Jesus speaking...
“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”
The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.
[Then, in the DIRECT and IMMEDIATE context of Jesus warning about the dangers of literal money and the commentary about the money-loving Pharisees sneering at Jesus and his words about wealth and poverty... Dan]
Jesus said to them...
“You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts. What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight. [Again, in the immediate, direct context of Jesus warning about the dangers of literal wealth... and there's no context here that says he's talking about a mere abuse of wealth, he's just speaking of wealth, in general... DT]
“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the realm of God [which Jesus began his ministry as identifying it specifically as good news to the poor and marginalized... DT] is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.
“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
The Rich man (nameless) and the Poor man (Lazarus)...
“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
“The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
“But Abraham replied,
‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things,
while Lazarus received bad things,
but now
he is comforted here and you are in agony.
And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
=========
Some thoughts from my pastor's sermon today...
* The rich man has no name and Lazarus is named. Then, as now, the rich were honored and had their literal big names. The poor were/are often nameless and forgotten. Jesus overturns the worldly tradition of honoring the wealthy and instead, throughout his ministry (which again, he identified as bringing good news to the poor as he began his ministry), honors the poor and marginalized, lifting them up as beloved by God and welcome at God's table of plenty.
* Even in torment, the rich man presumes to try to request favors (as befitting someone of his status...) and to try to order the poor man, Lazarus, to do his bidding ("Send LAZARUS to..." do my bidding...) Jesus' listeners would recognize this parody of the power of the wealthy for what it was.
* Would listeners of that time have heard the message...
"The good news for the poor is that, ONE DAY, maybe - if you repent in just the right way and heed just the right message and you are one of the one's God has called - one day you MAY be saved and have a good life THEN... pie in the sky by and by, y'all... Not for most of you, poor slobs, but for the Few who are called..."?
OR, would the message being sent and received have been...
"The good news for the poor is that, here, now, God loves you and welcomes you to the realm of God. Share with one another, take one another in - especially the poor and marginalized - THIS is the realm of God, the realm of Grace for all, where all are welcome..."...? As was what happened with Jesus' followers and the early church.
If you read this story and think that the good news is NOT specifically for the poor, and it's really only for the very few who are called, then saying that the "good news" is not for all and not for the poor, but for the few who are called and then, only eventually, when we all (well some) get to heaven... It seems hard to reconcile that view with this story and what was likely being heard by the people then and there, especially given Jesus other repeated teachings about wealth and poverty.
I just don't know how you read "good news for the poor" that Jesus defined his ministry as it began and then just ignore "the poor" part of those words. I think they're there for a reason. I think this story points to that reason.
64 comments:
Terrific.
And, as this is true. “how you read ‘good news for the poor’ that Jesus defined his ministry as it began and then just ignore "the poor" part of those words. I think they're there for a reason,” so, too, those who ignore the poor and what Jesus says about them is there for a reason.
Why have you chosen, this time, to do without book, chapter and verse citations? To make it more difficult to check context?
Also, why do you continue to say JESUS SAID He came to bring good news to the marginalized? He absolutely NEVER said that and putting that word in His mouth forces an understanding the text itself doesn't expressly suggest. It's one thing to say YOU feel He came for that purpose. But to insist HE said it, suggested it, even implied it, is to speak for Him in a manner for which you constantly try to accuse us. He did NOT say it.
Book, chapter, and verse are not original to scripture, Marshal. They are later accretions in, what you would call, off the rails medieval and early modern church history.
As a committed biblicist, you should know that; and you should know your NT without them.
Sorry Marshal, I thought this was a well-known enough story that a citation wasn't necessary. Luke 16.
As to the rest of what you have to say...
“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
Sorry Dan, but that one story isn't the only thing in your post. And as there are similarities between some stories, as well as slight differences in how different gospels relate stories appearing in each of them, citing chapter and verse is hardly too much to ask, and far more valuable than your editorial comments dispersed among the verses you provide. Given the problems with clarity and charges of being misunderstood, I just thought it would be good practice to provide those little details to lessen the chances of misunderstandings.
Also, for those how would take every opportunity to disparage as if it was a Christian trait, I never in all my years blogging suggested that I'm a Biblical scholar with an eidetic memory of the entire Book. And again, the point is to check YOUR understanding and for the purpose, knowing exactly what you're referencing would do wonders for that understanding. Sure, I can google a good chunk of what you post and then decide from there where you got it. But why must I and risk responding based on that which wasn't what you referenced? Do you simply want hundreds of comments, or just comments of relevance and substance? Seems to me we spend too much time and keystrokes explaining and complaining about what was meant and intended. With my wacky schedule, wading through unnecessary crap is a great pain. I doubt your life provides for time to waste.
As to that particular story, it has nothing to do with wealth or special concern for the poor. Like most of your offerings, it refers to behaviors that do not require wealth to indulge, nor does it require the impoverished to use as victims.
Your use of this story also lends itself to the notion that you think there's something special about being poor that makes someone holy and heaven-bound. It isn't Lazarus' wallet that gets him into heaven. It had to have been his devotion to God. Thus, the point is the rich dude's behavior toward one in need...NOT that he was rich or that Lazarus wasn't. Certainly poor people can be asshats and they can be toward poor people, too. Just as certainly, the "not wealthy" these days are often unjustly critical of the wealthy, judging them poorly simply because they possess that wealth.
The fact is, the rich dude was just an ass, living his life as an ass in being arrogant and condescending to others, particularly in this story toward Lazarus. The disparity between their pocketbooks just helps to make the point. If this were not the case, then it suggests that treating wealthy people like crap is not a sinful thing, and that it is only bad because Lazarus was poor. It doesn't wash.
Marshal... "And as there are similarities between some stories, as well as slight differences in how different gospels relate stories appearing in each of them..."
The story only appears in the Gospel of Luke. FYI.
Lol!
You what would "lessen the chances of misunderstandings", Marshal?
Read the book you worship.
You treat scripture, Marshal, like you treat me: you talk about it, but you’re too intimidated to address it.
"The story only appears in the Gospel of Luke. FYI."
Dude. Try actually reading my comments without preconceived notions and bias. I was NOT referring specifically to one particular story when I made the statement you quoted. I was referring to the general benefit to all of supplying citation for your Biblical quotes...a general point. THEM I addressed the specific story. Thus, my point regarding citations stands and is every bit as sound a point as when I first mentioned it. I know sometimes life gets in the way of taking the time to seriously peruse a comment, especially the longer the comment is. But skimming and then responding is another reasons misunderstanding arises. So there were two points I was making: Reducing misunderstanding AND one particular example from your post intended to make your point.
Dan, you gotta help out the “poor” who don’t know their bible very well. Have a little “grace.” It’s only “just.”
Three words Marshal erroneously claimed Jesus never used.
I keep going over this post because there's so much there that is troublesome, which makes it hard to decide what to tackle first. For now, I'll take the following:
"[Again, in the immediate, direct context of Jesus warning about the dangers of literal wealth... and there's no context here that says he's talking about a mere abuse of wealth, he's just speaking of wealth, in general... DT]"
Actually, it seems clear to me that "abuse of wealth" is indeed the point...or at least part of it. Verse 9 says,
I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.
That is clearly a reference to how one should handle one's wealth, and as such is at the same time a corrective for those who might be abusive in how they handle wealth. In the case of the Lazarus story, the "abuse" was simply the disregard for the needy, which is how most of the "warnings against wealth", as you like to frame it, seem to go. It goes on in verses 10 & 11,
Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches?
These verses, together with verse 9, are clearly speaking about behavior, not a state of being, as in "rich". And the if/then very little/very much clearly points to how the size of one's bank account is not the point at all. Again, one needn't be rich to treat the needy badly, nor is one required to be rich before one must be empathetic toward another in need. Remember the poor woman at the temple giving her last two coins. Do you think she was the only poor woman with so little? The only poor person at all? Are we to believe all the poor coughed up their last nickle as this woman did?
Nor must one be impoverished to be treated badly by people of any income level, and clearly today we see it fashionable, particularly among the left, to assume the worst about another simply because of their wealth, ignoring any possibility that it was accumulated in only the most Christian manner.
Thus, I still maintain that most of your Scriptural citations meant to move your economic ideology is of the same pseudo-sanctimonious condescension regarding wealth and those who have it, and fails as examples for that purpose. It isn't the wealth of the rich, but the behavior of some rich about which Jesus preaches...behaviors that aren't unique to the rich, but only stand out because of their wealth, especially when interacting with the needy. Again, poverty doesn't make the poor holy, righteous or favored by God, and money doesn't make the rich unholy, unrighteous or out of favor by God.
Marshal (and Craig who supports Marshal here in this absolute ignorance), I swear, if after learning what you are about to learn does not peg you back 3 or 4 rungs and take on some humility then you will prove every single thing I've said about your willful and blind refusal to acknowledge facts.
In Luke 16: 9, Jesus says, IN GREEK, "ἐκ τοῦ μαμωνᾶ τῆς ἀδικίας" - by the wealth (mamon) of unrighteousness!!!!!!!!!!
Apparently Jesus fails your ignorant opinion of those of us who share his "same pseudo-sanctimonious condescension regarding wealth."
What did we say back in the day. You have EPICALLY FAILED.
WORDLY WEALTH?! if you do not have a bible translation that says "unrighteous/dishonest wealth" then you need to drop what you have.
For weeks and weeks, Marshal and Craig have been arguing that riches are neutral in the Bible. And Dan has pointed out the texts and the contexts of passage after passage that clearly read against what Marshal and Craig need their idol to say.
Now, Marshal isolates Luke 16:9. And what does Jesus call riches in Luke 16:9? Unrighteous wealth.
And he suggests that the only thing to do with riches - unrighteous wealth from the true Christian point of view - is to use it for those who have less.
But Marshal and Craig cannot stand this bare fact of Jesus' words in Luke. Even now, moments after learning that Luke 19:9 reveals their brutalizing folly, they are convening with each other to make sure they hold the line to make scripture say what they need it to say. They dare not oppose any part of scripture because they worship a book, not a living God. Which is the very reason they change what the book says. It's easier. It's ego. It's pride. It's deception. They read lies in holy scripture when they need to.
Craig, per usual, tries to divert by asking why liberals want to eradicate racist real estate practices that deny avenues of acquiring assets to people of color but think riches are unrighteous.
Our answer to Craig: Jesus tells us the only way to use privileges that enrich us when others are deprived... is to use those riches to eradicate deprivation. Take it up with Luke 16:9, Craig, where Jesus calls out unrighteous wealth.
I'm loath to give feo the time of day, given his history of bad behavior, but I feel compelled here.
In his eternal unjustifiable arrogance, feo believes he can teach me anything, aside from how to be arrogant without justification. His reference to the original Greek does little to teach me what I didn't already know, and far less anything that alters what I stated in my comments to which he so poorly responds.
First, I have to admit that I'm impressed that feo can corrupt and/or fail to understand Scripture in more than one language. I guess that's what comes from being so highly educated as he. But here, he corrects me by validating my point. He begins by believing he impresses by translating the original Greek...as if that's hard to do with a simple click of a mouse. But "unrighteous mammon" rather than "worldly wealth" doesn't alter the lesson of the passage one iota. That lesson, as I stated in my comment above, is about behavior, not the state of one's level of wealth. Just the choice of "unrighteous mammon" bears that out, for how can one's wealth be unrighteous in the first place? Naturally, how one acquires it...as in, "ill gotten gain", unfair/unethical business practices, outright theft, etc.
But it can also mean...and does in the context of this passage...how one's wealth is used. And again, feo verifies my position when he says,
"And he (Jesus) suggests that the only thing to do with riches..." STOP!! No need to go any further because this is enough to demonstrate that feo validates my point: It's not the possessing of wealth that concerns God, but how wealth is used. Using it wisely, in service to others, is to glorify He Who blessed the one with the wealth in the first place. It shows that one puts God above one's own self with regard to how one uses one's wealth. Thus, having wealth is not a problem. Creating wealth is not a problem.
Neither Craig nor I have ever so much as hinted that Jesus had a problem with those who worship wealth. This has been our point all along. Where Dan's position suggests the problem is wealth, Scripture clearly demonstrates that the problem is the lust for money. So feo attempts, in his typical unjustified condescension, to find fault, but actually affirms my position fairly well, his other flaws in his response notwithstanding. He shows quite clearly that I changed nothing about what Scripture says...and can't since he's saying the same thing, albeit in his typical unChristian manner.
If anyone's changing what Scripture says, it's clearly feo here (as he does always with such routine regularity) when he insists that Jesus refers to "riches" as "unrighteous wealth". He does not. He's referring specifically to unrighteous wealth in this chapter, not wealth itself. Jesus is NOT saying riches are unrighteous. That's idiotic.
Worse, he dares suggest he's on the same plane as Jesus when he says,
"Apparently Jesus fails your ignorant opinion of those of us who share his "same pseudo-sanctimonious condescension regarding wealth.""
I don't have any trouble differentiating between what Jesus actually says versus how feo distorts, corrupts and bastardizes what Jesus and/or Scripture says. Here, he is in no way "sharing" much of anything with Christ, except where he has validated my position regarding what Jesus teaches about wealth.
Once again, we clearly see that feo has eagerly engaged in another of his patented, trademarked EPIC FAILS. And the list grows.
Marshal doesn’t understand how adjectives work. When people say fire trucks are red they mean the fire truck is red. They are not referring to how it got to be red. They are not asking a question about who decided to paint it red.
Fire trucks are red because... they are red.
In Luke, in an adjectival phrase (that means a phrase with an adjective in it Marshal) Jesus uses "unrighteous riches" (mammon) because to him, riches (mammon) are unrighteous. He doesn’t care how riches are made or what people did with them legal or illegal.
Just a few lines further down in this chapter, Luke says the Pharisees were lovers of money... it’s a blanket statement. There is zero information about how they got it. There is zero information about what they did with it. And these Pharisees - remember when you and Craig and Stan defended the Pharisees as very righteous, oh-so-close good guys, Marshal? Just a few weeks ago - well, these Pharisees scoff at the parable. And Jesus says to them, “what is prized by human beings is an abomination in the sight of God.”
Nothing about how they got it or what they did with it.
And again, still in this chapter! There was a rich man clothed in purple and eating very well every day. Not one thing is said about how he became rich. Not one thing is said about what he did with his riches. And Jesus leaves him unsaved and uncared for in death.
”No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth (MAMMON).”
Marshal, because he is corrupt - who knows when or how he decided to become corrupt - all we know is that corrupt Marshall reveals how he is willing to twist his idol the Bible any way he needs in order to get it to say what he needs. He complains that I am looking to the Greek text. But he says he takes the Bible literally. He says it's easy to look up the Greek - and it is! But won't do it.
There is only one thing a red fire truck is good for, Marshal. To help put out fires.
Here in Luke, Jesus gives us one way only to not be corrupted by mammon. Give it away. And serve god.
Take your complaint to your leather bound god, Marshal. It says what it says. You read into all kinds of fake filibuster but all you do is scoff at Jesus. You are as fake as a Pharisee. And twice as brutal.
And in our chapter, Jesus says, "If then you have not been faithful with the dishonest wealth who will entrust to you the true riches?"
As the true riches are clearly not "clean" monetary wealth, then the dishonest wealth can only be one thing: all riches.
It’s always interesting when someone who’s rich by any reasonable worldwide standard, tries to claim that “all riches” are bad. I guess it’s reveling in hypocrisy.
With joy, I will gladly accept the premise, Craig, of your claim here. That I am absolutely right about scripture, about what Jesus says in Marshal's Luke 16: that riches, the accumulation of wealth is unrighteous. I haven't said that. Jesus did. Craig clearly forgot who said it, but he clearly got the point of what was said.
So, Jesus said that riches are unrighteous.
Craig then again affirms the point by trying to apply it to my life. And in the face of this conclusion, I'll remind him of something he willfully forgets here but well knows: between the two of us, I am not the one who demands that Christians think and behave exactly like ancient Scripture. Craig is.
So, Craig has forever claimed that he must live according to what Jesus says in scripture.
And he has perceived that Jesus said that riches are unrighteous, even if he obscures who said it.
Clearly the twisted soul is Craig's. What is remarkable is that his conscience has found a way to cry out from the tortured forgetting manipulation of his sentence to reveal itself. Sadly, Craig, always preferring his thrill to brutality, stops his ears from hearing his conscience.
The bottom line is that if Craig wants to see a vision of living in the 21st century according to ancient scripture, then the closest example of the four of us... is Dan.
And the rich guy dodged the hypocrisy.
It’s almost like you want to impose rules on everyone else.
Sorry, Craig, I was in a hurry and didn’t write down to your comprehension. You completely missed how your hypocrisy claim is itself twisted on you. My fault, though. I don’t have the energy this weekend to tailor myself to a 6th grade level.
Gotcha. Wealth is ok for you, just not for the rest of the human race. I’m guessing that you, like Dan, make very few sacrifices in the areas of your wealth.
I understand how you would want to avoid how I’ve pointed out the directness with Jesus castigates riches in Luke and how he says the only appropriate action for those who follow him is to use the riches for others who are not rich. I understand, by watching all these years how you oppose Dan, that when you are shown your shallow and manipulative reading of scripture you move to attack the messenger. And a I personally have witnessed how your attacks are composed of fantasies of our personal lives. The gifts that Dan’s children give him. You imagine me in chaps. And now try to paint a portrait of a rich Feodor.
I pity your inferiority complex and the unnecessary shame you nonetheless feel about your innocent fantasies,
But... yours a long way away from Jesus’ words in Luke 16. Which is self-defeating for a professed *Christian conservative.
1. I've always been quite clear: I am a wealthy guy. Wealth is a trap. I and wealthy people like me should be wary.
2. Craig, if you want to talk here, here's a question for you that deals with this topic and the one on your page:
There are some parables where the story includes unsavory acts. One of those is the "shrewd manager parable that comes before the one I'm citing here in Luke 16. In that story, there was a "rich man" whose "manager was accused of wasting his possessions." The rich man is angry and calls the manager in to make an accounting and the rich man gives him some time, I guess, to explain himself/make things right. So, the manager calls in the rich man's debtors and, follow closely, the manager CHEATS, marking down the true amount owed by the debtors to the rich man. He did this for several debtors, the manager's reasoning being, he'd make the debtors feel indebted to him "so people will welcome me into their houses."
He lied and stole from his manager to endear himself to the debtors, figuring he was going to lose his job and, he said, he wasn't strong enough to dig and he was too ashamed to beg...
Stealing, lying, using wealth (not even his!) to ingratiate himself to poorer, indebted people. These are OBJECTIVELY BAD behaviors.
Do you agree?
And yet, "the rich man" gladly "commended the dishonest manager" for "acting shrewdly..."
Now, many traditional Christians have always assumed that "the rich man" in this story represents God and that the dishonest manager represents those of God's followers who act shrewdly (dishonestly??)
Is that what YOU think? It appears to be in your post on this topic.
The thing is, I (and many others) would warn that you're taking away exactly the WRONG lesson from this parable if that's what you think. NO! No! No, we should not be dishonest and steal and sneaky to use our wealth to curry favor with poor people so that you can further exploit them, later. That is NOT the lesson being taught in that story.
cont'd...
Jesus' conclusion to this story is this...
"Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and
whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.
So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches?
And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own?
“No one can serve two masters.
Either you will hate the one and love the other, or
you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.
You cannot serve both God and money.”
Clearly, Jesus is NOT commending the dishonest manager. He says precisely the OPPOSITE in his summary of that story. If you can't be trusted in handling worldly wealth (and clearly, the dishonest manager could NOT be trusted with worldly wealth), THEN you can't handle/won't understand "true riches" (which, as Feodor rightly points out, is not money.)
So, my point is that some stories/parables that Jesus told, the "master" or "rich man" does not necessarily equal God (sometimes, it does, but not always) and the behaviors exhibited are NOT good behaviors. This dishonest manager did not behave well, we are NOT to imitate his bad behavior.
Jesus is noting that sometimes/oftentimes wealthy people up and down the wealth ladder (i.e., the manager was better off than many common laborers, but he was not the rich man... he may truly represent some of us in the wealthy western world) will use and abuse their privilege and money to curry favor. But that is not a good thing.
Instead, use what worldly wealth we have to gain friends (i.e., not by dishonesty and stealing, but, you know, being friends/sharing in common) to demonstrate that Grace by which we are saved and thus, be part of the realm of God.
Do you think that "the master" represents God in this story?
If so, why do you think God is commending dishonesty and cheating and stealing and manipulating/buying favor from poorer folk? Does that make any sense?
Isn't it more rational that the shrewdness that God prefers is honest, fair, siding WITH the poor, not "buying favor" from them in case you need them? The latter (buying favor in case you need them) may be doing something to give help TO the poor, but it's not siding WITH the poor, it's just an abuse of privilege and wealth to manipulate favor when YOU need it.
I said, "here's a question..." and it should have read, "here are a few questions..."
Please answer. Marshal, you're welcome to answer too, if you want to comment here.
As we have seen, Dan, neither Craig nor Marshal are interested in understanding these challenging texts of scripture. Their religion is to defend the white man's way by hook and crooked crook, and - in contradiction to their claim to want to live by scripture - they will ignore the very words of Jesus when they want to.
____
And with respect, I disagree with the way you are reading these chapters of Luke. In the passages leading up to Luke 16, Jesus is giving a tutorial on committing all the resources one has at hand to make decisive break with the status quo when salvation is in the balance.
Sit on the lower seats that you may be noticed for your humility and brought up to honor.
When you give a banquet invite the needy instead of your friends so your good works are noticed.
Shed mom and dad; make sure you are aware that EVERYTHING is being asked of you.
Forget the nine coins, find the one missing. Forget the flock, find the lost lamb. Heaven rejoices not over the good, but at the turning over of the whole of the world to rescue those in danger.
The good brother is doing his duty. The one who went off looking for meaning and never found it has come back home for it. Kill the calf.
And then in our text, the dishonest manager has met his existential judgment. He uses his position to make grateful friends. And Jesus approves of the desperate act using the only advantage at his disposal.
God is prodigal with love and welcome: everyone can come. But we all must come with passion, not perfection; need, not comfort; desperation not deception.
Jesus says, "the children of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light. And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into the eternal homes." In other words, you better recognize that the world's salvation has come. Position or family or money will not save you. You need to commit everything, your goods, your wits, your resourcefulness, your pride... and your desire to be better than everyone else. Shed it all. Those who are worse off are the ones you should care about because they are the ones god cares about. Commit your whole self, with all the power you have.
Now is the time. "The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone tries to enter it by force." Luke 16:16
I add that our disagreement on how to read these passages means nothing to our common Christian faith. The Bible is not an idol.
What matters is how we love other people. Following the living Christ is everything. And that, unlike Craig and Marshal and so many white Americans like them, you and I refuse to call brutality love.
One of Craig’s diversionary strategies is to make every effort to move the debates to his page. He won’t allow everyone to appear there. That way he’s never confronted with original biblical languages and more. Marshal gave it to college try with unrighteous mammon. But Craig doesn’t so easily make things up and lie as Marshal does. So he dodges more and diverts to his page.
And it doesn’t feel to him quite as bad when he ignores you on his page after you point out to him that things themselves can be bad because, “where your treasure is there will be your heart also.”
Dan,
I have no problem with, and have every intention of, answering your questions. I always do and do so directly without equivocation...or as best as I can given the often goofy nature of your questions. In any case, I figured since your boy responded to my comments before you posted yours I would address his concerns first and get them out of the way. Seems only fair given the order of postings. With the little time I have at the moment, I thought I'd mention this before I post anything you might delete with the feeling that I was ignoring your standard ultimatum. IF this isn't a problem, then I will proceed accordingly, as time allows, and then devote proper time to your questions. Hopefully you won't wait to long to give your blessing.
Response to Craig who now openly denies having read my gun control plan Dan graciously allowed here in August 11th. Craig even commented on it. But still blocks me because he’s never seen it. Trumpian:
3rd time telling you, Craig, which clearly makes you a liar: You can find what you’ve asked for woven into a thread you are present for at Dan’s on Aug 11th. Three part plan because it’s very involved. You may have trouble understanding.
You even carped about it. But act here like you’ve never seen it. So, you show me you’re a liar but take care to hide it on your site by blocking. Liar and duplicitous coward.
We’re still at this because you are lost as to how to escape this with your dignity. You cannot.
"Very involved"? That's funny!
Well, I don't feel like waiting, so I'm going to take my shot.
I'm more than well aware of how adjectives work. But unlike like some, who think that color has a moral aspect to it (white men are evil, hell spawned oppressors, while black men are God's favored holy angels), it is actually morally neutral. The color of a fire truck is irrelevant as an adjective other than to point out what it looks like. But "unrighteous" is by definition a moral connotation. We don't have to bother wondering why a firetruck is one color over another, but to wonder why something is considered unrighteous is an entirely different matter. Like any accusation, it begs explanation. WHY is it unrighteous? What makes it so? The passage gives us this explanation by the themes of the parable.
To pretend Christ regards ALL wealth as "unrighteous" is an assumption on your part, mostly for the purpose of pretending you're somehow theologically superior in your understanding. While the mere thought provokes a good belly laugh, it also saddens one to think how desperate you are to have your ego stroked. But I digress.
One can say all wealth is unrighteous in the sense that all good works are are filthy rags to God. That is, wealth has no spiritual value one way or another simply by its very existence. But here, the point is how it is gotten or used that makes it unrighteous, not merely that it exists. Wealth...the word alone...while conjuring thoughts of great sums as a primary understanding...also encompasses ANY amount one might possess. Dan like to pretend he's wealthy, by comparing himself to those who have nothing. By that standard, ANY amount above nothing is wealth. This would include the two coins of the old woman at the temple referenced by Jesus has having given more than anyone else. In one sense, her two coins are every bit as unrighteous as the millions possessed by another. But if she came about those two coins honestly, they are no more "unrighteous" as would be the millions of Job...considered a righteous man by God.
Thus, feo ignores context simply in another lame attempt to portray me as intellectually inferior. Now, I have no problem being exposed as knowing less than another, it's just that feo fails so often to do that, and what he hopes to "teach" me is of no actual value because there's no real attempt to do me a service.
"Just a few lines further down in this chapter, Luke says the Pharisees were lovers of money... it’s a blanket statement. "
No it's not, except as it applies to those Pharisees who were present to hear what Jesus just had said. There were about six thousand Pharisees during that period according to historian Josephus. It would be a stretch to presume they were all dishonest. No, Luke is referring to specific Pharisees, and Jesus was confronted by specific Pharisees.
"remember when you and Craig and Stan defended the Pharisees as very righteous, oh-so-close good guys, Marshal?"
Providing factual information about the Pharisees is not a defense of the worst of them, no matter how badly you need to believe it to rationalize your unChristian hatred toward us.
"And Jesus says to them, “what is prized by human beings is an abomination in the sight of God.”
Nothing about how they got it or what they did with it."
This again is a reference to those who put what they prize above God. Do you not prize your wife, your child (God help him) or your life? If you put any of them above God, they are abominations, too. This is really basic stuff.
continuing...
"And again, still in this chapter! There was a rich man clothed in purple and eating very well every day. Not one thing is said about how he became rich. Not one thing is said about what he did with his riches. And Jesus leaves him unsaved and uncared for in death."
Are you seriously trying to imply that the after life destinations of the rich man and Lazarus were solely based upon how much money either had? Really? So no matter what you do, if you have lots of money, you're going to suffer after you die, and if you're a total wretch and penniless, you're going to heaven. Wow. That's some really moronic suggestions from an alleged seminarian.
"all we know is that corrupt Marshall reveals how he is willing to twist his idol the Bible any way he needs in order to get it to say what he needs."
Hilarious. You need to corrupt Scripture in order to prove I've corrupted it at all! I've twisted nothing.
"He complains that I am looking to the Greek text."
So, you don't even know what a complaint looks like if you think I was "complaining" about you looking to the Greek text. No complaints about that at all. I simply pointed out that your attempt to appear intellectually superior yielded no insights of any value, nor did it alter the point I made with regard my response to Dan. "Epic" doesn't go far enough as an adjective describing your failure.
"Here in Luke, Jesus gives us one way only to not be corrupted by mammon."
Where does He say that, exactly? This is what Dan would call, "speaking for God".
" that riches, the accumulation of wealth is unrighteous. I haven't said that. Jesus did. "
No. He didn't. Not even close. The accumulation of wealth brings temptations, but if one always puts God first and above all things, the size of one's wallet is not a problem. And that's always the point...put God first.
Coming soon, my responses to Dan's questions.
Marshal passed first grade. He understands that fire trucks are red.
Jesus expects us all to have as much faith in him as a first grader. He calls mammon unrighteous. "We don't have to bother wondering why a firetruck is one color over another." Jesus doesn't think you have to wonder why mammon is unrighteous. Clearly he spends no time explaining why.
Marshal, though, corrupting his child's faith nature, needs to wonder why. He doesn't like what Jesus has said. Marshal's refusal to believe what Jesus said and to seek instead a diversionary, dodging, Jesus-denying obfuscitory lie is based on thing only: his need to defend brutalizing radicalized, misogynist whiteness.
How odd is it that when Marshall isolates color of people he only talks about men?
I love white men. White men who refuse brutalizing whiteness and embrace love for all brothers and sisters. Dan is one. There at least 40 million white men and women I love. There are also several million people of color who are choosing to uphold white male supremacy because the think their bread gets buttered by them. They are fooled. Not evil.
But white people who hate and support the hate of the idea of a society that is not led and run by majority white men... you are evil. You've put your treasure in hating god's creation.
Marshal denies the Bible.
Feodor pointing out what Jesus says in Luke 16:9: "that riches, the accumulation of wealth is unrighteous. I haven't said that. Jesus did. "
Marshal: "No. He didn't. Not even close."
Jesus in Luke 16:9: Καὶ ἐγὼ ὑμῖν λέγω, ἑαυτοῖς ποιήσατε φίλους ἐκ τοῦ μαμωνᾶ τῆς ἀδικίας
"And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth..."
_____
If Christ has said make friends for yourselves by means of a red fire truck, Marshal would claim it was green.
Marshal, find us a verse where Jesus says τοῦ μαμωνᾶ τῆς δικίας - righteous wealth.
___
Matthew 6:24 No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth."
Luke 6: But woe to you who are rich,
for you have received your consolation.
Luke 12 Then he told them a parable: “The land of a rich man produced abundantly. And he thought to himself, ‘What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?’... But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’ So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God.”
Luke 14: He said also to the one who had invited him, “When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors... But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind.
Luke 18: A certain ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”... Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” But when he heard this, he became sad; for he was very rich.
Luke 19: A man was there named Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was rich... Zacchaeus stood there and said to the Lord, “Look, half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor; and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much.” 9 Then Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house...
Luke 21 He looked up and saw rich people putting their gifts into the treasury; he also saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins. He said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; for all of them have contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in all she had to live on.”
Dan,
Finally in response to your two postings I intend to answer, as best as I can, your questions. First, I must speak to a few points, beginning with the first thing you said:
"1. I've always been quite clear: I am a wealthy guy. Wealth is a trap. I and wealthy people like me should be wary."
It's no good presenting yourself as wealthy simply because you have more than the most wretched in the world. That's not wealth in the classical sense, and I don't think you can support a case that presents Jesus feeling the same way. It's illogical, despite whatever your intentions in doing so. It doesn't impress and it doesn't suggest honesty. This is especially true given your constant claim of living life simply, and also your claim of wealth avoidance. It's contradictory. It should be quite enough for you to simply say you're better off than most people. But "wealthy"? That would be a lie. Of course if by "wealthy" you mean you're worth tens of millions, then I would graciously accept a huge donation to my cause. Just sayin'.
Moving on to the parable of the shrewd manager, I wonder why you chose to paraphrase this passage rather than produce the actual text as you've done with your post. I'm sure you're aware you can easily copy/paste all or parts of the passage from any number of Biblical cites on the web. I would encourage you to do as much whenever you wish to cite Scripture to make any case, or at least provide the chapter and verse, for the reader's convenience. Doing so prevents any concerns as to the accuracy of your paraphrasing, which is a legitimate concern given your history. Arguments along these lines only results in producing the actual text anyway, so why not start there?
OK then. As to the parable in general, this one is considered by Biblical scholars as possibly the most difficult to analyze. Your paraphrase confirms your understanding differs from the many I've seen. I can admit that it is not one to which I've given much thought, so I've been doing some research, particularly due to your boy's insistence that he has a clue. For one example, you claim the manager is cheating by marking down the true amounts owed his master. Some believe that he had been gouging his master's debtors so as to skim, and was merely reducing the debts to their proper amounts. Thus, he lied and stole from his master to enrich himself, and now was acting more honestly in order to gain the favor of the debtors for when he would be fired.
continuing...
So, for your first question:
"Stealing, lying, using wealth (not even his!) to ingratiate himself to poorer, indebted people. These are OBJECTIVELY BAD behaviors.
Do you agree?"
Yes. Stealing and lying are bad behaviors. However, there's nothing that suggests the debtors are poorer people...they're described as simply "debtors". We don't know anything else about them, though if the manager supposed doing them a solid would lead to any of them providing for him after his dismissal, it's curious he would seek such help from the poor rather than those who were better able.
"Now, many traditional Christians have always assumed that "the rich man" in this story represents God and that the dishonest manager represents those of God's followers who act shrewdly (dishonestly??)
Is that what YOU think? It appears to be in your post on this topic."
This might have been directed specifically at Craig. Yet, his post does not refer to this story when he suggests a character in it is God. But, as I again refer to the many analyses of this parable, there are some that suggest the rich master is just a guy who is as into money as the manager...one who is "unrighteously" wealthy. So I, personally, do not regard this character as a representation of God, nor do I think Jesus meant him to be regarded in this manner. What's more, it's not essential to understanding the lesson Christ meant to impart.
"NO! No! No, we should not be dishonest and steal and sneaky to use our wealth to curry favor with poor people so that you can further exploit them, later. That is NOT the lesson being taught in that story."
I know of no one who suggests this is the lesson at all. I'm quite certain Craig isn't suggesting that, either. It's absurd that you would suppose that to even be possible.
"Clearly, Jesus is NOT commending the dishonest manager. He says precisely the OPPOSITE in his summary of that story. If you can't be trusted in handling worldly wealth (and clearly, the dishonest manager could NOT be trusted with worldly wealth), THEN you can't handle/won't understand "true riches""
Of course He's not commending the dishonest manager. But He's not saying what you think He's saying. He commends the notion of shrewdness displayed by the manager, not his sinful manifestations of it. And what He says about being trusted is directed at Christians, as His point is that we should be shrewd in our handling of God's gifts. This is evident by His words in verse 8...
"The master commended the dishonest manager because he acted shrewdly. For the peple of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light."
"People of this world"...as in "in the world" but not "of it". "People of the light"...as in "God's people". Christ is seeing something non-believers do that should be adopted by believers. It's the whole point of the story as regards the use of that with which God blesses us.
"Do you think that "the master" represents God in this story?"
No.
"If so, why do you think God is commending dishonesty and cheating and stealing and manipulating/buying favor from poorer folk? Does that make any sense?"
Regardless of whether or not the master is meant to represent God, the master is not commending dishonesty and cheating and stealing and manipulating/buying favor from poorer folk? He's commending shrewdness. If this were not the case, the story wouldn't be told because the manager wouldn't have gotten called out and fired for something the master would commend. THAT doesn't make any sense! Also, I would point out again that the parable doesn't mention those in debt as being poor, poorer or anything like that. That may be the case, but there's nothing in the story that suggests it. Stick to the text.
"Isn't it more rational that the shrewdness that God prefers is honest, fair, siding WITH the poor, not "buying favor" from them in case you need them? The latter (buying favor in case you need them) may be doing something to give help TO the poor, but it's not siding WITH the poor, it's just an abuse of privilege and wealth to manipulate favor when YOU need it."
A distinction withot a difference. That is, unless you're speaking of intentions behind the actions. But if one's actions are solely for the benefit of the poor...having compassion for them...then it isn't an example of shrewdness in the first place.
Remember the date. Early October 2019 Marshal swears that Trump has done nothing wrong since becoming President.
Remember the date: Oct 25, 2019 @ 10:55 AM. feo lies yet again.
Where’s the lie?
To Craig, on Craig’s blog, Marshal, you wrote: "Frankly, I continue to be distressed by the both of you and your adamant opposition to Trump and your refusal to support him in 2020. Thus, I would like either of you to provide a good reason. That is, think of the main reason you refused to support him in 2016 and provide and example of how that reason has manifested in any way during his presidency. (For example, if his infidelity was a prime reason, how have his past indiscretions manifested in his behavior as president? Does he promote infidelity as a moral good and seek some sort of policy to that end?) If you can't do that, then your reason makes no sense and there is no principle that is at risk by voting for him in 2020."
On your own near-dead blog, Marshal, as you were clearly irritated by Craig and Stan’s value driven rejection of Trump, you wrote: “the So I voted for Trump. He was an unknown quantity, but his promises aligned with what I hoped to see. I took a chance knowing he might turn on us. And whaddya know? He's been doing a really great job! For the first year or so I was waiting for the other shoe to drop, but he continued to impress... Now, the character issue is of FAR, FAR less importance, given that it has not been much of an issue throughout his presidency thus far. That is to say, the worst aspects of Trump's flawed character have played absolutely no role. He's still boorish, doesn't concern himself with precision and accuracy when speaking. That's really about it. Nothing about his infidelity has been an issue. There's nothing akin to a sex scandal or anything like that. No "perversion" as some fake Christians like to go on about...And as to his character flaws, which of them does he promote as a moral good, either in policy or in any other way? He may defend his bad behavior, but has he done a damned thing to promote it? No. In fact, he seems to promote really good and moral things, even if he does so clumsily... Thus, what we have here is a track record of benefits to the nation...serious benefits that we'd never have seen had he not won."
I guess you guys don't count treason, using the office of the Presidency for political gain, using the DOJ for personal defense, using private citizens to do the nation's foreign policy... as bad things... when done for white Christians.
HA!! Your last paragraph answers the question with which you began your response...not to mention the rest of the response does nothing to prove your Oct 25th comment. I'll elaborate later.
Totally ignored what you’ve written. When put in front of you, you realized I didn’t lie about what you said.
Of course you ignored it. Ignoring makes it easier for you to lie about it.
I see you are now rejecting your 1st grade certificate.
You have ignored *your *own *words where you lay down your belief that Trump has done nothing seriously wrong and you have moved right on to diversion. (New word for today: diversion. Look it up.)
"You have ignored *your *own *words where you lay down your belief that Trump has done nothing seriously wrong..."
Those aren't my own words. They're your corrupted representation of them. My point, which was incredibly easy for one to understand who isn't keen on trying to attack while failing to elevate himself as intellectually superior, was that for the reasons of character that moved those like Stan and Craig to reject Trump, none of the most serious behaviors have manifested thus far in his presidency. There have been no sex scandals of the type that didn't bother you when supporting Bubba Clinton. Nothing serious at all, unless his boorishness is equal to sexual infidelity...or worse...in the minds of NeverTrumpers. For the reasons that prevented their support in 2016, which prevented me from supporting him in the primaries, only the most insignificant of them have appeared and as such cannot be held against him for re-election. If he carried on, ala Bill Clinton, then that would be a different story. He hasn't. He's kept it in his pants and just talks trash. Boo-freakin-hoo. The objects of his trash talking have it coming, need to be called out and despite his style in doing so, it's a good thing.
Now comes your own incredible boorishness:
"I guess you guys don't count treason, using the office of the Presidency for political gain, using the DOJ for personal defense, using private citizens to do the nation's foreign policy... as bad things... when done for white Christians."
"I guess you guys don't count treason..." I would if there was any. There's far more by those you support and have supported, especially since there isn't any treason by Trump.
"...using the office of the Presidency for political gain..." This is a particularly funny one you leftist buffoons like to spew. Everything any politician does can't help but result in political gain or loss. But to suppose that Trump only acts with political gain as the primary driving force requires a psychic ability you don't have, but a definite unChristian baseless hatred you do. Again, it's far more common in those you support, and the many examples (video evidence) of Democrats saying the exact opposite just a few years ago of what they say now is astounding.
"...using the DOJ for personal defense..." HA!! Even you don't know what you mean by this!
"...using private citizens to do the nation's foreign policy..." ...making them public servants by his appointing them for the task. Where's your problem with this, particularly if they're working in concert with administration policy? Now you're just pulling crimes out your backside!
"...when done for white Christians." And here it is! feo's blatant and hateful racism rears its ugly head once again...coming as it does from an incredibly ugly heart! Trump acts on behalf of all Americans, and this is truer for him than we've ever seen from any center-left politician that YOU support. You're such a hateful racist. Repent.
This is the last I'll speak of this on this thread as it is way the hell off topic.
Morally corrupt Marshal is wedded to the obvious lie. A reprint where your very words are in all caps (your words, which you once ignore, and now denied: "Those aren't my own words. They're your corrupted representation of them):
Feodor: Where’s the lie? Remember the date. Early October 2019 Marshal swears that Trump has done nothing wrong since becoming President.
To Craig, on Craig’s blog, Marshal, you wrote: "FRANKLY, I CONTINUE TO BE DISTRESSED BY THE BOTH OF YOU AND YOUR ADAMANT OPPOSITION TO TRUMP AND YOUR REFUSAL TO SUPPORT HIM IN 2020. THUS, I WOULD LIKE EITHER OF YOU TO PROVIDE A GOOD REASON. THAT IS, THINK OF THE MAIN REASON YOU REFUSED TO SUPPORT HIM IN 2016 AND PROVIDE AND EXAMPLE OF HOW THAT REASON HAS MANIFESTED IN ANY WAY DURING HIS PRESIDENCY. (FOR EXAMPLE, IF HIS INFIDELITY WAS A PRIME REASON, HOW HAVE HIS PAST INDISCRETIONS MANIFESTED IN HIS BEHAVIOR AS PRESIDENT? DOES HE PROMOTE INFIDELITY AS A MORAL GOOD AND SEEK SOME SORT OF POLICY TO THAT END?) IF YOU CAN'T DO THAT, THEN YOUR REASON MAKES NO SENSE AND THERE IS NO PRINCIPLE THAT IS AT RISK BY VOTING FOR HIM IN 2020."
On your own near-dead blog, Marshal, as you were clearly irritated by Craig and Stan’s value driven rejection of Trump, you wrote: “THE SO I VOTED FOR TRUMP. HE WAS AN UNKNOWN QUANTITY, BUT HIS PROMISES ALIGNED WITH WHAT I HOPED TO SEE. I TOOK A CHANCE KNOWING HE MIGHT TURN ON US. AND WHADDYA KNOW? HE'S BEEN DOING A REALLY GREAT JOB! FOR THE FIRST YEAR OR SO I WAS WAITING FOR THE OTHER SHOE TO DROP, BUT HE CONTINUED TO IMPRESS... NOW, THE CHARACTER ISSUE IS OF FAR, FAR LESS IMPORTANCE, GIVEN THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN MUCH OF AN ISSUE THROUGHOUT HIS PRESIDENCY THUS FAR. THAT IS TO SAY, THE WORST ASPECTS OF TRUMP'S FLAWED CHARACTER HAVE PLAYED ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE. HE'S STILL BOORISH, DOESN'T CONCERN HIMSELF WITH PRECISION AND ACCURACY WHEN SPEAKING. THAT'S REALLY ABOUT IT. NOTHING ABOUT HIS INFIDELITY HAS BEEN AN ISSUE. THERE'S NOTHING AKIN TO A SEX SCANDAL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. NO "PERVERSION" AS SOME FAKE CHRISTIANS LIKE TO GO ON ABOUT...AND AS TO HIS CHARACTER FLAWS, WHICH OF THEM DOES HE PROMOTE AS A MORAL GOOD, EITHER IN POLICY OR IN ANY OTHER WAY? HE MAY DEFEND HIS BAD BEHAVIOR, BUT HAS HE DONE A DAMNED THING TO PROMOTE IT? NO. IN FACT, HE SEEMS TO PROMOTE REALLY GOOD AND MORAL THINGS, EVEN IF HE DOES SO CLUMSILY... THUS, WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A TRACK RECORD OF BENEFITS TO THE NATION...SERIOUS BENEFITS THAT WE'D NEVER HAVE SEEN HAD HE NOT WON."
I guess you guys don't count treason, using the office of the Presidency for political gain, using the DOJ for personal defense, using private citizens to do the nation's foreign policy... as bad things... when done for white Christians.
Thank you so much for confirming that I haven't lied, but you did. You reprinted...in caps...my words and nowhere within and among those highlighted words of wisdom and intelligence do we see "Trump has done nothing wrong since becoming President." and thus no swearing to that effect. A better defense of myself I possibly could not have mounted. It stands as either the most honorable admission of your own dishonesty, or the most audacious example you could have provided of your blatant stupidity. Either way, I am duly impressed! Kudos to you, sir!
Feodor: "You have ignored *your *own *words where you lay down your belief that Trump has done nothing seriously wrong..."
Marshal: “Those aren't my own words.”
(24 hours later)
Marshal: “ You reprinted...in caps...my words”
A clearer picture of your will to openly lie and contradict yourself is always possible. But this one will do.
I stated the fact, you provided the supporting evidence...proof, actually...that you're an unmitigated liar and idiot. When you can point out my actual lie, that'll be the day. I never said what you claim I said, and you proved it perfectly. Thanks again.
Marshal: “Those aren't my own words.”
(24 hours later)
Marshal: “ You reprinted...in caps...my words”
More evidence of idiocy. And more lying, as you tie together two totally unrelated comments of mine to pretend I've contradicted myself. Give it up, false Christian. Stop digging.
Yes, you keep giving more evidence of idiocy as you keep avoiding your own words that state you don’t think Trump has done anything seriously wrong since becoming an illegitimate President.
Reading Craig re grace and depravity shows what happens when someone is ignorant of Catholic, Orthodox, Miaphysite, and Mainstream Protestantism: a stunning anti-intellectual grandiosity that results from ignorance.
Why do you continue? Saying the same lie over and over doesn't make it true, false priest. Are you really so enamored with yourself that you can't let something so obvious go? You don't even have to admit you're as completely wrong as you are so that you can pretend you've protected what for you passes for integrity and honor. But to over and over again misrepresent what I've said is abject and obvious lying...which despite being natural for you, indicts you as a greater idiot than I could ever prove you are without your helping make the point as you are.
And by the way...Trump never became an "illegitimate" President. He became a lawfully and duly elected president under the means by which one is put into office in this country. So you're lying yet again, as you were with the following:
Treason---no evidence of any kind has been produced to suggest even the possibility that Trump has committed treason...because none exists.
Using the office of the Presidency for political gain---Even YOU don't know what you mean by this. Every president in US history has used his office for political gain. It comes with doing what each one believes is the right thing. Do good, and you gain politically. Do wrong, and you lose politically. If you're suggesting something illegal or unethical...as I've no doubt you are because you're a buffoonish Trump-hater (sorry for the redundancy)...there is no legitimate evidence of that, either.
Using the DOJ for personal defense---Yeah...this is a favorite of the Trump-haters, especially with Trump's anger at Jeff Session's recusal in mind. But there's no real evidence of Trump doing this, either. It's merely asserted because an objective investigation would naturally lead to Trump being exonerated or, at the very least, found to be a suspect without cause. Trump is still chief law-enforcement officer and the DOJ should be working with him even if...oh may the Good Lord forbid...it results in helping Trump at the same time.
Using private citizens to do the nation's foreign policy---This isn't an idiotic appeal to the Logan Act, is it? The president can appeal to anyone he chooses to work on behalf of the nation's foreign policy. Usually it's called "appointing an ambassador", but there are also other cabinet members and advisors who, strangely enough, were private citizens before being called upon by the president. The key is whether or not a private citizen is granted the authority to act on behalf of US foreign policy. By "using private citizens to do the nation's foreign policy", it necessarily denotes such authorization.
Now run along...you're drooling again.
Feodor supplying the reprint of Marshal's plea: "So I voted for Trump. He was an unknown quantity, but his promises aligned with what I hoped to see. I took a chance knowing he might turn on us. And whaddya know? He's been doing a really great job! For the first year or so I was waiting for the other shoe to drop, but he continued to impress... Now, the character issue is of FAR, FAR less importance, given that it has not been much of an issue throughout his presidency thus far. That is to say, the worst aspects of Trump's flawed character have played absolutely no role... in fact, he seems to promote really good and moral things... thus, what we have here is a track record of benefits to the nation...serious benefits that we'd never have seen had he not won."
Marshal: "Those aren't my own words. They're your corrupted representation of them.... This is the last I'll speak of this on this thread as it is way the hell off topic."
Feodor: "You have ignored *your *own *words where you lay down your belief that Trump has done nothing seriously wrong..."
Marshal: “Those aren't my own words.”
(24 hours later)
Marshal: “ You reprinted...in caps...my words”
Feodor: Yep, that's idiocy. You denied you wrote it and then 24 hours you acknowledge it was a reprint.
Marshal: ".... to over and over again misrepresent what I've said is abject and obvious lying."
Marshal's abject and obvious lie #1: "what we have here is a track record of benefits to the nation"
Facts: The US national debt passed $22 trillion on February 11, the first time the federal debt had breached that threshold. The landmark came just over two years after President Donald Trump, who once promised to eliminate the federal debt in eight years, took over the Oval Office
The U.S. government’s budget deficit ballooned to nearly $1 trillion in 2019, the Treasury Department announced Friday, as the United States’ fiscal imbalance widened for a fourth consecutive year despite a sustained run of economic growth. The deficit grew $205 billion, or 26 percent, in the past year. The country’s worsening fiscal picture runs in sharp contrast to President Trump’s campaign promise to eliminate the federal debt within eight years. The deficit is up nearly 50 percent in the Trump era.
One important difference between Trump's debt figures and Obama's is that Trump has added a massive amount of debt while the US economy has been strong, whereas Obama took over during the depths of the financial crisis.
Marshal's abject and obvious lie #2: "Trump never became an "illegitimate" President"
The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goal of harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton, boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump, and increasing political and social discord in the United States.
The Internet Research Agency, based in Saint Petersburg and described as a troll farm, created thousands of social media accounts that purported to be Americans supporting radical political groups, and planned or promoted events in support of Trump and against Clinton; they reached millions of social media users between 2013 and 2017. Fabricated articles and disinformation were spread from Russian government-controlled media, and promoted on social media. Additionally, computer hackers affiliated with the Russian military intelligence service (GRU) infiltrated information systems of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), and Clinton campaign officials, notably chairman John Podesta, and publicly released stolen files and emails through DCLeaks, Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks during the election campaign. Finally, several individuals connected to Russia contacted various Trump campaign associates, offering business opportunities to the Trump Organization and damaging information on Clinton. Russian government officials have denied involvement in any of the hacks or leaks.
Russian attempts to interfere in the election were first disclosed publicly by members of the United States Congress on September 22, 2016, confirmed by United States intelligence agencies on October 7, 2016, and further detailed by the Director of National Intelligence office in January 2017. According to U.S. intelligence agencies, the operation was ordered directly by Putin. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation of Russian interference on July 31, 2016, including a special focus on links between Trump associates and Russian officials and suspected coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The FBI's work was taken over in May 2017 by former FBI director Robert Mueller, who led a Special Counsel investigation until March 2019.[1] Mueller concluded that Russian interference was "sweeping and systematic" and "violated U.S. criminal law", and he indicted twenty-six Russian citizens and three Russian organizations. The investigation also led to indictments and convictions of Trump campaign officials and associated Americans, for unrelated charges. The Special Counsel's report, made public on April 18, 2019, examined numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates.
Marshal's abject and obvious lie #3: "This is the last I'll speak of this on this thread as it is way the hell off topic."
4 comments "on this" followed in the next 4 days.
Marshal's absolutely correct observation: Feodor is drooling over Trump being the third President to be impeached.
Tthe Russia and Ukraine scandals are, in fact, one story. Indeed, the President’s false denials in both of them capture the common themes: soliciting help from foreign interests for partisan gain, followed by obstruction of efforts to uncover what happened. Both, too, share roots in Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Mueller’s two indictments of Russian interests—the first involving the use of social media and the second the hacking of Democratic Party e-mails—are perhaps the most detailed chronicle ever published of foreign interference in a U.S. political campaign. Trump’s team was appreciative. When a public-relations adviser to a Russian oligarch’s family e-mailed Donald Trump, Jr., offering dirt on Hillary Clinton that was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” the candidate’s son gave a straightforward reply: “If it’s what you say I love it.”
Just two years earlier, Putin had invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea. The government in Kiev went back and forth between leaders who wanted to accommodate Putin’s regime and others who wanted to enlist the help of the West to push back against it. The political consultant of choice for the pro-Russian faction was Paul Manafort, who served as Trump’s campaign chair in the summer of 2016. As Mueller documented, Manafort passed proprietary campaign polling data to pro-Russian Ukrainians. The campaign-era Trump portrayed in the report suffered from one major limitation: he wasn’t President. He clearly welcomed Putin’s assistance, and promised a better relationship with Russia, but he was still just a businessman from New York. The whistle-blower’s complaint is the epilogue to Mueller’s report: the coming of age of an aspiring colluder.
It’s important to note, as well, that, in the Ukrainian chapter, Trump has done Putin’s bidding, to the extent that he can, going so far as to embrace a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 campaign. The rest of the U.S. government has never been as enamored of Putin as Trump is. That includes Republicans in Congress, who joined the Democrats in voting for military aid to Ukraine. Trump wants no part of conflict with Putin, but the aid package tied his hands. There was a revealing moment in his joint news conference with Zelensky at the United Nations last month. Almost as an aside, Trump said, “I really believe that President Putin would like to do something. I really hope that you and President Putin get together and can solve your problem.” Ukraine doesn’t have a “problem” with Putin—it has an invasion by Putin.
In the July 25th phone call, Trump did what he couldn’t do as a candidate: he tried to leverage the power of the Presidency to extract partisan political advantage. Texts of U.S. officials, released last week, further suggest an attempted quid pro quo. On September 1st, William Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Kiev, asked, “Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?” Gordon Sondland, a former Republican fund-raiser who is Trump’s Ambassador to the European Union, replied, “Call me.”
Mueller did chronicle Trump’s efforts, as President, to interfere with his investigation. Trump made repeated attempts to rein in or fire Mueller, and was saved from that misconduct only by the refusal of people around him (including Don McGahn, his White House counsel; Rob Porter, his staff secretary; and even Corey Lewandowski, his otherwise zealous onetime campaign manager) to carry out his directives.
Your a lunatic conspiracy theorist, or more commonly known as a liar, spreading lies of others as well as your own.
BTW...I didn't lie about not commenting again. I changed my mind, so you're really stupid, too. But then, liar and stupid, both have been obvious for quite a long time.
The national intelligence service whom Trump praised for years of work locating al Baghdadi.... same one that determined Russia interfered in the US election to help Trump.
You are a son of Trump. A corrupt, vacated soul.
Marshal didn’t think the wall was a mistake.
“President Donald Trump promised a wall on the border would radically change undocumented immigration and customs enforcement. But it turns out newly built sections of the president’s wall aren’t as sturdy as he promised: Smugglers have been using a commercial saw to cut through it, according to the Washington Post.”
Post a Comment