Ask Me Help Desk - do you believe these statements to be true ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You're right. Responding to your insanity is embarrassing.

If you're embarrassed by responding to my insanity, who's the insane one?

Quote:

Every time I see a post from you I think about your intentional misrepresentation of the words of Aquinas.

That quote was explained to you as pressure from the Church hierarchy. As with many other things, you simply refuse to believe it.

Quote:

That's a "scarlet letter" you'll get to wear a long time.

As scarlet letters go, it's not much - simply another tendency of yours to nit-pick.

Here's your scarlet letter - far worse than what you believe is mine.

People, unbelievers in Jesus or sinners (one or the other or both; it's never quite clear as you dance around the answer) are condemned to hell for eternal punishment. This includes babies, born and unborn, (your original position), and good people who never heard of Jesus.

As I've repeatedly told you, this belief is not only wrong, it is about as sick as one human being can be.

I should be calling you Judas instead of Jl since you have betrayed the message of Christ.

Read Matt. 25. It's all I can tell you. I am completely willing to accept the words of Christ.

You never brought up the "pressure of the church" excuse until I pointed out the significant portion of his text you purposefully left out, a portion which completely changed his meaning to one which did not agree at all with your position.

The strange (my opinion) thing about you that I cannot figure out is this. If I understand you correctly, you don't believe the NT we have now is reliable. In other words, it's been corrupted over the centuries, books were left out, the Canon was politically influenced, and so forth. If that's the case, then how could you or anyone else think you have "the message of Christ"? Wouldn't it all just be idle speculation? How could you know that anyone else's belief was wrong without a reliable NT?

You sound like the dufus, everybody is wrong except him, and like the dufus your evidence of that falls short, simply because your premise is you know better than anyone else and nobody but you could be right and that's all the time.

That would explain why you glom so readily on the notion that we invented capitalism and it's the greatest thing since bubble gum, but it was your link that chronicled it's evolution from at least the last 400 years as Tom has eluded. Does that make me wrong for saying it has been around forever, but in different forms and called different things, by different people?

For sure we are finding out that capitalism in it's present form, as practiced by this administration/country has not handled this present virus situation very well as yet, since I must acknowledge the incredible enormity and complexity of it's challenge. I don't think we should be distracted by ideology or religious leaning, in such a discussion, since this about economic systems, rather than religious ones.

Quote:

You sound like the dufus, everybody is wrong except him, and like the dufus your evidence of that falls short, simply because your premise is you know better than anyone else and nobody but you could be right and that's all the time.

If you want to believe that nonsense about paraphrases and quotes, then go for it. I can't believe we are even discussing something as stupid as that. It's one of the most obvious things in the world.

Quote:

That would explain why you glom so readily on the notion that we invented capitalism and it's the greatest thing since bubble gum,

It would really be helpful if you would stop making things up. I've never said that. I don't even know who the "we" is that supposedly invented capitalism.

Quote:

but it was your link that chronicled it's evolution from at least the last 400 years as Tom has eluded. Does that make me wrong for saying it has been around forever, but in different forms and called different things, by different people?

The concept has no doubt been around a long time. I'm not sure why that would be an issue, but I would agree with that.

1. I've said my peace about the grammar police.

2. Another semantic battle?

3. It's only an issue when you don't recognize the evolution, and cannot imagine any further evolution.

Quote:

2. Another semantic battle?

No, it's a truth battle. You made up a position and attributed it to me. That was not true.

Quote:

3. It's only an issue when you don't recognize the evolution, and cannot imagine any further evolution.

I would largely agree with that with the possible exception that the concept of private ownership of the means of production, and the freedom and prosperity that brings forth, doesn't strike me as an idea that can evolve very far without losing it's meaning and significance entirely. I just don't think there is much wiggle room there.

As far as I know, there are only four possible models. 1. Government ownership of the means of production (socialism). 2. Private ownership of the means of production (capitalism). 3. The ownership of the means of production being arbitrarily held by a very small group of very wealthy and powerful people (feudal system?). 4. Some mixture of those which is probably what you have nearly everywhere with the possible exception of communist countries.

Do you see it otherwise?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You never brought up the "pressure of the church" excuse until I pointed out the significant portion of his text you purposefully left out, a portion which completely changed his meaning to one which did not agree at all with your position.

I gave you the original quote because I assumed you would not believe the reason for the later addition. When the later clause was given, I was correct - you did not believe my explanation. You are not hard to figure out.

Quote:

how could you or anyone else think you have "the message of Christ"

Here it is for you - straight from the Gospels. Love God, love your neighbor, love yourself. For emphasis, Christ later added love your enemy. That last part was especially for people like you, so you wouldn't condemn unbelievers (the enemy) to punishment in hell for all eternity. An idea that couldn't be more foreign to the message of Christ.

Quote:

I gave you the original quote because I assumed you would not believe the reason for the later addition. When the later clause was given, I was correct - you did not believe my explanation. You are not hard to figure out.

Sorry. Just don't believe you.

Quote:

Here it is for you - straight from the Gospels. Love God, love your neighbor, love yourself. For emphasis, Christ later added love your enemy. That last part was especially for people like you, so you wouldn't condemn unbelievers (the enemy) to punishment in hell for all eternity. An idea that couldn't be more foreign to the message of Christ.

But as you well know, you did not answer the question. Do you consider the NT to be accurate to the original documents? If you don't, then wouldn't it be true that neither you nor I have any idea what Jesus taught? And if it IS accurate, then why don't you believe Matthew 25, and why would you ask me to take your teaching over the teaching of Jesus?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

No, it's a truth battle. You made up a position and attributed it to me. That was not true.

REFRESH me please.

Quote:

I would largely agree with that with the possible exception that the concept of private ownership of the means of production, and the freedom and prosperity that brings forth, doesn't strike me as an idea that can evolve very far without losing it's meaning and significance entirely. I just don't think there is much wiggle room there.

I think that given the rise of corporations are people too, and the corruption of money into the political system which seems to be a major factor into the income inequality, as well as a two tier judicial system I can see much wiggling to be done.

Quote:

As far as I know, there are only four possible models. 1. Government ownership of the means of production (socialism). 2. Private ownership of the means of production (capitalism). 3. The ownership of the means of production being arbitrarily held by a very small group of very wealthy and powerful people (feudal system?). 4. Some mixture of those which is probably what you have nearly everywhere with the possible exception of communist countries.

Do you see it otherwise?

I feel you are mixing economic systems with government systems and that's the problem, because either the people chose the leaders or a small group chooses the leaders. Even dictators cannot function in a vacuum and need support of other influences to gain and keep power, usually the military or other tools to place powerful cronies around them. There are just too many different countries all with their own unique way of governing. Some have moved to more modern democratic ways and some are stuck in ancient ways and many in between both extremes in some manner.

So maybe I just see them all as the same, just in different phases of evolution. Indeed some have evolved faster, but even those hopefully are still evolving or would advancing be a better term?

Quote:

REFRESH me please.

Read post 44. It's all right there.

Quote:

I feel you are mixing economic systems with government systems and that's the problem, because either the people chose the leaders or a small group chooses the leaders.

I don't think I did, but I'm open to having it explained how I did that.

Quote:

Even dictators cannot function in a vacuum and need support of other influences to gain and keep power, usually the military or other tools to place powerful cronies around them. There are just too many different countries all with their own unique way of governing. Some have moved to more modern democratic ways and some are stuck in ancient ways and many in between both extremes in some manner.

I'm not talking about governance. That's a different topic. I'm talking about how economies are structured.

1. I think I was referencing the conservative orthdoxy as opposed to liberal orthodoxy as related to how Tom framed his thread in the beginning, which seemed to compare liberals to Hitler propaganda. So the "we" reference is the neo version of American capitalism, which I have held is corrupted by rich guys taking all the money which you have argued they deserved. That would be the very definition of trickle down economics long favored by repubs and conservatives without the fiscal hawks to keep it honest.

The results of that trickle down stuff keeps and widens the inequality gap on many levels and areas perpetrating the have and have not class systems quite effectively.

2. Inequality and poverty are the divisive tools to tyranny.

3. Economic structure IS the function of governance in every system, since nothing else effects the well being of it's people than that.

Quote:

3. Economic structure IS the function of governance in every system, since nothing else effects the well being of it's people than that.

I don't think it is in ours. I don't think it is THE function in hardly any. According to our preamble, government exists to:1. provide for national defense. 2. promote the general welfare. 3. Create a system of justice. 4. hopefully preserve liberty for our children. 5. Keep the peace.

I paraphrased some, so I did not put it in quotes. (Sorry...couldn't help myself.) At any rate, there is no mention that determining an economic structure is THE function of govt.

As to your #1, that is fine and legit. But bear in mind that I have NEVER argued that rich guys "deserve" to get all the money. In fact they DON'T have all the money or anything even approaching all the money.

1 and 2. Show me government anywhere that doesn't write and enforce the laws of the land. There are none, because they all do.

3. They control their money, the stock market, commerce state and local budgets and revenues, international monetary policy, your paycheck, and the schools you send your kids too, all through lobbyist, political donations and commerce. The contributions to the federal budget is a drop in the bucket compared to the total control of the monetary supply.

That's just American capitalism that we are dependent on. They know it, we all know it.

PS.

I let that paraphrase without quotes go because I understand the temptations. 8D

Quote:

1 and 2. Show me government anywhere that doesn't write and enforce the laws of the land. There are none, because they all do.

Who said they didn't?

Quote:

3. They control their money, the stock market, commerce state and local budgets and revenues, international monetary policy, your paycheck, and the schools you send your kids too, all through lobbyist, political donations and commerce. The contributions to the federal budget is a drop in the bucket compared to the total control of the monetary supply.

Well I hope they control their money. Why shouldn't they? They don't control my paycheck. To say they control the schools is crazy. Local school boards control the schools. They pay more than 85% of fed income tax. That's a "drop in the bucket"???

Quote:

I let that paraphrase without quotes go because I understand the temptations. 8D

You're a good man!! 8D

1. Government sets economic policy throught the laws they write.

2. What about all the other stuff they control? The certainly control how much trickles down to everybody else. I mean who controls the local school board? Yeah 85% of the American budget is a drop in the bucket compared to the money generated through economic activity.

3. Aww! You're softening me up aintcha?

Yeah. I'm just becoming a regular softie. What is happening to me!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Sorry. Just don't believe you.

That was apparent from the very beginning when I challenged your belief that unbelievers are condemned to hell for eternal punishment. You've never gotten over that.

Quote:

wouldn't it be true that neither you nor I have any idea what Jesus taught?

I have a very good idea what Jesus taught. It's in the Gospels for all to see, including you. The Psalmist wrote about your kind, "Having eyes, they see not". In the Gospel according to Matthew, the same sentiment is written.

Quote:

why would you ask me to take your teaching over the teaching of Jesus?

You're confusing yourself with Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athos

That was apparent from the very beginning when I challenged your belief that unbelievers are condemned to hell for eternal punishment. You've never gotten over that.

I have a very good idea what Jesus taught. It's in the Gospels for all to see, including you. The Psalmist wrote about your kind, "Having eyes, they see not". In the Gospel according to Matthew, the same sentiment is written.

You're confusing yourself with Jesus.

and here I thought he was confusing himself with Aquinas

Quote:

That was apparent from the very beginning when I challenged your belief that unbelievers are condemned to hell for eternal punishment. You've never gotten over that.

Your disagreement is with the words of Christ in Matthew 25 and many other places. Your handling of the Aquinas quote had all the appearance of utter dishonesty so yeah, I haven't gotten past that.

Quote:

I have a very good idea what Jesus taught. It's in the Gospels for all to see, including you. The Psalmist wrote about your kind, "Having eyes, they see not". In the Gospel according to Matthew, the same sentiment is written.

So you do accept the NT as authentic and authoritative?

My question was, "why would you ask me to take your teaching over the teaching of Jesus?" Your response was, "You're confusing yourself with Jesus." That's completely nonsensical.

In the mean time in the capitalist world, big biz is mulling over whether or not to return stimulus money supposedly targeted for small businesses.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/24/publ...ess-loans.html

While some have returned the money and a few more intend to, unclear whether the others will and some are actively defending their right to tax payer money. Good luck trying to prying a dollar from a capitalist cold greedy hands. Can't blame them much though, since the guidelines were too vague in the first place, which resulted in the funds being scarfed up in record time, and REAL small biz's being left out.

Quote:

While some have returned the money and a few more intend to, unclear whether the others will and some are actively defending their right to tax payer money.

We live in the age of liberal philosophy which tells us that we all have a right to taxpayer money. Even worse, we all have a right to borrowed money. This "Alice in Wonderland" approach to the federal budget is eventually going to be our downfall.

Quote:

Good luck trying to prying a dollar from a capitalist cold greedy hands.

So have you sent yours back? Wouldn't it be something if everyone who received a check but really didn't need it actually sent the check back?

It's conservatives giving the money away, and you didn't send your deficit funded tax cut money back did you? So unless you admit to adopting the liberal philosophy, I trust you didn't send your stimulus check back either. How dare you blast liberals while making such a choice. That's utter hypocrisy isn't it?

Do as you say do, not as you do, and why would you just assume a liberal like myself doesn't NEED it?

Why should businesses send their checks back if you get to keep yours? You don't need yours anymore than they need there's. I'm just asking you to be consistent with your own ideas. My idea is that most of this 2.2 trillion dollar vote buying scheme was completely unnecessary. For me, I haven't received a check. I haven't decided yet what to do with it. I might put it into a college fund for my poor coming grandchild so he/she will at least have some light at the end of the tunnel.

BTW, our daughter sent us the ultrasound recording of the baby's heartbeat two days ago. What a thrill that was, and how blessed that little child is to be in a family which cherishes it.

You mean repubs are buying votes? They did pass it on a partisan basis so blast them not liberals who opposed it. In addition I did specify BIG biz in my reference to scarfing up money for small biz, so again you see no hypocrisy in your position and continue to point out my inconsistencies...DUDE please, that dawg don't hunt! I got no bones at all with what you do with your money and grand kids is the greatest investment of time money love and support there is in my book and share your excitement for your coming new addition. Heartfelt congrats on that with plenty of well wishes for you and yours.

Kids and grandkids are true blessings by any measure. LOL, wait for the GREAT grandkids to show up, God willing and the creek don't rise.

Are you trying to say that Pelosi and the dem leadership did not support the bill? The vote was 363-40 in the House. It was unanimous in the Senate. That's "partisan"??? What???

If it's wrong for businesses, then why is it OK for you?

This is our first grandchild. We're excited. I just wish they would move back here.

Let me correct your false facts...AGAIN

Quote:

The House passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 227-201, almost entirely on partisan lines. Thirteen Republicans voted against the bill, while 190 Democrats voted against the tax reform legislation.

You flunked your homework!

Quote:

If it's wrong for businesses, then why is it OK for you?

I did specify the businesses it was wrong for based on the published and known intent of the bill. See my previous posts. As for me, I'm a tax payer and they intended the money for tax payers. You too.

My greatest claim to fame was being designated baby sitter for a few years while everybody was working. OOOOOOOOOOHH what a rush! Missed a lot when I was working. To have that second chance is a blessing that I cherish forever.

Quote:

You flunked your homework!

If you had bothered to look at the date of your article, you would have seen that it was from 2017. The bill we are referring to , which is responsible for all of these checks being mailed out and was the one you are very plainly talking about in your third paragraph, was voted on in March of this year, and the vote was exactly as I described.

So who actually needs to do his homework???

Thought we were talking tax cuts...

I can't imagine how, but it's all good.

Went back and looked and we did talk tax cuts, but it moved to the present. There was little doubt the lock down was necessary, and even less doubt people who had to stay off work through no fault of there own would need assistance through it. While I have advocated a strong safety net, we seem to be in a perfect storm of event, a pandemic in an election year and we got caught wholly unprepared and paid a terrible price as we teeter on depression and deaths.

So my bad!

Quote:

even less doubt people who had to stay off work through no fault of there own would need assistance through it.

Well, that sure doesn't include the two of us, and yet we're getting checks. It doesn't include the great majority of Americans, and yet they are getting checks as well. It's just looney.

Don't worry about it. I've had my shares of misfires.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Well, that sure doesn't include the two of us, and yet we're getting checks. It doesn't include the great majority of Americans, and yet they are getting checks as well. It's just looney.

You can give yours back if you want, but if I get one, they will have to pry it from my cold dead hands.

I do understand. I wouldn't recommend they try it! 8D

The dufus said I could have it so it must be okay right? Got my letter yesterday. Everybody supposedly gets a check for economic relief during this difficult time.

Not a good time to snoop around my mailbox.

The Congress said you can have it.

A day of reckoning is coming for all of this crazy "borrow and spend" approach to governance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

The Congress said you can have it.

A day of reckoning is coming for all of this crazy "borrow and spend" approach to governance.

What would have been your solution?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

The Congress said you can have it.

A day of reckoning is coming for all of this crazy "borrow and spend" approach to governance.

They will just have to sell more of those treasury bonds, at interest, which is pretty low right now.

Quote:

What would have been your solution?

To have had a balanced budget for the past decades. They might have even wanted to have put aside an emergency fund. Better than that, we might want to have a more disciplined approach in who we vote for.

Quote:

They will just have to sell more of those treasury bonds, at interest, which is pretty low right now.

Yeah. When you are in a hole, then keep on digging.

I see no reason for a country to have a balanced budget ever, if they are fiscally responsible. Don't you think we have enough nukes to eliminate the military budgets? Looking back decades does no good. Spilt milk! Good luck electing the right people, that game is rigged.

Looks like we will just have to hit rock bottom, before we decide to make changes for the better.

Quote:

I see no reason for a country to have a balanced budget ever, if they are fiscally responsible.

Isn't that kind of like suggesting it's OK to be way overweight as long as you live a healthy lifestyle? I mean you can't say we are fiscally responsible when we are more than 25 trillion dollars in debt, can you?

Quote:

Looks like we will just have to hit rock bottom, before we decide to make changes for the better.

I'm not going to go down that easy. Perhaps a great change could start with the two of us.