of this stuff if you honestly believed someone was going to take half your wealth and take home pay, even if it did help the poor.

[DC Tom]

never used the word charity. we were discussing feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, shelter etc. is doing it through taxes somehow less beneficial to the recipient? do you judge it less virtuous if it's done open handedly? does God? Do you pretend to know?

 

 

 

to your other point, perhaps charitable on their own terms. to be fair, we should look at total taxes paid by liberals versus conservatives and the amounts going to the needy. I won't concede even the notion that voluntary giving as a percentage or absolute number among cons is higher as this is nearly impossible to measure unless the irs opens the book on deductions.

 

You're certainly comparing charity to taxation there, as though the two are somehow comparable.

[B-Man]

Why Pope Francis’s Meeting with Kim Davis Matters

by Jim Gerharty

Pope Francis’s meeting with Kim Davis is delightful for the way that it disrupts the media’s preferred narrative that Francis is rewriting the Catechism of the Catholic Church to align with the Democratic party’s platform. Obviously, more than a few voices on the right agree with the assessment that Francis is a man of the Left who’s making things worse.

The Catholic Church’s views have never aligned perfectly with either major American political party, and they probably never will or should.

{snip}

The objection from the right to Kim Davis is that she’s refusing to do the job she agreed to do, citing her personal moral objection to gay marriage. While most folks would believe a government official shouldn’t be forced to do something that violates her conscience, she also refused to allow anyone else in her office to issue those marriage licenses, either. She effectively contended her personal moral conscience extended outward to other people. (After court orders, her deputies are now issuing the licenses.)

The objection from the left to Kim Davis is that she’s opposed to gay marriage, full stop. There isn’t much nuance in progressives’ view of Davis; as far as they’re concerned, she’s got horns and fangs.

Francis’s meeting with Davis is rather spectacular disruption to the narrative of the progressives’ perfect pope. It is hard to interpret his meeting with her as anything less than moral support and/or an endorsement, and a rebuke to everyone who considered her a moral evil, a theocratic fascist, an evil intolerant bigot, and so on.

It’s going to be fascinating to see if the coverage of Pope Francis gets more hostile from here on out, now that he’s embraced the woman that America’s political and media elites deemed “a thrice-divorced hillbilly who epitomizes the hypocrisy and self-righteousness of Bible thumpers everywhere.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

.

[IDBillzFan]

 

Why Pope Francis’s Meeting with Kim Davis Matters

by Jim Gerharty

 

I found this to be the single most interesting part of the Pope's visit.

 

Though in all honesty, it may be because it really made the SoProgs look as foolish as they've ever looked.

 

"The pope believes in global warming cooling climate change and helping the poor! You see...Jesus was a far left liberal!

 

"Wait. What? He met with who?

 

"The Pope sucks! God is dead!"

Edited September 30, 2015 by LABillzFan