Jesus was a Socialist!

(On the heels of the World discovering Pope Francis subscribes to a very Old concept of Religion as Government and Redistribution as Law combined with a doomed to obscurity no-nothing like Ed Schultz on MSNBC proclaiming direct access to God and what God would approve of in terms of Insurance being Forced Upon Human Beings, I thought this might be worth a repost.)

How can any right-wing idiot disagree with such an obvious statement?

OK… I’m going way out on a limb here.

Theology is not my area of expertise, but I’m willing to bet it’s not yours either.  I have read both Testaments front to back.  I refer to them and many other works often, most of the time to correct my thinking in regard to what they actually “said”.  (Yes, I too fall into the trap once in a while of believing what other people tell me instead of reading it for myself.  I think this is an epidemic problem but I digress.)  I have learned to trust… but verify.

So let’s work through this, shall we?

Jesus believed we should be charitable.

Jesus believed we should care for the poor.

Jesus believed we should treat others the way we would wish to be treated.  (History has never shown Socialists to be particularly tolerant and if they treated their opposition the way they wished to be treated they never mentioned it.  I know a WHOLE lot about this… but I’ll save you for the moment.  Refer to “Killer of Men.”)

Jesus believed in his Father, God, as the highest power known to man.  (Socialists do not subscribe to a power higher than the State. All faith must be placed in the communal system.  If the State is your God then you are good to go!  If not… then Your quest with spirituality is your and yours alone as an individual.)

Jesus believed you should and have to be Forced to “do the right thing”.   (That’s right!  He.. uh.. wait…  I can’t seem to find that last one in the gospels.  At least not the synoptic texts.  Anyone?  Tossing some tables of intruders who set up shop in your house does not count.  I throw people out of my house all the time… they’re free to stand out on the sidewalk.)

This is the problem with what sometimes seems an obvious statement, it is often wrong.  Very wrong.

Socialism/Statism requires Force.  It’s fine to think others SHOULD do something (as Jesus did), but that does not make you a Socialist, Theocrat or Communist etc.  It is when you seek to apply Force, which we have reserved to government, to MAKE people do what you think is right that elevates you to one of the aforementioned classes.

I am open to being corrected, preferably by someone with a Theological background.  But until I can be enlightened, so to speak, I have to simply reply to such a statement as “Jesus was a Socialist!” with “No.  He was not.”

However, We can ask Him when he get’s back.

(Originally posted 020612)

Advertisement

Should and Must

There is a game that Statists play. It’s called the “change the meaning game”… They will take a word and misuse it consistently in order to change the meaning in your mind.  (Liberal is a great example. Originally it meant something very, very different than what American Liberals have turned it into today.)
I was listening to our president speak in regard to raising taxes and he mentioned that Jesus said “the rich should pay more”.
I am not overtly religious. So if it was Jesus or Ronald McDonald makes little difference to my point.  What’s important is the insult being directed at all of us from the President of The United States.

He is either expecting us not to listen to what he is actually saying… or he thinks we’re all ignorant.

I believe he thinks we are unable to understand the difference between “should” and “must”.

He must also believe that if he uses “Should” in place of “Must” long enough we will assign the same meaning of “Must” to both words.
Let me be clear… it’s fine that you, me or anybody thinks someone “should” do something. I can think you should pay all my taxes. You can think I should join the circus, or I should punch myself in the face etc.

There is a distinct difference.

The line is drawn at “Must”.

“Must” requires Force.

This word is particularly important when being uttered by those folks in government. We have reserved the right of force to the government specifically.  So, they and only they can force us to do things.

Theoretically we have the U.S.Constitution and the Bill of Rights to protect us… but only if we demand they be followed; which we don’t.

This brings me to my issue with the president. When he states Jesus said “the rich should pay more” he means “must”. This is so common a tactic that it fails to register in our minds anymore. Too many of us just nod along in agreement with statements like these. We don’t take the time to ask first “who exactly are the rich” and “where did Christ state the rich needed to be forced (must) to pay more?” and finally “why don’t you just say ‘forced to’ when that is what you mean”?
Educated people should take offense at such statements from our leaders in government. We must demand clarity in speech, otherwise the Left on both sides of the aisle will continue to play their games… successfully.

As an aside, Isn’t it interesting that Leftists approve of religion so long as they think it bolsters their agenda (Jesus says the rich must pay more taxes) yet howl when it is in opposition to it (Churches should be forced to supply birth control)?  I was unaware that the Bible, Koran or U.S. Constitution were open for picking and choosing the things you like while disregarding those you don’t.

And, if they are… then what good are they?

(032714)

Bumper Nation

(I love the word “Jalopy”.  Originally posted… a while back.)

I’d like to offer up a few suggestions for the Republicans… at least the Republicans that I would vote for, so Fiscal Conservatives… to consider.

I’m a Huge believer in “Simple, Powerful and Direct” when it comes to communicating ideas. The following are what I call “Bumper Strip” statements and could be used as such. Frankly, these could be handed out across the nation and many folks “across party lines” would slap them on their 1980 Volvo. Anyway…

There is a stark difference between a “clever” or “smart” bumper strip and an inane one.

Here are some examples of inane bumper strips you have probably seen on a jalopy in front of you…

“Who would Jesus bomb?” – Well, aside from Sodom and Gomorrah… how about the NAZI’s to stop them from burning Jews?  Stalin, to stop him for killing tens of Millions of his own people?  Mao, for doing the same?  Pol Pot for fertilizing the fields of Cambodia with anyone who could read?  While I could go on I hope I don’t have to.  So are we to read this bumper strip that Jesus would have tolerated such behavior… aside from Sodom and Gomorrah of course.  (May be when he did that he was his Dad?  A different manifestation of himself?  Not around yet, so that was just his Dad?  Around but not in human form?  Better rely on the theologians here… I get so confused.)

“Peace not War” – OK… define Peace.  This one is so stupid it hurts my head.  Who’s definition should we use?  Ghengis Khan’s? Hitler’s? Stalin’s? Kim Jung Un’s?  Bashar Al Assad?  Quadaffi?  Saddam?  Obama?  Bush?  Mine?

“Coexist” – Again… OK.  Even when we fight for the protection of the life and liberty of humans we are “coexisting”, so WTF does this mean?  If it means “Can’t we all just get along?” then “NO… we can’t.”  I will not get along with people like Hitler… Mao… Nasrallah… or anyone else who wishes to subjugate, enslave and/or murder people.

“No Blood for Oil.” – This is ridiculous because the premise is we have an alternative… which we do not.  We’re working on it though.  So, let’s assume we were just a Solar nation… if a bunch of A-holes figured out a way to block out the Sun from shining on our country do you really think we would not go to war?  Of course we would… and of course there will be blood for oil, right up until we have other viable options and then there will be blood for energy.

Again, I hope I’ve made my point here.

A “smart” bumper strip should lead to solid, easy to define, well thought out arguments that can be implemented and are not based on some utopian fantasy.  They should be statements that can easily lead to a conversation based in reality should you walk out to your car and be confronted by an Occupier… assuming you parked in the middle of a drum circle.

The colors should be “black and white”… because the answers to these problems are indeed, black and white.

“Stop Spending, Stop Spending, Stop Spending!”

“We Have No Money!”

“Nobody Owes you Anything.”

“Don’t Like China? Stop Asking Them For Money.”

“Don’t Like Big Oil? Stop Buying It.”

“It’s the Debt Dummy.”

The above should also be used for every interview and essay for the next 10 years.

Just for fun, and just for the rest of us…  If you really want to be provocative in an intelligent way here are some ideas:

“There’s no such thing as a bad teacher, apparently they all are equally inept.”  Which should be in close proximity to “Thank a College Professor if you can read that.”

“I insist on rules for other people.”

“I only vote for people who give me things.”

“I’m your responsibility.”

“Self-sufficiency takes effort, and I’m just not interested.”

“You owe me everything because I’m old.”

“I’m living off of your money!  Ha, ha, ha…”

“I’m not in a hurry… so I’ve decided it’s my job to make sure you’re not either.”

“I’m the person who stops in the middle of the aisle, because I’m important.”

“You’re an idiot!”  (This one is brilliant because if you are an idiot you certainly don’t think you are… and if you’re not you wont be offended.)

“I’m the kind of special that requires a helmet.”  (Not really relevant, I just like it.  And it’s true.)

So fire up Cafe Press and let’s get these out to the masses!  With enough of these we should be able to make sure no-one parks next to us.  Might be just in time for the Holidays!

Of Course the Floor is Open to any ideas you all might have.  I’ll list them all as updates.  Have fun.