The 46. President of the United States...

[opinterph]

It was not a point which deserves all this attention.

Why insist on a distinction, if it’s not that important?

Note: It is fair for any other member to quote your remarks and respond.

 

[ballcaphair]

Why insist on a distinction, if it’s not that important?

Note: It is fair for any other member to quote your remarks and respond.

Exactly. orioterph has defined discussion. Let's have a discussion, not talk about how we're having it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kul was claiming that the traditional Christian and Colonial American view was:"that wealth was allowed by God for some for the sole purpose of being used to benefit others." Later he argued that the wealthy should pay for the infrastructure that they use. I pointed out the contradiction in demanding that the wealthy give away all their wealth--the SOLE purpose== and yet be expected to pay for what they use. You ignored our discussion and thus did not understand what I was saying.

Given that earlier Americans behaved as I described -- I wasn't arguing how they ought to have behaved, but reporting how they did in fact behave -- and that the country prospered, plainly there is no contradiction.

BTW, your use of straw man arguments is a fail. Again.

 

[Kulindahr]

I believe that Christ would be comopassionate. I believe if he was a wealthy man, well you know where he would spend it. If he did not share that money, the State wouid have to pay. Taxes which force charity cannot buy compassion. If we care about each othrer what we have is our's alone to share the haves with the have nots. It's on us, not the State. Lets step up.

It's on both, from the biblical model; it doesn't take a deep reading of the prophets to see that the government is held accountable for being compassionate to the people as well as individuals. So for those wanting to honor a Judeo-Christian heritage -- more so for those claiming this is a Christian nation -- there is no avoiding the conclusion that we should exercise compassion both personally and through our government.

 

[Kulindahr]

They have not given away their wealth,only some, while keeping most of their wealth.

"Only some."

Yeah -- like a quarter to more than a half.

The point is their example, which shows that all wealthy people could give away a lot more and still be wealthy.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ Indeed it was, which was in response to his statement in #67:

And it's worth noting that ben ignores context when it suits him while insisting we pay attention to it when responding to him, especially when he meets firm responses to his statements.

 

[ballcaphair]

Bumping this to the top for selfish reasons.BRB