Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: Rebuilding a Conservative Movement I
Source:
Sultan Knish blog
URL Source: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/201 ... s+The+Stories+Behind+the+News%
Published: Sep 25, 2015
Author: Daniel Greenfield
Post Date: 2015-09-27 19:03:36 by Rufus T Firefly
Keywords: None
Views: 41030
Comments: 199
The trouble with the donor class, by and large, is that it is resistant to change because it doesn't want to change. The Democratic and Republican donor classes donate for their business interests, but the Democratic donor class has a radical edge. Groups like the Democracy Alliance want a fundamental transformation of the country. And they understand how they can make money off that. There are too many Republican single issue donors who are fairly liberal on everything outside that issue. And there are too many big business interests and financial folks who live in major cities and only differ from liberals in their economic policy. The trouble with fiscally conservative and socially liberal is that the left is not a buffet. You don't get to pick a combo identity. Fiscally liberal follows socially liberal as day follows night. All those single people, their babies need assorted government benefits. No amount of lectures on "liberty" will change that. Austrian economics is never going to displace food stamps for the socially insecure. A lot of the Republican donor class would like to have its cake and eat it too. It wants the fun of a liberal society without having to pay the bill. It wants cheap Third World labor without wanting to cover their health care, the school taxes and all the other social welfare goodies. But it doesn't work that way. There's no free ride. Yes, they can move to a township where the property taxes are killer, and dump their pool guy and tree trimmer and maid in some city to live in housing projects at the expense of that city's shrinking middle class and working class. And it can work for a while, until all those cheap laborers get community organized and the organizers take over the city. And then the state. And then there are housing projects in the township, everyone is plugged into the same statewide school tax scheme and the left runs everything and taxes everything. The wealthier members of the donor class can outrun this process longer. Or just live with it while funding groups that promote "Liberty", the way the Koch Brothers do, but the bill always comes due. You can't outrun the political implications of poverty in a democracy. And you can't stop those political trends without addressing the social failures that cause them. A socially liberal society will become politically and economically liberal. Importing Third World labor also imports Third World politics, which veer between Marxism and Fascism all the way to the Islamic Jihad. Everything is connected. You can't choose one without the other. We're not going to have some libertarian utopia in which everyone gets high and lives in communes, but doesn't bother with regulations and taxes. The closest thing you can find to that is Africa. Nor are we going to be able to import tens of millions of people from countries where working class politics is Marxist without mainstreaming Marxism as a political solution in major cities across America. People are not divisible that way. Human society is not a machine you can break down. The left has fundamentally changed America. Much of the donor class hesitates to recognize this or prefers to believe that it can isolate the bad changes from the good changes. It doesn't work that way. Getting the kind of fiscal conservatism that a lot of the donor class wants requires making fundamental changes to the country. You can't just tinker with economic regulations in a country where schoolchildren are taught to demand taxes on plastic bags to save the planet or where a sizable portion of the population is dependent on the government. Those tactics can rack up ALEC victories while losing the war. Fiscal conservatism requires a self-reliant population that believes in the value of honesty and hard work. Those are not compatible with social liberalism or casual Marxism. Individually, yes. It's possible to make money while being a leftist. But spread across a large population with different classes and races, those individual quirks will not be replicated. And you can't create that population with slogans. You have to be able to shape national values, not just economic policy. That's the hard truth. There are no single issue solutions. At best there are single issue stopgaps. But the left is not a single issue organization. It has narrowed down most of its disagreements and combined its deck of agendas. Its coalition supports a large range of programs from across the deck. It's still possible to be a pro-abortion Republican, but the political representation of pro-life Democrats is disappearing. You can be a Republican who supports the Muslim Brotherhood, but a Democrat who says anything too critical about Islam has a limited future in his party at any national level. The same is true across the spectrum. Kim Davis is a Democrat. How much of a future do Democrats opposed to gay marriage have? Meanwhile it's possible to be a pro-gay marriage Republican. The Republican "big tent" is more a symptom of ideological disarray, as we've seen in this primary season, by a party that doesn't really know what it believes, than of tolerance. But the left has taken over the Democratic Party and made its agendas into the only acceptable ones. There are still some national Democrats hedging weakly on gun control and environmentalism, but they're going to be purged. Their party will abandon them and Republicans will squeeze them out. A lot of the donor class is really seeking an accommodation with the left. The election was warped when the Koch brothers decided to find common ground with the ACLU on freeing drug dealers. They dragged some good candidates in with them and down with them destroying their credibility on key issues. You can't have an accommodation with the left. The left isn't seeking a compromise. It wants it all. The left has to be fought all the way or surrendered to all the way. There's no middle ground here regardless of what philosophical objections are introduced, because that is what the left is doing. It's easily observable just in Obama's two terms. The left has defined the terms of battle. And its terms are total control over everything. You can't be pro-life and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-business and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-Israel and pro-Obama. You can't be fiscally conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be socially conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be anything less than full leftist and pro-Obama. The left has to be fought totally or not at all. Single issues can be important and it's good for people to pick one or two things to focus on, but that has to come with the understanding that there can be no accommodation with it in any other area. An organization fighting gun control is doing important work, but its backers should never fall under the illusion that the 2nd amendment can be maintained if the left wins on all the other fronts. As Benjamin Franklin said, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately". The quote is true today in all its implications as it was then. We must have a conservative movement that is united in a common front or we will be dragged down one by one. There will be no conservative issue islands left to stand on if the red tide comes in. The final point is that it is not enough to resist. That's just delaying the inevitable. Even the strongest resistance can be worn away with time. If the left can't win directly, it focuses on the next generation. If cultural barriers are in the way, it goes for population resettlement, as it's doing in parts of this country and Europe. There is no such thing as an impregnable issue island. Winning means pushing forward. Winning means advocating for change, not just fighting to keep what we have. Winning means thinking about the sort of free society that we want. Winning means having a vision to build, not just resist. Winning means advancing forward. To do that, we have to accept that fundamental change is necessary. Right now we're fighting a losing battle. We're trying to keep the tide out, when we must become the tide. Poster Comment: Money quote: You can't be pro-life and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-business and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-Israel and pro-Obama. You can't be fiscally conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be socially conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be anything less than full leftist and pro-Obama. The left has to be fought totally or not at all.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-43) not displayed.
.
.
.
#44. To: Rufus T Firefly, Vicomte13 (#42)
I liked Gill's comments. He is one of the few who ever pay attention to the Ethiopic manuscripts since the rest of Christendom simply pretends they don't exist. Actually, Vic is the only person I've ever noticed who even mentions the Ethiopic canon and manuscripts and my own knowledge of it is limited to Gill's remarks. Gill habitually looks at other ancient manuscripts like the Syriac, the ancient church fathers, etc. And he was in particular a notable Hebraicist, fleshing out the general cultural attitude and colloquial sayings and writings of Jewish leaders of the era which I like because, while we should know the sayings of Jesus and the writings of the disciples, we should also have some idea of the mental and cultural baggage of those who first heard Jesus teach or the disciples preach His message. We can't understand precisely the full impact of Jesus' teachings unless we have some idea of prevailing Pharisaic and scribal teachings and how Jesus differed with the major established schools of thought among Jews of His era. Sometimes you don't have as precise an idea of what is being said by Jesus and the disciples unless you know a bit about who they were saying it to and their ideas about religion and the social order.
Not true... the papacy began with the Apostle Peter, the first Bishop of Rome. (Matthew 16:16~19)
I'm sorry because of the thing that I wrote in that message and posted. Then I read what you said again and realized that you were saying just about the polar opposite of what I thought you were saying. So I deleted it and wrote "I'm Sorry", in the event that you had already seen what I wrote. Fortunately, you didn't, because it was not helpful. I'm thinking that in general I need to ratchet everything back five notches and just post the facts, and let partisans of positions fight, because I start to burn with wrath at a certain point - it FEELS righteous, too - but then I noticed that I was breathing fire upon something that was essentially right...and I realized that it isn't necessarily righteous wrath running through my veins at times so much as hot French blood. So, even though you never saw it, I'm sorry for what I wrote anyway. And I'll take instruction from it. And I'm sorry for calling you "Satan" yesterday. That, too, was over the top.
Of course the exceptions are not noted. However, with proper exegesis we know in other parts of the Bible that the widow, orphan and those who are unable to help themselves must be taken care of. Taking care of the elderly falls under honor mother and father. The text referenced was the following: 6 But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you; 8 nor did we eat anyone’s bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, 9 not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us. 10 For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. 11 For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. 12 Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread. 13 But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary in doing good. 14 And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. Which of course as Vic pointed out et al. that Paul is addressing the ekklesia and ekklesia conduct. Notice the caution in not treating such a person in the ekklesia as an enemy but admonish as a brother. The overwhelming evidence in Holy Scriptures is for the ekklesia (both OT and NT) should take care of those who are in need, sick or are not able. Where AKA and Don object (as I have seen in previous posts and threads) is where government or even a church throws money at able bodied people who can work but don't. It seems the number of people who can work but don't or won't is increasing in this nation and the West in general. I believe the Welfare reform Act in the Newt-Bubba era gave States latitude to assign work to those receiving welfare benefits. Apparently, that has been significantly relaxed in the Zero admin. So given the above reference from 2 Thessalonians 3, if someone is capable of working they should work to support themselves. Other areas of Scripture make it clear the head of household supports the family which includes the elderly parents (see Jesus' comments on Corban). It is the family unit and ekklesia structure God has established. We do well to start in our own homes and churches. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
And he was in particular a notable Hebraicist, fleshing out the general cultural attitude and colloquial sayings and writings of Jewish leaders of the era which I like because, while we should know the sayings of Jesus and the writings of the disciples, we should also have some idea of the mental and cultural baggage of those who first heard Jesus teach or the disciples preach His message. We can't understand precisely the full impact of Jesus' teachings unless we have some idea of prevailing Pharisaic and scribal teachings and how Jesus differed with the major established schools of thought among Jews of His era. Sometimes you don't have as precise an idea of what is being said by Jesus and the disciples unless you know a bit about who they were saying it to and their ideas about religion and the social order. I agree with all of this. "All Scripture is God breathed" - Paul said that. But neither Paul nor anybody else in the Scripture delineated exactly what Scripture IS. After all, in Greek, "scripture" is just the word "writing". Obviously everything WRITTEN isn't God-breathed - Paul mean SACRED writings - but there's no list. The lists were drawn up by various Churches. The Jews, for their part, did not have a written list either. They didn't formalize anything until a generation after the Temple came down, and by then there were fierce polemics with the Christians. The Christians, for their part, didn't agree. The Eastern and Western Catholic Churches never fully agreed on an official canon - there are a handful of additional books and parts of books in the Greek Canon that are not in the Catholic Canon (though the difference is less important than it may seem, because neither the Orthodox nor the Catholics are Sola Scripturalists, both think that the traditions of the Church are ALSO inspired by God, and they all agree that all of the writings that some take as canonical are good for reading, holy and orthodox...just not at the level that should be called "necessary" canon. There are differences between the Greek Orthodox Canon and the Russian Orthodox Canon also. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, for its part, is as old as the Apostles, as old as any other Church (see the story of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts), and its canon is the longest, containing several books otherwise lost to history. St. Jude speaks of the Book of Enoch. Well, we only HAVE the book of Enoch because the Ethiopians preserved it and consider it Scripture. Enoch is interesting because Jesus seems to quote it extensively. Also, among the various books that are not in the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant canons but that are nevertheless considered canonical by an ancient Church, Enoch is the only one mentioned BY NAME in the New Testament, and is the only one that really provides insights into things that are not otherwise revealed in the Bible (such as the names and motivations of the angels who fell and took human wives and made Nephilim came from). There are books mentioned in the Old Testament - Jubilees, Jasher, etc. that are also in the Ethiopian Canon. Whether or not the Ethiopian books are really copies of the original, I cannot say. What I CAN say about Enoch in particular is that either Jesus read it extensively, or whoever wrote it did so with the Gospels in hand (except there's so much that is strange and not otherwise in the Scriptures in it), or it contains truth that Jesus knew and spoke independently, which rather strongly vouches for the actual inspiration of at least some of it. I see no basis to reject the books of the Ethiopian Canon. After all, the Greek Orthodox and Latin Catholic canons are not identical, but that never divided the Church and provoked a schism. The extra books in the East add details of history that otherwise are not there. The so-called "Apocrypha", which I definitely consider canonical because Jesus quotes them so often, contain the whole suite of spiritual history from Malachi to Jesus. So, my view is expansive. If it's in any of the Orthodox Canons, I consider it important. And Enoch is particularly important because Jesus said so many of the things in it, and Jude quoted it by name. Peter referred to it very clearly also, though not by name. I suppose if I were a Protestant, Sola Scriptura doctrine and tradition would make me frightened of these books, but I'm a Catholic and the Ethiopian and Catholic Churches were once in unity, and never separated over this then. Enoch is probably at least partially inspired by God, and contains information that cannot be gotten anywhere else, so I read it. But when I discuss things on boards with Protestants, I limit myself to the KJV, because things are already so contentious that adding pre-packaged conflict is...well, that's not what I'm about. I want to find consensus and see Christians form ranks in a common army to face the ENEMY, not each other! (If I were feeling disputatious, I would use the so-called "Apocrypha", because they are translated and printed in the 1611 KJV.
That is the very specific and narrow circumstance about which Paul was writing. I think it is very specific. Specific in the point that Paul did not say he was giving advice but "we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." Then he goes on to say look at his and other's example of working for provision. The inescapable fact here is that Paul is talking about able bodied human beings. Not the elderly, infirm, widow or orphan. He addresses those categories elsewhere and all are in accordance to the Law. The commandment of God, repeated a hundred times in his own words, and demonstrated by the actions of Jesus and the Apostles was tithe for poverty relief, poverty relief, alms for poverty relief, care for the poor. Indeed no argument there. However, it seemed the NT church did not need the 'motivation' of a prescribed tithe or to be reminded of such. Seemed they understood the Love of Christ. We know the diaspora Jews and Gentile Christians came to the aid of the Judean famine (Acts 11) abundantly. God loves a cheerful giver. 9 Now concerning the ministering to the saints, it is superfluous for me to write to you; 2 for I know your willingness, about which I boast of you to the Macedonians, that Achaia was ready a year ago; and your zeal has stirred up the majority. 3 Yet I have sent the brethren, lest our boasting of you should be in vain in this respect, that, as I said, you may be ready; 4 lest if some Macedonians come with me and find you unprepared, we (not to mention you!) should be ashamed of this confident boasting. 5 Therefore I thought it necessary to exhort the brethren to go to you ahead of time, and prepare your generous gift beforehand, which you had previously promised, that it may be ready as a matter of generosity and not as a grudging obligation. 6 But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work. 9 As it is written: “He has dispersed abroad, He has given to the poor; His righteousness endures forever.” 10 Now may He who supplies seed to the sower, and bread for food, supply and multiply the seed you have sown and increase the fruits of your righteousness, 11 while you are enriched in everything for all liberality, which causes thanksgiving through us to God. 12 For the administration of this service not only supplies the needs of the saints, but also is abounding through many thanksgivings to God, 13 while, through the proof of this ministry, they glorify God for the obedience of your confession to the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal sharing with them and all men, 14 and by their prayer for you, who long for you because of the exceeding grace of God in you. 15 Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift! "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Why? It seems that you agree with everything I wrote because I agree with everything you wrote. You said the same things using different words. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Actually the reverse is true. Biologically human life DOES start at conception. You are confusing this scientific fact with religious doctrine of ensoulment - when human living being receives soul. No,that would be you. Life begins when a child takes it's first breath. Prior to that it is a parasite and only a potential life. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Indeed, we MUST start with ourselves, our homes, our families, and then reach out to others in the circle - preferably to our brothers and sisters in the faith. For everybody has needs, and resources of anyone are limited. Therefore we should pay particular attention, once we have done our family duties, to pay attention to the needs of our Christian brothers and sisters, to ease their burdens so that together we can also ease the burdens of others.
They ARE wising up! They have fewer and fewer children. That it why the white population has to be replaced by the less demanding and more fertile Third World immigrants. You have the "theys" mixed up. The "theys" that will wise up if we cut back welfare benefits to the point where only churches and other charities pay the freight,the professional welfare parasites will wise up and stop having so many children. You can bet your bippy the churches and other charities won't be as generous with the benefits or as open-minded about the life-styles and living conditions as Uncle Sugar,who wants their votes,is. The people on welfare that do have children will be taking a sudden interest in them actually getting an education and jobs because they will need their children employed to keep them fed and housed when they are old. The way things are now they don't give a damn because they will continue to drop another baby when their oldest turns 18 for as long as they can to keep the checks coming in,and by the time they get too old to do that they will be on SS disability due to diabetes,too much fat and not enough exercise,alcohol abuse,drug addiction,heart problems,etc,etc,etc. Selfish self-interest works when everything else fails. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Ahhhh,another Holy War! Killin dem heathens for Gawd! I knew you had it in you. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Which means that there will be destitute children. So what do we do about them? Let the churches and other charities deal with them. That's what they get tax-free status for as charities. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
HorseHillary! MOST of the people in India and South and Central America would be willing to work and provide for themselves if there were jobs available. Provide them with jobs where they see they have a future,and they will stop having so many children. The reason people in the 3rd world have so many children is to insure enough survive to reach adulthood so the children can provide for them when they are too old to scrap by doing the odds and ends things they are doing to avoid daily starvation. The people in Africa are mostly a lost cause. They are content to live in their mud huts with their cattle if they are rich enough to have cattle. If not,they will sit right there and starve to death if somebody doesn't feed them. If it wasn't for the western aid still pouring into Africa,they would be right back to the Stone Age,and eating each other again. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
BTW,did you hear that no less than "The Sisters of the Poor" are suing the Obomber Administration over Obomber Care actually reducing their ability to help the poor because of regulations and added expenses? I'm really,REALLY hoping this starts to get some press because nothing would make me happier than to see the "caring people" in the Dim Party take on the Sisters of the Poor in public. Hell,I'd pay money to watch that. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
You want to apply that to the retirees, including people in nursing homes? Who says retired people,through hard work and planning,aren't providing for themselves? Or that people in nursing homes,Pre-Obomber,didn't/don't have insurance to cover their expenses? We are not living in Biblical times now. We have banks,pension plans,and insurance. For example,children don't work,either. Damn few of them starve to death in the western world. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I found this here: www.mcknights.com/news/po...ive-fight/article/441161/ I don't see the issue that you mention above.
Septuagint is the oldest translations made by several most competent devout Jewish scholars and priests in the main center of the ancient scholarship - Alexandria. It was done by the Jews, for the Jews and used by the Jews. Our Lord Himself quoted Septuagint and other New Testament quotes are from Septuagint. Both New Testament and Septuagint are in Greek. The next major translation was into Latin, centuries later, for common uneducated Western peoples who had problems with Greek. That is why called common/vulgar - Vulgate. Fathers of the Church used Septuagint and so did the Seven Ecumenical Councils. I am sorry, but your authority does not trump theirs. BTW, this passage resembles the Samaritan version. Samaritans separated from Judeans long before Septuagint! ====== [...] The Septuagint translators understood correctly the meaning of Exod 21:22–23 which states quite clearly that a fully developed fetus was a person protected by the lex talionis, but a fetus which was not fully formed was not a person but was a property properly protected by the lex pensitationis. The Hebrew dialect of the Septuagint translators in Alexandria included two words spelled !wsa, namely, (a) the !Asa'which was translated as malaki,a, “affliction, disease” (Gen 42: 28) and (b) the !As.a,/ !w"s.a, which was translated as evxeikonizomai, “to be fully formed” (Exod 21: 22–23) The word !wsa/!As.a,/ !w"s.a, did not survive in the Judean and Samaritan Hebrew dialects. Thanks to Septuagint translation of Exod 21:22–23 and the Arabic cognate £ÑªD(sawaya), “he made it equal, he became full-grown in body,” the lost lexeme !As.a,/ !w"s.a, has been recovered. Exod 21: 22–25 can be properly interpreted once the accuracy of the Sep- tuagint translation is duly recognized. This old lost lexeme !As.a,/ !w"s.a,), “fully formed / full-grown,” needs to be included in all the new commentaries of today and the Hebrew lexicons of tomorrow. [...] THE SEPTUAGINT HAS THE CORRECT TRANSLATION OF EXODUS 21:22-23 So is with Dead Sea Scrolls.
I found this here: www.mcknights.com/news/po...ive-fight/article/441161/ I don't see the issue that you mention above. I read a brief mention of it on a conservative news site,but didn't click on the link. Maybe it is related to Obomber care wanting to cut back money to the Sisters unless they provide abortion or contraception services? Either way,I see a leftist dust-up with the Sisters of the Poor in public as a win-win for everybody but the left. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Prove it.
Prove it. It's proven every day. NOW,YOU prove to me that life begins at erection by trotting a few fertilized cells out to give a talk. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
We are not living in Biblical times now. We have banks,pension plans,and insurance. For example,children don't work,either. Damn few of them starve to death in the western world. With regards to skilled nursing home care, Pete you will be just fine. You can always go into a VA skilled nursing facility if you had to. I inspected two in FL for my dad right before he passed away and those facilities were pretty good. However, for those who don't have the VA option, skilled nursing care at the lower end (FL prices) is $5000 to $7000 a month. Most middle income pensions, savings or equity will get gobbled up quickly at those prices...Again that is FL, and not the North East or Left Coast. So what happens is, for middle income retirees, within 1-3 years all of their savings is zapped, then investments are liquidated and then any land or homes must be sold to pay the skilled nursing facility. Only exceptions is if there is a spouse, the house will not be allowed to be taken nor the income the spouse needs to survive, maintain the home and pay bills. Once all assets (save the spouse subsistence)are liquidated and the middle income nursing home resident has no more money, then they can apply for MEDICAID to pay for nursing home care. If the patient has a pension, that and his/her social security check goes to the nursing home and what it does not cover the State picks up in Medicaid. So unless one is really wealthy and can afford a live in 24 hour a day nurse in their home somewhere down the line someone who requires skilled nursing care will lose everything. That is why elder care law is a booming business these days. There are ways to protect assets but they must be transferred or sold 5 years prior to admission to a nursing home (each state has differing provisions). Some are also taking out Long Term Care insurance. This is very expensive and takes away a large portion of retired income for a 'just in case' situation. My dad's friend paid into this for 5 years but never used it...He passed away before needing it. Some elderly are using those reverse mortgages to drum up income for long term care. Bottom line, long term care (nursing home care) is huge bucks. Most people just don't have the money for it. It is more an investment if you have loads of kids and hope a doctor or nurse comes out of it:) I would advise any of our aging posters here at LF to sit down with family to discuss the 'what if's' on long term care. Then invest in an elder care lawyer to get advice. It may be the best $2,000 someone will invest. These lawyers don't come free ya know:) "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Thanks. Now please look at this: "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Turn about is fair play. Let their adult children take them in. It's worked this way since the day of the cave man,so there is no reason it won't work today. The people without children can be provided for by churches and/or other charities. No,it's not a perfect system that provides for everybody. Neither is any other system. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Understood. It is when the elderly parent(s) require round the clock medical care when this becomes even untenable financially for the adult children. That's the real challenge with the cost of long term care. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Not to hear some folks tell it, they use the Bible as their reason for doing so... Well, I saw your "Satan" and raised you an "Accuser" so it seemed to balance out anyway.
Dogma. Not interested. The text means premature birth.
If the government enforces a 10% tithe to the charities, fine. Otherwise, no - the resources required exceed what people give to charity.
St. Jude speaks of the Book of Enoch. Well, we only HAVE the book of Enoch because the Ethiopians preserved it and consider it Scripture. Enoch is interesting because Jesus seems to quote it extensively. Also, among the various books that are not in the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant canons but that are nevertheless considered canonical by an ancient Church, Enoch is the only one mentioned BY NAME in the New Testament, and is the only one that really provides insights into things that are not otherwise revealed in the Bible (such as the names and motivations of the angels who fell and took human wives and made Nephilim came from). There are books mentioned in the Old Testament - Jubilees, Jasher, etc. that are also in the Ethiopian Canon. It is interesting once you learn a bit about it. Certainly, there is much to interest even lay people in the history of the Ethiopian Orthodox. The Orthos, as a club, are certainly the most conservative of churches. They just don't change. Or ever throw anything away. : ) It's no great reason to feel compelled to embrace the Ethiopic either. Even so, it does have a certain historical interest, regardless of which canon of scripture you prefer. As I said before, Gill is the only writer I've ever read who even mentioned it as a canon and as manuscript evidence for particular readings of a verse. As I recall it, the Ethiopian Orthodox differ as much in their creedal disagreement with the other churches that are Orthodox or Catholic. So there are some doctrinal differences. Also, the Ethiopian church was established in very ancient times when Christianity spread across regions of Africa. Over the centuries, Ethiopian Christianity became geographically isolated for many centuries. So many of the issues that became quite important in the West or in Byzantium never penetrated some of the remote churches of the Copts or the Ethiopian Orthos or the Syrian or Mesopotamian churches.
You use "dogma" as an insult. Do you deny Divinity of Christ? Dogma of Holy Trinity? Union of divine and human nature in Christ? Etc ... Where was a dogma in our exchange? You read your opinions into Holy Scriptures.
The most compelling reason to embrace the Ethiopic canon is that it contains Enoch. Jude referred directly to Enoch by name, and both Jude and Peter made arguments from it. Jesus quoted Enoch nearly verbatim several times. This book was very much on the minds of the Apostles and Christ himself. Why should it NOT be canonical? Jesus used it. The whole argument about what IS canon is interesting to me, because men place such very heavy authority on Scripture, but then Scripture never defines what Scripture is. Where Scripture QUOTES Scripture, that's a pretty good indication of what IS Scripture, and where God Himself, in personam Jesus, AND the head of the Church, AND the brother of God - two Apostles and the Christ - are all using a book - well, the only Old Testament book that has THAT much cross usage is the Torah itself. Jesus quoted Isaiah quite a bit, but the Apostles didn't. There's a line or two from Daniel, but that's it. Also, both Peter and Jude make specific theological ARGUMENTS from Enoch, and there isn't any OTHER text in the Old Testament, at all, that ever gives the data about the fallen angels leaving their stations and their motivations. Enoch is the ONLY Biblical source for that. Obviously it should be in the Bible. Just as obviously, the Jews have been celebrating Hannukka as a high holy day for millennia, and yet the only place to read about it is in the books of the Maccabbees, which are part of the Jewish LXX but which were eliminated from the Jewish canon a generation or more after the destruction of the Temple, by very xenophobic and racist Jews, BECAUSE Maccabbees is written in Greek. Obviously the Maccabbean account of the first Hannukka is properly in the Jewish canon, as it was at the time of Christ. If a book is NECESSARY to understand a Biblical teaching or a major tradition - and Enoch is - that tells me that it's in the Canon. The fact that there are ancient Christian Churches that agree is second corroboration. To my eyes, whatever any of the Orthodox call Canon, is properly included in the Canon, and that brings in a few extra sources. It doesn't really change anything Jesus said, which is the law for us, but it gives the information necessary to evaluate. The issues that became important in the West and Byzantium are all post Biblical, and have to be interpreted in light of the Bible. I will avoid all discussion of the Reformation Era canon choices, because it doesn't lead anywhere good when Catholics and Protestants are speaking with each other. Essentially, the canon of Scripture is the Ethiopic Canon, plus the additional book in the Slavic Canon, but it is not as easy to rely on the Ethiopic canon because it has not been mechanically translated, and when you've only got one or two translations, you may be getting some wrong things.
I always pose it as a question: how can Jude be scripture if it quotes Enoch? If Enoch is not scripture, Jude should not be elevated above Enoch. Excluding Enoch while including Jude is problematic, always was. However it came about, it is interesting to see a long-established and isolated Christian church and how it dealt with the whole tamale of scripture. We have no other examples of this. You can look for ways in which things change or do not change over time, whether there is any particular reliance on the peculiar features of the extra books they include in their canon as compared to other Ortho churches or Catholic/Protestant canons in the West.
When you made your appeal to "authority". Our ancestors fought about this fruitlessly for ages, and I am completely uninterested in the discussion. The Torah was given in Hebrew. It still exists in Hebrew. The LXX translation translated the Hebrew. If you want to look into the original GREEK meaning, in Eastern Mediterranean (Jewish ethnic usage, non-native) Greek of 200 BC, you may well find that the Greek word used, which has been translated into English as "miscarriage" - a very precise word in English - had the more general meaning of the underlying Hebrew. In fact, I'd bet drachmas that that is what you would find: if the baby comes out early and unexpectedly, that is probably what that Greek word means, and NOT the specific "baby dies early in the womb" that English "miscarriage" now means. In any event, the Greek translates a text that was given by God in Hebrew, and the Hebrew word that the Greek translates means that the baby comes out, and does not refer to the status - living or dead - of the baby. When properly understood, everything that follows makes perfect sense, AND it aligns perfectly with all of the OTHER statements in the Bible - about God knowing people in the womb, and about begetting. It all forms one seamless garment that completely and simply, tells the truth: life begins at conception. I am not sure that the Greek, even, inserts a seam due to translation. I doubt it. The English does. IF the Greek does, the Greek is wrong. It is true that when Jesus quotes the Old Testament, 9 times out of 10 where there is a difference between the LXX and the Hebrew, Jesus uses the Greek of the LXX. But it is also true that 1 time out of 10 he uses the Hebrew, and not the LXX. Which means that even though the Greek-speaking Fathers of the Church were completely sold on the Greek, Jesus wasn't, and his authority trumps theirs.
Ethiopians have the same faith as Copts and Armenians. They derive from those who rejected dogmatic definitions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon.
Because canon is a measure or standard set by the Ecumenical Councils for practical pastoral reason. There are many good and inspired texts that were not included. Canon is not a fetish, it is an inspired collection of key and reliable books. But there are more.
Yes. And I agree with the Ethiopians that Enoch is a book inspired by God that should be read with the other books. If it is not included, then Jude's letter loses the marrow of its argument.
Not bad. Except the image misses the council of Jerusalem.
"For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
If it is not included, then Jude's letter loses the marrow of its argument. Are there any Hebrew fragments of Enoch? "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Non sequitur. Saint Paul quotes Greek poetry that of course is not in the canon, it does not undermine "the marrow of his argument"
None of which I am aware. We have the Amharic, preserved by the Ethiopian Christians. And that's all we have.
Comments (85 - 199) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#45. To: A K A Stone (#30)
Also there is no pope in the Bible. He is a false leader. A piece of shit.
#46. To: TooConservative (#43)
I'm not sure why you're sorry.
#47. To: TooConservative, A K A Stone, Vicomte13, GarySpFc, Don, tomder55, CZ82 (#38)
The scripture you cited doesn't make those exceptions. It says work-to-eat. Period.
2 Thessalonians 3:
#48. To: TooConservative (#44)
I liked Gill's comments. He is one of the few who ever pay attention to the Ethiopic manuscripts since the rest of Christendom simply pretends they don't exist. Actually, Vic is the only person I've ever noticed who even mentions the Ethiopic canon and manuscripts and my own knowledge of it is limited to Gill's remarks. Gill habitually looks at other ancient manuscripts like the Syriac, the ancient church fathers, etc.
#49. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone, Don, GarySpFc, TooConservative, liberator (#39)
Don provided one line of Paul, addressed to a leader of a Church in which feeloaders were coming in to join the agape meals, lounging about and not contributing anything, either work or help.
2 Corinthians 9:
#50. To: Rufus T Firefly (#16)
Take a chill pill, 'pete.
#51. To: A Pole (#17)
Nothing but pure religious dogma
#52. To: redleghunter (#47)
It is the family unit and ekklesia structure God has established. We do well to start in our own homes and churches.
#53. To: A Pole (#18)
There is no chance they will wise up and have fewer children?
#54. To: Vicomte13 (#19)
Human life begins at conception, and there is no possible compromise between those who know it, and those who deny it. This issue must be settled by force.
#55. To: Vicomte13 (#20)
Many will, but not all.
#56. To: Vicomte13 (#24)
So it's really a choice: have social welfare and peace.
#57. To: Deckard (#33)
perhaps 52 percent of U.S. households—more than half—now receive benefits from the government, thanks to President Obama. And Mr. Entitlement is just getting started. If Obamacare is not repealed millions more will join the swelling rolls of those dependent on government handouts.
#58. To: TooConservative (#34)
The Bible says if you don't work you don't eat. Don already proved it to you but you ignore it.
#59. To: sneakypete (#57)
Pope Francis made an unscheduled visit to The Little Sisters of the Poor during his trip to Washington D.C. last week. He indicated his support to the nuns in their battle against a federal requirement to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees.
#60. To: Vicomte13 (#36)
This is a misread.
#61. To: Fred Mertz (#59)
Pope Francis made an unscheduled visit to The Little Sisters of the Poor during his trip to Washington D.C. last week. He indicated his support to the nuns in their battle against a federal requirement to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees.
#62. To: sneakypete (#51)
Life begins when a child takes it's first breath. Prior to that it is a parasite and only a potential life.
#63. To: A Pole (#62)
Life begins when a child takes it's first breath. Prior to that it is a parasite and only a potential life.
#64. To: sneakypete, Vicomte13, TooConservative, SOSO (#58)
Or that people in nursing homes,Pre-Obomber,didn't/don't have insurance to cover their expenses?
#65. To: sneakypete (#63)
#66. To: A Pole, Sneakypete, *Pro-Life* (#65)
#67. To: redleghunter (#64)
So what happens is, for middle income retirees, within 1-3 years all of their savings is zapped, then investments are liquidated and then any land or homes must be sold to pay the skilled nursing facility.
#68. To: sneakypete (#67)
Turn about is fair play. Let their adult children take them in. It's worked this way since the day of the cave man,so there is no reason it won't work today.
#69. To: A K A Stone (#35)
The government stealing money indiscriminately and giving it to losers is not the plan laid out in the Bible by the creator God.
#70. To: Vicomte13 (#46)
And I'm sorry for calling you "Satan" yesterday.
#71. To: A Pole (#60)
#72. To: sneakypete (#55)
Let the churches and other charities deal with them. That's what they get tax-free status for as charities.
#73. To: Vicomte13 (#48)
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, for its part, is as old as the Apostles, as old as any other Church (see the story of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts), and its canon is the longest, containing several books otherwise lost to history.
I see no basis to reject the books of the Ethiopian Canon. After all, the Greek Orthodox and Latin Catholic canons are not identical, but that never divided the Church and provoked a schism.
#74. To: Vicomte13 (#71)
(Edited)
Dogma. Not interested. The text means premature birth.
#75. To: TooConservative (#73)
#76. To: Vicomte13 (#75)
(Edited)
The most compelling reason to embrace the Ethiopic canon is that it contains Enoch. Jude referred directly to Enoch by name, and both Jude and Peter made arguments from it. Jesus quoted Enoch nearly verbatim several times. This book was very much on the minds of the Apostles and Christ himself.
If a book is NECESSARY to understand a Biblical teaching or a major tradition - and Enoch is - that tells me that it's in the Canon. The fact that there are ancient Christian Churches that agree is second corroboration.
#77. To: A Pole (#74)
Where was a dogma in our exchange?
#78. To: TooConservative, Vicomte13 (#73)
As I recall it, the Ethiopian Orthodox differ as much in their creedal disagreement with the other churches that are Orthodox or Catholic.
#79. To: Vicomte13 (#75)
Why should it NOT be canonical? Jesus used it.
#80. To: A Pole (#79)
Canon is not a fetish, it is an inspired collection of key and reliable books. But there are more.
#81. To: A Pole (#78)
#82. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative, GarySpFc (#80)
Yes. And I agree with the Ethiopians that Enoch is a book inspired by God that should be read with the other books.
#83. To: Vicomte13 (#80)
If it is not included, then Jude's letter loses the marrow of its argument.
#84. To: redleghunter (#82)
Are there any Hebrew fragments of Enoch?
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]