What would Romney have to do?

[240 is Back]

Not really! Look at the same book, a few chapters later, to Matt. 25:

Sorry, but this doesn't work.  It appears to be conflicting statements here.  Doesn't disqualify what he said here. 

I absolutely hate it when Romney says economy is getting better one month, but since he said the opposite a month later, the original statement somehow doesn't exist.  Sorry, he said both things.  And it appears to be conflicting statements here too.

So yes, Jesus supported it in my verse and not in yours.  Your verse doesn't DISPROVE or PROVE anything.  It's a book of recollections, either or both could be false.  But my quote stands, and it's pretty clear.  Your "finding something saying otherwise" doesn't help.

[garebear]

Was Jesus a flip-flopper?

[240 is Back]

Was Jesus a flip-flopper?

There are lots of conflicting statements in the bible, a collection of 'recollections' from a dozen people who tracked the life of someone a little sketchy historically.

But for any getbigger to say "Jesus supported this political party or belief" is laughable.  I remember "liberals cannot be christians" and other statements haha.  We have no freaking clue.  Period.  It's all faith and guesses and hopes we don't just become worm food upon death.  Laughable to assign an invisible man in the sky to "your party".

[MCWAY]

Sorry, but this doesn't work.  It appears to be conflicting statements here.  Doesn't disqualify what he said here.  

I absolutely hate it when Romney says economy is getting better one month, but since he said the opposite a month later, the original statement somehow doesn't exist.  Sorry, he said both things.  And it appears to be conflicting statements here too.

So yes, Jesus supported it in my verse and not in yours.  Your verse doesn't DISPROVE or PROVE anything.  It's a book of recollections, either or both could be false.  But my quote stands, and it's pretty clear.  Your "finding something saying otherwise" doesn't help.

There's no conflict whatsoever.

If Jesus supported socialism, then EVERY SINGLE RICH PERSON whom He encountered or referenced would have been given the same command.

Again, Nicodemus and Zaccheus were rich. Why weren't either of them ordered to give away all their money? Same goes for Jairus (whose daughter Jesus healed)?

Your quote falls, because this young man apparently was tooting his own horn. Some people like Matthew, also a tax collector, were willing to give up their riches, to follow Jesus. But, at no time was such a requirement.

And, socialism requires giving money TO THE GOVERNMENT, not directly to those in need. Jesus never told that young man to cough up all his riches to Rome. Socialists break their necks to make sure that people don't get direct aid to people but that it goes through their government filter.


Here's Nicodemus, from John 3:

There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
        
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
        
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
        
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
        
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

All this "Born again" talk. Where's the edict for him to give up all his money?

[240 is Back]

maybe he only supported it in some situations.  Or people listed in Forbes who "touted" their own wealth.  So trump Yes, but quiet millionaires, no?

Now that we're down to arguing it's not socialism to require ppl to give to fellow man, but is socialism when it involves a govt body...

haha argument getting weak here.  You normally have good pointed MCWAY, and while I think you ignore common sense sometimes (ZImmerman cred and cain inappropriate in 43 years) I usually see you as someone who gets the best out of me in most arguments.

Maybe we can agree jesus was down for some sort of taking from rich and giving to poor, a shade of socialism?

[MCWAY]

maybe he only supported it in some situations.  Or people listed in Forbes who "touted" their own wealth.  So trump Yes, but quiet millionaires, no?

Now that we're down to arguing it's not socialism to require ppl to give to fellow man, but is socialism when it involves a govt body...

haha argument getting weak here.  You normally have good pointed MCWAY, and while I think you ignore common sense sometimes (ZImmerman cred and cain inappropriate in 43 years) I usually see you as someone who gets the best out of me in most arguments.

Maybe we can agree jesus was down for some sort of taking from rich and giving to poor, a shade of socialism?

No, we can't agree on that, because that occurs NOWHERE in Scripture. It's not giving to the poor, if it's being done by force or government edict.

[240 is Back]

No, we can't agree on that, because that occurs NOWHERE in Scripture. It's not giving to the poor, if it's being done by force or government edict.

On could argue that it's logistically impossible for 3 million people to distribute the financial assistance to 305 million people without the assistance of a group qualified and skilled and with that ability.   If jesus has to distribute $ assitance to 300 mil people, he might have specified.

[garebear]

.

[Dos Equis]

No, we can't agree on that, because that occurs NOWHERE in Scripture. It's not giving to the poor, if it's being done by force or government edict.

Correct.  Private charity does not equal socialism.

[whork]

To enter heaven you have to give your possession away, thats pretty liberal

Why would he force people to give their riches away? Jesus was non-violent remember?

[whork]

There's no conflict whatsoever.

If Jesus supported socialism, then EVERY SINGLE RICH PERSON whom He encountered or referenced would have been given the same command.

Again, Nicodemus and Zaccheus were rich. Why weren't either of them ordered to give away all their money? Same goes for Jairus (whose daughter Jesus healed)?

Your quote falls, because this young man apparently was tooting his own horn. Some people like Matthew, also a tax collector, were willing to give up their riches, to follow Jesus. But, at no time was such a requirement.

And, socialism requires giving money TO THE GOVERNMENT, not directly to those in need. Jesus never told that young man to cough up all his riches to Rome. Socialists break their necks to make sure that people don't get direct aid to people but that it goes through their government filter.


Here's Nicodemus, from John 3:

There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
        
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
        
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
        
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
        
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

All this "Born again" talk. Where's the edict for him to give up all his money?

Because Jesus doesnt give orders

He did say that a rich mans chances to enter heaven was about the same as a camel.. well you know the story

So you can be rich of course but it means you will spend your eternity in hell

Does that sound republican to you?

[howardroark]

Things that Romney would have to do in order to lose my vote:

1. Support bailouts.
2. Support deficit spending as stimulus.
3. Support George W. Bush's record.
4. Have a terrible record of leaving his state with a massive entitlement program that is bankrupting it.
5. Support indefinite detention and the so-called PATRIOT Act.

Wait a second...

[MCWAY]

Because Jesus doesnt give orders

He did say that a rich mans chances to enter heaven was about the same as a camel.. well you know the story

So you can be rich of course but it means you will spend your eternity in hell

He also said, with God all things are possible. Once again, if giving up riches were a requirement for salvation, Nicodemus, Zaccheus, the centurion, Jairus, and other rich people whom Jesus encountered would have been told to give up their wealth on the spot. That didn't happen.

Jesus referenced Abraham as a righteous man (BTW, Abraham was LOADED). Jesus was called the "son of David" (as in KING David).

[blacken700]

great, now what did superman say

[whork]

He also said, with God all things are possible. Once again, if giving up riches were a requirement for salvation, Nicodemus, Zaccheus, the centurion, Jairus, and other rich people whom Jesus encountered would have been told to give up their wealth on the spot. That didn't happen.

Jesus referenced Abraham as a righteous man (BTW, Abraham was LOADED). Jesus was called the "son of David" (as in KING David).

Have you even read the book you quote?

Jesus didnt tell anyone they should give up their wealth he told them they would not get into heaven unless they gave them up. Cant you tell the difference?

[garebear]

.

[tu_holmes]

Things that Romney would have to do in order to lose my vote:

1. Support bailouts.
2. Support deficit spending as stimulus.
3. Support George W. Bush's record.
4. Have a terrible record of leaving his state with a massive entitlement program that is bankrupting it.
5. Support indefinite detention and the so-called PATRIOT Act.

Wait a second...

Read a funny editorial today.

Do you support the policies that got us into this mess or the policies that haven't gotten us out of it.

Tough call.

[Soul Crusher]

Read a funny editorial today.

Do you support the policies that got us into this mess or the policies that haven't gotten us out of it.

Tough call.

Policies that got us into this mess were bi-partisan credit bubble to prop up housing and enrich backs at the banks, F&F, construction, etc.   

Funny too - whenever I ask people who blame bush alone i ask them - WHAT EXACTLY DID BUSH DO TO COLLAPSE THE ECONOMY? what law, what policy, be specific. 

Usually all I get back is a word salad of nonsense.     

[tu_holmes]

Policies that got us into this mess were bi-partisan credit bubble to prop up housing and enrich backs at the banks, F&F, construction, etc.   

Funny too - whenever I ask people who blame bush alone i ask them - WHAT EXACTLY DID BUSH DO TO COLLAPSE THE ECONOMY? what law, what policy, be specific. 

Usually all I get back is a word salad of nonsense.     

You really melt down a lot bro.

The point it makes to me is just that both sides will guaranteed not change a damn thing.

The economy will recover eventually. It's just going to take as long as it takes. Whatever that may be.

At the end of the day. Neither Romney nor Obama are going to do anything differently and as long as we vote with the establishment, then nothing will EVER fucking change.

[Soul Crusher]

You really melt down a lot bro.

The point it makes to me is just that both sides will guaranteed not change a damn thing.

The economy will recover eventually. It's just going to take as long as it takes. Whatever that may be.

At the end of the day. Neither Romney nor Obama are going to do anything differently and as long as we vote with the establishment, then nothing will EVER fucking change.

I agree mostly.  The only thing that I am hoping if romney wins is that he does nothing at all.   Sitting as a potted plant in the WH would give reason alone for business to grow and expand as opposed to what we have going on now.


 

[tu_holmes]

I agree mostly.  The only thing that I am hoping if romney wins is that he does nothing at all.   Sitting as a potted plant in the WH would give reason alone for business to grow and expand as opposed to what we have going on now.


 

If that's the case you should vote for Obama.

With congress being republican and Obama on his way out then zero will get done. At least that's what I'm hoping.