Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You know nothing about America. It is well established that Americans move up and down the rungs of the income ladder frequently in both directions. The poor have certainly not lost the ability to vote, and the rich do not rule the country. If they did, then they would not be paying more than 85% of income taxes and practically all of inheritance taxes.

As to using taxation to "redistribute" income, that would be easy to solve. All of the liberal dems who claim to believe in that could start tomorrow. They could downsize their houses and give the money away. They could give away one car and make the remaining car do double duty. They could cash in a 401K and give the money away. They don't do that because they really don't believe in it. For that matter Clete, you could start giving away a significant portion of your retirement income. It might mean having to live more frugally, but you could do it. You don't because you see the folly in the whole thing. Unsurprisingly, it's always someone else's income that needs to be redistributed.

---

Jl I have already given away a large proportion of my retirement income due to the debacles started by, or in, your country. So the only ones I support these days are my own family who haven't done well in the new economy, inflicted upon us by your ideas of fair trade. If I didn't live in a place where fairness exists and the government looks after its citizen I would be one of the poor. As to knowing nothing I know enough to know your beggar my neighbour policies make you rich and other poor

You need to make up your mind. When it suits you, you want to brag about how great the Australian economy is. But at other times you speak out of the other side of you mouth about how bad things are there. Your problems are due to your policies. Stop whining about us.

I'll say it again. If you or anyone else really believes in the idea of redistribution of income, then start with yourself. Until that happens, it's just so much hot air.

Quote:

---

As to knowing nothing I know enough to know your beggar my neighbour policies make you rich and other poor

---

Sitting ten thousand miles away, you know very little about our country, and you seem to know nothing of the root causes of poverty here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Jesus is likely not speaking of the materially poor. If He was, then one could argue that our goal should be to have MORE poor people, and not fewer. His reference was more likely to the spiritually poor, which is to say to those who realize their own personal poverty in matters concerning God, and thus their great need for Jesus.

---

Thank you for posting this. It is good for all to see that your defense of the Bible is second to your love of Mammon. Like the Pharisees, you challenge the words of Jesus. You spin his words to mean something never intended. That is your nasty habit of twisting words rising again.

Paul said the love of money is the root of all evil. You should ponder that the next time you whine about government helping the needy. The society you live in determined long ago that the poor are best helped through government. Relying on individual charity, as you propose, is a recipe for disaster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

and you seem to know nothing of the root causes of poverty here.

---

The root cause of poverty there is capitalism and cronyism. Your minimum wage is laughable it maintains poverty and who benefits? Capitalists, because the people who work for minimum wage don't benefit

Quote:

---

Thank you for posting this. It is good for all to see that your defense of the Bible is second to your love of Mammon. Like the Pharisees, you challenge the words of Jesus. You spin his words to mean something never intended. That is your nasty habit of twisting words rising again.

---

Oh stop with the drama queen routine. All you have to do is actually read Matthew 5:3 to see what Jesus meant. Try thinking a little bit.

Quote:

---

Paul said the love of money is the root of all evil. You should ponder that the next time you whine about government helping the needy. The society you live in determined long ago that the poor are best helped through government. Relying on individual charity, as you propose, is a recipe for disaster.

---

Not relying on charity gets people like you off the hook. I'm speaking of the ones who have no interest in doing anything to help the poor, but rather want to brag about forcing others to do so.

Quote:

---

The root cause of poverty there is capitalism and cronyism. Your minimum wage is laughable it maintains poverty and who benefits? Capitalists, because the people who work for minimum wage don't benefit

---

Like I said, you have no idea what you're talking about. 2% of workers earn minimum wage and even then it's typically short term. The greatest contributors to poverty here are drug addiction, out of wedlock births and unproductive inner city schools.

Hello, fringers! I respect your views, but you were outvoted. Better luck next time.

Quote:

---

The root cause of poverty there is capitalism and cronyism.

---

There was poverty all over the world long before there was capitalism .In fact before capitalism poverty was the norm ,with few living lives above the poverty level . Capitalism has done more to empower people and raise living standards than any other force in history. Not only does it reduce poverty ;it creates opportunity . Before capitalism wealth was determined by one's position in life . In a capitalist system it is the people who best provide the services people want who achieve. 80% of the millionaires in America are 1st generation of their family achieving any wealth . The rags to riches stories are too numerous to recount. Mark Cuban was eating condiment sandwiches to survive. He is now a billionaire who owns the 'Dallas Mavericks ' .

Joy Gendusa revolutionized direct mailing .

How She Built a $50 Million Postcard Empire (entrepreneur.com)

Elon Musk was not born rich . But today he is the richest person in the world .

It has been that way since capitalism became a dominant economic system. Andrew Carnage a so called 'robber baron ' spent countless millions of his own money in charitable pursuits ;and the Carnage Foundation today continues that legacy.

Oprah Winfrey came from humble beginnings; rural poverty . She built an empire in the media .

Chris Gardner was a troubled youth who's early life was dominated by a violent culture. At times he was homeless. He wrote a book called "The Pursuit of Happyness," Will Smith played him in the movie of the same name. He rose to the top of his profession as a stock broker .He founded Gardner Rich & Company. Now he travels making money as a motivational speaker .

Larry Ellison was a school failure . He ended up creating Oracle and is worth billions.

Ray Kroc was a high school drop out. He turned McDonalds into the world wide success story it is today.

Like I said ....,more stories than can be told in this type of forum.

The people I mention have hired hundreds of thousands of people who also have been lifted out of poverty .

Despite America's past history of race ;the capitalist system in the US has produced 1.5 million Black millionaires . It isn't capitalist who want to keep the African American down. The more money the African American has ,the more they will spend. It is the Democrats who want to keep the Blacks on the government dependency plantation,

Quote:

---

It is the Democrats who want to keep the Blacks on the government dependency plantation,

---

Just about right. It's why they never propose any real solutions to the "problems" they complain about such as white privilege and systemic racism. It just gets talked about endlessly so the liberal news media can have something to report.

Yes many rags to riches stories that inspire but reality is the majority of us work hard to live ordinary lives. I often wish I was born rich instead of handsome. I'll take lucky over good though since I could have been poor AND UHGLY! 8D

PS

Capitalists have to keep everybody on the dependence plantation be it big biz or government since they own them both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

read Matthew 5:3 to see what Jesus meant.

---

Read the entire Bible to see what Jesus meant. Not cherry-pick a verse to incorrectly support a mean-spirited reading. Your Bible Bingo has been exposed by others here.

Soon you will claim Jesus, in addition to approving mass murder, saw condemning non-believers to eternal punishment in hell, was an act of perfect love. Your beliefs are on these pages for all to see.

Quote:

---

Read the entire Bible to see what Jesus meant. Not cherry-pick a verse to incorrectly support a mean-spirited reading. Your Bible Bingo has been exposed by others here.

Soon you will claim Jesus, in addition to approving mass murder, saw condemning non-believers to eternal punishment in hell, was an act of perfect love. Your beliefs are on these pages for all to see.

---

It is just amazing to me to see how fearful you are of even the most simple discussion of a Bible text. You always drop back into drama queen mode. At any rate, since you are afraid to, I'll quote what Jesus actually said in Matthew 5 with confidence that others reading this will have the courage to simply address it. "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

You might also want to consider this from 2 Peter. It's interesting that someone who spent three years with Jesus has a completely different take on the topic than you do. No doubt Peter cherry-picked verses to incorrectly support a mean-spirited reading. Thanks to Athos, I guess his Bible Bingo has now been exposed.

"4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked 8 (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); 9 then (S)the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials,[d] and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, 10 and especially (T)those who indulge[e] in the lust of defiling passion and (U)despise authority."

Now before you start shrieking again, why not just simply engage the text with serious discussion?

Welcome! It's time for Dueling Bible Verses!

Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Matthew 19:21

But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? I John 3:17

Quote:

---

“If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Matthew 19:21

---

Have you done this? Bear in mind that Jesus actually told this one individual (and no others) to sell ALL he had. So have you done that? Have you even come close? What possessions of yours have you sold and given the proceeds to the poor?

Quote:

---

But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? I John 3:17

---

Where in that text does it say that the government should make sure this gets done?

The fact that we, as individuals, should support the poor is not in question here. I think we all agree on that, though I doubt that we are all actually DOING it. The actual question involves whether you and Athos should receive any pats on the back for forcing OTHERS to do so.

What did you think of the Matthew and 2 Peter passages? Why is it that neither you nor Athos is willing to address those two?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Why is it that neither you nor Athos is willing to address those two?

---

Why is it that you ignore the clear meaning of the entire Bible, while replacing that meaning with your Bible Ping-Pong?

In any series of books written over a thousand years by different authors and containing almost a million words can be used as a source for just about any position under the sun if verses are taken in isolation - even your incredibly bizarre position of Jesus approving mass murder.

This is the prime fault of fundamentalists/literalists like yourself.

Quote:

---

Why is it that you ignore the clear meaning of the entire Bible,

---

I don't. I just don't pay attention to your view of it. Come to think of it, I don't think you have ever posted it. Why don't you try telling us your view of the "clear meaning of the Bible"? I would hope you would provide justification for that position rather than expecting us to accept it just because.

It would also be good for you discuss the Matthew 5:3 passage which clearly disagrees with your view of what Jesus said, and the 2 Peter passage where it would seem that Peter held a position completely opposite of yours.

For the record, I expect no direct response to any of those requests. Experience is a good teacher.

Quote:

---

reality is the majority of us work hard to live ordinary lives. I

---

yes it is . What system guarantees anything more than that?

In Venezuela the government blames bakers for bread shortages . This is when government takes over production .
Venezuelans line up to buy food in crisis-hit capital - YouTube

Eastern bloc countries that have moved away from communism have consistently moved up the economic ladder and their people are better off for it . Average incomes have increased 250 percent in Russia since 1995. In more economically free Latvia and Estonia, incomes are up 487 percent and 461 percent, respectively. And it’s not just the rich getting richer. The percent of the population living on less than $5.50 per day has dropped 23 percent in Russia, 19 percent in Latvia, and 22 percent in Estonia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Why don't you try telling us your view of the "clear meaning of the Bible"?

---

In relation to your oft-presented position re taxation and the poor, the clear meaning of the Bible is a "preferential option for the poor" as the Catholic Church has so aptly phrased it. For government/taxation, refer to Paul's admonition and the Psalmist previously quoted. You disagree with that based on your right-wing ideology which trumps your Biblical beliefs apparently.

Name calling and nasty insults don't improve your arguments. In fact, they demean your Christianity. Is that how you understand what it means to preach the Gospel and be a light to the world? I'm sure that sends people away from faith rather than attracts them.

It's really hard to understand why people are so opposed to capitalism. Considering that what you are talking about is free enterprise and the opportunity for practically anyone to accumulate wealth and better his/her life, then it's just a mystery to me. I think they must not understand what the term refers to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

It is the Democrats who want to keep the Blacks on the government dependency plantation,

---

Tom, really! That's a dopey statement.

I agree with you re capitalism - a REGULATED capitalism, never a free-for-all system. The success of this country is due to many factors including a Capitalism modified by Socialism. The two work well together and put heart into the program.

To say Democrats want to keep the Black community dependent on government is hardly the truth. Dems want to insure they are not Jim Crow'd out of voting. Reps want to suppress the Black vote. Dems want to help all groups get a fair piece of the pie. Reps seem to want a return to a feudalism - sometimes benevolent, sometimes not. Yes, that's hyperbolic but the truth isn't too far from that.

The incredible lying and dissembling of elected Republicans in the recent months is still mind-boggling, especially when they deny facts which are crystal-clear in videos and recorded quotes. It's one thing to promote a political position, it's quite another thing to create fantasies about important events.

As an Independent, I long for the day to return when Republicans were honorable men and women. It will never happen until they repudiate once and for all that proto-Fascist who tells then what to do.

Quote:

---

In relation to your oft-presented position re taxation and the poor, the clear meaning of the Bible is a "preferential option for the poor" as the Catholic Church has so aptly phrased it.

---

And, as I predicted, no support at all from the Bible for your position.

Quote:

---

For government/taxation, refer to Paul's admonition and the Psalmist previously quoted. You disagree with that based on your right-wing ideology which trumps your Biblical beliefs apparently.

---

Paul did not call for government taxation, nor did the Psalms. Also, you did not comment on Mt. 5 or the 2 Peter passage. So yet again my prediction was correct. You have really become predictable.

Quote:

---

Name calling and nasty insults don't improve your arguments.

---

I have called you no names and have not insulted you. But to be clear, do you mean insults like this one? "Tom, really! That's a dopey statement."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

And, as I predicted, no support at all from the Bible for your position.

---

Unlike you, I don't require support from the Bible to think or live my life.

Quote:

---

Paul did not call for government taxation, nor did the Psalms.

---

Connect the dots from post #19 - previously referenced. OR, if you prefer, point out where the Bible does NOT call for government taxation to help the needy.

Quote:

---

Also, you did not comment on Mt. 5 or the 2 Peter passage.

---

I, nor anyone else here, is under no compulsion to get into Bible Bingo with you. Dueling verses, we have learned, goes nowhere with you. It's the basic fundamentalist strategy. If you wish to offer your own thoughts, not just regurgitate Bible passages, you might get a little more attention.

Quote:

---

I have called you no names and have not insulted you.

---

You've been free with the insults and names to me and others. And you know it.

Quote:

---

But to be clear, do you mean insults like this one? "Tom, really! That's a dopey statement."

---

The difference is I am not offering a Bible as justification for asserting the truth of my points of view. Tom and I can cast barbs all day long but the discussion is not usually like that. That is because Tom presents Facts in addition to his points of view.

JL said: But to be clear, do you mean insults like this one? "Tom, really! That's a dopey statement."

Athos called the statement, not Tom, dopey.

Quote:

---

As an Independent, I long for the day to return when Republicans were honorable men and women. It will never happen until they repudiate once and for all that proto-Fascist who tells then what to do.

---

lol The establishment Repubs sure knew how to lose gracefully . It used to make me belly laugh to see publications like the Slimes endorse the likes of ,McCain ,and Romney in Republican primaries and then turn on them and mercilessly trash them in the elections ..... Only to them see them return to the darlings of the press after the elections were over . McCain and Romney were vilely accused of racism long before Trump wore the accusation .McCain and Bush were both accused of being mentally deficient . Romney is beloved by the Dems now that he took a lead in the RINO ranks to oppose Trump. Before that ;all the "evils" of Trump and his "greedy capitalism" was used to smear Romney . Before Trump was accused of cheating on his taxes Romney was accused of paying none .Before Trump was called fascist ,Bush was accused of being one . Now he is friends with the emperor and hates Trump ...so he is absolved .

HEY, that's show biz!!

So referring to one’s work as “dopey” is not actually insulting? You do realize what a hilarious statement that is?

I thought it was pretty funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

So referring to one’s work as “dopey” is not actually insulting? You do realize what a hilarious statement that is?

---

Nope. The statement was dopey. Tom is very cool and longsuffering and probably handsome.

Quote:

---

Unlike you, I don't require support from the Bible to think or live my life.

---

But you should require support from the Bible when you are attempting to describe the primary message of the Bible.

Quote:

---

OR, if you prefer, point out where the Bible does NOT call for government taxation to help the needy.

---

Aren't you the same guy who said that such questions amounted to being asked to prove a negative??? At any rate, your attempt to demonstrate Paul calling for govt. taxation to support welfare programs is just laughable. It simply is not there.

Quote:

---

I, nor anyone else here, is under no compulsion to get into Bible Bingo with you. Dueling verses, we have learned, goes nowhere with you. It's the basic fundamentalist strategy. If you wish to offer your own thoughts, not just regurgitate Bible passages, you might get a little more attention.

---

Once again, you are afraid (or unable?) to answer.

Quote:

---

You've been free with the insults and names to me and others. And you know it.

---

Except, of course, that you can't find any examples. Strange, don't you think?

Quote:

---

The difference is I am not offering a Bible as justification for asserting the truth of my points of view.

---

Of course you are. That's exactly what your aforementioned post #19 was trying to do, and what you referred to yet again in post #61 by saying, "Connect the dots from post #19 - previously referenced." Is your memory always this bad???

Quote:

---

Nope. The statement was dopey. Tom is very cool and longsuffering and probably handsome.

---

Oh? So it's OK to be insulting so long as your seeming understudy comes along later with pandering comments? Got it! But it is nice to know that I am now free to refer to comments as "dopey" and not be considered to be insulting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

But you should require support from the Bible when you are attempting to describe the primary message of the Bible.

---

Read my lips. The entire bible is the support. Duh!

Quote:

---

Aren't you the same guy who said that such questions amounted to being asked to prove a negative???

---

Yes, I am. That was to demonstrate to you the foolishness of YOUR original question. I notice you couldn't answer it. Do you get it NOW?

Quote:

---

your attempt to demonstrate Paul calling for govt. taxation to support welfare programs is just laughable.

---

No it's not. Paul would be happy to do exactly that. He certainly does not come across as a mean miser. He supported government as I said, and he surely would want to help the needy. What's laughable?

Quote:

---

Once again, you are afraid (or unable?) to answer.

---

You call my non-Bible replies fear (or inability). This is becoming your constant mantra. I don't need the Bible to reply to you. As for you, your only answer is the Bible. I find that strange, indeed.

Quote:

---

Except, of course, that you can't find any examples. Strange, don't you think?

---

Strange only to you, who needs the Bible for everything.

Quote:

---

Of course you are. That's exactly what your famous post #19 was trying to do, and what you referred to yet again in post #61.

---

Sigh...You missed it again. That issue was about the difference re Tom, NOT the topic with you. Context, context, context. Memorize that word.

Quote:

---

Oh? So it's OK to be insulting so long as your understudy comes along later with pandering comments? Got it!

---

This is too funny for words. You have a bad case of shoots-himself-in-the-foot. Thank you for proving me right.

Quote:

---

Read my lips. The entire bible is the support. Duh!

---

Does that include the Matthew and 2 Peter passages you adamantly refuse to comment on? Or the Matthew 25 passage?

Quote:

---

Yes, I am. That was to demonstrate to you the foolishness of YOUR original question. I notice you couldn't answer it. Do you get it NOW?

---

I sure do. I imagine everyone here but you gets it as well.

Quote:

---

Paul would be happy to do exactly that. He certainly does not come across as a mean miser. He supported government as I said, and he surely would want to help the needy. What's laughable?

---

This is. You know what Paul would say except...he didn't. He did not give an open-ended endorsement to anything and everything government does. Do you think he supported the Romans use of galley slaves?

Quote:

---

You call my non-Bible replies fear (or inability). This is becoming your constant mantra.

---

It's because your non-replies are due to your fear. Don't agree? Then man up and answer them.

Quote:

---

Sigh...You missed it again. That issue was about the difference re Tom, NOT the topic with you. Context, context, context.

---

Oh? Does that explain why you referred me to them above? Remember? "Connect the dots from post #19 - previously referenced." Your memory is failing for sure.

Quote:

---

Thank you for proving me right.

---

Have you no imagination? Come up with your own expressions and stop copying me. Besides, it only works when you actually are...right.

That bible stuff is great, but what relevance to governess of many diverse and varied cultures that make up the USA?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Does that include the Matthew and 2 Peter passages you adamantly refuse to comment on? Or the Matthew 25 passage?

---

It includes the message found in the ENTIRE Bible. I will not say this again. You refuse to get it.

Quote:

---

I sure do.

---

No, you don't.

Quote:

---

I imagine everyone here but you gets it as well.

---

No again and again. Repeating that you are wrong will NOT make you right.

Quote:

---

You know what Paul would say except...he didn't.

---

I base my belief in Paul in what he has written over his many epistles. You continue to demand specifics that are only understood as part of the whole. I'm trying NOT to be nasty to you, but you are making it very difficult.

Quote:

---

He did not give an open-ended endorsement to anything and everything government does.

---

I didn't say he did. I said he approved of government and would support helping the needy. STOP twisting words!

Quote:

---

Do you think he supported the Romans use of galley slaves?

---

I think he would have thrown you right into the galley to get rid of you.

Quote:

---

It's because your non-replies are due to your fear. Don't agree? Then man up and answer them.

---

Here we go again. You can't understand what I write so, to you, it's non-replies based on fear. You have nothing new - it's all the same old stuff. Time for you to leave us, please.

Quote:

---

Does that explain why you referred me to them above? Remember? "Connect the dots from post #19 - previously referenced." Your memory is failing for sure.

---

Dear God, will you read what I write? And make an effort to understand? That's all I ask of you. You have this Tom/Paul thing all screwed up. It really isn't that difficult.

Quote:

---

Have you no imagination? Come up with your own expressions and stop copying me. Besides, it only works when you actually are...right.

---

Oh, yeah, I copy you. Give it up, you are coming across as a troll. You love a reply since that is your daily bread and you can come back with whatever you have already said.

JL - listen to me. You are fooling NOBODY here. Your replies lack content. You exhibit a clear lack of understanding of your own Bible. Your Christian example is a disgrace. I have no idea why you stay here. You have antagonized every single member except possibly for one. When will you wake up and smell the peanut butter?

This can be easily summed up. You are, for whatever reason, afraid to address specific texts. You claim you can understand the message of the Bible without referring to the Bible. You claim to have some special knowledge of what Paul would have said about taxes and welfare. So it's hard to know where to go from here. About the only person who seems to be antagonized is you, and I suppose that is because you think I will not accept your views simply on the basis of your say so. You are entirely correct. But they are your views, and you are welcome to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

This can be easily summed up. You are, for whatever reason, afraid to address specific texts. You claim you can understand the message of the Bible without referring to the Bible. You claim to have some special knowledge of what Paul would have said about taxes and welfare. So it's hard to know where to go from here. About the only person who seems to be antagonized is you, and I suppose that is because think I will not accept your views simply on the basis of your say so. You are entirely correct.

---

Every single claim you have made here is incorrect. Should I enumerate them? Ok, I will.

Quote:

---

You claim you can understand the message of the Bible without referring to the Bible.

---

When I discuss the Bible I refer to the Bible. I don't know where you got that from. That should be obvious even to you. What you are trying to say is that I don't throw out verse after verse like Bible Bingo the way you do. I prefer to discuss the passages in context and for their various meanings. You don't like when I or others do that. The message of the Bible is not difficult to discern. The fact that you cannot is not cause of concern for anyone else.

Quote:

---

You claim to have some special knowledge of what Paul would have said about taxes and welfare.

---

I never claimed any such thing. YOU claimed it. (E.g., that I claimed it). My understanding of Paul comes from his epistles. That's how everyone understands Paul - there's no other way. You apparently are disagreeing that Paul wrote of government in an accepting way, and it is assumed, being a follower of Jesus, he accepted helping the needy. How you twist these plain words is on you, not me.

Quote:

---

About the only person who seems to be antagonized is you,

---

No. Anyone who reads these pages know that you have antagonized every regular member except one (bit I'm not sure even about that one).

Quote:

---

I suppose that is because think I will not accept your views simply on the basis of your say so. You are right.

---

WRONG AGAIN! Geez, you sure make a habit of being wrong. Here's what I believe re my views. You may believe or not believe my views or anyone's views as you see fit. It's very clear to me you don't believe my views. Why you should think I expect you to is another mystery.

You have a few minutes before I leave. Take your best shot.

I have no shot for you. Like I said, it’s hard to know where to go from here. They are your views and as incredible as they are, you are welcome to them. Perhaps it will become clear to you some day. I am happy to stand on what I’ve said before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

That bible stuff is great, but what relevance to governess of many diverse and varied cultures that make up the USA?

---

Tal, the Bible has relevance to governance in all cultures, the rules found there were meant for all peoples. That many don't want to follow them is a sad reflection on what the human race has become

Quote:

---

Tal, the Bible has relevance to governance in all cultures, the rules found there were meant for all peoples. That many don't want to follow them is a sad reflection on what the human race has become.

---

Well said. We'd be much better off if we did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Tal, the Bible has relevance to governance in all cultures, the rules found there were meant for all peoples. That many don't want to follow them is a sad reflection on what the human race has become

---

There are many different interpretations of many Bibles in this country so choose one, or is it sour grapes when different choices are made?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I have no shot for you.

---

Yeah, I know -- that's become obvious.

Quote:

---

Yeah, I know -- that's become obvious.

---

You just don't get it, do you? Too bad.

And again. This can be easily summed up. You are, for whatever reason, afraid to address specific texts (unarguable). You claim you can understand the message of the Bible without referring to the Bible (unarguable). You claim to have some special knowledge of what Paul would have said about taxes and welfare (unarguable). Those are all hard truths that can easily be documented. So it's hard to know where to go from here. About the only person who seems to be antagonized is you, and I suppose that is because you think I will not accept your strange views simply on the basis of your say so. You are entirely correct about that. Still, they are your strange views, so you are welcome to them.