Say Anything Blog

The faith of our Founders was theologically orthodox and subsequently friendly to liberty.

You would have a tough time convincing Jefferson or the other Deist founding fathers of that.

Hence, orthodox Christianity leads to politically conservative opinions and persuasions.

Hawk: So now you’re speaking for Jesus Christ?  That’s just too funny.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Barack Obama “was” a Muslim. And what are Muslims known for? Devious dishonesty. Such a thing is a virtue in the Muslim world.

I do have to laugh at this schmuck. Obama goes on about “division” while demonizing the rich. What a guy!

Someone should tell this “Christian” that if ten percent was good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for Uncle Sam. But that’s a “tax cut for the rich” in his book, isn’t it? I’ll have to close out by saying that I don’t know what Bible Obama is reading, but it doesn’t jibe with my version.

Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ, a church of about 1.2 million members that is considered one the most liberal of the mainline Protestant groups.

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

You would have a tough time convincing Jefferson or the other Deist founding fathers of that.

Hawk,

Context buddy, context.  Obama is speaking of Christians.  Not all Founders were Christian, I agree.  But those who were, were orthodox Christian.

Christ wouldn’t recognize the evangelical right as being Christians.

That depends on which Christ you’re alluding to.  The Christ of Orthodoxy or Neo-Orthodoxy.

: So now you’re speaking for Jesus Christ?

No, I don’t even believe in his divinity.  But I can read.  “Blessed are the peacemakers.” I must of missed the parts about the virtue of acquiring pesonal property and not paying taxes. 

Someone should tell this “Christian” that if ten percent was good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for Uncle Sam.

It wasn’t good enough for Jesus.  That is Mosaic law, Jesus required more.  but maybe you forgot this passage

Render unto Ceasar what is due Ceasar, render unto God what is due God.

Not all Founders were Christian, I agree.  But those who were, were orthodox Christian.

Only because you think you get to define what Christian is.  They were more children of the Enlightenment than they were orthodox Christians.

You would have a tough time convincing Jefferson or the other Deist founding fathers of that.

“The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it’s benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind.” --Thomas Jefferson to Moses Robinson, 1801. ME 10:237

Hawk - I must of missed the parts about the virtue of acquiring pesonal property and not paying taxes.

Straw man.

It wasn’t good enough for Jesus.  That is Mosaic law, Jesus required more.  but maybe you forgot this passage

How much does Ceasar require?

likwidshoes, you are an unbelievable bigot.

How? Please explain this insult. Can you even explain it? How, exactly, am I supposedly a “bigot”? In what way? By what means?

Oh, I know! It’s because I am intolerant of the evil religion-politic of Islam. I guess I have to accept and approve of the religion born out of hate and intolerance.

Hawk, you’re an idiot. If the Devil himself came to Earth, you’d be pointing your finger at those who recognize him for what he is. In your world, “bigots” are those who disagree with the ideas you support.

Hawk,

What Christian is, is beside the point.  Both Neo-Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy belongs to Christianity.

Obama was guilty of exactly the sin he accused Evangelicals of committing; by his divisive words he was widening the gap not bringing the two sides closer together. The Left has suffered greatly for almost three decades because most committed Christians, those attending Church at least weekly and most two or more times a week have rejected the Democrat Party’s toleration and even promotion of things like homosexual marriage, abortion, euthanasia and passing laws and/or making legal decisions creating a governmental hostility to people of faith. Obama calling them extremists and trying to marginalize them is not, in my opinion, the best path to remedy the fact Evangelicals mostly do not vote for or support them.

Evangelical Christians, tending to treat the Bible as inerrant and believing that God demands we refrain from sin, are conservative because conservatives for the most part embrace the same social/moral issues.

Jesus is neither Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal; nor would He in any manner embrace the political and economic issues of the world system.  However, seeing how He condemns sin and the Left seems to be more tolerant of sin, it is reasonable that evangelicals would be closer to conservatives than liberals.

Hawk: You should study religion of the 1500’s through the early 1900’s more before you make such claims. Most early Americans were Protestants, believers in the inerrancy of Scripture and were very conservative in their world views because of their religious beliefs. They were not far away from the break with the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England and yet they were much more puritanical than you would believe. In New York it was a felony to take Jesus Name in vain, through the Northwest Treaty they encouraged teaching the Christian Bible in public schools, most colleges were started by and most of the professors were ministers of the Gospel, and displays of Faith in the Public Square and in and around government buildings at all levals of government were common until well into the 1960’s. These are troubling facts, but facts nonetheless.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

The thing that bothers me most about this incident is his choice of words.  That “hijack” language sounds familiar doesn’t it?  Here’s the President on Sept. 20, 2001:

“The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself.”

Is Senator Obama actually comparing the Christian right with the 9/11 terrorists, or is he just that tone-deaf?

He’s just following in Rosie O’Donnell’s footsteps, metaphorically speaking.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

He’s just following in Rosie O’Donnell’s footsteps, metaphorically speaking.

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

He’s just following in Rosie O’Donnell’s footsteps, metaphorically speaking.

Not footprints… hoofprints!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Cloven hooves?

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Cloven hooves?

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

Cloven hooves?

but does she also chew the cud??

Not to my knowledge, but she recently wallowed in self-pity.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

she recently wallowed in self-pity.

The Aussies call that “Sty-ing power”!

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

The Aussies call that “Sty-ing power”!

She was trying to muddy the waters, it would seem.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

With all her crappy ideas, Rosie must be very happy…

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

With all her crappy ideas, Rosie must be very happy…

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

Happy as a liberal in multiculturalism!

Ignorance is bliss.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Hawk:

No, I don’t even believe in his divinity.  But I can read.  “Blessed are the peacemakers.” I must of missed the parts about the virtue of acquiring pesonal property and not paying taxes. 

So Jesus was a socialist?  We aren’t supposed to acquire personal property?

As to not paying taxes...The top 20% accounts for more than 2/3’s of the total federal revenues, the bottom 20% accounts for 0% (after you account for all of the federal assistance they receive). 

The problem here is with out-of-control entitlement spending and the willingness of liberals to get ever increasing numbers of people addicted to living off the wealth of others.  Not surprisingly, that was totally missed by play-the-class-card Obama…

So Jesus was a socialist?

I believe Jesus preached that we the community should take care of its memebers.  Call it socialism if you want.  That wasn’t my intent.  It just irritates me when conservatives claim to have the true revalation of Christianity, which I find to be way off the mark.

Jesus called for individual Christians and the Church to help the widow and the orphan and those in need. He did not ask it of the state, as that removes individuals from the direct role in giving out of their own need to those in greater need. It would be incorrect to paint Jesus as a socialist, neither was He a capitalist. His mission was Salvation and the spiritual needs of man and He was totally apolitical.

Not all conservatives are Christian and not all Christians are liberal. If you learn to read Hawk, you would find that the alliance between Christians and Conservatives are mostly on social-moral issues; and because the Democrat Party and Liberals have expressed open hostility to people of faith and seem to have an extreme tolerance of some basic immoral issues, the Democrat Party is not hospitable to their core beliefs. Why is that so hard to understaand?

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Nieman makes a good point here.  Jesus teaches that we have an individual responsibility for our neighbor.  Hawk appears to be advocating for the government to be taking money from us to meet that obligation for us.

There are many terrible things wrong with this.  First is it usurps our individual responsibility, it sends the signal that we are untrustworthy to be able to meet this obligation, and finally by leaving the decision to a select few in Washington, it is a horribly inefficient way to actually help people who truly need it versus who is just looking for an easy dollar.

There are many terrible things wrong with this. First is it usurps our individual responsibility, it sends the signal that we are untrustworthy to be able to meet this obligation, and finally by leaving the decision to a select few in Washington, it is a horribly inefficient way to actually help people who truly need it versus who is just looking for an easy dollar.

Not to mention the confiscation of private money that is selectively given to favored groups, especially by the Dems.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Garick: The funny thing is, left alone Americans are the most generous, charitable people in the world.

When government chooses to direct our charitable giving, it is often to causes having nothing to do with meeting basic needs of people, the cost of the government to handle the money dilutes by a large degree what was given to the people in need, and as you stated it robs people of a sense of personal responsibility, it also robs them of the spiritual or for people with no faith the emotional rewards that come with helping those in need. It robs both the giver and receiver of the mutual bond that will help those in need become self sufficient and able to give to others and those giving to build relationships with those they have helped.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

a horribly inefficient way to actually help people who truly need it versus who is just looking for an easy dollar.

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

When government chooses to direct our charitable giving, it is often to causes having nothing to do with meeting basic needs of people…

When government chooses to direct our charitable giving, it is neither charitable nor giving!

It is, instead, appropriation at the point of a gun, and, after an intolerable “cut” for overhead and expenses, nothing but a pandering re-distribution of funds at the other end of the transaction.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

When government chooses to direct our charitable giving, it is neither charitable nor giving!

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

Bat One: Okay I get the hint! With this topic and with Nifong I didn’t go for the jugular. I consciously try not to say things as directly as I used to because I am often accused of being an absolutist and self-righteous, so I do try and soften my words. Nontheless, I agree with you and Proof and your more direct and probably more accurate observations.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman,

In a very real sense, you suffer from the same disability as does our president...and “suffer” is absolutely the correct word for it.  Your are often too nice.  Both of you.  Too inclined to turn the other cheek, to inclined to give those who oppose you the benefit of the doubt, and too inclined to overlook the vile intentions of your enemies and focus on the good within.

No doubt, in both cases, this tendency is the direct result of the depth of your faith, and you are to be envied for that, rather than criticized or condemned.

In the case of the President, it can be argued that his “niceness” has caused him to discount the hateful intentions of some others (Mr. Putin, Mr. Abbas, Senators Kennedy, Schumer, Reid, Leahy, et. al. and hold fast to some who he should not (George Tenent, Colin Powell, John Snow).

Mind you, I say this not out of contempt but out of admiration.  Still, in the case of a president of the US, an occasional increase in ruthlessness would certainly be in order.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

It just irritates me when conservatives claim to have the true revalation of Christianity, which I find to be way off the mark.

Hawk,

This political conservative believes the bible is the true revelation of Christianity.  How we approach the bible leads to various interpretations as pointed out earlier.  This leads Obama to claim the Christian left has the true revelation of Christianity since according to him—and you—tax cuts are not Christian.

Okay I get the hint! With this topic and with Nifong I didn’t go for the jugular. I consciously try not to say things as directly as I used to because I am often accused of being an absolutist and self-righteous, so I do try and soften my words.

Neiman,

“The truth is everything, attitude is everything else.”

Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart.

I wonder where Senator Obama ever got the notion that the function of the Christian faith is to bring us together.  I’m not as well versed in my Bible reading as I should be, but I don’t recall either Jesus or St. Paul suggesting that the purpose of Christian faith his to hold hands with your neighbor and sing either “Kum-by-ya” or “I’d Like To Teach The World To Sing.”

The purpose of faith is to obtain forgiveness and salvation in the next world, not non-partisan, secular commeradarie in this world.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

It just irritates me when conservatives claim to have the true revalation of Christianity, which I find to be way off the mark.

Hawk,

Frustrating though it may be, you’ll have to admit that the alternative you’ve implied, allowing an avowed non-believer such as you to define the “true revelation of Christianity” is downright preposterous.

No doubt there are plenty of other things you find annoying. Just add this to the list.  The long arm of liberal interference with the private liberties of Americans does not yet extend to defining our religious practices or theologies for us.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

The truth is everything, attitude is everything else.

HG,

Interesting quote.  Whose is it?  Structurally, it almost sounds like something Vince Lombardi would have come up with.

Or maybe a Clinton defense attorney, instead?
//sarcasm//

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One,

According to some professing Christians, Jesus lived and died to show us how to live and die and nothing more.  From this reading of the bible comes a Utopian dream similar in many regards to socialism.  So similar in fact that the Christian left has found a comfortable home in the democratic party. 

On the other hand, a more literal reading gives an understanding similar, if not identical, to your’s.  That is that Jesus is God sent from heaven by the Father to pay the penalty for humanity’s sin as required by Divine justice.  And, that through Jesus Christ’s sacrifice, forgiveness and a right relationship with God is the free gift to all who by faith count His sacrifice sufficient for one’s own sin.

Bat One,

I first heard the quote in a sermon given by my Pastor.  I can’t say for sure he is the author, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was.

According to some professing Christians, Jesus lived and died to show us how to live and die and nothing more.

Sounds to me like you’re describing a certain metro-Chicago United Church of Christ… the one that advertised its Kwanzaa services, but not any such celebration Jesus’ birth.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Hold on to your hats mates - Jesus never said He would bring the Church and the world* together. He speaks of families being bitterly divided over Him, that the world cannot receive (accept) Him and that he would be a stumbling stone and a cause of division, not peace.

* Politics represent the evil world system!

“Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five [people] in one house divided, three against two and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother, the mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law against the mother-in-law.” Luke 12:51-53

There are many verses to be quoted wherein Jesus directly or through His Apostles made it clear that peace and brotherhood would not result because of Christ until He returns to rule the earth. The point is, those that look to Jesus as a saccharine sweet philosopher that would produce peace among men don’t know Scripture or the hearts of men.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman,

Thank you!

Hawk,

This is why secular liberals are not taken seriously when you try to define Christian doctrine.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

I never said that Obama has it right, just that the Christian right has it wrong.  Every “Christian” who gives money to allow Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberson to become rich is a hypocrite and has missed the message of Christianity.  Every “Christian” who drives a Mercedes to church is a hypocrite and has missed the message of Christianity.  Every “Christian” who doesn’t minister to the poor and the sick and the lowest of society is a hypocrite and has missed the message of Christianity. 

Christianity is hard.  Jesus was killed because he preached an extremely difficult and unpopular message. 

The Protestant idea that you are a successful Christian through faith alone would be abhorent to Jesus.  He required more, much more.  It was created to give comfort to people who didn’t want to do the real work of being Christian. 

“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” This was not meant to be taken literally.  The eye of the needle is a gate to the market in Jerusalem where a camel would have to get on its knees a crawl through.  Most couldn’t do it.  It was a popular betting game.  But remember all of you Christians who are trying to become rich, most of you are failing Christianity.

Hawk - I believe Jesus preached that we the community should take care of its memebers.

“We the community” does not equal the federal government.

But remember all of you Christians who are trying to become rich, most of you are failing Christianity.

What’s wrong with rich? It’s the solution to poverty.

Every “Christian” who drives a Mercedes to church is a hypocrite and has missed the message of Christianity.

Hawk,

Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Jacob, Job and many others, including King David of whom God said he was a man after God’s own heart, were all rich.  Were they hypocrites too?  Wealth does not a hypocrite make.

The Protestant idea that you are a successful Christian through faith alone would be abhorent to Jesus.

“The just shall live by faith”.  “Without faith it is impossible to please God.”

Faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ not only makes one a Christian but is the key to Christian living.  “As ye have recieved Christ Jesus the Lord [by faith] so walk ye in him [by faith].”

Faith isn’t hope in the unknowable but strong confidence in the revealed will of God.  This leads to right actions.

Wealth isn’t the problem; greed, envy, and the like are the real source of the trouble you allude to.  Much good has been done with the appropriate use of personal wealth.

Hawk - I believe Jesus preached that we the community should take care of its memebers.

Do you suppose that Jesus is happy with the results of the poverty programs, dependency, crime, broken families.

These programs are designed (unintentionally) a persons humanity. 

Of course if that money were still in the hands of the producer they’d spend it on ways that would provide jobs for everyone who wants to work. 

And of course helping those that can’t help themselves is a good thing.  Too bad the bureaucrats and welfare cheats are stealing the money that we’d like them to get.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Jesus was killed because he preached an extremely difficult and unpopular message. 

Jesus was killed because he claimed to be equal with the Father making himself God.  He also claimed to be the Messiah prophesied in the OT.  This too was rejected by the Jews of His day.

Hawk,

Regarding the community social programs you claim to be Christian, do you not remember this verse?

Exodus 23:3 “Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause.”

This is precisely what the vast majority of social programs do.

Hawk,

One last reference regarding Christianity and government redistribution of wealth to those who are able but won’t take responsibility for themselves or their families.

2Th 3:10
“For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”

I never said that Obama has it right, just that the Christian right has it wrong…

Jesus was killed because he preached an extremely difficult and unpopular message.

Hawk,

You probably ought to be discussing the relative merits of the FISA Appeals court ruling in In Re: Sealed Cases or rationalizing the Left’s manic rush to raise taxes, rather than continuing this line of “reasoning.” You are attempting to convince a largely Christian audience that the most basic cornerstone of our faith is wrong, and that you, a non-believer, are better versed in the meaning of the life and death of Jesus Christ than we are.  That is not only an appallingly arrogant undertaking, but gratuitous as well.

You are implying that Christ’s life, and death were of no theological consequence but merely a secular guidepost instead… a cross between Essene aesthetism and the Boy Scouts.  Christian faith, however, requires more of us than that we tithe and help little old ladies across the street.

For those who believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God and our saviour, the secular reasoning behind his death, the excuse for his crucifixion, are almost irrelevant.

Besides, even in this you are wrong.  Christ’s death was not because the message of Christianity was too difficult.  His death was orchestrated by the bureaucrats of the day who viewed Him as a threat to their position of power and prestige as gatekeepers to God and society’s civil magistrates.

As for wealth, there are far fewer Christians whose goal is to “become rich” than you might think.  Oh, and the Reverend Jerry Falwell passed away last month, and like the rest of ultimately, his fate is a matter between him and God.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Much good has been done with the appropriate use of personal wealth.

Those are the people who make it through the “eye of the needle”.

Yes.

HG, why don’t you quote Jesus’ views on poverty?

Hawk: Neither poverty or wealth is the issue, but whether in our poverty we are rich in the things of the Lord; and in our wealth, we are responsible and faithful stewards.

You question those that give money to ministers that live like rich people on the giving of the poor, and well you should that you don’t defraud your brothers and sisters in Christ as you are judging them for doing. The people following a particular minister believe they are being spiritually fed by the Lord through that person, and even if the minister misuses the money for his own comfort, God looks upon the heart of the giver and blesses them according to the sincerity of their heart. The minister is God’s servant, not yours or mine and He will judge that servant with righteous judgment; if they are true Christians and not false prophets their works of the flesh will be of no value to them, though they will gain Heaven even if barely; and the false prophets will suffer according to their bad deeds and that more severely than other sinners.

If you serve the Lord with all your heart and stop judging those children of God that don’t measure up to your ideals, that is your reasonable and best service. The sins facing us to day are sufficient to capture our attention and if we concern ourselves with them we will have little time to judge the sins of others.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

and in our wealth, we are responsible and faithful stewards.

This is not sarcastic, but responsible and faithful stewards of what?

Since Conservatives give more of their money to the poor while the liberals give other peoples money to the bureaucrats who give a pittance to a poor I think we know where Hawk’s coming from.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

HG, why don’t you quote Jesus’ views on poverty?

Hawk,

Jesus encouraged and instructed His followers to give to the poor. 

Please listen carefully.  There is a difference you fail to see here. You are assuming that opposition to government wealth redistribution is to oppose acts of charity. Personal charity is a good thing and conservatives practice and encourage such virtue—more so than liberals according to some accounts.

Never once did Christ encourage or command the government to be charitable since such an act is an impossibility.  Government must first confiscate before it can redistribute.  That isn’t Charity.

Charity is a virtue and we ought to be charitable as Christians.  Redistribution of wealth is akin to theft and the results of such have proven disasterous for most of its recipients—although it has secured a substantial voting block for democrats. 

Charity is good and Christians ought to be charitable.

Government is good and ought to protect the rights of its citizens, especially the citizen’s right to private property.

Hawk called me a “bigot” up above for passing judgment on Islam.

Yet here he is passing judgment on Christianity and Christians.

What a hypocritical jagoff.

Once again, “we the community” does not equal the federal government. One doesn’t have to be a Christian to see that charity doesn’t equal deadly government force.

The left never understands this simple concept. Do they not understand the simple concept? Or is it willful ignorance?

Hawk: Good and faithful servants of the material possessions and wealth God gave to them to help the widow and orphan, to help brothers and sisters in Christ in need, to give to the poor, to finance missionary work and in other ways use that wealth as God would direct in serving others. That is a personal responsibility before God, not a call to give money to the government that they can redistribute it as they see fit for often wholly secular causes.

One example: Did you know that most Urban Missions to feed the poor are Christian outreaches to those in need? Did you know that most of their money comes not from community fund raising or government assistance, but the incredibly generous giving of financially successful Christians and even from Christians themselves in financial need? It is incredible to see someone barely able to meet their daily needs see someone else as having a greater need and taking their change, all their change and perhaps their last dollar to help these Urban Missions? While this money does not meet the financial needs of the ministry, those people are more generous and blessed by God than the wealthy man that gives millions of dollars out of his surplus.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.