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.