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: 41061
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
#1. To: Rufus T Firefly (#0)
The left has to be fought totally or not at all. Well, if that's the agenda, then you cannot win as the right. Pro-life is a moral necessity. Right now there is no pro-life party either. Life begins at conception. Anything that says otherwise is a lie. That means that there cannot be a RAPE EXCEPTION. To abort the baby born of rape is to commit premeditated murder. That's just a fact, and there can be no compromise on it. Now, if you take that correct and true stance, you have to abandon fiscal conservatism, and here is why: 2 million babies, 75-80% of them poor, are aborted in America every year. Rape accounts for practically none of them. Good old red-blooded recreational sex is the cause. And you cannot legislate against THAT or make it stop. People are gonna do it, sin or not, and contraception is gonna fail. Right now, it fails (or is ignored) about 2 million times every year, and about 1.6 million of those times, the baby that is conceived is conceived in the womb of a woman who will most certainly need social welfare to raise that child. So, if we do the right thing on abortion, we will increase the social welfare state by 1.6 million souls per year, year after years. The school systems will have to get bigger, the housing projects will have to get bigger. You have a choice: be pro-life, and accept a LARGER social welfare state, or be pro-choice (which is to say, a murderer) and keep costs down. The choice that does not exist is the make-believe of the right: no abortion AND smaller social expenditures. That is ABSURD. it's ridiculous. It's physically IMPOSSIBLE. And it will never happen. Pro-business is fine, BUT AGAIN if you are pro-life, that MEANS a LARGER social welfare state, so UNLESS you CUT SOMETHING ELSE (namely, the military) you are going to have to increase taxes. And that's not business friendly. A large military and military intervention plus pro-life plus lower expenditures is fantasy land stuff. It is impossible. Which brings is to the "pro-Israel" part. 50% of our foreign aid budget goes to Israel. Why, exactly, is it in the US national interest to pour such money into a white colony in the Middle East? How is that in any way in AMERICAN national interest? It certainly isn't CHRISTIAN. Jesus doomed ancient Israel and God destroyed it for good. This thing that calls itself "Israel" is a white European ethnic enclave carved out of Arab land because of white guilt over what happened to the Jews in World War II. It would have made a great deal more sense to give the Jews Bavaria and deport all of the Germans from that province, expropriating everything as punishment, and then requiring every European state that shipped Jews to the camps to provide financial aid for a generation. That would have been justice. Creating a European colony in the Middle East that has to be propped up forever by American taxpayers and American armies is ridiculous, and it is ridiculous that Americans permit it. If you're going to be pro-life and stop abortion, you cannot pay for the large expansion of social welfare that will be required and ALSO maintain a world military empire with half of the foreign aid budget going to Israel. if you're going to be pro-life, you are going to have to cut off Israel. The article concludes that the Left has to be fought totally, or not at all. The problem is that if you're going to be pro-life, you cannot simultaneously be fiscally conservative. Pro-life is by its nature socially conservative. And if you are going to take the proper stance on life, that means that you have to start formally teaching sexual morality. So, you have to be socially conservative or you will break the bank. But that will not be enough, because you cannot impose harsh punishment for sexual liberty - the nation will never allow it. Which means that pro-life inevitably leads to a permanent expansion of the social welfare state. To be socially conservative, if pro-life is to be included in that, you have to be fiscally liberal when it comes to the social welfare state - because all of those babies have to eat - and even then the military empire cannot be sustained with a full-on pro-life agenda. For American babies to live, the American empire, and huge American aid to Israel, has to die. Socially conservative, fiscally liberal, and pacificistic is the only thing that will actually WORK, if pro- life is part of the socially conservative aspect. And if pro-life is not part of social conservatism, then that form of social conservatism is an evil sham that should lose anyway. These are hard truths. American conservatives have to face them.
You simply cut off the welfare payments and allow parents to live or die on their own. Be ready to open orphanages, and allow for easy adoption. The only way to stop the scourge of out of wedlock sex and pregnancy is to allow the people that engage and become pg to fail miserably and openly. If society or government can't do that there is no hope but failure of the entire country at once, then we all can starve equally.
It started way before WWII and the Holocost. In the eighteen hundreds Hertzl began a movement of Jews back to their homeland. Sometime in the twenties, the Jews who comprised 15% of the population as immigrants declared the Arabs a minority and got away with it. Certainly, sympathy with the Jewish people after WWII played a further part in it.
Casual free catch as catch can sex is killing this country. Half the magazines and the movies are bannering it as if it has no consequences other than a good time. There are consequences and they are not pleasant. Some years ago, President Reagan asked, "Whatever became of the word no" regarding the issue.
Wait a minute, do you want a population that KNOWS FROM EXPERIENCE that honesty and hard work makes them prosperous, or BELIEVES it because Rush and Koch brothers are prosperous and are generous enough to share their comfort through the media? New Deal was offering people the first the Rushes and Kochs offer people mind numbing propaganda and semi-slave status. It boils down to the share in economic pie, the rich over the centuries wanted others to do work for them for free. Then oops, democracy and socialism came. Horrible! Now the question is how to disempower unwashed masses, to terrorize them with police state or to brainwash them into zombie state? Probably you need both. Forget Obama. When hating and despising Palestinians became a requirement for a "conservative". Did a word "conservative" became a synonym for a psychopath? (Understand me well, I do not denythea right for Israeli Jews to fight for their interests, or same right to the Palestinian Arabs, but why should others to be dragged in their family quarrel and take side in a vicious way?)
Yes. If it becomes hard enough to live and procreate, then the dumber, poorer masses will die out. Smart professionals and independently rich will be left alone to enjoy themselves in the Galt's Gulch:
I agree. That train left the station a couple of decades ago. Here's a refresher: THE RISE AND FALL OF GREAT CIVILIZATIONS From Apathy to Dependence to Slavery 1. From bondage to spiritual faith, There's room to quibble, but I'd say we're at "7", entering into "8". "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD . . . " ~Psalm 33:12a
ping to 7
"Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD . . . " ~Psalm 33:12a
f society or government can't do that there is no hope but failure of the entire country at once, then we all can starve equally. That is socially conservative and fiscally conservative, but it's not Christian. Yes, there IS a way for us to sustain our free society and not have abortion, and not starve - and not bankrupt ourselves - You have to give up the military empire, stop pouring money into Israel, expand the social welfare state, and teach Christian (or Jewish, or Muslim or Hindu for that matter - they don't differ on this point) sexual morality in the public schools. Just as education alone cut down the American smoking rate from about 75% to about 25%, you can cut the unaborted poor birth rate down from 1.6 million per year to perhaps 500,000 per year. But you're not going to get below that. If you're going to maintain the military empire and pour American treasure into Israel, you're not going to be able to maintain the budget no matter what you do. Fiscal conservatism must of necessity mean giving up on the idea of empire.
If the Jews want to go to Israel, that's their individual choice. If they have to fight for it, that's their business. AMERICA should not be in the business of maintaining a Middle Eastern military empire and pouring half of a huge foreign aid budget into a white European Jewish colony in the Middle East. It is not our affair, and if we're going to talk about "fiscal conservatism" seriously, then we need to get out of the business of empire, and get out of the business of funding other people's colonies. Otherwise what we end up getting from conservatives is "fund Israel, starve the American poor" - and that is a prescription for irrelevancy, because there is no set of political circumstances under which the right is going to starve the American poor. If the Right wants to cut American expenses, the place those cuts MUST come is military and foreign aid. We do not need an empire, we don't win these wars anyway. And over half of our foreign aid goes to Israel, so cutting foreign aid MOSTLY means cut off money to Israel, speaking realistically. THAT is where you find the money to balance the budget. "Let the poor starve" is not Christian, and it isn't going to happen. When conservatives talk like that, they just ensure that they will dwindle politically. It may make them feel good, but it simply reveals their evil, and most people pull back from that and say "No". If the Right won't be RESPONSIBLE, then it won't rule. "Starve the poor" is not responsible. It's evil. And it's never, ever, ever going to happen. Not ever. Right wing people need to grow up and stop even fantasizing about it, because that fantasy MEANS permanent defeat, and deserves to be defeated.
In other words,"VOTE THE PARTY TICKET OR DEM EBIL DIMS WILL WIN!" Several hundred words that boil down to the above because "winning is everything!" Which is pure BullBush. The alleged Republican Party is so corrupt that there is no actual difference between them and their globalist Dim pals and business partners. Which means if we want any REAL change back towards actual conservatism,they need to continue to lose until they are replaced by an actual opposition party. Or,to sum it up in this Jewish pro-Israel Neo Cons mindset,"losing is everything." ANY political party that starts out an election season with a piece of shit like JEB as the party favorite is a loser by definition,and needs to be replaced. 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)
Bullshit! Nothing but pure religious dogma by an Stalinist organization that seeks nothing less than world-wide domination. 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)
WRONG! Your dogmatic religious biases are showing. Who has sex with who other than minors and retards is of NO LEGITIMATE concern to the government. Yes,adoption is an option,but there is no real reason for the taxpayers to foot the bill for any children born as a result. If people aren't willing or able to provide for their children,they should use birth control and not have children. Any children they have anyhow as a result of religious superstitions or other irresponsible actions should be taken care of financially by the various churches. That's what they get tax-free charity status for,so let them put their money where their mouths are,instead of using the money for empire building. The FACT is that a lot of these children would not be conceived or born if they didn't provide a minimum of 18 years of life on the government gravy train for their parents. No kid= no "part-mint ob my own",no welfare check,no food stamps,no utilities subsidies,no free health care,no free anything. THAT is why so many so-called "fatherless" babies are born,and the prime reason more babies aren't born into white middle-class working families. They are paying out so much in taxes to pay the living expenses for the professional welfare class they can't afford to have more babies themselves. 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)
That is a self-identifying phrase for neo-cons. Anyone that utters and believes it is NOT a conservative. 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)
Is that right,comrade? There is no chance they will wise up and have fewer children? I know your mind is stuck in 1920,but this ain't then. Manual labor doesn't dominate,and poor people don't need huge families in order to provide a labor base to feed and provide for the family. Any poor people today that marry or otherwise get together to form their own family would benefit from having FEWER children to provide for IF YOU TAKE AWAY THE GOVERNMENT CRUTCH OF SOCIALISM. Any that are too stupid to understand that need to die out. 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)
The Socialists and Marxists who have taken over the democrat party certainly understand that. That's why they allow no dissent in their ranks. In practical governing terms there IS no difference between the parties. In addition to that, these truths should be self-evident 1. Events suggest that movers and shakers in the R party really don't care if they win. As long as they get their piece of the pie. 2. The R party is not a "conservative" party 3. There is no "opposition" party (unless you mean opposed to the people) Take a chill pill, 'pete. "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD . . . " ~Psalm 33:12a
Bullshit! Nothing but pure religious dogma 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. Dogmatically this question is tricky. I can speak from the Orthodox perspective; Fathers of the Church had different opinion, some of them thought that ensoulment happens in moment of conception, others at 40 days after,others at the moment of quickening (first independent movements), others when body is perfectly formed, etc ... But in order to avoid possible homicide Orthodox Church assumes the earliest moment of conception, to err on the side of caution. Personally I tend to think that soul finds its fleshly home in the nervous system, so when nervous system appears and shows any activity before neuronal - when glial cells start to function as a network. (BTW, I suspect that glial cells are seat of consciousness/psyche as neurons are more like fast computer circuits under glial control. Still it is only my uncertain opinion so I would support most cautious assumption - moment of conception.
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. Way to go. I meant 2.1 kids per family. See:
Nothing but pure religious dogma by an Stalinist organization that seeks nothing less than world-wide domination. 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. Thus far, the forces of evil have prevailed. IF the forces of good ever prevail and end abortion, we have to be prepared for a much larger social welfare state, with much larger permanent outlays, because we are going to have a lot more babies to raise and educate. That's the way it is. There are two ways to deal with the wave of children that inevitably flow from the poor having sex: (1) kill them. This is the liberal left wing solution: abortion. (2) pay for them. This means heavy social expenditure and the taxes to support it. That is what I support, not because I WANT heavy taxes and social expenditures, but because it is inevitable. The third option, what I WANT, is not on the cards: (3) Everybody adopts Christian morality, avoids sex out of wedlock, studies hard, does his duty, and has the means to support the children he has with his one wife, whom he has married for life. Social welfare isn't necessary because the only poor people are the unlucky, and they can be provided for through the charitable efforts of the Church. That's the RIGHT answer, but it requires a universal Christianity that is not on the cards now - the hypocrisy of Christians over the ages saw to that. Your solution is (1) Abort them. And by denying their humanity you make that easier. My solution is (2) Social Welfare. Because they're human beings, I know it, and if we will not discipline and Christianize the population, then we will have to pay for the babies that result.
Many will, but not all. Which means that there will be destitute children. So what do we do about them? The problem cannot be evaded by wishing it away.
Then why are there other races of people that are breeding like rabbits that live in countries that don't have massive social welfare programs? And most of them don't even have jobs to speak of... To me, God is clear in Scripture. Go back to Genesis and take a good, perceptive look at the description of lives. This works in Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, and English - it isn't an artifact of language, it's what the text says. It refers to the lives of each of the patriarchs, the lengths of those lives, and then describes the beginning of each life. And the WAY it does, is, e.g.: "Noah begat Ham", or "Enoch begat Methuselah". Begat. The lives are each measured by the FATHERLY principle of reproduction, not birth from the mother, but begetting by the Father. And that only occurs once, at the very beginning, with intercourse and fertilization. The father's begetting is punctiliar - he BEGETS a child when the sperm fertilizes the egg. And every life in Genesis is measured from THEN, not birth. Scripturally, life begins at conception.
It is not so simple. That is why Fathers of the Church who DID consult the Holy Scriptures had differing opinions. But as I said in PRACTICE id do agree with you, so the practical question is moot. One scriptural example: "And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born [miscarried] imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman's husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life" (LXX).
There are three such places: India, Africa and Latin America. In Latin America, there ARE massive social welfare programs, and people do not starve, and most of the poor - are marginally literate. America offers them opportunity, a better life, not life itself. In India their religion opposes social welfare. They pick up cartfulls of the dead off the streets every morning. In Africa, where they don't have social welfare programs either, they just leave them to rot. We already know what happens when there is a large poor population without social welfare. Starvation. And revolution. That's the other piece. Large, desperate populations rebel. And when that happens, the rich and upper middle class start dying at a rapid rate. Bottom line: be cruel to the poor, and you accumulate wealth, which you don't get to keep in the end either way. So it's really a choice: have social welfare and peace. Or ignore the plight of the poor and periodically have the better classes of folks hanging on meathooks. Peace is better.
It is that simple. The Fathers of the Church who saw it in its clear simplicity were the ones who were right on that issue.
You are a lawyer. Could you analyze expertly the Leviticus quote I provided?
Kind of how the Irish, Italian et. al. did it in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Sounds like they have no clue as to what causes them and their children to starve. Maybe "education" would be a better way of dealing with the problem, instead of just throwing money at it which doesn't solve the problem either. BTA if that happened some "self proclaimed highly educated" people would be exposed as the buffoons they really are!!! I guarantee the later is going to happen again, it always does man never learns from his history... Education and jobs is what most people want not handouts!!! You pervert the Bible. The Bible says if you don't work you don't eat. Don already proved it to you but you ignore it. Also there is no pope in the Bible. He is a false leader. A piece of shit. Your left wing ideology is the opposite of what Christ taught.
above
We are at 8.
"For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
From dependency back again to bondage." There's room to quibble, but I'd say we're at "7", entering into "8". I'd say we are way past that point and in the late stages of number 8. We've Crossed The Tipping Point; Most Americans Now Receive Government Benefits ...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. Conservatives have long dreaded the day when the U.S. crossed the halfway mark because of all the implications for individual and fiscal responsibility. As Benjamin Franklin reportedly said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” They learned that from the 2008 election and turned out in big numbers again in 2012. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much You want to apply that to the retirees, including people in nursing homes? How about children? Should they all work too if they want to eat? I'm just curious how broadly you want to apply the work-to-eat principle and where your exemptions begin.
God created the family for a reason. To take care of each other. He created the church for a reason too. Part of that was to help people. The government stealing money indiscriminately and giving it to losers is not the plan laid out in the Bible by the creator God. It is the parents job to take care of their kids. The kids are supposed to help their parents when they get old. When Joseph ruled Egypt he showed that there is a role for government in helping people. We just subsidize losers with money from people who need the noney also.
This is a misread. What it says is this (literally): and-given-that they(masculine)-will-be-struggle man-s and-they-did-smite woman pregnant and-they-did-go-out boys-her and-not he-will-exist harm fine he-will- be-fine like-which he-will-set-down upon-him master the-woman and-he-did-give in-judge-s and-if harm he-will-exist and-you(masculine singular) did-give being under being eye under eye tooth under tooth hand under hand foot under foot singeing under singeing bruise under bruise striped-bruise under striped bruise This is hard to read, but here is what the parts say in English: and-given-that = when man-s = plural man = men, which agrees with the gender and number of the preceding verb "they-will-be-struggle". This verb is an imperfect. In Greek and English verbs are related to time: past, present, future. Not in ancient Hebrew. In ancient Hebrew, an action is either completed or incomplete. Here, a hypothetical is being discussed: "given that men struggle, when they do...", so this is in the imperfect tense, meaning "whenever they do, now or in the future". "and they did smite" is a verb in the perfect tense, because in the instance being considered, the hypothetical future action of a fight, is accompanied by a completed striking, not a hypothetical striking. "You COULD HAVE hurt her" is not the basis of the judgment. An actual striking is required. Who was smitten? "Woman pregnant". A pregnant woman. Now, this is the KEY misinterpretation. It is important to understand. The next two words are a perfect verb "and-they-did-go-out", and a noun "boys- her" (the unborn baby is given in the masculine plural; in ancient Hebrew when referring to people, a masculine or feminine must be used - babies are not an "it" - and when the gender is unknown, the language reverts to the masculine. The misunderstanding lies in translating that verb "veyatsu" - they-went-out - as "miscarriage". It does not mean miscarriage. Miscarriage in English means that an unborn baby DIES. Veyatsu does not mean miscarriage, it means premature birth, whether dead OR ALIVE. To be clear, in English, a premature birth means that the baby is born alive, a stillbirth means that a baby is born dead, and a miscarriage means that a baby dies in the womb. But in ancient Hebrew, "ve'yatsu" means unexpected delivery. It does NOT tell you that the baby that came out is dead or alive - it DOES NOT MEAN "miscarry" or "stillbirth" - it means to unexpectedly (prematurely) give birth. So, with THAT realization firmly in hand, what Exodus 21:22-25 are saying is much more straightforward: "If men struggle, and they hit a pregnant woman, and she delivers her babies (as a result), if there is no harm (to the babies or to her - if the babies are born ok), he will be fined by the husband [provoking a premature birth is itself worthy of a fine], but if the babies or the mother are harmed, then the harmer will give life for life (if the mother or the babies die), eye for eye, etc." That is what it actually says. If you hit a pregnant woman and her baby dies, you are put to death. If you hit her and either she or the baby is injured, you pay in kind. If you hit her and the baby comes out ok and she is not otherwise harmed, you still have to pay a fine, and her husband decides how much. And that fits hand in glove with life beginning at begetting. The Scriptures are not all ambiguous. The translation of Scripture has inserted an ambiguity that is not really there. Hope that clears things up.
The government taking a mandatory 10% tithe annually specifically for poverty relief and for maintenance of the administrators collecting and dispensing the tithe is THE key tax structure God set up for the Kingdom he ruled. God did not simply call upon men for private charity. The specific express purpose of the taxes collected by the Levites was poverty assistance and feeding the Levites doing it. One cannot argue that God did not establish government poverty relief. God established a tax system primarily FOR poverty relief. There was no roadbuilding or military purpose in the tithe. It was to feed the poor, and feed the clergy feeding the poor. The other taxes were smaller, and were to maintain the tabernacle/temple, and to feed the priests.
He created the church for a reason too. Part of that was to help people. The scripture you cited doesn't make those exceptions. It says work-to-eat. Period. Obviously, you want to enforce the work-to-eat principle but only when it suits you.
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. That is the very specific and narrow circumstance about which Paul was writing. 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. I provided you over the weekend an EXHAUSTIVE review of the words rich and poor in the entire Scripture, demonstrating the extent to which God was sympathetic to the poor, EVEN the poor whose fault it was they were in poverty, and critical or outright hostile to the rich. You ignored that, and pretend that Don proved something, with one line of Paul. You are twisting Scripture to your own destruction, my friend. You hate the poor, and that is a sin, and you should discipline your mouth and stop doing that, because you are defying 500 passages of God every time you do that, because of a misinterpretation of one line of Paul. Paul is not God. God is God. And in that PARTICULAR circumstance to which Paul was referring, Paul was right, of course. But you are generalizing it and pretending there is a commandment "If you don't work you don't eat." Not only is that not a commandment, it is a perversion of God's commandments. You are floundering into a death pit, and you should stop it now for your own good. As far as the Pope goes, and the Catholic Church, they are irrelevant to this discussion. The analysis I gave you this weekend - the exhaustive one - EVERY use of rich and poor in the Bible, no room to claim "You took it out of context" or any of the other weasely ways that men in deep error, like you, use to worm out of God's commandments regarding money. YOU and Don are the ones taking words - not even words of God - out of context, to your own destruction. I do not have a Left Wing ideology. I am teaching you what Christ taught, directly, using Christ's and YHWH's own words. I am Christ's agent here, you are speaking for Satan, and you're as belligerent about it as those in error always are. Now go read what I sent you over the weekend, and realize how deeply in error you are, and repent, and stop calling Christ and YHWH a liar. I am not "left wing" unless God and Christ were left wing. POVERTY RELIEF THROUGH TAXATION, AND PERSONAL ALMS, ARE BOTH COMMANDMENTS. You cannot evade them. And you should stop TRYING to evade them. Accept your duty under God's yoke, and figure out how to make things better. Expressing hatred and contempt for the poor are not making things better, and they are heaping coals of fire on your own head, blindly and stupidly. Stop it. For you own good.
What it says is this (literally): Well done. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Comments (41 - 199) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestYou 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.
#2. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
#3. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
This thing that calls itself "Israel" is a white European ethnic enclave carved out of Arab land because of white guilt over what happened to the Jews in World War II.
#4. To: jeremiad (#2)
#5. To: Rufus T Firefly, Willie Green, Vicomte13, TooConservative, sneakypete, tpaine, Pericles (#0)
Fiscal conservatism requires a self-reliant population that believes in the value of honesty and hard work.
You can't be pro-Israel and pro-Obama
#6. To: jeremiad (#2)
(Edited)
The only way to stop the scourge of out of wedlock sex and pregnancy is to allow the people that engage and become pg to fail miserably and openly.
#7. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
(Edited)
. . . then you cannot win as the right.
2. From spiritual faith to great courage,
3. From courage to liberty,
4. From liberty to abundance,
5. From abundance to selfishness,
6. From selfishness to complacency,
7. From complacency to apathy,
8. From apathy to dependency,
From dependency back again to bondage."
#8. To: A Pole, rlk, jeremiad, (#7)
#9. To: jeremiad (#2)
You simply cut off the welfare payments and allow parents to live or die on their own.
#10. To: rlk (#3)
It started way before WWII and the Holocost. In the eighteen hundreds Hertzl began a movement of Jews back to their homeland. Sometime in the twenties, the Jews who comprised 15% of the population as immigrants declared the Arabs a minority and got away with it. Certainly, sympathy with the Jewish people after WWII played a further part in it.
#11. To: Rufus T Firefly (#0)
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
Life begins at conception. Anything that says otherwise is a lie.
#13. To: jeremiad (#2)
The only way to stop the scourge of out of wedlock sex and pregnancy is to allow the people that engage and become pg to fail miserably and openly.
#14. To: A Pole (#5)
You can't be pro-Israel and pro-Obama
#15. To: A Pole (#6)
Yes. If it becomes hard enough to live and procreate, then the dumber, poorer masses will die out.
#16. To: sneakypete (#11)
"winning is everything!"
#17. To: sneakypete, Vicomte13 (#12)
"Life begins at conception. Anything that says otherwise is a lie."
#18. To: sneakypete (#15)
(Edited)
There is no chance they will wise up and have fewer children?
poor people don't need huge families
#19. To: sneakypete (#12)
Bullshit!
#20. To: sneakypete (#15)
There is no chance they will wise up and have fewer children?
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
Which means that pro-life inevitably leads to a permanent expansion of the social welfare state.
#22. To: A Pole (#17)
But in order to avoid possible homicide Orthodox Church assumes the earliest moment of conception, to err on the side of caution.
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#22)
To me, God is clear in Scripture.
#24. To: CZ82 (#21)
Then why are there other races of people that are breeding like rabbits that live in countries that don't have massive social welfare programs? And most of them don't even have jobs to speak of...
#25. To: A Pole (#23)
It is not so simple. That is why Fathers of the Church who DID consult the Holy Scriptures had differing opinions.
#26. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
It is that simple. The Fathers of the Church who saw it in its clear simplicity were the ones who were right on that issue.
#27. To: Rufus T Firefly, Vicomte13, TooConservative, liberator (#0)
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.
#28. To: Vicomte13 (#24)
(Edited)
We already know what happens when there is a large poor population without social welfare. Starvation.
#29. To: Vicomte13 (#24)
So it's really a choice: have social welfare and peace. Or ignore the plight of the poor and periodically have the better classes of folks hanging on meathooks.
#30. To: Vicomte13 (#22)
#31. To: Don (#30)
#32. To: Rufus T Firefly (#7)
#33. To: Rufus T Firefly (#7)
8. From apathy to dependency,
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#34. To: A K A Stone (#30)
The Bible says if you don't work you don't eat. Don already proved it to you but you ignore it.
#35. To: TooConservative (#34)
#36. To: A Pole (#23)
"And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born [miscarried] imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman's husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life" (LXX).
#37. 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.
#38. To: A K A Stone (#35)
God created the family for a reason. To take care of each other.
#39. To: A K A Stone (#30)
The Bible says if you don't work you don't eat. Don already proved it to you but you ignore it.
#40. To: Vicomte13, GarySpFc (#36)
This is a misread.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]