Bi-partisan budget deal.

[Thumb]

If asking WWJD? gets you smote, there was a little bracelet trend a few years back just begging for smiting.

I think MC's question is a good one. It pokes at those that profess their Christianity while taking the position of the temple moneychangers whose tables might have been smote depending on your definition. Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's didn't give those guys a free pass to conduct whatever business they liked or grant the tax collectors a noble reputation.

I was also going to ask the all-mighty, all-biblical knowing, KAWDUP, how asking "what would Jesus do" equates to taking his name in vain?

Because I regularly see a ton of cars that are just waiting to get smote if that's the case, plus I know several people we wear WWJD on necklaces, bracelets, etc. Are thay all going to get smote?

Maybe His Holiness the Reverend KAWDUP could explain it to me.

 

[Michchamp]

the thing that was ironic was back in 2009 when Wall Street was taking year-end bonuses (in some cases from the bailout funds their banks received because they were going to collapse) and people complained, the WSJ, GOP, etc. all said they had to be paid those bonuses because contracts were sacrosanct, and must be honored.

when it comes to workers collecting pensions that had been guaranteed by contract? meh. rip em up when you have to.

A retired city employee in Detroit taking home $19,000 per year to live on? jeez! look at Mr. Moneybags there getting fat on the taxpayers' dime!

 

[KAWDUP]

I hate this shit, a false equivalency like there are the same amount of radicals in the democratic party. there isn't a "occupy" candidate challenging incumbent democrats and hijacking the party's agenda.

if there 100 right wing whackos and 2 radical liberals, you say, hey, we both have extremist, right?

Um . . . what the hell are you talking about? You must be thinking of some other argument.

Equivalency of what - posting a picture of idiots, and associating some poster's name with it? . . . because that is what was going on. It had absolutely nothing to do with you or how many right wing or left wing radicals can dance on the head of a pin either.

BTW - if you really want to talk about the stupidity of your response, though, a 50:1 ratio is absurd even on its face. So if I name you 10 left wing radical mouthpieces, you have 500 names you can fire back at me? I call BS. On top of everything else, I don't give a rat's ass what "shit" you hate. If you can't take it, quit sticking your nose in the middle of the argument you obviously have no useful knowledge of.

 

[KAWDUP]

If asking WWJD? gets you smote, there was a little bracelet trend a few years back just begging for smiting.

I think MC's question is a good one. It pokes at those that profess their Christianity while taking the position of the temple moneychangers whose tables might have been smote depending on your definition. Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's didn't give those guys a free pass to conduct whatever business they liked or grant the tax collectors a noble reputation.

. . . um what?

Speaking His name in vain is what deserves the smiting. Why is it in vain you ask? . . . because it really didn't have anything to do with Jesus and what He would have done. What if all the people making the law were Jewish or atheists, would asking that question be more or less meaningful?

The context in which it was asked was a joke to needle me, responded to with a joke or at least something that was tongue and cheek. Are folks questioning my Christianity because I might be happy they did something rather than nothing? That they aren't continuing to divide and gridlock and/or shutdown the government? Really? I am not seeing the connection.

He doesn't give a rats ass what Jesus would have done - he is an atheist.

Are you really saying that this is what happened? "give those guys a free pass to conduct whatever business they liked or grant the tax collectors a noble reputation" Please explain as I truly can't see how this warrants a discussion of anything to do with being Christian - but you can?

 

[KAWDUP]

I was also going to ask the all-mighty, all-biblical knowing, KAWDUP, how asking "what would Jesus do" equates to taking his name in vain?

Because I regularly see a ton of cars that are just waiting to get smote if that's the case, plus I know several people we wear WWJD on necklaces, bracelets, etc. Are thay all going to get smote?

Maybe His Holiness the Reverend KAWDUP could explain it to me.

Wow - are you really saying you don't get it? Smite him for taking his name in vain in that he doesn't give a rat's ass what Jesus would do - he is an atheist. He was joking, poking fun at Jesus and what he would do. It was the action and the person involved - it had nothing to do with a real question - are you really this dense?

It is you who say I am all-biblical knowing. All-mighty might be going a bit far, but I am certainly more knowledgeable than you. I will match my knowledge with yours any time you like bozo.

A serious "what would Jesus do" by a Christian would carry a boat load more weight in this "vain" argument. So yeah, if Red had said it, it would mean something completely different. Champ - not so much.

 

[KAWDUP]

the thing that was ironic was back in 2009 when Wall Street was taking year-end bonuses (in some cases from the bailout funds their banks received because they were going to collapse) and people complained, the WSJ, GOP, etc. all said they had to be paid those bonuses because contracts were sacrosanct, and must be honored.

when it comes to workers collecting pensions that had been guaranteed by contract? meh. rip em up when you have to.

A retired city employee in Detroit taking home $19,000 per year to live on? jeez! look at Mr. Moneybags there getting fat on the taxpayers' dime!

So the pensions were ripped up? Wanna post a link to that one Kemosabi?

 

[Gulo Blue]

. . . um what?

Speaking His name in vain is what deserves the smiting. Why is it in vain you ask? . . . because it really didn't have anything to do with Jesus and what He would have done. What if all the people making the law were Jewish or atheists, would asking that question be more or less meaningful?

The context in which it was asked was a joke to needle me, responded to with a joke or at least something that was tongue and cheek. Are folks questioning my Christianity because I might be happy they did something rather than nothing? That they aren't continuing to divide and gridlock and/or shutdown the government? Really? I am not seeing the connection.

He doesn't give a rats ass what Jesus would have done - he is an atheist.

Are you really saying that this is what happened? "give those guys a free pass to conduct whatever business they liked or grant the tax collectors a noble reputation" Please explain as I truly can't see how this warrants a discussion of anything to do with being Christian - but you can?

I agree that he doesn't give a rat's ass, but I think he's poking fun at certain Christians, not Christ.

 

[Thumb]

Wow - are you really saying you don't get it? Smite him for taking his name in vain in that he doesn't give a rat's ass what Jesus would do - he is an atheist. He was joking, poking fun at Jesus and what he would do. It was the action and the person involved - it had nothing to do with a real question - are you really this dense?

It is you who say I am all-biblical knowing. All-mighty might be going a bit far, but I am certainly more knowledgeable than you. I will match my knowledge with yours any time you like bozo.

A serious "what would Jesus do" by a Christian would carry a boat load more weight in this "vain" argument. So yeah, if Red had said it, it would mean something completely different. Champ - not so much.

He isn't asking himself what Jesus would do...he's asking you, bozo; someone who the question actually applies to. Seems like a pretty legitimate question regardless of his Atheism.

Also, I'm an Atheist, but I don't deny Jesus existed, it''s been well proven he did. I only dispute he's the son of a god that does not exist or that he worked miracles, died for our sins, rose from the dead, etc.

It's no more in vain to wonder what he would do than it would be for me to wonder "what would Mitch do?". I'm copyrighting that phrase btw, I figure I can probably con some old people into buying the decals for the back of their cars.

 

[KAWDUP]

He isn't asking himself what Jesus would do...he's asking you, bozo; someone who the question actually applies to. Seems like a pretty legitimate question regardless of his Atheism.

Also, I'm an Atheist, but I don't deny Jesus existed, it''s been well proven he did. I only dispute he's the son of a god that does not exist or that he worked miracles, died for our sins, rose from the dead, etc.

It's no more in vain to wonder what he would do than it would be for me to wonder "what would Mitch do?". I'm copyrighting that phrase btw, I figure I can probably con some old people into buying the decals for the back of their cars.

Depends on the context and the motivation. Do you really think he wanted to know my opinion of what Jesus would do? If you can look yourself in the mirror, and with a straight face, tell yourself that you believe that was what he was asking, and was truly interested in what I thought Jesus would do, I will back down.

It is a pretty good question regardless of atheism, unless it was meant as bait, as a way to poke fun at, or as a way to belittle someone's religious belief. Are you telling me you believe none of those were true?

(BTW - sorry for the bozo comment - I do believe I am much more of a bozo than you - especially if you saw what I look like as I write this stuff). :*)

 

[KAWDUP]

I agree that he doesn't give a rat's ass, but I think he's poking fun at certain Christians, not Christ.

I agree with you Red - but by using the name of Jesus in his fun poking, that is not taking his name in vain?

Do we need to define that term? I mean we are talking about a venial sin here, not something that would get him damned to hell forever.

. . . and since he doesn't believe in sin at all, why would me saying that he took Jesus' name in vain be such a cause for discussion?

 

[KAWDUP]

You have spoken wisely.

Some may find it ironic that I am a better christian than the christians who post here.

Go in peace.

Here's a picture of KAWDUP's friends saying "Durrrrr... we don need no meat inspections. Why is we paying some fancy gov'ment know-it-all more than cousin Merle makes ridin' mud bikes at the county fair to do a job like that, uh-huh, durrrrr."

I could find you many others where champ lobs the first volley, but this is the better Christian than the Christians posting here? Give me a break.

Champ, from now on your Delta Tau Chi name is Christian - unless you already had dibs on Flounder.

Go in peace.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I agree with you Red - but by using the name of Jesus in his fun poking, that is not taking his name in vain?

Do we need to define that term? I mean we are talking about a venial sin here, not something that would get him damned to hell forever.

. . . and since he doesn't believe in sin at all, why would me saying that he took Jesus' name in vain be such a cause for discussion?

I still don't think he's taking Christ's name in vain. He's not asking a question, it's rhetorical. It's a statement that Christ would side with the poor. Nothing wrong there. The poking fun part stems from the irony of an atheist telling a Christian to be like Christ. I'm sure there's a definition for the phrase "name in vain" so broad you can catch most uses, but by the common understanding of the phrase, this doesn't qualify. The slight is to people "Christian" (his Delta Tau Chi name) perceives as siding against the poor.

 

[KAWDUP]

I still don't think he's taking Christ's name in vain. He's not asking a question, it's rhetorical. It's a statement that Christ would side with the poor. Nothing wrong there. The poking fun part stems from the irony of an atheist telling a Christian to be like Christ. I'm sure there's a definition for the phrase "name in vain" so broad you can catch most uses, but by the common understanding of the phrase, this doesn't qualify. The slight is to people "Christian" (his Delta Tau Chi name) perceives as siding against the poor.

No broad definition needed at all.

" to use the name of someone, esp God, without due respect or reverence"

So while we may be able to debate whether his transgression rises to this level, I think it is not me who is the ultimate judge of that. I don't know what was in his heart. My opinion is that it does. You are free to differ, but my opinion is also that it is more than just the irony - disrespect was intended.

. . . but Christian can come post here and tell me I am wrong. Whether anyone here believes it or not, I believe him to honest (when he isn't spouting off - adding his own editorial), and I will believe what he says in this regard.

 

[Michchamp]

No broad definition needed at all.

" to use the name of someone, esp God, without due respect or reverence"

So while we may be able to debate whether his transgression rises to this level, I think it is not me who is the ultimate judge of that. I don't know what was in his heart. My opinion is that it does. You are free to differ, but my opinion is also that it is more than just the irony - disrespect was intended.

. . . but Christian can come post here and tell me I am wrong. Whether anyone here believes it or not, I believe him to honest (when he isn't spouting off - adding his own editorial), and I will believe what he says in this regard.

:hmm:

 

[Michchamp]

am glad I am not a christian. it would suck to have your thought process so wrapped up in your religious identity that you can't move past a simple, obvious rhetorical jab "what would jesus do?" without getting bogged down in an entire swamp of semantics over whether that rhetorical jab is blasphemous or not.

regardless of whether it is blasphemous or not according to the church's definition of semantics... it doesn't matter.

 

[KAWDUP]

am glad I am not a christian. it would suck to have your thought process so wrapped up in your religious identity that you can't move past a simple, obvious rhetorical jab "what would jesus do?" without getting bogged down in an entire swamp of semantics over whether that rhetorical jab is blasphemous or not.

regardless of whether it is blasphemous or not according to the church's definition of semantics... it doesn't matter.

I agree entirely. My smiting comment was just a jab back at ya. I didn't intend any malice. It was not I who decided to question its usage. I will however defend if questioned.

to others:
Notice that, up until and including now, Christian never says whether any disrespect was intended or not, just that it doesn't matter.

 

[KAWDUP]

:hmm:

:shrug:

 

[Michchamp]

okay. well, you said "man's free will would rule" in response to the jab, but that really doesn't answer the question of what Jesus would do.

Probably because the answer is "Jesus would not do what the GOP wants to do, at least if you actually read what he says, and while I claim to live my life according to the teachings of Christ, I support the political party that is wholly in favor or screwing the poor, and blames them entirely for their lot in life. It's good to be me."

 

[KAWDUP]

okay. well, you said "man's free will would rule" in response to the jab, but that really doesn't answer the question of what Jesus would do.

Probably because the answer is "Jesus would not do what the GOP wants to do, at least if you actually read what he says, and while I claim to live my life according to the teachings of Christ, I support the political party that is wholly in favor or screwing the poor, and blames them entirely for their lot in life. It's good to be me."

So I blame the poor for my lot in life? Never knew. Fail.

Packed with typical champ stereotypes. To me (and only to me I am sure), it just looks like you are just digging bigger holes.

What would Jesus do seems to imply that God/Jesus would intervene in any way at all. He probably would not, and that is where the free will comment comes in. We are free to screw over the poor, screw over the rich, vote for idiots, and generally make asses of ourselves - that is free will.

Maybe that wasn't clear?

 

[Michchamp]

No, and after reading your post, it's still not.