Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 05/17/06 3:23 pm:
I love it Ronnie. You can't ever seem to see how your responses to me only strengthen my case.

>>I do not consider going to work 'sacrifice.' It could be described as self-interest. If the undertaking is done in the right sopirit, and not merely to fleece as many people as possible by obtaining the highest price for the lowest quality.<<

I wonder how many Idaho potato farmers have sacrificed their backs?

>>Your diatribe against liberalism is somehting in the order of compulsive genuflection at the altar of your hatred.<<

Oh I'm just getting started with my hatred for liberalism.

>>You are not to be encouraged to continue your blind forays, but to do some thinking.<<

The one thing you should know by now Ronnie, is I'm prepared to back up what I say. I do not engage in blind forays for which there is little or no evidence.

>>I know it is asking a lot, but do your best.<<

My best (truth) is apparently never good enough to convince you.

>>I amopkleased to discover (if that is what you are saying) that under yourm present conservative government you do not have to pay taxes!

Now I know you call yourself a socialist, but still, so far you've demonstrated condescension, arrogance, hypocrisy, denial, and intolerance.

>>Why then, if you are speaking the truth, has that Richard Survivor fellow just been awarded four years plus in the hoosegow for not paying taxes on this winnings (taking as much of my money as they can and giving it to someone else)?

It's called breaking the law. He apparently 'accidentally' left off $1,327,000 on his tax return. Instead he filed a return that showed he was due a refund of $4,483, instead of filing a return where he would have owed anywhere from $234,800 to $374,000. Add to that the judge said the sentence was harsher than expected because he had committed perjury repeatedly during his trial. I guess it was unfortunate for him that he wasn't president at the time.

Such blatant disregard for the law should be punished - another traditional value conservatives hold to. But, I can see the motivation, the tax rate in Hatch's Survivor year for his income was I believe 39.6%. Add the Rhode Island state income tax of what I believe is 25% of the federal income tax liability, gas taxes, phone taxes, sales taxes and any other tax you can think of and my point is proven, taking as much of our money away and giving it to someone else.

>>You were of no help at all. Sadly.<<

That's a matter of opinion.

Steve

Clarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 05/17/06 9:12 pm:

I should not be surprised that you nmissed the point, I must remember not to be too subtle!

You write as if only a Democratic government would ever levy taxes and impose penalties for non-payment. That is the stupidity of all conservatives when they use the tax question as a reason for not being caring enough to help the less fortunate. You are not the first right winger that has pushed that particular chestnut. The Survivor case was intended to show that that view is a distortion of the truth.

As to your oppinions, I disagree with them. So sue me if it is a crime to hold an opinioon not approved by your highness.

.

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 05/17/06 9:55 pm:
More condescension and arrogance. Keep it up and you might get to injecting racism as well. Both parties levy taxes, but only one wants a nanny state. Only one thinks the average American is incapable of taking care of themselves, that government must take care of them without regard to personal responsibility. Only one thinks all will be hunky dory in the world if the inequities between the rich and poor are eliminated by a forced redistribution of wealth - and it isn't the conservative party.

Just today the president extended his tax cuts and look who's already throwing fits, the liberal media. Why? Because in the eyes of a liberal it's immoral for a rich person to be rich (unless you're a liberal) and so they must pay that 39.6% tax rate that Hatch evaded - ok, tried to evade.

As to caring for the less fortunate, don't go there. Worry about yourself.

Steve

Clarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 05/18/06 1:05 am:


Steve,


You are always flying off to extremes. Try to understand that not only are there other ways to ensure an equitable and just society, but there is a direct human and Christian responsibility to lift those in need.

I not only will "GO THERE," as you call it, with or without your permission, but I have lived "THERE: all my life.

If making life-saving medicines available to those who need them, providing education for the poor, and extending social services to the needy, the sick, the disabled, is the "Nanny State," then that is the State that Jesus Christ is in favour of.

Try to swallow the message of the parable of the Good Samaritan. It is not just a pretty little story told to amuse children, but it has a powerful social message, besides holding eternal truths that are ignored only by the characters Jesus mentions before the despised foreigner comes across the victim, then do as admonished by Jesus - "Go and do likewise!"

When your political philosophy robs your religion of its values, then it is time to abandon one or the other, because they are mutually exclusive.

"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction"

This may be interpreted as meaning that a person who is religious is thoughtful to the unfortunate, and has an inner spirit that prompts to deeds of kindness and to the leading of a blameless life; who is just, truthful; who does not, as Paul says, think more highly of himself than he ought to think; who is affectionate, patient in tribulation, diligent, cheerful, fervent in spirit, hospitable, merciful; and who abhors evil and cleaves to that which is good. The possession of such a spirit and feeling is a true sign that a person is naturally religious.

There is spirituality even in the notion of the alleviation of the suffering and comfort to the down-trodden and poor. An intellectual glow, if not a spiritual blessing, comes as we begin to contemplate such things. No one can consider, however superficially, the motives and objectives behind extending our substance to those in need, whether by taxation or other means, without comparing in his mind the strife and selfishness as exemplified by what has been called by the Godless, 'the law of nature,' which is a law of the survival of the fittest, with the spiritual law expressed by Jesus when he said:

"He that will lose his life for my sake shall find it."

And inseparably associated with that thought is this one:

"Inasmuch as ye do it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

You see on every hand the struggle that goes on in nature. Birds killing birds, animals killing animals; men, too, are struggling and taking advantage of one another. "Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like" manifestations of the "works of the flesh" are rampant; "and they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God;" they are not in accordance with the law of the Lord, nor in accordance with the law of happiness. Thank heaven, that we can see besides the selfish grasping cry of :Me, me, me," indications by caring Christians of the Christlike tendency to deny themselves for the good of others.

Decent men who are disciples of the Master are striving for higher things than the mere selfish and the sordid.

"The race of mankind would perish," says Sir Walter Scott, "if they ceased to aid one another. We cannot exist without mutual help. All, therefore, that need aid should receive it from their fellowmen, and no one who has the power of granting can refuse it without guilt."

There is more real spirituality expressed in giving than there is in receiving. The greatest spiritual blessing comes from helping another. If you want to be miserable, just harbor hate for a brother, and if you want to hate, just do your brother some injury. But if you would be happy, render a kind service, make somebody else happy.

The poet was right when he expressed the truth in these lines:

If you sit down at set of sun
And count the acts that you have done,
And, counting, find
One self-denying deed, one word
That eased the heart of him who heard
One glance most kind,
That fell like sunshine where it went
Then you may count that day well spent.

But if, thru all the livelong day,
You've cheered no heart, by yea or nay,
If through it all,
You've nothing done that you can trace
That brought the sunshine to one face
No act most small
That helped some soul and nothing cost
Then count that day as worse than lost!

There is another thought, however, which I think reflects this spirituality of genuine caring for others, and that is the realisation, the consciousness that we are approaching, in desire at least, the two great commandments:

"Love the Lord thy God with all thy might, mind and strength, and thy neighbor as thyself."

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 05/18/06 1:56 pm:
>>You are always flying off to extremes.<<

Not really, but I do admit I kind of enjoy ruffling your feathers.

Since you apparently didn't figure it out, my suggestion not to go there was in relation to your comment "You are not the first right winger that has pushed that particular chestnut."

Contemplate this, I neither need or deserve lectures on helping the less fortunate, hence the suggestion to worry about yourself. What I do on that front is none of your business, though if you'd paid attention you would know better than to waste your lecture on me.

Isn't it a bit pretentious to assume Jesus would be in favor of a 'nanny state'? Isn't it also a bit pretentious to assume opposition to a 'nanny state' means one is anti-charity? Get a grip Ronnie, and swallow this - there is a monumental difference between caring for those in need and a 'nanny state.'

The 'nanny state' thinks you you're too stupid to watch out for your own interests and so government must intervene. I hardly think Jesus would look upon that favorably, and I'm even more amazed that those who shrilly proclaim Bush is eroding your rights are the very ones that advocate this federal babysitter.

That's the hypocrisy of liberalism - guardian of justice, freedom, democracy, free speech and self-determination for me but not for you - because you're too stupid to know what's best for you. Yeah, that's what Jesus would want, eh? Well pardon me while I puke.

Steve

Clarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 05/18/06 3:41 pm:

Steve,

"there is a monumental difference between caring for those in need and a 'nanny state.' "

You know, or should do, that your calling my concern for the undeprivileged a 'nanny state' is just right wing rhetoric to cover up the lack of care that so-called caring conservatives use as a jibe to dodge the issue.

Your chaarcterisation of a state that is concerned with the welfare of all its people as one that "thinks you you're too stupid to watch out for your own interests and so government must intervene" is opprobrious and untrue. That is your pejorative take on it, but that is not what it is about at all. If it were, then I would be as vehemently opposed to such an animal as you apparently are.

But that is not what it is. If that is your Nanny State, then it is none of mine. Extending that to cover what I think Jesus is in favour of is presumptious, because your definition of a nany state is not my definition of a welfare oriented state, and you have stretched the truth beyond recognition to make a cheap point.

You can call it what you will, but the admonition of the Lord to take care of those who 'cannot' not 'will not' take care of themselves can not be avoided by anyone who lays any claim to any shade of Christianity.

Those who worship God must try to be like him. "Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I [am] the LORD your God" ... "Ye shall be holy; for I am holy," is a charge to be as God is. This was reiterated when Jesus declared, "Be ye therefore perfect even as your father in heaven is perfect".

The call to discipleship is not an invitation to get away with doing as little as possible, but one in which the true follower will do as much as is asked of him and more.

"whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have [thy] cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away."

The model the Father sets for true worshippers - there is no worship without becoming God's servant and doing his will - is one that is prepared to give everything he has.

" I lay down my life for the sheep."

"This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you."

How can anyone be a follower of Jesus Christ if he is unwilling to love as Jesus loved, whatever the cost?

"Matthew 10:38
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it."

Shall we offer our lives but hang on to our substance? Did God hang on to that which was most precious in his sight - his 'beloved Son'?

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son ... "

What of those whose concern is with their worldly goods?

Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

"But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."

But, the materialisic cry, "We have to eat; we have to clothe ourselves!"

Jesus answered them: "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

¶ Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, [shall he] not much more [clothe] you, O ye of little faith?

Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."

Sincerely religious people care for the poor and needy who are unable to care for themselves. That is not confined to those of their own family, extended to others as needed. If this country was a theocracy, this would be taken care of through tithes and offerings. it is, however, a secular state, and heavy burdens go mostly unlifted from the backs of those least able to bear them.

That there are poor people, elderly people, sick people, disabled people, at large in America unable to meet the demands of providing shelter, clothing, food, and essential medicines is not a socialist fiction bandied about to provoke tight fisted conservatives. It is stark reality for millions of Americans many of whom make a daily choice between sustenance and life-sustaining medication.

Taking care of their need is not bowing to the stone idol of a "Nanny State," but a concrete example of true religion.

" Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world."

From which we are certain that those who will not care for the needs of the needy do not have pure religion in their bosoms. Pure and undefiled religion will lighten every burden anyone has to bear, bit it is useless to wish that empty bellies be filled. Vigorous and prompt action is necessary to fill those bellies.

" If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what profit?"

Sweet thoughts do not ease the pangs of hungry children, or ease the pain of the crippled whose analgaesics cost more a week than his income.

Men that will perform incredible contortions to hold on to this worlds goods and money when they have the inactive ability to bless the lives of others, are building themselves bigger and bigger treasure houses, but at the cost of their souls.

"The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, [and] be merry.

But God said unto him, [Thou] fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So [is] he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God."

The man's abundance had been accumulated through labor and thrift. Neglected or poorly-tilled fields do not yield plentifully. He is not represented as one in possession of wealth not rightfully his own. His plans for the proper care of his fruits and goods were not of themselves evil, though he might have considered better ways of distributing his surplus, such as for the relief of the needy. But he had used his time and his powers of body and mind to sow, reap and garner - all for his greedy materialistic self.

Jesus' followers were characterized as poor. In Luke's version of the first beatitude, we read, "Blessed are the poor [ptôkhoì], for yours is the kingdom of God" (Luke 6:20).

The corresponding woe is, "But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation" (Luke 6:24).

After a potential convert avows that he has kept the commandments since youth, Christ instructs him to sell his possessions, give the money to the poor, and follow him. This rich man "went away sorrowful." Christ then remarked to the apostles that it was difficult for the rich to be saved.

Christ, after describing his healings to John, summarizes his entire teaching thus: "the poor have good news preached to them" (Luke 7:22). The phrase immediately following this has great meaning: "And blessed is he who takes no offense at me" (Luke 7:23).

Christ's ministry to the poor, the uneducated, the religious outcasts, such as publicans and prostitutes (Matthew 21:31), caused great offense among the Sadducees and Pharisees.

It is only in this context that we see what a "slap in the face" the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) is. The Samaritan was racially impure­-half Gentile, half Israelite; he worshipped at a different temple, a rival of the Jerusalem temple. His religion was half pagan, half Jewish, a blasphemous mongrel religion to the ultraorthodox Pharisees. So Jews despised such people. Yet when the traveller is wounded, perhaps close to death, a priest and a Levite pass him by­-afraid of sustaining possible ritual impurity upon contact if the man were dead, in addition, perhaps, to simply being in a hurry, ­and the racially, religiously impure Samaritan cares for his wounds.

It is the outcast who shows "mercy," who is the "neighbor," who is in fact spiritually righteous. One can imagine how offensive this story was to the priests and Levites of Jesus' day. Translating such a parable into our day, it is as if an evangelical Christian passed by such a victim because he was a right wing conservative Republican who hated the "Nanny State," and a simple-minded Mormon cared for him.

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) explicitly contrasts the miserable outcast state of the poor and the heedless rich and shows the stark spiritual contrast between the two men. A sumptuously dressed rich man feasts every day, and "At his gate, covered with sores, lay a poor man named Lazarus, who would have been glad to satisfy his hunger with the scraps from the rich man's table. Even the dogs used to come and lick his sores." The beggar dies and ends up in the "bosom of Abraham" the rich man dies and "looks up in torment," "in agony in this fire." This parable is from a section in Luke that has been called, "The Gospel of the Outcast."

The charge is plain enough for any who have eyes to see, and souls that feel others' pain, that being a Christian is more than singing a few hymns, parsing a few prayers, and being seen at the pulpit. It is a call to emulate the love of God and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the benefit and blessing of all mankind. Anything less is not enough.

I care not what political party a man leans towards, nor do I distinguish between denominations, but if he leans away from wholehearted compliance in spirit and deed to the demands that God's love fixes on him, he is no disciple of Jesus Christ's.

To Paul I yield the final word,

"Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life."

Amen!

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 05/18/06 4:04 pm:
Ronnie, starting with this first:

You can call it what you will, but the admonition of the Lord to take care of those who 'cannot' not 'will not' take care of themselves can not be avoided by anyone who lays any claim to any shade of Christianity.

You make the mistake of assuming I have some aversion to helping the less fortunate in spite of not only a lack of evidence to support that assumption, but evidence that clearly contradicts that assumption. Again, I neither need or deserve lectures on helping the less fortunate.

Now let's make a distinction, unlike your assumption that I need lessons in discipleship and charity, I don't assume your concern for the less fortunate equates to an advocacy for a 'nanny state.' My argument is directed at liberalism and it's spot on. If you can't see it then you need to open your eyes. If what I said was "opprobrious and untrue" then what's the point of gun control, the food police, universal healthcare, smoking bans, diversity programs, tolerance and sensitivity training, affirmative action, comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners? Why does the left, including the NEA oppose parental choice in schools? Why did thousands of workers in France protest over the idea of actually having to be qualified to hold a job or work a few more hours? Liberals don't think we're too stupid to think for ourselves? After Bush won the second time Britain’s Daily Mirror flat out told us in a headline, “How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?”

The New Republic Editor Jonathan Chait exposed the liberal agenda when he said, "Shifting the federal tax burden downward makes middle-class taxpayers less likely to support future government programs, since they will have to pay for it themselves, rather than having a disproportionate burden picked up by the affluent."

Did you catch that Ronnie? A 'disproportionate burden picked up by the affluent' is necessary for 'future government programs.' Without that, higher and higher taxes on the rich, the American people will be less likely to to support further government intervention in our lives. It's not about taxing the rich, it's about the programs. This statement also exposes the hypocrisy of the left, their shouted hatred for the rich (except among their own) is a pretense, they need the rich to further their agenda, expanding the roster of those dependent on the government.

As for the rest of your post, all I will comment on is what you left to Paul. Charge them that are rich...not take as much as you can from them and give it to someone else.

Steve