Read the rest of the article by clicking here. Can't help but wonder where Javier Solana is and what he is thinking tonight! Well, his Twitter account gives a few clues. Here's an article he posted there.BRUSSELS – European leaders are wrestling over how much of their sovereignty they are willing to give up in a desperate attempt to save the ambitious project of continental unity that grew from the ashes of World War II.At stake at the summit in Brussels, which began Thursday evening, is not only the future of the euro, but also the stability of the global financial system and the balance of power in Europe.To convince financial markets that Europe's economy-crushing debt crisis is a one-time event, countries will have to give up significant powers, such as some decisions on borrowing and spending, to a central authority.French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel want to convince the other 15 eurozone leaders to agree to a plan that would require their governments to balance their budgets and accept automatic sanctions if they don't.At the same time, the currency bloc's largest economies are being pushed to commit more money to boost the eurozone's firewalls as the crisis threatens to pull down Italy and Spain.The overall plan must be good enough to convince the European Central Bank to intervene in the government bond markets in a manner large enough to stop the panic there, said Paul De Grauwe, an economics professor and EU expert at the Catholic University of Leuven, in Belgium.
Looks like what they (Javier and others) are thinking is that Great Britain is in for BIG TROUBLE if they don't play ball! You may read that full article by clicking here. I can't help but remember the old Daniel prophecy:
— And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. Daniel 2:4.Well, it will be interesting to watch this disturbing scenario play out. There will be winners and losers in that political - economic game.
By the way, as I write this, I'm listening to Michael Savage. He has a guest on as we speak talking about the "Occupy Movement" being the latest manifestation of "think globally, act locally." That is a prime NEW AGE SLOGAN and has been as long as I've been watching. I reiterate: The Occupy Movement is the NEW AGE OCCUPY MOVEMENT IN FULL FORCE. Savage's guest says it is MARXISM. I say it is NEW AGE!
Stay tuned!
CONSTANCE
88 comments:
I will be doing a live radio program with a Wall Street church on WMCA 570 AM tomorrow night starting at 11:06 p.m. (they will call me at 11:08 a.m. until nearly 1 a.m.) There will be open line calls the second hour. This is Pastor Smith's church. For those in that area it is 570 AM. For others, you can listen on the internet at http://www.ontheradio.net/wmca
This is a significant East Coast area. I am informed that the Occupy Wall Street events took place only 2 blocks from their church.
Constance
The direct website for the radio is http://www.wmca.com/.
It will be live streamed.
Constance
Constance:
Is that 11:06 PM Eastern Time?
Yes. It will be 11:06 Eastern Time (Program starts at 11:06 and they will connect me at 11:08). That would be 8:06 Pacific time, 9:06 Mountain time, 10:06 Central time and 11:06 New York (Eastern) time.
Constance
Don't take all you read at face value. To understand the comments of the Eurozone leaders against the UK it is necessary to understand that on this occasion the Eurozone, to maintain itself, desperately needs to reach an agreement within itself that the UK has the power to prevent. This is because of the way treaties have been drawn up and the fact that, although the UK is not on the Eurozone, it is in the EU. So those euro-words are merely an attempt to cow the British PM into not exploiting his position, in the coming negotiations, to recover some British sovereigny from the Brussels machine. Given how badly the Euroleaders have treated the UK in the past - and the meek acceptance by it of one British Prime Minister after another, to Britons' disgust - we are hoping David Cameron will recover some sovereignty for Britain as the price for continuing eurofolly (which we are well out of). As if France has not used the EU to its own ends for a generation!
British banks will lose too if the euro goes down, but it's arguably better long-term than the totalitarian alternatives. How ironic it is that twice in the last 100 years Germany has sought an empire and not got one, whereas this time it is not seeking an empire (but merely to stop subsidising
lazier nations) yet looks like it will get one. I agree on this occasion with the claim "crisis = opportunity", in this case for the eurocrats in Brussels and Paris. Incidentally the German *people* were largely against joining the Euro, because they knew they would be asked to subsidise others.
(cont'd from 4:52 AM) But O boy, it's complicated. Cameron has used his veto overnight, because wrapped up in the first proposal of this eurosummmit was a plan to tax and regulate the financial sector. He did that because the 'City' of London (the official name for London's financial district) brings in almost 1/3 of Britain's wealth. I do regret that statistic - it's not good to have 1/3 of your economy based on sharpsters, and the south of England is overheated in consequence; yet it is a fact for the forseeable future.
For what it's worth, here's my view: tax the banks - No. All that does is empower the people who get the tax revenue, invariably socialist globalists. Regulate the banks - Yes. It is lack of regulation that has caused the financial crisis that began in 2008.
I say it is Marxist AND New Age. One example, Van Jones now on the Pachamama Alliance board.
Hi Texmom, what exactly "is Marxist AND New Age", regulating the banks?
Forgive my ignorance but I'm not sure what the "it" in your comment refers to. Please would you clarify your point. Thank you.
Anon@1.21pm, Texmom means the Occupy movement; she is responding to Constance's comment in the blog post that this thread starts from, as follows:
"I'm listening to Michael Savage. He has a guest on as we speak talking about the "Occupy Movement" being the latest manifestation of "think globally, act locally." That is a prime NEW AGE SLOGAN and has been as long as I've been watching. I reiterate: The Occupy Movement is the NEW AGE OCCUPY MOVEMENT IN FULL FORCE. Savage's guest says it is MARXISM. I say it is NEW AGE!"
Thanks 1:32 PM, I know. I just didn't like the way it made the previous comment fade and seem it had to be ignored. that's all.
:-)
Where's good ole Ray B when you need him?
It is lack of regulation that has caused the financial crisis that began in 2008.
_____________________________
Whoops!
Methinks you have contradicted a key article of faith of the rightwing republican gospel, which is nearly interchangeable with most of conservative Christianity!
As for me, I will worship and serve neither the free market nor capitalism, but the LORD!
Anon@2.03pm,
Maybe in calling for financial regulation I *have* contradicted what you call a tenet of the republican rightwing gospel. But I'm not a Republican - I'm British. I am aware that I have more in common with the Right than the Left, but I try to think by biblical categories that are 10 times older than notions of Left and Right.
Mosaic Law had free markets in goods but regulated markets in labour, money and land/property. A man was guaranteed food if he worked (ie, works his land) but there was no social security system - although charity was regarded as a duty.
God is wiser than man, so how much of that can we replicate today? Unless we de-industrialise, dissolve property ownership and and share all land out equitably (which I am not advocating) then we cannot get back to a system whereby a man is guaranteed food for work AND there is no social security system. It's one or the other. Which way to go is the Right/Left dilemma of our time.
But there is no reason not to have God's way, of free markets in goods and regulated markets in money. That is why I said what I did.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/08/national-defense-authorization-act
Am I reading this right?? Sodomy and beastiality will be legal in the military? I also read where this act will allow the military authorization to lock up American citizens without trial.
anpn 4"52. That is an interesting concept, to have free markets for goods and regulations for money.
The banisters always find a way around it, though.
They can then speculate in commodities and hoard them. They can cause shortages and charge high prices for goods. They always have a way! That's what they do--plot how to get everything in their corner. So you can understand how some people think regulation of everything is the only fair way.
But then the regulators are suborned. Evil always has a way to triumph.
And yes, the Far Right people and totally free markets are pretty synonymous here, but some of them do believe in reasonable regulation. That used to be called middle-of-the-road politics in America.
Obama gave out that he would be middle-of-the road. Does not seem to be working that way, but he did start with a huge burden of debt, unemployment, and housing despair.
See no way out but the Lord's return, British poster! do you really?
To TexMom,
You are also right. It is NEW AGE and there are allied MARXISTS (often with newly found 'spirituality' of the New Age sort just like GORBACHEV) and ANARCHISTS and SOCIALISTS.
Constance
And the lack of REGULATION is indeed also part of the picture -- creating the very dissatisfaction that feeds into the witches' brew of dissatisfaction demanding CHANGE for the 'NEW AGE' -- change that everybody believes will inure to their particular benefit!
Constance
Mariel,
Christians suffering in other lands than ours are more aware that the Lord's return is better sooner than later. Even in the best run countries, which have dared to call themselves Christian at times (a description I believe applies only to individuals), there is plenty of institutionalised corruption. Christ will return someday and institute universal just government. Things will be better than today in every country in the world. As I understand it, his resurrected faithful will be his Empire adminstrators, presumably in their own lands - which is why He will not return until, as He said, every tribe and land has had the chance to hear the gosepel. But there will still be sin in the people we rule over, which is why we are told that His rule during this Millennium will be with a rod of iron.
It's not so easy to hoard foodstuffs - they decay. And hoarding minerals is unlikely because there are generally at least several mines worldwide producing any mineral and they cannot all afford to lay off workers. Speculation in futures markets can get speculators round this but is the sort of thing that needs regulating, as I suggested. But I doubt that it will, which is why for justice we need King Jesus in the flesh as well as in the Spirit. Then evil will not (as you put it) find a way to triumph.
The good news is that, with globalisation under way since the Industrial Revolution, He is coming soon. Daniel said the the end would come like a flood, and sicne globalisation began in the 18th century we can safely take it that he will be back on a shorter timescale than that. The bad news is that things are prophesied to get worse before they get better.
Come, Lord Jesus!
"And the lack of REGULATION is indeed also part of the picture -- creating the very dissatisfaction that feeds into the witches' brew of dissatisfaction demanding CHANGE for the 'NEW AGE'"
Civil unrest will continue in the United States until there are jobs. If the jobs don't return, the U.S. will lose its sovereignty. Why don't those who claim they love America fight for the American economy? Too busy counting their own retirement funds between church visits in their segregated neighborhoods, I suspect.
Ar the anti-Putin demos New Age?
Desertec/global smart grid/Arab Spring
http://www.dontcopit.com/dont-cop-it-desertec-agenda-21-exposed-the-beginning/
British poster Anon, that is a sharply made and good point, about Americans worrying about their own retirement funds between trips to church, and not actively concerned about our economic welfare via "jobs". Many of us are concerned but have no idea how to fix the jobs situation. I guess the main thing claimed today is that lowering taxes on corporations will bring jobs back, because corporations will not "have" to send jobs overseas to make a profit. It is a fright that so few of our manufactures are Made in America, and many are keenly aware of it. it's one reason some of us changed political parties to vote against Obama in 2008. I was a strong union person and Democrat and my husband was a Democrat district officer...we switched in 2008. But honestly, I don't know if any switching or political rallying will help. How do you get people to really implement Made in America? If corporations had lower taxes would they just keep on sending jobs overseas, to make even higher profits?
We suffer also from the shoddy products made over seas, like construction materials which are flimsy and toxic (almost anything sold in one of our Big Box stores). Our clothing is flimsier and always imbued with formalin, a toxin which makes cloth look "pressed". Stores sell high priced "designer clothes" which are not well made, and TV ads create fads so that young people will buy these rags. Even food is adulterated to maximize profits.
Let's start drilling our own oil. That should create some jobs that can't be exported.
To 10:06 a.m.
Looking at the morning news, it looked like one of the "Occupy" movements to me. There are "Ocoupy" cells there and you can find plenty about it through google searches.
Constance
Anon@10.23pm,
I am the Brit poster, but the comment to which you were responding was not one of mine. When I disagree with others I attack arguments, not people. The comment to which you were responding was indiscriminately rude about American Christians. Whether it's correct or not is for American Christians to debate, and as a British Christian I would not intrude. May God be with us all!
"Let's start drilling our own oil. That should create some jobs that can't be exported."
Couldn't agree more. And import it from Canada, a rather more friendly and stable nation than Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. If Obama had wanted to wreck America's energy policy he could not have done a better job...
Next event on the Occupy radar:
West Coast Port Blockade
http://westcoastportshutdown.org/
....Anon, that is a sharply made and good point, about Americans worrying about their own retirement funds between trips to church, and not actively concerned about our economic welfare via "jobs". Many of us are concerned but have no idea how to fix the jobs situation. I guess the main thing claimed today is that lowering taxes on corporations will bring jobs back, because corporations will not "have" to send jobs overseas to make a profit. It is a fright that so few of our manufactures are Made in America, and many are keenly aware of it. it's one reason some of us changed political parties to vote against Obama in 2008. I was a strong union person and Democrat and my husband was a Democrat district officer...we switched in 2008. But honestly, I don't know if any switching or political rallying will help. How do you get people to really implement Made in America? If corporations had lower taxes would they just keep on sending jobs overseas, to make even higher profits?
These are all really salient points. I have talked to many devout Christians about the economy over the last few years and they blame is nearly always placed always squarely on "liberals" and the poor, struggling, and marginalized, never on the social forces that have made life in America extremely difficult for all but the lucky and the affluent, who grew up and made their money during a very different time. I somehow don't think Jesus would approve of this at all. As someone pointed out here a few months ago, Jesus's problem with the Pharisees wasn't their theology but their hypocrisy. These hypocrites do a lot more damage to the Body of Christ than any secular force possibly could.
Most people, including many practicing Christians, are too greedy and insular to think about the bombed-out landscape of the American economy so long as they have their own piece of pie. They simply don't know the meaning of love they neighbor as thyself. (Jesus warned us about this pitfall many times in the Gospels).
As to the question of what people can do on an individual level, start placed the blame where it should be, on greed of corporations and individuals, not on the shoulders of those who are bearing the pain of these destructive policies. And let your actions reflect this. Support small local businesses that sell American goods and who hire Americans, and reach out personally to others who are facing financial from this burned-out economy. People tend to forget that genuinely loving a neighor is not comfortable and requires risk and sacrifice.
Do you have extra money in the bank account and extra bedrooms in your house? Surely you personally know extended family or acquaintances who could use a very real helping hand.
am the Brit poster, but the comment to which you were responding was not one of mine. When I disagree with others I attack arguments, not people. The comment to which you were responding was indiscriminately rude about American Christians.
Brit poster,
I agree with your assessment that that post was indiscriminately rude to American Christians, but I disagree that it was an attack on people. It appears instead to be an observation about hypocritical behavior at odds with professed religious belief (albeit it a sweeping one).
With regard to personal attacks, I have noticed that New Agers and people who hold what are considered to be anti-Capitalist and Secular beliefs are routinely slighted here with name-calling such as "clowns" and worse.
So is it okay to name-call one group (secularists), and not another (Christians)? It seems that if respect is called for, the same standard should apply equally across the board to all people regardless of idealogy.
If you REALLY love Jewish people see this site and learn how Zionist Israel is oppressing the Jewish people.
http://www.israelversusjudaism.org
Here's an interesting page
http://www.israelversusjudaism.org/holocaust/victims.cfm
If you want the downloadable book of Documents and Testimonies on Jewish War Criminals (1977, go to:
http://www.archive.org/details/DocumentsAndTestimoniesOnJewishWarCriminals
Part I, New York, Bnei Yeshivos, 1977, , 127 p., 5,5 M. English translation from Hebrew Serutay ha Kivshonim Maashimim (The victims of Holocaust accuse... the Zionists)
Great Britain's Entry into The E.U. was based on Deceit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqD7DOeqS8U
To all Anons, Brits or otherwise: Many of us are less prosperous than we could have been had we not been generous in our younger years, not only to extended family but to philanthropical groups or spiritual groups. And we were honest, too, in business dealings when we could have done better by being sharks or speculating. Many of us thought we could bring social and economic justice through politics--my husband and I realized that we could not do this, had failed utterly at that, and hence rejected the politicians who want to rearrange social and economic order. (my computer changes words on me, hence changed "banksters" into "bannisters" and "politicians into
"pelicans". This computer did belong to a New Age liberal before me...)
Yes, doing small or medium-sized kindnesses to neighbors, employees, and even strangers, on an individual or family basis, is the only way to help. Some churches do help the poor--mine does, even though they are ignorant of Bible prophecy and pretty ignorant of what's going on in the "New Age" or the rest of the Illluminati world. It seems those who are aware of what's going on are less likely to be kindly to their fellow men, in a practical, loving sense, but of course that's the "broad brush" one of the Venerable Anons referred to.
I do my wee bit. I would do more but circumstances such as ill health and being on disability and being disinherited...these all make the money pool dry up and make it hard to be a philanthropist. And so many find themselves somehow in that camp--having no pool of resources to give away. Those who have, clutch tighter, seeing how the rest of us fare. Jesus told us it would be this way.
Well, it looks like the hard core historical revisionist crowd is paying visits to this website. I wonder how they and Thomas Dahlheimer will get along? I suspect he visits here too!
I'm referring to the 1:52 poster. Evil stuff!
Constance
What type of friend, Jewish or otherwise, would think that others would not deserve a country in which to live? That evidently is what the 1:52 poster would have us believe. Jews are ok, as long as they are SCATTERED. God forbid that they should have a country of their own -- the one that God clearly bequeathed to Abraham and his line through Isaac!
The 1:52 poster is clearly an ultra-Orthodox Jew, complaining about the enforcement of the laws of the State of Israel on Orthodox Jews while living there yet not prepared to join the IDF, and while persecuting messianic Jews and pressing the State to do the same. Jesus called them hypocrites yet he still loved his people. I (a gentile) strive to take the same attitude.
These people regard the Jewish traditions of man, the Talmud, as equally authoritative as the words of God in the Tanach (Old Testament) - and in practice often more so. Well, much of the Talmud is good, a small amount contradicts the Tanach, but none of it is God's word. It started as commentaries and case-law issues regarding Mosaic Law (Torah).
The ultra-Orthodox seek to get round the claim that they are putting man's word above God's by asserting that this material was given to Moses by God at the same time as Mosaic Law, but was commanded not to be written down at that time. The answer to that is that Talmud refers to Torah thousands of times but there is not one clear reference in Torah to Talmud.
Mariel,
You are the last person I was thinking of when I raised concerns about the disparity between what many Christians profess to believe about their moral obligations to their neighbor and how they actually behave.
I have learned that it is usually those who struggle and suffer the most (and not just materially) who are the most aware of and giving to others, from what little they do have.
Texmom said @ 1:02 PM ...
"I say it is Marxist AND New Age. One example, Van Jones now on the Pachamama Alliance board."
Personally I agree with this statement but would add to it. The Occupy Movement, as is true for most movements, is made up of numerous and varying people with equally the same in points of views and motives. For example, a large part of this movement is made up of college students that have been brainwashed in a variety of ways. Some, for example, expect the all powerful state to take care of all their needs ... including paying for their college education. Others have been influenced a great deal by their professors to believe in the basic tenets of Marxism ... both overtly and covertly. Just one personal example of this; speaking with two students currently attending Michigan & Ohio State Universities, I found that both students expressed deeply held emotional ideas that were based in Marxism. Where did they get this from? Nowhere else other than from their university educations. Neither of these students expressed anything even close to New Age sentiments.
Is the Occupy Movement influenced by New Agers? Of course it is. But it is also influenced by numerous groups and individuals that have nothing to do with the New Age Movement. I'm sure you will also find among them many liberal "social gospel" types along with the "father" Plegers and a whole host of the Liberation Theology crowd.
When I view the Occupy Movement videos on YouTube ... I'm reminded of the French Revolution and what happens when perceptions are substituted for facts by the madness of mobs. The end result is often much worse than the mob ever envisioned and the law of unintended consequences eventually shows itself with a large dose reality. The Bolsheviks and Lenin studied the French Revolution and applied those violent tactics to their own revolution. The result of the madness of their mobs resulted in tens of millions of innocent lives being eliminated … all in the name of their revolution. Incredibly, America probably not too far from that ... especially if the downturn in this economy continues for another couple of years. In fact, the summer of 2012 will probably be a very hot one indeed. I think the situation is so desperate that only God can intervene and help us now. The question is; do Americans really deserve God’s mercy when we have mocked him and ignored what his word clearly declares?
Ray B,
About your reference to "social gospel types" -- if you take Jesus's words as true, the social gospel is part of the gospel. It has been co-opted by numerous apostates with anti-Christian agendas, but it remains part of the gospel nonethless.
Many who are uncomfortable with the responsibilities the "social gospel" places on their shoulders will tend to denigrate and dismiss it as "not of Christ" by associating it solely with Pflegers and Liberation Theologians, when it is in fact very much of Christ. It's astonishing sometimes to witness the lengths to which some people will go in order to ensure their religion makes no real demands of them apart from the demands they are happy with.
To "Anonymous" @ 2:13 PM:
If you want a definition of the "social gospel," I suggest you do a little research and study what Obama's "church" was teaching (Afro-Centrist Liberation Theology ... i.e. Marxism). That is very representative of what I was referring to. By referring negatively to the "social gospel," in no way was I stating that Christians have no responsibilities, but rather that in this system, salvation is obtained through a mixture of political-social activity and works alone ... more often than not ... by advocating GOVERNMENTAL programs (taking money by force from one group of people whereby 'helping' another group). I grew up in this environment and attended a "social gospel" church. Back then, the Marxist Angela Davis (whom advocated armed violence) was "supported" as a "social revolutionary" by our grossly deceived "fellowship." Social Gospel theology is well understood to be a radical departure from the true gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, which changes lives on person at a time. The Social Gospel seeks to "change" society primarily by the use of expanding governmental programs, which in effect, makes the government the Lord and Master, rather than Christ. True charity comes from individuals in which that charity is freely given ... not by the force as implemented by politicians and government applying autocratic power.
Interesting, I posted a comment in response to the one asking "who coordinates the cells" to the effect that this was A NETWORKING MOVEMENT and interestingly enough, my own comment is not yet published!
Constance
Dear Ray B,
I don't think the college kids unhappy about their tuition have been "brainwashed" as much as they have been ROBBED. I do believe their tuition was raised to the astronomical levels it was as a type of incitement to get the NEXT OVERT ACT OF THE OPEN CONSPIRACY going to put it in H. G. Wells, "THE OPEN CONSPIRACY" terms.
Constance
Ray B,
I don't think you fully understand the dynamics of the New Age Movement which does incorporate some aspects of Marxism I suggest you read Mark Satin's NEW AGE POLITICS as well as my THE HIDDEN DANGERS OF THE RAINBOW for an overview. There were those in the 1980s who drew false dichotomies to make the New Age Movement seem less all encompassing than it was. Their disinformation/propaganda is still among us and it has reached and influenced many good people, The New Age Movement is much, much more than Shirley MacLaine, despite Christian lies to that effect.
Contance
Ray B,
Where in scripture does it say that taxing citizens to support social programs is taking money by force and therefore wrong? From what I remember Jesus made a distinction between God and Caeser.
"Where in scripture does it say that taxing citizens to support social programs is taking money by force and therefore wrong?"
It doesn't. But using tax revenue for 'social programs' invariably means giving somebody's money to somebody else, and there is nothing like that in the Law of Moses, which was ancient Israel's divinely given constitution.
"It doesn't. But using tax revenue for 'social programs' invariably means giving somebody's money to somebody else, and there is nothing like that in the Law of Moses, which was ancient Israel's divinely given constitution."
It's amusing the lengths to which some people will go to make their religious beliefs suit their political agenda.
Anon@8.52am,
This is Anon@4.15pm. I object to your claim to know my motives. Please stick to discussing what is in the public domain. I aim always to put my Bible above my politics. In the present case, gentile nations are free to set their own laws, but Christians might think that it is wise to study, as a precedent, the only constitution for a nation which God has ever given.
"Please stick to discussing what is in the public domain."
Who said anything about the Constitution?
What's in the public domain here on this thread is your claim that Mosaic law is silent on using tax dollars to support social programs and that therefore the Bible supports your claim that such taxation amounts to a form of theft. This implies using religion, by claiming supremacy of interpretation of scripture with interpretatios which are, at very the best, ambiguious, to serve a political agenda. As Constance might say, "Res Ipsa Loquitor."
In my view, your questionable tactic has nothing to do with orthodox Christianity and everything to do with materialism (love of money).
Anon@6.44am,
You claim to know that my motivation for arguing against social programs is greed but you don't even know my income level relative to the national average. How would you feel if I claimed that *your* motivation was nothing other than envy and hatred of the rich? We don't know each other's motivations so please stop telling me what is going on inside my own mind. Only God can do that.
In Mosaic Law, which is the only socio-legal system ever instituted by God, there are no 'social programs' paid for by taxpayers' money. Do you think that God was mistaken?
"the only constitution for a nation which God has ever given" - that was a reference to Mosaic Law, which is as much a constitution as a legal system. BTW it's "Res ipsa loquitur".
"In Mosaic Law, which is the only socio-legal system ever instituted by God, there are no 'social programs' paid for by taxpayers' money. Do you think that God was mistaken?"
So do YOU really think that the fact that something is not explicitly mentioned in Mosaic Law means that it is against God's Law (assuming for the sake of argument this is true -- I am not an expert on Mosaic Law)? If that's how YOU interpret it, so be it, but by insisting on extrapolating it to the general populace is as typical as it is tiresome you act as though you think you have a special hotline to God Himself with regard to the question of so-called "social programs." What arrogance you display.
You are right, I don't know your motivations for insisting that "social programs" are contrary to Mosaic Law, but experience has taught me that people who argue in this way are usually White and affluent (Herman Cain nonwithinstanding, hahah), and think they have a special hotline to Jesus. So of course, I am generalizing from experience. Which is all we can really do on the internet now isn't it?
As far as "envying the rich" goes--no Christian who takes the gospel seriously would do such a thing. The Lord is very clear about where true riches lie. But draw your own conclusions!
Dear Constance,
I am not diminishing the dynamics of the New Age Movement by any means. Although I am certainly not an expert on the subject, I do recognize that it is all encompassing, as are all of Satan’s works. Long ago, I noticed that Satan was making great inroads into all facets of our culture. The rock music industry in particular illustrates this point. Just one example among hundreds; the Beatles “Sgt. Pepper’s” album cover depicts images of several Hindu “gurus” along with H.G. Wells, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, and of course Aleister Crawley. “Deals” with the Devil are commonplace in the Rock Music industry. Hollywood too has a long history of actors and actresses “channeling” spirits (Mae West, Joan Crawford, Marlena Dietrrich, among others) in order to "help" them in their acting careers. The message in movies … and literature … (Harry Potter, the Matrix, Davinci Code, etc., etc.) is often from a New Age perspective. Much of TV has both subtle and overt New Age messages and imagery as well. I aware of all of this .. and much more …. even though we do not own a TV nor have we been to a movie theatre, by our own choice, for 30 years. My point is this: Satan is not by any means limited to the New Age Movement. He can be found in virtually every venue … including in “churches” and religions that profess His name. The entire prosperity gospel movement falls into that category. Also, when objectively comparing the Bible with RCC dogma and doctrine, the two cannot be reconciled. Either one is true and the other is false. Literally, millions of bible believers in the past lost their lives defending the faith against this corrupt system. The RCC heirarchy's handeling of the ongoing pedophilia cover-up alone speaks volumes. God’s Word is the ONLY standard by which all matters must be judged. Naturally, this position offends a lot of people. The true Christ of the Scriptures is in fact an offense. The false “christ” of man-made religions is not. Fighting the New Age Movement while ignoring the enemy on other fronts is not a winning strategy, nor is it pleasing to God.
Ray
Anon@2.38pm,
You ducked my question, so I repeat it: In Mosaic Law, which is the only socio-legal system ever instituted by God, there are no 'social programs' paid for by taxpayers' money. Do you think that God was mistaken?
Actually it's possible to have a contructive discussion about that, but such discussions go better without personal insults. Please reply.
"So of course, I am generalizing from experience. Which is all we can really do on the internet now isn't it?"
No. You could always refrain from personal attacks, since you have no idea of my circumstances, and instead discuss the ISSUES. Please note that I do not question *your* motives, bank balance or colour. You could be Barack Obama for all I know.
"You ducked my question, so I repeat it: In Mosaic Law, which is the only socio-legal system ever instituted by God, there are no 'social programs' paid for by taxpayers' money. Do you think that God was mistaken?
Actually it's possible to have a contructive discussion about that, but such discussions go better without personal insults. Please reply."
Actually I did reply squarely to the issues.
I will rephrase. It is not GOD that I think is mistaken, but YOU who is mistakn, by insisting you have the divine right to interpret what GOD has or has not commanded vis a vis "social programs" based on YOUR personal interpretation of Mosaic Law!
Hello Ray,
I forgot to wish you a happy and blessed Feast of the Immaculate Concception last week. Better late than never!
Sorry, that should have been "Feast of the Immaculate Conception."
How is asking a question making an interpretation?
That question, which you have now ducked twice, is: In Mosaic Law, which is the only socio-legal system ever instituted by God, there are no 'social programs' paid for by taxpayers' money. Do you think that God was mistaken?
"That question, which you have now ducked twice, is: In Mosaic Law, which is the only socio-legal system ever instituted by God, there are no 'social programs' paid for by taxpayers' money. Do you think that God was mistaken?"
Your question is based on YOUR false premise, to wit, that the fact that the Mosaic Law is silent on a particular matter (assuming arguendo that it is indeed silent on this PARTICULAR matter, of course) means that the subject of that particular matter is contrary to the will of God.
If you continue to insist that I am "ducking" your question, I will be forced to draw the conclusion that you have no intelligent reply to what I have clearly stated and merely seek to lob ad hominems as a result.
The American Vicar of Bray
When Royal George rul'd o'er this land,
And loyalty no harm meant,
For church and king I made a stand,
And so I got preferment.
I still opposed all party tricks,
For reasons I thought clear ones,
And swore it was their politics,
To make us Presbyterians.
Chorus
And this is law I will maintain,
Until my dying day, sir,
Let whatsoever king will reign,
I'll be the Vicar of Bray, sir.
When Stamp Act pas'd the Parliament,
To bring some grist to mill, sir,
To back it was my firm intent,
But soon there came repeal, sir.
I quickly join'd the common cry,
That we should all be slaves, sir,
The House of Commons was a sty,
The King and Lords were knaves, sir.
Now all went smooth as smooth could be,
I strutted and look'd big, sir;
And when they laid a tax on tea,
I was believed a Whig, sir.
I laugh'd at all the vain pretence
Of taxing at this distance,
And swore before I'd pay my pence,
I'd make a firm resistance.
A Congress now was quickly call'd,
That we might act together;
I thought that Britain would apall'd
Be glad to make fair weather,
And soon repeal th' obnoxious bill,
As she had done before, sir,
That we may gather wealth at will,
And so be tax'd no more, sir.
But Britain was not quickly scar'd,
She told another story;
When independence was declar'd,
I figur'd as a Tory;
Declar'd it was rebellion base,
To take up arms -- I curs'd it--
For faith it seemed a settled case,
That we should soon be worsted.
When penal laws were pass'd by vote,
I thought the test a grievance,
Yet sooner than I'd loose a goat,
I swore the State allegiance.
The then disguise could hardly pass,
For I was much suspected;
I felt myself much like the ass
In lion's skin detected.
The French alliance now came forth,
The papists flocked in shoals, sir,
Frizeur Marquises, Valets of birth,
And priests to save our souls, sir.
Our "good ally," with tow'ring wing,
Embrac'd the flattering hope, sir,
That we should own him for our king,
And then invite the Pope, sir.
When Howe, with drums and great parade,
March'd through this famous town, sir,
I cried, "May Fame his temples shade
"With laurels for a crown, sir."
With zeal I swore to make ammends
To good old constitution,
And drank confusion to the friends
Of our late revolution.
But poor Burgoyne's denounced my fate,
The Whigs began to glory,
I now bewail'd my wretched state,
That I was e'er a Tory,
By night the British left the shore,
Nor car'd for friends a fig, sir,
I turn'd the cat in pan once more,
And so became a Whig, sir.
I call'd the army butch'ring dogs,
A bloody tyrant King, sir,
The Commons, Lords, a set of rogues,
That all deserved to swing, sir.
Since fate has made us great and free,
And Providence can't falter,
So long till death my king shall be,
Unless the times should alter.
There is no premise in my question. The answer is either Yes or No and you are free to give reasons for your answer... that is if you don't duck it for the THIRD time. Very strange that you think you are 'forced' to respond ad hominem to somebody you know nothing about.
"There is no premise in my question. The answer is either Yes or No and you are free to give reasons for your answer... that is if you don't duck it for the THIRD time. Very strange that you think you are 'forced' to respond ad hominem to somebody you know nothing about."
Clearly you cannot read or comprehend plain English. Moreover the tone of your posts is getting more "God-like" as this thread progresses.
If you think my very clear answer about YOUR false premise is so self-evidently non-sensical then I am afraid you and I have nothing further to discuss.
I guess in your mind that probably means you "win" this little ping-pong game! Well if so, enjoy it!
"There is no premise in my question."
This might help you to understand the difference between a premise and a conclusion:
http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Thinking-Brooke-Noel-Moore/dp/0073386677/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323898952&sr=1-2
But I suppose that since the title isn't mentioned explicitly in Mosaic Law, it is against God's law to read it. LOL.
The only premise in my question is that God does not in Mosaic Law levy taxes for social programs. You have not disputed that, although you are free to in which case please provide chapter and verse. I then ask the question: Do you think God is wrong not to do that? If you think there is a further premise in this question, please apply your expertise in formal logic to tell me what it is. Or better still, answer the question - which Constance's readers will see that you have now ducked for the FOURTH time. It is worth being insulted to show them that you have no answer.
"The only premise in my question is that God does not in Mosaic Law levy taxes for social programs. You have not disputed that, although you are free to in which case please provide chapter and verse. I then ask the question: Do you think God is wrong not to do that? If you think there is a further premise in this question, please apply your expertise in formal logic to tell me what it is. Or better still, answer the question - which Constance's readers will see that you have now ducked for the FOURTH time. It is worth being insulted to show them that you have no answer."
No formal training in logic here, just a voracious readder with an active mind. Anyhoo....
Premise A: that the fact that the Mosaic Law is silent on a particular matter means that the subject of that particular matter is contrary to the will of God.
Premise B: that God does not in Mosaic Law levy taxes for social programs (i.e. is silent with regard to social programs funded by the taxpayer).
Conclusion: Levying taxes for social programs is contrary to the will of God.
Even assuming arguendo that Premise B is true, Premise A is false. As such, your conclusion must be false regardless of Premise B.
There are intelligent and even arguably Biblical arguments to be made for limited government, but you have not even come close here to having made any of them.
Constance's readership spans a sprawling range, from shal we say "intellectually limited" to downright brilliant. No doubt some people will agree with your "duck-duck" argument. Quack Quack!!!
Premise B is indeed a premise of my question - as I stated at 5.01pm. You could undermine it if you were able to quote chapter and verse from the Pentateuch where God *does* levy taxes for social programs. But there is no such verse, is there?
What you call Premise A is not a premise of my question at all. If you think it is, please demonstrate it.
Then, with all that cleared up, you can address the question I originally put to you...
"What you call Premise A is not a premise of my question at all. If you think it is, please demonstrate it."
Oh my....I am sure you are a nice person, but logical reasoning is really not your forte. Fortunately, the gospel is clear that God looks not at our IQ's foremost but at our hearts!
Have a nice day and God bless.
What you call premise A is the proposition that silence of Mosaic Law on a subject means God disapproves of it.
My question: God does not in Mosaic Law levy taxes for social programs (which you have not disputed); do you think that God is wrong not to do that?
In that question I assume nothing whatsoever about God's attitude. I speak of only his *action* (in giving certain laws) and ask what *you* think that says about Him.
I have said nothing about Proposition A, either explicitly or implicitly.
I believe that you are simply throwing up a smokescreen to try to put Constance's readers off seeing that you are unwilling to answer my question. After five refusals I think it is obvious enough and I too am willing to quit. I have nothing against you personally. If you are a believer then we shall meet in heaven so I hope you have nothing personal against me either.
My question: God does not in Mosaic Law levy taxes for social programs (which you have not disputed); do you think that God is wrong not to do that?
Mosaic Law Expert,
God does not in Mosaic Law levy taxkes for post offices or snow plow serviceds (or do you dispute this?) Do you think that God is wrong not to do that?
Anon@6.10am,
Not much snow in Israel! More seriously, fire services in the USA are maintained locally by town councils, not by federal government. That maintenance comes from local taxes, but if you don't like them you can move to the countryside. And utility companies are just that - companies, not State enterprises. There can be economies of scale but those may be offset by excessive bureaucratisation. The State must not run or enforce monopoly in these matters.
Are there areas where ONLY the State is competent, so that those areas should be funded by tax revenue? That has to be looked at case by case. (Let's!) The Anon with whom I was contending might have replied: "Of course God was not wrong (to have no taxpayer-funded social programs in Mosaic Law), but our culture involves things which are worth having that only the State can provide, whereas ancient near eastern culture didn't". There might then have been a contructive discussion rather than the one you can read above.
In particular, God gave everybody land in Mosaic Law, so that you were guaranteed food if you worked your land, on which you also dwelt rent-free. There was no need for State aid to the unemployed. In our culture, if you lose your job then without State Aid you are likely to lose your home and go hungry, whereas with State Aid you take away the incentive to work and the populace grows lazy and addicted to welfare from the bottom upwards. Which side of this dilemma you come down on determines whether you are 'left-wing' or 'right-wing,' but each side can legitimately criticise the other.
Is there a better way? Perhaps the unemployed should be made to work for the State if they want subsistence wages. But then you face the problem of what work they should do. If it is essential work then it would not get done in a boom time when very few are unemployed. And it is unfair subsidised competition for private companies in those sectors.
All constructive suggestions are welcome.
In our culture, if you lose your job then without State Aid you are likely to lose your home and go hungry, whereas with State Aid you take away the incentive to work and the populace grows lazy and addicted to welfare from the bottom upwards.
State Aid is offered only for a limited period in the United States. The argument that it "takes away the incentive to work" and causes people to grow "lazy" is not a rational one. In addition the amount is very low in comparison to an average middle income salary.
I have been in the work force for a long time. I have never heard a middle-income person saying "I wish I would lose my job so I could go on unemployment and Medicaid, have to sell my house or condo and car, and move to a dangerous and run-down low-income neighborhood or perhaps get a roommate, until that unemployment insurance runs out. Hope it happens."
If you were talking about some of the European countries, where the margin between how workers live and those on social welfare live (council housing for life, free health care, free job training, etc.), your argument would be far more convincing. What you write however simply does not apply in the USA.
In my post at 7.24am the only part that was specific to the USA was the direct mention of it. All the rest, incliding the left/right coments, were general comments. But OK, let's get specific... in Europe, people in receipt of State aid typically get several grants from very different schemes. Is that the same in USA, and when you say that the USA assists only for a limited time (after becoming unemployed), do you mean only one source of benefits in a situation in which there may be several?
In my post at 7.24am the only part that was specific to the USA was the direct mention of it. All the rest, incliding the left/right coments, were general comments. But OK, let's get specific... in Europe, people in receipt of State aid typically get several grants from very different schemes. Is that the same in USA, and when you say that the USA assists only for a limited time (after becoming unemployed), do you mean only one source of benefits in a situation in which there may be several?
Actually, you spoke specifically about "our culture" (which I took to mean the USA, not the entire world, or even the First World).
Welfare programs in the USA are now administered by the individual States. If you want more details about the various sources of benefits and their duration (including the cap instituted by Clinton) I suggest you research it on the internet. There is no need to ask me to regurgiate what is readily available online.
The USA is now in a depression. As I wrote previously, I have yet to meet any middle-income earner who dreams about the day they get laid off so they can go on welfare and receive "entitlements," even "entitlements" that come from "several" sources. In fact, since I move in diverse social circles, I know a number of low-earners (dishwashers, minimum-wage janitors, cashiers, etc.) who feel the same, and whose lives reflect this ethos.
Most people, regardless of social class and income, have pride, and want to contribute to society. The option to do so is becoming more and more elusive by the day. But even those low-paying jobs are disappearing during this depression.
"Our culture" = "Western culture", by which I mean zoom out far enough to see the things that USA, UK and Western Europe have in common.
"If you want more details about the various sources of benefits and their duration (including the cap instituted by Clinton) I suggest you research it on the internet. There is no need to ask me to regurgiate what is readily available online."
It probably took you as long to type that as it would to give a summary answer to my question...
It probably took you as long to type that as it would to give a summary answer to my question...
I am not your research assistant.
Your posts are getting condescending as someone noted yesterday. You come off as self-absorbed and self-satisfied with no concern for what is happening as society unravels. You sound more like a troll than a Christian.
I'm outta here.
Good! If you were my research assistant then I would have *commanded* you to give an answer to my question. As it is I simply appealed to anybody who knew to give an answer. Perhaps somebody kinder than you will respond constructively.
"Good! If you were my research assistant then I would have *commanded* you to give an answer to my question."
So instead of asking politely for a task to be done you are accustomed to ordering your subordinates around? How charming.
Your first name wouldn't happen to rhyme with "weave" would it?
One can command politely. Ask any army officer how to do it.
As the proud parent of a commissioned officer, I can assure you that it is only the most egotistical who brandish authority over civilians as though they are enlisted men.
I agree with your statement, but again you are making some unjustified assumptions about my person. Any hierarchy of authority, civil or military, from time to time involves instructing subordinates to carry out tasks. In civilian life one phrases such a command as a request out of courtesy - and I do - but by definition of hierarchy it is nevertheless a command. Perhaps we could get back to the point?
You appear to have no point other than to troll with your know-it-all attitude and condescending behavior. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that you drink your own bathwater.
Constance, I'm interested in the concept that tuition was raised to incite to riot. To get the next phase of the New Age movement going through conflict. Yes this could be true.
It's also true, I think, from the partial perspective I have as a former college teacher and relative of a phalanx of Science Ph.D's, that "science" has raised the tuition. Science does this through very expensive research programs and the creation of the machinery necessary to do research. For a long time we have bought into the concept that medical and other research must be funded at all costs. This in a way was fomented by Kennedy's decision to get us to the moon at all costs. People portray this (Kennedy's space program) as a revitalization of the American will to do great technology. But I still believe that technology could have been used better, if it needed to come forth. Just a few examples of how our great technology has been allowed to fail are the collapsing infrastructure, (roads, bridges) and the "necessity" of business to send manufacture abroad, when some of that NASA money could have been spent on keeping manufacturing not only at home but of quality construction. The latter is very important--quality construction--we have very little quality manufactured items now, since the whole push is to sell them cheaper than the other guy does, whatever the loss in quality.
I remember my husband saying that sometimes an item in a car door, such as a door handle or latch, can malfunction because the manufacturing protocols specified no more than so many cents per door for handles or latches, sometimes as little as 5 cents making the difference between something working or not (he was an aeronautical engineer and talked to people who made doors and things in cars and other places). How does this relate to OUR cost?
Well, if we put money into very advanced science we have to get it somewhere, from taxes usually.
Medicare is going to flounder not over its trust fund but over high-tech medical treatment which prolongs life briefly (usually) and causes great pain. We are not going to pay for that for everyone, so we are going to have lots of people mad. And we are not going to pay tuition for all of the college kids who want to study--and that will make people mad.
California used to have free tuition for all residents through college graduation, at its great public institutions. Now, California is bankrupt, but there are a minority of very rich people who still live there, mostly in enclaves like Rancho Santa Fe near San Diego. Many of these are foreign people. The area is served by some "mega churches" which my husband I and tried attending. We felt like we had entered a robotic machine, not a church.
Forgive me for possible not complete understanding of this crazy situation. But this is the "partial perspective" I see.
P.S. I wish some of the Anons here would take pseudonyms, as I cannot tell one Anon from another without using more eyesight than I have to spare.
"we have very little quality manufactured items now, since the whole push is to sell them cheaper than the other guy does, whatever the loss in quality."
It's not a push, it's a pull. People *buy* the cheaper one.
abercrombie outlet
coach outlet
new balance shoes
ray ban sunglasses
michael kors outlet clearance
celine outlet online
moncler coats
oakley sunglasses wholesale
ray ban sunglasses
burberry outlet store
instyler
michael kors handbags
cheap michael kors handbags
supra shoes
michael kors outlet online
ugg outlet store
michael kors outlet
nike foamposite
ugg outlet
replica watches
tory burch shoes
michael kors clearance
michael kors handbags
thomas sabo outlet
michael kors outlet online
herve leger dresses
fitflops clearance
michael kors outlet
nike air force 1
true religion jeans
pandora outlet
swarovski outlet
air max 90
canada goose coats
mulberry outlet,mulberry handbags outlet
czq20160824
fitflops sale clearance
mlb jerseys wholesale
ralph lauren outlet
nike air max
ralph lauren outlet
coach outlet
coach outlet
pandora uk
red bottoms
birkenstock shoes
20170113
nice blog
cheap uggs
nike sale
air jordan shoes
polo ralph lauren
polo ralph lauren
michael kors outlet online
ugg outlet
ugg slippers
ugg outlet
ray ban sunglasses
www1005
jordan 8
christian louboutin shoes
reebok outlet
ugg boots outlet
coach outlet
canada goose outlet
louboutin shoes
coach factory outlet
adidas yeezy
jordan clothing
Thanks you Information, admin
Please read my artikel
membedakan ikan molly jantan dan betina
Karakteristik sapi simental
Post a Comment