We've Returned to the Golden Calf: Money

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I wholeheartedly agree with the gist of this speech and have been saying as much for years now. The Pope really nailed this one on the head.

I wonder how the religious conservatives will reconcile THIS part of the speech with their own hypocritical beliefs…

“…I encourage the financial experts and the political leaders of your countries to consider the words of Saint John Chrysostom: ‘Not to share one?s goods with the poor is to rob them and to deprive them of life. It is not our goods that we possess, but theirs’ (Homily on Lazarus, 1:6 ? PG 48, 992D).”[/quote]

Christians (Protestants and Catholics alike) are not hypocrites; on the contrary, they are far and away the most generous givers in the country. The problem is not that they are unwilling to give (though I still think far more who could should give); the problem is that many American Christians disagree with the idea that the government should have the right to FORCE US to give our money away AND to determine where that money goes. My wife and I give a substantial portion of our income every month to our church and other non-profit organizations, so I’m not sure what kind of hypocrisy you’re talking about.
[/quote]

I’m not talking about ALL Christian conservatives. I’m talking about the ones who rant and rave about taxes going to entitlement programs who don’t participate in charitable causes, like going to soup kitchens or working with the Big Brother program or volunteering at rest homes or donating clothing to the Salvation Army and that sort of thing. The same type who cite God as the driving force behind all of their hate-talk but never go to church and so forth.[/quote]

there are plenty that do go to church , I personally like when the passage from the bible states that Jesus will drug test all people that he wants to help :slight_smile:
[/quote]

You can understand the frustration of those with higher tax burdens knowing their hard earned income is being taken from them and given to supposed have-nots only to read story after story of welfare fraud.

Welfare fraud includes people hiding ex-spouses or companions that are working and have real income, making purchases of non food items such as strip clubs, casino gambling, hiding resources, property, inheritance etc…

But the real deal breaker with most is learning the food stamp/EBT money are given to those who when they do get a few dollars rather than being thankful for the help, they go blow it on crack cocaine, meth or heroin. All illegal and I know of none who wish to see their tax dollars help support the drug trade and all that entails.

So what’s the big deal to have a blood/urine drug test? It’s just another hoop they go through to safeguard that they aren’t throwing the charity of others away and instead giving it to those who are honestly striving to make it below the poverty line. Small trade off.

42

your post is too long to answer you line by line :slight_smile:

Food stamps and other social programs are a minimal expense compared to our war machine and corporate welfare programs . Why are we subsidizing oil ? Coal ?

43

Fuck ? in a time of prosperity , why are we subsidizing corn ?

44

It’s not just money, it’s the rules of making money and how rules of making money/ LAW tends to conflict with what is morally right and pragmatically responsible when money becomes the ultimate priority.

These days we need lawyers just to be aware of the red tape to do business. Ask yourself, who would benefit from this? The lawyer… Lawyers, lawyers, lawyers… The broken legal system is like a cancer to our democracy, from trumped up charges in our criminal system to creating so many business laws that you need a team of lawyers to be aware of what laws you may be breaking before you even consider making a deal or breaking ground. As not knowing a law exists is not a reasonable defense (even though it is completely unreasonable to expect ANYBODY to know all of the laws). Our society is a big, ugly, army like cluster fuck of conformity and red tape. Get in line, hurry up and wait for the process designed to be anything but streamlined while other nations catch up. Everyone is responsible for this, Dems and Repubs.

There is a generalized, weakness about many of our wealthy (both dems and repubs). When teachers are afraid to discipline children because they are afraid of lawsuits, or afraid to give a child their earned grade because of a lawsuit, or afraid to have children run during recess because of a lawsuit, it makes you wonder where the respect is for authority, not only this but where authority has gone (Lawyers and money). Oh, your mom threatened a lawsuit unless I raise your gpa 12%… Well, I don’t have the time to grade these papers and spend hours of my life putting together a case with some scumbag lawyer when I can spend it with my family. So I’ll just give you the grade.

Seems like money has become the authority as well as lawmaker. The Lawyer, and the importance that Lawyers have lawyered into the system is the parasite. On one hand, it’s great because it creates high paying jobs, but at what cost? The money has to come from somewhere, people leave other avenues of education to take up law, where are these people coming from? Are some of these lawyers potential designers, doctors, professors, Philosophers? What good is a lawyer these days? I’m not trying to break the balls of every lawyer out there, but I think you are some of the best people to explain this problem.

I think there are allegories within the bible that will conclude the same. People don’t have the general idea that hard work, perseverance and love are the recipe that brings about things that are worthy, in relationships and in material. People don’t value hard work, only end results and what looks good on paper.

Things like Grace and charity aren’t really as present as most people of various faiths and clubs would think. There is plenty of food and medicine for everyone, but people go hungry and untreated… It’s not about welfare, it’s about greed.

45

The primacy of human beings is the very definition and essence of idolatry.

46

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I wholeheartedly agree with the gist of this speech and have been saying as much for years now. The Pope really nailed this one on the head.

I wonder how the religious conservatives will reconcile THIS part of the speech with their own hypocritical beliefs…

“…I encourage the financial experts and the political leaders of your countries to consider the words of Saint John Chrysostom: ‘Not to share one?s goods with the poor is to rob them and to deprive them of life. It is not our goods that we possess, but theirs’ (Homily on Lazarus, 1:6 ? PG 48, 992D).”[/quote]

Christians (Protestants and Catholics alike) are not hypocrites; on the contrary, they are far and away the most generous givers in the country. The problem is not that they are unwilling to give (though I still think far more who could should give); the problem is that many American Christians disagree with the idea that the government should have the right to FORCE US to give our money away AND to determine where that money goes. My wife and I give a substantial portion of our income every month to our church and other non-profit organizations, so I’m not sure what kind of hypocrisy you’re talking about.
[/quote]

There’s nothing wrong with what you wrote but don’t mistakenly try to amalgamate Christianity with conservatism. There are many progressive Christians in the US (look at the polls) and I’d venture to say more Christians worldwide would identify themselves as more progressive than conservative. [/quote]
Christians identify themselves with Christ and His kingdom. There are untold vaaast multitudes of people calling themselves that who haven’t the first flickering clue what it means. Like our reprehensible president. There are no such things as politically liberal Christians by today’s American definitions. That would be like proposing dry water.

47

While I am anti Religion I am Pro God I concur

48

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

The primacy of human beings is the very definition and essence of idolatry.[/quote]

No it is not. Thanks for playing.

49

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

The primacy of human beings is the very definition and essence of idolatry.[/quote]

No it is not. Thanks for playing.[/quote]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

The primacy of human beings is the very definition and essence of idolatry.[/quote]

No it is not. Thanks for playing.[/quote]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

The primacy of human beings is the very definition and essence of idolatry.[/quote]

No it is not. Thanks for playing.[/quote]
Yes it is. Your turn Chris.

Oh yeah it’s “APOCALYPSIS IESOU CHRISTOU” (transliteration). “REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST” All singulars, no article. The book has no title, though some MSS maybe had APOCALYPSIS as a header. Don’t remember. We call it that because of the first phrase I quoted above. Textual criticism is not my thang.

It is “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,” as the NASB quite neatly renders verse 1.

50

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Yes it is. Your turn Chris.[/quote]

Hitchen’s Razor, you have no evidence, “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

I don’t have the full transcript in front of me, but I assume the fact that we have the phrase GOD INCARNATE, points to the human primacy. It’s the only creature God wants or is able to have a relationship with…

[quote]
Oh yeah it’s “APOCALYPSIS IESOU CHRISTOU” (transliteration). “REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST” All singulars, no article. The book has no title, though some MSS maybe had APOCALYPSIS as a header. Don’t remember. We call it that because of the first phrase I quoted above. Textual criticism is not my thang.

It is “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,” as the NASB quite neatly renders verse 1. [/quote]

Yes, and the traditional name of Gospel of Mark has no evidence within it except for the fact that it is tradition to call it the Gospel of Mark. Who wrote Hebrews? St. Paul, how do we know…Catholic Church says so.

51

That’s fine Chris. It wasn’t a big deal anyway. I wasn’t jumpin on ya over it. The “APOCALYPSIS” has no actual name, but to call it “revelationS” is incorrect. It’s not idiotic, but it is wrong.

If you mean in the context of finite temporal creation only then yes. Man is the highest creation of God. Angels are a different story.

Aristotle’s scale and analogy of being, if held epistemologically makes the notion of creature and creator being essentially distinct at the ontological level impossible. Oh my Lord, what could have been if only Aquinas could have been locked away from Aristotle.

52

Islam would have completely taken over Aristotle’s works and misintrepeted them to the point that Western Civilization would not have been influenced by Christianity, but by Islamfascism? Aristotle’s works were being studied through all of the Universities, the Moslems in the Universities were proving to put forth a popular understanding of Aristotle. Thomas effectively shut down an entire intellectual mindset and stopped the intellectual crusade of the Moslems.

The physical attack of the Moslems was stopped at Tours, the intellectual attack of the Moslems was stopped at University of Paris.

53

Even if true that doesn’t change the point of what I said Christopher. Aquinas made Aristotle’s pagan epistemology the intellectual foundation of his gospel. WHILE attempting to smuggle in some Augustine. Augustine was probably even more inconsistent in some ways than Aquinas except the bishop of Hippo wound up with much better theology than Aquinas did. I would have preferred “Islamfascism” in the world if it would have meant avoiding the onslaught of Aristotle in the church. Who cares what the Moslms were doing with Aristotle? Aristotle was an enemy of God. Brilliant though he was. They’re welcome to him.

54

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

I would have preferred “Islamfascism” in the world if it would have meant avoiding the onslaught of Aristotle in the church. [/quote]

I think you ought to immediately rethink that incredibly dangerous statement regarding Islamofascism. Or perhaps you don’t watch the news? No way I pick that option.

And although I might be wrong I interpreted Chris’s “human primacy” statements–in particular the original from the Pope–as pointing to the simple idea that ministry to humans ought to be put first, not money or status or fame, which I think is quite biblical and moreover plays directly into the current Pope’s past ministerial work. Of course I might be mistaken but taken this way the idea of human primacy is not only uncontroversial but very biblical.

55

I would prefer the whole world languish under bloody global Sharia until the the Lord returns if it meant a pure church, free of the contaminations of the wisdom of men. And women like Debbie Blue (couldn’t help myself =D ) That’s why I’m looking forward to the finally coming purifying persecution of the body of Christ on this continent. His winnowing fork is in His hand (Matthew 3:11-12) and we WILL see who’s playin Jesus and who’s actually His when it cost blood and treasure for somebody to name the name of Christ as their own. It’s our turn. I can’t wait. That’s why people like me are so wacko see? We don’t actually live for this world.

When I said this: [quote]“If you mean in the context of finite temporal creation only, then yes. Man is the highest creation of God. Angels are a different story.”[/quote]
I essentially meant that if he means that man is preeminent in the context of creation then I agree.

My hand will always be out to you Aragorn.

56

I assume then that we agree on the second point about ministering to fellow men? Although it is hard aomwtimes to follow your writing style when you don’t just say “that’s what i meant when i said that”

I find it very disturbing that you would vilify st. thomas acquinas in such a way as to equate him with people you consider devils of modernism and humanism. I’ll even give you Aristotle for the sake of argument. Even if i do grant your premise that he was completely wrong theologically, which considering the fact i disagree so much with your calvinism is not a high probability, he was a devout man that i would never consider having as villain of the faith. He did great things to advance the faith and besides, if you are talking about the God who took tax collectors, whores, fishermen, stone throwing cloak holding jealous rage persecuting pharisees into people advancing the faith, then i do not see it as a stretch at ALL to consider the fact that He might use an intellectually mistaken or mislead but devout man to advance the faith. I can think of a number of examples of people who were either horrible people, outright villains, did hideously bad things while beimg misled or mistaken in motive, or just outright wrong intellectually to advance his plan. Turned them around, made them giant figures in history. And–here’s the thing–a lot of these figures were wrong about numerous things in theology.

I could, if i were so inclined, use your very own John Calvin as an example. Because he was clearly not a pristine person, and i believe he is also in addition clearly, seriously wrong about theology. But…how many people have been brought into calvinist churches since he died hundreds of years ago?

So, in short, i neither understand nor agree with that statement on islamofascism. It is one thing to be wrong or mistaken, quite another to actively do what those violent villians do.

57

I am not equating Aquinas with jihadist muslims. Nor have I made any statements about whether he was actually a Christian. What I have said was that his foundation for thought, his epistemology, absolutely WAS Aristotle’s. Denying that doesn’t pass the snicker test. Yes, God has and DOES use all kinds of people to advance His kingdom AFTER he saves them and “turns them around”. He even uses rank heretics and hellbound pagans for His purposes.

EVERY man of God in history who has ever lived and ever will this side of the resurrection has been wrong and mislead about SOMETHING. Yes, even though very misreported, Calvin WAS still very wrong in his wielding of the civil magistrate.

Violent villainy is just the thing God has always used to purge and purify His church bride. I abhor the violent villains, whoever they might be, WHILE recognizing them as God’s instrument of righteousness for His people. It’s always been that way. Always will. Until the end. Maybe it’s somewhat selfish of me, but I yearn to see His church cleansed of the leprous heresy and carnality that clings to her in the debauched and dying western world. My bones ache to see my glorious King vindicated as He sweeps the choking chaff from his precious wheat.

It’s not that I’ll enjoy watching people flee for the sake of it. Not at all. Were it not for His eternally electing grace I would be one of them. I have been telling you all along. I am jealous for His name Aragorn. The thought of a thousand slow painful deaths is more tolerable to me than seeing His majesty reproached and defamed and His Word butchered one more day, not by the world, but by those calling themselves “Christians”.

58

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am not equating Aquinas with jihadist muslims. Nor have I made any statements about whether he was actually a Christian. What I have said was that his foundation for thought, his epistemology, absolutely WAS Aristotle’s. Denying that doesn’t pass the snicker test.[/quote]

Of course it was. You didn’t really have a whole lot else available in the period of burgeoning civilization to the age of Acquinas. If you could read at all you were a rarity. Besides which just as the “earth centric” astronomy model gave us the tools and framework to eventually understand the “helio centric” model, which then enabled us to eventually understand that neither was true and develop a more accurate understanding. Math started with 2+2 and eventually progressed to Newton developing Calculus. See my point?

I know you know that. Although your writing has always left me in some doubt about aspects of your theology in regard to some of these things. I know you know the point I made. That’s why I said it, and that’s why I don’t understand what you claimed earlier on. You essentially made the claim that you wish Acquinas had never been involved with the Church and you would have been ok with Islamic nutsos if it meant that old St. Tom hadn’t been around. That in my mind is akin to say “well gee that whole earth centric astronomy model sucks and was totally fundamentally wrong–I’d rather have the sorcerers in charge of astronomy than have that earth centric model ever made to influence astronomy”. Well that doesn’t make ANY sense does it? No. It doesn’t.

Fine. Ok.

59

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Even if true that doesn’t change the point of what I said Christopher. Aquinas made Aristotle’s pagan epistemology the intellectual foundation of his gospel. WHILE attempting to smuggle in some Augustine. Augustine was probably even more inconsistent in some ways than Aquinas except the bishop of Hippo wound up with much better theology than Aquinas did. I would have preferred “Islamfascism” in the world if it would have meant avoiding the onslaught of Aristotle in the church. Who cares what the Moslms were doing with Aristotle? Aristotle was an enemy of God. Brilliant though he was. They’re welcome to him.[/quote]

You’d prefer being a Moslem rather than a Christian in which Aquinas’ raiding of the Islamic classrooms and stealing of Aristotle’s works lead to your ultimate (though misguided) freedom to rebel against the Church of Christ and become your own Pope…interesting.

Aristotle was wrong on many things, Aquinas clearly points this out. All Aquinas did was use contemporary philosophy to show that the Christian Church was where the true worship of the one God was and where it will always be until Heaven come.

Just like since the reformation Catholics have used protestant philosophy (you can see this most clearly by studying the course of action starting with the baltimore catechism and then looking back at the trent catechism in which we taught not just for the Catholic Church, but against Reformed Theology, &c. answering questions specifically in rebuttal of Reformed Theology) to show that the Catholic Church is the one and only place to worship God as he Jesus taught us (but, even Aquinas showed by way of St. Augustine that though man is limited by the sacraments, God is not).

Now, I believe we (as a Church) have moved passed that (you can see the course of action very clearly in Vatican II and from there the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and will see it more clearly as the local synods put out their own catechism distilling the truths that were spoken on in the Council). Before Trent, the Church was very much favored teaching about having a relationship with Jesus, after the Reformation it talked about doctrines, now after Vatican II we are back on teaching about having a relationship with Jesus Christ and his Church. You will see a steady incline of catechesis that moves away from teaching primarily doctrine and moving that to a secondary position after teaching about having a relationship with Jesus Christ and his Church. This is because the younger generation (in which I count myself) sees that the relationship has always been primary, and without that the doctrines will fall on deaf ears.

This is the primary reason (I believe) that Pope said that humans have primacy. Not because man is the greatest good, but because saving his soul is the primary good, other goods be damned until that is fixed in people’s minds.

I will agree with you on this, the Church has a problem. The problem is that though there are 100 million Catholics, 30-40 are fallen away. The other 60 million are between not practicing and being devout, I would put the number at 2 million Catholics who practice and believe. That is a problem, I’m not of the opinion that we should kick all these “dead” Catholics out, I think the internal movement to repropose the Gospel is the way to go, while bringing in new Catholics. And, ultimately that is why I am doing the job i am doing…

60

It was impossible from all eternity that I could ever be a Moslem Chris. ALL that the Father has given the Son WILL come and of them He will lose none, but raise them up on the last day. I’d sooner live starving and tortured in a pure(er) church and die under a Jihadist sword with all my family than live in the United States of 2013. The hope of the redeemed is not in this world Christopher. I love my country, but she IS lost and killing herself. Only a sovereign move of the Spirit of the true and living God can save her from her from her own whoredom. Aquinas moved in with Aristotle instead of kicking him out. There has been NO pure church (or society) where Romanism has prospered EVER and never will be. What Aquinas did was permanently mangle your church’s theology. By her own definitions she can never recover.

I don’t know where this 100 million comes from. There are far more Catholics than that Chris.