Colbert nails it. What else is new.

[jbear]

One Truth - Thank you for taking the time to explain your opinion on why jesus was around before he was born.    

Considering your tone in your response I'm really trying to not come off sounding like a jerk but, to me, everything you've said here seems like nothing but you're interpretation of cryptic bible verses that could have different meaning to different people.  As someone else pointed out this argument has gotten down to semantics.  People have different opinions and I'm not just talking about laymen like me, I'm talking about religious scholars, priests, pastors, and ministers.  You can quote scripture and say you think it means this or that, but if you're talking to someone who thinks even the pope is full of **CENSORED** I don't see how you can expect your own interpretation to be taken as anything more than just some random guy's interpretation of scripture. 

I can assure you that I take a completely different meaning out of something like "Before Abraham was born, I am."   To me that has nothing at all to do with JC sipping frozen margaritas in a lounge chair by gods pool while waiting to become the messiah.  Its just a metaphor for the nature of conscious existence.  We are here now, we have always been here and we will always be here.  Personally I believe biblical scholars who pour through every verse of the bible to find hidden meaning in every word are deceiving themselves.  You will always find what you're looking for and will make it up as you go without ever knowing.  Read something once if you want to really know it.  Read it over and over again if you want to make it your own because its the nature of words, semantics, translations, and inflections to be twisted by the reader for their own ends.  You will never read anything, fiction or otherwise and create the same image the author had in mind when they wrote it.

When it comes to the argument at hand I feel like its up to the individual to decide.  There is little doubt that Jesus implied that charity was a good thing and not helping your fellow man when you have the means a bad thing.  I just think it gets a little more fuzzy when you talk about government redistributing wealth on their own terms.  I think Jesus's point was that you have to give of yourself, if you're forced to I don't think it can have any value when it comes to getting you into heaven because, you have to.  It loses all meaning.... Of course, I don't even believe in heaven so what do I know.    

[CBWx2]

He didn't do it. He liked being rich.

Which was the whole point of the exercise. Not the fact he was rich but the fact he prized being rich above all else.

The point of the exercise can be summed up in the last words spoken by Jesus in the passage. You are reading into the passage what you want it to say rather than taking it at face value. Jesus does not say that rich man, he says any rich man. He did not make the same distinction that you are.

[burger40]

What are you basing this on?

The Bible.  Of course, I'm basing it on his words in context and what they actually mean.  It helps that I don't have bastardize someone's position in order for it to fit mine.

Well, since you provided such compelling arguments, such as "No he didn't," and "No he didn't," I suppose I should consider myself schooled. Well done, my good man. Thought provoking, as always.

Since your view of compelling arguments consists of Colbert clips and taking Bible Verses completely out of context, you should consider foolish.  But your "sky is purple" routine is fairly commonplace around here.

So enlighten me to the proper context, if you will. Indulge me.

I am a born again Christian. I tithe 10% in addition to all my other "donations" to the gov't for property taxes, income, etc. I do it cheerfully because I am blessed and God has called us to give back. I don't however believe in compelling others to give (The Lord loves a cheerful giver...I can find the scripture ref if you want).

Also, where does Jesus mandate giving up your wealth. I am sure you will point to the story where the rich young man comes to him telling him all the laws he has kept and Jesus tells him to sell everything he had and follow him. The man doesn't. Jesus wasn't making a blanket request...if he did then all the other wealthy people he interacted with would received the same request such as the converted zacheus (the short tax collector) and others. Rather that was an individual case where Jesus (and this part is my theory) looked into the man's heart and saw his stumbling block and asked him to make a decision about which he loved more.

Please refute this...have a great day.

To place the exchange with the rich young man in proper context, you have to read the entire passage. Mark 10:17-25

17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

To paraphrase, the rich man asks Jesus how do you get eternal life and Jesus says "Why are you calling me master? I'm not the master. God is."

19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.

Jesus says, "Well you know the commandments and what not, right?" to which the man replies, "Yes. I have followed them all my life."

21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

Then Jesus answers, "Then the one thing you haven't done is to sell what you have and give it to the poor. Doing this will give you a spot in heaven. Once you've done that, come back and become my disciple."

22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

He didn't do it. He liked being rich.

23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Then Jesus looked at his disciples and said, "You want to know how likely it is for a rich man (not THAT rich man, but ANY rich man) to get into heaven? Let me put it to you this way, it's easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man (not THAT rich man, but ANY rich man) to get into heaven."

Consider your premise refuted.

how so...so because it is extremely difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom, Jesus would be ok with using force of law to make him pay increasing sums of money to the gov't for social justice or what have you....i'm not arguing your point about the rich man...i'm contending against the point that Jesus would want to use force (law of gov't) to compel people to do things that are good.

if i use YOUR logic then Jesus would also call for using the force of gov't to say keep people from cheating on their spouse since that is another evil thing. of course Jesus never advocated such things, there will be eternal judgement for those who never repent of their misdeeds but He never called for forceful intervention for anything to my knowledge even grievous wrongs such as adultery so i think tax policy would be even lower on the list.

[John Galt?]

Clearly, it appears that the prophets seemed to agree that providing things such as food, shelter, and medicine to the poor were things that God and Jesus did not take lightly. In fact, NOT doing those things was viewed as a cardinal sin, one that could incur God's wrath and/or keep you out of the kingdom of heaven. Trying to make an argument that God or Jesus would be opposed to Social Security, Medicare/caid, or welfare flies in the face of scripture, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.

I believe Jesus would applaud the principles of SS, medicare, or some welfare. But just like he drove out the money changers for their corruption, he would be equally displeased at the corruption in our social systems. I believe he'd be at the forefront of those calling for reform of those programs.

The Ds ignore that these programs are corrupt and ill, and say the solution is to make them bigger.
The Rs see that these programs are corrupt and ill and say we need to cull them and cut them off.
Jesus was more pragmatic than either and he would say yes they are corrupt and ill, and we need to cure them by removing the corruption.

[Col. Klink]

Clearly, it appears that the prophets seemed to agree that providing things such as food, shelter, and medicine to the poor were things that God and Jesus did not take lightly. In fact, NOT doing those things was viewed as a cardinal sin, one that could incur God's wrath and/or keep you out of the kingdom of heaven. Trying to make an argument that God or Jesus would be opposed to Social Security, Medicare/caid, or welfare flies in the face of scripture, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.

I believe Jesus would applaud the principles of SS, medicare, or some welfare. But just like he drove out the money changers for their corruption, he would be equally displeased at the corruption in our social systems. I believe he'd be at the forefront of those calling for reform of those programs.

The Ds ignore that these programs are corrupt and ill, and say the solution is to make them bigger.
The Rs see that these programs are corrupt and ill and say we need to cull them and cut them off.
Jesus was more pragmatic than either and he would say yes they are corrupt and ill, and we need to cure them by removing the corruption.

Pretty much nails it ...

[Biggs3535]

Keep spinning it.

This is classically rich.  It's bad enough when Christians try to bastardize the message to go along with their political beliefs,

It's not only bad, it can be the epitome of hypocrisy, like what's going on here ...

What hypocrisy would that be, BBB?  I give more to charity than I do to the government, and probably more than most  liberals babbling about it on this board.  The money goes to the charity of my choosing.  That's how it should be, and that's what Jesus' preaches.  Giving on your own accord to those in need.  There is no mention of enabling a government to take that money to distribute it as they see fit.  In fact, having someone take it from your defeats the purpose.  I feel zero joy on tax day, but the joy of giving is wonderful when you are actually giving on your own accord.

You may be dense at times, but you aren't stupid.  The difference is clear as day when the sky is blue, but you're letting the purple paint cloud your judgement.

[Col. Klink]

Keep spinning it.

This is classically rich.  It's bad enough when Christians try to bastardize the message to go along with their political beliefs,

It's not only bad, it can be the epitome of hypocrisy, like what's going on here ...

What hypocrisy would that be, BBB?  I give more to charity than I do to the government, and probably more than most  liberals babbling about it on this board.  The money goes to the charity of my choosing.  That's how it should be, and that's what Jesus' preaches.  Giving on your own accord to those in need.  There is no mention of enabling a government to take that money to distribute it as they see fit.  In fact, having someone take it from your defeats the purpose.  I feel zero joy on tax day, but the joy of giving is wonderful when you are actually giving on your own accord.

You may be dense at times, but you aren't stupid.  The difference is clear as day when the sky is blue, but you're letting the purple paint cloud your judgement.

All I can do is refer you to JG?'s last post ... You've got too much extraneous bs in there to even deal with .. and I won't refer to you as densebut rather say I'm obviously not doing a real good job of getting my point across.

[dbucfan]

Clearly, it appears that the prophets seemed to agree that providing things such as food, shelter, and medicine to the poor were things that God and Jesus did not take lightly. In fact, NOT doing those things was viewed as a cardinal sin, one that could incur God's wrath and/or keep you out of the kingdom of heaven. Trying to make an argument that God or Jesus would be opposed to Social Security, Medicare/caid, or welfare flies in the face of scripture, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.

I believe Jesus would applaud the principles of SS, medicare, or some welfare. But just like he drove out the money changers for their corruption, he would be equally displeased at the corruption in our social systems. I believe he'd be at the forefront of those calling for reform of those programs.

The Ds ignore that these programs are corrupt and ill, and say the solution is to make them bigger.
The Rs see that these programs are corrupt and ill and say we need to cull them and cut them off.
Jesus was more pragmatic than either and he would say yes they are corrupt and ill, and we need to cure them by removing the corruption.

Not too fond of sloth either JG?