Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: garebear on October 26, 2012, 05:24:30 AM
-
Serious question.
He would want to help the poor.
He would be anti-war.
He would favor universal healthcare.
What do you think?
-
Jesus would never vote for Obama.
-
Jesus would never vote for Obama.
Not the question. Start your own thread, please.
-
I'm not sure Jesus was for universal healthcare...he understood the concept of taxes, and what they're for....I'm sure Jesus would be smart enough to realize that Obama is a piece of shit Lib douchbag and run his campaign accordingly.
-
I'm not sure Jesus was for universal healthcare...he understood the concept of taxes, and what they're for....I'm sure Jesus would be smart enough to realize that Obama is a piece of shit Lib douchbag and run his campaign accordingly.
Hahaha.
-
Take this to religion board you pedo.
Go answer that PEDO thread about you sicko.
-
Take this to religion board you pedo.
Go answer that PEDO thread about you sicko.
If you are going to call me pedo, then I will do the same about you.
Why did you rape your niece?
BTW, it's about voting. That means it's political.
-
If you are going to call me pedo, then I will do the same about you.
Why did you rape your niece?
BTW, it's about voting. That means it's political.
You are the one in pics will kids and talking about it sicko.
-
You are the one in pics will kids and talking about it sicko.
Can I have a link please?
-
And outside of universal health care you think conservatives are against those things?
::)
Not wanting the govt to tell you what's right and what's wrong doesn't mean you don't believe in helping the poor.
Conservatives give more time and money to the poor then liberals do they just don't want to do it through taxes brainchild
-
And outside of universal health care you think conservatives are against those things?
::)
Not wanting the govt to tell you what's right and what's wrong doesn't mean you don't believe in helping the poor.
Conservatives give more time and money to the poor then liberals do they just don't want to do it through taxes brainchild
What about (AT LEAST) drastically decreasing the military?
-
What about (AT LEAST) drastically decreasing the military?
I don't really see that as an issue, do you believe Jesus would sit back and let innocent ppl get slaughtered?
One could make the case that a strong military could help prevent that.
-
I don't really see that as an issue, do you believe Jesus would sit back and let innocent ppl get slaughtered?
One could make the case that a strong military could help prevent that.
Interesting point, but I would have to disagree.
Jesus wouldn't believe in some brand of American exceptionalism, he would be in favor of the LEAST amount of people dying.
Since America has killed far more than Americans that have been killed (post-WWII), I can't see how your argument is valid.
-
Interesting point, but I would have to disagree.
Jesus wouldn't believe in some brand of American exceptionalism, he would be in favor of the LEAST amount of people dying.
Since America has killed far more than Americans that have been killed (post-WWII), I can't see how your argument is valid.
Really, he believed in Christian exceptionalism
Re-read that last sentence and rephrase it, that doesn't seem to make sense to me
-
Serious question.
He would want to help the poor.
He would be anti-war.
He would favor universal healthcare.
What do you think?
Jesus would never support "helping the poor" by taxing, soaking, stealing and redistributing from everyone else. He certainly wouldn't abide by the lower class being poor as an "occupation" or way of life for generation after generation. God helps those who help themselves. Jesus would support the free market. The best way to "help" poor people is to create private sector jobs and prevent leeches from gaming the system. The entire concept of poor between now and when Jesus lived is laughable. "Poor" people in the United States would be Kings in Jesus' day.
Jesus would never support "Universal Healthcare" which amounts to a tax increase on everyone who can afford to purchase health insurance-- whether they want it or not+ death panels comprised of bureaucratic bean counters who make trivial decisions on who lives or dies based on the cost.
As far as being anti war-- What does that mean exactly? Do you think Jesus would support never ever going to war?
-
Better question is:
Would the O.P. vote for Jesus knowing his stand on marriage, abortion and that his government would be a theocracy?
-
Better question is:
Would the O.P. vote for Jesus knowing his stand on marriage, abortion and that his government would be a theocracy?
Or targeted drone strikes without judicial oversight by picking names out of a deck of cards?
LOL!!!!!! Try to get an obama cult member to explain that one.
-
Better question is:
Would the O.P. vote for Jesus knowing his stand on marriage, abortion and that his government would be a theocracy?
Ah, now that's a good and fair question. Seriously.
I would need proof that there's an actual god, and that he's the son of said deity.
Then I would have to.
However, the evidence is lacking at this time. Just as it's lacking for Mohammed, Zeus, etc.
So, I can not base any decisions on something that's just in a book, or, failing that, something that gets approval to all like-minded people around me.
Until I'm dead, I reserve the right to think for myself.
-
Or targeted drone strikes without judicial oversight by picking names out of a deck of cards?
LOL!!!!!! Try to get an obama cult member to explain that one.
Yes, Jesus would definitely be against that.
Try to stay on topic.
That's not the point of the thread and you know it.
-
Jesus wouldnt get a single vote
They claim to be Christians but they are so far from it as you can be
They are closer to the devil than they are to Jesus
Dont help other people, let the poor starve and deny them healthcare and make war. Very christian ::)
-
Jesus wouldnt get a single vote
They claim to be Christians but they are so far from it as you can be
They are closer to the devil than they are to Jesus
Dont help other people, let the poor starve and deny them healthcare and make war. Very christian ::)
Christians tend to be conservative and as proven through study conservatives give more time and money to charities then liberals...sorry to burst your bubble whork
-
Jesus wouldnt get a single vote
They claim to be Christians but they are so far from it as you can be
They are closer to the devil than they are to Jesus
Dont help other people, let the poor starve and deny them healthcare and make war. Very christian ::)
In all fairness, I think he would ge about 1-2 percent.
Those people would be called traitor libtards, of course, but there would be a million or so.
Some Christians are for real. This is the nation that produced MLK, after all.
-
Whork has to be a gimmick....nobody is this retarded.
-
Christians tend to be conservative and as proven through study conservatives give more time and money to charities then liberals...sorry to burst your bubble whork
Actually, that's exactly my point.
They SAY they believe in the tenants of the Christian faith, but they don't practice them in any real sense.
Thanks for the help.
-
Ah, now that's a good and fair question. Seriously.
I would need proof that there's an actual god, and that he's the son of said deity.
Then I would have to.
However, the evidence is lacking at this time. Just as it's lacking for Mohammed, Zeus, etc.
So, I can not base any decisions on something that's just in a book, or, failing that, something that gets approval to all like-minded people around me.
Until I'm dead, I reserve the right to think for myself.
Ah, Jesus existed. Even Jews recognize it as such. The question that divides Jews and Christians is whether he was God or not.
Having said that, he did exist.
And as a teacher he had disciples. Those disciples repeated in the New Testament his teachings.
So based on what we know of his teachings, would you vote for him? I am not asking whether you believe in God or not.
I am asking, based on the teachings of Jesus and his apostles would you vote for him? Or anyone who held exactly the same views of Jesus regarding morality?
-
Actually, that's exactly my point.
They SAY they believe in the tenants of the Christian faith, but they don't practice them in any real sense.
Thanks for the help.
And you base this on the premise bc they don't want the govt telling them what to do they don't practice this?
Brilliant logic brainchild
Again privately conservatives give more time and money to the poor
-
Christians tend to be conservative and as proven through study conservatives give more time and money to charities then liberals...sorry to burst your bubble whork
Yes thats because conservatives claim to be christian.
I can claim to be a green elephant it doesnt make it true.
-
Ah, Jesus existed. Even Jews recognize it as such. The question that divides Jews and Christians is whether he was God or not.
Having said that, he did exist.
And as a teacher he had disciples. Those disciples repeated in the New Testament his teachings.
So based on what we know of his teachings, would you vote for him? I am not asking whether you believe in God or not.
I am asking, based on the teachings of Jesus and his apostles would you vote for him? Or anyone who held exaclty the same views of Jesus regarding morality?
So what if Jews believe in him? Does that validate anything? If so, why?
If I knew it to be true that there was a god, and Jesus was the son of that god, then of course I would believe it. I would have to for my own self-interest.
Clean up your argument.
-
Ah, Jesus existed. Even Jews recognize it as such. The question that divides Jews and Christians is whether he was God or not.
Having said that, he did exist.
And as a teacher he had disciples. Those disciples repeated in the New Testament his teachings.
So based on what we know of his teachings, would you vote for him? I am not asking whether you believe in God or not.
I am asking, based on the teachings of Jesus and his apostles would you vote for him? Or anyone who held exaclty the same views of Jesus regarding morality?
To be honest if Jesus had been in charge in WW2 we would all be speaking German by now
-
Not all....I don't. I was raised catholic....I worship the an oblong shaped brown ball and my wifes' ass.
-
Not all....I don't. I was raised catholic....I worship the an oblong shaped brown ball and my wifes' ass.
;D
-
I don't understand the oblong brown ball reference.
-
Football.....whatever. Didn't you move to China or sometthing.
-
And you base this on the premise bc they don't want the govt telling them what to do they don't practice this?
Brilliant logic brainchild
Again privately conservatives give more time and money to the poor
-
And you base this on the premise bc they don't want the govt telling them what to do they don't practice this?
Brilliant logic brainchild
Again privately conservatives give more time and money to the poor
So if conservatives give so much money to poor people why do the poor have it much worse here than Europe?
There arent many US style conservatives there
-
Football.....whatever. Didn't you move to China or sometthing.
Yes, living in China now.
Sorry, not a football fan.
HUGE baseball fan, but the Cards are out, so I lost all interest.
-
Tony, I don't understand why you quote yourself without adding anything new.
Is that supposed to mean something or was it an accident?
-
Serious question.
He would want to help the poor.
He would be anti-war.
He would favor universal healthcare.
What do you think?
You're still spouting this stupid mess?
1. American Christians give WAAAAAAAY more to the poor and needy than bleating liberals like you, who seem to think you can only give to the poor by taking people's money via excessive taxation.
2. As far as being "anti-war", it was Jesus who said he came to bring 'not peace but the sword'.
3. And, there's not a darn thing that says he's for mandating that people have "universal" healthcare. He charged his disciples to help people who are sick OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL, not by government mandate.
-
You're still spouting this stupid mess?
1. American Christians give WAAAAAAAY more to the poor and needy than bleating liberals like you, who seem to think you can only give to the poor by taking people's money via excessive taxation.
2. As far as being "anti-war", it was Jesus who said he came to bring 'not peace but the sword'.
3. And, there's not a darn thing that says he's for mandating that people have "universal" healthcare. He charged his disciples to help people who are sick OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL, not by government mandate.
So Jesus would deny people healthcare?
I dont think you have read the bible Mcgay
-
You're still spouting this stupid mess?
1. American Christians give WAAAAAAAY more to the poor and needy than bleating liberals like you, who seem to think you can only give to the poor by taking people's money via excessive taxation.
2. As far as being "anti-war", it was Jesus who said he came to bring 'not peace but the sword'.
3. And, there's not a darn thing that says he's for mandating that people have "universal" healthcare. He charged his disciples to help people who are sick OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL, not by government mandate.
Hahaha.
I was waiting for you to chime in.
You're cherry-picking and, if you care to be intellectually honest, you would tell everyone here that.
Your brand of Christianity is uniquely American.
You would spit on the poor and the true Jesus would have nothing to do with you.
Then again, you agree with people who trash your race in other threads.
Keep on keepin' on.
-
So Jesus would deny people healthcare?
I dont think you have read the bible Mcgay
Where does Jesus tell the government to mandate healthcare again?
-
Socialism - "Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:10
-
Hahaha.
I was waiting for you to chime in.
You're cherry-picking and, if you care to be intellectually honest, you would tell everyone here that.
Your brand of Christianity is uniquely American.
You would spit on the poor and the true Jesus would have nothing to do with you.
Then again, you agree with people who trash your race in other threads.
Keep on keepin' on.
There's no cherry-picking involved, merely wishful thinking and an inability to read on your end.
And, when your delusional posts fail, you resort to the pathetic tripe that somehow my being black means I'm mandated to vote for people who think that helping the poor means adding to their ranks.
-
Yes thats because conservatives claim to be christian.
I can claim to be a green elephant it doesnt make it true.
Claiming? So now giving more time and money is claiming?
-
"However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you." Deuteronomy 15:4
"There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." Deuteronomy 15:11
-
Socialism - "Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:10
WRONG AGAIN, Garebear.
Notice what is required here for the poor......WORK!
In other words, "if anyone would not work, neither should he eat": 2 Thess 3:10
Then, there's Matt 25's parable of the talents, But his master answered and said to him, ‘You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed. Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest. Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.’
“For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. Throw out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Thanks for playing.
-
So what if Jews believe in him? Does that validate anything? If so, why?
If I knew it to be true that there was a god, and Jesus was the son of that god, then of course I would believe it. I would have to for my own self-interest.
Clean up your argument.
It validates that he existed. It is recorded in history. There was a man by the name of Jesus. Whether he was a deity or not is a matter of an individual's faith or willingness to believe or not to believe.
AGAIN. I AM NOT ASKING YOU TO BELIEVE HE WAS GOD. You don't need to believe in God to read the New Testament and get the gist of his teachings. You seem to think that you know what his attitude was towards the poor, eventhough you don't believe in God.
I AM ASKING YOU TO TELL ME IF YOU WOULD VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO HELD THE MORAL VIEWS OF JESUS AS STATED BY HIS APOSTLES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT?
You want to focus on health care and the poor. But you don't want to even touch what the apostles of Jesus said about homosexuality and marriage.
Go ahead. Keep sidestepping.
-
WRONG AGAIN, Garebear.
Notice what is required here for the poor......WORK!
In other words, "if anyone would not work, neither should he eat": 2 Thess 3:10
Then, there's Matt 25's parable of the talents, But his master answered and said to him, ‘You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed. Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest. Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.’
“For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. Throw out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Thanks for playing.
haha
-
It validates that he existed. It is recorded in history. There was a man by the name of Jesus. Whether he was a deity or not is a matter of an individual's faith or willingness to believe or not to believe.
AGAIN. I AM NOT ASKING YOU TO BELIEVE HE WAS GOD. You don't need to believe in God to read the New Testament and get the gist of his teachings. You seem to think that you know what his attitude was towards the poor, eventhough you don't believe in God.
I AM ASKING YOU TO TELL ME IF YOU WOULD VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO HELD THE MORAL VIEWS OF JESUS AS STATED BY HIS APOSTLES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT?
You want to focus on health care and the poor. But you don't want to even touch what the apostles of Jesus said about homosexuality and marriage.
Go ahead. Keep sidestepping.
Because Jews said it, it was true?
That's your logic?
-
"However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you." Deuteronomy 15:4
"There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." Deuteronomy 15:11
And yet who is actually more openhanded with their brothers, in crunch times?
CONSERVATIVES!! They give WAY more of their time and money than liberals do.
Why is it that the lion's share of charities in this countries are religious-based ones? Not to mention food banks and homeless shelters, run by churches?
Time for you to quit while you're behind.
-
"However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you." Deuteronomy 15:4
"There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." Deuteronomy 15:11
So your quoting old testament, what does that have to do with Christianity?
-
And yet who is actually more openhanded with their brothers, in crunch times?
CONSERVATIVES!! They give WAY more of their time and money than liberals do.
Why is it that the lion's share of charities in this countries are religious-based ones? Not to mention food banks and homeless shelters, run by churches?
Time for you to quit while you're behind.
Christians give to other Christians.
Was that the teaching of Jesus?
I wasn't aware that he put qualifiers on it.
Actually, were there Christians at the time of Jesus?
-
Christians give to other Christians.
Was that the teaching of Jesus?
I wasn't aware that he put qualifiers on it.
Actually, were there Christians at the time of Jesus?
1) So what if the donation is to a Christian charity, show me an example where someone has been turned away from said charity for not being Christian.
2) No
-
Because Jews said it, it was true?
That's your logic?
Their acknowledgement is the biggest proof because it would have been easy for them to reject the notion of his existence since they don't believe in him as the son of God. But, they could not reject what is true. That Jesus did exist.
But is not only Jews. There were some Roman historians who mentioned Jesus existing. Killed because of witchcraft, as they stated.
Regardless, the New Testatment is there. The teachings of Christianity are there. So if a person who held the same social and moral views on homosexuality and marriage as Jesus and his apostles ran for office, would you vote for them?
-
And yet who is actually more openhanded with their brothers, in crunch times?
CONSERVATIVES!! They give WAY more of their time and money than liberals do.
Why is it that the lion's share of charities in this countries are religious-based ones? Not to mention food banks and homeless shelters, run by churches?
Time for you to quit while you're behind.
I'm curious about your views on MLK.
Do you think he was a communist?
-
Their acknowledgement is the biggest proof because it would have been easy for them to reject the notion of his existence since they don't believe in him as the son of God. But, they could not reject what is true. That Jesus did exist.
But is not only Jews. There were some Roman historians who mentioned Jesus existing. Killed because of witchcraft, as they stated.
Regardless, the New Testatment is there. The teachings of Christianity are there. So if a person who held the same social and moral views on homosexuality and marriage as Jesus and his apostles ran for office, would you vote for them?
You haven't answered the original question.
-
Would I vote for Jesus? Of course because he would be against Obamacare, government intervention, homosexuality, and abortion.
-
Would I vote for Jesus? Of course because he would be against Obamacare, government intervention, homosexuality, and abortion.
And wealth.
Socialism - I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Matthew 19:23-24
-
And wealth.
Socialism - I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Matthew 19:23-24
Do you even understand what this means?
-
Yes, better than you.
-
Yes, better than you.
Really? Please enlighten me
-
Going through this thread, there are a lot of factors and contextual instances that have to be taken into consideration.
For those saying Jesus wouldnt agree with our tax system or helping people through taxes...There is really no way to prove that either way.
For those saying the christians Give more than any group. The Biggest identifying factor or "group" outside of being called AMERICANS is Christianity. 51% are Protestant and 23% are Catholic. With another 3% identifying themselves as "other christian"
So thats about 75% of Americans identifying with Christianity, so they would, my virtue of simple math, statistically give most.
Something to think about.
Guy please dont get to foaming at the mouth and post youtube vids or some long ass article from rightwingsareus.com.. Its just something to mull over while throwing out "facts"
-
Going through this thread, there are a lot of factors and contextual instances that have to be taken into consideration.
For those saying Jesus wouldnt agree with our tax system or helping people through taxes...There is really no way to prove that either way.
For those saying the christians Give more than any group. The Biggest identifying factor or "group" outside of being called AMERICANS is Christianity. 51% are Protestant and 23% are Catholic. With another 3% identifying themselves as "other christian"
So thats about 75% of Americans identifying with Christianity, so they would, my virtue of simple math, statistically give most.
Something to think about.
Guy please dont get to foaming at the mouth and post youtube vids or some long ass article from rightwingsareus.com.. Its just something to mull over while throwing out "facts"
Well said
-
Serious question.
He would want to help the poor.
He would be anti-war.
He would favor universal healthcare.
What do you think?
If the Jesus/teacher character from the bible ran for office, he would not win enogh votes. The character would not pander to his audience saying what needs to be said to get votes. He would be consistent and state what he believed. We have similar politicians today, and they never will make it to the oval office. Americans vote for the candidate who sppon feeds them what they want to hear. He would also not be equiped to handled todays complex issues
If the Jesus/Son of God character ran.. of course I'd vote for him... but he would already know that
-
And wealth.
Socialism - I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Matthew 19:23-24
He wasn't against wealth, my friend.
That passage you quoted had to with the young ruler as stated in Matthew 19:16-22 who came to Jesus seeking advice on how to be eternally save. The problem with the young prince, which is the problem of many people today, is that they love their wealth and properties more than God. They have more faith and confidence on what they have than in God.
Jesus was against the Love of Money, not Money: 1 Timothy 6:10
In God's eyes, loving anything more than him is idolatry.
Nicodemus, Matthew, Luke, Zacchaeus, and Joseph of Arimathea were people who were well off or rich and they believed in Jesus and Jesus did not condemn them for their wealth.
-
It seems to be a peculiarity of Christianity that many christians have so much difficulty with the teachings of Christ that they retreat in to the certainties of the old Testement and in to the later writings of others (eg Paul, Aquinis etc) who they themselves (the later writers) seem compulsed to add their own beliefs.
-
Would I vote for Jesus? Of course because he would be against Obamacare, government intervention, homosexuality, and abortion.
Haha. Thanks, man. I needed that laugh.
-
Haha. Thanks, man. I needed that laugh.
Try laughing at this. And yes, he would be against obamacare AND HOMOSEXUALITY AND ABORTION.
He wasn't against wealth, my friend.
That passage you quoted had to with the young ruler as stated in Matthew 19:16-22 who came to Jesus seeking advice on how to be eternally save. The problem with the young prince, which is the problem of many people today, is that they love their wealth and properties more than God. They have more faith and confidence on what they have than in God.
Jesus was against the Love of Money, not Money: 1 Timothy 6:10
In God's eyes, loving anything more than him is idolatry.
Nicodemus, Matthew, Luke, Zacchaeus, and Joseph of Arimathea were people who were well off or rich and they believed in Jesus and Jesus did not condemn them for their wealth.
-
Try laughing at this. And yes, he would be against obamacare AND HOMOSEXUALITY AND ABORTION.
Quote yourself some more.
-
Christians give to other Christians.
Was that the teaching of Jesus?
I wasn't aware that he put qualifiers on it.
Actually, were there Christians at the time of Jesus?
There sure were. And, who says Christians just give to other Christians?
-
Going through this thread, there are a lot of factors and contextual instances that have to be taken into consideration.
For those saying Jesus wouldnt agree with our tax system or helping people through taxes...There is really no way to prove that either way.
For those saying the christians Give more than any group. The Biggest identifying factor or "group" outside of being called AMERICANS is Christianity. 51% are Protestant and 23% are Catholic. With another 3% identifying themselves as "other christian"
So thats about 75% of Americans identifying with Christianity, so they would, my virtue of simple math, statistically give most.
Something to think about.
Guy please dont get to foaming at the mouth and post youtube vids or some long ass article from rightwingsareus.com.. Its just something to mull over while throwing out "facts"
First of mal it was a study done on conservatives and the study was not overall who gives more where % of the population would play a role but on average who gives more
-
"However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you." Deuteronomy 15:4
"There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." Deuteronomy 15:11
And Christians do that gare
Your beef is that the don't support govt telling them who needs help and who is poor...
-
Quote yourself some more.
I quote it because I thought you might have missed it.
Here:
He wasn't against wealth, my friend.
That passage you quoted had to with the young ruler as stated in Matthew 19:16-22 who came to Jesus seeking advice on how to be eternally save. The problem with the young prince, which is the problem of many people today, is that they love their wealth and properties more than God. They have more faith and confidence on what they have than in God.
Jesus was against the Love of Money, not Money: 1 Timothy 6:10
In God's eyes, loving anything more than him is idolatry.
Nicodemus, Matthew, Luke, Zacchaeus, and Joseph of Arimathea were people who were well off or rich and they believed in Jesus and Jesus did not condemn them for their wealth.
-
And Christians do that gare
Your beef is that the don't support govt telling them who needs help and who is poor...
Dario, you're the best.
-
Dario, you're the best.
You are confused.
-
First of mal it was a study done on conservatives and the study was not overall who gives more where % of the population would play a role but on average who gives more
and First off.. Any way you slice it... if the Majority of the population is Christian, on Average.. Christians would give more.. what are we talking about over here..
thats like saying "in Iraq, Muslims give more than any other group on average"......no shit. Its a muslim society that offers more upward mobility for those who are part of that society than not soely by virtue of the number of muslims in that society.
"First of all".....lol
-
Dario, you're the best.
Do you think Jesus supported govt determining what was right and wrong gare? Who to help and who not to help?
-
and First off.. Any way you slice it... if the Majority of the population is Christian, on Average.. Christians would give more.. what are we talking about over here..
thats like saying "in Iraq, Muslims give more than any other group on average"......no shit. Its a muslim society that offers more upward mobility for those who are part of that society than not soely by virtue of the number of muslims in that society.
"First of all".....lol
Lmfao no sir that's why you take the average!!!
Aren't you in med school?
-
Do you think Jesus supported govt determining what was right and wrong gare? Who to help and who not to help?
I think Jesus would preach personal responsibility verses government. It would be the christians mandate to cloth the poor, feed the hungry and give aid to the sick.. it would be the poor's responsibility to do their best to make a living. I doubt Jesus would support lazy people.
-
American christians are the best!
-
I think Jesus would preach personal responsibility verses government. It would be the christians mandate to cloth the poor, feed the hungry and give aid to the sick.. it would be the poor's responsibility to do their best to make a living. I doubt Jesus would support lazy people.
Oh, and he wouldn't advocate abortion, but he would forgive those who did.
-
Lmfao no sir that's why you take the average!!!
Aren't you in med school?
Ok I understand that when you say Average youre saying Christians vs say Hindu group. In a "Christian society" its easier, to have the resources (jobs, education housing) etc. Its set up for christians to do better because we are a christian society. And it will be easier for them to give as a group...
Do you get what im saying...
Now if you want to get on the insulting shit (which i was trying to avoid).. I would like to see the study you site that says Christians give more on average.
Ill take a gander at it
-
Ok I understand that when you say Average youre saying Christians vs say Hindu group. In a "Christian society" its easier, to have the resources (jobs, education housing) etc. Its set up for christians to do better because we are a christian society. And it will be easier for them to give as a group...
Do you get what im saying...
Now if you want to get on the insulting shit (which i was trying to avoid).. I would like to see the study you site that says Christians give more on average.
Ill take a gander at it
You can't build mega churches that cost 10's of millions of dollars if you ain't giving... ;)
-
Ok I understand that when you say Average youre saying Christians vs say Hindu group. In a "Christian society" its easier, to have the resources (jobs, education housing) etc. Its set up for christians to do better because we are a christian society. And it will be easier for them to give as a group...
Do you get what im saying...
Now if you want to get on the insulting shit (which i was trying to avoid).. I would like to see the study you site that says Christians give more on average.
Ill take a gander at it
It's not his fault.
The devil's got a hold of him.
-
You can't build mega churches that cost 10's of millions of dollars if you ain't giving... ;)
I just dont understand where the disconnect is right now... like...this is based on pure math.. like wtf
-
It's not his fault.
The devil's got a hold of him.
im like literally fustrated over here than an adult cant grasp this.. like seriously. Im perplexed over here.. WTF its not that hard..
-
Ok I understand that when you say Average youre saying Christians vs say Hindu group. In a "Christian society" its easier, to have the resources (jobs, education housing) etc. Its set up for christians to do better because we are a christian society. And it will be easier for them to give as a group...
Do you get what im saying...
Now if you want to get on the insulting shit (which i was trying to avoid).. I would like to see the study you site that says Christians give more on average.
Ill take a gander at it
Lol i get what your saying now bc its the first time youve said it. so now out society is biased against non Christians eh?
Lmfao, where did I say Christians give more I said the study show conservatives give more and Christians tend to be conservative!!!
-
Lol i get what your saying now bc its the first time youve said it. so now out society is biased against non Christians eh?
Lmfao, where did I say Christians give more I said the study show conservatives give more and Christians tend to be conservative!!!
Be honest and cut the crap.
-
Lol i get what your saying now bc its the first time youve said it. so now out society is biased against non Christians eh?
Lmfao, where did I say Christians give more I said the study show conservatives give more and Christians tend to be conservative!!!
Dude no one said its AGAINST non christians. But based on our societial make up....its overwhelming Christian. So...like where is the issue right now.
ok seriously im not sure what more i can say about it. I wasnt trying to get to this.
-
Ok I understand that when you say Average youre saying Christians vs say Hindu group. In a "Christian society" its easier, to have the resources (jobs, education housing) etc. Its set up for christians to do better because we are a christian society. And it will be easier for them to give as a group...
Do you get what im saying...
Now if you want to get on the insulting shit (which i was trying to avoid).. I would like to see the study you site that says Christians give more on average.
Ill take a gander at it
Go back and re-read conservatives of which Christians tend to be give more then liberals
-
Go back and re-read conservatives of which Christians tend to be give more then liberals
ok.. you got it bro..you won
-
Dude no one said its AGAINST non christians. But based on our societial make up....its overwhelming Christian. So...like where is the issue right now.
ok seriously im not sure what more i can say about it. I wasnt trying to get to this.
The issue is you keep mentioning populations size trying to say that skews the average.
Averages take away the bias do to sampling size i.e Population!!!
So your original argument hold no water mal.
Then you changed it saying that bc our society favors Christians they have more opportunity. Please cite the sources you have to back up this claim.
-
Christians give to other Christians.
Was that the teaching of Jesus?
I wasn't aware that he put qualifiers on it.
Actually, were there Christians at the time of Jesus?
garebear, here are a few Christian charities that you'd probably approve of:
www.blessing.org
Blessings International heals the hurting globally and locally by providing life-saving pharmaceuticals, vitamins and medical supplies to medical mission teams, clinics and hospitals; B.I. builds healthy communities by enabling medical professionals and volunteers to effectively treat the sick and victims of endemic medical problems, outbreaks of disease or overwhelming disasters; and B.I. works to transform lives by helping Christians actively demonstrate the love and compassion of Jesus Christ.
www.childmed.org
Children’s Medical Ministries (CMM) is a compassionate humanitarian service organization that has over 700 volunteer health care professionals committed to serving the indigent and oppressed children and their families in the National Capital/Baltimore areas, seven states, and in 30 overseas countries. We provide food, shelter, clothes, medicine, wheelchairs, and healthcare and dental programs.
CMM was founded by Bill and Erma Collins in 1988, as a nonprofit, nondenominational, all volunteer ministry
predicated on the following concepts:
It shouldn’t hurt to be a child.
The essence of compassion is helping others become self-reliant.
Every child has a right to know they are loved.
Restoring human dignity for the disabled.
www.chfus.org
Food Paks: For some, a knock at the door can transform despair to hope. Because of the relationships it helps build, a CHF Food Pak is more than just a box of food.
Mercy Networks: Our Mercy Networks are an efficient way to
serve the needy in poor communities, villages, and slums
in the U.S. and abroad.
Disaster Relief: When the earthquake hit Haiti, CHF was there. And when disaster strikes, like the recent tragedy in Japan, CHF responds quickly.
Orphan Care: Lost children find love and care through CHF's programs providing food, nutritional supplements, medical care, and the funding of building projects.
School Supplies: Just a few simple learning tools like paper, pens, pencils and crayons can mean a brighter future for an underprivileged child.
Toy Distribution: When a parent can't, CHF gives new toys to needy
children. It’s our way to show love and bring joy to the precious little ones we serve.
www.freewheelchairmissio n.org
Founded in 2001, Free Wheelchair Mission is an international nonprofit organization dedicated to providing wheelchairs for the impoverished disabled in developing nations.
Headquartered in Irvine, California, FWM works around the world in partnership with a vast network of humanitarian, faith-based and government organizations, sending wheelchairs to hundreds of thousands of disabled people, providing not only the gift of mobility, but of dignity, independence, and hope.
There are many more you'd probably approve of as well, some providing clean water and disaster relief like Compassion International and Samaritan's Purse.
-
The issue is you keep mentioning populations size trying to say that skews the average.
Averages take away the bias do to sampling size i.e Population!!!
So your original argument hold no water mal.
Then you changed it saying that bc our society favors Christians they have more opportunity. Please cite the sources you have to back up this claim.
Cool..Just show me your study and ill take a look
and i dont have any sources to back up the claim that christians have it better in a christian society. I thought it was a given
-
Since the thread is whether Jesus would get votes...
Why would any conservative vote for someone :
Who is a bastard son born out of wedlock?
Unmarried and suspected queer for spending all his time with other men washing their feet.
Unemployed.
No children or family structure evident.
His father was a great abortion specialist who performed thousands of abortions.
His father was also found guilty of killing his children.
I would wager to say that even Herman Cain would garner more votes than Jesus.
-
Since the thread is whether Jesus would get votes...
Why would any conservative vote for someone :
Who is a bastard son born out of wedlock?
Unmarried and suspected queer for spending all his time with other men washing their feet.
Unemployed.
No children or family structure evident.
His father was a great abortion specialist who performed thousands of abortions.
His father was also found guilty of killing his children.
I would wager to say that even Herman Cain would garner more votes than Jesus.
ouch
-
This thread is garbage.... We've reached new lows....
Hope this place normalizes after the election. :-X
-
This thread is garbage.... We've reached new lows....
Hope this place normalizes after the election. :-X
TRUE
-
Cool..Just show me your study and ill take a look
and i dont have any sources to back up the claim that christians have it better in a christian society. I thought it was a given
At work at the moment but you can do a quick google search and find it or search on here as its been posted numerous times before. If you can't find it ill post it later as when I find time to educate you when I'm not studying to educate myself.
No sir it's not a given at all as a matter of fact your the first person I've ever heard that the US is biased against non Christians in terms of jobs, education, income etc.
I doubt there is any data that backs up your wild claim
-
At work at the moment but you can do a quick google search and find it or search on here as its been posted numerous times before. If you can't find it ill post it later as when I find time to educate you when I'm not studying to educate myself.
No sir it's not a given at all as a matter of fact your the first person I've ever heard that the US is biased against non Christians in terms of jobs, education, income etc.
I doubt there is any data that backs up your wild claim
LOL
-
LOL
Lol indeed apparently it's not just the white man tryin to keep ppl down its the white Christian man now lmfao
You're still a good dude in my book mal just a little naive is all
-
I'm curious about your views on MLK.
Do you think he was a communist?
NOPE!!
-
I think Jesus would preach personal responsibility verses government. It would be the christians mandate to cloth the poor, feed the hungry and give aid to the sick.. it would be the poor's responsibility to do their best to make a living. I doubt Jesus would support lazy people.
Agree.
-
Not just to bump my own response here-- but consider this
Based on Garebears incomprehensibly stupid question about Jesus-- Think Anti War-- ( Pacifism?), Universal Healthcare (Coercion?), Helping the poor (Extortion?)
Garebears juvenile attempt at being witty/ ironic through the invocation of Jesus is nothing more than a transparent attempt to bolster the left wing causes that Americans have resoundingly rejected. In Garebears walnut sized brain, he is convinced that he is fairly intelligent. After all, he just figured out a way to trash Jesus and America while simultaneously shaming American Christians at large (IE Republicans) into being embarrassed for their beliefs. What the first battalion Sargent of assless chaps fails to realize, is that through his own delusional responses on this subject he is promoting the warped idea that Jesus and America are mutually exclusive.
The left likes to invoke Jesus when it suits them, the only problem is that they completely misstate who Jesus was and what he stood for in the process.
Would Jesus have supported the Revolutionary War, Civil War or World War 2? Would Jesus support military action for humanitarian missions? To prevent Genocide? In self defense? Would Jesus support a standing military at all? According to Garebears worldview, America should still be a British colony, the Nazi's or Communists ( either or) should control Europe and America should have no vested interest in any world affairs (besides a self imposed cap on carbon emissions, opening the US borders etc.).
Would Jesus support an unaccountable government coercing the citizenry into buying healthcare insurance under penalty of criminal sanction? Where does the bible address Universal Healthcare anyway?
Would Jesus consider "Obama Phones", unlimited food stamps, monthly checks on the taxpayers dime not to work and other lovely social programs championed by the left to "help poor people" attributes of a morally just society? Where in the bible does Jesus say-- Thou Shall Work So That Productive Members Of Society May Finance The Useless? Maybe that was in the Old Testament.
-
Not just to bump my own response here-- but consider this
Based on Garebears incomprehensibly stupid question about Jesus-- Think Anti War-- ( Pacifism?), Universal Healthcare (Coercion?), Helping the poor (Extortion?)
Garebears juvenile attempt at being witty/ ironic through the invocation of Jesus is nothing more than a transparent attempt to bolster the left wing causes that Americans have resoundingly rejected. In Garebears walnut sized brain, he is convinced that he is fairly intelligent. After all, he just figured out a way to trash Jesus and America while simultaneously shaming American Christians at large (IE Republicans) into being embarrassed for their beliefs. What the first battalion Sargent of assless chaps fails to realize, is that through his own delusional responses on this subject he is promoting the warped idea that Jesus and America are mutually exclusive.
The left likes to invoke Jesus when it suits them, the only problem is that they completely misstate who Jesus was and what he stood for in the process.
Would Jesus have supported the Revolutionary War, Civil War or World War 2? Would Jesus support military action for humanitarian missions? To prevent Genocide? In self defense? Would Jesus support a standing military at all? According to Garebears worldview, America should still be a British colony, the Nazi's or Communists ( either or) should control Europe and America should have no vested interest in any world affairs (besides a self imposed cap on carbon emissions, opening the US borders etc.).
Would Jesus support an unaccountable government coercing the citizenry into buying healthcare insurance under penalty of criminal sanction? Where does the bible address Universal Healthcare anyway?
Would Jesus consider "Obama Phones", unlimited food stamps, monthly checks on the taxpayers dime not to work and other lovely social programs championed by the left to "help poor people" attributes of a morally just society? Where in the bible does Jesus say-- Thou Shall Work So That Productive Members Of Society May Finance The Useless? Maybe that was in the Old Testament.
Beach Bum approved. :)
-
Since the thread is whether Jesus would get votes...
Why would any conservative vote for someone :
Who is a bastard son born out of wedlock?
Unmarried and suspected queer for spending all his time with other men washing their feet.
Unemployed.
No children or family structure evident.
His father was a great abortion specialist who performed thousands of abortions.
His father was also found guilty of killing his children.
I would wager to say that even Herman Cain would garner more votes than Jesus.
Boooommm
All our so called christian would hate Jesus today
-
This is gibberish.
-
I'm not sure Jesus was for universal healthcare...he understood the concept of taxes, and what they're for....I'm sure Jesus would be smart enough to realize that Obama is a piece of shit Lib douchbag and run his campaign accordingly.
lolz
-
NOPE!!
A lot of white supremacists tried to paint him that way.
His march on Washington was for Civil Rights and Jobs.
Are you aware of that?
-
Americans would never vote for a hippie jew who tells them to sell all their stuff and give the money to the poor
-
Americans would never vote for a hippie jew who tells them to sell all their stuff and give the money to the poor
I thought we got the near same in 2008 w lord Obama.
-
I thought we got the near same in 2008 w lord Obama.
you've forgotten that your brain is defective
-
Americans would never vote for a hippie jew who tells them to sell all their stuff and give the money to the poor
So true
-
So true
Yet they voted for a black muslim anti-american communist.
-
Yes, American Christians would vote for Jesus
2 Thessalonians 3:10-12
10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”
11 We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies.
12 Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat.
But Judas was a Democrat and he would vote for Obama:
John 12:4-8
4 But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected,
5 “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages."
6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.
7 “Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial.
8 You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”
Notice Jesus said "You will always have the poor among you"
-
this Jesus guy "said" so many contradictory things it's almost as if his words were written by hundred of unknown people who didn't know what the others had written
-
this Jesus guy "said" so many contradictory things it's almost as if his words were written by hundred of unknown people who didn't know what the others had written
If you say so. ::)
-
If you say so. ::)
yes, we all know that Jesus wrote the bible himself
it was certainly not cobbled together by hundreds of unknown authors and then translated and mistranslated for centuries and then voted on by other men who decided what to keep in and what to take out.
That definitely didn't happen
-
Yes, American Christians would vote for Jesus
2 Thessalonians 3:10-12
10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”
11 We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies.
12 Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat.
But Judas was a Democrat and he would vote for Obama:
John 12:4-8
4 But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected,
5 “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages."
6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.
7 “Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial.
8 You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”
Notice Jesus said "You will always have the poor among you"
Thessalonians was not the words of Jesus... The only "words of Jesus" in the bible are in the Gospels...
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
-
yes, we all know that Jesus wrote the bible himself
it was certainly not cobbled together by hundreds of unknown authors and then translated and mistranslated for centuries and then voted on by other men who decided what to keep in and what to take out.
That definitely didn't happen
So now you turn this into a religious board discussion. ::)
Then what exactly are you basing this on?
Americans would never vote for a hippie jew who tells them to sell all their stuff and give the money to the poor
-
Thessalonians was not the words of Jesus... The only "words of Jesus" in the bible are in the Gospels...
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Jesus is quoted all over the New Testament.
-
Jesus is quoted all over the New Testament.
I thought only the words in red were supposed to be his actual quotes
BTW - what's with the quote from John 12:4-8
What do you think it means and why did you leave off the last sentence?
-
I don't really see that as an issue, do you believe Jesus would sit back and let innocent ppl get slaughtered?
One could make the case that a strong military could help prevent that.
i think it extremely obvious that jesus would sit back and let people get slaughtered. he obviously allowed the holocaust to happen, and has allowed every single atrocity that has ever occurred.
the idea that god would stop violence is absolutely absurd because every single case we have available at our hands to examine tells us otherwise.
-
Yes, American Christians would vote for Jesus
2 Thessalonians 3:10-12
10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”
11 We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies.
12 Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat.
But Judas was a Democrat and he would vote for Obama:
John 12:4-8
4 But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected,
5 “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages."
6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.
7 “Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial.
8 You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”
Notice Jesus said "You will always have the poor among you"
Welcome back El Profeta. :)
-
So now you turn this into a religious board discussion. ::)
Then what exactly are you basing this on?
how am I turning this into a religious board
I didn't start the thread nor am I the one posting excerpts from the bible
All I said is Americans would never vote for a hippie jew who tells them to sell all their stuff and give the money to the poor and I base that on the current electorate who equates a 3% increase in the marginal tax rate to communism
-
how am I turning this into a religious board
I didn't start the thread nor am I the one posting excerpts from the bible
All I said is Americans would never vote for a hippie jew who tells them to sell all their stuff and give the money to the poor and I base that on the current electorate who equates a 3% increase in the marginal tax rate to communism
Jesus only told that to one man. And, He did so, because that guy seems to think he had all the answers but wasn't really ready to follow Jesus.
-
Yes, American Christians would vote for Jesus
2 Thessalonians 3:10-12
10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”
11 We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies.
12 Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat.
But Judas was a Democrat and he would vote for Obama:
John 12:4-8
4 But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected,
5 “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages."
6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.
7 “Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial.
8 You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”
Notice Jesus said "You will always have the poor among you"
notice also that he was speaking contemporaneously to his disciples saying he would soon be gone. it was not a lesson that the poor would always be there or that they shouldn't help the poor but that he would not be there much longer so in this instance it was ok to not sell the perfume and give the money to the poor. Also, if you're a true believer then you probably also believe that he knew that Judas Iscariot was disingenous and didn't atually give a rats ass about the poor
-
Jesus only told that to one man. And, He did so, because that guy seems to think he had all the answers but wasn't really ready to follow Jesus.
yep, it had nothing to do with whether to help the poor or not
-
i think it extremely obvious that jesus would sit back and let people get slaughtered. he obviously allowed the holocaust to happen, and has allowed every single atrocity that has ever occurred.
the idea that god would stop violence is absolutely absurd because every single case we have available at our hands to examine tells us otherwise.
If youre going to attribute every evil thing to God are you also willing to attribute every good thing to God?
The scenario was in the event that Jesus was here physically, you may have missed that....
If youd like to have an idealogical discussion drizzle Id be more then happy to educate you.
-
If youre going to attribute every evil thing to God are you also willing to attribute every good thing to God?
The scenario was in the event that Jesus was here physically, you may have missed that....
If youd like to have an idealogical discussion drizzle Id be more then happy to educate you.
jesus WAS here physically (supposedly).. and what did he do? he allowed his own self to be tortured and murdered.. he never stopped a single killing, not once.. and being that he had(has) the power to live forever here on earth in physical form and the power to prevent any and every singly act of violence and evil from ever happening.. its obvious he has chosen not to.
i never attributed anything evil to god. i said, he has let evil things happen. get it? ;) god is absolutely, most obviously, "hands off" and a pacifist.
-
jesus WAS here physically (supposedly).. and what did he do? he allowed his own self to be tortured and murdered.. he never stopped a single killing, not once..
Didn't he stop a woman from being stoned? Isn't that where the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" line comes from?
-
Americans would never vote for a hippie jew who tells them to sell all their stuff and give the money to the poor
Why are you and garebear arguing whether or not American Christians would vote for Jesus when neither one of you believes what the Bible says about him is true, or that he even existed at all?
And btw, conservative, American Christians give more of their money and time to help the poor, domestic and abroad, than liberals do. And they give more to the poor as individuals than people in other developed countries. That's right, the ones who cry the most about government forcing citizens to help the poor are the very same people who give little to nothing to help the poor.
-
Why are you and garebear arguing whether or not American Christians would vote for Jesus when neither one of you believes what the Bible says about him is true, or that he even existed at all?
And btw, conservative, American Christians give more of their money and time to help the poor, domestic and abroad, than liberals do. And they give more to the poor as individuals than people in other developed countries. That's right, the ones who cry the most about government forcing citizens to help the poor are the very same people who give little to nothing to help the poor.
how do you know this to be true? Most of the "soup kitchens" we have in Austin are run and staffed with liberals
-
Welcome back El Profeta. :)
Gracias, amigo! :)
-
how do you know this to be true? Most of the "soup kitchens" we have in Austin are run and staffed with liberals
Hey Agnostic007! The references have been posted many times by myself and by others on the board, but I will dig them up again for you. :)
-
how do you know this to be true? Most of the "soup kitchens" we have in Austin are run and staffed with liberals
Who gives the most to charity?
"Americans give more to charity, per capita and as a percentage of gross domestic product, than the citizens of other nations"
"The most charitable people in America today are the working poor."
"it's in fact low-income employed Americans who give the highest portion of their income, or 4.5%."
"low-income people give almost 30 percent more as a share of their income."
"When you look at the data," says Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, "it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."
"But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states in the last presidential election."
"The people who give one thing tend to be the people who give everything in America. You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away."
"Conservatives are even 18 percent more likely to donate blood."
"Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money -- four times as much."
"Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street."
Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism
by Arthur C. Brooks
# ISBN-10: 0465008232
# ISBN-13: 978-0465008230
Who Gives The Most?
http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/24/america-philanthropy-income-oped-cx_ee_1226eaves.html
Who Gives and Who Doesn't?
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2682730
-
"We atheists have to accept that most believers are better human beings"
Roy Hattersley
The Guardian, Monday 12 September 2005
Hurricane Katrina did not stay on the front pages for long. Yesterday's Red Cross appeal for an extra 40,000 volunteer workers was virtually ignored.
The disaster will return to the headlines when one sort of newspaper reports a particularly gruesome discovery or another finds additional evidence of President Bush's negligence. But month after month of unremitting suffering is not news. Nor is the monotonous performance of the unpleasant tasks that relieve the pain and anguish of the old, the sick and the homeless - the tasks in which the Salvation Army specialise.
The Salvation Army has been given a special status as provider-in-chief of American disaster relief. But its work is being augmented by all sorts of other groups. Almost all of them have a religious origin and character.
Notable by their absence are teams from rationalist societies, free thinkers' clubs and atheists' associations - the sort of people who not only scoff at religion's intellectual absurdity but also regard it as a positive force for evil.
The arguments against religion are well known and persuasive. Faith schools, as they are now called, have left sectarian scars on Northern Ireland. Stem-cell research is forbidden because an imaginary God - who is not enough of a philosopher to realise that the ingenuity of a scientist is just as natural as the instinct of Rousseau's noble savage - condemns what he does not understand and the churches that follow his teaching forbid their members to pursue cures for lethal diseases.
Yet men and women who believe that the Pope is the devil incarnate, or (conversely) regard his ex cathedra pronouncements as holy writ, are the people most likely to take the risks and make the sacrifices involved in helping others. Last week a middle-ranking officer of the Salvation Army, who gave up a well-paid job to devote his life to the poor, attempted to convince me that homosexuality is a mortal sin.
Late at night, on the streets of one of our great cities, that man offers friendship as well as help to the most degraded and (to those of a censorious turn of mind) degenerate human beings who exist just outside the boundaries of our society. And he does what he believes to be his Christian duty without the slightest suggestion of disapproval. Yet, for much of his time, he is meeting needs that result from conduct he regards as intrinsically wicked.
Civilised people do not believe that drug addiction and male prostitution offend against divine ordinance. But those who do are the men and women most willing to change the fetid bandages, replace the sodden sleeping bags and - probably most difficult of all - argue, without a trace of impatience, that the time has come for some serious medical treatment. Good works, John Wesley insisted, are no guarantee of a place in heaven. But they are most likely to be performed by people who believe that heaven exists.
The correlation is so clear that it is impossible to doubt that faith and charity go hand in hand. The close relationship may have something to do with the belief that we are all God's children, or it may be the result of a primitive conviction that, although helping others is no guarantee of salvation, it is prudent to be recorded in a book of gold, like James Leigh Hunt's Abu Ben Adam, as "one who loves his fellow men". Whatever the reason, believers answer the call, and not just the Salvation Army. When I was a local councillor, the Little Sisters of the Poor - right at the other end of the theological spectrum - did the weekly washing for women in back-to-back houses who were too ill to scrub for themselves.
It ought to be possible to live a Christian life without being a Christian or, better still, to take Christianity à la carte. The Bible is so full of contradictions that we can accept or reject its moral advice according to taste. Yet men and women who, like me, cannot accept the mysteries and the miracles do not go out with the Salvation Army at night.
The only possible conclusion is that faith comes with a packet of moral imperatives that, while they do not condition the attitude of all believers, influence enough of them to make them morally superior to atheists like me. The truth may make us free. But it has not made us as admirable as the average captain in the Salvation Army.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/12/religion.uk/print
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/conservatives-charitable-giving_b_1835201.html
Liberals are the least likely to help the poor. That's the inescapable conclusion of this new study: states where people participate in religion at a high rate are also the most generous; conversely, the least generous states are also the least religious.
The report does say religion plays a role:
Religion has a big influence on giving patterns. Regions of the country that are deeply religious are more generous than those that are not. Two of the top nine states -- Utah and Idaho -- have high numbers of Mormon residents, who have a tradition of tithing at least 10 percent of their income to the church. The remaining states in the top nine are all in the Bible Belt.
But conservatives are ignoring the obvious. Something to notice is in the mention of "tithing... to the church." All the survey did was take IRS data "showing the value of charitable deductions claimed by Americans taxpayers." What the IRS may mean by charitable, and what most people think of as charitable, may not be the same thing.For instance, a local fundamentalist church may spend the bulk of its resources degrading and attacking other faiths, insulting gay people and leading crusades to strip people of their civil liberties. They may never feed the hungry, clothe the naked, or comfort the afflicted. Yet in IRS terms they are a charity no matter how uncharitable they may be.
The report states that the IRS "does not provide data about the specific charities people supported." In other words, there is no data about who is feeding the poor, as Donahue claims.
Since donations to religious groups, even uncharitable ones, count as "charitable giving," then it is no surprise that religious people give more to charity. Simply put, the study shows that non-religious people don't donate to religion. This is neither earth shattering nor particularly informative. Nor is it surprising that those states populated by sects that push their members to tithe report higher "charitable" giving.
Donations to churches may get reused in a manner that would not be tax-deductible itself, as it would not be considered charitable. For instance, donations to the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization, are tax-deductible. Yet the organization gave almost $2 million to fund anti-gay campaigns by the National Organization for Marriage. If the "charitable" Catholics who gave that money had directly donated it to NOM, they would never have received a tax write-off.
However, if you donated to the Human Rights Campaign to counter campaigns funded by the Knights, that donation "can not be classified as tax deductible." Only one funds given to the churches in this political campaign were counted as charitable.
It is not surprising that the most "giving" state is Utah, with a heavy population of Mormons who are required to give 10% of their income to the sect. Their total charitable giving is 10.6% of discretionary income -- a substantial portion of which has to be going to the church as opposed to purely charitable purposes.
But neither Jacoby nor Donahue mentioned West Hollywood, a heavily Democratic city and one of the "gayest." The survey shows residents there give 9% of their discretionary income to charity. I would think most of that went to purely charitable purposes as opposed to religious ones.
The Chronicle of Philanthrophy also made a point that conservatives ignored:
When religious giving isn't counted, the geography of giving is very different. Some states in the Northeast would jump into the top 10 when secular gifts alone are counted. New York would vault from No. 18 to No. 2 in the rankings, and Pennsylvania would climb from No. 40 to No. 4.
They also noted:
A study by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University found that the residents of New Hampshire -- which ranked dead last in both surveys by The Chronicle -- weren't stingy; they were simply nonbelievers.
"New Hampshire gives next to nothing to religious organizations," says Patrick Rooney, the center's leader, "but their secular giving is identical to the rest of country."
Sometimes it helps to read the whole report, not just the sections that make you feel superior.
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Correctomundo
Giving to charity includes donations to their churches so of course the #'s are skewed
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/conservatives-charitable-giving_b_1835201.html
Sometimes it helps to read the whole report, not just the sections that make you feel superior.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/conservatives-charitable-giving_b_1835201.html
Liberals are the least likely to help the poor. That's the inescapable conclusion of this new study: states where people participate in religion at a high rate are also the most generous; conversely, the least generous states are also the least religious.
The report does say religion plays a role:
Religion has a big influence on giving patterns. Regions of the country that are deeply religious are more generous than those that are not. Two of the top nine states -- Utah and Idaho -- have high numbers of Mormon residents, who have a tradition of tithing at least 10 percent of their income to the church. The remaining states in the top nine are all in the Bible Belt.
But conservatives are ignoring the obvious. Something to notice is in the mention of "tithing... to the church." All the survey did was take IRS data "showing the value of charitable deductions claimed by Americans taxpayers." What the IRS may mean by charitable, and what most people think of as charitable, may not be the same thing.For instance, a local fundamentalist church may spend the bulk of its resources degrading and attacking other faiths, insulting gay people and leading crusades to strip people of their civil liberties. They may never feed the hungry, clothe the naked, or comfort the afflicted. Yet in IRS terms they are a charity no matter how uncharitable they may be.
The report states that the IRS "does not provide data about the specific charities people supported." In other words, there is no data about who is feeding the poor, as Donahue claims.
Since donations to religious groups, even uncharitable ones, count as "charitable giving," then it is no surprise that religious people give more to charity. Simply put, the study shows that non-religious people don't donate to religion. This is neither earth shattering nor particularly informative. Nor is it surprising that those states populated by sects that push their members to tithe report higher "charitable" giving.
Donations to churches may get reused in a manner that would not be tax-deductible itself, as it would not be considered charitable. For instance, donations to the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization, are tax-deductible. Yet the organization gave almost $2 million to fund anti-gay campaigns by the National Organization for Marriage. If the "charitable" Catholics who gave that money had directly donated it to NOM, they would never have received a tax write-off.
However, if you donated to the Human Rights Campaign to counter campaigns funded by the Knights, that donation "can not be classified as tax deductible." Only one funds given to the churches in this political campaign were counted as charitable.
It is not surprising that the most "giving" state is Utah, with a heavy population of Mormons who are required to give 10% of their income to the sect. Their total charitable giving is 10.6% of discretionary income -- a substantial portion of which has to be going to the church as opposed to purely charitable purposes.
But neither Jacoby nor Donahue mentioned West Hollywood, a heavily Democratic city and one of the "gayest." The survey shows residents there give 9% of their discretionary income to charity. I would think most of that went to purely charitable purposes as opposed to religious ones.
The Chronicle of Philanthrophy also made a point that conservatives ignored:
When religious giving isn't counted, the geography of giving is very different. Some states in the Northeast would jump into the top 10 when secular gifts alone are counted. New York would vault from No. 18 to No. 2 in the rankings, and Pennsylvania would climb from No. 40 to No. 4.
They also noted:
A study by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University found that the residents of New Hampshire -- which ranked dead last in both surveys by The Chronicle -- weren't stingy; they were simply nonbelievers.
"New Hampshire gives next to nothing to religious organizations," says Patrick Rooney, the center's leader, "but their secular giving is identical to the rest of country."
Sometimes it helps to read the whole report, not just the sections that make you feel superior.
This has nothing to do with what I posted above. Why did you leave this out?
"Conservatives are doing their own Superior Dance over an article by The Chronicle of Philanthropy, which claims individuals in religious states are more charitable than those in less religious states. At the Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby did his Superior Dance under the title "Stingy liberals:" "
Why don't you address what I posted above, which has nothing to do with this study?
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Correctomundo
Giving to charity includes donations to their churches so of course the #'s are skewed
My two posts above about who gives the most to the poor have nothing to do with the study Agnostic posted, and they have nothing to do with donations to their churches. However, most Christian churches do spend the bulk of their donations on helping the poor, both domestic and foreign.
Mormons are not Christians, even by their own definition.
-
My two posts above about who gives the most to the poor have nothing to do with the study Agnostic posted, and they have nothing to do with donations to their churches. However, most Christian churches do spend the bulk of their donations on helping the poor, both domestic and foreign.
Mormons are not Christians, even by their own definition.
You seem like a pretty strident christian
How much do you give to your church every year and hoe much do you give to other charities
How much volunteer work do you do (not including proselytizing)
-
My two posts above about who gives the most to the poor have nothing to do with the study Agnostic posted, and they have nothing to do with donations to their churches. However, most Christian churches do spend the bulk of their donations on helping the poor, both domestic and foreign.
Mormons are not Christians, even by their own definition.
Most churches spend their money improving their church... New Roofs... New worship space... Paying for the church taxes... The Pastoral housing.
-
Most churches spend their money improving their church... New Roofs... New worship space... Paying for the church taxes... The Pastoral housing.
Most? Most churches? And where did you get this misinformation from?
-
You seem like a pretty strident christian
How much do you give to your church every year and hoe much do you give to other charities
How much volunteer work do you do (not including proselytizing)
Like most Christians I know, I do tithe. And I do give both time and money to other charities, in addition to the tithe. How much is not something I share with anyone.
-
Most? Most churches? And where did you get this misinformation from?
Nothing misinforming about it.
The Catholic Church sends all of it's money up the chain towards the vatican... The Mormon churches do the same.
The smaller churches bring less revenue and have no upward path for the money flow and therefore have to spend it in different ways... such as church maintenance and upkeep.
While of course some of it goes out to aid people, you can not ignore that much of it goes to 'outreach' programs which send other people out to convert people in other parts of the world.
“When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said, 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.” - Bishop Desmond TuTu
-
Like most Christians I know, I do tithe. And I do give both time and money to other charities, in addition to the tithe. How much is not something I share with anyone.
so you give 10% of your income to your church in addition to other (religious ?) charities
-
so you give 10% of your income to your church in addition to other (religious ?) charities
That's what tithe means, 10%. Yes, I donate time and money to religious charities and to secular charities too, in addition to the tithe. So do most Christians I know, especially American Christians. That's what the stuff I posted about who gives the most to charity is about. Why are you so surprised?
To Straw and to tu_holmes, what I posted about who gives the most to charity has nothing to do with giving to the church, though Christians do give to their church too.
There are hundreds of Christian charities in the US and around the world that help not only the poor, but also people who have other needs too like victims of disaster and victims of human trafficking.
Top Ten Christian Charities
Whether you'd like to sponsor a child to provide him with basic needs, help health workers distribute care to AIDS victims, or donate funds for disaster relief, there is a Christian charity with the infrastructure to help. And, in contrast to many secular philanthropic organizations, Christian charities help address the spiritual needs of the people they serve.
World Vision
This charity's arms are wide; reaching over 100 countries and influencing many different social causes, from hunger to health. World Vision's infrastructure is able to serve, in particular, "earthquake and hurricane survivors, abandoned and exploited children, survivors of famine and civil war, refugees, and children and families in communities devastated by AIDS in Africa, Asia, and Latin America." One of World Vision's calling cards is child sponsorship. In sponsoring a child, a donor sends a given amount of money every month, and with those funds World Vision provides the child with basic needs like food, healthcare, and education. If a more hands-on approach is your style, there are many local and international ways to volunteer with World Vision. Additionally, World Vision employs over 30,000 employees in varying fields of expertise.
Salvation Army
We all know them as the bell ringers outside the grocery store during the Christmas season. The Salvation Army, however, does much more than bell ringing. It began in 19th century England under the leadership of William Booth as an evangelistic effort and has now has grown to include many areas of social service, like community care, disaster relief, adult rehabilitation, combating human trafficking, and elderly services. The main focus of the Salvation Army remains evangelistic, but it calls itself a "total ministry for the total person." The toughest philanthropic grading institution, the American Institute of Philanthropy, grades the Salvation Army with A's and A-'s depending on the territory. This means the Salvation Army's financials are some of the most reliable among philanthropic entities.
Other Organizations of Note
Church World Service is a popular international relief organization, serving the needs of people plagued by poverty, disease, injustice, natural disasters, and other forms of suffering. Bread for the World, on the other hand, is focused on serving those who suffer from hunger. Both of these organizations are rated highly by the American Institute of Philanthropy (A and B+, respectively). Christian Foundation for Children and Aging, United Methodist Committee on Relief, ChildFund International, Catholic Relief Services, Lutheran World Relief, and Habitat for Humanity each address different social issues, and are all highly ranked Christian charities according to the American Institute of Philanthropy. There is generally a Christian charity organization serving nearly every kind of human need.
http://www.ehow.com/list_6026651_top-ten-christian-charities.html
-
•As of 2010, Marsha J. Evans, was no longer employed by the American Red Cross. According to United Press International, Gail McGovern took over as CEO of the American Red Cross in 2008 at an annual salary of $500,000 plus a signing bonus of $65,000.
•Brian Gallagher is still President and CEO of United Way, and currently earns $1,037,140 a year, according to a December 2010 report from the American Institute of Philanthropy.
•W. Todd Bassett is no longer National Commander of the Salvation Army. The current National Commander, Israel L. Gaither, is paid somewhere between $79,389 and $243,248 annually for his services. (Since the Salvation Army, as a religious organization, doesn't report its expenses to the IRS, the only available figures for executive salaries are estimates, which vary greatly from source to source.)
•UNICEF's Executive Director, Anthony Lake, earns $201,351 a year, according to a 2010 communique from the organization
-
•As of 2010, Marsha J. Evans, was no longer employed by the American Red Cross. According to United Press International, Gail McGovern took over as CEO of the American Red Cross in 2008 at an annual salary of $500,000 plus a signing bonus of $65,000.
•Brian Gallagher is still President and CEO of United Way, and currently earns $1,037,140 a year, according to a December 2010 report from the American Institute of Philanthropy.
•W. Todd Bassett is no longer National Commander of the Salvation Army. The current National Commander, Israel L. Gaither, is paid somewhere between $79,389 and $243,248 annually for his services. (Since the Salvation Army, as a religious organization, doesn't report its expenses to the IRS, the only available figures for executive salaries are estimates, which vary greatly from source to source.)
•UNICEF's Executive Director, Anthony Lake, earns $201,351 a year, according to a 2010 communique from the organization
Link? Point?
-
so you give 10% of your income to your church in addition to other (religious ?) charities
That's what tithe means, 10%. Yes, I donate time and money to religious charities and to secular charities too, in addition to the tithe. So do most Christians I know, especially American Christians. That's what the stuff I posted about who gives the most to charity is about. Why are you so surprised?
To Straw and to tu_holmes, what I posted about who gives the most to charity has nothing to do with giving to the church, though Christians do give to their church too.
There are hundreds of Christian charities in the US and around the world that help not only the poor, but also people who have other needs too like victims of disaster and victims of human trafficking.
Top Ten Christian Charities
Whether you'd like to sponsor a child to provide him with basic needs, help health workers distribute care to AIDS victims, or donate funds for disaster relief, there is a Christian charity with the infrastructure to help. And, in contrast to many secular philanthropic organizations, Christian charities help address the spiritual needs of the people they serve.
World Vision
This charity's arms are wide; reaching over 100 countries and influencing many different social causes, from hunger to health. World Vision's infrastructure is able to serve, in particular, "earthquake and hurricane survivors, abandoned and exploited children, survivors of famine and civil war, refugees, and children and families in communities devastated by AIDS in Africa, Asia, and Latin America." One of World Vision's calling cards is child sponsorship. In sponsoring a child, a donor sends a given amount of money every month, and with those funds World Vision provides the child with basic needs like food, healthcare, and education. If a more hands-on approach is your style, there are many local and international ways to volunteer with World Vision. Additionally, World Vision employs over 30,000 employees in varying fields of expertise.
Salvation Army
We all know them as the bell ringers outside the grocery store during the Christmas season. The Salvation Army, however, does much more than bell ringing. It began in 19th century England under the leadership of William Booth as an evangelistic effort and has now has grown to include many areas of social service, like community care, disaster relief, adult rehabilitation, combating human trafficking, and elderly services. The main focus of the Salvation Army remains evangelistic, but it calls itself a "total ministry for the total person." The toughest philanthropic grading institution, the American Institute of Philanthropy, grades the Salvation Army with A's and A-'s depending on the territory. This means the Salvation Army's financials are some of the most reliable among philanthropic entities.
Other Organizations of Note
Church World Service is a popular international relief organization, serving the needs of people plagued by poverty, disease, injustice, natural disasters, and other forms of suffering. Bread for the World, on the other hand, is focused on serving those who suffer from hunger. Both of these organizations are rated highly by the American Institute of Philanthropy (A and B+, respectively). Christian Foundation for Children and Aging, United Methodist Committee on Relief, ChildFund International, Catholic Relief Services, Lutheran World Relief, and Habitat for Humanity each address different social issues, and are all highly ranked Christian charities according to the American Institute of Philanthropy. There is generally a Christian charity organization serving nearly every kind of human need.
http://www.ehow.com/list_6026651_top-ten-christian-charities.html
-
The american christians I know are not any more charitable than the atheists I know. but I realize my personal experience is not a very good sampling. The thing about charity work is kind of summed up by Loco when he said he would rather not say how much he gives. I too would not disclose how much I give each year to various charities. So...... if I were polled on it, the answer might be zero if "I'd rather not say" is calculated as such. If someone else was polled on it, the answer might be overestimated depending on their character and being put on the spot. I would posit that the reality is there is very little difference in charity between liberals and conservatives. And really, if we are taking info from the IRS...as a basis, I am limited on what I can claim am I not?
-
Loco - do you think I could join a christian church and decide not to give any money to it at all. Do you think there would be any pressure from the church or it's members to give money ?
-
The american christians I know are not any more charitable than the atheists I know. but I realize my personal experience is not a very good sampling. The thing about charity work is kind of summed up by Loco when he said he would rather not say how much he gives. I too would not disclose how much I give each year to various charities. So...... if I were polled on it, the answer might be zero if "I'd rather not say" is calculated as such. If someone else was polled on it, the answer might be overestimated depending on their character and being put on the spot. I would posit that the reality is there is very little difference in charity between liberals and conservatives. And really, if we are taking info from the IRS...as a basis, I am limited on what I can claim am I not?
Agnostic007, I know you are a good guy from reading some of your posts. I don't mean to offend by what I post. Good for you, that you give and don't tell how much!
But this is bigger than that. Developed, welfare countries give less to charity than Americans do. And what of the many Christian charities in good standing who help the needy foreign and domestic?
-
Loco - do you think I could join a christian church and decide not to give any money to it at all. Do you think there would be any pressure from the church or it's members to give money ?
Yes
No
-
Yes
No
thanks
just wondering as I've heard different from other people
-
thanks
just wondering as I've heard different from other people
You are welcome! I am sure you have. Just like anything else, I am sure there are churches out there that pressure members to give, or to give more. That just hasn't been my experience or the experience of any church going Christian that I know. And I have been a member of many churches in my lifetime, and I know and have known many Christians in my lifetime.
-
Interestingly enough, the only time that I felt pressured to donate to charities was when working for secular US companies, all of which pressure their employees to donate to the United Way. These companies push for 100% participation among all employees. The United Way raises funds to distribute to many different charities, many of which are secular charities.
-
Agnostic007, I know you are a good guy from reading some of your posts. I don't mean to offend by what I post. Good for you, that you give and don't tell how much!
But this is bigger than that. Developed, welfare countries give less to charity than Americans do. And what of the many Christian charities in good standing who help the needy foreign and domestic?
Thanks, same to you. I'm not really offended, I have a deep distrust of "studies" on the whole and often times when reviewed it is found there were flaws in the study. This dates back to the FDA and how they determined many of their conclusions. I'm in Austin, a liberal hippie island in the middle of a very conservative state. I'm neither democrate or Republican, Liberal or conservative yet I am all of them in some aspect. I have been quite impressed with the liberal community when it comes to outreach for the poor. It's likely I suppose that I am seeing an isolated difference but I simply find it hard to believe conservatives are more charitable.
-
Didn't he stop a woman from being stoned? Isn't that where the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" line comes from?
good point! i was wrong about him not stopping a single killing. however, consider how he went about saving that woman. did he use violence or force ? did he physically inhibit anyone from harming the woman?