Why Do You Liberals "Care"?

[boxcar]

Class Envy is one of the aspects to statism that really irks me, perhaps because it's such a perverted, unnatural, unwholesome -- and, yes, downright wicked method for creating and expanding the welfare state, and it's all done under the self-righteous, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou pretense of "caring for others". And these self-appointed, busybody guardians of the "poor" always get to determine what is "unfair" in life. They get to dictate to others what if fair and what isn't.

Take EP, for example. He's all "concerned" about how unjust and how unfair it is that CEOs make so much more money than the "rest of us" wage earners. And he points to how the gap between the two income groups is ever-widening. And to his way of thinking, and Mosty's and NJ's, etc., this is just not right. There's something inherently evil with such a gap (supposedly). So, like good, red-blooded Americans they think they are, they don their mantle of self-righteousness and complain and whine about the gross unfairness of it all -- how about how terribly unjust life is! And then they deceive themselves into believing that they have this noble civic duty to right this injustice through the political process and to gain the ear of the equally self-deceived criminal politicians in D.C..

These self-appointed guardians are always very quick to point to the greed of the rich. But when did the sin of greed, in and of itself, become illegal? Can anyone here point me to any law that prohibits greed? I think we would be hard-pressed to find such a law because greed is a form of lust. And lust is an internal sin. Lust, first and foremost, is a sin of the mind and heart. If they're going to pass laws prohibiting internalized sin -- if the government is going to try to control our very thoughts -- then they would have to outlaw all forms of lust, including the sexual kind! To be sure, the internal sin of greed can manifest itself outwardly, and often when this happens criminal activity will result. But it's this outward manifestation of criminal conduct that would be in violation against various laws. White collar crimes such as insider trading is without doubt caused by greed. Ponzi schemes are caused by greed. So can armed robbery also be very often. Greed is frequently the motivation behind various criminal activities -- but greed itself is not a crime. So...why are libs trying to moralize us? When did liberals become guardians of morality? Who appointed them? On what or whose authority do they base their brand of morality? Why...if any Christian group of church attempted to criminalize lust by shutting down brothels and porn shops across the nation, I believe civil war would erupt over the wicked's self-indignant outrage! The wicked would not stand for that. But, yet, where money is involved, where the redistribution of wealth is involved, it's perfectly fine and acceptable for the godless to demonize that form of lust known as "greed" by making it all but unlawful.

If a rich man is stingy with his money and doesn't want to share his wealth with anyone, or he has no desire to contribute to worthy causes, etc., what is that to anyone? What business is that of anyone? Will not that man answer to God for his greediness? Is not the internal sin of greed between the sinner and his Creator? Will the greed, the envious and jealous go unpunished?

What I'd like to do in this thread is look at this issue of Class Envy from various perspectives -- that is to say, from various biblical perspectives. First, I'd like to address this issue from the Contentment Perspective. It may come as wee bit of a surprise to many of you that Discontentment is very often a perniciously sinful attitude. I'll kick off this thread with this poignant NT passage and give everyone some time to digest its contents.

The context of this passage is John the Baptist's gospel ministry. John was the true prophet and forerunner of the Christ. And he made no small ripple
in Jordan and the surrounding area when he preached the gospel of repentance. He drew very large crowds. And on this particular day, as many were approaching the prophet, included were curious Gentiles --, in fact Roman soldiers. Soldiers. Men of power with the backing of the authority mighty Rome. But in order to fully appreciate John's reply to their particular question you have to understand the background, which is really easy because not all that much has changed in this day and age with respect to compensation for military duty. In a nutshell: No one in the Roman army was going to get rich, just like no one in today's military is either!
But in those days, especially when the Roman army was in occupied territory (which was the case here), it wasn't that unusual for soldiers to take undue liberty with non-Romans' property. The Roman army was the most powerful in the world and it was a cruel, heartless, merciless, fighting machine for the most part. With this backdrop behind us, let's consider the passage:

Luke 3:14
14 And some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And what about us, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not take money from anyone by force , or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages."
NASB

As you can see, the very first thing that came to John's mind when answering these soldiers was their ill-gotten gains -- by force, yet! Frequently, soldiers were nothing more than common thugs. Criminals. They used their uniforms,their helmets, their shields, their swords as a cover for their armed robberies. But worse yet...they felt justified because in service to their emperor, they considered themselves to be underpaid. Did everyone catch this? They, too, probably felt that life was unfair. They, too, probably complained daily about the injustices of serving in the military -- of having to settle for their modest wages.

Another way these soldiers had for unlawfully procuring other people's money was no doubt through the "more refined" methods of extortion or bribery, which very often, by necessity involved lying -- bearing false witness for the sake of personal gain. So, John warns them to cease and desist from false accusations.

Now, we come to the "punch line" -- or the bottom line, if you prefer. Certainly one of the the causes to the sins of armed robbery and extortion was the internal sin of greed. These soldiers simply wanted what the "better heeled" had. They were jealous. They were envious. They were bitter. They were resentful. So, in their service to the emperor, they felt perfectly justified in supplementing their incomes at others' expense!

But was greed the primary or secondary cause to their sinful behavior? John doesn't mention greed because he realized that this wasn't their primary sinful issue. Greed would have only begged the question, for it would have to be asked: Why were they greedy for what others had? Why were they envious? Why were they jealous? John very succinctly tells us, doesn't he? Their discontentment with their compensation in the military provided the fertile breeding ground for all their subsequent sins.

Notice that John didn't say that they should start a revolt against their commanders. He didn't tell them to go and form a union for better pay and better benefits. He didn't tell them to start a political lobby to petition the Roman government for pay subsidies. Nor did he tell them to petition the government for a big pay hike through the taxation of the rich Roman citizens! He didn't tell them any of this. He told them to simply be content with their situation in life.

This passage is only the tip of the iceberg in exposing the utter wickedness that lies beneath soft underbelly of insipid statism. Stay tuned for more.

Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

Oh my... I skimmed over much of the scripture, as I suppose much of the target audience will, but I think I can use the words of someone that the target audience might be more inclined to listen to while conveying a similar message:

“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money,” - Barney Frank

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aWWU4qhI3goc&pos=9

[46zilzal]

rah rah GOD.

or my book is better than your book and my Daddy can beat up your daddy.

On and ON

[Tom]

What, you run out of syllables?
Most in any word is two???

Very substantive reply. :D

[boxcar]

What, you run out of syllables?
Most in any word is two???

Very substantive reply. :D

Now, now. We know that 46er is a very deep thinker; for his thoughts are derived from the nearest cesspool to him at any given time. I'll prove that to everyone in moment, as I'm going to pop a few questions to our deep thinker. :rolleyes:

46er:
Is there no virtue in contentment? Or is contentment evil? What exactly did you find wrong with John's exhortation to the soldiers?

Boxcar
P.S. 46er, while you're mulling over what pearls of wisdom to share with us, do you know of any laws on the government's books that prohibit greed?

[boxcar]

Oh my... I skimmed over much of the scripture, as I suppose much of the target audience will, but I think I can use the words of someone that the target audience might be more inclined to listen to while conveying a similar message:

“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money,” - Barney Frank

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aWWU4qhI3goc&pos=9

The words ring true. Too bad they were uttered by a hypocrite -- no doubt to tickle his audience's ears at the time.

By the way, spending money is not the thrust of this thread. ;) Now, if ol' Barney had said it is unwise for government to promote class envy among the people for legislative purposes -- that would have been a lot more on target.

Boxcar

[46zilzal]

46er:
Is there no virtue in contentment? Or is contentment evil? What exactly did you find wrong with John's exhortation to the soldiers?

Boxcar
P.S. 46er, while you're mulling over what pearls of wisdom to share with us, do you know of any laws on the government's books that prohibit greed?
I live my life in real time and Not based upon some book of mythology

[boxcar]

I live my life in real time and Not based upon some book of mythology

So...contentment has no place in real time? Is contentment a myth, too? :rolleyes:

46er, I love ya. However, I gotta tell ya: The only thing more shallow than you is a dewdrop on a leaf.

Boxcar

[exactaplayer]

What, you run out of syllables?
Most in any word is two???

Very substantive reply. :D
This has to be the best example of the pot calling the kettle black in history.:D
And of course we have to be concerned with Boxcar's sanctimonious self when he insults 46. Talk about shallow, sheesh :bang:

[Robert Goren]

Greed may not aways be a crime, but it is aways a sin, one of the seven deadly sin.

[boxcar]

Greed may not aways be a crime, but it is aways a sin, one of the seven deadly sin.

Absolutely! It is indeed. All forms of lust are sinful.

Did not Jesus himself say that to look upon a woman with a lustful eye amounts to adultery!? But is adultery a criminal act? Is fornication with any consenting adult a crime in any state? But what liberals have done with the Greed card (not be confused with the Green one :) ) is that they have all but criminalized internalized sin of greed. Listen to politicians carefully whenever they play this card next time. BO plays it constantly.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

This has to be the best example of the pot calling the kettle black in history.:D
And of course we have to be concerned with Boxcar's sanctimonious self when he insults 46. Talk about shallow, sheesh :bang:

Since you brought up "shallow", EP, a topic of which you can speak with the utmost authority due to your daily, intimate, personal experience with it -- perhaps out of all that you'd be willing to share with us why would you give two flips about the widening gap between incomes of CEOs and the "rest of us"? Why should this distress you so much? Why should this fact be the source of such great consternation for you? Share with us why your little ol' self-righteous heart is so troubled. Perhaps you'd be able to convince some misguided conservative to enter into your deep concern. :rolleyes:

Boxcar
P.S. Don't forget to check for all the class envy talking points on your favorite statism sites before replying. :rolleyes:

[exactaplayer]

Since you brought up "shallow", EP, a topic of which you can speak with the utmost authority due to your daily, intimate, personal experience with it -- perhaps out of all that you'd be willing to share with us why would you give two flips about the widening gap between incomes of CEOs and the "rest of us"? Why should this distress you so much? Why should this fact be the source of such great consternation for you? Share with us why your little ol' self-righteous heart is so troubled. Perhaps you'd be able to convince some misguided conservative to enter into your deep concern. :rolleyes:

Boxcar
P.S. Don't forget to check for all the class envy talking points on your favorite statism sites before replying. :rolleyes:

sorry Boxxy, but I cannot respond to a post that starts with a falsehood. I did not bring up "shallow" you did in your slanderous remark to 46. When you start posting facts I will be happy to discuss anything with you.

[delayjf]

perhaps out of all that you'd be willing to share with us why would you give two flips about the widening gap between incomes of CEOs and the "rest of us"?

I don't know about EP but my problem with CEO pay is not so much the amount, I don't care how much somebody makes as long as it's legal AND ethnical. My problem with CEO salaries is that its set by the board of directors which can and often does have too close of a relationship with the CEO. How else can one explain what some CEO's are paid even after the company loses money, i.e. Frank Rains former CEO of Freddie Mac. And if a company wants to pay an employee in stock options - then those options should be taxed at the income rate, not the capitol gains rate. I would like to see the shareholders have a say on CEO salaries, and I would like to see more CEO's held accountable for corporate malfeasance. Again, under Rains, Freddie underreported loses to the tune of 1.5 billion -and walked away a rich man.

[boxcar]

sorry Boxxy, but I cannot respond to a post that starts with a falsehood. I did not bring up "shallow" you did in your slanderous remark to 46. When you start posting facts I will be happy to discuss anything with you.

But YOU made it an issue with me. I didn't call you shallow (at least not yet). Lame response. Or are you 46er's lawyer? :rolleyes: (God help him if you are.)

And why are you suddenly concerned about falsehoods? Your self-righteous indignation has a very...h-a-l-l-o-w ring to it, especially when one considers your unfailing support for BO -- one of the biggest presidential liars in American history, if indeed not the most prolific of them all. (BO wouldn't know the Truth if it were a whale and he was Jonah and he got swallowed by it .)

So, come down from the lofty, holier-than-thou ant-like mountain you have erected for yourself and address the issue of why you're so concerned with that income gap. Gird up the loins of your mind and be a man for once in your life. Confront and debate an issue honestly, or is that asking too much of a liberal? Can you not even be honest with yourself? Only cowards hide behind inane excuses, EP.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I don't know about EP but my problem with CEO pay is not so much the amount, I don't care how much somebody makes as long as it's legal AND ethnical. My problem with CEO salaries is that its set by the board of directors which can and often does have too close of a relationship with the CEO.

Ahh...you raise an interesting issue. As long as the amount of income is "legal AND ethical". And who gets to decide the latter? Should this not be the proverbial buck stopper's prerogative? In small companies, the owner? In publicly held corporations, the board? In short...whoever is in charge of the purse strings, wouldn't you agree?

What follows is a parable of Jesus -- the parable of the Laborers and the Vineyard. It addresses this very issue but from a little different angle to teach his listeners about the Kingdom. Nonetheless the principle taught applies to your concern, as well -- although you may not like what it is. Here is this kingdom parable:

Matt 20:1-16
20:1 "For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2 "And when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius for the day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 "And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the market place; 4 and to those he said,' You too go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.' And so they went. 5 "Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did the same thing. 6 "And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing; and he said to them, 'Why have you been standing here idle all day long?' 7 "They said to him, 'Because no one hired us.' He said to them, 'You too go into the vineyard.' 8 "And when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last group to the first.' 9 "And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each one received a denarius. 10 "And when those hired first came, they thought that they would receive more; and they also received each one a denarius. 11 "And when they received it, they grumbled at the landowner, 12 saying,' These last men have worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the scorching heat of the day.' 13 "But he answered and said to one of them, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14'Take what is yours and go your way, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. 15'Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?' 16 "Thus the last shall be first, and the first last."
NASB

If you believe that the landowner in this parable treated his workers righteously, then this should adequately address the concerns you raised in your post. If you don't...well, that's something else again. :)

Boxcar

[Valuist]

I don't know about EP but my problem with CEO pay is not so much the amount, I don't care how much somebody makes as long as it's legal AND ethnical. My problem with CEO salaries is that its set by the board of directors which can and often does have too close of a relationship with the CEO. How else can one explain what some CEO's are paid even after the company loses money, i.e. Frank Rains former CEO of Freddie Mac. And if a company wants to pay an employee in stock options - then those options should be taxed at the income rate, not the capitol gains rate. I would like to see the shareholders have a say on CEO salaries, and I would like to see more CEO's held accountable for corporate malfeasance. Again, under Rains, Freddie underreported loses to the tune of 1.5 billion -and walked away a rich man.

Perfect example of this was Chesapeake Energy. When CEO Aubrey McClendon got margin calls to liquidate his entire CHK position last year, he ended up losing several hundred million dollars. What did the board do several months later? Voted to give him a giant pay raise, to make up for the lost money. This, after CHK stock plummeted from $70 to under $15. Nice job by the brain dead morons on CHK's board to stick it to their shareholders.

[boxcar]

Perfect example of this was Chesapeake Energy. When CEO Aubrey McClendon got margin calls to liquidate his entire CHK position last year, he ended up losing several hundred million dollars. What did the board do several months later? Voted to give him a giant pay raise, to make up for the lost money. This, after CHK stock plummeted from $70 to under $15. Nice job by the brain dead morons on CHK's board to stick it to their shareholders.

This is one of the reasons why I have never invested in stocks. The stockholders are at the mercy of the boards. Buyer Beware and all that good stuff...

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Class Envy is one of the aspects to statism that really irks me, perhaps because it's such a perverted, unnatural, unwholesome -- and, yes, downright wicked method for creating and expanding the welfare state, and it's all done under the self-righteous, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou pretense of "caring for others". And these self-appointed, busybody guardians of the "poor" always get to determine what is "unfair" in life. They get to dictate to others what if fair and what isn't.

Take EP, for example. He's all "concerned" about how unjust and how unfair it is that CEOs make so much more money than the "rest of us" wage earners. And he points to how the gap between the two income groups is ever-widening. And to his way of thinking, and Mosty's and NJ's, etc., this is just not right. There's something inherently evil with such a gap (supposedly). So, like good, red-blooded Americans they think they are, they don their mantle of self-righteousness and complain and whine about the gross unfairness of it all -- how about how terribly unjust life is! And then they deceive themselves into believing that they have this noble civic duty to right this injustice through the political process and to gain the ear of the equally self-deceived criminal politicians in D.C..

These self-appointed guardians are always very quick to point to the greed of the rich. But when did the sin of greed, in and of itself, become illegal? Can anyone here point me to any law that prohibits greed? I think we would be hard-pressed to find such a law because greed is a form of lust. And lust is an internal sin. Lust, first and foremost, is a sin of the mind and heart. If they're going to pass laws prohibiting internalized sin -- if the government is going to try to control our very thoughts -- then they would have to outlaw all forms of lust, including the sexual kind! To be sure, the internal sin of greed can manifest itself outwardly, and often when this happens criminal activity will result. But it's this outward manifestation of criminal conduct that would be in violation against various laws. White collar crimes such as insider trading is without doubt caused by greed. Ponzi schemes are caused by greed. So can armed robbery also be very often. Greed is frequently the motivation behind various criminal activities -- but greed itself is not a crime. So...why are libs trying to moralize us? When did liberals become guardians of morality? Who appointed them? On what or whose authority do they base their brand of morality? Why...if any Christian group of church attempted to criminalize lust by shutting down brothels and porn shops across the nation, I believe civil war would erupt over the wicked's self-indignant outrage! The wicked would not stand for that. But, yet, where money is involved, where the redistribution of wealth is involved, it's perfectly fine and acceptable for the godless to demonize that form of lust known as "greed" by making it all but unlawful.

If a rich man is stingy with his money and doesn't want to share his wealth with anyone, or he has no desire to contribute to worthy causes, etc., what is that to anyone? What business is that of anyone? Will not that man answer to God for his greediness? Is not the internal sin of greed between the sinner and his Creator? Will the greed, the envious and jealous go unpunished?

What I'd like to do in this thread is look at this issue of Class Envy from various perspectives -- that is to say, from various biblical perspectives. First, I'd like to address this issue from the Contentment Perspective. It may come as wee bit of a surprise to many of you that Discontentment is very often a perniciously sinful attitude. I'll kick off this thread with this poignant NT passage and give everyone some time to digest its contents.

The context of this passage is John the Baptist's gospel ministry. John was the true prophet and forerunner of the Christ. And he made no small ripple
in Jordan and the surrounding area when he preached the gospel of repentance. He drew very large crowds. And on this particular day, as many were approaching the prophet, included were curious Gentiles --, in fact Roman soldiers. Soldiers. Men of power with the backing of the authority mighty Rome. But in order to fully appreciate John's reply to their particular question you have to understand the background, which is really easy because not all that much has changed in this day and age with respect to compensation for military duty. In a nutshell: No one in the Roman army was going to get rich, just like no one in today's military is either!
But in those days, especially when the Roman army was in occupied territory (which was the case here), it wasn't that unusual for soldiers to take undue liberty with non-Romans' property. The Roman army was the most powerful in the world and it was a cruel, heartless, merciless, fighting machine for the most part. With this backdrop behind us, let's consider the passage:

Luke 3:14
14 And some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And what about us, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not take money from anyone by force , or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages."
NASB

As you can see, the very first thing that came to John's mind when answering these soldiers was their ill-gotten gains -- by force, yet! Frequently, soldiers were nothing more than common thugs. Criminals. They used their uniforms,their helmets, their shields, their swords as a cover for their armed robberies. But worse yet...they felt justified because in service to their emperor, they considered themselves to be underpaid. Did everyone catch this? They, too, probably felt that life was unfair. They, too, probably complained daily about the injustices of serving in the military -- of having to settle for their modest wages.

Another way these soldiers had for unlawfully procuring other people's money was no doubt through the "more refined" methods of extortion or bribery, which very often, by necessity involved lying -- bearing false witness for the sake of personal gain. So, John warns them to cease and desist from false accusations.

Now, we come to the "punch line" -- or the bottom line, if you prefer. Certainly one of the the causes to the sins of armed robbery and extortion was the internal sin of greed. These soldiers simply wanted what the "better heeled" had. They were jealous. They were envious. They were bitter. They were resentful. So, in their service to the emperor, they felt perfectly justified in supplementing their incomes at others' expense!

But was greed the primary or secondary cause to their sinful behavior? John doesn't mention greed because he realized that this wasn't their primary sinful issue. Greed would have only begged the question, for it would have to be asked: Why were they greedy for what others had? Why were they envious? Why were they jealous? John very succinctly tells us, doesn't he? Their discontentment with their compensation in the military provided the fertile breeding ground for all their subsequent sins.

Notice that John didn't say that they should start a revolt against their commanders. He didn't tell them to go and form a union for better pay and better benefits. He didn't tell them to start a political lobby to petition the Roman government for pay subsidies. Nor did he tell them to petition the government for a big pay hike through the taxation of the rich Roman citizens! He didn't tell them any of this. He told them to simply be content with their situation in life.

This passage is only the tip of the iceberg in exposing the utter wickedness that lies beneath soft underbelly of insipid statism. Stay tuned for more.

Boxcar
I'll start with this one and your Biblical account of John the Baptist and the Roman soldiers. THE ROMAN SOLDIERS WERE WRONG TO DO WHAT THEY DID.
Now that we got that out of the way. You are seriously comparing the actions of a Roman soldier, who supplemented an indequate salary, to the actions of a CEO who wanted more money so he could have ten Porsches instead of only nine; or a condo in Vail and Aspen. The first is trying to get by; the second is GREED, GREED, GREED.
Now, let's look at John the Baptist's reply in the context of the situation and the times. "Don't take money from anyone by force or by false charges; be content with your pay." Notice there is not a period between "Charges" and "be"; there is a semi colon. That indicates to me that the phrase "Be content with your pay" was used in reference to the illegal methods of enhancing that pay, not to discourage the soldiers from improving their lot by more acceptable means.

I notice you skipped over verses 10 and 11 in that very same Luke chapter three. The people asked him, "What are we to do then?" He answered, "Whoever has two shirts, must give one to the man who has none, and whoever has food must share it."
Note the use of the word "Must." Not a choice; a requirement. And note the use of the word "whoever", not "some people," not "if its convenient" not "if you approve of the recipient"; WHOEVER. IT IS A REQUIREMENT ON SOCIETY.

[NJ Stinks]

....perhaps out of all that you'd be willing to share with us why would you give two flips about the widening gap between incomes of CEOs and the "rest of us"? Why should this distress you so much? Why should this fact be the source of such great consternation for you? Share with us why your little ol' self-righteous heart is so troubled. Perhaps you'd be able to convince some misguided conservative to enter into your deep concern. :rolleyes:



Boxcar, have you noticed over the years that as CEO (and other top management types) compensation went up, employee benefits started going down the toilet? Did you notice that jobs were shipped overseas where cheaper labor meant even bigger CEO compensation? Did you notice that outsourcing means paying no employee benefits at all?

Nowadays pensions are going the way of the white buffalo and so are many American jobs.

These are a few reasons why I give "two flips".

Signed,
Robin Hood :ThmbUp:

[boxcar]

Boxcar, have you noticed over the years that as CEO (and other top management types) compensation went up, employee benefits started going down the toilet? Did you notice that jobs were shipped overseas where cheaper labor meant even bigger CEO compensation? Did you notice that outsourcing means paying no employee benefits at all?

Nowadays pensions are going the way of the white buffalo and so are many American jobs.

These are a few reasons why I give "two flips".

Signed,
Robin Hood :ThmbUp:

Well, Robyn, (oops wrong spelling), robbing from the rich to pay the poor is greatly frowned upon by God. The thugs in D.C. who do thisare no better than the Roman soldiers who approached John the Baptist and took money by force. Politicians who engage in the same practice under the "color of law" are no better than those soldiers; for the former use the force of the law. Both are thieves, and you because you support the violation of God's law, are an aider and abettor when you vote such thugs into office.

Secondly, you need to learn to be content with YOUR situation and worry not about other people's, unless you personally want to contribute to someone's welfare. That would be your business. That would be your personal decision. But keep your brand of altruism or charity to yourself. Don't force it down other people's throats. It's not nice. It's not kind. It's not charitable. Your brand of "public charity" can only breed contempt, anger, jealousy, envy, discord, discontentment, deceitfulness laziness or even strife. Nothing good can come out of socialism. It's a totally godless, man-centered form of government.

Thirdly, you should learn to greatly lower your materialistic expectations. (Hint: Read the Lord's Prayer.) When you have low expectations or little or no desire for material goods, you would be amazed at how much smoother and simpler life will be for you. You will actually enjoy life much more just by cutting the materialism cord. Don't allow your life to revolve around things.

Finally, and most importantly, seek God and his Christ. God is more powerful than any godless government and members of his family are worth far more than a sparrow. If God cares enough to feed the lowly sparrow, how much more those who are in his family?

Matt 6:26-7:1
26 "Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they? 27 "And which of you by being anxious can add a single cubit to his life's span? 28 "And why are you anxious about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, 29 yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory did not clothe himself like one of these. 30 "But if God so arrays the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more do so for you, O men of little faith? 31 "Do not be anxious then, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'With what shall we clothe ourselves?' 32 "For all these things the Gentiles eagerly seek; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33 "But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added to you. 34 "Therefore do not be anxious for tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
NASB

You and the rest of the libs are like the Gentiles (i.e. unbelievers) Christ spoke of in this passage. Always anxious. Always nervous. Always stressed out. Always seeking after this thing, or that thing, or some other thing. You're never satisfied. Government can never do enough for you. Your appetite for financial security, safety and comfort from the state is insatiable.

Be content. Discontentment is sinful and can only result in worsening your condition with miseries heaped upon miseries.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

j

I'll start with this one and your Biblical account of John the Baptist and the Roman soldiers. THE ROMAN SOLDIERS WERE WRONG TO DO WHAT THEY DID.
Now that we got that out of the way. You are seriously comparing the actions of a Roman soldier, who supplemented an indequate salary, to the actions of a CEO who wanted more money so he could have ten Porsches instead of only nine; or a condo in Vail and Aspen. The first is trying to get by; the second is GREED, GREED, GREED.

When did "GREED, GREED, GREED" in and of itself become illegal? And who are you to judge another man when that judgment is not righteous because it's not in accordance with God's word? Has God sent you to judge the world on his behalf? Are you ready to declare to the world that all forms of lust are illegal? Or have I missed something? Has greed, in and of itself, become a violation of some federal law of which I'm not aware?

You're assuming the soldiers were trying to merely get by. Romans soldiers were not kind, gentle, caring, compassionate people for the most part. (Yes, there are exceptions even noted in scripture.) But once a person abuses his power and authority (which these soldiers apparently did), it often leads to repeated offenses. Soon, the original "reason" why they may have becomes a blur over time and after each repeated offense because it becomes too easy to supplement that income. (Compare them to modern day crooked cops, if you will.) But remember this: The soldier's discontentment with their wages motivated the greed that led them to abuse their power and authority in the first place. This is why John didn't address their lust for money because that lust was not the primary cause to their sinful actions. So, you may "wink" at their brand of greed or discount it or even dismiss it, but greed is greed is greed.

Now, let's look at John the Baptist's reply in the context of the situation and the times. "Don't take money from anyone by force or by false charges; be content with your pay." Notice there is not a period between "Charges" and "be"; there is a semi colon. That indicates to me that the phrase "Be content with your pay" was used in reference to the illegal methods of enhancing that pay, not to discourage the soldiers from improving their lot by more acceptable means.

What!? What are you reading? Once again, here is the text:

Luke 3:14
14 And some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And what about us, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages."
NASB

And you're reading an awful lot into the text. John is simply telling these soldiers (possibly career soldiers) to quit sinning and learn to be content with the wages with which they agreed to be paid. Contentment is taught
everywhere in the bible. Do you doubt me?

I notice you skipped over verses 10 and 11 in that very same Luke chapter three. The people asked him, "What are we to do then?" He answered, "Whoever has two shirts, must give one to the man who has none, and whoever has food must share it."
Note the use of the word "Must." Not a choice; a requirement. And note the use of the word "whoever", not "some people," not "if its convenient" not "if you approve of the recipient"; WHOEVER. IT IS A REQUIREMENT ON SOCIETY.

First, I "skipped over it", just like I did most of the chapter, because these two verses weren't germane to what John taught about contentment.

Secondly, "must" isn't in the original text. You need to get yourself a better translation:

Luke 3:10-11
10 And the multitudes were questioning him, saying, "Then what shall we do?" 11 And he would answer and say to them, "Let the man who has two tunics share with him who has none; and let him who has food do likewise."
NASB

There's no political statement being made here. He was addressing those particular remarks not to political leaders, not even to synagogue officials, per se. His statement, (which was really a sermon) was directed to the crowd -- to the multitude who came to hear him and to be personally and individually baptized by him. Again, you're conveniently reading into the passage your presuppositions. The text itself is making no statement about Jewish society or about politics. John knew that only those who received the baptism of repentance would be likely to heed his exhortations. And there's no indication at all that everyone in the crowd was baptized. Most likely not, especially those who John called "you brood of vipers".

Each of us has a moral obligation to help our neighbor, and scripture is abundantly clear on who our neighbor is. Our neighbor is any human being with whom we come into personal contact. (I have proven this already from scripture on another occasion.) When Jesus taught that the second greatest commandment is to love our neighbor as we love ourselves, it should be self-evident to all that he meant anyone with whom we come into personal contact. No one can love unseen, unknown strangers with the same kind of love he has for him or herself. But that is precisely the kind of love Jesus required. That kind of love requires a personal object at hand --either someone we already personally know or a stranger with whom we come into personal contact and should love (cf. the parable of the Good Samaritan). I cannot love BO's poor brother living a gazillion miles from me in a dirt floor hut the way I can with people I actually know. I can no more love through surrogates (officials of the state, for example) than I can love the man in the moon. Likewise, it cannot be said that I'm a charitable person obedient to God because the state taxes me and rediestributes my money to whom it wants, without any regard for biblical principles of giving.

Boxcar

[Tom]

sorry Boxxy, but I cannot respond to a post that starts with a falsehood.

But then you do. :lol:

[delayjf]

Perfect example of this was Chesapeake Energy.

Exactly, I would like to see CEO / Board member's salaries approved by the stock holders.

As long as the amount of income is "legal AND ethical".
What I should have said was that the business that produces the wealth is "legal and ethical"

[HUSKER55]

in a true capitalistic state that would be the case. That won't happen until we get the government out. As long as government bails out corporations noting will change.

[BenDiesel26]

I live my life in real time and Not based upon some book of mythology

Good point. There are some on this board that actually believe that driving SUVs is going to cause the world to end.

[boxcar]

Good point. There are some on this board that actually believe that driving SUVs is going to cause the world to end.

:lol: :lol: :lol: You mean such an enlightened, highly educated, well-informed card-carryin' Mensa member actually believes that? :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[jballscalls]

back to the original question of the thread, is it that liberals care about people that don't have or that do have that you have a problem with?

I do see something wrong with worrying about the have's and trying to take them down, but i dont see a lot wrong with caring about the have nots. it's when you try to take from the haves to give to the have nots where i have a problem.

like the old republican line goes "give a hand up, not a hand out!" thats how caring should be

[boxcar]

back to the original question of the thread, is it that liberals care about people that don't have or that do have that you have a problem with?

I do see something wrong with worrying about the have's and trying to take them down, but i dont see a lot wrong with caring about the have nots. it's when you try to take from the haves to give to the have nots where i have a problem.

like the old republican line goes "give a hand up, not a hand out!" thats how caring should be

Please re-read post one (1) and try to understand the CONTEXT in which that question was asked.

Thanks,
Boxcar
PS. Hint: The context wasn't, why should liberals care about anyone?

[jballscalls]

Please re-read post one (1) and try to understand the CONTEXT in which that question was asked.

Thanks,
Boxcar
PS. Hint: The context wasn't, why should liberals care about anyone?

i was going to read it, but then you started with the bible quotes, and i just can't do it, sorry.

i'll leave this thread to you guys, because my opinion wont be valid

[boxcar]

i was going to read it, but then you started with the bible quotes, and i just can't do it, sorry.

No need to apologize, JB. Most unbelievers are offended by the bible's message.

Boxcar