Originally posted by Fishermage Originally posted by Sneakers05 Originally posted by Fishermage Originally posted by Sneakers05 I am a christian but I would never use the bible to promote violence or war. If you read the bible and know about Jesus you would know jesus was a liberal. Try telling a conservative that.
Jesus never advocated taking the income from one person by force to give to another person by force -- therefore he was not a liberal in the modern sense of the word. He wasn't a conservative either though.
Your wrong, there are sections in the new testiment where it spoke of jesus telling the rich to give all their worldly possessions to the poor.
That's advocating charity, not liberalism. He does not advocate people forcing one another to give away their possessions.
No one in the present Obama administration giving income by "force" either, so I'm not sure what this is about you mention.
If the federal law is changed to where the top 1% of people who hold ALL wealth in the United States is now that they must pay 50%, no one did this by "force". It was done by law and as leaders they were ordained by God. Since there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids a 50% tax on the upper 1%, it is therefore perfectly lawful and those following the Word must adhere to it, because it is God's wishes. This is from the New Testament which most conservatives go by.
Paul did say-
"Therefore submit yourselfs to EVERY ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, or governers, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men- as fre, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants to God."
Mathhew 22:17-
"Tell us, therefore, what do You think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?"
"But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, "Why do you test Me, you hypocrites?
Show me the TAX money." So they brought him a denarius (day's wage)
And He said to them, "Whose image and inscription is this?"
They said to Him, "Caesar's." And He said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
So clearly, Jesus thinks taxes are nothing to worry about and one should realize whatever the law says, that is the law.
Fisher you are really hung up on splitting hairs and defining words. This definition of liberalism is pretty close to my take. "Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism, there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for constitutional liberalism, which encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property, and a transparent system of government. All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law." Alright, now you can tell me why I'm wrong and don't know what I'm talking about.
That's "Classical Liberalism," which is now called libertarianism. Modern liberalism believs in using the power of the state to compel people to do good things for one another. That's something completely the opposite of your definition.
I am a christian but I would never use the bible to promote violence or war. If you read the bible and know about Jesus you would know jesus was a liberal. Try telling a conservative that.
Jesus never advocated taking the income from one person by force to give to another person by force -- therefore he was not a liberal in the modern sense of the word.
He wasn't a conservative either though.
Your wrong, there are sections in the new testiment where it spoke of jesus telling the rich to give all their worldly possessions to the poor.
That's advocating charity, not liberalism. He does not advocate people forcing one another to give away their possessions.
No one in the present Obama administration giving income by "force" either, so I'm not sure what this is about you mention.
If the federal law is changed to where the top 1% of people who hold ALL wealth in the United States is now that they must pay 50%, no one did this by "force". It was done by law and as leaders they were ordained by God. Since there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids a 50% tax on the upper 1%, it is therefore perfectly lawful and those following the Word must adhere to it, because it is God's wishes. This is from the New Testament which most conservatives go by.
Paul did say-
"Therefore submit yourselfs to EVERY ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, or governers, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men- as fre, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants to God."
Mathhew 22:17-
"Tell us, therefore, what do You think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?"
"But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, "Why do you test Me, you hypocrites?
Show me the TAX money." So they brought him a denarius (day's wage)
And He said to them, "Whose image and inscription is this?"
They said to Him, "Caesar's." And He said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
So clearly, Jesus thinks taxes are nothing to worry about and one should realize whatever the law says, that is the law.
Neither Jesus nor Paul ever advocate the people using the power of the state to compel that state to take the icnome from one group and give it to another.
In fact, they advocated the opposite -- individual action through changed hearts and minds.
Fisher you are really hung up on splitting hairs and defining words. This definition of liberalism is pretty close to my take. "Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism, there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for constitutional liberalism, which encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property, and a transparent system of government. All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law." Alright, now you can tell me why I'm wrong and don't know what I'm talking about.
That's "Classical Liberalism," which is now called libertarianism. Modern liberalism believs in using the power of the state to compel people to do good things for one another. That's something completely the opposite of your definition.
It's not my definition. I guess the collected contributors to wikipedia don't know what they are talking about. You should write them a note condemning them for straying from the gospel of fishermage.
What is the sound of one hair splitting?
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
Fisher you are really hung up on splitting hairs and defining words. This definition of liberalism is pretty close to my take. "Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism, there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for constitutional liberalism, which encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property, and a transparent system of government. All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law." Alright, now you can tell me why I'm wrong and don't know what I'm talking about.
That's "Classical Liberalism," which is now called libertarianism. Modern liberalism believs in using the power of the state to compel people to do good things for one another. That's something completely the opposite of your definition.
It's not my definition. I guess the collected contributors to wikipedia don't know what they are talking about. You should write them a note condemning them for straying from the gospel of fishermage.
What is the sound of one hair splitting?
I disagree with the definition you gave being a definition of modern liberalism. Do some more wiki surfing, read up on classical liberalism, and how it is distingusihed from modern liberalism. You will find that the defintiion YOU shared is closer to the European definition of liberalism, which is closer to what Americans call libertarians.
Look at your defintion. That doesn't sound like any of the liberalks who post here. It doesn't sound like any liberals in public life; no, in fact taht definition applies to quite a few conservatives, but not completely themn either. Nope, that definition you gave shows the opinions held by today's libertarians.
That's not splitting a hair at all -- the meaning of the word liberal has shifted. I wish it hadn't, because people like me are the real liberals, but it no longer means what you shared from wiki.
Fisher you are really hung up on splitting hairs and defining words. This definition of liberalism is pretty close to my take. "Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism, there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for constitutional liberalism, which encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property, and a transparent system of government. All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law." Alright, now you can tell me why I'm wrong and don't know what I'm talking about.
That's "Classical Liberalism," which is now called libertarianism. Modern liberalism believs in using the power of the state to compel people to do good things for one another. That's something completely the opposite of your definition.
It's not my definition. I guess the collected contributors to wikipedia don't know what they are talking about. You should write them a note condemning them for straying from the gospel of fishermage.
What is the sound of one hair splitting?
I disagree with the definition you gave being a definition of modern liberalism. Do some more wiki surfing, read up on classical liberalism, and how it is distingusihed from modern liberalism. You will find that the defintiion YOU shared is closer to the European definition of liberalism, which is closer to what Americans call libertarians.
Look at your defintion. That doesn't sound like any of the liberalks who post here. It doesn't sound like any liberals in public life; no, in fact taht definition applies to quite a few conservatives, but not completely themn either. Nope, that definition you gave shows the opinions held by today's libertarians.
That's not splitting a hair at all -- the meaning of the word liberal has shifted. I wish it hadn't, because people like me are the real liberals, but it no longer means what you shared from wiki.
I disagree with the definition of something, therefore it must not be true.
Like stealing. I like to call it permanent borrowing.
And He said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
Originally posted by Fishermage
Neither Jesus nor Paul ever advocate the people using the power of the state to compel that state to take the icnome from one group and give it to another. In fact, they advocated the opposite -- individual action through changed hearts and minds.
Jesus advocated nothing about the government whatsoever. His advocation was that people do whatever the law says. That's called submission to the rule of law. If the law says you pay 35%, Jesus believed you should pay 35%. His opinion is that whatever was law, that's it. So I have no idea what you are again referring to when you say "forcing".
There is no one forcing anyone to pay taxes except... the government. The people do not decide what the tax rate is. Lawmakers do that.
Christians running around complaining about taxes are actually going against Jesus' wishes. Jesus did not advocate "Fight the Power" and call for secession. He said give whatever the government says you are supposed to give. And yet look at what evangelists have been doing; stealing from congregations and AVOIDING paying taxes.
Clearly, they have some 'splainin to do when this is all over as to how they have been leading the sheep.
And He said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
Originally posted by Fishermage
Neither Jesus nor Paul ever advocate the people using the power of the state to compel that state to take the icnome from one group and give it to another.
In fact, they advocated the opposite -- individual action through changed hearts and minds.
Jesus advocated nothing about the government [c]whatsoever[/b]. His advocation was that people do whatever the law says. That's called submission to the rule of law. If the law says you pay 35%, Jesus believed you should pay 35%. His opinion is that whatever was law, that's it. So I have no idea what you are again referring to when you say "forcing".
There is no one forcing anyone to pay taxes except... the government. The people do not decide what the tax rate is. Lawmakers do that.
Christians running around complaining about taxes are actually going against Jesus' wishes. Jesus did not advocate "Fight the Power" and call for secession. He said give whatever the government says you are supposed to give. And yet look at what evangelists have been doing; stealing from congregations and AVOIDING paying taxes.
Clearly, they have some 'splainin to do when this is all over as to how they have been leading the sheep.
All government is force. In a free society, government is that which we choose to force one another to do.
Jesus was speaking in terms of a society where the people did not choose their government. He was, if anything, a law abiding libertarian in everything he taught. He didn't say much about government per se, but He did say enough about humans and force.
he did not believe in using force to make people do good for one another. That is the cornerstone of liberalism, replacing freeddom over the choice to help others with force.
I see nothing in Jesus taught that says that.
As I said, the closest thing we can see He was was a law-abiding libertarian.
This discussion has nothing to do with being law-abiding -- that's just a red herring. Liberals, conservatives, and libertarians can be law-abiding -- it is what one thinks about the use of force that determines where one is politically.
It is about the nature of government in a free society, in relation to what Jesus taught about the use of force and the use of good. I say that Jesus taught that voluntary goodness from the heart was the way to go, not the government force of liberalism.
Charity, not bureacracy backed up by guns if you do not pay. Yes we should pay, but no we should not advocate a larger government yoke over anyone.
All government is force. In a free society, government is that which we choose to force one another to do.
Jesus was speaking in terms of a society where the people did not choose their government. He was, if anything, a law abiding libertarian in everything he taught. He didn't say much about government per se, but He did say enough about humans and force. he did not believe in using force to make people do good for one another. That is the cornerstone of liberalism, replacing freeddom over the choice to help others with force. I see nothing in Jesus taught that says that. As I said, the closest thing we can see He was was a law-abiding libertarian. This discussion has nothing to do with being law-abiding -- that's just a red herring. Liberals, conservatives, and libertarians can be law-abiding -- it is what one thinks about the use of force that determines where one is politically. It is about the nature of government in a free society, in relation to what Jesus taught about the use of force and the use of good. I say that Jesus taught that voluntary goodness from the heart was the way to go, not the government force of liberalism. Charity, not bureacracy backed up by guns if you do not pay. Yes we should pay, but no we should not advocate a larger government yoke over anyone.
The King James version does not speak of most of what you are suggesting about "free societies" and the rest you are taking all out of context. You have no scripture from the KJV to back up any of your opinion here; it's all non-scriptural. There were no free societies back then, they didn't exist so there's no way he could have been on the libertarian side of things.
But there were tyrants (Caesars and kings like Herod) who did cruel, unspeakable things to Christians and others and Jesus said turn the other cheek. He told the people don't worry about taxes at all. He also admonished a disciple for pulling a sword out and cutting a man's ear off who was clearly trying to arrest Jesus unjustly, but Jesus knew the law of the world. He said do not fight the powers that be as this is their world, not a child of God's. But you think Jesus was talking about freedoms and liberties. Ok.
But if you believe Jesus was more of a libertarian thinking about government and "rights" than socialism and liberalism where people were admonished to submit to all authority, don't fight and not worry about things on this earth because their reward was in Heaven, then I'll leave you to your personal beliefs about that.
I'm going to stop because you've won. Given all the current translations of the Bible I'm sure you could find one that backs your point up eventually.
Is it me or do a certain someone's positions here seem overly motivated by greed?
I also like the "change the definition of the word so it fits my argument" tactic. Well played, Fisher. Well played.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
All government is force. In a free society, government is that which we choose to force one another to do. Jesus was speaking in terms of a society where the people did not choose their government. He was, if anything, a law abiding libertarian in everything he taught. He didn't say much about government per se, but He did say enough about humans and force.
he did not believe in using force to make people do good for one another. That is the cornerstone of liberalism, replacing freeddom over the choice to help others with force.
I see nothing in Jesus taught that says that.
As I said, the closest thing we can see He was was a law-abiding libertarian.
This discussion has nothing to do with being law-abiding -- that's just a red herring. Liberals, conservatives, and libertarians can be law-abiding -- it is what one thinks about the use of force that determines where one is politically.
It is about the nature of government in a free society, in relation to what Jesus taught about the use of force and the use of good. I say that Jesus taught that voluntary goodness from the heart was the way to go, not the government force of liberalism.
Charity, not bureacracy backed up by guns if you do not pay. Yes we should pay, but no we should not advocate a larger government yoke over anyone.
The King James version does not speak of most of what you are suggesting about "free societies" and the rest you are taking all out of context. You have no scripture from the KJV to back up any of your opinion here; it's all non-scriptural. There were no free societies back then, they didn't exist so there's no way he could have been on the libertarian side of things.
But there were tyrants (Caesars and kings like Herod) who did cruel, unspeakable things to Christians and others and Jesus said turn the other cheek. He told the people don't worry about taxes at all. He also admonished a disciple for pulling a sword out and cutting a man's ear off who was clearly trying to arrest Jesus unjustly, but Jesus knew the law of the world. He said do not fight the powers that be as this is their world, not a child of God's. But you think Jesus was talking about freedoms and liberties. Ok.
But if you believe Jesus was more of a libertarian thinking about government and "rights" than socialism and liberalism where people were admonished to submit to all authority, don't fight and not worry about things on this earth because their reward was in Heaven, then I'll leave you to your personal beliefs about that.
I'm going to stop because you've won. Given all the current translations of the Bible I'm sure you could find one that backs your point up eventually.
I don't care which translation you use, I like a lot of them, and I think I am on pretty solid ground, although I am not arguing what you seem to be arguing against, as usual.
This isnt about winning or losing.
This is about: was Jesus a liberal? That is what someone said, and I said no, Jesus, by His behavior, by what He endorsed, admonished, and taught, can not be shown to be what would be alled a "liberal" in today's world" that is, someone who believes in using the brute force of the state to perform altruistic acts.
No, Jesus never addressed such issues in terms of modernity and modern free societies, but He did address covetousnes. he addressed treating others as you would have them treat you, and I do not think that, if people were free to do as they please, that He would advocate using the brute force of state the way modern liberals do.
I don't think He would be with the conservatives on a great many things either.
Now how would He say we should deal with being neither a liberal nor a conservative? Obey all laws. Change hearts and minds through love, same as anything else. The same reason I do not believe He would advocate force, as liberals do, to get people to do good works for one another.
All government is force. In a free society, government is that which we choose to force one another to do. Jesus was speaking in terms of a society where the people did not choose their government. He was, if anything, a law abiding libertarian in everything he taught. He didn't say much about government per se, but He did say enough about humans and force.
he did not believe in using force to make people do good for one another. That is the cornerstone of liberalism, replacing freeddom over the choice to help others with force.
I see nothing in Jesus taught that says that.
As I said, the closest thing we can see He was was a law-abiding libertarian.
This discussion has nothing to do with being law-abiding -- that's just a red herring. Liberals, conservatives, and libertarians can be law-abiding -- it is what one thinks about the use of force that determines where one is politically.
It is about the nature of government in a free society, in relation to what Jesus taught about the use of force and the use of good. I say that Jesus taught that voluntary goodness from the heart was the way to go, not the government force of liberalism.
Charity, not bureacracy backed up by guns if you do not pay. Yes we should pay, but no we should not advocate a larger government yoke over anyone.
The King James version does not speak of most of what you are suggesting about "free societies" and the rest you are taking all out of context. You have no scripture from the KJV to back up any of your opinion here; it's all non-scriptural. There were no free societies back then, they didn't exist so there's no way he could have been on the libertarian side of things.
But there were tyrants (Caesars and kings like Herod) who did cruel, unspeakable things to Christians and others and Jesus said turn the other cheek. He told the people don't worry about taxes at all. He also admonished a disciple for pulling a sword out and cutting a man's ear off who was clearly trying to arrest Jesus unjustly, but Jesus knew the law of the world. He said do not fight the powers that be as this is their world, not a child of God's. But you think Jesus was talking about freedoms and liberties. Ok.
But if you believe Jesus was more of a libertarian thinking about government and "rights" than socialism and liberalism where people were admonished to submit to all authority, don't fight and not worry about things on this earth because their reward was in Heaven, then I'll leave you to your personal beliefs about that.
I'm going to stop because you've won. Given all the current translations of the Bible I'm sure you could find one that backs your point up eventually.
I don't care which translation you use, I like a lot of them, and I think I am on pretty solid ground, although I am not arguing what you seem to be arguing against, as usual.
This isnt about winning or losing.
This is about: was Jesus a liberal? That is what someone said, and I said no, Jesus, by His behavior, by what He endorsed, admonished, and taught, can not be shown to be what would be alled a "liberal" in today's world" that is, someone who believes in using the brute force of the state to perform altruistic acts.
No, Jesus never addressed such issues in terms of modernity and modern free societies, but He did address covetousnes. he addressed treating others as you would have them treat you, and I do not think that, if people were free to do as they please, that He would advocate using the brute force of state the way modern liberals do.
I don't think He would be with the conservatives on a great many things either.
Now how would He say we should deal with being neither a liberal nor a conservative? Obey all laws. Change hearts and minds through love, same as anything else. The same reason I do not believe He would advocate force, as liberals do, to get people to do good works for one another.
Liberals advocating brute force... um yah, that's a new one to me since every war since WW2 has been started and advocated by republicans. Thanks for your oh so brilliant insight into Liberal thinking. You can put your fingers back into your ears now.
All government is force. In a free society, government is that which we choose to force one another to do. Jesus was speaking in terms of a society where the people did not choose their government. He was, if anything, a law abiding libertarian in everything he taught. He didn't say much about government per se, but He did say enough about humans and force.
he did not believe in using force to make people do good for one another. That is the cornerstone of liberalism, replacing freeddom over the choice to help others with force.
I see nothing in Jesus taught that says that.
As I said, the closest thing we can see He was was a law-abiding libertarian.
This discussion has nothing to do with being law-abiding -- that's just a red herring. Liberals, conservatives, and libertarians can be law-abiding -- it is what one thinks about the use of force that determines where one is politically.
It is about the nature of government in a free society, in relation to what Jesus taught about the use of force and the use of good. I say that Jesus taught that voluntary goodness from the heart was the way to go, not the government force of liberalism.
Charity, not bureacracy backed up by guns if you do not pay. Yes we should pay, but no we should not advocate a larger government yoke over anyone.
The King James version does not speak of most of what you are suggesting about "free societies" and the rest you are taking all out of context. You have no scripture from the KJV to back up any of your opinion here; it's all non-scriptural. There were no free societies back then, they didn't exist so there's no way he could have been on the libertarian side of things.
But there were tyrants (Caesars and kings like Herod) who did cruel, unspeakable things to Christians and others and Jesus said turn the other cheek. He told the people don't worry about taxes at all. He also admonished a disciple for pulling a sword out and cutting a man's ear off who was clearly trying to arrest Jesus unjustly, but Jesus knew the law of the world. He said do not fight the powers that be as this is their world, not a child of God's. But you think Jesus was talking about freedoms and liberties. Ok.
But if you believe Jesus was more of a libertarian thinking about government and "rights" than socialism and liberalism where people were admonished to submit to all authority, don't fight and not worry about things on this earth because their reward was in Heaven, then I'll leave you to your personal beliefs about that.
I'm going to stop because you've won. Given all the current translations of the Bible I'm sure you could find one that backs your point up eventually.
I don't care which translation you use, I like a lot of them, and I think I am on pretty solid ground, although I am not arguing what you seem to be arguing against, as usual.
This isnt about winning or losing.
This is about: was Jesus a liberal? That is what someone said, and I said no, Jesus, by His behavior, by what He endorsed, admonished, and taught, can not be shown to be what would be alled a "liberal" in today's world" that is, someone who believes in using the brute force of the state to perform altruistic acts.
No, Jesus never addressed such issues in terms of modernity and modern free societies, but He did address covetousnes. he addressed treating others as you would have them treat you, and I do not think that, if people were free to do as they please, that He would advocate using the brute force of state the way modern liberals do.
I don't think He would be with the conservatives on a great many things either.
Now how would He say we should deal with being neither a liberal nor a conservative? Obey all laws. Change hearts and minds through love, same as anything else. The same reason I do not believe He would advocate force, as liberals do, to get people to do good works for one another.
Liberals advocating brute force... um yah, that's a new one to me since every war since WW2 has been started and advocated by republicans. Thanks for your oh so brilliant insight into Liberal thinking. You can put your fingers back into your ears now.
All government is brute force. Humans can deal with one another in two ways: voluntary transactions (the market) or force (government). The larger the role and power of government in our lives, the larger the amount of brute force we assign to getting things done.
Modern liberalism, in general, wants to replace voluntary interchange with force. That's what it IS whether one wants to admit it or not.
Is it me or do a certain someone's positions here seem overly motivated by greed? I also like the "change the definition of the word so it fits my argument" tactic. Well played, Fisher. Well played.
Where did I do that? I believe that one of the distingushing characteristics of modern liberalism is the willingness to use the force of government to take the income of one person and give it to another -- transfer payments. That is something that distingusihes liberals from libertarians and conservatives.
I can not see Jesus believing in that -- therefore He is not a modern liberal.
After reading scripture for many years, I have come to feel that Jesus was neither liberal nor conservative, but was sort of a law-abiding, peaceful anarchist. That puts the Lord of All in the libertarian camp, and He is a welcome addition into our tent.
Is it me or do a certain someone's positions here seem overly motivated by greed? I also like the "change the definition of the word so it fits my argument" tactic. Well played, Fisher. Well played.
Where did I do that? I believe that one of the distingushing characteristics of modern liberalism is the willingness to use the force of government to take the income of one person and give it to another -- transfer payments. That is something that distingusihes liberals from libertarians and conservatives.
I can not see Jesus believing in that -- therefore He is not a modern liberal.
After reading scripture for many years, I have come to feel that Jesus was neither liberal nor conservative, but was sort of a law-abiding, peaceful anarchist. That puts the Lord of All in the libertarian camp, and He is a welcome addition into our tent.
Yeah. "YOU BELIEVE" that modern libruls just want to take your money. Because you're greedy and paranoid.
I'm going to enlighten you as to certain aspects of WHY taxes are not the worst thing in the world -- because they go to pay for things that the private sector is either unwilling or incapable of doing effectively, without fucking people over or destroying the environment.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
Is it me or do a certain someone's positions here seem overly motivated by greed? I also like the "change the definition of the word so it fits my argument" tactic. Well played, Fisher. Well played.
Where did I do that? I believe that one of the distingushing characteristics of modern liberalism is the willingness to use the force of government to take the income of one person and give it to another -- transfer payments. That is something that distingusihes liberals from libertarians and conservatives.
I can not see Jesus believing in that -- therefore He is not a modern liberal.
After reading scripture for many years, I have come to feel that Jesus was neither liberal nor conservative, but was sort of a law-abiding, peaceful anarchist. That puts the Lord of All in the libertarian camp, and He is a welcome addition into our tent.
Yeah. "YOU BELIEVE" that modern libruls just want to take your money. Because you're greedy and paranoid.
I'm going to enlighten you as to certain aspects of WHY taxes are not the worst thing in the world -- because they go to pay for things that the private sector is either unwilling or incapable of doing effectively, without fucking people over or destroying the environment.
Ah, more ad hominem. I believe what I beleieve because of ME. Not because of what liberals advocate -- like what YOU advocated in the next sentence. I'm not greedy. I'm not the one that wants to take people's money by force.
It doesnt matter WHY you advocate taking people's money by force and doing really nice things with it, I still don't think jesus would agree with you for wanting to do that.
Is it me or do a certain someone's positions here seem overly motivated by greed? I also like the "change the definition of the word so it fits my argument" tactic. Well played, Fisher. Well played.
Where did I do that? I believe that one of the distingushing characteristics of modern liberalism is the willingness to use the force of government to take the income of one person and give it to another -- transfer payments. That is something that distingusihes liberals from libertarians and conservatives.
I can not see Jesus believing in that -- therefore He is not a modern liberal.
After reading scripture for many years, I have come to feel that Jesus was neither liberal nor conservative, but was sort of a law-abiding, peaceful anarchist. That puts the Lord of All in the libertarian camp, and He is a welcome addition into our tent.
Yeah. "YOU BELIEVE" that modern libruls just want to take your money. Because you're greedy and paranoid.
I'm going to enlighten you as to certain aspects of WHY taxes are not the worst thing in the world -- because they go to pay for things that the private sector is either unwilling or incapable of doing effectively, without fucking people over or destroying the environment.
Ah, more ad hominem. I believe what I beleieve because of ME. Not because of what liberals advocate -- like what YOU advocated in the next sentence. I'm not greedy. I'm not the one that wants to take people's money by force.
It doesnt matter WHY you advocate taking people's money by force and doing really nice things with it, I still don't think jesus would agree with you for wanting to do that.
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's ..."
Also, stop whining. Don't like "ad hominem"? I don't give a rat's ass.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
<Clearly sees Fishermage has objection to anything he doesn't believe and an unwillingness to change and abstains from a further discussion of his biased belief system, no matter how untrue it might be.>
Please, by all means erect that Shrine to Reagan, Bush, and Bush Jr, there's your holy trinity right there. Clearly words like I'm wrong or You're right shall never be utter from those lips, there's a your first commandant right there. 'Oh, Lord thank you for giving me all the answers, now I will take care of below and let you sort out the bodies, my will be done', there's your Lord's prayer.
You can sit there and take crap about liberals all day, but it doesn't change the fact that NEITHER conservatives or liberals haven't gotten it right. The duality between the two sides of the same coin are the choices that fate will follow, but only people like you think you have been given a divine mandate from the heavens to see only the truth. It makes me so glad people like yourself don't run the world, because we'd all be dead within the year.
Is it me or do a certain someone's positions here seem overly motivated by greed? I also like the "change the definition of the word so it fits my argument" tactic. Well played, Fisher. Well played.
Where did I do that? I believe that one of the distingushing characteristics of modern liberalism is the willingness to use the force of government to take the income of one person and give it to another -- transfer payments. That is something that distingusihes liberals from libertarians and conservatives.
I can not see Jesus believing in that -- therefore He is not a modern liberal.
After reading scripture for many years, I have come to feel that Jesus was neither liberal nor conservative, but was sort of a law-abiding, peaceful anarchist. That puts the Lord of All in the libertarian camp, and He is a welcome addition into our tent.
Yeah. "YOU BELIEVE" that modern libruls just want to take your money. Because you're greedy and paranoid.
I'm going to enlighten you as to certain aspects of WHY taxes are not the worst thing in the world -- because they go to pay for things that the private sector is either unwilling or incapable of doing effectively, without fucking people over or destroying the environment.
Ah, more ad hominem. I believe what I beleieve because of ME. Not because of what liberals advocate -- like what YOU advocated in the next sentence. I'm not greedy. I'm not the one that wants to take people's money by force.
It doesnt matter WHY you advocate taking people's money by force and doing really nice things with it, I still don't think jesus would agree with you for wanting to do that.
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's ..."
Also, stop whining. Don't like "ad hominem"? I don't give a rat's ass.
Believing that one should pay one's taxes is not the same belief as believing that one should impose taxes on one's fellow human beings for the purpose of taking money from one human and giving it to another.
It's not that I don't "like" ad hominem -- they just don't make your argument any stronger.
If you think Bush using biblical prophecy to dictate American foriegn policy was strange, everyone remember Ronald and Nancy Reagan and her psychics?
Joan Quigley (born April 10, 1927), of San Francisco, is an astrologer best known for her astrological advice to the Reagan White House in the 1980s. Quigley was born in Kansas City, Missouri.
She was called on by First Lady Nancy Reagan in 1981 after John Hinckley's attempted assassination of the president, and stayed on as the White House astrologer in secret until being outed in 1988 by ousted former chief of staff Donald Regan.
Or Jeanne Dixon in the White House for years as well?
America truly has some deep, dark closets when it comes to Presidental advice. Voodoo economics indeed, lol.
<Clearly sees Fishermage has objection to anything he doesn't believe and an unwillingness to change and abstains from a further discussion of his biased belief system, no matter how untrue it might be.> Please, by all means erect that Shrine to Reagan, Bush, and Bush Jr, there's your holy trinity right there. Clearly words like I'm wrong or You're right shall never be utter from those lips, there's a your first commandant right there. 'Oh, Lord thank you for giving me all the answers, now I will take care of below and let you sort out the bodies, my will be done', there's your Lord's prayer. You can sit there and take crap about liberals all day, but it doesn't change the fact that NEITHER conservatives or liberals haven't gotten it right. The duality between the two sides of the same coin are the choices that fate will follow, but only people like you think you have been given a divine mandate from the heavens to see only the truth. It makes me so glad people like yourself don't run the world, because we'd all be dead within the year. Good day to you.
<Clearly sees Fishermage has objection to anything he doesn't believe and an unwillingness to change and abstains from a further discussion of his biased belief system, no matter how untrue it might be.> Please, by all means erect that Shrine to Reagan, Bush, and Bush Jr, there's your holy trinity right there. Clearly words like I'm wrong or You're right shall never be utter from those lips, there's a your first commandant right there. 'Oh, Lord thank you for giving me all the answers, now I will take care of below and let you sort out the bodies, my will be done', there's your Lord's prayer. You can sit there and take crap about liberals all day, but it doesn't change the fact that NEITHER conservatives or liberals haven't gotten it right. The duality between the two sides of the same coin are the choices that fate will follow, but only people like you think you have been given a divine mandate from the heavens to see only the truth. It makes me so glad people like yourself don't run the world, because we'd all be dead within the year. Good day to you.
Hmm. You've obviously not read a thing I've written. Ever. Anywhere.
I know I said I was going to ignore you Fishermage, but I guess since you chimed back in after so long, than I will go right ahead and say this.
No, quite unforutnate and quite the opposite I was indeed reading your posts, hence my sentiments and hence my statements. I read them, and I commented on them. Clearly you are the one who isn't reading because on several occassions, I quoted your insane close minded beliefs, while you failed time and time again to acknowledge what anyone else was saying and by no means not just my own, but rather every ones.
My deepest apologies if you are offended, but quite frankly that's a false apology because clearly you'll never allow yourself to hear a dissenting opinion without trying to argue it, so I can tell you'd never accept an apology even if it is sincere.
No new perspective at this moment, but when the presidental campaigns started between Al Gore and George bush in 2000, I first saw a bush at a friends house. The very first words out of my mouth, was to say that bush was the Anti-christ, not that I follow that line of belief, but nevertheless I said it. And I have kept saying it, all the years he was in office. And if you put the least little thought into his 'accomplishments' than you have to realize that no other president in the entirety of American history has done more to damage the world at large and the US. He's ruined foriegn relations, he's deeply unsettled the middle east, he ruined not only our economy but severely damaged the world enconomy through his mismanagement and neglect. He increased the debt through unncessary wars and unprecdented military spending, and he has put the world on the edge of not one but several nuclear disasters. The fact that he thought himself a holy crusader only reinforces my earlier statement, because it would be a religious zealot that would bring the world close to it's end. Because only they can so DILLUDE themselves into thinking that they have a divine mandate to save humanity from itself while blindly closing their eyes against anything that resembles the truth.
Funny ,I thought the same thing when Obama was elected. and wow has he done more damage than any other president. He hates america and if you can't see that your blind.
He has cost more jobs than any other president and he will go down in history as the worst president ever.
played M59,UO,lineage,EQ,Daoc,Entropia,SWG,Horizons,Lineage2.EQ2,Vangaurd,Irth online, DarkFall,Star Trek and many others that did not make the cut or i just plain forgetting about.
Comments
Jesus never advocated taking the income from one person by force to give to another person by force -- therefore he was not a liberal in the modern sense of the word.
He wasn't a conservative either though.
Your wrong, there are sections in the new testiment where it spoke of jesus telling the rich to give all their worldly possessions to the poor.
That's advocating charity, not liberalism. He does not advocate people forcing one another to give away their possessions.
No one in the present Obama administration giving income by "force" either, so I'm not sure what this is about you mention.
If the federal law is changed to where the top 1% of people who hold ALL wealth in the United States is now that they must pay 50%, no one did this by "force". It was done by law and as leaders they were ordained by God. Since there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids a 50% tax on the upper 1%, it is therefore perfectly lawful and those following the Word must adhere to it, because it is God's wishes. This is from the New Testament which most conservatives go by.
Paul did say-
"Therefore submit yourselfs to EVERY ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, or governers, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men- as fre, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants to God."
Mathhew 22:17-
"Tell us, therefore, what do You think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?"
"But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, "Why do you test Me, you hypocrites?
Show me the TAX money." So they brought him a denarius (day's wage)
And He said to them, "Whose image and inscription is this?"
They said to Him, "Caesar's." And He said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
So clearly, Jesus thinks taxes are nothing to worry about and one should realize whatever the law says, that is the law.
"TO MICHAEL!"
That's "Classical Liberalism," which is now called libertarianism. Modern liberalism believs in using the power of the state to compel people to do good things for one another. That's something completely the opposite of your definition.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Jesus never advocated taking the income from one person by force to give to another person by force -- therefore he was not a liberal in the modern sense of the word.
He wasn't a conservative either though.
Your wrong, there are sections in the new testiment where it spoke of jesus telling the rich to give all their worldly possessions to the poor.
That's advocating charity, not liberalism. He does not advocate people forcing one another to give away their possessions.
No one in the present Obama administration giving income by "force" either, so I'm not sure what this is about you mention.
If the federal law is changed to where the top 1% of people who hold ALL wealth in the United States is now that they must pay 50%, no one did this by "force". It was done by law and as leaders they were ordained by God. Since there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids a 50% tax on the upper 1%, it is therefore perfectly lawful and those following the Word must adhere to it, because it is God's wishes. This is from the New Testament which most conservatives go by.
Paul did say-
"Therefore submit yourselfs to EVERY ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, or governers, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men- as fre, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants to God."
Mathhew 22:17-
"Tell us, therefore, what do You think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?"
"But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, "Why do you test Me, you hypocrites?
Show me the TAX money." So they brought him a denarius (day's wage)
And He said to them, "Whose image and inscription is this?"
They said to Him, "Caesar's." And He said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
So clearly, Jesus thinks taxes are nothing to worry about and one should realize whatever the law says, that is the law.
Neither Jesus nor Paul ever advocate the people using the power of the state to compel that state to take the icnome from one group and give it to another.
In fact, they advocated the opposite -- individual action through changed hearts and minds.
fishermage.blogspot.com
That's "Classical Liberalism," which is now called libertarianism. Modern liberalism believs in using the power of the state to compel people to do good things for one another. That's something completely the opposite of your definition.
It's not my definition. I guess the collected contributors to wikipedia don't know what they are talking about. You should write them a note condemning them for straying from the gospel of fishermage.
What is the sound of one hair splitting?
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
That's "Classical Liberalism," which is now called libertarianism. Modern liberalism believs in using the power of the state to compel people to do good things for one another. That's something completely the opposite of your definition.
It's not my definition. I guess the collected contributors to wikipedia don't know what they are talking about. You should write them a note condemning them for straying from the gospel of fishermage.
What is the sound of one hair splitting?
I disagree with the definition you gave being a definition of modern liberalism. Do some more wiki surfing, read up on classical liberalism, and how it is distingusihed from modern liberalism. You will find that the defintiion YOU shared is closer to the European definition of liberalism, which is closer to what Americans call libertarians.
Look at your defintion. That doesn't sound like any of the liberalks who post here. It doesn't sound like any liberals in public life; no, in fact taht definition applies to quite a few conservatives, but not completely themn either. Nope, that definition you gave shows the opinions held by today's libertarians.
That's not splitting a hair at all -- the meaning of the word liberal has shifted. I wish it hadn't, because people like me are the real liberals, but it no longer means what you shared from wiki.
fishermage.blogspot.com
That's "Classical Liberalism," which is now called libertarianism. Modern liberalism believs in using the power of the state to compel people to do good things for one another. That's something completely the opposite of your definition.
It's not my definition. I guess the collected contributors to wikipedia don't know what they are talking about. You should write them a note condemning them for straying from the gospel of fishermage.
What is the sound of one hair splitting?
I disagree with the definition you gave being a definition of modern liberalism. Do some more wiki surfing, read up on classical liberalism, and how it is distingusihed from modern liberalism. You will find that the defintiion YOU shared is closer to the European definition of liberalism, which is closer to what Americans call libertarians.
Look at your defintion. That doesn't sound like any of the liberalks who post here. It doesn't sound like any liberals in public life; no, in fact taht definition applies to quite a few conservatives, but not completely themn either. Nope, that definition you gave shows the opinions held by today's libertarians.
That's not splitting a hair at all -- the meaning of the word liberal has shifted. I wish it hadn't, because people like me are the real liberals, but it no longer means what you shared from wiki.
I disagree with the definition of something, therefore it must not be true.
Like stealing. I like to call it permanent borrowing.
[Mod Edit]
The Official God FAQ
And He said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
Jesus advocated nothing about the government whatsoever. His advocation was that people do whatever the law says. That's called submission to the rule of law. If the law says you pay 35%, Jesus believed you should pay 35%. His opinion is that whatever was law, that's it. So I have no idea what you are again referring to when you say "forcing".
There is no one forcing anyone to pay taxes except... the government. The people do not decide what the tax rate is. Lawmakers do that.
Christians running around complaining about taxes are actually going against Jesus' wishes. Jesus did not advocate "Fight the Power" and call for secession. He said give whatever the government says you are supposed to give. And yet look at what evangelists have been doing; stealing from congregations and AVOIDING paying taxes.
Clearly, they have some 'splainin to do when this is all over as to how they have been leading the sheep.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Jesus advocated nothing about the government [c]whatsoever[/b]. His advocation was that people do whatever the law says. That's called submission to the rule of law. If the law says you pay 35%, Jesus believed you should pay 35%. His opinion is that whatever was law, that's it. So I have no idea what you are again referring to when you say "forcing".
There is no one forcing anyone to pay taxes except... the government. The people do not decide what the tax rate is. Lawmakers do that.
Christians running around complaining about taxes are actually going against Jesus' wishes. Jesus did not advocate "Fight the Power" and call for secession. He said give whatever the government says you are supposed to give. And yet look at what evangelists have been doing; stealing from congregations and AVOIDING paying taxes.
Clearly, they have some 'splainin to do when this is all over as to how they have been leading the sheep.
All government is force. In a free society, government is that which we choose to force one another to do.
Jesus was speaking in terms of a society where the people did not choose their government. He was, if anything, a law abiding libertarian in everything he taught. He didn't say much about government per se, but He did say enough about humans and force.
he did not believe in using force to make people do good for one another. That is the cornerstone of liberalism, replacing freeddom over the choice to help others with force.
I see nothing in Jesus taught that says that.
As I said, the closest thing we can see He was was a law-abiding libertarian.
This discussion has nothing to do with being law-abiding -- that's just a red herring. Liberals, conservatives, and libertarians can be law-abiding -- it is what one thinks about the use of force that determines where one is politically.
It is about the nature of government in a free society, in relation to what Jesus taught about the use of force and the use of good. I say that Jesus taught that voluntary goodness from the heart was the way to go, not the government force of liberalism.
Charity, not bureacracy backed up by guns if you do not pay. Yes we should pay, but no we should not advocate a larger government yoke over anyone.
fishermage.blogspot.com
The King James version does not speak of most of what you are suggesting about "free societies" and the rest you are taking all out of context. You have no scripture from the KJV to back up any of your opinion here; it's all non-scriptural. There were no free societies back then, they didn't exist so there's no way he could have been on the libertarian side of things.
But there were tyrants (Caesars and kings like Herod) who did cruel, unspeakable things to Christians and others and Jesus said turn the other cheek. He told the people don't worry about taxes at all. He also admonished a disciple for pulling a sword out and cutting a man's ear off who was clearly trying to arrest Jesus unjustly, but Jesus knew the law of the world. He said do not fight the powers that be as this is their world, not a child of God's. But you think Jesus was talking about freedoms and liberties. Ok.
But if you believe Jesus was more of a libertarian thinking about government and "rights" than socialism and liberalism where people were admonished to submit to all authority, don't fight and not worry about things on this earth because their reward was in Heaven, then I'll leave you to your personal beliefs about that.
I'm going to stop because you've won. Given all the current translations of the Bible I'm sure you could find one that backs your point up eventually.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Is it me or do a certain someone's positions here seem overly motivated by greed?
I also like the "change the definition of the word so it fits my argument" tactic. Well played, Fisher. Well played.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
The King James version does not speak of most of what you are suggesting about "free societies" and the rest you are taking all out of context. You have no scripture from the KJV to back up any of your opinion here; it's all non-scriptural. There were no free societies back then, they didn't exist so there's no way he could have been on the libertarian side of things.
But there were tyrants (Caesars and kings like Herod) who did cruel, unspeakable things to Christians and others and Jesus said turn the other cheek. He told the people don't worry about taxes at all. He also admonished a disciple for pulling a sword out and cutting a man's ear off who was clearly trying to arrest Jesus unjustly, but Jesus knew the law of the world. He said do not fight the powers that be as this is their world, not a child of God's. But you think Jesus was talking about freedoms and liberties. Ok.
But if you believe Jesus was more of a libertarian thinking about government and "rights" than socialism and liberalism where people were admonished to submit to all authority, don't fight and not worry about things on this earth because their reward was in Heaven, then I'll leave you to your personal beliefs about that.
I'm going to stop because you've won. Given all the current translations of the Bible I'm sure you could find one that backs your point up eventually.
I don't care which translation you use, I like a lot of them, and I think I am on pretty solid ground, although I am not arguing what you seem to be arguing against, as usual.
This isnt about winning or losing.
This is about: was Jesus a liberal? That is what someone said, and I said no, Jesus, by His behavior, by what He endorsed, admonished, and taught, can not be shown to be what would be alled a "liberal" in today's world" that is, someone who believes in using the brute force of the state to perform altruistic acts.
No, Jesus never addressed such issues in terms of modernity and modern free societies, but He did address covetousnes. he addressed treating others as you would have them treat you, and I do not think that, if people were free to do as they please, that He would advocate using the brute force of state the way modern liberals do.
I don't think He would be with the conservatives on a great many things either.
Now how would He say we should deal with being neither a liberal nor a conservative? Obey all laws. Change hearts and minds through love, same as anything else. The same reason I do not believe He would advocate force, as liberals do, to get people to do good works for one another.
fishermage.blogspot.com
The King James version does not speak of most of what you are suggesting about "free societies" and the rest you are taking all out of context. You have no scripture from the KJV to back up any of your opinion here; it's all non-scriptural. There were no free societies back then, they didn't exist so there's no way he could have been on the libertarian side of things.
But there were tyrants (Caesars and kings like Herod) who did cruel, unspeakable things to Christians and others and Jesus said turn the other cheek. He told the people don't worry about taxes at all. He also admonished a disciple for pulling a sword out and cutting a man's ear off who was clearly trying to arrest Jesus unjustly, but Jesus knew the law of the world. He said do not fight the powers that be as this is their world, not a child of God's. But you think Jesus was talking about freedoms and liberties. Ok.
But if you believe Jesus was more of a libertarian thinking about government and "rights" than socialism and liberalism where people were admonished to submit to all authority, don't fight and not worry about things on this earth because their reward was in Heaven, then I'll leave you to your personal beliefs about that.
I'm going to stop because you've won. Given all the current translations of the Bible I'm sure you could find one that backs your point up eventually.
I don't care which translation you use, I like a lot of them, and I think I am on pretty solid ground, although I am not arguing what you seem to be arguing against, as usual.
This isnt about winning or losing.
This is about: was Jesus a liberal? That is what someone said, and I said no, Jesus, by His behavior, by what He endorsed, admonished, and taught, can not be shown to be what would be alled a "liberal" in today's world" that is, someone who believes in using the brute force of the state to perform altruistic acts.
No, Jesus never addressed such issues in terms of modernity and modern free societies, but He did address covetousnes. he addressed treating others as you would have them treat you, and I do not think that, if people were free to do as they please, that He would advocate using the brute force of state the way modern liberals do.
I don't think He would be with the conservatives on a great many things either.
Now how would He say we should deal with being neither a liberal nor a conservative? Obey all laws. Change hearts and minds through love, same as anything else. The same reason I do not believe He would advocate force, as liberals do, to get people to do good works for one another.
Liberals advocating brute force... um yah, that's a new one to me since every war since WW2 has been started and advocated by republicans. Thanks for your oh so brilliant insight into Liberal thinking. You can put your fingers back into your ears now.
The King James version does not speak of most of what you are suggesting about "free societies" and the rest you are taking all out of context. You have no scripture from the KJV to back up any of your opinion here; it's all non-scriptural. There were no free societies back then, they didn't exist so there's no way he could have been on the libertarian side of things.
But there were tyrants (Caesars and kings like Herod) who did cruel, unspeakable things to Christians and others and Jesus said turn the other cheek. He told the people don't worry about taxes at all. He also admonished a disciple for pulling a sword out and cutting a man's ear off who was clearly trying to arrest Jesus unjustly, but Jesus knew the law of the world. He said do not fight the powers that be as this is their world, not a child of God's. But you think Jesus was talking about freedoms and liberties. Ok.
But if you believe Jesus was more of a libertarian thinking about government and "rights" than socialism and liberalism where people were admonished to submit to all authority, don't fight and not worry about things on this earth because their reward was in Heaven, then I'll leave you to your personal beliefs about that.
I'm going to stop because you've won. Given all the current translations of the Bible I'm sure you could find one that backs your point up eventually.
I don't care which translation you use, I like a lot of them, and I think I am on pretty solid ground, although I am not arguing what you seem to be arguing against, as usual.
This isnt about winning or losing.
This is about: was Jesus a liberal? That is what someone said, and I said no, Jesus, by His behavior, by what He endorsed, admonished, and taught, can not be shown to be what would be alled a "liberal" in today's world" that is, someone who believes in using the brute force of the state to perform altruistic acts.
No, Jesus never addressed such issues in terms of modernity and modern free societies, but He did address covetousnes. he addressed treating others as you would have them treat you, and I do not think that, if people were free to do as they please, that He would advocate using the brute force of state the way modern liberals do.
I don't think He would be with the conservatives on a great many things either.
Now how would He say we should deal with being neither a liberal nor a conservative? Obey all laws. Change hearts and minds through love, same as anything else. The same reason I do not believe He would advocate force, as liberals do, to get people to do good works for one another.
Liberals advocating brute force... um yah, that's a new one to me since every war since WW2 has been started and advocated by republicans. Thanks for your oh so brilliant insight into Liberal thinking. You can put your fingers back into your ears now.
All government is brute force. Humans can deal with one another in two ways: voluntary transactions (the market) or force (government). The larger the role and power of government in our lives, the larger the amount of brute force we assign to getting things done.
Modern liberalism, in general, wants to replace voluntary interchange with force. That's what it IS whether one wants to admit it or not.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Where did I do that? I believe that one of the distingushing characteristics of modern liberalism is the willingness to use the force of government to take the income of one person and give it to another -- transfer payments. That is something that distingusihes liberals from libertarians and conservatives.
I can not see Jesus believing in that -- therefore He is not a modern liberal.
After reading scripture for many years, I have come to feel that Jesus was neither liberal nor conservative, but was sort of a law-abiding, peaceful anarchist. That puts the Lord of All in the libertarian camp, and He is a welcome addition into our tent.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Where did I do that? I believe that one of the distingushing characteristics of modern liberalism is the willingness to use the force of government to take the income of one person and give it to another -- transfer payments. That is something that distingusihes liberals from libertarians and conservatives.
I can not see Jesus believing in that -- therefore He is not a modern liberal.
After reading scripture for many years, I have come to feel that Jesus was neither liberal nor conservative, but was sort of a law-abiding, peaceful anarchist. That puts the Lord of All in the libertarian camp, and He is a welcome addition into our tent.
Yeah. "YOU BELIEVE" that modern libruls just want to take your money. Because you're greedy and paranoid.
I'm going to enlighten you as to certain aspects of WHY taxes are not the worst thing in the world -- because they go to pay for things that the private sector is either unwilling or incapable of doing effectively, without fucking people over or destroying the environment.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
Where did I do that? I believe that one of the distingushing characteristics of modern liberalism is the willingness to use the force of government to take the income of one person and give it to another -- transfer payments. That is something that distingusihes liberals from libertarians and conservatives.
I can not see Jesus believing in that -- therefore He is not a modern liberal.
After reading scripture for many years, I have come to feel that Jesus was neither liberal nor conservative, but was sort of a law-abiding, peaceful anarchist. That puts the Lord of All in the libertarian camp, and He is a welcome addition into our tent.
Yeah. "YOU BELIEVE" that modern libruls just want to take your money. Because you're greedy and paranoid.
I'm going to enlighten you as to certain aspects of WHY taxes are not the worst thing in the world -- because they go to pay for things that the private sector is either unwilling or incapable of doing effectively, without fucking people over or destroying the environment.
Ah, more ad hominem. I believe what I beleieve because of ME. Not because of what liberals advocate -- like what YOU advocated in the next sentence. I'm not greedy. I'm not the one that wants to take people's money by force.
It doesnt matter WHY you advocate taking people's money by force and doing really nice things with it, I still don't think jesus would agree with you for wanting to do that.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Where did I do that? I believe that one of the distingushing characteristics of modern liberalism is the willingness to use the force of government to take the income of one person and give it to another -- transfer payments. That is something that distingusihes liberals from libertarians and conservatives.
I can not see Jesus believing in that -- therefore He is not a modern liberal.
After reading scripture for many years, I have come to feel that Jesus was neither liberal nor conservative, but was sort of a law-abiding, peaceful anarchist. That puts the Lord of All in the libertarian camp, and He is a welcome addition into our tent.
Yeah. "YOU BELIEVE" that modern libruls just want to take your money. Because you're greedy and paranoid.
I'm going to enlighten you as to certain aspects of WHY taxes are not the worst thing in the world -- because they go to pay for things that the private sector is either unwilling or incapable of doing effectively, without fucking people over or destroying the environment.
Ah, more ad hominem. I believe what I beleieve because of ME. Not because of what liberals advocate -- like what YOU advocated in the next sentence. I'm not greedy. I'm not the one that wants to take people's money by force.
It doesnt matter WHY you advocate taking people's money by force and doing really nice things with it, I still don't think jesus would agree with you for wanting to do that.
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's ..."
Also, stop whining. Don't like "ad hominem"? I don't give a rat's ass.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
<Clearly sees Fishermage has objection to anything he doesn't believe and an unwillingness to change and abstains from a further discussion of his biased belief system, no matter how untrue it might be.>
Please, by all means erect that Shrine to Reagan, Bush, and Bush Jr, there's your holy trinity right there. Clearly words like I'm wrong or You're right shall never be utter from those lips, there's a your first commandant right there. 'Oh, Lord thank you for giving me all the answers, now I will take care of below and let you sort out the bodies, my will be done', there's your Lord's prayer.
You can sit there and take crap about liberals all day, but it doesn't change the fact that NEITHER conservatives or liberals haven't gotten it right. The duality between the two sides of the same coin are the choices that fate will follow, but only people like you think you have been given a divine mandate from the heavens to see only the truth. It makes me so glad people like yourself don't run the world, because we'd all be dead within the year.
Good day to you.
Where did I do that? I believe that one of the distingushing characteristics of modern liberalism is the willingness to use the force of government to take the income of one person and give it to another -- transfer payments. That is something that distingusihes liberals from libertarians and conservatives.
I can not see Jesus believing in that -- therefore He is not a modern liberal.
After reading scripture for many years, I have come to feel that Jesus was neither liberal nor conservative, but was sort of a law-abiding, peaceful anarchist. That puts the Lord of All in the libertarian camp, and He is a welcome addition into our tent.
Yeah. "YOU BELIEVE" that modern libruls just want to take your money. Because you're greedy and paranoid.
I'm going to enlighten you as to certain aspects of WHY taxes are not the worst thing in the world -- because they go to pay for things that the private sector is either unwilling or incapable of doing effectively, without fucking people over or destroying the environment.
Ah, more ad hominem. I believe what I beleieve because of ME. Not because of what liberals advocate -- like what YOU advocated in the next sentence. I'm not greedy. I'm not the one that wants to take people's money by force.
It doesnt matter WHY you advocate taking people's money by force and doing really nice things with it, I still don't think jesus would agree with you for wanting to do that.
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's ..."
Also, stop whining. Don't like "ad hominem"? I don't give a rat's ass.
Believing that one should pay one's taxes is not the same belief as believing that one should impose taxes on one's fellow human beings for the purpose of taking money from one human and giving it to another.
It's not that I don't "like" ad hominem -- they just don't make your argument any stronger.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Back on point, sorta...
If you think Bush using biblical prophecy to dictate American foriegn policy was strange, everyone remember Ronald and Nancy Reagan and her psychics?
Or Jeanne Dixon in the White House for years as well?
America truly has some deep, dark closets when it comes to Presidental advice. Voodoo economics indeed, lol.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Damn! I wish I had said that instead of you!
I got there first ^^.
Hmm. You've obviously not read a thing I've written. Ever. Anywhere.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I know I said I was going to ignore you Fishermage, but I guess since you chimed back in after so long, than I will go right ahead and say this.
No, quite unforutnate and quite the opposite I was indeed reading your posts, hence my sentiments and hence my statements. I read them, and I commented on them. Clearly you are the one who isn't reading because on several occassions, I quoted your insane close minded beliefs, while you failed time and time again to acknowledge what anyone else was saying and by no means not just my own, but rather every ones.
My deepest apologies if you are offended, but quite frankly that's a false apology because clearly you'll never allow yourself to hear a dissenting opinion without trying to argue it, so I can tell you'd never accept an apology even if it is sincere.
Funny ,I thought the same thing when Obama was elected. and wow has he done more damage than any other president. He hates america and if you can't see that your blind.
He has cost more jobs than any other president and he will go down in history as the worst president ever.
played M59,UO,lineage,EQ,Daoc,Entropia,SWG,Horizons,Lineage2.EQ2,Vangaurd,Irth online, DarkFall,Star Trek
and many others that did not make the cut or i just plain forgetting about.