Elon Musk: Mass Murderer

[ajax18]

I believe in a Jesus that respects agency and allows the laborer to decide where to draw the line on how much to use for himself and how much to give away.

Jesus respects agency? Did you mean to say that Jesus gives agency and judges accordingly as represented in the scripture I posted regarding the least of these? I mean he demonstrates that principle directly in that passage, right?

Well your actions in choosing to have an abortion result in the death of other other human beings. Does the Jesus you believe in respect your right to determine when life begins or when abortion is acceptable? Jesus also said in His sermon on the Mount, "Give to him that asketh of thee, and of him that would borrow of thee turn thou not away?" Did someone ever ask you for something and you declined to give it to them Jersey Girl? If so, how do you think you're going to avoid being cast into everlasting fire and brimstone for doing so?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Jesus respects agency? Did you mean to say that Jesus gives agency and judges accordingly as represented in the scripture I posted regarding the least of these? I mean he demonstrates that principle directly in that passage, right?

Well your actions in choosing to have an abortion result in the death of other other human beings. Does the Jesus you believe in respect your right to determine when life begins or when abortion is acceptable? Jesus also said in His sermon on the Mount, "Give to him that asketh of thee, and of him that would borrow of thee turn thou not away?" Did someone ever ask you for something and you declined to give it to them Jersey Girl? If so, how do you think you're going to avoid being cast into everlasting fire and brimstone for doing so?

Oh, Mr. “Combat by Blood” all of a sudden cares about life. The God of the Bible presides over a world soaked in blood- wars, plagues, floods- death and blood is His lust. He loves death. He demanded the sacrifice of first-borns, blessed the killing of infants in countless stories, and struck people down by the thousands when it pleased Him.

Meanwhile, for every human who’s lived and DIED (dozens of billions of DEATHS), countless more were “aborted” naturally- an estimated 50-80% of all fertilized eggs fail to implant or are miscarried without a woman even realizing it. That’s not a policy choice; it’s how human biology works under God’s supposed “design.” He’s a God of Blood and Death.

And for all your pious posturing, damned Ajax, your own Bible prescribes abortion when it suits Him. Look it up. Numbers 5:11–31- a priest is supposed to make a woman drink “bitter water” to see if she’s been unfaithful. If it destroys her ability to bear children, well, that’s God’s judgment. So much for your “absolute view” on when life begins. Even the Jews didn’t give a crap about the sAnCtItY oF LiFe, what with abortions and genocides waged with their God’s blood-soaked blessings.

So please, spare us your the holier-than-thou act. The God you worship isn’t nearly as obsessed with “protecting life” as you pretend. He’s a deity who presides over death- He created it and sometimes orders it Himself. He IS Death.

- Doc

[ajax18]

I believe in a Jesus that respects agency and allows the laborer to decide where to draw the line on how much to use for himself and how much to give away.

Jesus respects agency? Did you mean to say that Jesus gives agency and judges accordingly as represented in the scripture I posted regarding the least of these? I mean he demonstrates that principle directly in that passage, right?

Yes, we'll all be judged. That's why I said it's between each individual and God alone because only God has the knowledge necessary to make a judgment like that. I don't even believe the prophet will be able to make judgments like that, much less Bernie Sanders or Kishkumen. It's really not that much different than what you mean when you say, "My body my choice." I say, "My labor, my choice."

If you're to take the scriptures completely literally and leave no room for common sense and exceptions, consider the verse where Jesus says in the sermon on the mount, "Give to him that asketh of thee and to him that would borrow of thee turn thou not away." That means anyone who has ever turned down a beggar or for that matter has any private property left at all is destined for eternal hellfire.

[Chap]

If you're to take the scriptures completely literally and leave no room for common sense and exceptions, [...]

Here we come to it. The words of Jesus are only to be followed if they do not conflict with common sense. And on top of that, there can be "exceptions" if doing what he says may lead to inconvenience or risk ... Just the way Jesus led his earthly life. Not.

That's how you get Christianity as practised by many people who are doing fairly well in the world, but like to have a bit of religion around for comfort, reassurance, and respectability. It never makes them do anything that makes them feel uncomfortable, but the glorious thing is that one can always cite scripture when someone acts in ways you dislike and you need to slap them down. Those people don't get any 'exceptions' made for them, natch.

[Edited once for typo]

[Some Schmo]

If you're to take the scriptures completely literally and leave no room for common sense and exceptions, [...]

Here we come to it. The words of Jesus are only to be followed if they do not conflict with common sense. And on top of that, there can be "exceptions" if doing what he says may lead to inconvenience or risk ... Just the way Jesus led his earthly life. Not.

Just one more in a countless list of examples of people making up their religion to suit their own personal opinions and desires.

Any comment that includes the tacit (or explicit) assertion "this is what god wants" can immediately be dismissed as BS and the speaker should be deemed untrustworthy.

[canpakes]

Ajax, take a moment’s break from ranting at other taxpayers for not ranting about paying taxes, and tell me how you interpret Jersey Girl’s posted passage. I know that your interpretation usually amounts to charity solely being an ‘if I want to’ thing, but are there any exceptions as you see it?

Let's use this as an example. Sadly this is not a hypothetical. A leftist borrows as much money and maxes out as many credit cards as possible. She then proceeds to go to Russia and eastern Europe and give the money away to whoever she deems worthy of it. Then unfortunately she's permitted to reenter the US and file for bankruptcy. 7 years later, she'll probably do it all over again. Is this an example of what Jesus was teaching? It's exactly what we're doing here in the US. We're $37 trillion in debt and inasmuch as people figure out that we never can nor will pay it back, it will lead to an economic collapse. Why are we giving away money at all when we can't even stop running a deficit let alone begin to pay down this debt? It's not our money to give. But you do have money that is yours to give and if every leftist did give away what you're asking everyone else to give away, would this not be plenty of money for a drop in the bucket like USAID? Given that leftists are such great followers of the teachings of Jesus, why hasn't this just happened on its own unaided by the heavy hand of communism?

I believe in a Jesus that respects agency and allows the laborer to decide where to draw the line on how much to use for himself and how much to give away. At some point we'll be held accountable to the Lord for this. But no, I don't believe that I should be held accountable to Bernie Sanders. I don't believe in other people determining how much money I'm required to give away. That's between me and the God that you don't even believe in. And while I've been forced to respect democracy that has unconstitutionally ceased to respect private property, in this case democracy has said enough is enough, we're not choosing to pay for USAID anymore, and it is you who will not respect democracy and the rule of law!

Here's a simple way to put that perhaps a liberal might understand. Have you ever heard the saying, "My body, my choice." Well this is my saying and I walk into gunfire to defend it. "MY LABOR, MY CHOICE!"

This is interesting. I don’t see that you’ve interpreted that passage specifically as opposed to presenting your general philosophy on charity vs. taxation, but I appreciate that you responded to the question.

I do think that you’ve got a kind of ‘reverse Pascal’s Wager’ thing going on, there.

[Kishkumen]

I find these ludicrous outlier cases ajax18 trots out regularly to justify his politics completely silly. These are Reagan "welfare mother" stories. Any one of us can come up with tales of exploitative personalities doing dumb crap. Outliers do not have a big impact on the overall facts, and they are really just rhetorical weapons to get people emotionally stirred up. They work on people who are impatient, rush to judgment, unable to understand statistics, and engaging in motivated reasoning.

Still, I am opening to any information ajax18 can pass along regarding this person he is referring to. I notice that he CLAIMS that this person is real, and maybe he is just too lazy to provide the information, but factual claims should come with at least a bit of confirming evidence. I don't see any here, and I notice this is a pattern with ajax18.

[ajax18]

Let's use this as an example. Sadly this is not a hypothetical. A leftist borrows as much money and maxes out as many credit cards as possible. She then proceeds to go to Russia and eastern Europe and give the money away to whoever she deems worthy of it. Then unfortunately she's permitted to reenter the US and file for bankruptcy. 7 years later, she'll probably do it all over again. Is this an example of what Jesus was teaching? It's exactly what we're doing here in the US. We're $37 trillion in debt and inasmuch as people figure out that we never can nor will pay it back, it will lead to an economic collapse. Why are we giving away money at all when we can't even stop running a deficit let alone begin to pay down this debt? It's not our money to give. But you do have money that is yours to give and if every leftist did give away what you're asking everyone else to give away, would this not be plenty of money for a drop in the bucket like USAID? Given that leftists are such great followers of the teachings of Jesus, why hasn't this just happened on its own unaided by the heavy hand of communism?

I believe in a Jesus that respects agency and allows the laborer to decide where to draw the line on how much to use for himself and how much to give away. At some point we'll be held accountable to the Lord for this. But no, I don't believe that I should be held accountable to Bernie Sanders. I don't believe in other people determining how much money I'm required to give away. That's between me and the God that you don't even believe in. And while I've been forced to respect democracy that has unconstitutionally ceased to respect private property, in this case democracy has said enough is enough, we're not choosing to pay for USAID anymore, and it is you who will not respect democracy and the rule of law!

Here's a simple way to put that perhaps a liberal might understand. Have you ever heard the saying, "My body, my choice." Well this is my saying and I walk into gunfire to defend it. "MY LABOR, MY CHOICE!"

This is interesting. I don’t see that you’ve interpreted that passage specifically as opposed to presenting your general philosophy on charity vs. taxation, but I appreciate that you responded to the question.

I do think that you’ve got a kind of ‘reverse Pascal’s Wager’ thing going on, there.

If you're to take the scriptures completely literally and leave no room for common sense and exceptions, consider the verse where Jesus says in the sermon on the mount, "Give to him that asketh of thee and to him that would borrow of thee turn thou not away." That means anyone who has ever turned down a beggar or for that matter has any private property left at all is destined for eternal hellfire.

Philosophers spent an inordinate amount of time debating on whether Jesus owned the clothes He wore. Focusing on the letter of the law to this kind of extreme is not just a waste of time, it's spiritually stifling. In my opinion Jesus owns the entire world. The fact that He doesn't stop every sickness death or misfortune in this world serves as evidence to people on this board that He either doesn't care or that there is no God. I don't believe that's true. But I could never prove that to you with words and logic. For me everyone has a right to the spirit of revelation in how they are to be the best steward of what God has given them. So every time a beggar approaches asking you for money, it's up to personal revelation. It's the same as whether we go to war or turn the other cheek. It depends on what's right in a given situation and as Lincoln said, inasmuch as God gives us to see what is right. Obviously I stand with the brethren in my view that a strong and wealthy church can do a lot more for the world than a bankrupt church inundated by moochers. I'd probably be right with Elder Bednar in saying at times, no you don't deserve to eat because you are a slacker, even if that slacker on that day happened to be me. I'd expect Jesus would do the same.

[Dr. Shades]

Folks, I really think this post by ajax18 should be carefully considered:

Let's use this as an example. Sadly this is not a hypothetical. A leftist borrows as much money and maxes out as many credit cards as possible. She then proceeds to go to Russia and eastern Europe and give the money away to whoever she deems worthy of it. Then unfortunately she's permitted to reenter the US and file for bankruptcy. 7 years later, she'll probably do it all over again. Is this an example of what Jesus was teaching?

It's a legitimate question: Is this an example of what Jesus was teaching?

It's exactly what we're doing here in the US. We're $37 trillion in debt and inasmuch as people figure out that we never can nor will pay it back, it will lead to an economic collapse. Why are we giving away money at all when we can't even stop running a deficit let alone begin to pay down this debt? It's not our money to give.

I agree. Folks, is it fiscally responsible to go into debt, or fail to pay down one's existing debt, in order to give money to others? MORE TO THE POINT, is it morally justifiable to put a gun to your neighbor's head, order him to walk to an ATM, make him withdraw X% of his money, and give it to someone else who you think needs the money more than he does, in order to comply with Jesus' teachings?

But you do have money that is yours to give and if every leftist did give away what you're asking everyone else to give away, would this not be plenty of money for a drop in the bucket like USAID? Given that leftists are such great followers of the teachings of Jesus, why hasn't this just happened on its own unaided by the heavy hand of communism?

Painful though those words may be, and as mad as they may make us, is he not correct? Rather than increase the deficit. . . and force the payments thereon to compound over the years. . . shouldn't someone in the government have set up a USAID website wherein people can click the "Donate" button rather than tax people arbitrarily?

What if someone would rather his or her money to go toward a local charity? Should the government forcibly make that decision for him or her?

Here's a simple way to put that perhaps a liberal might understand. Have you ever heard the saying, "My body, my choice." Well this is my saying and I walk into gunfire to defend it. "MY LABOR, MY CHOICE!"

I might've worded it a bit differently: "MY CHARITY, MY CHOICE."

Also, we seem to be forgetting that there are plenty of people here in the United States that need charitable aid. In my opinion, the government has no business sending a single penny overseas until A) the national debt is completely paid off, B) the deficit is reduced to $0, and C) there is not a single homeless person in the country.

Can anyone justify the government sending a single penny overseas while those three conditions remain unmet?

[Chap]

Can anyone justify the government sending a single penny overseas while those three conditions remain unmet?

Yes. It is the duty of a government to consider not only the immediate needs of its citizens, but also, and in a proportionate way, to take steps to ensure their long-term welfare and security.

Part of that necessarily includes long-term investments in physical and human infrastructure that will not benefit its citizens immediately. It also necessarily includes maintaining a world outside the home country that is peaceful and whose citizens are in a fit state to take part in the network of trade and mutual security that will in the long run benefit that government's citizens. One of those benefits is that it will diminish the likelihood that the government in question will from time to time have to spend incalculable sums on military expenditure to quench the fires of a dangerous crisis.

Of course, that spending must be proportionate. As a result, the discussion about overseas aid spending should never be a simple yes/no issue ("Let's splurge" vs "Not a single penny"). A government that talks that way is failing in its responsibilities. A citizen who thinks that way is either naïve or mentally lazy.

To get things in perspective, have a look at this analysis of US government spending:

https://www.usaspending.gov/explorer/budget_function

The top four categories are:

Medicaid 17.1%
Social Security 16.2%
National Defense 14.1%
Health 13%

International affairs, which presumably includes any aid, plus a lot else, is way down the list at 0.6%

That does not seem a crazy rate of spending, does it? Tipping that 0.6% (and it is by no means all aid) into the four big budget items is unlikely to be life-changing for US citizens, and in the long time it may make them and their children less secure and wealthy.