Record Stock Market

[sirs]

Of course Christianity does not advocate "stealing," but it certainly advocates a responsible society and not simply a land of individualism. So when you do your research, try and answer the question I asked and not the one you fabricated.

Show me where it advocates TAKING money from others to do good works as a "responsible society", so as to fine tune my research

What is it to you whether or not I advocate Christian doctrine in Government policies?

Only that you keep referencing such when discussing practical policy making, be it foreign or domestic

[_JS]

Show me where it advocates TAKING money from others to do good works as a "responsible society", so as to fine tune my research

You are turning this on me. You advocate the free market, quasi-libertarian view. I'm just asking you to show me where Christian doctrine supports such a social view. You are a Protestant so it should be right there in the Bible. I can't recall a parable or kerygmatic argument to support such a social view, but perhaps you can correct me.

I'll be happy to answer your questions, if you will answer mine.

Only that you keep referencing such when discussing practical policy making, be it foreign or domestic

That does not answer my question. That tells me what makes you ask me, my question is why is it important to you whether I advocate Christian views in government or not?

[Brassmask]

Without advertisement the News Paper would have to rely on subscribtrion alone and would cost more with ads the store subsidises your news.

I'm not talking about the newspaper (which I don't get either), I'm talking about the flyers and papers that grocery stores send through the mail. 

[sirs]

Show me where it advocates TAKING money from others to do good works as a "responsible society", so as to fine tune my research

You are turning this on me.

You're the one advocating Christian princples within a Capitalstic democracy.  Which ironically i do believe is doable, but currently it appears you're trying to apply "grandma's guilt" by implying some form of how we all need to take care of one another, to make it work.  Which is fine, and a noble concept.  One that I actually believe we ALL support.  The difference lies in when you start advocating taking more money out of other people's pockets vs simply advocating that we do what we can to help our fellow man, which is much more analogus to WHAT Jesus was trying to teach.

You advocate the free market, quasi-libertarian view.

Actually, I'm advocating the sirs' view.

I'm just asking you to show me where Christian doctrine supports such a social view.

Since I'm not using Christian theology as the foundation to my view of freedom, Capitalism, or the Stock Market, your question doesn't actually apply, but I'll endeavor to answer it anyways, in the next paragraph.

I'll be happy to answer your questions, if you will answer mine.

- The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.  Ezekiel 18:20

 - Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.  Galatians 6:7,8

- So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.  Romans 14:12

- For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.  2 Corinthians 5:10

- Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.  For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.  Matthew 16:24,25

There's many many more examples, but suffice to say, there's a myriad of verses that advocate personal responsibility.  Keep in mind, that's not saying at the expense of helping others, and not what I'm saying either.  Your question referenced where in the Bible does God/Jesus advocate indivdual responsibility.  I'm simply answering that question.  But Jesus does encourage and advocate helping others, simply not by way of forcibly taking someone else's property (in this case, someone else's money via tax dollars) to do it.  Now, would you mind answering mine?  Where DOES Jesus advocate taking money/property from others by force/coercion to help others?

Only that you keep referencing such when discussing practical policy making, be it foreign or domestic

That does not answer my question. That tells me what makes you ask me, my question is why is it important to you whether I advocate Christian views in government or not?

Only that you seem to keep doing so, and coming from the left, I would have thought the seperation of church & state played a much larger role in your policy formation.  Am I wrong?

[Plane]

Without advertisement the News Paper would have to rely on subscribtrion alone and would cost more with ads the store subsidises your news.

I'm not talking about the newspaper (which I don't get either), I'm talking about the flyers and papers that grocery stores send through the mail. 

Then they are subsidiseing the Post office?

Junk Mail is obsolete , I used to have an airtight stove in which I would burn rolled logs of paper as fuel . I don't get that much anymore.

Still , it was something for nothing , RBE?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Then they are subsidiseing the Post office?

No, junk mail pays a junk rate for delivery. It might be slightly less than the actual cost of delivery.
Some of my immigrant neighbors never get anything BUT junk mail, apparently. I know this because they have no door on their mailboxes and they never empty the things.

--------------------------------------------
Junk Mail is obsolete , I used to have an airtight stove in which I would burn rolled logs of paper as fuel . I don't get that much anymore.

Still , it was something for nothing , RBE?

Yes, it was something for nothing. I pick up pennies in the street, find at least one every day. If I had a need to do so, I could pick up aluminum cans for free and cash them in, too.

But not RBE, since there are no robots involved in delivering the cans to the bums who throw them in the street.

0-------------------------------------------------------------

Junk mail is not obsolete. Newspapers for many people (perhaps even you) are obsolete., and the only way for the supermarkets can advertise chicken leg quarters for 34¢ per lb. is by sending out flyers.

It could be that your stove was obsolete, since you no longer use it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[_JS]

You're the one advocating Christian princples within a Capitalstic democracy.  Which ironically i do believe is doable, but currently it appears you're trying to apply "grandma's guilt" by implying some form of how we all need to take care of one another, to make it work.  Which is fine, and a noble concept.  One that I actually believe we ALL support.  The difference lies in when you start advocating taking more money out of other people's pockets vs simply advocating that we do what we can to help our fellow man, which is much more analogus to WHAT Jesus was trying to teach.

How so?

Actually, I'm advocating the sirs' view.

Which is a free-market, quasi-libertarian view of society. I believe your phrase was "keeping the hell out of other people's pockets" and it wasn't I who you used it on, but Brass.

Since I'm not using Christian theology as the foundation to my view of freedom, Capitalism, or the Stock Market, your question doesn't actually apply, but I'll endeavor to answer it anyways, in the next paragraph.

In your view does Christian doctrine not apply to society?

There's many many more examples, but suffice to say, there's a myriad of verses that advocate personal responsibility.

Interesting, but not my question. My question was this: Out of curiosity, where in Christianity does it discuss "keeping the hell out of other people's pockets" and "individual responsibility" as a definition of freedom?

Now, look at Luke 6:30 - " Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back."

Direct from the mouth of the Son of God, can you live up to that?

Luke 12:30-34

All the nations of the world seek for these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, seek his kingdom, and these other things will be given you besides. Do not be afraid any longer, little flock, for your Father is pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your belongings and give alms. Provide money bags for yourselves that do not wear out, an inexhaustible treasure in heaven that no thief can reach nor moth destroy. For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be.

Proverbs 17:5
James 2:5
James 5:1-3

Indeed, we know that the Holy Family were poor.

I can hardly see how Christianity can then fit into a society of ardent free market, laissez faire capitalism.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Christianity has almost nothing to do with laissez faire capitalism.

Jesus' family was middle class: his father was a carpenter. One assumes that he made furniture. New furniture is typically purchased by members of the middle class and aristocracy. There is no indication that Jesus was a beggar chid. Begging was what the pooest did. They did not have a shop.

We know that Jesus wore clothing worth the Romans casting lots for. He probably had some relatively snazzy duds.

One would imagine that after all that flogging, his threads might have been a bit bloody. Maybe that was a come-on for a Roman troop.

[Brassmask]

I think that sirs' point of view is that he should be able to decide to whom his charitable will would be directed without the use of government as a tool for the collection or dispersement of his charitable will.  That charitable will then serving the greater purpose of "taking care of the lesser among us" in the way he feels is best.

Where his ideal (libertarian in slant) runs afoul of America is that this country (if you believe what you read in the papers) is a democratic republic and therefore the people elect officials to go forth and enact the will of said people.  And in 1913, those who were elected to go forth and enact the will of the people went and produced the 16th Amendment which states:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

And sirs don't like that too good.  What he don't like even worse is the idea that The Congress could use that tax money to the advantage of ALL Americans instead of it only supporting a FEW Americans.

And worst of all is that the will of the people, some of the people, sure, but most of the will people (and that's democratic republic for ya) is that taxes should be used for the betterment of all Americans even the ones who some people think are "lazy" or "don't work" or "smell bad" or are "sick".

In the end, government is a tool to enact the will of the people.  In 2003, the will of the people was to  invade Iraq illegally.  (They arrived at that will be being lied to but it was their will all the same.)  When Clinton was impeached, the will of the people was that he not be removed from office, only censured. 

The will of the people, as far as we can tell, is that we should all pay taxes (some more, some less) to the government and the government should then use that money in a manner that benefits us all because most Americans believe that we are all in this together.  Sometimes that is interpreted as "Illegally invade a sovereign nation" other times it is interpreted as "Use our taxes to make the lives of all Americans a little easier."

[sirs]

You're the one advocating Christian princples within a Capitalstic democracy........

How so?

"where in Christianity does it discuss "keeping the hell out of other people's pockets" and "individual responsibility" as a definition of freedom?"

A) I never made the claim that it was part of Christian Doctrine
B) You're the one bringing the 2 together
C) Watch following references by yourself later in this post

Actually, I'm advocating the sirs' view.

Which is a free-market, quasi-libertarian view of society.

Ummm, if you say so

In your view does Christian doctrine not apply to society?

See?  But to answer your query, Christian principles apply to individual acts

There's many many more examples, but suffice to say, there's a myriad of verses that advocate personal responsibility.

Interesting, but not my question. My question was this: Out of curiosity, where in Christianity does it discuss "keeping the hell out of other people's pockets" and "individual responsibility" as a definition of freedom?

Once again, I never applied the 2.  That's your doing, so you tell me

Now, look at Luke 6:30 - " Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back."

Direct from the mouth of the Son of God, can you live up to that?

I endeavor to do my best.  Have you stoned any prostitues lately?  And ironically it's a request for one to allow such to happen, at another's request.  Not a command to turn over any and everything you own

Luke 12:30-34

All the nations of the world seek for these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, seek his kingdom, and these other things will be given you besides. Do not be afraid any longer, little flock, for your Father is pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your belongings and give alms. Provide money bags for yourselves that do not wear out, an inexhaustible treasure in heaven that no thief can reach nor moth destroy. For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be.

Proverbs 17:5
James 2:5
James 5:1-3
Indeed, we know that the Holy Family were poor. [/color]

Strangely all again requesting to help others, and give generously.  And none of which commands to hand over anything & everything at the voice of the ruling government, in order to help others.

I can hardly see how Christianity can then fit into a society of ardent free market, laissez faire capitalism.

To be painfully honest with you Js, you're all over the ballpark on this one.  Is there a Separation of Church and State, or not?  If so, at what point do you claim it goes over the line, as it relates to Domestc Government Policy?  Are you indicating your support for Bush's Faith Based Initiatives?

[sirs]

I think that sirs' point of view is ....... Where his ideal (libertarian in slant) runs afoul of America is that this country (if you believe what you read in the papers) is a democratic republic and therefore the people elect officials to go forth and enact the will of said people.  And in 1913, those who were elected to go forth and enact the will of the people went and produced the 16th Amendment

[/color]

Actually, what my POV is what the Constitution mandates, which includes the Bill of Rights, and how the Consitution is to be amended if and when the "will of the people" believe that the government needs to provide more in the way of health care, or whatever's the new liberal feel-good social program.  If they can do it with the 16th amendment, by golly they can do some more amending, IF it's the "will of the people"

And sirs don't like that too good.  What he don't like even worse is the idea that The Congress could use that tax money to the advantage of ALL Americans instead of it only supporting a FEW Americans.

Again amazing how if one doesn't believe in Brass's view of how Government is our savior, the same government he deplores to high heaven, when Republicans are running things, then by definition folks like "sirs" only care about "a few Americans"  Nevermind my support for tax relief for EVERYONE.  Nevermind my support for School choice vouchers that are overwhemingly supported most notably in the low income urban areas, predominantly resided by African Americans.  Nevermind my support of giveing Payroll tax relief and support of SS reform that would help the lowest income folks in the labor market the most.  Naaaaaaaaa, can't be adding those to the equation.  Messes up a perfectly good template already set up.

And worst of all is that the will of the people, some of the people, sure, but most of the will people (and that's democratic republic for ya) is that taxes should be used for the betterment of all Americans even the ones who some people think are "lazy" or "don't work" or "smell bad" or are "sick".

And worst yet is when others conclude if you don't believe their way, they must not care about the less fortunate, and must think of them all as "lazy" or "smell bad".  Pretty pathetic, even for you Brass.  I guess that greed label, of yours, on how eager you are to spend other people's money hit pretty hard

In the end, government is a tool to enact the will of the people.   

In the end the Consitution provides precisely the mechanisms to make Government enact the "will of the people"  By all means, let's get together another Constitutional Convention.  When was the last one, by the way.  Seems it's been too long, I guess

In 2003, the will of the people was to  invade Iraq illegally.  (They arrived at that will be being lied to but it was their will all the same.) 

Pure hyperbolic opinion there, but that 1st amendment of the Constitution sure is nice to have around, isn't it.  Ironically had Brass said the same as an Iraqi, regarding Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, he and his family likely would have been shot......or worse.  Go figure

When Clinton was impeached, the will of the people was that he not be removed from office, only censured. 

More than a country of polls, we're a country of laws, with a foundation in the Rule of Law.  I even seem to recall a certain hyper leftest of the name Brass, mentioning is support of the Rule of Law.  I guess it's only when it suits his purposes.

The will of the people, as far as we can tell, is that we should all pay taxes (some more, some less) to the government and the government should then use that money in a manner that benefits us all because most Americans believe that we are all in this together. 

They already are, extra-constitutionally, I might add.

Sometimes that is interpreted as "Illegally invade a sovereign nation" other times it is interpreted as "Use our taxes to make the lives of all Americans a little easier."

And most every time, opinion is simply opinion as it relates to "interpretation"

[Plane]

"And sirs don't like that too good.  What he don't like even worse is the idea that The Congress could use that tax money to the advantage of ALL Americans instead of it only supporting a FEW Americans."



[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]


When has that ever happened?

Everything that congress has to give to the people it must first remove from the people .

[Brassmask]

When has that ever happened?

Everything that congress has to give to the people it must first remove from the people .

The people have lots of nice highways to travel on.  The people have a top-notch military to protect them.  The people have a top-notch health care system to care for them.

The idea is for Americans to pay into a great fund that benefits all Americans.  This is all semantics.  I see paying my taxes as benefiting everyone in my country, my little part of humanity, and in some cases all of humanity since my government who I gave my tax money sends aid and comfort to people around the world who are in need.

Others who don't like paying taxes see it as the government stealing from them in order to do some things they don't want the government to do.  Sure they want a military handy to go and seek retribution from just about any old somebody if a small group of guys fly planes into two of our buildings but they don't want other peoples' kids getting free medicine or a free bone-setting on their stolen dime.   Where's the honor in that?  Where's the consistency in that?

[Religious Dick]

Others who don't like paying taxes see it as the government stealing from them in order to do some things they don't want the government to do.  Sure they want a military handy to go and seek retribution from just about any old somebody if a small group of guys fly planes into two of our buildings but they don't want other peoples' kids getting free medicine or a free bone-setting on their stolen dime.   Where's the honor in that?  Where's the consistency in that?

Well, that's certainly a salient point. If I had my druthers, government wouldn't be helping itself to other people's resources for either one.

As it is, at election time you get to vote on which welfare program you want to support. One party wants a welfare program for inner-city crack-heads, the other one supports a welfare program for trigger-happy crackers. Interestingly, the beneficiaries of these programs seem to be largely interchangeable components.

I would note that at least the crack-heads don't give us a load of lip about performing a "service to the country" while they're pocketing our money. And noting that a black market is probably the freeest market in existence, I submit their claim to performing a service would be at least as good as anybody's.

[Brassmask]

One party wants a welfare program for inner-city crack-heads, the other one supports a welfare program for trigger-happy crackers. Interestingly, the beneficiaries of these programs seem to be largely interchangeable components.

Awesome line.

Well, that's certainly a salient point. If I had my druthers, government wouldn't be helping itself to other people's resources for either one.

That begs the question then how would you then "provide for the common defence"?  Surely, "the market" is not the best way for a nation to go about establishing a military.  Isn't that one of the big problems with Iraq right now?  Too many people are able to create their own militias?

Would we want Americans to pay for their own personal armies?  Police forces?  Fire Departments?   Would we want market forces infringing on noble causes that call for one American to put his life on the line for another like those I mentioned?  Police forces becoming armies of mercenaries?  Do we really want to see a hostile takeover of one police force company by another?