Drunken ex-Boston primitive gets slapped down

[USA4ME]

WilliamPitt

More than a million people lose unemployment benefits today, because Jesus, or something.

So, yeah, more than a million unemployed people lose their benefits today because Supply-Side Jesus says helping the needy is no longer the Christian thing to do.

Deut. 15 : 7. If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.

Lev. 19 : 19 Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger.

1 John 3 : 17 But if someone who is supposed to be a Christian has money enough to live well, and sees a brother in need, and won't help him--how can God's love be within him?

Prov. 14 : 31 Anyone who oppresses the poor is insulting God who made them. To help the poor is to honor God.

(snip)

I could go on, but you get the point.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024240218#post9

But the real question is "Do any of you get the point?" As is typical, the answer is no.

But someone is trying to help.

Blanket Statements

1. Those are demands on individuals
 
Paying your taxes and demanding the government do something doesn't count.

Yes the government should be helping but it's not what the bible is talking about

jwirr (21,598 posts)

2. That is your interpretation. Where in the Bible does it tell exactly HOW we are supposed to help the needy. I direct you to the Psalms. Many of David's are him as the ruler of the country telling the Lord what he had been doing to help others.

"That is your interpretation" equals  "I want to blame others and not lift a finger myself."

Blanket Statements

3. Ehhh, if you're compelled by law to pay taxes
 
It's not a personal act of helping those in need, which is what those verses were speaking to.
And god didn't buy David's claims in Psalms

WinkyDink 

5. You must not be familiar with the New Testament.

Blanket Statements

6. I am...the act of paying taxes is not the same as the act of giving to those in need.

One is compulsory, the other is voluntary

CAG

8. Yet the "christian" right demands that we Legislate all sorts of biblical social morals upon society, so its not to be unexpected that the left thinks that all of the scripture concerning helping the poor, hungry, and unsheltered should also be legislated.

Where the left gets it correct is that for all the chest-thumping from those on the right who supposedly care about the poor who claim that the church and faith-based charities should take care of the poor and needy, they are completely ignorant of how woefully inadequate the help would be.

Because believing that it would be "woefully inadequate" is a lie; that's why we don't believe it.

Blanket Statements

9. If the government took 100% of income to help the poor
 
It would not alleviate your personal responsibility to help those less fortunate than you.

And that's what all those verses the ex-Boston Drunkard quoted are saying.

Liberals don't want personal responsibility. They want dependency so they can wield power over people's lives. They want someone else to pay for it. And they want to sit around and complain about it but not get up and actually have to help people face-to-face with their own resources.

.

[USA4ME]

Another thing, you stupid primitives:

Lev. 19:19 Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger.

Those who grew crops were told to leave certain sections of their fields available for "the needy and the stranger."

But note that the needy and stranger were not just given "the gleanings of your harvest....... your vineyard, ... the fallen fruit of your vineyard." They actually had to make the effort to go out and do some work in order to receive these things. They had to put out the effort to harvest those items. That 180 degrees opposite of what you dolts advocate to have happen. Your idea is to let people sit around and do nothing in order to receive. And you want to sit around and do nothing in order for them to receive.

.

[franksolich]

Another thing, you stupid primitives:

Those who grew crops were told to leave certain sections of their fields available for "the needy and the stranger."

But note that the needy and stranger were not just given "the gleanings of your harvest....... your vineyard, ... the fallen fruit of your vineyard." They actually had to make the effort to go out and do some work in order to receive these things. They had to put out the effort to harvest those items. That 180 degrees opposite of what you dolts advocate to have happen. Your idea is to let people sit around and do nothing in order to receive. And you want to sit around and do nothing in order for them to receive.

[ChuckJ]

CAG

8. Yet the "christian" right demands that we Legislate all sorts of biblical social morals upon society, so its not to be unexpected that the left thinks that all of the scripture concerning helping the poor, hungry, and unsheltered should also be legislated.

Where the left gets it correct is that for all the chest-thumping from those on the right who supposedly care about the poor who claim that the church and faith-based charities should take care of the poor and needy, they are completely ignorant of how woefully inadequate the help would be.

How about a list of the "biblical social morals" that the Christian right has demanded be legislated?

Churches, faith-based charities, and conservatives of all stripes do pretty well at taking care of the poor and needy AND are better at determining who actually is poor and needy and who is just a lazy parasite.

[Skul]

Lev. 19:19 Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger.

This right here.......^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^, and USA's comment.

[Dori]

2 Thessalonians 3

10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. 11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.

 

[ChuckJ]

This right here.......^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^, and USA's comment.

Now the DUmmies are scouring the net for a bible version that has the verse:

And you therefore are to provide an ass upon which the needy may sit while you reap the corners of your field, gather the gleanings of your harvest, glean your vineyard, and gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall then present these reapings and gatherings to the needy as they see fit. After you have done these things the government shall bless you by taking from your original harvest and distributing that also to the needy.

[Carl]

  John 12:6-8
6 This he said , not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein . 7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone : against the day of my burying hath she kept this. 8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

Mark 14:5-7
 5 For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her. 6 And Jesus said , Let her alone ; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me. 7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.

Jesus came as God in the flesh to pay the price for mankinds sins.
One can choose to believe that or not but it is what His mission was,not a government socialist.

[Skul]

Now the DUmmies are scouring the net for a bible version that has the verse:

And you therefore are to provide an ass upon which the needy may sit while you reap the corners of your field, gather the gleanings of your harvest, glean your vineyard, and gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall then present these reapings and gatherings to the needy as they see fit. After you have done these things the government shall bless you by taking from your original harvest and distributing that also to the needy.

From the New Revised Democrap Bible, I presume.

I had wandered back in here because another thought had crossed the mind.
Then I read your comment, and that thought is laying in the ditch somewhere.  

[DumbAss Tanker]

All in all pretty hilarious, given how nuts they would get if the government actually did try to apply religious (And especially Christian) doctrine to legislation.

[USA4ME]

They can't stand their hypocrisy being pointed out.

Maraya1969

38. Practically all taxes are on things that were taxed before. That happens to the poor too.
 
So what is your big deal with protecting the rich that you so care about?

And since when did you come to believe that people here do not give to the poor and needy? I think we probably have the most generous group in the country represented here.

 

Yeah, how many of you primitives are taking your fellow primitives into your homes to help them in their time of need?

None of you.

Nope, your idea of "helping" is pawning them off on some agency. That's not true progressive compassion. That's lip serve to an idea you wish to hoist upon others while contributing little, if anything, to it.

Blanket Statements

40. I've not said anything about protecting the rich nor did I make any assumptions on people's charitable giving.

Maraya1969

47. Yes you did. In a round about way by pointing out that taxes are not the same as personal giving when in actuality they are when the taxes go to help the needy.

Ah, you see paying taxes (or in the case of liberals the knowledge that others paying taxes) that goes to help the poor is the same as "personal giving."

The things they have to twist in order to complain while never getting their hands dirty.

.

[Charles Henrickson]

More than a million people lose unemployment benefits today, because Jesus, or something. So, yeah, more than a million unemployed people lose their benefits today because Supply-Side Jesus says helping the needy is no longer the Christian thing to do. . . . I could go on, but you get the point.

No, William, I get the point, but you most certainly do not. You do not understand the Bible--or the Constitution, either.

First, the Old Testament passages you cite were written for Old Testament Israel, which was both "church" and "state." In other words, it was a theocracy, and was meant to be so. But I thought you guys didn't want a theocracy? If you want some of a theocracy, you'd have to take all of it, which means persistent blasphemers like you, who take the name of the Lord in vain constantly--you would soon find yourself under a pile of rocks.

Second, the New Testament passages you cite are written for the Christian church, about Christians VOLUNTARILY caring for the poor among them.

Third, the United States Constitution nowhere gives the federal government any power to take money away from some citizens, no matter how rich or evil, against their will, in order to redistribute that wealth to other citizens, no matter how nice or needy, to pay their bills or give them money. That would be robbery or involuntary servitude, regardless of what euphemistic title you give it. The Constitution limits the federal government to only those powers specifically and explicitly delegated to it in the Constitution. Or at least that was the idea.

The point is, William, charitable giving is good, but it is to be done privately, voluntarily, not by force.

Now William, since your understanding of both the Bible and the Constitution is so infinitesimally small that it could fit into a thimble with room left over, I suggest you take both documents in hand and read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them. Then come back and we'll discuss what you've learned. Until then, might I suggest you shut your piehole regarding matters beyond your ken.

[Big Dog]

No, William, I get the point, but you most certainly do not. You do not understand the Bible--or the Constitution, either.

First, the Old Testament passages you cite were written for Old Testament Israel, which was both "church" and "state." In other words, it was a theocracy, and was meant to be so. But I thought you guys didn't want a theocracy? If you want some of a theocracy, you'd have to take all of it, which means persistent blasphemers like you, who take the name of the Lord in vain constantly--you would soon find yourself under a pile of rocks.

Second, the New Testament passages you cite are written for the Christian church, about Christians VOLUNTARILY caring for the poor among them.

Third, the United States Constitution nowhere gives the federal government any power to take money away from some citizens, no matter how rich or evil, against their will, in order to redistribute that wealth to other citizens, no matter how nice or needy, to pay their bills or give them money. That would be robbery or involuntary servitude, regardless of what euphemistic title you give it. The Constitution limits the federal government to only those powers specifically and explicitly delegated to it in the Constitution. Or at least that was the idea.

The point is, William, charitable giving is good, but it is to be done privately, voluntarily, not by force.

Well said, Charles.

Now William, since your understanding of both the Bible and the Constitution is so infinitesimally small that it could fit into a thimble with room left over, I suggest you take both documents in hand and read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them. Then come back and we'll discuss what you've learned. Until then, might I suggest you shut your piehole regarding matters beyond your ken.

That would shut him up- forever.

[Mr Mannn]

Why is it that a group of self declared atheists (who despise and fear the Christian faith and all it stands for),

...just what leads these mockers and scoffers to attempt to preach to the faithful? And what makes them think believers would accept Biblical instruction from those who hate the Word of God?

I know atheists on this very board who are cool with those who believe. I respect those atheists. Respect for others encourages respect and honor both ways. This is how a free society works.

The people at DU are not like that. Their hatred and bigotry are not based so much on disbelief, but on rebellion. Respect and rebellion cannot exist side by side. Rebellion is divisive and hateful, and those words define the members of DU.

DUers like Will only use the Bible to manipulate, never to enlighten. Any believer worth his salt can see that a mile away.

[fatboy]

No, William, I get the point, but you most certainly do not. You do not understand the Bible--or the Constitution, either.

In addition, Dear William writes like a high school freshman and uses the logic of an 8th grader.

[98ZJUSMC]

But note that the needy and stranger were not just given "the gleanings of your harvest....... your vineyard, ... the fallen fruit of your vineyard." They actually had to make the effort to go out and do some work in order to receive these things. They had to put out the effort to harvest those items. That 180 degrees opposite of what you dolts advocate to have happen. Your idea is to let people sit around and do nothing in order to receive. And you want to sit around and do nothing in order for them to receive.

 

How about a list of the "biblical social morals" that the Christian right has demanded be legislated?

Like to see that myself.  I know what they'll attempt to say, but it would be funny to see them articulate, errrr, scratch it out in crayon.

[I_B_Perky]

Millions more lost their health insurance plans than lost unemployment... millions more... and the dummies assured us that in the grand scheme of things it was a very small percentage of the total population. So why dummies, why oh why are you harping on such a small percentage of the population losing unemployment?

[tanstaafl]

The 'stain should regale his mommy with this so as to wedge a sawbuck or two out of her wallet. Miserable skinflints.

[wasp69]

All in all pretty hilarious, given how nuts they would get if the government actually did try to apply religious (And especially Christian) doctrine to legislation.

To think that none other than Wee William is the one out front agitating for a Christian Theocracy...  I never thought I'd live to see the day.   

[pjcomix]

To think that none other than Wee William is the one out front agitating for a Christian Theocracy...  I never thought I'd live to see the day. 

Don't you remember? Wee Willie has proclaimed himself to be a "Kennedy Catholic" which means NO religious practice until a member of the Kennedy Clan dies and which has the effect of causing Will to suddenly recite prayers in Latin before he reverts back to his natural state of imbibery.

[Dori]

To think that none other than Wee William is the one out front agitating for a Christian Theocracy...  I never thought I'd live to see the day.   

When did he stop praying to Buddha?

[thundley4]

When did he stop praying to Buddha?

Was he praying to Buddha or just trying to look like Buddha?

[wasp69]

When did he stop praying to Buddha?

That's one of the most creative descriptions of drunk-hurling into a toilet that I have heard in a good while, Dori.

Oh, wait, you didn't mean it that way, did you....?   

[Dori]

That's one of the most creative descriptions of drunk-hurling into a toilet that I have heard in a good while, Dori.

Oh, wait, you didn't mean it that way, did you....?   

 

[Freeper]

Somehow I can't see believers taking spiritual advice from people who openly mock Christianity and the Bible on a daily basis.