EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

47, don't you dismiss Old Testament theology?

---

No. I believe in the OT that's why I quoted. It. What's your scripture that says ignore the pool. Wrote the psalms throughout. Isaiah wrote any of the profits you discover that God cares about the poor about the marginalized the widow of the orphan and God expects justice in the courts and in our relationships to other.

---

I'm glad you are starting to believe in the Old Testament now. You bucked against its moral lessons in the recent past.

You must no longer accept homosexual behavior as ok as well. Or beastiality, or cross dressing.

---

The issue is the text not me.

---

You having a problem with a text is the text's fault. I see. So scripture is no better than any other book for you.

---

I do not have a problem the text.

---

Yet you do with other Old Testament texts. Focus on the text

---

JXL said:

---

Here's a newspaper column you'll like, Waco47. It's liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, discovering to his amazement what most of us already knew - conservatives are more charitable and generous than are liberals.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

If you can't get to the column from that link, it's reprinted here.

https://www.saratogian.com/2008/12/22/kristof-bleeding-heart-tightwads/

---

Not the point....What does the text say?

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

canoso said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Another passage the Evangelicals will ignore because they can't justify their judgmental views of poverty.
Deuteronomy 15:7 After the Lord your God gives land to each of you, there may be poor Israelites in the town where you live. If there are, then don't be mean and selfish with your money.
8 Instead, be kind and lend them what they need.
9 Be careful! Don't say to yourself, "Soon it will be the seventh year, and then I won't be able to get my money back." It would be horrible for you to think that way and to be so selfish that you refuse to help the poor. They are your relatives, and if you don't help them, they may ask the Lord to decide whether you have done wrong. And he will say that you are guilty.
107 After the Lord your God gives land to each of you, there may be poor Israelites in the town where you live. If there are, then don't be mean and selfish with your money. 8 Instead, be kind and lend them what they need. 9 Be careful! Don't say to yourself, "Soon it will be the seventh year, and then I won't be able to get my money back." It would be horrible for you to think that way and to be so selfish that you refuse to help the poor. They are your relatives, and if you don't help them, they may ask the Lord to decide whether you have done wrong. And he will say that you are guilty. 10 You should be happy to give the poor what they need, because then the Lord will make you successful in everything you do.
11 There will always be some Israelites who are poor and needy. That's why I am commanding you to be generous with them. (The Distribution Part)
11 There will always be some Israelites who are poor and needy. That's why I am commanding you to be generous with them.

---

We need to see where in Scripture people were obligated (read "forced," as through taxation) to do these things. Ready, set, GO!

---

The Deut passage is from the mouth of God. It is a commandment by God, which is "forcing" you unless you don't believe in God's commandment, then take it up with God. Deut. 15: 10 You should be happy to give the poor what they need, because then the Lord will make you successful in everything you do. Taxation, or paying out of your pocket, does not matter. Give to the poor by taxation, or your local food pantry, or Habitat for Humanity. God does not care.
It's a silly canard always brought up by Conservative Christians. God says give to the poor whether personally or through taxation. It is simple: "Give to the poor happily."

---

God says give them what they need, it doesn't say give them all your money.. I did not say that and neither does the text.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

47, don't you dismiss Old Testament theology?

---

No. I believe in the OT that's why I quoted. It. What's your scripture that says ignore the pool. Wrote the psalms throughout. Isaiah wrote any of the profits you discover that God cares about the poor about the marginalized the widow of the orphan and God expects justice in the courts and in our relationships to other.

---

I'm glad you are starting to believe in the Old Testament now. You bucked against its moral lessons in the recent past.

You must no longer accept homosexual behavior as ok as well. Or beastiality, or cross dressing.

---

The issue is the text not me.

---

You having a problem with a text is the text's fault. I see. So scripture is no better than any other book for you.

---

I do not have a problem the text.

---

Yet you do with other Old Testament texts. Focus on the text

---

---

Focus on your problem.

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Here's a newspaper column you'll like, Waco47. It's liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, discovering to his amazement what most of us already knew - conservatives are more charitable and generous than are liberals.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

If you can't get to the column from that link, it's reprinted here.

https://www.saratogian.com/2008/12/22/kristof-bleeding-heart-tightwads/

---

Not the point....What does the text say?

---

It's exactly the point. In case you forgot what you posted, you said this was a passage which the Evangelicals will ignore. The objective evidence - as I linked - shows that in fact, the conservative evangelical community is better about following passages about charity than are the liberals.

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Here's a newspaper column you'll like, Waco47. It's liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, discovering to his amazement what most of us already knew - conservatives are more charitable and generous than are liberals.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

If you can't get to the column from that link, it's reprinted here.

https://www.saratogian.com/2008/12/22/kristof-bleeding-heart-tightwads/

---

Not the point....What does the text say?

---

It's exactly the point. In case you forgot what you posted, you said this was a passage which the Evangelicals will ignore. The objective evidence - as I linked - shows that in fact, the conservative evangelical community is better about following passages about charity than are the liberals.

---

No, the point is the TEXT. My comment about Evangelicals is not that they are generous, which they are; my point is that Evangelicals will ignore the claim of Deuteronomy 15 regarding National Policy. The passage is clearly about guidelines for the nation, or as the text says, "The community".

Waco1947 said:

---

canoso said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Another passage the Evangelicals will ignore because they can't justify their judgmental views of poverty.
Deuteronomy 15:7 After the Lord your God gives land to each of you, there may be poor Israelites in the town where you live. If there are, then don't be mean and selfish with your money.
8 Instead, be kind and lend them what they need.
9 Be careful! Don't say to yourself, "Soon it will be the seventh year, and then I won't be able to get my money back." It would be horrible for you to think that way and to be so selfish that you refuse to help the poor. They are your relatives, and if you don't help them, they may ask the Lord to decide whether you have done wrong. And he will say that you are guilty.
107 After the Lord your God gives land to each of you, there may be poor Israelites in the town where you live. If there are, then don't be mean and selfish with your money. 8 Instead, be kind and lend them what they need. 9 Be careful! Don't say to yourself, "Soon it will be the seventh year, and then I won't be able to get my money back." It would be horrible for you to think that way and to be so selfish that you refuse to help the poor. They are your relatives, and if you don't help them, they may ask the Lord to decide whether you have done wrong. And he will say that you are guilty. 10 You should be happy to give the poor what they need, because then the Lord will make you successful in everything you do.
11 There will always be some Israelites who are poor and needy. That's why I am commanding you to be generous with them. (The Distribution Part)
11 There will always be some Israelites who are poor and needy. That's why I am commanding you to be generous with them.

---

We need to see where in Scripture people were obligated (read "forced," as through taxation) to do these things. Ready, set, GO!

---

The Deut passage is from the mouth of God. It is a commandment by God, which is "forcing" you unless you don't believe in God's commandment, then take it up with God. Deut. 15: 10 You should be happy to give the poor what they need, because then the Lord will make you successful in everything you do. Taxation, or paying out of your pocket, does not matter. Give to the poor by taxation, or your local food pantry, or Habitat for Humanity. God does not care.
It's a silly canard always brought up by Conservative Christians. God says give to the poor whether personally or through taxation. It is simple: "Give to the poor happily."

---

You are adding to God's word here. This is God talking to individuals about their individual charge and command to be chartiable to the poor.

The "silly canard" is you pretending this command has anything to do with a government tax code. It is God commanding us to as individuals to be charitable to those in need.

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Here's a newspaper column you'll like, Waco47. It's liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, discovering to his amazement what most of us already knew - conservatives are more charitable and generous than are liberals.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

If you can't get to the column from that link, it's reprinted here.

https://www.saratogian.com/2008/12/22/kristof-bleeding-heart-tightwads/

---

Not the point....What does the text say?

---

It's exactly the point. In case you forgot what you posted, you said this was a passage which the Evangelicals will ignore. The objective evidence - as I linked - shows that in fact, the conservative evangelical community is better about following passages about charity than are the liberals.

---

In every measurement of charity it is CLEARLY proven evangelical conservative types are more giving than liberals. Much more giving. More giving than any demographic out there.

Yet it is the liberals always preaching with their self-righteous indignation that conservative christians need to give more to the poor.

It is absoutely the point. The point is the conservative evangelical takes this command to heart and follow it. Liberals, not so much.

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Here's a newspaper column you'll like, Waco47. It's liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, discovering to his amazement what most of us already knew - conservatives are more charitable and generous than are liberals.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

If you can't get to the column from that link, it's reprinted here.

https://www.saratogian.com/2008/12/22/kristof-bleeding-heart-tightwads/

---

Not the point....What does the text say?

---

It's exactly the point. In case you forgot what you posted, you said this was a passage which the Evangelicals will ignore. The objective evidence - as I linked - shows that in fact, the conservative evangelical community is better about following passages about charity than are the liberals.

---

No, the point is the TEXT. My comment about Evangelicals is not that they are generous, which they are; my point is that Evangelicals will ignore the claim of Deuteronomy 15 regarding National Policy. The passage is clearly about guidelines for the nation, or as the text says, "The community".

---

So who determines what the community requires from God's people?

Must God's people surrender 50%, 75%, or 100% of their wealth if the community so requires?

What if the community is racist and taxes black people more than its other citizens?

If the GOP instituted a tax on abortions or butt sex, does Deuteronomy still apply?

Ummmm, Waco, "guidelines" are NOT laws.

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Here's a newspaper column you'll like, Waco47. It's liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, discovering to his amazement what most of us already knew - conservatives are more charitable and generous than are liberals.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

If you can't get to the column from that link, it's reprinted here.

https://www.saratogian.com/2008/12/22/kristof-bleeding-heart-tightwads/

---

Not the point....What does the text say?

---

It's exactly the point. In case you forgot what you posted, you said this was a passage which the Evangelicals will ignore. The objective evidence - as I linked - shows that in fact, the conservative evangelical community is better about following passages about charity than are the liberals.

---

No, the point is the TEXT. My comment about Evangelicals is not that they are generous, which they are; my point is that Evangelicals will ignore the claim of Deuteronomy 15 regarding National Policy. The passage is clearly about guidelines for the nation, or as the text says, "The community".

---

Actually what you said was "Another passage the Evangelicals will ignore because they can't justify their judgmental views of poverty." This clearly refers to individual people, not the community or "national policy," regardless of your post hoc attempt to claim otherwise.

And are you really saying you want Old Testament texts to form national policy?

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

canoso said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Another passage the Evangelicals will ignore because they can't justify their judgmental views of poverty.
Deuteronomy 15:7 After the Lord your God gives land to each of you, there may be poor Israelites in the town where you live. If there are, then don't be mean and selfish with your money.
8 Instead, be kind and lend them what they need.
9 Be careful! Don't say to yourself, "Soon it will be the seventh year, and then I won't be able to get my money back." It would be horrible for you to think that way and to be so selfish that you refuse to help the poor. They are your relatives, and if you don't help them, they may ask the Lord to decide whether you have done wrong. And he will say that you are guilty.
107 After the Lord your God gives land to each of you, there may be poor Israelites in the town where you live. If there are, then don't be mean and selfish with your money. 8 Instead, be kind and lend them what they need. 9 Be careful! Don't say to yourself, "Soon it will be the seventh year, and then I won't be able to get my money back." It would be horrible for you to think that way and to be so selfish that you refuse to help the poor. They are your relatives, and if you don't help them, they may ask the Lord to decide whether you have done wrong. And he will say that you are guilty. 10 You should be happy to give the poor what they need, because then the Lord will make you successful in everything you do.
11 There will always be some Israelites who are poor and needy. That's why I am commanding you to be generous with them. (The Distribution Part)
11 There will always be some Israelites who are poor and needy. That's why I am commanding you to be generous with them.

---

We need to see where in Scripture people were obligated (read "forced," as through taxation) to do these things. Ready, set, GO!

---

The Deut passage is from the mouth of God. It is a commandment by God, which is "forcing" you unless you don't believe in God's commandment, then take it up with God. Deut. 15: 10 You should be happy to give the poor what they need, because then the Lord will make you successful in everything you do. Taxation, or paying out of your pocket, does not matter. Give to the poor by taxation, or your local food pantry, or Habitat for Humanity. God does not care.
It's a silly canard always brought up by Conservative Christians. God says give to the poor whether personally or through taxation. It is simple: "Give to the poor happily."

---

You are adding to God's word here. This is God talking to individuals about their individual charge and command to be chartiable to the poor.

The "silly canard" is you pretending this command has anything to do with a government tax code. It is God commanding us to as individuals to be charitable to those in need.

---

Read your Bible. In Deuteronomy, God explicitly and repeatedly addressed the entire community of
Israel. The laws of the Federal government may address individuals, but those laws are for the ordering of the community called the United States. So in a like way God addresses the whole community.

Deuteronomy 5: Hear, Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. 2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. God addresses community life. I am not adding to God's word but highlighting God's ordering of community.

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Here's a newspaper column you'll like, Waco47. It's liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, discovering to his amazement what most of us already knew - conservatives are more charitable and generous than are liberals.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

If you can't get to the column from that link, it's reprinted here.

https://www.saratogian.com/2008/12/22/kristof-bleeding-heart-tightwads/

---

Not the point....What does the text say?

---

It's exactly the point. In case you forgot what you posted, you said this was a passage which the Evangelicals will ignore. The objective evidence - as I linked - shows that in fact, the conservative evangelical community is better about following passages about charity than are the liberals.

---

In every measurement of charity it is CLEARLY proven evangelical conservative types are more giving than liberals. Much more giving. More giving than any demographic out there.

Yet it is the liberals always preaching with their self-righteous indignation that conservative christians need to give more to the poor.

It is absoutely the point. The point is the conservative evangelical takes this command to heart and follow it. Liberals, not so much.

---

Again, it is not the point. Individual giving, although great, is not only an individual concern but a communal one. God is addressing the community.

Anyone who thinks the Bible promotes socialism is misusing scripture: commands for people to help the poor, to show compassion & generosity, and so on are all about individual behavior and hand nothing to do with government. It's only genuine compassion & generosity of fond voluntarily, not when the responsibility is passed on to a corrupt and incompetent govt (with bureaucrats & politicians picketing a Suzanne portion).

Generosity cannot be passed on to the govt. Genuine compassion is done personally with one's own money not by proxy or with someone else's.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Why is it that liberals only apply biblical principles to the tax code and demand full separation as to every other government matter?

---

Good point. Why is it that Christians don't follow the alleged teachings of Jesus: Matthew 6 and Luke 12:32-34

Christian's generally do follow Christian principles in terms of generosity

Socialists, on the other hand, tend to be the greediest. They are always obsessed about what others have and always coming up with ways to steal it. Materialists have little respect for human life since it has little to no meaning.

historian said:

---

Christian's generally do follow Christian principles in terms of generosity

Socialists, on the other hand, tend to be the greediest. They are always obsessed about what others have and always coming up with ways to steal it. Materialists have little respect for human life since it has little to no meaning.

---

In terms of following Christ's admonitions, they fall far short.

I'm not going to defend socialists, since that is a political philosophy that I don't adhere to. Most Christians I know are materialists. Especially clergy.

TexasScientist said:

---

historian said:

---

Christian's generally do follow Christian principles in terms of generosity

Socialists, on the other hand, tend to be the greediest. They are always obsessed about what others have and always coming up with ways to steal it. Materialists have little respect for human life since it has little to no meaning.

---

In terms of following Christ's admonitions, they fall far short.

I'm not going to defend socialists, since that is a political philosophy that I don't adhere to. Most Christians I know are materialists. Especially clergy.

---

I'd say the key is what you use to define 'Christian'.

Jesus spoke to tens of thousands, but only a handful stayed with Him throughout His work on Earth. Many who would have said they liked Jesus and believed in Him, dispersed when asked to follow through in action. The Book of Revelation warns that there were churches even in the Apostolic Age which were false or lukewarm.

History shows countless popes, kings and emperors who claimed to be Christian but acted in selfish, sinful ways. And of course we are painfully aware of all the megachurches today which generate a lot of money but don't serve Christ in truth.


That said, there are - and have always been - individual churches and individual people who hear the Lord, love Him and obey. You have to look for them, because they don't boast on themselves, they tend to be smaller churches and Satan tries hard to hide them from discovery, since such people and congregations make many more believers.

You need to look for faith in action, and ignore the loud and arrogant.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

historian said:

---

Christian's generally do follow Christian principles in terms of generosity

Socialists, on the other hand, tend to be the greediest. They are always obsessed about what others have and always coming up with ways to steal it. Materialists have little respect for human life since it has little to no meaning.

---

In terms of following Christ's admonitions, they fall far short.

I'm not going to defend socialists, since that is a political philosophy that I don't adhere to. Most Christians I know are materialists. Especially clergy.

---

I'd say the key is what you use to define 'Christian'.

Jesus spoke to tens of thousands, but only a handful stayed with Him throughout His work on Earth. Many who would have said they liked Jesus and believed in Him, dispersed when asked to follow through in action. The Book of Revelation warns that there were churches even in the Apostolic Age which were false or lukewarm.

History shows countless popes, kings and emperors who claimed to be Christian but acted in selfish, sinful ways. And of course we are painfully aware of all the megachurches today which generate a lot of money but don't serve Christ in truth.


That said, there are - and have always been - individual churches and individual people who hear the Lord, love Him and obey. You have to look for them, because they don't boast on themselves, they tend to be smaller churches and Satan tries hard to hide them from discovery, since such people and congregations make many more believers.

You need to look for faith in action, and ignore the loud and arrogant.

---

I can agree a lot with what you said. There really isn't a clear cut definition of a "Christian". Christianity has evolved in diverse ways from the initial core group of followers.

I would add to your list excessive salaries to pastors of regular churches. It would seem to me, that if you believe you are called to the ministry, you would lead by example of not seeking 'earthly' treasure.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

historian said:

---

Christian's generally do follow Christian principles in terms of generosity

Socialists, on the other hand, tend to be the greediest. They are always obsessed about what others have and always coming up with ways to steal it. Materialists have little respect for human life since it has little to no meaning.

---

In terms of following Christ's admonitions, they fall far short.

I'm not going to defend socialists, since that is a political philosophy that I don't adhere to. Most Christians I know are materialists. Especially clergy.

---

I'd say the key is what you use to define 'Christian'.

Jesus spoke to tens of thousands, but only a handful stayed with Him throughout His work on Earth. Many who would have said they liked Jesus and believed in Him, dispersed when asked to follow through in action. The Book of Revelation warns that there were churches even in the Apostolic Age which were false or lukewarm.

History shows countless popes, kings and emperors who claimed to be Christian but acted in selfish, sinful ways. And of course we are painfully aware of all the megachurches today which generate a lot of money but don't serve Christ in truth.


That said, there are - and have always been - individual churches and individual people who hear the Lord, love Him and obey. You have to look for them, because they don't boast on themselves, they tend to be smaller churches and Satan tries hard to hide them from discovery, since such people and congregations make many more believers.

You need to look for faith in action, and ignore the loud and arrogant.

---

I can agree a lot with what you said. There really isn't a clear cut definition of a "Christian". Christianity has evolved in diverse ways from the initial core group of followers.

I would add to your list excessive salaries to pastors of regular churches. It would seem to me, that if you believe you are called to the ministry, you would lead by example of not seeking 'earthly' treasure.

---

How much did you donate the charity this year Flat Earth?

Waco1947 said:

---

Another passage the Evangelicals will ignore because they can't justify their judgmental views of poverty.
Deuteronomy 15:7 After the Lord your God gives land to each of you, there may be poor Israelites in the town where you live. If there are, then don't be mean and selfish with your money.
8 Instead, be kind and lend them what they need.
9 Be careful! Don't say to yourself, "Soon it will be the seventh year, and then I won't be able to get my money back." It would be horrible for you to think that way and to be so selfish that you refuse to help the poor. They are your relatives, and if you don't help them, they may ask the Lord to decide whether you have done wrong. And he will say that you are guilty.
10 You should be happy to give the poor what they need, because then the Lord will make you successful in everything you do. (The Distribution Part)
11 There will always be some Israelites who are poor and needy. That's why I am commanding you to be generous with them.

---

Interestiing that giving your money to Caesar at spear point to redistribute isn't mentioned there.

You be kind. You give to the poor. That's been the model for Christian alms giving since Christ walked the earth.

LOL

47 has been playing various versions of his same game for a while.

Bottom line….his life choices don't pay his bills.

So he wants others to pay his way and yet still feel noble about it.

Everyone falls short of Christ's commands, Christian's included. We are all still sinners.

Once again you miss the point: nothing in Christ's teachings advocate, promote, or condone socialism in any form. It's a tired old propaganda technique to misuse an authority you do not believe, God's word, to advocate something reprehensible to God's teachings and His morality.

Certainly there is a clear definition of Christian: a follower of Jesus Christ. The difficult part is in those who talk about it and those whose actions demonstrate their faith. The latter is much harder, at least to do so consistently.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

historian said:

---

Christian's generally do follow Christian principles in terms of generosity

Socialists, on the other hand, tend to be the greediest. They are always obsessed about what others have and always coming up with ways to steal it. Materialists have little respect for human life since it has little to no meaning.

---

In terms of following Christ's admonitions, they fall far short.

I'm not going to defend socialists, since that is a political philosophy that I don't adhere to. Most Christians I know are materialists. Especially clergy.

---

I'd say the key is what you use to define 'Christian'.

Jesus spoke to tens of thousands, but only a handful stayed with Him throughout His work on Earth. Many who would have said they liked Jesus and believed in Him, dispersed when asked to follow through in action. The Book of Revelation warns that there were churches even in the Apostolic Age which were false or lukewarm.

History shows countless popes, kings and emperors who claimed to be Christian but acted in selfish, sinful ways. And of course we are painfully aware of all the megachurches today which generate a lot of money but don't serve Christ in truth.


That said, there are - and have always been - individual churches and individual people who hear the Lord, love Him and obey. You have to look for them, because they don't boast on themselves, they tend to be smaller churches and Satan tries hard to hide them from discovery, since such people and congregations make many more believers.

You need to look for faith in action, and ignore the loud and arrogant.

---

I can agree a lot with what you said. There really isn't a clear cut definition of a "Christian". Christianity has evolved in diverse ways from the initial core group of followers.

I would add to your list excessive salaries to pastors of regular churches. It would seem to me, that if you believe you are called to the ministry, you would lead by example of not seeking 'earthly' treasure.

---

How much did you donate the charity this year Flat Earth?

---

Far more than you, I'm quite sure.

Flat Earth fits within your denial of science. That's why so many of you QAon followers are Flat Earthers, vax deniers etc.

historian said:

---

Everyone falls short of Christ's commands, Christian's included. We are all still sinners.

Once again you miss the point: nothing in Christ's teachings advocate, promote, or condone socialism in any form. It's a tired old propaganda technique to misuse an authority you do not believe, God's word, to advocate something reprehensible to God's teachings and His morality.

---

I think you miss the point. The Gospels, including Paul's and John's teachings, are replete with instructions to give up your wealth, not to store treasure on earth, but in heaven. The early church practiced communal living.

It's convenient for today's Christians and preachers to ignore or gloss over what the NT really says about accumulating wealth. Clearly what the NT literally says couldn't be right, that would be too costly.

historian said:

---

Certainly there is a clear definition of Christian: a follower of Jesus Christ. The difficult part is in those who talk about it and those whose actions demonstrate their faith. The latter is much harder, at least to do so consistently.

---

Quote:

---

Certainly there is a clear definition of Christian: a follower of Jesus Christ.

---

That's where the problem is. There is no consistent agreement on what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ. That's one of the reasons there are so many different versions of Christians - with each claiming authenticity.

TexasScientist said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

historian said:

---

Christian's generally do follow Christian principles in terms of generosity

Socialists, on the other hand, tend to be the greediest. They are always obsessed about what others have and always coming up with ways to steal it. Materialists have little respect for human life since it has little to no meaning.

---

In terms of following Christ's admonitions, they fall far short.

I'm not going to defend socialists, since that is a political philosophy that I don't adhere to. Most Christians I know are materialists. Especially clergy.

---

I'd say the key is what you use to define 'Christian'.

Jesus spoke to tens of thousands, but only a handful stayed with Him throughout His work on Earth. Many who would have said they liked Jesus and believed in Him, dispersed when asked to follow through in action. The Book of Revelation warns that there were churches even in the Apostolic Age which were false or lukewarm.

History shows countless popes, kings and emperors who claimed to be Christian but acted in selfish, sinful ways. And of course we are painfully aware of all the megachurches today which generate a lot of money but don't serve Christ in truth.


That said, there are - and have always been - individual churches and individual people who hear the Lord, love Him and obey. You have to look for them, because they don't boast on themselves, they tend to be smaller churches and Satan tries hard to hide them from discovery, since such people and congregations make many more believers.

You need to look for faith in action, and ignore the loud and arrogant.

---

I can agree a lot with what you said. There really isn't a clear cut definition of a "Christian". Christianity has evolved in diverse ways from the initial core group of followers.

I would add to your list excessive salaries to pastors of regular churches. It would seem to me, that if you believe you are called to the ministry, you would lead by example of not seeking 'earthly' treasure.

---

How much did you donate the charity this year Flat Earth?

---

Far more than you, I'm quite sure.

Flat Earth fits within your denial of science. That's why so many of you QAon followers are Flat Earthers, vax deniers etc.

---

How much did you donate the charity this year Flat Earth?

So when do we start allowing slavery and stoning gays? I mean, that's what Waco47 wants from us, isn't it? For us to follow the "text"?

TexasScientist said:

---

historian said:

---

Everyone falls short of Christ's commands, Christian's included. We are all still sinners.

Once again you miss the point: nothing in Christ's teachings advocate, promote, or condone socialism in any form. It's a tired old propaganda technique to misuse an authority you do not believe, God's word, to advocate something reprehensible to God's teachings and His morality.

---

I think you miss the point. The Gospels, including Paul's and John's teachings, are replete with instructions to give up your wealth, not to store treasure on earth, but in heaven. The early church practiced communal living.

It's convenient for today's Christians and preachers to ignore or gloss over what the NT really says about accumulating wealth. Clearly what the NT literally says couldn't be right, that would be too costly.

---

You are missing the point: Christ has commanded people to give of themselves. But this is to be done voluntarily, not from coercion. The government has no role in this. Allowing a govt to take over this responsibility is a cop out and trusting corrupt and incompetent politicians and bureaucrats to do what we as individuals should be doing. There is nothing compassionate or generous about it.

On the other hand, Christ never condemned the acquisition of wealth. He opposed the worship of money. This condemnation of greed and idolatry is a consistent theme throughout the Bible repeatedly.

As a practical matter, socialism never works: it is always produced gross inefficiencies & tyranny, rewards poor choices, and harms the people supposedly intended as beneficiaries. Socialism is slavery.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

historian said:

---

Christian's generally do follow Christian principles in terms of generosity

Socialists, on the other hand, tend to be the greediest. They are always obsessed about what others have and always coming up with ways to steal it. Materialists have little respect for human life since it has little to no meaning.

---

In terms of following Christ's admonitions, they fall far short.

I'm not going to defend socialists, since that is a political philosophy that I don't adhere to. Most Christians I know are materialists. Especially clergy.

---

I'd say the key is what you use to define 'Christian'.

Jesus spoke to tens of thousands, but only a handful stayed with Him throughout His work on Earth. Many who would have said they liked Jesus and believed in Him, dispersed when asked to follow through in action. The Book of Revelation warns that there were churches even in the Apostolic Age which were false or lukewarm.

History shows countless popes, kings and emperors who claimed to be Christian but acted in selfish, sinful ways. And of course we are painfully aware of all the megachurches today which generate a lot of money but don't serve Christ in truth.


That said, there are - and have always been - individual churches and individual people who hear the Lord, love Him and obey. You have to look for them, because they don't boast on themselves, they tend to be smaller churches and Satan tries hard to hide them from discovery, since such people and congregations make many more believers.

You need to look for faith in action, and ignore the loud and arrogant.

---

I can agree a lot with what you said. There really isn't a clear cut definition of a "Christian". Christianity has evolved in diverse ways from the initial core group of followers.

I would add to your list excessive salaries to pastors of regular churches. It would seem to me, that if you believe you are called to the ministry, you would lead by example of not seeking 'earthly' treasure.

---

How much did you donate the charity this year Flat Earth?

---

Far more than you, I'm quite sure.

Flat Earth fits within your denial of science. That's why so many of you QAon followers are Flat Earthers, vax deniers etc.

---

How much did you donate the charity this year Flat Earth?

---

Quite a bit actually, and I'm sure far more than you Flat Earth boy.

historian said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

historian said:

---

Everyone falls short of Christ's commands, Christian's included. We are all still sinners.

Once again you miss the point: nothing in Christ's teachings advocate, promote, or condone socialism in any form. It's a tired old propaganda technique to misuse an authority you do not believe, God's word, to advocate something reprehensible to God's teachings and His morality.

---

I think you miss the point. The Gospels, including Paul's and John's teachings, are replete with instructions to give up your wealth, not to store treasure on earth, but in heaven. The early church practiced communal living.

It's convenient for today's Christians and preachers to ignore or gloss over what the NT really says about accumulating wealth. Clearly what the NT literally says couldn't be right, that would be too costly.

---

You are missing the point: Christ has commanded people to give of themselves. But this is to be done voluntarily, not from coercion. The government has no role in this. Allowing a govt to take over this responsibility is a cop out and trusting corrupt and incompetent politicians and bureaucrats to do what we as individuals should be doing. There is nothing compassionate or generous about it.
I agree to a point. There has to be a safety net or you'll have chaos. Clearly the Church or Christian's have failed to follow Jesus's teachings and example. Most professing Christians are unwilling to take up their "cross" and follow Jesus.

On the other hand, Christ never condemned the acquisition of wealth. He opposed the worship of money. This condemnation of greed and idolatry is a consistent theme throughout the Bible repeatedly. That's correct. He didn't advocate the accumulation of wealth either. The context of his supposed teachings was the opposite of accumulating wealth. Read Matthew 6. He didn't expect his followers to accumulate great wealth, but called for them to give to the needy M. 6:1-2, M 25:31-46, M 5:42, M 19:21

As a practical matter, socialism never works: it is always produced gross inefficiencies & tyranny, rewards poor choices, and harms the people supposedly intended as beneficiaries. Socialism is slavery. I agree. That doesn't excuse Christian failures to follow Jesus reported teachings.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

historian said:

---

Christian's generally do follow Christian principles in terms of generosity

Socialists, on the other hand, tend to be the greediest. They are always obsessed about what others have and always coming up with ways to steal it. Materialists have little respect for human life since it has little to no meaning.

---

In terms of following Christ's admonitions, they fall far short.

I'm not going to defend socialists, since that is a political philosophy that I don't adhere to. Most Christians I know are materialists. Especially clergy.

---

I'd say the key is what you use to define 'Christian'.

Jesus spoke to tens of thousands, but only a handful stayed with Him throughout His work on Earth. Many who would have said they liked Jesus and believed in Him, dispersed when asked to follow through in action. The Book of Revelation warns that there were churches even in the Apostolic Age which were false or lukewarm.

History shows countless popes, kings and emperors who claimed to be Christian but acted in selfish, sinful ways. And of course we are painfully aware of all the megachurches today which generate a lot of money but don't serve Christ in truth.


That said, there are - and have always been - individual churches and individual people who hear the Lord, love Him and obey. You have to look for them, because they don't boast on themselves, they tend to be smaller churches and Satan tries hard to hide them from discovery, since such people and congregations make many more believers.

You need to look for faith in action, and ignore the loud and arrogant.

---

I can agree a lot with what you said. There really isn't a clear cut definition of a "Christian". Christianity has evolved in diverse ways from the initial core group of followers.

I would add to your list excessive salaries to pastors of regular churches. It would seem to me, that if you believe you are called to the ministry, you would lead by example of not seeking 'earthly' treasure.

---

How much did you donate the charity this year Flat Earth?

---

Far more than you, I'm quite sure.

Flat Earth fits within your denial of science. That's why so many of you QAon followers are Flat Earthers, vax deniers etc.

---

How much did you donate the charity this year Flat Earth?

---

Quite a bit actually, and I'm sure far more than you Flat Earth boy.

---

Money you printed in crayon does not count. So you are back at zero, TS.

TexasScientist said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

historian said:

---

Christian's generally do follow Christian principles in terms of generosity

Socialists, on the other hand, tend to be the greediest. They are always obsessed about what others have and always coming up with ways to steal it. Materialists have little respect for human life since it has little to no meaning.

---

In terms of following Christ's admonitions, they fall far short.

I'm not going to defend socialists, since that is a political philosophy that I don't adhere to. Most Christians I know are materialists. Especially clergy.

---

I'd say the key is what you use to define 'Christian'.

Jesus spoke to tens of thousands, but only a handful stayed with Him throughout His work on Earth. Many who would have said they liked Jesus and believed in Him, dispersed when asked to follow through in action. The Book of Revelation warns that there were churches even in the Apostolic Age which were false or lukewarm.

History shows countless popes, kings and emperors who claimed to be Christian but acted in selfish, sinful ways. And of course we are painfully aware of all the megachurches today which generate a lot of money but don't serve Christ in truth.


That said, there are - and have always been - individual churches and individual people who hear the Lord, love Him and obey. You have to look for them, because they don't boast on themselves, they tend to be smaller churches and Satan tries hard to hide them from discovery, since such people and congregations make many more believers.

You need to look for faith in action, and ignore the loud and arrogant.

---

I can agree a lot with what you said. There really isn't a clear cut definition of a "Christian". Christianity has evolved in diverse ways from the initial core group of followers.

I would add to your list excessive salaries to pastors of regular churches. It would seem to me, that if you believe you are called to the ministry, you would lead by example of not seeking 'earthly' treasure.

---

How much did you donate the charity this year Flat Earth?

---

Far more than you, I'm quite sure.

Flat Earth fits within your denial of science. That's why so many of you QAon followers are Flat Earthers, vax deniers etc.

---

How much did you donate the charity this year Flat Earth?

---

Quite a bit actually, and I'm sure far more than you Flat Earth boy.

---

How much did you donate the charity this year Flat Earth?

I do not believe that gifts to the needy should apply to the government funds.
It is also important that the government should not give out more than it takes in.

I have an emergency assistance guide that is distributed by "Now Forward" formally called "North Dallas Shared Ministries". It lists over 103 organizations that help all peoples with financial, dental, medical, food, clothes, and taxes. "Now Forward" has a 98% pass through of donations to service of the people. There is a lot of great charitable work done in our communities. Whereas a many government programs are ineffective.