Post by: Bill_Urick on May 31, 2010, 10:42:32 PM
Ever since the Tea Party movement started it has been fashionable among liberals to refer disparagingly to Tea Party movement members as "Tea Baggers".
I really don't understand this.
First of all, I really think that liberals are more prone to drink tea than conservatives, unless you count that sissy latte macchiato stuff as coffee.
And even if conservatives do drink tea, how many people really brew loose tea instead of using tea bags anyway.
According to this article,
http://coffeetea.about.com/od/teabrewing/a/looseorbag.htm
loose tea is superior to bagged tea but I think that any connection between political affiliation and tea brewing preferences is tenuous at best and that continual bashing of Tea Party members in this way just makes liberals look silly and uninformed.
Thank you.
Post by: grantis on May 31, 2010, 10:53:17 PM
perhaps in the sexual connotation.
Post by: TotalSonic on May 31, 2010, 11:59:35 PM
Best regards,
Steve Berson
Post by: Berolzheimer on June 01, 2010, 01:45:47 AM
| TotalSonic wrote on Mon, 31 May 2010 20:59 |
ummm... hate to break this to you but tea bagging has referred to the act of putting testicles into someones mouth for decades now. This relatively obscure piece of slang was made somewhat main stream in a fairly funny scene in John Waters' movie "Pecker." Which is why it's fairly hilarious that a group of people would proudly call themselves "Tea Baggers" totally oblivious to this fact. Best regards, Steve Berson |
Right, and as Steve points out here, the, um, baggers in question originally used that term themselves to describe themselves.
FWIW, and probably totally irrelevant, "bagger" is the German word for "excavator". I know this because my son who speaks German & English has been obsessed with construction equipment, and excavators & cranes in particular, since age 3.
Post by: maxim on June 01, 2010, 03:54:25 AM
Post by: Barry Hufker on June 01, 2010, 10:53:17 AM
Barry
Post by: Daniel Farris on June 01, 2010, 01:52:13 PM
That said, I'll stop calling them teabaggers as soon as I stop hearing the phrase "democrat party."
Payback is a bitch.
DF
Post by: Edvaard on June 01, 2010, 03:40:15 PM
Always been a loose leaf sort myself, the myriad and sometimes extemporaneous blends I concoct not being available in bag form. Chai-chamomile-peppermint-marshmallow root, yerba mate with licorice and whatever, hibiscus-cinnamon-burdockroot-grated~ginger-peppermint, etc. That last one is good hot or cold.
Sometimes I might dress up as cowboy for the yerba mate, Injun' for anything with roots like burdock or dandelion in it. Sometimes I'll have a plain ole' bohea tea like what got tossed into the water in Boston and wear a t-shirt that says "Stuart!" so as to say to the original vandals; "that's what you shoulda wore on those boats if you wanted to ~really~ scare the British, not those silly Injun' outfits."
Post by: Fenris Wulf on June 02, 2010, 01:57:04 AM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Tue, 01 June 2010 15:53 |
Absolutely correct. Tea Baggers named themselves this and used the name proudly until finally deciding the name is derogatory. I believe the name is apt but would happily call them "Ass Baggers" as an alternative. Barry |
Absolutely wrong. They always called themselves "tea partiers." There was a particular protest called "Tea Bag the Fools in D.C.," but the term "teabaggers" was coined by their enemies and has NEVER been used by the tea partiers.
The term is juvenile and completely nonsensical. It SOUNDS vaguely insulting, but what does it mean? Does it mean that Tea Partiers run around placing their balls on the faces of sleeping victims? Or does it mean that liberals enjoy being the recipient of a teabagging? Or does it mean "teabag unto others before they teabag unto you"?
And "Ass Bagger"? Considering that many tea partiers are parents and have presumably changed a lot of diapers, I suppose the term is accurate. But why turn it into an insult? Do enlightened people eschew diapers as harmful to the environment, and make their kids use a litter box?
I've noticed that liberals have a knack for assembling a string of words that SOUNDS like an argument, but when you analyze it, they didn't actually say anything. They use words in the same manner that monkeys use poo, as a projectile. Perhaps this explains their fixation with bodily functions.
Post by: Barry Hufker on June 02, 2010, 07:36:32 AM
And I've noticed conservatives have a knack for being bullies and racists with a penchant for self-aggrandizement. They make up "facts", twist actual facts and are the reason this country is in the sad shape it finds itself. I of course dispute that liberals don't "say anything". I believe we try to offer the country a "reality check". And I offer as a counter position that conservatives *do* say something -- they spew bile and hate.
If you are glad about adequate health care, social security, medicare, a 40-hour work week, a decent minimum wage, the Civil Rights Act, rural electrification, school lunch programs, child labor laws, air and water standards, birth control, overtime pay and desegregation, to name a few, then thank a liberal.
Barry
Post by: Bill_Urick on June 02, 2010, 01:58:05 PM
Thanks to Edvaard for seeming to get it.
Barry, good to have you back.
It seemed that you were absent for a bit.
Can you verify the source and background for the picture you posted?
Post by: Daniel Farris on June 02, 2010, 02:27:11 PM
| Bill_Urick wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 10:58 |
Can you verify the source and background for the picture you posted? |
That's not a tea party photo. That's one of those Westboro Baptist Church folks that demonstrates at the funerals of dead soldiers... the Fred Phelps crowd.
DF
Post by: bblackwood on June 02, 2010, 02:40:21 PM
| Daniel Farris wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 13:27 | ||
That's not a tea party photo. That's one of those Westboro Baptist Church folks that demonstrates at the funerals of dead soldiers... the Fred Phelps crowd. |
Wow, that's quite a misrepresentation.
Post by: Daniel Farris on June 02, 2010, 02:42:40 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 11:40 | ||||
Wow, that's quite a misrepresentation. |
Yeah, I agree. I'm a connoisseur of tea party pictures, and they're rarely that offensive. Mostly they're just dumber than a bag of hammers.
DF
Post by: DarinK on June 02, 2010, 02:45:58 PM
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/enough-whining-teaba ggers-actually-i
Post by: thinman on June 02, 2010, 03:08:09 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 06:36 |
I offer as a counter position that conservatives *do* say something -- they spew bile and hate. |
Really?
Post by: TotalSonic on June 02, 2010, 03:08:11 PM
| Daniel Farris wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 14:42 | ||||||
Yeah, I agree. I'm a connoisseur of tea party pictures, and they're rarely that offensive. Mostly they're just dumber than a bag of hammers. DF |
Yup - grammar and spelling don't seem to be the strong point for some of them -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pargon/4469684254/
Best regards,
Steve Berson
Post by: el duderino on June 02, 2010, 04:38:45 PM
| Fenris Wulf wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 01:57 |
The term is juvenile and completely nonsensical. It SOUNDS vaguely insulting, but what does it mean? Does it mean that Tea Partiers run around placing their balls on the faces of sleeping victims? Or does it mean that liberals enjoy being the recipient of a teabagging? Or does it mean "teabag unto others before they teabag unto you"? |
im going to go out on a limb and say it means they suck balls.
| thinman wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 15:08 | ||
Really? |
hey you found a pic of a punk rock dude with a mohawk saying something extreme! how rare.
it's all part of the political bullshit game. ya can either join or ignore it. It sure as shit isn't going to change anytime soon.
Post by: Podgorny on June 02, 2010, 04:44:29 PM
| el duderino wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 15:38 |
hey you found a pic of a punk rock dude with a mohawk saying something extreme! how rare. |
You don't understand. He has a disease.
This is what he looked like prior to his affliction.
Post by: Barry Hufker on June 02, 2010, 05:27:39 PM
Barry
Post by: el duderino on June 02, 2010, 05:33:42 PM
| Podgorny wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 16:44 | ||
You don't understand. He has a disease. This is what he looked like prior to his affliction. |
wait that's prior to his affliction? that mic isn't even plugged in!
Post by: ssltech on June 02, 2010, 06:40:56 PM
Teabaggers:
Spelling? -Grammar?
-Please...
http://moronswithsigns.blogspot.com/
Keith
Post by: thinman on June 02, 2010, 06:52:16 PM
| TotalSonic wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 14:08 |
Yup - grammar and spelling don't seem to be the strong point for some of them - http://www.flickr.com/photos/pargon/4469684254/ Best regards, Steve Berson |
But as far as reading & understanding, only "one" of the "always more intelligent" liberal contingent here even "got" that Bill's original post was a joke. The tiresome progressive mantra of self assumed intellectual superiority is overbearing. Come on, one could just as easily throw up the video of the liberal woman saying, "Obama's gonna pay my rent, Obama's gonna pay my gas bill... where, from his stash." That wasn't exactly the pinnacle of brainpower, was it?
How do you expect to reason with anybody when you come at them with little more than ridicule and condescension?
If you need an example of fair mindedness, I think Brad Blackwood's posts here seem to come from reason and lack the hubris that seems designed to discourage opposing opinion.
Post by: Barry Hufker on June 02, 2010, 07:07:25 PM
Barry
Post by: Daniel Farris on June 02, 2010, 07:31:14 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 14:27 |
I know the picture I posted is from the Huffington Post although I can't find it again, even using my "history" menu item (yes, I'm that lame). The photo's title is one I gave it. When I downloaded it and posted it I believed it to be in reference to a Tea Party based on the context I found. If it is anything else I apologize to all for the error. Barry |
The key is the "godhatesfags.com" t-shirt she's wearing.
Dead giveaway.
DF
Post by: Daniel Farris on June 02, 2010, 07:41:56 PM
Where I see a difference is that the left tended to marginalize those moonbats. Every sensible liberal I know rolled their eyes in embarrassment every time Cindy Sheehan or Code Pink made the national headlines. Those shrill, tone deaf messages polled very poorly with the left.
On the other side, it seems the "mainstream" right has no problem whatsoever with the social Darwinism / "poverty is a character flaw" / "Obama is a Kenyan socialist Hitler" message of the tea party.
Something like 65% of self-identified republicans believe Obama's birth certificate is a forgery. You never would have found that level of sympathy on the left with that extreme anti-Bush rhetoric.
DF
Post by: thinman on June 02, 2010, 07:43:10 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 18:07 |
I'll readily admit that given today's political climate I am the last to realize something political is intended as a joke. Unfortunately when it comes to conservatives I believe they are capable of any stupid or dangerous thing. Barry |
Does that include Bill Urick and the others here who want to retain our constitution and individual liberties? Please explain what sort of stupid and dangerous actions you believe us to be capable of.
.
Post by: Bill_Urick on June 02, 2010, 07:47:17 PM
(Edit-I was typing this during the last few posts. I take it back
)Yes.
But there is still the tendency to bash, on a personal level, people who don't agree with you.
The woman in the photo Barry posted is apparently associated with a Christian organization.
Does that make all Christians "bullies and racists with a penchant for self-aggrandizement"?
I don't think so.
It is much more time efficient to paint all political opponents with the same broad brush than it is to deal with specific issues.
I think the Tea Party movement is alarming because public protest and demonstrations have a long history (in this country at least) of being the exclusive province of the left. It's much harder to get conservatives, individualists by definition, to engage in that kind of group behavior.
That trend and the effect it might have on future elections is what I believe engenders such hatred.
We'll see in November, I guess.
As far as I can tell, what they are really about is limiting the size of the federal government and getting a handle on the rampant spending.
Pretty threatening concepts.
As far as spelling and grammar, there are plenty of errors around here as well, despite the ol' Spell-Checker.
(Which I use extensively BTW!)
Just acause sumbody ain't got book-lernin' don't mean they's stoopid!
Post by: Daniel Farris on June 02, 2010, 07:55:26 PM
| Bill_Urick wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 16:47 |
As far as I can tell, what they are really about is limiting the size of the federal government and getting a handle on the rampant spending. |
That's what they say, and I would treat them with so much more respect if I actually believed that to be true.
Where were they for eight years while Bush ran up the deficit, put two wars on the credit card, data-mined the entire internet, and passed a giveaway to the insurance companies in the form of Medicare Part D?
They're fine with large government and huge spending, as long as we spend it like *they* want it spent... mostly bombing brown people.
DF
Post by: bblackwood on June 02, 2010, 08:07:57 PM
| Daniel Farris wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 18:55 |
Where were they for eight years while Bush ran up the deficit, put two wars on the credit card, data-mined the entire internet, and passed a giveaway to the insurance companies in the form of Medicare Part D? |
I'm not a tea-partier, but I know quite a few folks involved with the rallies and such and, ime, Bush's TARP was what started it. Most have been pissed about this for a long time, but after that, it seemed the spending floodgates opened.
I think it was more of a matter of someone stepping up and organizing something than anything else as, as it was alluded to above, the 'libertarian-like' leanings of the TP are generally focused on individualism.
| Quote: |
They're fine with large government and huge spending, as long as we spend it like *they* want it spent... mostly bombing brown people. |
Sadly, there are certainly those who feel this way.
That being said, I think this generalization is untrue - my experience with TP folks has been that the vast majority of them are for the very basic things that they supposedly stand for - smaller government and less spending.
I'm certain my experiences are limited compared to some of you, but I would suggest that those who wish to really know what the TP gatherings are about should go to one, not rely on someone else to snap photos and/or report on what they saw and heard.
Post by: Daniel Farris on June 02, 2010, 08:20:20 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 17:07 |
I'm certain my experiences are limited compared to some of you, but I would suggest that those who wish to really know what the TP gatherings are about should go to one, not rely on someone else to snap photos and/or report on what they saw and heard. |
For what it's worth, I did go to a tea party in Alhambra and take it all in... for several hours.
And by the way, THIS guy is not one of the nutcases. He's one of the organizers of the tea party, and owner/admin of teaparty.org:
DF
Post by: Fenris Wulf on June 02, 2010, 08:30:33 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 12:36 |
rural electrification |
Wasn't that one of Stalin's methods for slaughtering peasants?
Post by: Bill_Urick on June 02, 2010, 08:51:47 PM
Thanks for posting the photo.
If accurate it is very disturbing.
I poked around and found the dude's email address,
sent him the pic as an attachment and asked if it's legit.
I'll let you know what he says if I hear from him.
Although clearly the target of his criticism is Congress, it speaks volumes about him that he would word his message in that way.
Post by: Jay Kadis on June 02, 2010, 08:53:56 PM
| Fenris Wulf wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 17:30 | ||
Wasn't that one of Stalin's methods for slaughtering peasants? |
http://inventors.about.com/od/hstartinventions/a/Electric_Ch air.htm
Post by: thinman on June 02, 2010, 08:54:54 PM
| Daniel Farris wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 18:41 |
I'll say this about all the Bush signs: Sure, there's lunacy and stupidity on both sides. Conceded. Absolutely. Where I see a difference is that the left tended to marginalize those moonbats. Every sensible liberal I know rolled their eyes in embarrassment every time Cindy Sheehan or Code Pink made the national headlines. Those shrill, tone deaf messages polled very poorly with the left. On the other side, it seems the "mainstream" right has no problem whatsoever with the social Darwinism / "poverty is a character flaw" / "Obama is a Kenyan socialist Hitler" message of the tea party. DF |
Daniel, to me, I would say just the opposite. I haven't seen anybody on the left (until you, just now) seeking to remove the spotlight from the moonbats. I am not a Republican or tea party member myself, just want my freedom; but, respectfully, can you cite sources where tea party speeches said any of what you claim? What you stated sounds like characterizations from already biased reporters. I am aware of one video where Michelle Obama says her husband is a Kenyan. Is that what you are thinking of?
Obama's policies of nationalizing sectors of what is supposed to be a free market economy, his redistribution of wealth, his quoting Mao that "we have a righteous wind at our back", his appointment of communist czars are all a matter of record. It doesn't seem like a leap to me to say that he is a socialist. He doesn't like our constitution because it limits what the government can do (and that is exactly what is was created to do, restrain the government); again a matter of record. He is on record as intending to "fundamentally transform America", not improve it, not make it better, but fundamentally change it. Given that, please tell me why it seems so ridiculous to you that many people would believe Obama is a socialist.
How about you? Are you a proponent of:
1. individual liberty and a free market
2. socialism with government control of the economy
3. all out marxism
4. anarchy
5. (define it if I left it out)
I know it won't happen, but, I'd like to see some take an actual stand and openly state precisely what system of government you want for America? Just askin'.
I await your ridicule, scorn, derision, impunity of my intelligence and/or geographic location, my lack of ability to perceive nuance, etc., etc., etc. whatever...
Post by: Fenris Wulf on June 02, 2010, 08:57:46 PM
| Bill_Urick wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 01:51 |
Although clearly the target of his criticism is Congress, it speaks volumes about him that he would word his message in that way. |
It doesn't speak anything. John Lennon had a song entitled "Woman is the Nigger of the World." Same sentiment, right?
In any case, this guy is not a "tea party founder," he was kicked out of the event at which the picture was taken, and he has been disavowed by the Houston Tea Party.
The sign, complete with misspelling, is so patently silly that it makes me suspect the guy is a plant.
Meanwhile, right here at the University of California, "moderate" Muslim groups are using student fees to sponsor speakers who openly call for the genocide of the Jews, and the Left responds with a big yawn.
Post by: Daniel Farris on June 02, 2010, 08:58:06 PM
If you look carefully, you can see the tape at the top center of the reversible portion.
The fact that it's reversible at all (with one side being a slightly less offensive version of the other) indicates that he knows full well how offensive his sign is.
If you look around, you can find other photos where the sign says "slave." In those photos, you can still see that it's a reversible cut-out.
So if he responds by saying, "No... my sign said slave," don't be surprised.
DF
Post by: bblackwood on June 02, 2010, 09:11:15 PM
| Daniel Farris wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 19:20 | ||
For what it's worth, I did go to a tea party in Alhambra and take it all in... for several hours. And by the way, THIS guy is not one of the nutcases. He's one of the organizers of the tea party, and owner/admin of teaparty.org: |
So, are we to assume this was typical of what you witnessed at the TP even you attended? If so, I'm pretty surprised, as again, my experiences with those who attended the TP's (including the one I attended out of curiosity) are completely different.
I'm assuming this wasn't an isolated incident at the party you attended, so what other things did you see/hear that were similar? Was this a small minority or a majority of what you witnessed at said party?
Sorry for the twenty questions, I'm just surprised that someone that attended a TP event feels that picture represents what they are about. I'll again admit I've only been to one and don't consider myself part of the TP, but my experience was very different than yours, apparently.
Post by: thinman on June 02, 2010, 09:19:00 PM
| Fenris Wulf wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 19:57 | ||
It doesn't speak anything. John Lennon had a song entitled "Woman is the Nigger of the World." Same sentiment, right? In any case, this guy is not a "tea party founder," he was kicked out of the event at which the picture was taken, and he has been disavowed by the Houston Tea Party. The sign, complete with misspelling, is so patently silly that it makes me suspect the guy is a plant. Meanwhile, right here at the University of California, "moderate" Muslim groups are using student fees to sponsor speakers who openly call for the genocide of the Jews, and the Left responds with a big yawn. |
Sadly, the left does more than yawn:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-conf idential/ayers-dohrn-helped-organize-flotilla-group-95435639 .html
Post by: Daniel Farris on June 02, 2010, 09:31:15 PM
| thinman wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 17:54 |
Obama's policies of nationalizing sectors of what is supposed to be a free market economy, |
I don't think bailouts (controversial as they rightly are) can be fairly characterized as "nationalizing" anything, given that a great deal of the bailout money has been paid back at a profit to the taxpayer, with the rest coming soon.
You might not know what nationalization is.
If you hate the bailouts, say you hate the bailouts, but to call them nationalization is hyperbole at best.
| Quote: |
his redistribution of wealth, |
Individual tax rates are lower than they have been in 20 years.
If you're arguing for a regressive tax system, well, we've never ever had one in American history, so I think you're the one that needs to defend your extremist ideas. Redistribution of wealth has been a fundamental part of our tax system since its inception. The right is looking at a much needed tax reduction for the middle class, and a return of tax rates for the rich to what they were under Clinton (an additional 3%) as socialism and radical redistribution of wealth. That seems like a tough argument to make.
| Quote: |
It doesn't seem like a leap to me to say that he is a socialist. |
That says a lot about you.
| Quote: |
He doesn't like our constitution |
This is an enormous leap that I doubt you could support with anything but conjecture.
Where is the mound of constitutional amendments he's proposing?
| Quote: |
How about you? Are you a proponent of: 1. individual liberty and a free market 2. socialism with government control of the economy 3. all out marxism 4. anarchy 5. (define it if I left it out) |
I'm in favor of individual liberty and a well regulated free market.
| Quote: |
I await your ridicule, scorn, derision, impunity of my intelligence and/or geographic location, my lack of ability to perceive nuance, etc., etc., etc. whatever... |
Way to show you're open minded. This seems like code for "you're wasting your time with me."
DF
Post by: Daniel Farris on June 02, 2010, 09:39:01 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 18:11 |
but my experience was very different than yours, apparently. |
That picture wasn't taken at the tea party I attended, and I didn't say what my experience was like. But I will.
I saw lots of Hitler mustaches painted on Obama. I saw lots of retirees on Medicare complaining about healthcare reform. I heard lots of references to death panels. When a congressman claimed to have read the healthcare bill, I heard a woman claim that he was a liar, and this was fundamentally impossible because it was a thousand pages. I heard a bunch of people whose taxes got lower complaining about how high their taxes are.
Not (consciously) racist. But definitely ill-informed and idiotic.
DF
Post by: Barry Hufker on June 02, 2010, 10:15:57 PM
I'll leave it to you to put a name on that system.
Barry
Just for the record in response to Bill's "Christian" comment earlier. I am a Born Again Christian who thinks his conservative brothers and sisters are modern day Pharisees and Sadducees.
Post by: Hallams on June 02, 2010, 10:31:34 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 12:15 |
What form of government am I for? One that respects its citizens, governs fairly (with all paying a fair portion for tax), with health benefits for all, with free basic education for all, with unemployment insurance, with beneficial regulatory standards for all industries, with proper boundaries between church and state and a government that spends more money sheltering the homeless and feeding the hungry than it does arming its military. I'll leave it to you to put a name on that system. Barry Just for the record in response to Bill's "Christian" comment earlier. I am a Born Again Christian who thinks his conservative brothers and sisters are modern day Pharisees and Sadducees. |
Hey Barry, consider yourself invited to Australia......we don't meet all the above criteria but we come close on a few particulars
Perhaps we could go for a surf?
Post by: Hallams on June 02, 2010, 10:35:52 PM
Post by: Bill_Urick on June 02, 2010, 10:38:35 PM
This is very interesting and entertaining but please let's ease up on the vitriol.
Not directed at you Barry.
Still friends?
I hope so.
Post by: Bill_Urick on June 02, 2010, 10:40:14 PM
Post by: bblackwood on June 02, 2010, 10:44:04 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 21:15 |
I am a Born Again Christian who thinks his conservative brothers and sisters are modern day Pharisees and Sadducees. |
I think when you use such broad strokes to make your point you lose your audience.
Post by: Hallams on June 02, 2010, 10:54:11 PM
| Bill_Urick wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 12:40 |
Chris, are you being mean to me? |
Never...just trying to be a funny bugger...but i see now how it might have looked a bit mean so i swaped the pics around..... I feel better now.....how do you feel Barry?
Post by: Bill_Urick on June 02, 2010, 11:02:52 PM
| Hallams wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 22:54 | ||
Never...just trying to be a funny bugger...but i see now how it might have looked a bit mean so i swaped the pics around..... I feel better now.....how do you feel Barry? |
All good mate.
I know what it's like to have one's humor misunderstood.
(and it's OK if you're mean to Barry)
Post by: Hallams on June 02, 2010, 11:05:31 PM
| Bill_Urick wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 13:02 | ||||
All good mate. I know what it's like to have one's humor misunderstood. (and it's OK if you're mean to Barry) |
All good then old mate!
Post by: el duderino on June 03, 2010, 10:05:34 AM
| Daniel Farris wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 19:55 | ||
That's what they say, and I would treat them with so much more respect if I actually believed that to be true. Where were they for eight years while Bush ran up the deficit, put two wars on the credit card, data-mined the entire internet, and passed a giveaway to the insurance companies in the form of Medicare Part D? They're fine with large government and huge spending, as long as we spend it like *they* want it spent... mostly bombing brown people. DF |
exactly. but you forgot DHS, the largest expansion of gov't in over 50 years.
i find it hard to believe TARP was what set them off, the national debt was already almost double what it was when bush went into office at that point.
Post by: Barry Hufker on June 03, 2010, 12:12:12 PM
My apologies to anyone I've offended. I did paint with a rather broad stroke in my Pharisees comment, but those who know they aren't in that group shouldn't feel offended. But that "brush" does paint a lot of the correct people.
Thanks Chris for the invitation. Still friends Bill. Sorry Brad.
Barry
Post by: bblackwood on June 03, 2010, 12:53:28 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 11:12 |
My apologies to anyone I've offended. I did paint with a rather broad stroke in my Pharisees comment, but those who know they aren't in that group shouldn't feel offended. But that "brush" does paint a lot of the correct people. |
I still think it's incorrect if you're basing that judgment on whether or not Christians want the government taking care of the needy.
I don't necessarily agree with a lot of what I've read by Kuyper, but I think this is completely true: "The holy art of ‘giving for Jesus’ sake’ ought to be much more strongly developed among us Christians. Never forget that all state relief for the poor is a blot on the honor of your Savior."
God doesn't need for us to address the needs of the poor, but he asks us to - why is that? Do you think having the state address these needs falls under the 'why' God has required us as Christians to do so?
Some (many?) Christians don't want tax dollars spend on welfare programs because they are greedy and/or judgmental, plain and simple, but there are some (many) who feel that the government is undermining the Christian's ability to serve.
Of course, it goes without saying that if Christians in the US were pulling their collective weight, there would be little need for government interference.
But that doesn't mean that all (or even most) Christians who don't want the government handing out relief are following the law but missing the spirit behind it...
Post by: Barry Hufker on June 03, 2010, 02:58:28 PM
This is the only statement I'll agree with.
Barry
Post by: Berolzheimer on June 03, 2010, 03:34:50 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 09:53 |
there are some (many) who feel that the government is undermining the Christian's ability to serve. |
Um....yeah.....right.
So what, they're saying that having the government help the needy is somehow preventing them from helping the needy, so what, the government is preventing them from getting into heaven or something?
I don't quite get this, Brad. Can you elaborate?
Post by: bblackwood on June 03, 2010, 04:15:32 PM
| Berolzheimer wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 14:34 | ||
Um....yeah.....right. So what, they're saying that having the government help the needy is somehow preventing them from helping the needy, so what, the government is preventing them from getting into heaven or something? I don't quite get this, Brad. Can you elaborate? |
Be happy to.
Many (I'm just going to use general terms here as percentages would just be argued) Christians believe that God is all-powerful, that He can address anyone's need as He sees fit. In other words, God doesn't demand that we help the needy because He needs our help, but rather for another purpose (most folks I know believe it's for His glorification and we make the effort to let the people we're helping know that we're doing it for His glory).
Our government, by necessity, imo, strips religion from helping those in need. This is how it should be in the US, the only way to have true freedom, but it means that reliance upon the government to help the needy essentially removes God from the picture, which the the entire reason we're called to serve in the first place (again, these are the beliefs of most people I know and have discussed this with, I in no way speak for all Christians). For many of us, this means that we feel urged to find other ways to serve the needy (which is, by anyone's measure, a good thing).
At the end of the day, there are many who feel that if you took the inefficiency of government out to the picture, more needy people would be relieved, and through the personal relationships that inevitably develop between those in need and those willing to help, lives would be improved. As it stands now, many Christians live at the rails financially and therefore are unable to reach out and help as many folks directly.
My statement above - that we have failed as Christians to relive the plight of the poor - is absolutely true. Some do more than others but collectively we tend to ignore the needy. It's sad, but reliance on the government to do the work we should be doing with our own hands isn't the answer for some of us...
Clear as mud?
Post by: Barry Hufker on June 03, 2010, 04:41:03 PM
Barry
Post by: bblackwood on June 03, 2010, 05:59:55 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 15:41 |
A clear rationalization... Barry |
I'd like to hear your thoughts on the subject if you're willing to participate in an adult discussion, but that will require more than dismissive posts.
Post by: Barry Hufker on June 03, 2010, 06:28:55 PM
Mine is not a dismissive comment. It is a succinct one. And there is nothing childish about it so please save your vitriol. But as you asked for a fuller explanation...
In my view, the philosophy you state is more convenient than it is Christian. Giving has very little to do with money and everything to do with the heart. In no particular order then...
Jesus said, "Give to Caesar the things which are his". This can be interpreted in this day as "give to the government (an institution ordained by God) what it lawfully requires". This means pay taxes whether one is happy about it or not. This means serve in the military when required (or use the lawful option of being a conscientious objector). The point is, that giving to the government so it can provide services and goods to the poor does not deny God. It is obeying a God-given commandment so God is honored by the giving and the resultant good that comes from feeding and sheltering the poor. He is also glorified when government money is used for healthcare and any other service which benefits people.
The second saying is "God loves a cheerful giver". This means one gives of one's necessity and not one's bounty. Giving of one's excess means little to God because it cost the giver nothing. So if one gives of one's necessity (what the giver depends upon for basic living) then one has truly given and God is glorified. So to say Christians would give more if the government didn't "take so much" or "do so much" is an outrage. One is still required to give from one's heart of what one has not what one would have if the government wasn't "so evil".
Third, there is more to give than money. In fact, money is the lowliest form of giving. One gives one's time, talent, energy, ideas, love, etc. as the best kinds of giving. Money is the lowest form. So to say Christians would give more if the government didn't take so much is bullshit. The government is not taking anything from the list I just outlined. If Christians gave those things the world would be a better place.
Lastly, people who despise the government and use it as a scapegoat for their lack of Christian love should be glad as they have a means to feel good about themselves without having to actually do anything but blame the government as to why they aren't better people.
Barry
Post by: bblackwood on June 03, 2010, 06:58:46 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:28 |
Brad, Mine is not a dismissive comment. It is a succinct one. And there is nothing childish about it so please save your vitriol. |
No vitriol here, Barry. I suspect you know me better than that by now. I read your comment as dismissive, as I suspect many would.
It does seem, however, that we have different philosophies regarding what we're instructed in the Word and why...
| Quote: |
In my view, the philosophy you state is more convenient than it is Christian. Giving has very little to do with money and everything to do with the heart. |
No one said it is about money, but that is the subject at hand.
| Quote: |
In no particular order then... Jesus said, "Give to Caesar the things which are his". This can be interpreted in this day as "give to the government (an institution ordained by God) what it lawfully requires". This means pay taxes whether one is happy about it or not. This means serve in the military when required (or use the lawful option of being a conscientious objector). The point is, that giving to the government so it can provide services and goods to the poor does not deny God. It is obeying a God-given commandment so God is honored by the giving and the resultant good that comes from feeding and sheltering the poor. He is also glorified when government money is used for healthcare and any other service which benefits people. |
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree here - only the function of meeting the needs follows God's will for the needy - the actions that lead to it and the benefits which stem from them are absent.
Again, if it were as simple as God wanting their needs met, he wouldn't ask us to do it. God wants us to have relationships to strengthen each other, this is simply a part of that.
| Quote: |
The second saying is "God loves a cheerful giver". This means one gives of one's necessity and not one's bounty. Giving of one's excess means little to God because it cost the giver nothing. So if one gives of one's necessity (what the giver depends upon for basic living) then one has truly given and God is glorified. So to say Christians would give more if the government didn't "take so much" or "do so much" is an outrage. One is still required to give from one's heart of what one has not what one would have if the government wasn't "so evil". |
The giver may indeed feel some of the benefits of doing His will, but without being able to interface and interact with those receiving the gifts, it's single-ended at best. I mean, do you feel the same joy in your heart by writing a check to the IRS as you do actually meeting and helping those in need?
See below regarding giving vs income. It happens, it's real, look it up.
| Quote: |
Third, there is more to give than money. In fact, money is the lowliest form of giving. One gives one's time, talent, energy, ideas, love, etc. as the best kinds of giving. Money is the lowest form. So to say Christians would give more if the government didn't take so much is bullshit. The government is not taking anything from the list I just outlined. If Christians gave those things the world would be a better place. |
I agree, as I've stated several times, that we as Christians have collectively failed wrt the calling to take care of the needy. Can you explain then why charitable donations drop so severely when money is tight (like right now) or rise so significantly when the economy is doing well? The reality is people do give monetarily as they have on hand and money goes a lot further wrt to taking care of people's needs than most anything else.
Again, if it is as simple as needs being met, God doesn't need us. Giving (of anything) to those in need is about glorifying God through the relationships that are formed.
| Quote: |
Lastly, people who despise the government and use it as a scapegoat for their lack of Christian love should be glad as they have a means to feel good about themselves without having to actually do anything but blame the government as to why they aren't better people. |
I agree completely.
Post by: Dominick on June 03, 2010, 07:46:04 PM
Post by: bblackwood on June 03, 2010, 07:58:25 PM
| Dominick wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 18:46 |
http://teapartyjesus.tumblr.com/ |
That sight is sad, because it seems to be so true amongst so many...
Post by: Barry Hufker on June 03, 2010, 08:59:49 PM
Barry
Post by: bblackwood on June 03, 2010, 09:06:09 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 19:59 |
While we disagree, certainly no hard feelings here Brad. Barry |
Same.
The world would be a better place if more Christians shared your attitude.
Post by: Hallams on June 03, 2010, 09:31:33 PM
There are people who express their Christianity in their political stance in a continuum from extreme right to extreme left, and this expression can be said as god being fashioned in the "believers" image rather than the believer being transformed by faith into the image of their creator.
For me the label "Christian" ceased to have any meaning when one dear to me was raped while being counseled for childhood sexual abuse by a christian counselor employed by a baptist ministry. Heavy shit.
As it turned this perpetrator belonged to an extreme cult with eclectic new age and occult world views calling themselves "The Mystical Church of Jesus Christ"
I share this here to illustrate how meaningless it is to tag a position with the christial label and emphasise the extreme polarity of opinion that can be gathered under the one label of christian. Also, because i feel the dynamic in American politics is just as heavy at this time. The Republican party seems to be shifting further to the right, polarization is becoming more extreme and the Christian debate is a quagmire.
If those who sharea broader middle ground, Republican and Democrat don't stand back from the debate enough to gain some objective evaluation they will be seduced by the extreme, and the consequences for America will be a disturbing thing to witness from the vantage point of any looking on from the outside world. One litmus test is to walk into any bookshop and see the huge increase in books published that present ridiculous arguments that perpetuate an extreme distaste for the current American President.
This experience did not destroy my faith in the God who Is, but any faith or trust in my fellow human beings was shattered. The words of any person are meaningless except when in alignment with how they act out their day to day life. I appreciate the compassion of any human despite the label they go by and i despise the actions of the cruel, the nasty the hard heated, the liars, the greedy, weather they go by the name of christ or allah, republican or democrat or no name.
I consider myself to be one who has had a personal spiritual revelation of the I AM Who I AM, and the fulfillment of revelation being expressed in the person of Jesus but to call myself a born again christian seems meaningless given the misuse of the lable and the character assassination that has be fallen the name of Jesus, hence the rather wordy way of expressing who i believe in.
For me, for a person to say they believe in Jesus means nothing. I do have a character template based on what best i surmise was the intent of his time on earth and think in many ways that it's ok to be easy going and not a religious nutter, and i would rather stand next to a compassionate human being who is agnostic or atheist or islam, than be counted as a brother to one who calls himself a christian but lives by the what i perceive to be precepts of subtle cruelty and moral blindness, as expressed in extreme points of view on matters of politics or faith.
The very real problem i see developing is that the extreme is in danger of dominating the political landscape in the US and this is a dangerous dynamic that will not end well if reason and wisdom are a sideline. This whole situation is one of the many examples of when ideology dominates over common sense. American your real enemy is extremism within.
Another aspect i find hard to figure out is how the more extreme of the rebublicans as expressed by the tea bagers canot accept that they lost the election and those who are represented by the winning candedate have a democratic right to be represented by the President and the Democrats. The election gives the Democrats a mandate to govern.
This dynamic is also disturbing to see from my point of view as a non American.
Post by: Barry Hufker on June 04, 2010, 10:01:18 AM
Christians are all failed human beings. By that I mean they realize they are sinful, can not save themselves from their sin and realize salvation is only through Jesus Christ. It's the last part people usually get upset about as being "extreme" or "dogmatic". The thing they need to realize is that we Christians didn't come up with that notion. It is said clearly in The Bible. And for those of us who believe The Bible is the written word of God (in the original manuscript) then we have to accept what we are given by him.
With regard to Christians, there is a wide spectrum as you say. Jesus is at the center of that spectrum and the goal for each Christian is to live his/her life as closely to that example as possible. But God is forgiving and accepts as we try to live as closely as we can to Christ's example while being merciful about our shortcomings.
I am not that forgiving however. It is a personal failure. Many times I have seen the bumper sticker "Jesus save me from your followers" and I thought "Amen". Yet, as The Bible says we are all to work out our own salvation with "fear and trembling" knowing one day we will have to explain ourselves to the Almighty. I'm not here to convince anyone to be saved nor is it my duty to tell others how to live. I just say there is hope through Jesus if someone wants it. After that it is between them and God.
Barry
Post by: YZ on June 04, 2010, 01:19:46 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Fri, 04 June 2010 11:01 |
I'm not here to convince anyone to be saved nor is it my duty to tell others how to live. |
This world would be a better place if more people, regardless of their religion, followed those sentiments.
I, for one, do whatever 'good deeds' I do and act honestly and ethically in my life not because it is so written in a book or because I believe that to be the way to my salvation in an afterlife; I do it because I believe that to be the right thing to do here and now, for me and for the others.
(this is NOT meant to be a slant on anyone's beliefs)
Back to the tea people... some time ago I read on Businessweek magazine an article about tax reform that included a few interviews with 'common people', and there was that 40-something lady who stated (near verbatim) that she was "against more taxation for the rich because she wants to be rich someday and when she gets there she doesn't want to pay more taxes"
She stated her current income at below $50k/yr... -sigh-
Post by: Berolzheimer on June 04, 2010, 02:36:06 PM
| YZ wrote on Fri, 04 June 2010 10:19 |
some time ago I read on Businessweek magazine an article about tax reform that included a few interviews with 'common people', and there was that 40-something lady who stated (near verbatim) that she was "against more taxation for the rich because she wants to be rich someday and when she gets there she doesn't want to pay more taxes" She stated her current income at below $50k/yr... -sigh- |
And that's exactly what the corporatists want us all to think, it keeps us working our asses off for them & prevents us from complaining about them not contributing their fair share.
http://www.alternet.org/story/42313/?page=1
"I don't want to be the pinprick that lets the air out of the swollen balloon of hope, but at the same time I desperately want them to see that their wholehearted belief in the American Dream is actually doing more to benefit people far richer and whiter than they are.
As long as they are distracted by their own dedication, they won't stop to question why the richest people in this country pay far less in taxes, proportionally, than the middle class. They won't have the time to organize against elitist candidates because they will be too busy working dead-end jobs. As a friend once explained to me, "The proletariat didn't rise up like Marx predicted because he was too tired after work. All he wanted to do was watch TV and have a beer."
Post by: DarinK on June 04, 2010, 02:36:17 PM
http://teapartyjesus.tumblr.com/
Post by: Barry Hufker on June 04, 2010, 03:53:28 PM
Post by: Fenris Wulf on June 04, 2010, 08:52:31 PM
This is why the Republicans have ceased to be conservative in any meaningful sense of the word. The so-called "neoconservatives" closely resemble the Progressives of previous decades: the old-school fascist/militarist/socialist Woodrow Wilson type of Progressives. Perhaps this is why the Left hates the neocons so much: they are a reminder of the Left's own past.
Every U.S. President since 1913 has been a mainstream, church-going Christian. And yet, they have completely failed to bring about world peace and the brotherhood of man. Maybe they secretly worship Satan. Or maybe Christianity doesn't work as a basis of government, and we need to rediscover the values and attitudes of pagan Greco-Roman civilization.
It's not THAT big of a step, because Christianity is already a very paganized religion. All the best parts of Jesus' teachings were borrowed from the Stoics, who were the first philosophical school to enunciate the concept of universal human rights. Monotheism was originated by Greek philosophers, when they discarded the tales of Greek mythology as juvenile and conceived of a "Prime Mover."
The sole innovations of Christiantity were the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo and the doctrine of "love your enemies." The pagans regarded these doctrines as insane, and rejected them.
You can't convert anyone by saying "your beliefs are stupid and you're stupid." You have to offer them something better. The Left has nothing to offer but a discredited ideology based on altruist/pacifist ethics that don't work in the real world, ethics that have no rational basis other than "because God said so." The Right has nothing to offer but more of the same.
Our political leaders are oblivious to the meaning and value of America's Constitution. Its clear and unambiguous languge goes right above their heads; they think it's written in "Old English" and has no relevance to modern times. Some of them pose as "good old boys" while others pose as "intellectuals," but in fact all of them are quite stupid.
Today's "intellectuals" are even worse. They are so blatantly irrational, so hostile to Western civilization, than any rebirth of freedom will have to come from the common people. This will happen when Americans discover that they were pagans all along and embrace pagan ethics, which are the only ethics that can provide a principled defense of individual liberty.
I hope this provides some perspective on just how silly our current political debates are.
Post by: Berolzheimer on June 04, 2010, 09:43:02 PM
| Fenris Wulf wrote on Fri, 04 June 2010 17:52 |
Perhaps this is why the Left hates the neocons so much: they are a reminder of the Left's own past. |
No, we hate them because their greedy self-serving policies are fucking up the world that we and our children have to live in.
Post by: Edvaard on June 04, 2010, 10:32:13 PM
Well, ever since I started learning about how the world actually operates I've considered political debates to be pretty silly anyway.
Likewise ideological debates of most any sort.
"Altruism" is just a human term, a human concept. But in nature there are many instances of one creature seemingly "giving" something to another aside from the young, as normal routine for that species.
Some species co-operate in their daily affairs, especially in food gathering. The more successful ones use ever more complicated multi-step procedures, sometimes with special communication required.
The level of co-operation needed for survival is first learned in the family/community environment, the sociological development attained there being the foundation for further skills in survival.
"Altruism," "community," co-operation, etc. exist in nature because that is what was/is required for survival of those species. Somehow those animals do all that with out any ideological or philosophical directive whatsoever.
Some animals use simple tools, a few with even basic shaping. We went from animal to human not so much because we made a bowl, but because we put a curlicue on the very first one. Which came first, art or spiritual awareness? Was it simultaneous or is it a 'chicken or egg' question? Or did both items come from science, the idea and engineering and production of the bowl? Were they in fact one and the same thing at the outset?
I don't know about any of that. But humans as tool/art makers have only been around for about 500,000 years, just a blip in earth terms. From fire to steam engine took almost all that time, but from steam engine to moon landing took only about 250 years.
I think that we're just having trouble keeping up with ourselves lately.
Post by: Edvaard on June 04, 2010, 10:55:08 PM
PS
We went from printing press to texting in 666 years.
- no comment ...
Post by: Barry Hufker on June 04, 2010, 11:34:12 PM
No offense, but we're going to have to get you a really good history book so you know what really transpired. The philosophers who influenced the creation of the United States were Humanists and not Pagans.
Christianity is based on God's relationship with the Jews as first mentioned in the Old Testament. While you may be familiar with The Stoics, you certainly don't understand Christianity. You have read The Bible all the through right? Cover to Cover?
Barry
"No, we hate them because their greedy self-serving policies are fucking up the world that we and our children have to live in."
Thank you Berolzheimer. But we shouldn't hate them. Just what they think and do. There is a difference.
Post by: Fenris Wulf on June 05, 2010, 12:47:51 AM
| Berolzheimer wrote on Sat, 05 June 2010 02:43 | ||
No, we hate them because their greedy self-serving policies are fucking up the world that we and our children have to live in. |
Just like true Progressives. The "War to End All Wars" led to the rise of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Soviet Russia, the "Good War" led to half of Europe being surrendered to Communist rule, and the "limited wars" in Southeast Asia (which were an elaborate charade by the Democrats to prove they were anti-Communist) led to the abandonment of U.S. allies to Communist genocide.
It just happens that the most socialistic Presidents in U.S. history (Wilson, FDR, and Johnson) were also the most militaristic and the worst violators of civil liberties. They sacrificed not thousands, but MILLIONS of lives, and for what?
The New Left has tried to disown the militarism of the Old Left and blame it on "conservatives." In reality, conservatives were opposed to these wars, or at least to the way the Democrats conducted them, and were smeared as "isolationist" as a result.
If conservatives deliberately set out to be as evil as possible and kill as many innocent people as possible, they still wouldn't come close to the crimes of the Progressives. The hysterical accusations made by the Left against "neocons" are a desperate attempt to distract attention from their own history.
Post by: Fenris Wulf on June 05, 2010, 01:01:03 AM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Sat, 05 June 2010 04:34 |
The philosophers who influenced the creation of the United States were Humanists and not Pagans. |
The Renaissance was a renaissance of...what? Reading the Bible more? Going to church more? No, it was a renaissance of classical philosophy, history, and science. The early Christians viewed pagan culture as worthless and evil, and tried to wipe off the face of the earth with massive book-burning campaigns. If classical learning had not been preserved by the Arabs, and re-introduced to Europe just as the Arabs were rejecting it, Western civilization as we know it would have ceased to exist. Forever. The Dark Ages would have continued to the present day, and in all likelihood the New World would have remained undiscovered.
I'm just waiting for some Leftist to say "and the world would be better for it too." Go ahead, I know that's what you're thinking. When I get that time machine built, you can go live in the Dark Ages with the fundamentalists. No science, no technology, no multinational corporations, no pesky Constitution placing limits on government power. You'll love it there.
Post by: Edvaard on June 05, 2010, 03:09:25 AM
Not liking enemies is understandable.
Basing one's ideological existence on them is another matter.
Post by: Bill_Urick on June 05, 2010, 06:33:17 AM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 22:15 |
...who thinks his conservative brothers and sisters are modern day Pharisees and Sadducees. |
Barry, can you explain exactly what you meant by this?
Thanks.
Post by: Jay Kadis on June 05, 2010, 11:06:26 AM
| Fenris Wulf wrote on Fri, 04 June 2010 21:47 |
It just happens that the most socialistic Presidents in U.S. history (Wilson, FDR, and Johnson) were also the most militaristic and the worst violators of civil liberties. They sacrificed not thousands, but MILLIONS of lives, and for what? |
Post by: Nick Sevilla on June 05, 2010, 11:14:51 AM
Book of Enoch
And remember, that he met the Lord... maybe that is why his writings were abandoned long ago.
Cheers
Post by: Barry Hufker on June 05, 2010, 11:50:49 AM
Pharisees and Sadducees... I couldn't find online a good defintion I could trust as to the exact nature of these religious sects and their history. But in my poor summary, they are two of four basic religious sects in Judaism at the time of Christ on earth. The two groups opposed each other yet both attacked Jesus as a teacher, as God and as a person. I'll leave it to someone better educated than I to describe their exact nature and beliefs but in essence they were highly positioned, influential and self-righteous. If I had to sum it up quickly, I'd say they were all that was wrong with Judaism. Consequently, when I use the terms for (at least some) conservative Christians, I believe they too are all that is wrong with Christianity. Of course, "missing the mark" is not just the domain of conservatives but it seems to me they are the more destructive.
I've done a couple of quick Bible searches which I've linked to below. You can get the gist just by quickly reading the verses which appear. There is sufficient context for the meaning to be clear.
http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=Pharise es&qs_version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=Sadduce es&x=0&y=0
Barry
EDIT: Thinking about this further, it may be the term Sadducees is more applicable to those who have become too liberal in their interpretation of Christianity by (in the modern era) denying Christ's resurrection and subsequent offering of salvation to all.
Post by: Taproot on June 05, 2010, 03:18:56 PM
| Nick Sevilla wrote on Sat, 05 June 2010 09:14 |
For all of you, in case you forgot, please read this : Book of Enoch And remember, that he met the Lord... maybe that is why his writings were abandoned long ago. Cheers |
Probably scared the shit out of Jesus, when he met him.
Post by: TotalSonic on June 05, 2010, 09:06:03 PM
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
Best regards,
Steve Berson
Post by: Barry Hufker on June 05, 2010, 11:41:17 PM
Barry
Post by: Fenris Wulf on June 06, 2010, 08:06:12 PM
| Jay Kadis wrote on Sat, 05 June 2010 16:06 |
Are you saying FDR shouldn't have fought Germany and Japan? You also seem to believe that Presidents are able to do whatever they wish |
FDR certainly believed so! For example, his attempt to stack the Supreme Court, which provoked a rebellion in his own party.
FDR's alliance with Stalin, who slaughtered MORE civilians than Hitler and sucked up U.S. military aid while contributing nothing to the war effort, was completely indefensible.
Post by: Fenris Wulf on June 06, 2010, 08:10:16 PM
| TotalSonic wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 02:06 |
Ezekiel 16:49-50: Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. |
It wouldn't be the first time, and it certainly won't be the last.
Post by: PookyNMR on June 06, 2010, 08:13:33 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Sat, 05 June 2010 21:41 |
It's interesting you should quote that. Many people think Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of "sexual sin". Truly it seems to be because of the reasons you quote. Barry |
Well if you read the quoted verses, you'll see that it states, "And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."
Read all of Ezekiel 16 and put it in context. Also keep it in the context of the Torah. The main issue here is injustice. Injustice here and elsewhere in the scripture is hand in hand with idolatry. So indeed the sin of Sodom was injustice. But, that injustice expressed it self in many ways - pride of riches, ignoring the poor, and abomination. All three go hand in hand as they are all part of injustice that stemmed from idolatry.
If you look at the sexual codes in OT passages like Lev 18, these things are seen as abomination and would likely be in view for Ezekiel. You'll also see in Leviticus that idolatry was also the issue behind the sexual codes. Because, again, idolatry in all it's forms causes injustice.
So in this case, injustice due to idolatry is the big picture, and it's not necessarily an either / or (neglect of poor vs. abominations) here but a both-and (neglect of poor and abominations). Looking back at Ez 16, you see that the primary metaphor dealing with the unfaithfulness of Jerusalem is sexual sin.
[EDIT: For clarity, I should mention however, that neglect of the poor certainly does take a front seat in this passage as the primary form of injustice. How we treat the weakest members of our society is, biblically, a primary 'barometer' of a just society. I mentioned the previous point to say that just because negelect of the poor takes a front seat does not mean that abominable activities were out of view. They all stem from idolatry and perpetrate injustice.]
Post by: PookyNMR on June 06, 2010, 08:22:54 PM
| Nick Sevilla wrote on Sat, 05 June 2010 09:14 |
For all of you, in case you forgot, please read this : Book of Enoch And remember, that he met the Lord... maybe that is why his writings were abandoned long ago. |
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here.
But the 'Book of Enoch' was not written by Enoch. It is part of a collection of writings called the (Jewish) Pseudepigraphia. It was written ~ 200 BC. It's also written in the apocalyptic genre which didn't appear too much earlier than roughly 400 BC.
While the book was known and had some respect among early peoples, it was never considered part of the authoritative canon of scriptures for the Jews. And even though it is quoted in the NT book of Jude, it was likewise rejected by the Christians as well as authoritative/canonical, even as a book for the 'apocrypha'.
Post by: YZ on June 06, 2010, 10:33:11 PM
However, what does Enoch et al have to do with:
A little over two centuries ago a group of businessmen from a British colony rebelled against what they felt was too high taxation, with not enough return benefits from that taxation, and with no political representation that in their view should be the counterpart of taxation.
They felt they were working hard only to be taxed to support richer people (British nobility) and that tax money wasn't being used to provide them, the taxpayers, with any service from that government.
Now we have a political group in an independent country that adopted the name of that old group despite the facts that they do have political representation and that the current National government - which was elected democratically by the people - wishes to give more return to the people from their taxes and proposing the withdrawal of former tax cuts to the 'nobility' so that it can better serve the hard workers and/or people who fell on hard times, being that the last government left the country in a financially uncomfortable state due to being excessively lenient towards the local 'nobility' for several years and other bad uses of the people's money.
This group embraced the tea bag as a symbol and used the expression "to teabag" to signify "acting against those who are against us".
Now it seems they are rejecting the "teabagging" motif that they had formerly embraced.
What the above has to do with the scriptures is beyond my reasoning.
Post by: Barry Hufker on June 06, 2010, 11:42:31 PM
It's always good to have you enter a conversation. Your scholarship is wonderful.
I agree completely with what you've written. What I wanted to emphasize was the aspect that S and G treated people unjustly rather than just being "cities filled with fags" (as in www.godhatesfags.com). I wanted to express there was so much more to the whole issue.
Barry
Post by: Berolzheimer on June 07, 2010, 02:07:21 AM
Post by: YZ on June 07, 2010, 07:30:23 AM
| Berolzheimer wrote on Mon, 07 June 2010 03:07 |
That, Yves, is extremely well said. I hope you don't mind, I intend to quote you. |
Well, the thoughts are there but the structure... now that I had some sleep, the text looks so ugly...
Quote away.
Post by: Berolzheimer on June 07, 2010, 05:22:31 PM
| YZ wrote on Mon, 07 June 2010 04:30 | ||
Well, the thoughts are there but the structure... now that I had some sleep, the text looks so ugly... Quote away. |
It's the content that matters.
Post by: Berolzheimer on June 07, 2010, 05:31:25 PM
| Taproot wrote on Sat, 05 June 2010 12:18 | ||
Probably scared the shit out of Jesus, when he met him. |
I met Enik last year, only he looked more like this:
Post by: Nick Sevilla on June 08, 2010, 01:16:52 PM
| PookyNMR wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 17:22 | ||
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here. But the 'Book of Enoch' was not written by Enoch. It is part of a collection of writings called the (Jewish) Pseudepigraphia. It was written ~ 200 BC. It's also written in the apocalyptic genre which didn't appear too much earlier than roughly 400 BC. While the book was known and had some respect among early peoples, it was never considered part of the authoritative canon of scriptures for the Jews. And even though it is quoted in the NT book of Jude, it was likewise rejected by the Christians as well as authoritative/canonical, even as a book for the 'apocrypha'. |
Good point...
I know this... does anyone else here know about who really wrote this along with all the other books in the Great Book? Probably not.
It would be interesting to find out why it was not considered important.
Cheers
Post by: Taproot on June 08, 2010, 06:04:10 PM
| Berolzheimer wrote on Mon, 07 June 2010 15:31 |
I met Enik last year, only he looked more like this: |
I just couldn't bring myself to watch the new one. In my eyes, it's just outright sacrilege to touch that classic. 
Post by: PookyNMR on June 08, 2010, 11:55:07 PM
| Nick Sevilla wrote on Tue, 08 June 2010 11:16 | ||||
Good point... I know this... does anyone else here know about who really wrote this along with all the other books in the Great Book? Probably not. It would be interesting to find out why it was not considered important. Cheers |
The specific author of Enoch is not known. Some scholars theorize that there were actually multiple authors or possibly an author and later editors.
As for 'the other books' in the 'Great Book' - what specifically are you referring to? Some books have more known about authorship than others.
There are various reasons why it was never canonized. A few of which -- the fact that it was obviously pseudepigrpahical, elements of the theological content that were suspicious to some of the ancients (like the discourses on angels, sacrifices, lack of references to historical core Jewish ideas), it's historical exclusion from the various Jewish cannons and deuterocanons.
Post by: Berolzheimer on June 09, 2010, 12:21:25 AM
| Taproot wrote on Tue, 08 June 2010 15:04 | ||
I just couldn't bring myself to watch the new one. In my eyes, it's just outright sacrilege to touch that classic. |
I don't blame you.
I did sound effects work on it for 9 months and unfortunately watched it go from being a charming, fun movie into a steaming pile of toilet jokes, at the behest of some clueless studio execs.
Post by: Bill_Urick on June 10, 2010, 09:28:37 PM
| Quote: |
Sir, Can you please be more specific? I would very much like to clear this up. Sincerely, Bill Urick ------------------------------------------------------------ ----- From: xxxxxxx@teaparty.org Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 11:01 PM To: Urick Subject: Re: Need to know if this is an actual photo of you Radical perpetuating a lie. -----Original Message----- From: Urick Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2010 10:22 PM To: xxxxxxx@teaparty.org Subject: Need to know if this is an actual photo of you Sir Please, can you verify if this is a real photo. Thank you, Bill Urick |
Hope that's clear enough.
I had no response from second request.