HuskerShark

Matthew 25: 37-40 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they marveled at him. Notice how he didn't say "Render unto Caesar your money so he can give it to those less fortunate." Once again, I believe Jesus would have it be a free will offering rather than a payment to the government for them to disburse. Acts 4:32-35 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. We can quibble about who's doing the distributing - the government or the church - but it's still about as Socialist as Medicare. And we can quibble about the government being "them" or "us" all you want, but Abraham Lincoln said the government was "Of the people, by the people, for the people." If the government is "them," then who is "us?" The dots don't connect the way you want them to. Bottom line is, people work hard for their money. They shouldn't be forced to hand over a portion of it so that it can be distributed by a current-day government that has shown time and again not to be trustworthy. Giving money to the poor should be entirely by choice. It isn't by choice. You've been commanded to do so by Jesus. He couldn't have been more clear about it. So you're forcing the Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Pagans, and Satanists to participate in a Christian program through the government? That doesn't seem right... Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security aren't Christian programs. That's what you're trying to argue. Bottom line, no government should force anyone to give money in order for them to re-disburse to those they deem worthy. It should be entirely by free will choice, as Jesus intended it if that's what you're coming back at me with.

Not always, but I'm sure you knew that. Not always, but I'm sure you knew that. Ah, I get where you're going with this. So let me get this straight. If a woman gets raped and ends up getting pregnant as a result, it's then OK in your mind to murder a baby? Am I getting that right? And if someone "can't afford" contraceptives, there's a really simple way to avoid becoming pregnant that's cost-free: abstinence. Or just doing oral or anal, whichever haha

Matthew 25: 37-40 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they marveled at him. Notice how he didn't say "Render unto Caesar your money so he can give it to those less fortunate." Once again, I believe Jesus would have it be a free will offering rather than a payment to the government for them to disburse. Acts 4:32-35 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. We can quibble about who's doing the distributing - the government or the church - but it's still about as Socialist as Medicare. And we can quibble about the government being "them" or "us" all you want, but Abraham Lincoln said the government was "Of the people, by the people, for the people." If the government is "them," then who is "us?" The dots don't connect the way you want them to. Bottom line is, people work hard for their money. They shouldn't be forced to hand over a portion of it so that it can be distributed by a current-day government that has shown time and again not to be trustworthy. Giving money to the poor should be entirely by choice. It isn't by choice. You've been commanded to do so by Jesus. He couldn't have been more clear about it. So you're forcing the Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Pagans, and Satanists to participate in a Christian program through the government? That doesn't seem right...

I can't hardly hold in my excitement to hear how it's moral to murder unborn babies.

Matthew 25: 37-40 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they marveled at him. Notice how he didn't say "Render unto Caesar your money so he can give it to those less fortunate." Once again, I believe Jesus would have it be a free will offering rather than a payment to the government for them to disburse. Acts 4:32-35 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. We can quibble about who's doing the distributing - the government or the church - but it's still about as Socialist as Medicare. And we can quibble about the government being "them" or "us" all you want, but Abraham Lincoln said the government was "Of the people, by the people, for the people." If the government is "them," then who is "us?" The dots don't connect the way you want them to. Bottom line is, people work hard for their money. They shouldn't be forced to hand over a portion of it so that it can be distributed by a current-day government that has shown time and again not to be trustworthy. Giving money to the poor should be entirely by choice.

I think we have extremely different definitions of the word "available." Getting pregnant is not just a choice. If it were, then there would be zero unwanted pregnancies. Having sex is a choice, with an obvious potential result of becoming pregnant. Why would we turn our heads from the idea of personal responsibility and allow people to choose whether a baby lives or dies because they made a choice that had a result that they didn't like?

Jesus was quoting Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy 15 7-11: If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need. Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward the needy among your fellow Israelites and give them nothing. They may then appeal to the Lord against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. Give generously to them and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land. He also said it again when Mary was washing his feet with the perfume. But notice how he didn't say "Give your money to the government so they can give it to the poor." He purposefully said "freely give."

Jesus also said "There will always be poor people."

Matthew 25: 37-40 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they marveled at him. Notice how he didn't say "Render unto Caesar your money so he can give it to those less fortunate." Once again, I believe Jesus would have it be a free will offering rather than a payment to the government for them to disburse.

Unfortunately, you're right. There are certain programs in our country of a socialist ideology (Social security, medicare, medicaid, etc), all of which should be done away with. Because you know; Jesus said "f#*k your fellow man, get yours." Or was that Trump? If you're talking about taking care of the poor, I'm all for that idea. But the idea that a government would step in, require us to pay our hard earned money, and then divvy it out to poor people is NOT the way Jesus would have intended it. It should be an entirely free will thing, not something that's forced upon people.

So, you disagree with Trump who was in favor of passing the gun control bills that were voted on recently. Jumping to conclusions again I see... 1st, I'd like to say to you specifically, I don't agree with everything he says. He's very much in favor of people having the right to own guns, and that I agree with. 2nd - You realize that his tweet/post said something to the effect of "I'm going to talk to the NRA about potentially using the No-Fly list as a deterrent to people buying guns." That's not necessarily saying he's fighting for that to happen. That means he went to discuss the possibility of that. How the things he says get so skewed is really ridiculous...

Unfortunately, you're right. There are certain programs in our country of a socialist ideology (Social security, medicare, medicaid, etc), all of which should be done away with.

Soooo...in post #881 you said: so....now, are you saying he really doesn't have to dig in and learn a lot because he is just so above and beyond greatness that he doesn't need to know anything? What....he just has this mystical 6th sense of being able to have an epiphany every time he needs to make a statement about world events???? Or......is this statement by his campaign chair part of your last sentence about trying to damage control? And how do you interpret the 2 things I said as conflicting? So..... You said something (and I agree) that he will need to really dig in and work hard to learn about issues and formulate opinions. YEAH.....We agree. However, since then, he himself has said that most experts are worthless and all advice needs to come from himself (as though he knows everything) And....his campaign chair claiming that he doesn't need to learn about issues around the world to know what to do. And, you don't see that contradictory? It goes much deeper and much further than the way you're presenting it in your skewed version that paints a bad picture, but no, I don't disagree with any of that, and no, it's not contradictory.

According to the 2nd and 5th amendments to the constitution, your conviction misguided. Wouldn't be the first time the Founding Fathers were wrong. And I strongly feel endowing them with god-like infallibility is yet another mistake. I'd rather trust the judgment of the Founding Fathers whose legacy for 2.5 centuries has proved itself over and over again than the opinion of some pea-headed present-day politicians who have hidden agendas and/or lack common sense. It seems that when "progressives" are trying to stand for something that the Founding Fathers obviously were against, the argument is "Well they allowed slavery so they must not know everything. Hence, I'm right and they're wrong." No. So many of the pieces of our constitution were put in place with centuries of foresight that most people could never imagine. That was done by our Forefathers. No, they were not Gods. But they were incredibly historically wise men.

Yes, birth control, sex education, and counseling should all be available. No, other people should not be forced to pay for it. It's the responsibility of the individual who makes the choice to have sex and get pregnant to deal with the repercussions, wanted or not. We are not a socialist country. Once again, responsibilities to ensure a successful delivery and upbringing (even if that includes putting the child up for adoption) are the responsibility of the parent. We are not a socialist country. We are not a socialist country. Once again, we are not a socialist country. Nor do we ever want to be one, resemble one, or entertain the thoughts of one.

Soooo...in post #881 you said: so....now, are you saying he really doesn't have to dig in and learn a lot because he is just so above and beyond greatness that he doesn't need to know anything? What....he just has this mystical 6th sense of being able to have an epiphany every time he needs to make a statement about world events???? Or......is this statement by his campaign chair part of your last sentence about trying to damage control? And how do you interpret the 2 things I said as conflicting?

People are really quick to jump on every thing that comes out Trump's camp and try to paint in the worst possible way. But there's some truth in this criticism even if too much is being made of it. Trump needs to realize that the POTUS can't just wing it anytime he is asked something he might not be well informed about. I would agree with that.

Like the way you justify Killary's criminality and accepting donations from Saudi Arabia?

According to the 2nd and 5th amendments to the constitution, your conviction misguided.

I'll go a step further and say that in order to truly be "pro-life" you must also agree to personally raise (or at least pay to raise) an unwanted child to adulthood. Otherwise, you're just "pro-birth." Depends on how you mean that. If you mean that if I were to make the choice to have sex and the result was a pregnancy, I'd absolutely raise that child because I'm not a murderer. If you mean that I have to agree to raise the child of someone else who made that choice, that's ridiculous.

After thinking about things and collecting a lot of different viewpoints, I've established a firm viewpoint on the issue. I am not in favor of infringing the rights of citizens without due process. Doing so would be a violation of the 5th amendment. No citizen should be deprived of the right to own firearms unless they have been convicted of a violent crime such as murder, assault, rape, etc. Perhaps if they've been diagnosed with mental illness as well. Otherwise, it is not ok to restrict anyone's access to owning guns.

Yes, huKSer. Contraceptives are a great thing. The Plan B pill begins to toe the line, and I don't have a firm opinion on that.

Yet another example off people flying off the cuff every time they hear something outside the usual realm of politics when it comes to Trump and/or trying to twist the words from the campaign. What Paul Manafort means is that he is very quick on his feet and is able to analyze things quickly and even very well. Even some of his harshest contractors agree that he is very strong at diagnosing problems, but his knowledge of issues needs to improve in order to properly solve the problem. That I'd agree with as well. But he will get there. People need to get used to the fact that Trump is not a politician. And that's a good thing.

So you're saying that less guns and changing the culture would be successful deterrents towards the rates of gun violence? I think he's saying that lots of nice beaches and palm trees are useful deterrents to committing crimes (I would think).

Oh look, it's huskerfan2000's abortion thread! But in all seriousness, this is one of the most f*cked-up things about our country - that we have a large portion of our country (and across the world I'm sure) who believe it's OK to kill babies.