OT priest? What does that have to do with Matthew 6:4?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
|
OT priest? What does that have to do with Matthew 6:4?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Whoops. I read it as 8:4. My apologies. So if you believe what you read in 6:4, why have you announced on several occasions what your charitable endeavors have been??
How do you square your interpretation of 6:4 with what is said in 5:16?
Whatever I admitted to was to shut you up and stop your hassling.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
My shining light is not my charitable endeavors.Quote:
How do you square your interpretation of 6:4 with what is said in 5:16?
Why is it that with you guys it is always someone else's fault? Can't you handle any responsibility at all? Anytime you want to "shut me up", all you have to do is ask me not to respond to your posts, and I will oblige. I would only ask that you not mention me in your posts, nor comment on posts that I am active in, and that will be fine.Quote:
Whatever I admitted to was to shut you up and stop your hassling.
Maybe not for you, but for the 5:16 verse, the light shining is our good works that men should see. It is very plain. "16 Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven." Jesus typically didn't take people out behind the house to heal them.Quote:
My shining light is not my charitable endeavors.
Now I'm not suggesting that we should go around bragging about what we do. You are correct in that. I don't really think you have done that, and I'm very sure I have not. But in a discussion of charity, I don't see a problem with a person using some of their own efforts as examples so long as it doesn't end up being prideful.
You can never get an ego maniac or a bore to shut up, but what hurts them is to ignore themQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Stop hassling, participate in honest and fruitful discussions, and all will be Christmassy!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Good works don't necessarily include money.Quote:
Maybe not for you, but for the 5:16 verse, the light shining is our good works that men should see. It is very plain. "16 Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven." Jesus typically didn't take people out behind the house to heal them.
@JL...who else?
I don't think WG has blamed anyone, or expressed anyone else's fault, but rather pushing back against your dismissive personal attacks which is always your MO when YOU want to assign blame and fault in the positions of others. A tactic the dufus uses well to bully people and it's fascinating to watch you channel your inner dufus to promote yourself and and your half baked lunatic ideas, and passive aggressive B....LS....T.
Personally I never want you to shut up because the importance of us knowing your ilk exists is a perfect warning that we cannot be complacent and allow you to run buck wild through this forum unchecked and unchallenged.
Honest and fruitful? Hello, Ms. Pot, as can be seen by this. "Good works don't necessarily include money." Yeah. Giving a poor person money certainly could not be called a " good work". Really?Quote:
participate in honest and fruitful discussions,
As I have said a million times, if you ever see me do those things, then by all means speak up, but these useless, pointless references accomplish nothing. BTW, is your paragraph a good example of a "dismissive personal attack"??? How about the paragraph below. Is that a dismissive, personal attack? And if it is, and it is, then why is it OK for you to do it, but not OK for me to do it?Quote:
I don't think WG has blamed anyone, or expressed anyone else's fault, but rather pushing back against your dismissive personal attacks which is always your MO when YOU want to assign blame and fault in the positions of others. A tactic the dufus uses well to bully people and it's fascinating to watch you channel your inner dufus to promote yourself and and your half baked lunatic ideas, and passive aggressive B....LS....T.
And more ranting. Get specific about something. If you want to challenge me, then find something specific and fire away. You have done it many times in the past, so I know you can, but these useless tirades are tiresome.Quote:
Personally I never want you to shut up because the importance of us knowing your ilk exists is a perfect warning that we cannot be complacent and allow you to run buck wild through this forum unchecked and unchallenged.
Yes, really. A good work can be something as simple as smiling at someone who needs a lift at that moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I chunk my rocks my way, you chunk yours your way.
If you really want to have an "honest and fruitful" discussion, then this needs to stop. You know full well that we are not talking about smiling at people. The question was the command in Mt. 5:16 to let our good works be seen by men, but to do it in such a way as to bring glory to God and not to us. Can we agree on that?Quote:
Yes, really. A good work can be something as simple as smiling at someone who needs a lift at that moment.
Good works involve only money?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Those with money think it is so, but they are loth to follow the example given by Jesus to the rich young ruler
Just about what I expected.Quote:
Good works involve only money?
Good works involve only money?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Ask Walmart or Amazon...or JL's favorite charity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
what was jl's favourite charity again, yes it was jlQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You keep forgetting that I seem to be the only here who actually believes in personal charity. You liberal dems love to brag about how you get the gov to use someone else's money to care for poor people so you don't have to get involved yourselves.Quote:
what was jl's favourite charity again, yes it was jl
as I do . There is no virtue in forced charity and none in promoting it .All the left is doing is saying their intent is to do good with other people's money .
As far as the Gospel goes ,forced giving through taxation does nothing to help the giver become more Christ-like.
As this site shows ;the people in the lower taxed states are much more generous in personal charitable giving .
TaxProf Blog (typepad.com)
And it does no one any good for a nation to be charitable by giving away money that does not exist .
Sums it up quite well.Quote:
There is no virtue in forced charity and none in promoting it .All the left is doing is saying their intent is to do good with other people's money .
As far as the Gospel goes ,forced giving through taxation does nothing to help the giver become more Christ-like.
And it does no one any good for a nation to be charitable by giving away money that does not exist .
What a mean thing to say! You have no idea how we help others, including the homeless, the hungry, the disabled, orphans, indigenous peoples, worthy charities, plus animals in shelters, especially animals that were abused and neglected.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That's a fair point. I must admit that I thought about you when I said it, and Tom as well. But I will say that you lose a lot of credibility with me with your selective criticism as shown by your non-response to, "what was jl's favourite charity again, yes it was jl." If you want to be more believed, then point out mean comments from your own side, and especially the particularly dumb ones like the one in quotes.Quote:
What a mean thing to say!
You are arguing about support of the poor from a mean point of view, personal giving has never filled the void, even Jesus recognised that.
Sorry JL, I voted for the guy who will raise our taxes and help some poor people, and if it pisses you off and makes your head explode COOL! 8D
Need cheese to go with that whine? Or would you prefer crackers? Your kids and grandkids can pay for that too. 8O
Actually, I advocate that people like you should get off their rear ends and help the poor rather than counting on the government to do it with someone else's money. I don't think that's mean. I think you forcing others to do what you seem unwilling to do yourself is mean.Quote:
You are arguing about support of the poor from a mean point of view,
Where did Jesus recognize that? Even more to the point, where did Jesus ever tell us to force other people to give their money to the gov so we could then go about crowing about how compassionate we are?Quote:
personal giving has never filled the void, even Jesus recognised that.
I (and many others, even Christians) gladly pay taxes for the general efforts to help others AND to help individuals and charities that I (and many others, even Christians) choose myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Mark 12:17. Jesus didn't mention crowing in that verse but did mention it in Mark 14:72. :-DQuote:
Where did Jesus recognize that? Even more to the point, where did Jesus ever tell us to force other people to give their money to the gov so we could then go about crowing about how compassionate we are?
So you want your taxes increased? That would make you, I suppose, even MORE glad. Correct? Rather strangely, I only see liberal dems call for increased taxes on others. Do you realize that our government borrowed nearly 10 thousand dollars for every single American, and that was just to fund this year's deficit only? Did you know that? Does that make you uneasy?Quote:
I (and many others, even Christians) gladly pay taxes for the general efforts to help others
I commend you.Quote:
AND to help individuals and charities that I (and many others, even Christians) choose myself.
Thank you for referring to a passage in which Jesus did not acknowledge that the government must spend money on charitable causes. I will take that to mean that such a passage does not exist.Quote:
Mark 12:17. Jesus didn't mention crowing in that verse but did mention it in Mark 14:72. :-D
That's what I voted for in November.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I was playing with your deductive reasoning processes.Quote:
Thank you for referring to a passage in which Jesus did not acknowledge that the government must spend money on charitable causes. I will take that to mean that such a passage does not exist.
You're dragging that wild tale out again?Quote:
That's what I voted for in November.
I.e., there is not such a passage.Quote:
I was playing with your deductive reasoning processes.
In November the Illinois ballot included a choice to continue the state flat tax or move to a graduated tax. I voted for the latter.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
How would that have raised your taxes? Wouldn't your tax rate have remained at it's current 4.95%? Isn't it only the wealthy who would have seen a tax increase?
"The amendment’s passage alone wouldn't have change the rates – it only allowed for the graduated tax structure. The second piece of legislation on this issue signed in 2019 set new rates that would have taken effect on Jan. 1 should the amendment have passed, establishing ladder-style brackets with a top rate of 7.99% on single filers earning more than $750,000 and joint filers earning more than $1 million a year.
Under the proposed structure, anyone making less than $250,000 a year would have continued to pay the current rate of 4.95%, with a slight decrease in the rates on their income up to $100,000. Pritzker has often said this means 97% of Illinois residents would have paid the same or less in state income taxes."
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...tands/2363905/
Nope!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
"What’s a graduated-rate income tax?
Under a graduated-rate income tax, different levels of wages are taxed at different rates. Proponents say higher-income taxpayers should bear a greater tax burden than lower-income taxpayers. Opponents say a graduated tax hurts business owners and job creators and makes them the target of future tax hikes. Raising taxes across the board under a flat tax is more difficult to do, they say."
https://www.pjstar.com/story/news/co...know/42798809/
I know what a graduated tax is. The one you voted for would not have raised your taxes. The article I linked made that perfectly clear. It would certainly seem to be yet another example of a liberal dem voting to raise someone else's taxes. Even your own article makes that clear. "Under tax rates approved by the General Assembly, the tax rate would drop to 4.75% for the first $10,000 of income for single and joint filers. Income between $10,000 and $100,000 would be taxed at 4.9%, and the rate would remain at 4.95% for income between $100,000 and $250,000." So it would, in fact, have marginally LOWERED your taxes. Unless, that is, your income exceeds a quarter mil a year, and I rather don't think that is the case based upon statements you have made in the past.
Perhaps you thought it would have, but that was not the case, and at any rate the measure did not get enough votes to pass.
You have absolutely no idea of our income, do you.... and I did vote for the graduated tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Don’t tax you Don’t tax me, Tax that fellow behind the tree.
Progressives like the gimme .....as long as the takee is someone else.
The gimme belongs entirely to the wealthy Republicans. The wealthy never have enough. Witness Trump's tax cut giving enormous sums to the rich and big corporations. The wealthy are compassionate 'tho. The scraps from their tables trickle down to Lazarus the poor beggar.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I know you have said in the past that you live in a modest home on a modest retirement income, and I'm pretty sure a quarter of a million a year does not qualify as "modest". If it does, then we should all be retired librarians in Illinois. I think you voted, as a good liberal dem, to raise taxes on people making over a quarter of a million dollars a year.Quote:
You have absolutely no idea of our income, do you.... and I did vote for the graduated tax.
BTW, you do realize that you don't have to wait for the state of Illinois to raise your taxes? You can contribute all you want to both your state and federal governments. They will be happy to get the money, and you will be even more "glad" to be paying your taxes!
Right on cue. A great illustration of what we have been talking about. It's the never ending declaration that the wealthy paying 87% of fed income tax and practically all of the inheritance tax is somehow less than them doing their "fair share", and that the feds deciding to take less than they had been taking somehow amounts to the government giving money to the wealthy.Quote:
The gimme belongs entirely to the wealthy Republicans. The wealthy never have enough. Witness Trump's tax cut giving enormous sums to the rich and big corporations. The wealthy are compassionate 'tho. The scraps from their tables trickle down to Lazarus the poor beggar.
My online persona.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Well the feds need money to give poor states like yours don't they? I don't see you giving back that fed money, or showing any understanding of the wealth of a small group that can afford to be taxed trillions and still be some uber rich MOFO'sQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
They got accountants and lawyers and don't need podunks like you protecting them. GO GET 'EM JOE!
WG, you voted to raise taxes on the wealthy. It's just that simple. It's the way it goes with liberal dems. Now I do commend you because you seem to care about poor people, and do use your own resources, it seems, to help them. You do unless that is also part of your "online persona"?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:55 PM. |