$50 Lesson

Everybody has their own beliefs and ways on how to get to heaven.
Me? I help people move or teach them to fish.

archer wrote: 18 pages and counting, all to try and justify people's desire to stop their government from helping the poor, the needy, the sick, and the elderly....and using the Bible to do it......I am in awe.

rofllol :rofl You actually believe the government helps people??? rofllol :rofl The ENABLE laziness! Talk about totally brainwashed!! They have turned this nation into a welfare lazy nation. You guys will never get it! :bash

The Viking wrote:

archer wrote: 18 pages and counting, all to try and justify people's desire to stop their government from helping the poor, the needy, the sick, and the elderly....and using the Bible to do it......I am in awe.

rofllol :rofl You actually believe the government helps people??? rofllol :rofl The ENABLE laziness! Talk about totally brainwashed!! They have turned this nation into a welfare lazy nation. You guys will never get it! :bash

I am well aware of the fact that you appear to want them all to die and leave you with the money you earned, no one is debating that point, but the use of the Bible to suggest that Jesus would want our nation to let them die is a whole different idea. And one, quite frankly, that never occurred to me. See.....you have taught us something. Jesus is now on the side of greedy.....I mean... who knew?

The welfare system is definitely broken, Viking, but it was put out there with good intention. It was intended to help people, but I think you're right that in some aspects it enables those who use it to be dependent on it.

Here's an example. My daughter underwent open-heart surgery at four DAYS old. As a result of her congenital condition, she is immunosuppressed and cannot be in day cares full-time. As a result, my wife, who had to give up her job after being ordered to bedrest during pregnancy, has been unable to return to the workforce and we are dependent solely on my income. To help make ends meet we turned to the government program we had been paying into our entire working careers and applied for Social Security Supplemental Income for our daughter. We are a typical family, barely making ends meet on one income, so our request was granted. Now first, let me tell you that the assistance we received was roughly the equivalent of one extra paycheck a month for me (I get paid weekly, so this equates to approximately 25% of our net income). On a month I receive five paychecks, the following month's SSI check would be virtually nothing (not even enough to cover the gas I use in a week). The government's assistance comes with a lot of strings, but the most frustrating is that should we start saving (having a surplus) or make purchases that reduces our expenses (for example, pay off a car payment or purchase a car outright so we don't have payments), the SSI is cut off entirely. So, when in the Spring we came into a little money and tried to put ourselves on better footing by purchasing our vehicles outright to eliminate car payments and put a little away to cover potential unemployment or shortages on rent payments, our SSI assistance ended, while our need for it didn't. Our daughter still can't be in daycare full-time, and I still make barely enough to make ends meet on my income alone. And while the government considers our vehicles "resources" to be sold or used as collateral for a loan if we hit financial difficulty, the reality of the situation is that we can't afford to be without a second vehicle and our credit sucks so bad we can't get a loan even using the cars as collateral. Our only recourse has been to try and outright sell our motorhome (it's listed here at 285bound.com too) to try and cover some expenses while I wait out the worry of being laid off and even that has proven to be nigh-impossible. So, yes, the welfare system is broken.

Now, all of that said, assuming you had all of the tasks in the joke needing to be done, would you have offered the work to the homeless person at the grocery store or still tried to score ideological points with the little girl and her Democrat parents?

mittra303 wrote: And for the record, not that anyone asked, I think it is foolhardy to try to defend any particular scripture passage or to use it to make some salient point as for nearly every passage that says one thing, there is another passage that says the opposite. The passage Kate used (in it's entirety) clearly states that in order to get into Heaven, one must give up their worldly possessions and follow Christ. It's pretty simple. And the words came from Jesus himself (really, guys, they are directly attributed to him in the passage, don't try to say he didn't say it). Yet in other sections of the same scripture, he says there is a new covenant and that all of the old commandments are null and void in favor of simply following the golden rule, "love thy neighbor as thyself." Throughout his life and recorded conversations, Jesus is fairly clear that the only way to salvation and entering Heaven is to follow him.

The new covenant is more than the golden rule mittra - that is the second greatest commandment according to Jesus. The first was to love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind. As far as clearly stating that everyone must give up their worldly possessions in order to be able to enter the kingdom, the passage does no such thing. It does clearly state that Jesus told a single man that this is what he must do, but it does not clearly state that it is what all are required to do. The absence of the commandments relating to worshiping God are noteworthy. Why do you think Jesus left them out when he was giving the list of the commandments that the man must follow? What is clear is that the man loved his money more than he loved God for he was unwilling to part with his property in order to be complete and able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven to be with his God for eternity. God also made Abraham make a choice between God and his first born son, but Abraham loved his God more than he loved his own son so God did not require Abraham to make that sacrifice. What might Jesus have said to the man if he had been as willing as Abraham to show his love for his Creator? Might his requirement have been removed as well? We will never know because the man in Matthew 19 didn't love his God more than he loved his property, which, as pointed out previously, is the point of the story. It also ties in nicely with John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. God so loved you that He was willing to send His Son, Abraham so loved God that he, too, was willing to sacrifice his son - the man in Matthew's Gospel didn't love God enough to sacrifice his property. The lesson is pretty clear, that those who love God above all else are willing to sacrifice anything, including themselves, to be with Him for all eternity.

mittra303 wrote: Presumably, in today's world where he is no longer physically present to follow, simply following his example and living as he did would be an acceptable alternative. As someone who has rejected organized religion in favor of trying to make my presence on this mortal coil not suck, I have chosen to try and follow the examples of Jesus (who may very well possibly have just been an extraordinary man and not the literal Son of God). I try to help my fellow humans out. I try to not hold hatred and disdain in my heart towards others. I try to be charitable. I try to be understanding and supportive of those our society holds in contempt. I know I am not always successful in these endeavors, but that is part of the journey, right?

Just so. And that, too, is codified in this particular example from the public life of Jesus, "There is only One who is Good." The rest of us are going to forever fall short because we suffer from the human condition.

mittra303 wrote: And just one last thought to ponder.... Who is to say that the Bible and Jesus were right and they're the only way? Jehovah's Witnesses believe only 144K people EVER will be allowed into Heaven. They're Christians. Are they right? Ask two Jews about Heaven and the Afterlife and you'll get three different answers. Are they right? Muslims actually record the story of Jesus and much of his works in the Koran, but believe Mohammad was the Messiah and Savior, not Jesus. Are they right? Mormons have the Book of John Smith that believes the missing book from the Bible came from aliens. Are they right? Did i get that right about the Mormons? Or was that Latter Day Saints? Buddhists believe the way to enlightenment is to repeat your journey through Earth as many times as is necessary to learn the lessons to enlightenment and oneness with the universe. Are they right? Am i making my point?

It is the same point I made earlier - the Creator so loves you that he has left you many paths back to Him. That is the reason that only God can judge whether or not someone is complete and will be admitted into the Kingdom (which Jesus could not have done unless He was Divine). There is not a single path, which makes the statement you made in the first paragraph, "The passage Kate used (in it's entirety) clearly states that in order to get into Heaven, one must give up their worldly possessions and follow Christ. It's pretty simple." incompatible with what you are saying here and also incompatible with the lesson Jesus was actually attempting to teach with the passage that Kate provided us with.

Methinks, PrintSmith, that Kate tried to make the point that the Bible and its passages are up for interpretation. You, and others that ascribe to your belief system, have interpreted that particular passage as being only intended for the man that approached Jesus and not as a general rule of thumb. You're welcome to your interpretation, but you should be aware not everyone would read it that way. There are, as you've noted, many paths, but who is to say they all must lead back to Him? Those many paths do not all necessarily lead to the same place. This is not necessarily a "Road Less Traveled By" scenario. Much to my wife's chagrin, I do not ascribe to the belief that I must "accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior" to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I prefer to believe that my soul will be judged on my deeds and that which was in my heart. That by caring for my fellow humans, being a good steward of my environment and nature around me, I will have earned my place in Heaven.

I like your comment about the human condition, however. I suffer from the human condition and as a result fall short of my goal of always leading an exemplary life. Yet still I try.

archer wrote: 18 pages and counting, all to try and justify people's desire to stop their government from helping the poor, the needy, the sick, and the elderly....and using the Bible to do it......I am in awe.

If you truly think that this is what the discussion has been about, then all I can say is that you are missing the entire point. Not by a little, but by a lot.

We can have the discussion about whether or not charity for the purposes of individual welfare is a proper role of the federal government if you'd like. We can even venture into the realm of religion and whether or not collective salvation through the use of government force is compatible with any religious teachings. We can point out what happens when the power of government is employed for religious reasons, or cloaked in a false cape of religious virtues. We can discuss at length whether it is moral to take something by force of law from one person and give it to another person even if it serves a desirable end.

We can also point out how a virtuous idea can end up doing more harm than good in the end. How does that old proverb go - the road to Hell is paved with good intentions - an example of which might be seen in bringing the general welfare of the union to the brink of insolvency by having the federal government step outside of its proper role to provide charity on an individual basis with general funds. We can pretty much agree that the bankrupting of this nation would be a hellish occurrence that would make even the Great Depression pale in comparison, can't we? Given that the current amount of the annual deficit is about on par with all of the non-charity spending of the federal government, we can also conclude that the charity spending is mostly responsible for the accumulation of that debt, can't we? That all of the current revenue is being spent for distribution of federal charity leaving nothing to spend on defense of the union and shared infrastructure for the citizens of the union? And the answer to this is that more should be taken from the citizens using the force of law to supply the funds that are lacking, right? That we should double our current tax burden to achieve these noble ends instead of return the federal government to its proper role?

How will taking more money from the economy help it grow as opposed to leaving more money in the economy? How can taking even more of the fruits of the labors of the citizens be hoped to help a situation which has thus far not been helped by that effort? All of the tax revenue spent to build a great society has left us no better off than we were to begin with. There is just as large of a percentage of poor people now as when a war on poverty was first declared nearly 50 years ago. Tens of Trillions of dollars borrowed and spent with no headway made in lessening the problem or winning the war. Perhaps that is because the battle plan is fundamentally flawed, that the plan of adding roles to the list of those that are federal is not the way to go. How long should we stick with a plan that has failed to achieve anything before abandoning it and looking for a new plan archer? Shall we stick with it until this nation actually achieves bankruptcy? Until we have so burdened the economy with taxes to provide individual charity that there is no hope of having it recover? When do we start looking at where the road we are paving with good intentions is actually leading us?

mittra303 wrote: Methinks, PrintSmith, that Kate tried to make the point that the Bible and its passages are up for interpretation. You, and others that ascribe to your belief system, have interpreted that particular passage as being only intended for the man that approached Jesus and not as a general rule of thumb. You're welcome to your interpretation, but you should be aware not everyone would read it that way. There are, as you've noted, many paths, but who is to say they all must lead back to Him? Those many paths do not all necessarily lead to the same place. This is not necessarily a "Road Less Traveled By" scenario. Much to my wife's chagrin, I do not ascribe to the belief that I must "accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior" to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I prefer to believe that my soul will be judged on my deeds and that which was in my heart. That by caring for my fellow humans, being a good steward of my environment and nature around me, I will have earned my place in Heaven.

I like your comment about the human condition, however. I suffer from the human condition and as a result fall short of my goal of always leading an exemplary life. Yet still I try.

Not true at all mittra - myself and others who profess their belief in Jesus as Divine have interpreted that passage to mean that Jesus saw into the soul of the man and saw that what he was lacking was a love of God that was greater than his love for the material possessions he had, and that as a general rule of thumb someone who does not love God more than anything else is lacking something essential that will not allow them to enter the Kingdom. That is why the commandments regarding God were not listed and why in order to complete himself the man had to be willing to give up what he loved more than God.

If it brings any strength to your belief that acceptance of Christ as your personal savior is not necessary, it is one that is held to be true by the Catholics as well according to my great uncle the Monsignor and the Canon Law of the Catholic Church. Your wife may think of us as heretics as well, evil papists and other such things, but there are those of the Christian faith who would find agreement with your belief in that matter. But your wife is right in one regard, you are not capable of earning your place in Heaven, none of us are, we are much too flawed to be able to do it on our own. We need something more, the grace that can only be bestowed upon us by the Divine.