Thread: 10 Commandents

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

Moe worships Catholic Communists.

What a weird fucker.

So one of the pre-eminent Jesuit Universities in the world, whose Management answers directly to the Catholic Church, are Communists who don't understand the Bible or what Jesus mean in his teachings... yet you do. Also, please explain what Luke meant by this:

If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic.

At some level, if you believe in the teachings of Christianity at all, you understand that Jesus was the epitome of a Liberal.

Right. Sanctity of marriage, that kind of thing - epitome of liberal

Did Jesus say that the sanctity of marriage (as you see it) had to be law and imposed on others? Methinks not.

Originally Posted by flyandski365

Did Jesus say that the sanctity of marriage (as you see it) had to be law and imposed on others? Methinks not.

i'm no theologist, but i'm think he didnt believe that divorce should be legal

but you bring up a good point - did he say that the rich giving to the poor had to be law and imposed on others? methinks not

Nice doublethink there.

I'm no theologist either, but does it really make sense as a society to make monogamy compulsory? Not any more than it makes sense to mandate charity, by your reasoning.

Oh, and you (DBT, ILC) are the money lender he would have thrown out of the temple.

Fine - make Divorce illegal. I bet more "Conservatives" would have a problem with that than you would like, like Mrs. Reagan, Mrs. Santorum....

Originally Posted by Tippster

Oh, and you (DBT, ILC) are the money lender he would have thrown out of the temple.

how dare you bring up Mamoon.

Originally Posted by Tippster

Fine - make Divorce illegal. I bet more "Conservatives" would have a problem with that than you would like, like Mrs. Reagan, Mrs. Santorum....

This reminds me of the common conservative comment "show me where it says in the Constitution..."

Originally Posted by Tippster

Oh, and you (DBT, ILC) are the money lender he would have thrown out of the temple.

again with the antisemitism?

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

again with the antisemitism?

again with the non sequitur?

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

again with the non sequitur?

its simple hugh - everyone who disparages "bankers" is an antisemite, just like everyone who disparages obama is a racist

how many times do i have to explain this before you get it?

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

its simple hugh - everyone who disparages "bankers" is an antisemite, just like everyone who disparages obama is a racist

how many times do i have to explain this before you get it?

It is simple Hugh, Banker=Jew, or don't you and 95% of the rest of the United States understand that?

Oh... Uh... No.....

https://www.google.com/search?q=Bank...ient=firefox-a


Better keep splainin ILC because other than you, no one gets that equation.

No one except Morans...........

Heh. Jesus was a Jew.

The "I've got mine, you get yours" stance doesn't jibe with the fundamental tenets of Christianity - like it or not.

...and I'm a non-believer.

Originally Posted by Tippster

Heh. Jesus was a Jew.

The "I've got mine, you get yours" stance doesn't jibe with the fundamental tenets of Christianity - like it or not.

...and I'm a non-believer.

Right. And since conservatives give more to charity than liberals, that makes Jesus a conservative, right?

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

Right. And since conservatives give more to charity than liberals, that makes Jesus a conservative, right?

Proove it.

Even if that is true, wealthy conservatives and liberals donate to charity in part to avoid paying some taxes.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

Proove it.

Even if that is true, wealthy conservatives and liberals donate to charity in part to avoid paying some taxes.

Conservatives are disproportionately 1%ers. If its dollar amount, that doesn't mean they give more in % of income/ wealth.

Originally Posted by Tippster

So one of the pre-eminent Jesuit Universities in the world, whose Management answers directly to the Catholic Church, are Communists who don't understand the Bible or what Jesus mean in his teachings... yet you do. Also, please explain what Luke meant by this:

At some level, if you believe in the teachings of Christianity at all, you understand that Jesus was the epitome of a Liberal.

For the 1000th time. Jesus never recommended the government enforce Christianity by rule of law. JC was the ultimate conservative. He expected his followers to be charitable ON THEIR OWN because it's the right thing to do. NOT to stick a gun in their neighbors face and demand their mnoney in JC's name like todays fuckwads at Georgetown and all other wacked out liberals are doing.
I can't believe you think what they are saying is in any way OK. They want the government to legislate their morality. I thought the government wasnt supposed to enforce religious teachings????

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

its simple hugh - everyone who disparages "bankers" is an antisemite, just like everyone who disparages obama is a racist

how many times do i have to explain this before you get it?

yeah I'm not fluent in retard.

bible prohibitions on moneylending well known, well followed in the Christian realm for a long time. Currently results in some curious contortions in Islamic Finance

now back to your regularly scheduled meme

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

JC was the ultimate conservative.

Yeah... not so much

Originally Posted by Moeghoul

Conservatives are disproportionately 1%ers. If its dollar amount, that doesn't mean they give more in % of income/ wealth.

Dollar amount, percentage, time, etc. Conservatives give more by any measure

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=...1#.T5jcueR62Sp

'"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...21kristof.html

and here we see exactly how infested science is with confirmation bias:

'"When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”'

and just for shits and giggles:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...inancial_N.htm

'Biden gave average of $369 to charity a year'

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1176...n_commentaries

'You might remember the fact, reported ad nauseam in the mainstream press last year, that Vice President Dick Cheney's 2005 tax return showed he had a family income of $8.8 million. This was due in no small part from stock options from a variety of companies, including the much-vilified Halliburton Corp. This fact provoked howls of outrage from many of Mr. Cheney's critics, who claimed it was evidence of what one syndicated columnist has called an "autocratic, plutocratic regime."

Significantly less-frequently reported last year was this datum: Mr. and Mrs. Cheney gave 78% of their 2005 income to charity. That's not a typo -- the couple donated $6.9 million, including the proceeds from stock options and book royalties that Mrs. Cheney routinely gives away. Their giving went to three nonprofit causes in health, higher education and services for inner-city youth.
...
In 1997, the Gores only gave away $353 of their income of $197,729, or 0.18%. '

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

Dollar amount, percentage, time, etc. Conservatives give more by any measure

I'm not going to try to argue this one way or the other, because it is a retarded argument. But your post is full of bullshit.

and here we see exactly how infested science is with confirmation bias:

'"When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”'

It is hilarious to me that you scoff at a guy as an example of being 'infested' with confirmation bias, when he worked to prove a hypothesis and failed, so he changed his views to match what his data was showing him. That evil scientist flip-flopper scumbag!!!

And then there's this, from your very own article:

When Vice President Dick Cheney was campaigning in 2000, he defended his family's charitable donations of $209,832, or about 1%, of the $20.6 million he earned from 1989 to 1999.

Your cherry picking, plus your failure to comprehend that not all dollars have equal utility is making you look stupid again.

Originally Posted by Rip'nStick

Yeah... not so much

Reallly? Where is JC's endorsement that governments should enforce His rules?

News Flash you ignorant jerk....Being charitable isn't a liberal idea. Being charitable with other peoples money is the the definition of liberalism.

JC did not endorse coveting your heighbors property or stealing it.

In fact, he followed the 10 Commandments which dictate THE OPPOSITE!!!

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

Reallly? Where is JC's endorsement that governments should enforce His rules?

News Flash you ignorant jerk....Being charitable isn't a liberal idea. Being charitable with other peoples money is the the definition of liberalism.

JC did not endorse coveting your heighbors property or stealing it.

In fact, he followed the 10 Commandments which dictate THE OPPOSITE!!!

The point.















































You.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

Reallly? Where is JC's endorsement that governments should enforce His rules?

You mean the Romans? That Government?

The ones who put a handful of 16 penny nails through his extremities and hoisted him up on the cross?

I am positive that he wanted them to enforce his rules, chief being "do unto others".

Please, tell us more about WWJD............

And can you provide a copy of the 10 Commandents(sic) that dictate the opposite?