Luke 19:29-34
As he approached Bethphage and Bethany at the hill called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples, saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you untying it?’ say, ‘The Lord needs it.’”Those who were sent ahead went and found it just as he had told them. As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, “Why are you untying the colt?”
They replied, “The Lord needs it.”
Exodus 20:15
Thou shalt not steal.
Discuss.
As I recall Luke’s father, Lord Vader, was turned to the Dark Side so maybe the integrity of his writing is suspect.
The actual quote was, “The Lord needs it for a little while”, but an editor wanted brevity; and of course it was understood the resale value of a Lord-borrowed colt would more than compensate for time used. Everyone wins!
He also says “Thou shalt not commit adultery” and “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife” before impregnating Mary.
Obviously He’s not referring to Himself.
Jesus had two dads!
Jesus was a guy with a BIG ego, a very BIG EGO. A huge EGO.
If I needed a horse, one would appear.
I am that I am.
Perhaps we’re misinterpreting this. After 2000 years a little has been lost in the translation.
What Jesus really said was: “Hey dudes, go into the next town and get me some Colt45. A couple of forties will do. And don’t get tied up, come right back.”
As luck would have it, this donkey was a descendant of Balaam’s donkey in Numbers 22. The donkey, whose name was Jonah, was interviewed for the Temple Times later.
TT: What do you think about the social programs of Jesus?
Jonah: I’m just a donkey, man, I don’t get involved in all that political stuff.
TT: Do you think Jesus is pushing a class warfare agenda?
Jonah: Why is it class warfare only when the little guy pushes back a little bit?
TT: So you support his class warfare positions>
Jonah: Look, I’m just a donkey. I do my job, expect to get fed and have a place to sleep. I get some time off and I hope the fleas aren’t too bad. Ever have fleas?
The Temple Times later reported that the donkey supported Jesus pro-flea programs.
Luke 19:29 Actually reads: Go to the village ahead of you and as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here, If anyone asks you ‘Why are you untying it? say the Lord needs it’ As they were untying it , the owners asked them “Why are you untying the colt” They replied, “The Lord needs it.”
So, is this being misinterpreted? Yes, probably so, by atheists and unbelievers. Distortion and excessive exageration is what Republicans and atheists do to try and prove their point.
Signed,
A believer. Happy Sunday :)
Mrs R ……
How is this possibly misinterpreted.
It seems pretty clear that Jesus was leading a campaign, he needed a car or a colt, and commandeered it.
Unless Jesus was God, this is the act of a very arrogant man.
Okay, everybody stay calm, and don’t get her going on the subject of monogamy among feral wildlife! I’ve tried to explain to my betrothed that Sunday is always a slow news day and Goldy’s “HA Bible Study” is just filler because there’s nothing else to talk about, so nobody should take this too seriously. But, ah, you know how these things go; when were female rabbits ever reasonable?
In the interest of creating a diversion, imbuing this thread with some intellectual content, steering us back to HA’s mission of discussing politics, etc., I’m pasting up this item:
“This use of religion in politics is a source of cynicism. It should raise alarms when the views of the Almighty conveniently match our most urgent political needs. A faith that conforms exactly to the contours of a political ideology has lost its independence. Political dialogue suffers, since opponents are viewed as heretics.”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....son07.html
Discuss.
Oops, #10 was posted by Roger Rabbit, who forgot to change the default setting because he hasn’t had his coffee yet.
Roger
Nothing unreasonable in her post.
If Jesus is God then he is able to take whatever he wants.
If not, he is a guy with a huge ego.
Simple nuff.
@12 It occurs to me that if God created heaven and earth, and everything in it, then the donkey is His and taking it isn’t stealing — that is, assuming Jesus is God, or His son, or at least a trusted employee … oh, what the heck, it’s human nature to help yourself to anything not nailed down and maybe this is the Bible passage that persuaded our wingnut friends that Jesus was a Republican …
Before anyone gets mad, I’m just playing with brain teasers this morning, because there’s nothing going on in the news, except for the usual killing in Syria.
WE need to get something going here, so I’ll try this. Here’s an idea I’ve turned over in my golf ball-sized rabbit brain for quite a while now, and it’s somewhat similar to the chicken-and-egg problem.
The question is this: Is conservatism an ideology of how the world should be, or a philosophy about how the world is?
There’s no doubt about what liberalism is — we liberals want a better world than this one, have a vision of how the world should be, and some ideas about how to get there.
But you really can make an argument that conservatives are people who look at the world as it is, give up, and shrug and say you can’t do anything about it so you may as well live iwth it on its terms.
I’m not sure that’s entirely the case, and I say that because conservatives fight so hard to keep this crappy world crappy. They seem to be affirmatively against improving it. So, I lean toward conservative being an ideology that carries with it an agenda and set of goals, not a philosophy imbued with fatalism and surrender.
Still, I can’t quite pull my mind away from the idea that conservatives are dishonest because they think dishonesty is an inevitable and unchangeable facet of human nature, which conveniently holds thme harmless for their lack of character and absolves them of having to make any effort to acquire character.
Discuss.
Damn. @15 is full of typos. As I don’t have a working “edit” function here, I think I’ll repost it.
We need to get something going here, so I’ll try this. Here’s an idea I’ve turned over in my golf ball-sized rabbit brain for quite a while now, and it’s somewhat similar to the chicken-and-egg problem.
The question is this: Is conservatism an ideology of how the world should be, or a philosophy about how the world is?
There’s no doubt about what liberalism is — we liberals want a better world than this one, have a vision of how the world should be, and some ideas about how to get there.
But you really can make an argument that conservatives are people who look at the world as it is, give up, and shrug and say you can’t do anything about it so you may as well live with it on its terms.
I’m not sure that’s entirely the case, and I say that because conservatives fight so hard to keep this crappy world crappy. They seem to be affirmatively against improving it. So, I lean toward conservatism being an ideology that carries with it an agenda and set of goals, not a philosophy imbued with fatalism and surrender.
Still, I can’t quite pull my mind away from the idea that conservatives are dishonest because they think dishonesty is an inevitable and unchangeable facet of human nature, which conveniently holds them harmless for their lack of character and absolves them of having to make any effort to acquire character.
Discuss.
Hugh L. Carey has died at age 92. Carey was a Democrat who served several terms in Congress before being elected governor of New York by defeating the Republican who succeeded Gov. Nelson Rockefeller upon the latter’s death. Carey preceded Gov. Mario Cuomo, and is remembered for sucessfully rescuring New York from bankruptcy during the Reagan Depression.
AS long as I’m playing with brain teasers here, why don’t I toss out a few ideas about S&P’s downgrade of Treasury debt? Here are some thoughts …
1) Why did S&P downgrade U.S. debt in the absence of an actual default?
2) Why did S&P downgrade U.S. debt, when Moddy’s and Fitch didn’t?
3) Why did S&P time its downgrade announcement for just after the markets closed on a Friday afternoon?
4) Why did S&P base its downgrade decision on a $2 trillion increase in the national debt that Treasury officials insist won’t happen, but which S&P defends as not an accounting mistake on its part but as a disagreement with government officials over the future trajectory of U.S. economic growth?
5) Why is S&P basing a credit rating decision on its speculative opinion of future economic growth rates in the first place?
6) Is S&P trying to influence political decision-making in Congress, and using its credit-rating power to bludgeon Congress and the White House into making policy decisions that conform to its executives’ own worldview?
7) Why does S&P’s maverick downgrade smell like rotting fish?
Here’s the evidence for what I hinted @19.
First, S&P itself said “political dysfunction provoked the downgrade,” making clear the downgrade is based on policy decision, not economic fundamentals:
“S&P laid blame for its decision to assign the AA+ rating directly on the political process in Washington. Even though lawmakers reached a decision on Aug. 2 to raise the government’s debt ceiling …, the deficit-reduction package that accompanied the deal won’t sufficiently improve the government’s fiscal health in the coming years, S&P said in a release Friday. A factor in that projection, S&P said, is that Republicans seem unwilling to allow the Bush-era tax cuts to expire. ‘The majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act,’ S&P said.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....20228.html
Roger Rabbit Commentary: This sure looks like unelected private-company executives trying to use their clout over markets to force the people’s elected representatives to adopt the policies they want. Republicans should dislike this private-sector meddling with public policymaking very much, because the specific policy the S&P guys are pushing is tax increases.
Now, I happen to agree with them that tax increases on the rich should be part of any major deficit reduction effort, but regardless of that, I think S&P has crossed a line. Telling Congress and the President what to do is, not to put too fine a point on it, none of their damn business. That’s not their job.
Their job is to provide private investors with an HONEST assessment of credit risks. When their credit ratings are driven by a private political agenda instead of objective financial judgment, they’re abusing the power entrusted to them by the investment community to exercise credit judgments on behalf of the investors who rely on their ratings.
I think it’s very telling that the other two big credit rating agencies, Moody’s and Fitch, didn’t follow suit. That strongly suggests that S&P’s rating is no longer objective.
I don’t look for a big stock market reaction to S&P’s downgrade. I think investors will see through it for the sham it actually is. If all three credit raters had joined forces and downgrade Treasury debt together, the downgrade would be credible, and investors would give it credence. The fact they didn’t, together with S&P’s virtual admission they’re using its credit rating as a club to influence the political debate over U.S. economic and fiscal policy, makes S&P’s downgrade an outlier that the markets largely will ignore.
The teabaggers base their entire economic philosophy on Proverbs 22:
“The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.”
They have entered it into the fucking Congressional record as the basis for their economic position on the debt ceiling.
The Standard and Poor’s credit rating cannot be taken too seriously, they charge banks and insurance companies based on the credit ratings those institutions want for their financial products. They were being paid hundreds of millions to maintain the mortgage backed securities at AAA even though their own internal documents showed very clearly that nobody really considered them to be anything other than junk bonds, and those folks were being overruled by the top managers.
This was borne out when it came to light that those top managers had shorted those securities in their own portfolios. When the housing bubble collapsed, the bosses made shitloads of money, as did the companies that were issuing those securities. They sold those securities to countries like Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland and Iceland all through the late 90’s and early 00’s.
They betted against their own position and made more money on those bets than they ever would have playing it straight.
They are not objective.
Some Christians really suck. Here’s teabaggers Judson Phillips and Vince Schmuki sharing their values before a crowd in Wisconsin(courtesy of Crooks & Liars),
Eh, yeah, that really sucked.
“takeover”
I say these corporatist-funded, right-wing extremists have no intentions of governing. They want to rule. This is serious business.
Lots of the usual hate-n-froth from the HA brianwashed in this thread.
Have a Happy Seafair.
@24 See #23.
@22 Well, if you google it, you can’t even count the number of fraud lawsuits against Standard & Poor’s.
Mrs. Rabbit wondered out loud whether S&P did this to hurt Obama’s re-election. It does have that reek to it — S&P insinuated further downgrades in the future and it wouldn’t surprise me if this turns out to be Romney’s “October surprise” …
Guns Don’t Kill People Dep’t
The Daily Mass Shooting(TM) for today was in Copley, Ohio, where a domestic dispute resulted in 8 fatalities (including the gunman, who was killed by police), with at least one child among the wounded.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44.....nd_courts/
I’ll Bet This Guy Is A Republican Dep’t
“An office manager is suing her former employer, claiming her then-boss gave her a schedule of how to dress, including ‘Tube-top Tuesday,’ and ‘No bra Thursday’.
“The Salt Lake Tribune reports that Trudy Nycole Andersonc … filed the suit in U.S. District Court against Derek Wright, the owner of Lone Peak Controls and D&L Electric Control Company. According to the complaint, Wright:
“•’Repeatedly asked Ms. Anderson about her breast size and talked about her breasts in front of other employees.’
•Slapped Anderson on her buttocks and asked the woman for oral sex several times.
•Offered the woman a recipe for ‘sex cake.’
•Told Anderson he was installing a shower so they could shower together.
•Said he would ‘give her a mammogram for free’ when she asked for time off to see the doctor. …
“Anderson … claims that when she reported Wright for sexual harassment, he fired her ….”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44....._business/
Roger Rabbit Commentary: I guess this guy didn’t read the memo about sexual harassment lawsuits.
Roger Rabbit Poll
Derek Wright will end up paying Trudy Anderson:
[ ] 1. $50,000
[ ] 2. $100,000
[ ] 3. $250,000
[ ] 4. $500,000
[ ] 5. She will be the new owner of Lone Peak Controls and D&L Electric Control Company.
@29;
Hopefully she becomes the new owner, but what will actually happen is that Derek Wright will talk about how she led him on and she’ll be sanctioned. Too bad too, because anyone that could still do their job while that crap was going on is probably an asset to any company she works for.
OVERSEAS MARKETS DOWN
As you know, S & P announced its Treasury downgrade after U.S. markets closed on Friday, so we won’t get our first look at U.S. financial markets’ reaction until tomorrow morning. However, a number of market observers have expressed over the weekend that the opening of Asian and Middle Eastern financial markets on Sunday night would be somewhat predictive.
Those markets are consistently down about 1.7% to 1.8% at this hour. Applying those percentages to the Dow, we may see a decline of about 200 Dow points in the morning.
On the other hand, U.S. markets may be in wait-and-see mode tomorrow, waiting to see what comes out of the Federal Reserve’s policy-setting meeting on Tuesday. Investors will be looking for affirmative action by the Fed to bolster the faltering recovery, such as an indication there will be a QE3 if weakness persists in the economy.
My own opinion is that while many top-tier stocks look undervalued, anyone thinking of committing money to stocks now should disregard current earnings and P/E ratios, and instead base their investing decisions on forward P/Es based on assumed lower earnings. A stock that looks cheap at a P/E of 10 right now may, in fact, turn out to be a P/E 16 or 18 stock in 2012.
Wingnuts Were Wrong
About the economy. And still are.
“What’s striking … is that as new data have revealed the true dimensions of the 2008 collapse, the public’s perception of events hasn’t much changed. Critics still jeer the stimulus … despite the now-obvious inadequacy of the package. Few in Washington seem willing to discuss how drastically officials underreacted in 2009, and how the results … are still with us, waiting for a more appropriate policy response.”
http://www.economist.com/blogs.....cal-policy
Thou shalt not steal
oh, thats rich. a guy named goldstein quoting the thou shalt not steal commanment. too funny
@33 What’s even funnier is a guy like you who sucks the dicks of America’s thief class accusing Goldy of “stealing.” What has Goldy stolen? He works for a living. Now me, I’m a thief, I take money from Republicans who hate their money so much they can’t wait to give it to a Democrat. See, e.g., tomorrow morning’s stock market.
Exodus 20:15
“Thou shalt not steal.”
“Define steal.” Dick Cheney
re 33:
This is the perfect example of what is wrong with your sort of “Christian”.